Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-26-2024 Planning Commission Agenda PacketSaratoga Planning Commission Agenda – Page 1 of 3 SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING JUNE 26, 2024 7:00 P.M. - PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING Civic Theater | 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 Public Participation Information In accordance with Saratoga’s Remote Public Participation Policy, members of the public may participate in this meeting in person at the location listed below or via remote attendance using the Zoom information below. 1. Accessing the meeting via Zoom • https://us02web.zoom.us/j/82652375945 (Webinar ID 826 5237 5945) • Calling 1.669.900.6833 or 1.408.638.0968; OR 2. Viewing the meeting on Saratoga Community Access Television Channel 15 (Comcast Channel 15, AT&T UVerse Channel 99) and calling the numbers listed above; OR 3. Viewing online at http://saratoga.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?publish_id=2 and calling the numbers listed above. Written Communication Comments can be submitted in writing at www.saratoga.ca.us/pc. Written communications will be provided to the members of the Planning Commission and included in the Agenda Packet and/or in supplemental meeting materials. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Action Minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting of May 8, 2024 and June 12, 2024 Recommended Action: Approve Minutes of May 8, 2024 and June 12, 2024 Regular Planning Commission Meetings. 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 Saratoga Planning Commission Agenda – Page 2 of 3 Any interested person objecting to the whole, or any portion of decision on this Agenda, may file an Appeal Application with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision. The City Council conducts de novo review of appeals. 2. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2.1 Application PDR23-0017/ARB23-0103: 0 Elva Avenue; (503-27-081) Praful Sharma (Applicant): The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for a new 4,690 square foot two-story single-family residence, which includes a 325 square foot attached accessory dwelling unit, with a maximum overall height of 26’-0’. One protected tree is proposed for removal. The site is zoned R-1-10,000 with a General Plan Designation of Medium Density Residential (M-10). Staff Contact: Christopher Riordan (408) 868-1235 or criordan@saratoga.ca.us. Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 24-022 approving the project subject to conditions of approval included in Attachment 1. 2.2 Application APTR24-0003; 12257 Titus Ave (386-28-005); Jeni Moon. The property owner is appealing the denial of permit application TRP24-0044 for the removal of one (1) Canary Island pine tree, Pinus canariensis, 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.24-023 denying the appeal. 2.3 Application APTR24-0005; 20388 Zorka Ave (386-53-008); Larry Wang. The property owner is appealing the required payment to the Tree Fund imposed on ATFTR24-0020 for the unpermitted removal of four (4) coast live oak, Quercus agrifolia, trees which grew in the backyard of the property, Staff contact: Christina Fusco (408) 868-1276 or cfusco@saratoga.ca.us. Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No.24-024 denying the appeal. 3. DIRECTOR ITEMS 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 Analyst for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of the Planning Commission was posted and available for review on June 20, 2024 at the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California and on the City's website at www.saratoga.ca.us. Signed this 20th day of June 2024 at Saratoga, California. Frances Reed, Administrative Analyst. 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, Saratoga Planning Commission Agenda – Page 3 of 3 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 bavrit@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]. DRAFT MINUTES WEDNESDAY MAY 8 , 2024 SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING Chair Choi called the Regular Meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Chair Jojo Choi, Vice-Chair Anjali Kausar, Commissioners Clinton Brownley, Paul Germeraad, Ping Li, Razi Mohiuddin, and Herman Zheng ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Bryan T. Swanson, Community Development Director Christopher Riordan, Senior Planner Nicole Johnson, Senior Planner Cynthia Richardson, Project Planner Frances Reed, Administrative Analyst 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Action Minutes from the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of April 10, 2024. Recommended Action: Approve Minutes of Regular Planning Commission Meeting of April 10, 2024. LI/ZHENG MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE APRIL 10, 2024 MEETING. MOTION PASSED. AYES: BROWNLEY, CHOI, KAUSAR, LI, MOHIUDDIN, ZHENG. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. ABSTAIN: GERMERAAD. 2. NEW BUSINESS 2.1 Finding of General Plan Conformity FY 2024-25 Capital Improvement Program Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 24-017 finding the Capital Improvement Program projects proposed for Fiscal Year 24-25 conform to the Saratoga General Plan. Director Swanson presented the staff report. GERMERAAD/KAUSAR MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 24-017 CONFIMING GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY. MOTION PASSED. AYES: BROWNLEY, CHOI, GERMERAAD, KAUSAR, LI, MOHIUDDIN, ZHENG. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ON NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS Jacqueline Homes spoke. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3.1 Application ZOA24-0001: City Wide. Miscellaneous Code Updates: Amendment of Saratoga Municipal Code sections 15-06.030 (definition of hotel), 15-29.010 (fence heights at driveway intersections), 15-50.020 (correcting cross-references and a misspelling), 15-50.080 (tree security deposits), 15-50.140 and .150 (arborist inspections), amendments to article 15-80 to require replacement of affordable 3 housing units lost to new development and amend section 15-45.045 concerning creek protection setbacks. Staff Contact: Christopher Riordan (408) 868-1235 or criordan@saratoga.ca.us. Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 24-014 recommending the City Council adopt an ordinance which includes amendments to Chapter 15 (Zoning Regulations) of the Saratoga City Code. CHOI/BROWNLEY MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 24-014 RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE CODE UPDATES. MOTION PASSED. AYES: BROWNLEY, CHOI, KAUSAR, LI, MOHIUDDIN, ZHENG. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. ABSTAIN: GERMERAAD. 3.2 Application PDR23-0007/ARB23-0036: 19301 Harleigh Drive; (389-33-002) Michelle Miner (Applicant): The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for a new 4,696 square foot single story single-family residence with a 2,340 sq ft basement and a 909 square foot attached accessory dwelling unit (ADU) (maximum height 22’). Three (3) protected trees are proposed for removal. The site is zoned R-1- 20,000 with a General Plan Designation of Residential Low Density (RLD Staff Contact: Nicole Johnson (408) 868-1209 or njohnson@saratoga.ca.us. Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 24-015 approving the project subject to conditions of approval included in Attachment 1. Neighbors David and Linda spoke. BROWNLEY/MOHIUDDIN MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 24-015 SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. MOTION PASSED. AYES: BROWNLEY, CHOI, GERMERAAD, KAUSAR, LI, MOHIUDDIN, ZHENG. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. 3.3 Application PDR23-0021: 20271 Calle Montalvo; (517-19-018) Yuan Lin, (Applicant): The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for a 222 square foot single story addition and new 1,050 square foot second story addition to a single-story single-family residence (maximum height 26’). No protected trees are proposed for removal. The site is zoned R-1-20,000 with a General Plan Designation of Residential Low Density (RLD). Staff Contact: Nicole Johnson (408) 868-1209 or njohnson@saratoga.ca.us. Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 24-016 approving the project subject to conditions of approval included in Attachment 1. LI/ZHENG MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 24-016 SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. MOTION PASSED. AYES: BROWNLEY, CHOI, GERMERAAD, KAUSAR, LI, MOHIUDDIN, ZHENG. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. 3.4 Application PDR19-0023/ARB19-0039/GEO19-0013/ZOA19-0004/ENV19-0005; 14500 Fruitvale Avenue (397-12-012 & 397-12-019 & 397-40-006); Saratoga Retirement Community Master Plan Update. The Saratoga Retirement Community is requesting approval to construct three new apartment style buildings containing 52 independent living units. The project site currently maintains 249 units and 94 skilled nursing beds. If approved, this would bring the total residential units to 298 and skilled nursing beds reduced to 52. The project would also combine existing skilled nursing rooms in the Health Center to create single occupancy rooms for a bed reduction from 94 to 52. A new meeting room would be added to the west side of the existing Manor building, and a new workout room would be added to the existing fitness center. The proposed project would include a net increase of 109 parking spaces, new landscaping (including removal of 64 protected trees), relocation of outdoor recreation facilities a new Fire Department Emergency Access from Chester Drive and an Affordable Housing Agreement to provide 10 Assisted Living Studio 4 Units for low-income residents. The site is zoned Residential (R-1-40) and the request includes a rezoning to include a Planned Combined District (R-1-40/P-C) with a General Plan Designation of Community Facilities Sites The Planning Commission will be making a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council will consider the Planning Commission’s recommendation and the project at a subsequent public hearing. A Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) is being completed. Staff Contact: Cynthia Richardson, crichardson@saratoga.ca.us. Recommended Action: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 24-018 recommending that the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Master Plan Update and Zoning Ordinance Amendment approval and recommends adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. 2. Adopt Resolution No. 24-019 recommending that the City Council approve a Zoning Reclassification from R-1-40,000 TO R-1-40,000 P-C (Planned Combined District) (ZOA19-0004), for 37.17 Acres located at 14500 Fruitvale Avenue (APN’s 397-12-012 & 397-12-019 & 397-40-006). 3. Adopt Resolution No. 24-020 recommending that the City Council approve Master Plan Update and Design Review located at 14500 Fruitvale Avenue (APN’s 397-12-012 & 397-12-019 & 397-40-006). The following individuals spoke on this item. John Brittain Pat Dubridge Robert Berglund Ray Sullivan Betsy Landergren Judy Stratman Rich Lamb Tsing Bardin Brenda Niemand Marilyn Manies Barry Lame Marilyn Basham Frank Tiernan Planning Commission took a break beginning at 9:35 PM Planning Commission returned at 9:43 PM Michael Griffin Colin Whitby-Strevens Anne Cummins Chung Kin Chan Anthony Vandersteen Jim Reyner Tony Delgado Erin Farrell Dashiell Leads Nicole Lee Aiden Chen Shani Klienhaus John Bale KAUSAR/MOHIUDDIN MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 24-018 RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND ADOPT THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM. MOTION PASSED. AYES: BROWNLEY, CHOI, GERMERAAD, KAUSAR, LI, MOHIUDDIN, ZHENG. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. CHOI/GERMERAAD MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 24-019 RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE ZONING RECLASSIFICATION. MOTION PASSED. AYES: BROWNLEY, CHOI, GERMERAAD, KAUSAR, LI, MOHIUDDIN, ZHENG. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. MOHIUDDIN/KAUSAR MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 24-020 RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE MASTER PLAN UPDATE AND DESIGN REVIEW AS MODIFIED. MOTION PASSED. AYES: BROWNLEY, CHOI, GERMERAAD, KAUSAR, LI, MOHIUDDIN. NOES: 5 NONE. ABSENT: NONE. ABSTAIN: ZHENG. 4. DIRECTOR ITEMS Director Swanson thanked the public for their investment and input in the SRC project at all phases, the Commission and Cynthia Richardson. Director Swanson confirmed that the June 12, 2024 Planning Commission meeting will be canceled and instead, a special meeting will be held on Wednesday June 26, 2024. Additionally, the July Planning Commission meeting will be canceled. Director Swanson had a brief phone call with HCD and he anticipates it will be the full 60 days (May 25th) before the City receives a response. 5. COMMISSION ITEMS Vice -Chair Kausar thanked the Commission and the community for the hard work on this project. Commissioner Germeraad requested a study session for how to judge the size and mass of projects without story poles. Chair Choi let the Commission know that he wants to order more logo apparel for the Commission. 6. ADJOURNMENT KAUSAR/CHOI moved for adjournment at 11:37 p.m. Minutes respectfully submitted: Frances Reed, Administrative Analyst City of Saratoga 6 DRAFT MINUTES WEDNESDAY JUNE 12, 2024 SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING Chair Choi called the Regular Meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Chair Jojo Choi, Vice-Chair Anjali Kausar, Commissioners Paul Germeraad, Ping Li, Razi Mohiuddin, and Herman Zheng ABSENT: Brownley (excused) ALSO PRESENT: Bryan T. Swanson, Community Development Director Frances Reed, Administrative Analyst PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL Vice -Chair Kausar arrived at 7:06 pm. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ON NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS 1. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1.1 Application ZOA24-0002: City Wide; Proposed Amendments to Chapter 15 (Zoning) of the Saratoga Municipal Code to Implement the Programs of the 2023-2031 Housing Element. Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 24-021 recommending the City Council adopt an ordinance which includes amendments to Chapter 15 (Zoning Regulations) of the Saratoga City Code. LI/ZHENG MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 24-021 RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE CODE AMENDMENTS. MOTION PASSED. AYES: CHOI, GERMERAAD, KAUSAR, LI, MOHIUDDIN, ZHENG. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: BROWNLEY. ABSTAIN: NONE. 2. DIRECTOR ITEMS Director Swanson notified the Planning Commission that the City Council had voted 4-1 in favor of approving the Saratoga Retirement Community project. The second reading for the zoning change will be held at the June 19, 2024 council meeting. 3. COMMISSION ITEMS Vice -chair Kausar invited everyone to come to the July 4th celebration at Kevin Moran Park beginning at 9:30 am. Chair Choi reminded the Commission that there is a special meeting on Wednesday June 26th and that there will be no July meeting. Commissioner Germaraad noted that he would like to have a method for evaluating home size no that story poles are not required. 4. ADJOURNMENT CHOI moved for adjournment 7:29 pm. Minutes respectfully submitted: Frances Reed, Administrative Analyst, City of Saratoga 7 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Elva Avenue (APN 503-27-081) Meeting Date: June 26, 2024 Application: PDR23-0017/ARB23-0103 Address/APN: 0 Elva Avenue / 503-27-081 Applicant / Property Owner: Praful Sharma Report Prepared By: Christopher Riordan, Senior Planner 8 Report to the Planning Commission 0 Elva Avenue – Application #’s PDR23-0017 /ARB23-0103 June 26, 2024 Page | 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for a new 4,690 square foot two story single family residence which includes a 325 square foot attached accessory dwelling unit with a maximum overall height of 26’-0’. One protected tree is proposed for removal. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt Resolution No. 24-022 approving the project subject to conditions of approval included in Attachment #1. Pursuant to City Code Section 15-45.060(a)(1), Design Review Approval by the Planning Commission is required as the project is a new two-story single-family residence. PROJECT DATA Gross/Net Site Area: 15,707 sq. ft. (.188 acres) Average Site Slope: 17.8% General Plan Designation: M-10 (Medium Density Residential) Zoning: R-1-10,000 Proposed Allowed/Required Site Coverage Residence/Garage/ADU Driveway/Walkway Porches/Decks Total Proposed (structures) 2,613 sq. ft. 1,268 sq. ft. 261 sq. ft. 4,142 sq. ft. (26%) 9,424 sq. ft. (60%) Floor Area (Main Residence) First Floor Second Floor Attached ADU Attached Garage Total Floor Area 1,845 sq. ft. 2,120 sq. ft. 325 sq. ft. 400.00 sq. ft. 4,690 sq. ft. 4,690 sq. ft.* Height 26’-00” 26’ Setbacks Front: Left Side: Right Side Rear: 1st Floor 25’-0” 47’-6” 25’-0” 26’-9” 2nd Floor 25.00’ 47’-6” 30’-0” 26’-9” 1st Floor 25.00’ 10.00’ 25.00’ 10.00’ 2nd Floor 25.00’ 15.00’ 30.00’ 10.00’ Grading (Cubic Yards) Cut 16 Fill 685 Total 701 No grading limit in the R-1-10,000 zoning district *Includes 800 square feet allowance for an Accessory Dwelling Unit + 354 square feet for a deed restricted Accessory Dwelling Unit for a total allowance of 1,154 square feet. 9 Report to the Planning Commission 0 Elva Avenue – Application #’s PDR23-0017 /ARB23-0103 June 26, 2024 Page | 3 SCOPE OF REVIEW Housing Accountability Act The project, as a housing development proposing more than one residential unit, limits the City in its ability to “deny, reduce the density for, or render infeasible” the project under the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) (Government Code Section 65589.5) unless the project: (1) is found to be in violation of an objective general plan/zoning standard; or (2) will result in a specific adverse impact to public health and safety. While conditions and requirements may be applied to further applicable goals, policies, and strategies – any conditions and requirements not based on objective standards may not make the project infeasible or reduce the number of units. For example, the decision-making body may apply conditions related to window treatments or paint color but could not apply conditions resulting in aesthetic modifications that would render the project infeasible. Under the HAA an objective standard is one involves “no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and [is] uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official.” General Plan Housing Element The City of Saratoga’s 2023-2031 Housing Element requires the City to plan for 1,712 housing units at all affordability levels for the 2023-2031 planning period. Very-Low Income – 454 units Low Income – 261 units Moderate Income – 278 units Above Moderate – 719 units The project will help the City achieve its housing productivity goals by providing one above moderate housing unit and one low income unit as the proposed accessory dwelling unit is deed restricted thereby limiting its rental to only households that at a minimum qualify as low income. SITE CHARACTERISTICS AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION Site Description The 15,707 net square foot vacant project site is located at the corner of Elva Avenue and Canyon View Drive. The site is covered in native grasses with 19 protected trees located along the perimeter of the site including 10 Coast Live Oaks, four Deodar Cedar, three Tallow, and two Silk. The average slope of the site is 17.8% with a 30 foot drop in elevation from the southwestern corner of the site to its northeastern corner. Neighboring homes are a combination of both one and two story structures. The Saint Nicholas Orthodox Church is located on the opposite side of Elva Avenue. Project Description The proposed project will consist of a two-story residence with an overall height of 26 feet. The project will feature a Mediterranean architectural style with a stucco exterior and composite roof shingles and include architectural projections with front facing hipped roof forms, second story decks, covered porches to break up the appearance of mass. A two story tower is located to the left of the front entry which will enclose a circular staircase. The 4,690 square foot project will include 3,965 square feet of living space, an attached 325 square foot deed restricted accessory 10 Report to the Planning Commission 0 Elva Avenue – Application #’s PDR23-0017 /ARB23-0103 June 26, 2024 Page | 4 dwelling unit and a 400 square feet front loaded two car garage located on the right side of the building footprint. No basement is proposed. The applicant has provided details of the colors and materials board (Sheet A4.2 of the Development Plans) Detail Colors and Materials Exterior Stucco (Swiss Coffee) / Dark Greg Accent Trim Windows Milgard Wood w/ Vinyl Exterior (Black) Entry Door Steel with Glass Panel (Dark Greg) Roof Concrete Tiles (Charcoal) Garage Door Metal with Glass Panels (Swiss Coffee) Trees The project arborist inventoried 19 protected trees which included those on the project site, in the side yard of the neighboring property on the left, and within the area of the right-of-way adjacent to both Canyon View and Elva Avenues. One protected Coast Live Oak tree in fair condition is recommended by the City Arborist for removal because it is both 1) in close proximity to another larger protected Coast Live Oak and 2) conflicts with the location of a proposed retaining wall and is unlikely to survive the impacts of construction. Tree fencing is required to be installed and inspected by the City Arborist to minimize impacts to the remaining protected tree prior to project commencement and during its duration. Details of the arborist’s findings and description of the tree to be removed are included in the Arborist Report (Attachment #2). Landscaping Landscaping within the front setback area will be planted with drought tolerant flowering groundcovers such as daisies, shrubs to include Lily-of-the-Nile, Escallonia, and Myrtle, and new trees to includes flowering Plums. No more than 26 percent of the front setback area will include hardscape for the driveway and path from the driveway to the front door. FINDINGS The findings required for issuance of a Design Review Approval pursuant to City Code Section Article 15-45.080 are set forth below and the Applicant has met the burden of proof to support making all of those required findings: a. Site development follows the natural contours of the site, minimizes grading, and is appropriate given the property’s natural constraints. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the steepest portion of the site is in the southwestern corner and the proposed grading and associated construction of retaining walls is twofold in purpose, one to control and redirect stormwater toward the perimeter of the site and around the building footprint and toward infiltration devices at the front of the site and two, to lessen the slope of the site for construction of a building pad. Other than the aforementioned grading and contouring of the site, the existing grades outside of the building footprint will remain relatively unchanged. 11 Report to the Planning Commission 0 Elva Avenue – Application #’s PDR23-0017 /ARB23-0103 June 26, 2024 Page | 5 b. All protected trees shall be preserved, as provided in Article 15-50 (Tree Regulations). If constraints exist on the property, the number of protected trees, heritage trees, and native trees approved for removal shall be reduced to an absolute minimum. Removal of any smaller oak trees deemed to be in good health by the City Arborist shall be minimized using the criteria set forth in Section 15-50.080. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project arborist inventoried 19 protected trees which included those on the project site, in the side yard of the neighboring property on the left, and within the area of the right-of-way adjacent to both Canyon View and Elva Avenues. One protected Coast Live Oak tree in fair condition is recommended by the City Arborist for because it is both 1) to close of a proximity to another larger protected Coast Live Oak and 2) conflicts with the location of a proposed retaining wall and is unlikely to survive the impacts of construction. 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 proposed residence complies with the maximum height limitation of 26 feet allowable for residential structures; there are no adjoining properties on the west, north, and east sides of the property that could be impacted by the project, and the only immediate neighboring property is located to the south of the project site with a distance of at least 150 feet and existing vegetation separating the existing neighboring residence and the proposed residence. There are no community viewsheds in the vicinity of the site. d. The overall mass and height of the structure, and its architectural elements are in scale with the structure itself and with the neighborhood. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed residence complies with the maximum height limitation of 26 feet allowable for residential structures; the building has varying architectural forms and projections to break up the appearance of mass, the building setbacks meet or exceed those required for the R-1-10,000 zoning district, e. The landscape design minimizes hardscape in the front setback area and contains elements that are complementary to the neighborhood streetscape. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the front setback area will be planted with drought tolerant flowering groundcovers such as daisies, shrubs to include Lily-of-the-Nile, Escallonia, and Myrtle, and new trees to includes flowering Plums. No more than 26 percent of the front setback area will include hardscape for the driveway and path from the driveway to the front door. 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 development will not unreasonably impair the ability of adjoining properties to utilize solar energy as the tallest elements of the structure are located towards the center of the site which will minimize shadowing, the project exceeds the required side and rear setbacks, and the orientation of the sun throughout the day with respect to the location of the site and position/height of the structure will not unreasonably cast shadows on adjoining properties and at least a distance of 150 feet separates the nearest residence to the south. 12 Report to the Planning Commission 0 Elva Avenue – Application #’s PDR23-0017 /ARB23-0103 June 26, 2024 Page | 6 g. The design of the structure and the site development plan is consistent with the Residential Design Handbook, pursuant to Section 15-45.055. This finding can be made in the affirmative because the proposed project incorporates applicable design policies and techniques from the Residential Design Handbook. The overall mass and height of the structure are in scale with the neighborhood; the structure is set back in proportion to the size and shape of the lot; site development follows contours and is appropriate given the property’s natural constraints. In addition, the proposed materials, colors, and details enhance the architecture in a well- composed, understated manner. 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 can be made in the affirmative in that the site has an average slope of 10% and is therefore classified as a hillside lot. However, the project site is not located near a ridgeline, there are no existing significant hillside features on the site, there are no community viewsheds in the vicinity, and the project complies with Section 15-13.100. NEIGHBOR NOTIFICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE The applicant submitted four (4) notification forms from neighboring property owners (Attachment #3). The neighbor at 20821 Canyon View Drive expressed a concern that existing trees at the corner of Elva Avenue and Canyon View Drive are not to be affected by the project - these trees are located within the right-of-way and will not be impacted. The neighbor at 14250 Elva Avenue is concerned about potential road closures and dust during construction - the building permit will include a construction management plan to include methods to minimize road closures and dust generation. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The project is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures”, Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction of three single-family residences in a residential area. The project, as proposed, is for the construction of a new residence in a suburban, residential area. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution No. 24-022 2. Arborist Report dated December 13, 2023 3. Neighbor Notices 4. Materials Board and Neighbor Property Photos 5. Project Plans 13 RESOLUTION NO: 24-022 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW PDR23-0017 AND ARBORIST REPORT ARB23-0103 0 ELVA AVENUE (APN 503-27-081) WHEREAS, on October 18, 2023, an application was submitted by Praful Sharma (Owner) requesting Design Review and City Arborist Report approval to construct a new 4,690 square foot two-story single-family residence with an overall height of 26’-0”. One protected tree is proposed for removal. The site is located within the R-1-10,000 zoning district. WHEREAS, the Community Development Department completed an environmental assessment for the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and recommends that the Planning Commission determine this project Categorically Exempt. WHEREAS, on June 26, 2024, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application, 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 to Section 15303, “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures”, Class 3(a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction of a single- family residence and small structures in a residential area. Section 3: The proposed residence is consistent with the following Saratoga General Plan Policies: Land Use Goal 13 which provides that the City shall use the Design Review process to assure that new construction and major additions thereto are compatible with the site and the adjacent surroundings; Safety Element Site and Drainage Policy 3 which provides that the City shall require that landscaping and site drainage plans be submitted and approved during Design Review for a residence prior to issuance of permits; and Conservation Element Policy 6.0 which provides that the City shall protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new development. Section 4: The proposed residence is consistent with the Saratoga City Code in that the design and improvements are consistent with the design review findings. The overall mass and height of the structure are in scale with the neighborhood; the structure is set back in proportion to the size and shape of the lot; site development follows contours and is appropriate given the property’s natural constraints; the porch and entry are in scale with other structures in the neighborhood. In addition, the proposed materials, colors, and details enhance the architecture in a well-composed, understated manner. 14 0 Elva Avenue (503-27-081) PDR23-0017 / ARB23-0103 June 26, 2024 Page | 2 Section 5: The City of Saratoga Planning Commission hereby approves PDR23-0017 and ARB23-0103, 0 Elva Avenue (APN 503-27-081), 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 26th day of June 2024 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RECUSE: ____________________________ Jonathan “JoJo” Choi Chair, Planning Commission 15 0 Elva Avenue (503-27-081) PDR23-0017 / ARB23-0103 June 26, 2024 Page | 3 Exhibit 1 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PDR23-0017 / ARB23-0103 0 ELVA AVENUE (APN 503-27-081) GENERAL 1. All conditions below which are identified as permanent or for which an alternative period 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. 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. all claims, demands, actions, expenses, or liabilities arising from or in any manner relating to the performance of such construction, installation, alteration, or grading work by the Owner and/or Applicant, their successors, or by any person acting on their behalf. In addition, prior to any Zoning Clearance, Owner and Applicant shall execute a separate agreement containing the details of this required Agreement to Indemnify, Hold Harmless and Defend, which shall be subject to prior approval as to form and content by the City Attorney. 16 0 Elva Avenue (503-27-081) PDR23-0017 / ARB23-0103 June 26, 2024 Page | 4 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 5. PERMANENT CONDITION - The owner shall restrict the rental of the accessory dwelling unit to only households that qualify as low, very-low, or extremely-low income households as those terms are defined in the most recent Santa Clara County Housing and Urban Development Program Income Limits or, in the event that the most recent such report is more than five years old, in accordance with the definitions set forth in Health and Safety Code section 50079.5, 50105, and 50106 as those sections exist as of the effective date of this restriction. “Rental” means any agreement whereby the occupant(s) of the accessory dwelling unit make any payment in consideration of said occupancy. The Deed Restriction document shall be notarized and recorded with the County of Santa Clara Clerks Office, prior to issuance of building permit. 6. The owner/applicant shall comply with all City requirements regarding drainage, including but not limited to complying with the city approved Stormwater management plan. The project shall retain and/or detain any increase in design flow from the site, that is created by the proposed construction and grading project, such that adjacent down slope properties will not be negatively impacted by any increase in flow. Design must follow the current Santa Clara County Drainage Manual method criteria, as required by the building department. Retention/detention element design must follow the Drainage Manual guidelines, as required by the building department. 7. The development shall be located and constructed to include those features, and only those features, as shown on the plans approved by the Planning Commission on June 26, 2024. 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 the City Code. 8. Prior to issuance of Building Permits, the applicant shall submit for staff approval a Lighting Plan for the home’s exterior and landscaped areas. Proposed exterior lighting shall be limited to full cut off & shielded fixtures with downward directed illumination so as not to shine on adjacent properties or public right-of-way. All proposed exterior lighting shall be designed to limit illumination to the site and avoid creating glare impacts to surrounding properties. 9. To comply with standards that minimize impacts to the neighborhood during site preparation and construction, the applicant shall comply with City Code Sections 7-30.060 and 16-75.050, with respect to noise, construction hours, maintenance of the construction site and other requirements stated in these sections. 10. Prior to issuance of Building Permits, the applicant shall prepare for review and approval by City staff a Construction Management Plan for the project which includes but is not limited to the following: a. Proposed construction worker parking area. b. Proposed construction hours that are consistent with the City Code. c. Proposed construction/delivery vehicle staging or parking areas. 17 0 Elva Avenue (503-27-081) PDR23-0017 / ARB23-0103 June 26, 2024 Page | 5 d. Proposed traffic control plan with traffic control measures, any street closure, hours for delivery/earth moving or hauling, etc. To the extent possible, any deliveries, earth moving or hauling activities will be scheduled to avoid peak commute hours. e. Proposed construction material staging/storage areas. f. Location of project construction sign outlining permitted construction work hours, name of project contractor and the contact information for both homeowner and contractor. 11. All fences, walls and hedges shall conform to height requirements provided in the City Code Section 15-29. 12. The final landscaping and irrigation plan submitted for Building Permit approval shall demonstrate how the project complies with the State Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and shall consider the following: a. To the extent feasible, landscaping shall be designed and operated to treat storm water runoff by incorporating elements that collect, detain and infiltrate runoff. In areas that provide detention of water, plants that are tolerant of saturated soil conditions and prolong exposure to water shall be specified. b. To the extent feasible, pest resistant landscaping plants shall be used throughout the landscaped area, especially along any hardscape area. c. Plant materials selected shall be appropriate to site specific characteristics such as soil type, topography, climate, amount and timing of sunlight, prevailing winds, rainfall, air movement, patterns of land use, ecological consistency, and plant interactions to ensure successful establishment. d. Pest resistant landscaping plants shall be considered for use throughout the landscaped area, especially along any hardscape area. e. Any proposed or required under grounding of utilities shall consider potential damage to roots of protected trees. 13. Front yard landscaping shall be installed prior to final inspection or a bond satisfactory to the Community Development Department valued at 150% of the estimated cost of the installation of such landscaping shall be provided to the City. 14. A locking mailbox approved for use by the U.S. Postal service shall be installed and in compliance with Saratoga Municipal Code section 6-25.030. The mailbox shall be installed prior to final inspection. 15. A Building Permit must be issued, and construction commenced within 36 months from the date of adoption of this Resolution or the Design Review Approval will expire unless extended in accordance with the City Code. 16. West Valley Collection & Recycling is the exclusive roll-off and debris box provider for the City of Saratoga. 18 0 Elva Avenue (503-27-081) PDR23-0017 / ARB23-0103 June 26, 2024 Page | 6 17. The project will include more than 500 feet of new water resource area. Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (WELO) review by the City’s WELO consultant will be required. This review must be completed prior to building permit issuance. FIRE DEPARTMENT 18. The owner/applicant shall comply with all applicable Fire Department requirements. ARBORIST 19. All requirements in the City Arborist Report (ARB23-0103) dated December 13, 2023, are hereby adopted as conditions of approval, and shall be implemented as part of the approved plans. This approval includes the requirement to install tree protection fencing as detailed in the City Arborist Report to the satisfaction of the City Arborist, the payment of a tree protection security deposit prior to issuance of a demolition permit and/or building permit, and the requirement to plant replacement trees prior to building department final inspection ENGINEERING 20. 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. 21. Applicant / Owner shall obtain an encroachment permit for 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. 22. Applicant / Owner shall make the following improvements in the City right-of-way: a. Install a new driveway approach per City Standard Detail 205 & 206. See City of Saratoga Standard Details for removal and new installation. New flow line shall conform to existing flow lines and grade. 23. Damages to driveway approach, curb and gutter, public streets, or other public improvements during construction shall be repaired prior to final inspection. 24. All new/upgraded utilities shall be installed underground. 25. 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. 19 0 Elva Avenue (503-27-081) PDR23-0017 / ARB23-0103 June 26, 2024 Page | 7 26. 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). 27. 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. 28. 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. 29. Prior to the Building final, all Public Works conditions shall be completed per approved plans. CITY GEOLOGIST 29. Geotechnical Plan Review - The applicant's geotechnical consultant shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project building and grading plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements and design parameters for foundations, retaining walls and driveway) to ensure that their recommendations have been properly incorporated. The results of the plan review shall be summarized by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 30. Geotechnical Construction Inspection - The geotechnical consultant shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspections shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for foundations and retaining walls prior to the placement of steel and concrete. The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project shall be described by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the City Engineer for review prior to final (granting of occupancy) project approval. 20 0 Elva Avenue (503-27-081) PDR23-0017 / ARB23-0103 June 26, 2024 Page | 8 31. Geotechnical Field Inspections – The Project Geotechnical Consultant should inspect, test (as needed) and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspections should include, but necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements and excavations for foundations prior to the placement of steel and concrete. The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project should be described by the Project Geotechnical Consultant in a letter and submitted to the City Engineer for review prior to final (as-built) project approval. 32. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City Geotechnical Consultant’s review of the project prior to Zone Clearance. 33. The owner (applicant) shall enter into an Indemnity Agreement holding the City of Saratoga harmless from any claims or liabilities caused by or arising out of soil or slope instability, slides, slope failure or other soil related and/or erosion related conditions. BUILDING DEPARTMENT SUBMITTAL 34. 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. Arborist Report dated December 13, 2023, printed onto separate construction plan pages. c. All additional drawings, plans, maps, reports, notes, and/or materials required by the Building Division. d. This signed and dated Resolution printed onto separate construction plan pages. ***End of Conditions *** 21 Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 www.saratoga.ca.us/171/trees 408.868.1276 CITY OF SARATOGA ARBORIST APPROVAL Conditions of Approval and Tree Protection Plan Prepared by Christina Fusco, City Arborist Application No. ARB23-0103 Phone: (408) 868-1276 Address: 0 Elva Avenue Email: cfusco@saratoga.ca.us Owner: Praful Sharma APN: 503-27-081 Date: December 13, 2023 PROJECT SCOPE: The applicant has submitted plans to build a new home on a currently vacant lot. One tree is requested for removal to construct the project. PROJECT DATA IN BRIEF: Tree security deposit – Required - $12,750 Tree protection – Required – See Conditions of Approval and attached map. Tree removals – Tree #34 is approved for removal once building permits have been issued. Replacement trees – Required = $1,610 ATTACHMENTS: 1 – Findings and Tree Information 2 – Tree Removal Criteria 3 – Conditions of Approval 4 – Map Showing Tree Protection 22 0 Elva Avenue 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. One coast live oak tree #34 is in conflict with the project, and meets the City’s criteria allowing it to be removed and replaced as part of the project, once building division permits have been obtained. Attachment 2 contains the tree removal criteria for reference. Table 1: Summary of Tree Removal Criteria that are met Tree No. Species Criteria met Comments 34 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 1, 6, 7, 9 Suppressed by tree #33 and in conflict with retaining wall New Construction Based on the information provided, and as conditioned, this project complies with the requirements for the setback of new construction from existing trees under Section 15- 50.120 of the City Code. Tree Preservation Plan Section 15-50.140 of the City Code requires a Tree Preservation Plan for this project. To satisfy this requirement the following shall be copied onto a plan sheet and included in the final sets of plans: 1) The tree information and recommendations from the submitted arborist report dated October 4, 2023; 2) The Project Data in Brief, the Conditions of Approval, and the map showing tree protection from this report dated December 18, 2023. TREE INFORMATION: Project Arborist: Richard Gessner Date of Report: October 4, 2023 Number of protected trees inventoried: 19 Number of protected trees requested for removal: 1 A table summarizing information about each tree is below. 23 0 Elva Avenue Attachment 1 24 0 Elva Avenue Attachment 1 25 0 Elva Avenue 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. (11)The necessity to remove a tree following the creation of defensible space within 100 feet of a structure located within the Wildland Urban Interface, in accordance with defensible space standards established by CAL FIRE or as determined by Santa Clara County Fire Department, and that risk of increased wildfire cannot reasonably be addressed through maintenance or without tree removal. 26 0 Elva Avenue Attachment 3 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1.Owner, Architect, Contractor: It is the responsibility of the owner, architect, and contractor to be familiar with the information in this report and implement the required conditions. 2.Permit: a.Receipt of a Planning or Building permit does not relieve applicant of his responsibilities for protecting trees per City Code Article 15-50 on all construction work. b.No protected tree authorized for removal or encroachment pursuant to this project may be removed or encroached upon until the issuance of the applicable permit from the building division for the approved project. 3.Final Plan Sets: a.Shall include the tree information, protection recommendations, and map showing tree protection from the arborist report by Richard Gessner dated October 4, 2023 copied onto a plan sheet. b.Shall include the Project Data in Brief and Conditions of Approval sections of the City Arborist report dated December 18, 2023. 4.Tree Protection Security Deposit: a.Is required per City Ordinance 15-50.080. b.Shall be $12,750 for trees #25, 30, 33, 35, 38, 40, 41. 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.Shall be installed as shown on the attached map. b.Shall be shown on the Site Plan. c.Shall be established prior to the arrival of construction equipment or materials on site. d.Shall be comprised of six-foot high chain link fencing mounted on 2-inch diameter galvanized posts, driven into the ground and spaced no more than 10 feet apart. e.Shall be posted with signs saying, “TREE PROTECTION FENCE - DO NOT MOVE OR REMOVE WITHOUT APPROVAL FROM CITY ARBORIST, CHRISTINA FUSCO (408) 868- 1276”. f.A letter/email shall be provided to the City from the project arborist confirming the correct installation of the tree protection fencing once it has been installed, including photos. This is required prior to obtaining building division permits. g.Tree protection fencing shall remain undisturbed throughout the construction until final inspection. 27 0 Elva Avenue Attachment 3 6.Construction: All construction activities shall be conducted outside tree protection fencing unless permitted as conditioned below. These activities include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: demolition, grading, trenching for utility installation, equipment cleaning, stockpiling and dumping materials (including soil fill), and equipment/vehicle operation and parking. 7.Work inside fenced areas: a. Requires a field meeting and approval from City Arborist before performing work. b.Requires Project Arborist on site to monitor work. 8.Project Arborist: a.Shall be Richard Gessner unless otherwise approved by the City Arborist. b.Shall visit the site every two weeks during grading, trenching or digging activities and every six weeks thereafter. A letter/email shall be provided to the City after each inspection which documents the work performed around trees, includes photos of the work in progress, and provides information on tree condition during construction. c.Shall supervise any permitted pruning or root pruning of trees on site. Roots of protected trees measuring two inches in diameter or more shall not be cut without prior approval of the Project Arborist. d.The Project Arborist shall be on site to monitor: 1 all work within 10 feet of tree #25 and 20 feet of tree #33. 2 Supplemental irrigation as needed. 3 Restoration pruning or limb removal on tree #33 to mitigate the recent heading cuts. 4 Removal of soil at the base of tree #33 to expose the root flare. 9.Tree removal: Tree #34 meets the criteria for removal and may be removed once building division permits have been obtained. 10.New trees: a.New trees equal to $1,610 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 as long as they do not encroach on retained trees. 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. c.One tree shall be selected from the City’s List of Natives. 11.Damage to protected trees that will be retained: a.Should any protected tree be damaged beyond repair, new trees shall be required to replace the tree. If there is insufficient room to plant the necessary number of new 28 0 Elva Avenue Attachment 3 trees, some of the value for trees may be paid into the City’s Tree Fund. Replacement values for new trees are listed below. b.Water loving plants and lawns are not permitted under oak tree canopies. Only drought tolerant plants that are compatible with oaks are permitted under the outer half of the canopy of oak trees on site. 12.Final inspection: At the end of the project, when the contractor wants to remove tree protection fencing and have the tree protection security deposit released by the city, call City Arborist for a final inspection. Before scheduling a final inspection from the City Arborist, have the project arborist do an inspection, prepare a letter with their findings, and provide that letter to the city for the project file. 29 Attachment 430 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 LOCATION MAP LEGEND SHEET INDEX: SITE CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT NOTES: UNDERGROUND UTILITIES: GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER FIELD REPORT: UTILITY NOTES: GENERAL PROJECT NOTES: STANDARD GRADING NOTES:WORK IN PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY: NOTE: SMP ENGINEERS PROJECT BENCHMARK: BASIS OF BEARINGS: NOTE: REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER OR LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR SHALL CERTIFY HEIGHT OF BUILDING DOES NOT EXCEED 26 FEET. THE WRITTEN CERTIFICATION SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE BUILDING OFFICIAL PRIOR TO ROOF SHEATHING INSPECTION AND SHALL TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE ADDED HEIGHT WITH THE INSTALLATION OF THE ROOFING MATERIALS AND UNDERLAYMENT. EARTHWORK TABLE SITE BENCHMARK: 50 SMP ENGINEERS 51 SMP ENGINEERS 52 SMP ENGINEERS PUMP NOTES: ROOF DOWNSPOUT/SPLASH BLOCK SUBDRAIN TRENCH DETAIL PUMPWELL DETAIL ELEVATION VIEW STORM DRAIN AREA DRAIN SECTION W-W W PLAN Z W SECTION Z-Z Z X PLAN Y X Y SECTION Y-YSECTION X-X STORM DRAIN INLET BUBBLER BOX DETAIL ELEVATION VIEW STORM DRAIN CLEANOUT DETAIL RETAINING WALL V-DITCH SHALLOW GRAVEL BASIN CURB AND GARAGE SLAB DETAIL 53 SMP ENGINEERS 54 PLAN VIEW SECTION A - A STORM INLET SEDIMENT TRAP-FIBER ROLLS CONCRETE WASHOUT AREA EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL NOTES AND MEASURES EXISTING DRAINAGE INLET PROTECTION PLAN FIBER ROLL NOTES FIBER ROLL SECTION B-B TEMPORARY COVER ON STOCK PILE PERSPECTIVE STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE (TO BE MAINTAINED) Maintenance PLAN PROFILE SMP ENGINEERS 55 T-1 APN: 503-27-081 CITY OF SARATOGA 0 ELVA AVE. SARATOGA, CA 95070 TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY MAP BOUNDARY AND SLOPE DENSITY = 0.361 = 17.826% 0.0023 x 1 x 2798 56 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION 12257 Titus Avenue Meeting Date: June 26, 2024 Application: APTR24-0003; TRP24-0044 Address/APN: 12257 Titus Avenue / APN 386-28-005 Property Owner/Appellants: Jeni Moon Report Prepared By: Christina Fusco, City Arborist 57 Report to the Planning Commission 12257 Titus Avenue – Application APTR24-0003; TRP24-0044 June 26, 2024 Page | 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The property owner of 12257 Titus Avenue has appealed an administrative decision to deny an application for the removal of one Canary Island pine (Pinus canariensis) (TRP24-0044). STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt Resolution No.24-023 denying the appeal. Pursuant to City Code Section 15-50.100, review by the Planning Commission is required for an appeal of an administrative decision. SITE CHARACTERISTICS AND APPEAL DESCRIPTION Site Description The property is a two-story home in the Brookview neighborhood. The tree is located in the front yard near the property line of 12235 Titus Avenue. An olive tree is also located in the front yard. Background and Reason for Appeal On February 12, 2024, the property manager, Andy Tse, applied for a permit (TRP24-0044) to remove one Canary Island pine growing in the front yard. The reason for the requested removal of the Canary Island pine tree was that the tree drops pinecones and is causing damage to the driveway. On February 15, 2024, staff conducted a site visit to inspect the tree requested for removal. The pine was determined to be in good health and to have good structure which includes a strong central leader. The pine can be expected to live many more years. There was a crack in the driveway and root pruning is not a feasible alternative to the removal of the tree. On February 20, 2024, notices were sent to the neighbors regarding the removal of the tree. On March 5, 2024, the property owners of the neighboring property 12235 Titus Avenue submitted a letter and appeal to the removal of the Canary Island pine tree. After a review of the letter, the City was unable to make finding #7. 15-50.080 - Determination on permit. (7) “Whether the approval of the request would be contrary to or in conflict with the general purpose and intent of this Article.” On March 14, 2024, permit TRP24-0044 for the removal of the Canary Island pine tree was denied. Repairs to the driveway were not explored since corrections to the driveway would not address the main concern that the tree was dropping pinecones. Dropping cones does not qualify the tree for removal. On April 3, 2024, an application to appeal the administrative determination denying the application for tree removal was filed with the Community Development Department. According to the appellants, the tenants are concerned for their health and safety from the falling pinecones. 58 Report to the Planning Commission 12257 Titus Avenue – Application APTR24-0003; TRP24-0044 June 26, 2024 Page | 3 FINDINGS The findings required for tree removal pursuant to City Code Section 15-50.080 are set forth below. The Appellant has not met the burden of proof to support making the 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. There is a crack and portion of displaced driveway. Repairs to the driveway have not been explored. (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 pine tree is the largest tree in the front yard and is prominently visible from the street. It contributes to shade, privacy and the aesthetic appearance of the property. (5) The age and number of healthy trees the property is able to support according to good forestry practices. This finding cannot be made. The pine tree 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. Repairs to the driveway were not explored since corrections to the driveway would not address the main concern that the tree is dropping pinecones. 59 Report to the Planning Commission 12257 Titus Avenue – Application APTR24-0003; TRP24-0044 June 26, 2024 Page | 4 (7) Whether the approval of the request would be contrary to or in conflict with the general purpose and intent of this Article. This finding cannot be made. The general purpose of the Article is to preserve mature trees in good condition. (8) Any other information relevant to the public health, safety, or general welfare and the purposes of this ordinance as set forth in Section 15-50.010. This finding cannot be made as the tree does not affect public safety. (9) The necessity to remove the tree for economic or other enjoyment of the property when there is no other feasible alternative to the removal. This finding cannot be made. There are no proposed improvements to the 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. (11) The necessity to remove a tree following the creation of defensible space within 100 feet of a structure located within the Wildland Urban Interface Area as defined in section 16- 20.150 of this Code, in accordance with defensible space standards established by CAL FIRE or as determined by Santa Clara County Fire Department, and that risk of increased wildfire cannot reasonably be addressed through maintenance or without tree removal. This finding is not applicable as the property is not located in the Wildland Urban Interface. (12) Monterey pine (Pinus radiata) or blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus) located within the Wildland Urban Interface Area as defined in section 16-20.150 of this Code. This finding is not applicable as the property is not located in the Wildland Urban Interface. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution 24-023 denying the appeal 2. Appeal application APTR24-0003 3. Appeal application APTR24-0002 4. Letter in support of permit denial 5. Tree removal permit application TRP24-0044 60 RESOLUTION NO: 24-023 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING APPEAL APTR23-0003 AND APPROVING TREE REMOVAL PERMIT APPLICATION TRP24-0044 AT 12257 TITUS AVENUE WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an appeal of an Administrative Decision denying a request to remove one Canary Island pine tree at 12257 Titus 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 Canary Island pine. 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: Arbor Resources Element: 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 Canary Island pine tree was requested for removal through the City’s process to remove protected trees as set forth in the Tree Regulations. The Planning Commission has reviewed the application for tree removal and the appeal and found that the request to remove the Canary Island pine tree does not meet the criteria in the City Code, overall. 61 12257 Titus Avenue Application #: APTR23-0003/TRP24-0044 Resolution No. 24-023 Page | 2 Section 3: The administrative decision is consistent with the Saratoga City Code Section 15-50.080 in that the applicant has not met the burden of proof to support making the required findings. Criteria 1, and 4-9 have not been met. 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. There is a crack and portion of displaced driveway. Repairs to the driveway have not been explored. (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 pine tree is the largest tree in the front yard and is prominently visible from the street. It contributes to shade, privacy and the aesthetic appearance of the property. (5) The age and number of healthy trees the property is able to support according to good forestry practices. This finding cannot be made. The pine tree 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. Repairs to the driveway were not explored since corrections to the driveway would not address the main concern that the tree is dropping pinecones. (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. There are no proposed improvements to the property. 62 12257 Titus Avenue Application #: APTR23-0003/TRP24-0044 Resolution No. 24-023 Page | 3 (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. (11) The necessity to remove a tree following the creation of defensible space within 100 feet of a structure located within the Wildland Urban Interface Area as defined in section 16- 20.150 of this Code, in accordance with defensible space standards established by CAL FIRE or as determined by Santa Clara County Fire Department, and that risk of increased wildfire cannot reasonably be addressed through maintenance or without tree removal. This finding is not applicable since the subject property is not located in the Wildland Urban Interface. (12) Monterey pine (Pinus radiata) or blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus) located within the Wildland Urban Interface Area as defined in section 16-20.150 of this Code. This finding is not applicable since the subject property is not located in the Wildland Urban Interface. 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 APTR24-0003, denying TRP24-0044 for the removal and replacement of one Canary Island pine tree, located at 12257 Titus Avenue. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on this 26th day of June 2024 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ____________________________ Jonathan “JoJo” Choi Chair, Planning Commission 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 Project Permit # TRP 24-0044 Page 1 of 9 We , Pamela Momrow and Kennedy Klimek, are in support of the City’s original decision to deny the removal of the front yard Canary Island pine tree at the 12257 Titus Avenue property because its removal will have a significant impact on the enjoyment and value of our home/property and will cause long-lasting collateral damage. The Canary Island pine tree is located just to the south of our property line of 12235 Titus Avenue, offering significant shade year-round to our entire front yard and home. This pine tree was fully grown prior to us moving here in 1999 and its impact was taken into consideration when purchasing the property. If this tree were to be removed, it would no longer be protecting our home or shading our landscape as it has been for over 25 years [1]. The collateral damage would include but not be limited to the following: - Reduced privacy and increased direct sunlight to the house. o The pine tree offers visual privacy to the master bedroom (which is upstairs in the front of the house) and filters light to the entire rest of the front of the house. As an example, it filters light to a downstairs office with a large bay window from where Kennedy works full-time. Removal of the tree will necessitate closing the blinds until the sun fully rises past the window, forcing her to work in a confined space without natural light. - Increased need for house cooling and related costs. o The pine tree offers shade year-round to the entire front of our home. Removal of the tree will result in increased heat in the spring through autumn months which will hinder the comfort of the home, necessitate running the air conditioner more frequently, and significantly increase energy usage and associated costs. - Landscaping damage. o The pine tree offers shade year-round to our front landscape. This includes morning shade to a 25-year-old, 20-foot tall Bloodgood Japanese Maple that cannot survive without partial-day shielding from the summer sun. Moreover, it would likely perish in any new planting transition period. o Because of the California droughts, we have been relandscaping the property with Kurapia drought-resistant ground cover instead of the grass which was previously in the front and back yards. The Kurapia is already fully established in the back yard with the intent of transplanting plugs to the front yard. Without the partial - day shade from the direct sun, even the drought-resistant Kurapia would struggle to survive. - Increased need for water usage and related costs. o Due to the significant mid-day shade offered by the pine tree, most of our existing front yard landscape has required very infrequent, if any, watering. Removal of the tree will necessitate a significant increase in water usage to ensure that the foliage remain alive, as the current olive tree on our property does not produce significant shade for the rest of our landscape. 81 Project Permit # TRP 24-0044 Page 2 of 9 In addition, others also appear to appreciate the shade which the Canary Island pine tree provides, as under the pine tree is a regular stopping point for USPS, UPS, Amazon, etc. workers throughout their day for a rest in the shade. We have also observed that the current renter of the 12257 Titus Avenue property has a regular visitor (we believe it is their nanny) who parks across the street in the morning, but who comes outside mid -day to move their vehicle to a new parking spot under the pine tree when the tree begins to cast shade on the street parking spot below it. It should be noted that in discussions with the homeowner, Ms. Moon did offer to plant multiple trees in that area. Similarly, the new tree requirements on the original permit included replacing the pine tree with one 15-gallon tree reaching a mature height of 35 feet or more. Unfortunately, however, no tree would be able to replace this one, as it would take multiple decades, if ever, to replace the privacy and shade that the current, at least 80-foot tall, pine tree provides [2]. Moreover, if the pine tree were to be removed, and a different, smaller tree planted, the smaller one would no longer require City approval to be removed by any future homeowners or even the current homeowner. Removal of the Canary Island pine tree would be an irreversible change, leaving no comparable options. The original permit request for removal also noted damage to the driveway at the 12257 Titus Avenue property resulting in it not being safe to park. While there is some minor damage near the base of the driveway, it is to the side away from the home where we have never seen anyone park for 25 years [3]. Regardless, the damage does not prevent anyone from parking there and it is not a parking safety hazard. Furthermore, the driveway has been slightly tilted in that same spot for at least 17 years, since the early 2000s. The same damage can be seen from the Real Estate photos from roughly 2007 [4]. The Canary Island pine is a well-established tree and has caused very minimal change to the driveway damage in over 17 years. As such, we would not expect significant change moving forward as well. Further analyzing the driveway damage [5], the driveway is not actually lifted where the tree’s anchor root is, so we cannot be sure at this time that it was even the tree root which resulted in any of the damage as well. Speaking with a tree care specialist (Johnson’s Tree Care), they confirmed that the lifting can happen away from the root due to dislodged soil and not from the root itself. In this case, the section of driveway can be lifted, some soil removed, and the section of driveway filled back in. In conversations with the homeowner, Ms. Moon further verified that the driveway damage is minimal and it could simply be smoothed over with a grinder, if needed. This is not a process that we are personally familiar with, however she explained that she has used this service in the past when working with uneven pavement at a different property, and the same service would work well in this case should it be needed. When speaking with the homeowner, she confirmed that the desire to remove the tree is solely to avoid any legal liability of falling debris/pine cones with respect to their tenants. The 12257 Titus Avenue property was purchased about 1.5 years ago with the tree in its current state and the tree has not been maintained since, nor had it been maintained for at least 1 5 years under previous owners. The property was purchased as an investment property and is not owner- occupied, and the only reason that the tree removal was considered by the homeow ner is because 82 Project Permit # TRP 24-0044 Page 3 of 9 the current tenant brought up concerns about the falling pine cones from the recent storms. If legal liability from falling pine cones were a basis to have a tree removed, then every mature conifer in Saratoga would be removed, starkly transforming the city canopy. Because the tree has not been maintained (by trimming it and removing its pine cones) in over 17 years, the cones that do drop are of full size and maturity. If the tree is instead properly maintained, it should not pose the hazard the homeowner is concerned about, either to the tenants or any passerby walking or driving. Over the last 25 years since we have been at the 12235 Titus Avenue property, there have been 4 other families living at the 12257 Titus Avenue property, 3 of whom were raising children. The pine cones have never come up as an issue with them. Similarly, Christa McAuliffe Elementary School, which is a few doors down Titus Avenue, has at least 7 pine trees similar in height/size and likely in age to the one at the 12257 Titus Avenue property, including 4 directly over the elementary school playground. There is even a picnic bench set up directly under one of them [6]. Additionally, we checked after a recent storm and there was little to no debris under these trees. With a significantly higher potential liability at the elementary school, there appears to be no concern or fear when these trees are properly maintained, as the school district has done. Ms. Moon’s appeal states that there would be $7-8000.00 of annual charges for tree maintenance, however the quote attached to her appeal is for tree removal only; no evidence has been provided to support the $7-8000.00 annual maintenance cost. We reached out multiple times to the Cupertino Union School District to try and find more information regarding the tree services rendered at the elementary school, however we did not hear back. We thus contacted a tree company (Johnson’s Tree Care) to understand what would be involved in maintaining the tree and at what frequency. Other than lack of being maintained, the tree is in good, healthy condition. They quoted $2700.00 for full maintenance of the tree (see the attached quote). The tree specialist recommended that the full maintenance be done about every 5 years, and pine cone removal alone could be done in the interim (at 2 -3 years). This is nowhere near the $7- 8000.00 cost mentioned in the homeowner’s appeal. If legal liability is of concern, we simply ask that the homeowner maintain the tree by trimming it and removing its pine cones—as regular maintenance will drastically reduce that liability—rather than jumping to the extreme of removing the tree entirely. Given the above, we request that Ms. Moon’s permit (TRP24-0044) / appeal (APTR24-0003) to remove the Canary Island pine tree located in the front yard of the 12257 Titus Avenue property be denied. 83 Project Permit # TRP 24-0044 Page 4 of 9 Photo References: [1] Google Earth photos showing the shade that the pine tree offers; from 11/29/2011, 2/27/2014, and 2/28/2016, respectively. The house on the left is the 12257 Titus Avenue property, while the house on the right is our property at 12235 Titus Avenue. 84 Project Permit # TRP 24-0044 Page 5 of 9 [2] Photo showing the height of the tree compared to its surroundings. [3] Location of the driveway damage with respect to the home and parked car. 85 Project Permit # TRP 24-0044 Page 6 of 9 [4] Real Estate photos of the 12257 Titus Avenue property from roughly 2007. [5] Lifted area of driveway away from the anchor root. 86 Project Permit # TRP 24-0044 Page 7 of 9 [6] Pine trees over the play yard at Christa McAuliffe Elementary School. 87 Estimate No:10546 Date:06/19/2024 Estimate For:Pamela Momrow pmomrow@impstar.com 12235 Titus Ave Saratoga, CA, 95070 (408) 725-0963 Description Amount - Clean and thin Canary island pine tree located in front left corner of property. By removing deadwood and up to 20% of live foliage 2” in diameter for thinning and endweight reduction to reduce the risk of limb failures throughout canopy. Also remove all pine cones as requested. $2,700.00 - Clean up and haul away all debris. Subtotal $2,700.00 Total $2,700.00 Total $2,700.00 Comments We hereby promise to provide all materials and labor to complete the proposed project in accordance to the above Specifications. NOTE: Johnson's Tree Care, Inc. reserves the right to withdraw from any proposal that exceeds 30 days and/or for ANY other reason whatsoever, with Johnsons Tree Care Inc Johnson's Tree Care Inc 8 Yarnall Pl. Redwood City, CA. 94063 Lic# 1007582 Kevin Johnson Certified Arborist WE-9199A 650-810-6989 Kevin@johnsonstreecareinc.com 1 / 2 88 minimal/no notice. DISCOUNT GUIDELINES: - Valid discount coupons MUST be presented at time of estimate (expired discount coupons may be declined). - Only one discount option will apply, per project and per household. PAYMENT: - Cash, Check or Credit Card Payments are due upon completion of project, unless prior arrangements are made (NOTE: 3% Convenience Fee will be applied to all Credit/Debit card payments). - Please make sure your happy before you pay. If for any reason we must return there will be a company minimum charge of $350.00. Johnsons Tree Care Inc - Estimate 10546 - 06/19/2024 2 / 2 89 90 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION 20388 Zorka Avenue Meeting Date: June 26, 2024 Application: APTR24-0005; ATFTR24-0020 Address/APN: 20388 Zorka Avenue / APN 386-53-008 Property Owner/Appellants: Larry Wang Report Prepared By: Christina Fusco, City Arborist 91 Report to the Planning Commission 20388 Zorka Avenue – Application APTR24-0005; ATFTR24-0020 June 26, 2024 Page | 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The property owner of 20388 Zorka Avenue has appealed an administrative decision requiring a payment to the Tree Fund for the removal of four coast live oak trees (Quercus agrifolia) (ATFTR24-0020). STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt Resolution No.24-024 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 recently constructed single-story home in northern Saratoga. The trees were located in the backyard. Background and Reason for Appeal On June 16, 2022, the property owner was issued building permits for the construction of a new home. There were six protected trees on the property, and one redwood was approved for removal to construct the project. On September 19, 2022, the homeowner applied for tree permit TRP22-0333 for the removal of coast live oak tree #1 because he was concerned that the tree was dangerous, may lose limbs and would block future solar installations. On November 22, 2022, tree permit TRP22-0333 was denied. The homeowner did not meet the burden of proof that the tree met any of the qualifications for removal. The tree was found to be in excellent condition, not at any elevated risk of failure and located north-northwest of the building. On April 12, 2023, the homeowner was required to apply for an After-the-Fact tree permit (ATFTR23-0005) for unpermitted grading in the critical root zones of pine tree #5 and coast live oak tree #6. He requested the removal of both trees. Coast live oak tree #6 was denied for removal and pine tree #5 was permitted for removal due to excessive root damage that made the tree unstable. On April 21, 2023, the new home passed final inspection from the building department. On May 1, 2023, the homeowner applied for tree permit TRP23-0265 for the removal of coast live oak tree #1 to install additional solar panels to the home. After a meeting with the solar project manager, Jeff Warrick, public notices were mailed stating the intent to approve the removal of tree #1. 92 Report to the Planning Commission 20388 Zorka Avenue – Application APTR24-0005; ATFTR24-0020 June 26, 2024 Page | 3 On June 12, 2023, the homeowner received an email that there was no appeal filed during the notification period and additional items were needed before the permit could be issued. On April 24, 2024, a follow up inspection took place for ATFTR23-0005. All protected trees had been removed from the property. A review of aerial images showed that the trees were removed without a permit between April and September 2023. On May 3, 2024, the homeowner was required to apply for an After-the-Fact tree permit (ATFTR24-0020) for the removal of trees #1, 3, 4, and 6. On May 21, 2024, ATFTR24-0020 was issued. On June 5, 2024, an application to appeal the administrative determination requiring a payment to the Tree Fund was filed with the Community Development Department. According to the appellants, the required payment is not reasonable. However, the payment amount is based on the formula for calculation of value as set forth in City Code Article 15-50. FINDINGS The penalties and remedies for unpermitted tree removal pursuant to City Code Section 15-50.170 are set forth below. The Appellant has been required to adhere to penalties and remedies (a) 1, (d) and (f). The applicable sections are listed below: (a) Requiring that the violator obtain a tree removal, pruning or encroachment permit for the previously conducted unlawful activity, including one or more of the following conditions as appropriate: (1) the violator shall replace each unlawfully removed tree with one or more new trees which can be accommodated on the site of the violation according to good forestry practices and, in the opinion of the Community Development Director, will provide equivalent value in terms of cost (as determined pursuant to the City Arborist's calculation of the value of the removed tree/s in accordance with the ISA Tree Valuation Formula adopted by reference), aesthetic and environmental quality, size, height, location, appearance and other characteristics of the unlawfully removed tree; or (d) Payment (to the extent authorized by law and determined appropriate by the Community Development Director) of any criminal, civil, administrative, or other penalty or restitution order into the Tree Fund. (f) All remedies provided in this Section shall be cumulative and are not exclusive. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution 24-024 denying the appeal 2. Appeal application APTR24-0005 3. After-the-Fact tree permit ATFTR24-0020 4. Tree permit TRP22-0333 5. After-the-Fact tree permit ATFTR23-0005 93 RESOLUTION NO: 24-024 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING APPEAL APTR24-0005 AND APPROVING TREE REMOVAL PERMIT APPLICATION ATFTR24-0020 AT 20388 ZORKA AVENUE WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an appeal of an Administrative Decision appealing an administrative decision requiring a payment to the Tree Fund for the removal of four coast live oak trees at 20388 Zorka 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 the penalties and remedies for the application of an after-the- fact tree permit set forth in Section 15-50.170, the Planning Commission finds that overall the payment amount is consistent with the code section and based on the formula for calculation of value as set forth in City Code Article 15-50. 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: Arbor Resources Element: 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 four coast live oak trees were unlawfully removed from the property. The Planning Commission has reviewed the after-the fact tree permit for tree removal and the appeal and found that the penalties and remedies are consistent with the City Code, overall. 94 20388 Zorka Avenue Application #: APTR24-0005/ATFTR24-0020 Resolution No. 24-024 Page | 2 Section 3: The administrative decision is consistent with the Saratoga City Code Section 15-50.150 Tree fund and Section 15-50.170 Violations; penalties and remedies. Section 15-50.150 provides for payments to the Tree Fund. Section 15-50.170 also provides as follows: (a)Requiring that the violator obtain a tree removal, pruning or encroachment permit for the previously conducted unlawful activity, including one or more of the following conditions as appropriate: (1) the violator shall replace each unlawfully removed tree with one or more new trees which can be accommodated on the site of the violation according to good forestry practices and, in the opinion of the Community Development Director, will provide equivalent value in terms of cost (as determined pursuant to the City Arborist's calculation of the value of the removed tree/s in accordance with the ISA Tree Valuation Formula adopted by reference), aesthetic and environmental quality, size, height, location, appearance and other characteristics of the unlawfully removed tree; or (d) Payment (to the extent authorized by law and determined appropriate by the Community Development Director) of any criminal, civil, administrative, or other penalty or restitution order into the Tree Fund. (f) All remedies provided in this Section shall be cumulative and are not exclusive. 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 APTR24-0005, approving ATRTR24- 0020 with conditions of approval for the removal of four coast live oak trees, located at 20388 Zorka Avenue. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on this 26th day of June 2024 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ____________________________ Jonathan “JoJo” Choi Chair, Planning Commission 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 August 2023August 2022135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 CITY OF SARATOGA Memorandum To: Saratoga Planning Commission From: Christina Fusco Date: June 26, 2024 Subject: Application APTR24-0005; 20388 Zorka Ave (386-53-008) - Supplemental Memo No. 1 The following public comments were received after materials were able to be made public before the hearing. These comments were published publicly on June 25, 2024. 143 June 24, 2024 Sent via email to jchoi@saratoga.ca.us Jonathan Choi, Chair Planning Commission City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 RE: 20388 Zorka Avenue, Saratoga CA 95070 Permit #23-0005 Dear Chair Choi and Fellow Commissioners: I am filing an appeal for Permit APTR#23-0005 and ATFTR24-0020 because I feel the staƯ’s assessment of the tree fund is incorrect, unfair, and not equitable given the facts and circumstances of the situation. I am being assessed for a fee of $50,980 due to the alleged removal of trees without the required permits based on the information in the resolution and staƯ reports provided for this hearing. In reality, there are other factors that were omitted in the staƯ documents which I wish to highlight. Most notably 1) the requirements by my insurance company for tree trimming and 2) the fact that some of the solar panels shown on the original permit were not installed exactly as depicted. While there may be others, I would also point out two major errors of fact in the staƯ report: 1) Property Address: My address is 20388 Zorka Avenue, not 12257 Titus Avenue as listed in the “Project Description”. 2) My home is a single-story home, not a two-story home as noted in the “Site Characteristics and Appeal Description”. From a review of the staƯ report, it states that at the top of page 3… “On June 12, 2023, the homeowner received an email that there was no appeal filed during the notification period and additional items were needed before the permit could be issued.” 144 Page 2 of 10 Jonathan Choi From this statement, one could infer that the permit was going to be issued after some administrative items were submitted. If in fact the permit was planned to be issued, my early removal of the tree in question is a timing issue rather than an outright violation of the regulation warranting the fine. The solar permit took in excess of 6 months to be designed, submitted and signed oƯ by the City with the required inspections. Seeing that time frame, I could not wait for that extended period to secure my permanent insurance and maintain my loan commitments. Because I was required to obtain permanent homeowner’s insurance and end my “Builder’s Risk” insurance, I could no longer wait for the administrative process to obtain the tree removal permit. Much of what is contained in this letter was included in my Appeal application, but I wanted to restate it for clarity. I applied for the tree removal permit for two primary reasons: 1) Insurance and Safety The primary reason was my insurance company made an inspection of my property as part of the process for issuing insurance. Their response was to require I substantially trim the tree in order to gain the insurance coverage. A copy of the notes from the inspector is attached (Attachment #1). I informed Ms. Fusco of this but she did not appear to give it any weight or consideration. While I understand this process is not based on popular opinion, the adjoining neighbors have written emails to me in support of my past actions. I enclose them for your file and review (attachment #2.) As you may be aware many insurance companies are canceling policies in tree- wooded areas due to the past losses from wildfires the insurance companies have experienced. See the enclosed article that recently appeared in the San Jose Mercury News, on March 21, 2024 (attachment #3). Recent articles have indicated that one insurer alone (State Farm) is canceling in excess of 6% of the home policies in zip code 95070. Before issuing new policies, insurance companies are now scrutinizing potential clients for possible liability issues. The comments from my property inspection (enclosed) list the requirements of the inspection to substantially trim the trees away from the home. In this case, a minor trimming would not accomplish the insurance requirements and total removal of the tree (referenced as tree #1) was the only option. The Saratoga City Code section 15-50.080 (2) provides for justification for removal of a tree because of “…physical damage or threatened damage to improvements…” 145 Page 3 of 10 Jonathan Choi It seems apparent that this is the case based upon the Insurance inspector's notes regarding this tree. Subsection 9 of the same ordinance section provides for “The necessity to remove the tree for economic or other enjoyment of the property when there is no feasible alternative to the removal”. I think all would agree that not being able to secure insurance and keep my loan in place for the property would impair the economic or other enjoyment of the property. I needed to do this in order to 1) secure the property insurance and 2) provide a safer environment for my family by minimizing property damage and injury from falling limbs during storms and high winds. 146 Page 4 of 10 Jonathan Choi Solar System As part of my new home construction, I am including a solar system on my roof. The limbs of the subject tree shaded a portion of the roof and reduced the solar eƯiciency. The solar company recommended removal of the limbs to increase the eƯiciency of the system. JeƯ Warrick, my solar engineer, Ms. Fusco, City of Saratoga - City Arborist and I had a virtual meeting on May 9, 2024. During the meeting, we detailed to Ms. Fusco where the solar panels were going to be installed. The tree blocked most of the sun 147 Page 5 of 10 Jonathan Choi above the proposed solar panel. On May 30, 2024, a public notice was sent out to my neighbors concerning my request for tree removal. There were no objections raised by the neighbors for this request. JeƯ Warrick then designed the solar system and secured the building permit. In the original design, seven of the solar panels were directly under the tree and another six panels on top of the garage roof. After further review, JeƯ thought it would be more eƯective to relocate six panels to the upper roof instead of at the north side of the lower roof. The remaining seven panels were still directly under the tree. In completing his analysis, JeƯ performed a solar shade analysis. The results showed an increase in the solar output from 3,600 kWh to 4,500 kWh per year, a 25% increase. The solar panels were installed, and JeƯ obtained the final inspection by the building department with permit #23-2183. In her follow-up inspection, Ms. Fusco insisted that the solar panels were not installed per the original agreed plan. Without considering anything else, she insisted a fine/Tree Fund contribution of $50,980 will be applied to my account via the denial of the original tree removal permit. This is not mentioned anywhere in the staƯ documents. 148 Page 6 of 10 Jonathan Choi In Ms. Fusco’s analysis of the change, she did not consider the importance of the insurance requirements and increase in safety to my family and property as the primary motivation for the tree removal. We do not dispute that some of the solar panels were relocated on the roof from the original plan but irrespective of the solar system installation, we would still have proceeded with the tree removal for the insurance and safety issues already mentioned. We also did not follow the exact City guidelines by having the inspection of the installed solar panels before the tree removal. This is not disputed but irrespective of when the inspection would have occurred, and the determination that emanated from that inspection, the subject tree would still need to be removed due to my complying with the insurance and loan requirements. Again the Saratoga City ordinance cited above, subsection 10, relates to tree removal “for installation and eƯicient operation of solar panels…”. This is the case and demonstrated by the energy calculations provided by my solar company. Closing I understand the importance of trees for a pleasant and harmonious environment. I also agree that trees are a big part of the ambiance and vitality of Saratoga. By way of example, we have planted numerous trees back onsite including nine 48” box Jacaranda trees, fifteen fruit trees, two 15-gallon size Jacaranda trees, three 36” box Crepe Myrtles, and 149 Page 7 of 10 Jonathan Choi thirty 15 gallon Texas Privets - all within my home property. This was documented in the details of Permit #ATFTRP 24-0020. As important as the trees are, I feel people’s safety of life is an overriding concern. In addition, dealing with the erratic home insurance marketplace which forces us to be at the sole control of the home insurance companies leaves little opportunity for error or non- compliance. Without home insurance, lenders will not lend money and new homes will not be built. As a secondary benefit, producing more green energy is another positive benefit to the environment. I feel this is not a very reasonable decision and some weight should be given to the good faith eƯorts I have made in meeting the city codes and working with City staƯ. My email history with Ms. Fusco is 18 pages long, in my attempt to understand and comply with the various applicable codes. The installed solar panels are directly under the tree as agreed; we only moved an array to the upper roof to obtain better performance. While the result was a permit denial and requested Tree Fund donation, the information's background is more detailed and not as black and white as may first appear. I am seeking your fair judgment. Please consider my appeal. Thank you so much for your time. Sincerely, Larry & Evelyn Wang 20388 Zorka Avenue Saratoga CA 95070 cc: Planning Commissioners via email 150 Page 8 of 10 Jonathan Choi Attchment #1 151 Page 9 of 10 Jonathan Choi Attachment #2 152 Page 10 of 10 Jonathan Choi Attchement #2 153 California home insurance meltdown worsens as State Farm sheds 72,000 policies Announcement comes as state proposes regulation changes A firefighter works to protect homes surrounding residences engulfed in flames by the CZU Lightning Complex fire in Boulder Creek, Calif., on Friday, August 22, 2020. (Dylan Bouscher/Bay Area News Group) By JOHN WOOLFOLK | jwoolfolk@bayareanewsgroup.com | Bay Area News Group PUBLISHED: March 21, 2024 at 3:42 p.m. | UPDATED: March 22, 2024 at 9:19 a.m. State Farm, California’s largest insurer, announced that it will discontinue coverage for 72,000 homes and apartments starting this summer, a move likely to sharply inflate housing costs for affected residents in a state that’s reeling from a series of destructive recent wildfires. The Illinois-based insurance giant, which accounts for a fifth of the California home insurance market and is the largest property and auto insurer in the U.S., cited rising costs, increasing catastrophe risk and outdated regulations in declaring it won’t renew California policies for 30,000 homes and 42,000 apartments. 154 “This decision was not made lightly and only after careful analysis of State Farm General’s financial health,” the company said in a March 20 statement. “State Farm General takes seriously our responsibility to maintain adequate claims-paying capacity for our customers and to comply with applicable financial solvency laws. It is necessary to take these actions now.” The announcement comes less than a year after State Farm announced it would not issue new policies in California, citing similar concerns. And it comes as the state’s elected insurance commissioner embarks on a yearlong overhaul of home insurance regulations aimed at calming California’s imploding market by giving insurers more latitude to raise premiums while extracting commitments from them to extend coverage in fire-risk areas. The California Department of Insurance said the move raises questions about State Farm’s financial health. “One of our roles as the insurance regulator is to hold insurance companies accountable for their words and deeds,” said Deputy Insurance Commissioner Michael Soller. “State Farm General’s decision today raises serious questions about its financial situation — questions the company must answer to regulators. … We need to be confident in State Farm’s strategy moving forward to live up to its obligations to its California customers.” But it was unclear whether the department would launch an investigation into State Farm’s move. Harvey Rosenfield, the Consumer Watchdog founder who authored the state’s insurance regulation system approved by voters in 1988’s Proposition 103, said the company’s announcement comes just after the state Department of Insurance approved a 20% premium increase for the company. That approval was based on State Farm’s existing number of policy holders, and he said the state should take another look at the rate hike considering the new cancellations. “The commissioner has the authority and the responsibility to open up an investigation,” Rosenfield said. “The rate we’ve just approved is excessive based on the fact you’re dumping 72,000 policyholders.” State Farm said the pending coverage cancellations account for just over 2% of its California policies but did not say where they are and what criteria the company used to mark them for non-renewal. But Karl Susman, an independent broker and industry expert based in Los Angeles, said those who will be dropped are almost certainly properties in and around wildland areas considered at greater risk of wildfires, where standard coverage has become nearly impossible to get. “You get rid of the worst risks,” Susman said. 155 Property owners who lose their coverage almost certainly will be left with no option but the California FAIR Plan, Susman said. The state-created private insurance pool provides minimal last-resort coverage that can cost much more than a standard policy. Dependence on the FAIR plan has soared as many of California’s largest home insurers began limiting coverage in recent years after a series of destructive wildfires that followed a prolonged drought — 14 of the state’s 20 most destructive wildfires on record occurred in the last 10 years. The number of FAIR Plan policies has more than doubled in five years, from 154,494 in September 2019 to 339,044 in December 2023. Total liability exposure topped $311 billion in 2023 compared to $112 billion in 2019. State Farm said non-renewals would roll out starting July 3 for home, business and rental dwelling policies and Aug. 20 for commercial apartments. RELATED ARTICLES • Opinion: California governor and commissioner push to raise insurance prices • Elias: California insurance chief giving in to the industry’s demands • Inflation is easing. Why is car insurance still so expensive? • California pushes insurers to cover more homes. Is your ZIP included? • California homeownership costs jump 32% since pandemic began Soller said those notified that they will lose coverage should call the insurance department at 800-927-4357 or use its insurance.ca.gov website to get help finding new coverage. He said the department “is on track for enacting the state’s largest insurance reform in over 30 years by our December 2024 target date.” “Changes to outdated regulations will improve choices for all Californians so everyone has options beyond the FAIR Plan,” Soller said. But that might not come soon enough for State Farm’s cancelled customers. Susman said the department should just put out all of its proposed changes at once, rather than dribbling them out over the course of the year. Consumers are suffering now, and it will take time for any regulatory changes to provide improved coverage options, he said. Soller said that “we are moving quickly to implement them while respecting the strong public review and transparency principles of California law.” Rosenfield, who has defended the state’s regulatory framework and criticized the commissioner’s office as overly deferential to the industry, said “the insurance commissioner has given the industry everything it wants, and they’re still not satisfied.” 156 CITY OF SARATOGA Memorandum To: Saratoga Planning Commission From: Christina Fusco Date: June 26, 2024 Subject: Application APTR24-0005; 20388 Zorka Ave (386-53-008) - Supplemental Memo No. 2 The following public comments were received after materials were able to be made public before the hearing. These comments were published publicly on June 25, 2024. 157 Frances Reed From:Christina Fusco Sent:Tuesday, June 25, 2024 12:45 PM To:Frances Reed Subject:FW: Regarding Larry Wang Public Hearing APTR24-0005, ATFTR24-0020 Hello Frances, Here is another email. Cheers, Christina Fusco Arborist City of Saratoga | CDD 13777 Fruitvale Avenue │ Saratoga, CA 95070 408.868.1276 │ cfusco@saratoga.ca.us Tell us how we did! Complete the City of Saratoga Customer Service Survey From: Eric Yang Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 9:56 AM To: Christina Fusco <cfusco@saratoga.ca.us> Subject: Regarding Larry Wang Public Hearing APTR24-0005, ATFTR24-0020 CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Dear Christina, We are neighbors of Larry Wang, residing at Sea Gull Way. Larry has informed us about the removal of the large oak tree in his backyard. We understand this decision is to secure insurance for his house and to improve the exposure of the solar panels on his roof. We appreciate Larry's efforts to plant additional trees along the west side of his property to enhance privacy for nearby homes. His consideration for maintaining harmony among neighbors by addressing their concerns is commendable. Yours sincerely, Eric Yang 158 CITY OF SARATOGA Memorandum To: Saratoga Planning Commission From: Christina Fusco Date: June 26, 2024 Subject: Application APTR24-0005; 20388 Zorka Ave (386-53-008) - Supplemental Memo No. 1 The following public comments were received after materials were able to be made public before the hearing. These comments were published publicly on June 25, 2024. June 24, 2024 Sent via email to jchoi@saratoga.ca.us Jonathan Choi, Chair Planning Commission City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 RE: 20388 Zorka Avenue, Saratoga CA 95070 Permit #23-0005 Dear Chair Choi and Fellow Commissioners: I am filing an appeal for Permit APTR#23-0005 and ATFTR24-0020 because I feel the staƯ’s assessment of the tree fund is incorrect, unfair, and not equitable given the facts and circumstances of the situation. I am being assessed for a fee of $50,980 due to the alleged removal of trees without the required permits based on the information in the resolution and staƯ reports provided for this hearing. In reality, there are other factors that were omitted in the staƯ documents which I wish to highlight. Most notably 1) the requirements by my insurance company for tree trimming and 2) the fact that some of the solar panels shown on the original permit were not installed exactly as depicted. While there may be others, I would also point out two major errors of fact in the staƯ report: 1) Property Address: My address is 20388 Zorka Avenue, not 12257 Titus Avenue as listed in the “Project Description”. 2) My home is a single-story home, not a two-story home as noted in the “Site Characteristics and Appeal Description”. From a review of the staƯ report, it states that at the top of page 3… “On June 12, 2023, the homeowner received an email that there was no appeal filed during the notification period and additional items were needed before the permit could be issued.” Page 2 of 10 Jonathan Choi From this statement, one could infer that the permit was going to be issued after some administrative items were submitted. If in fact the permit was planned to be issued, my early removal of the tree in question is a timing issue rather than an outright violation of the regulation warranting the fine. The solar permit took in excess of 6 months to be designed, submitted and signed oƯ by the City with the required inspections. Seeing that time frame, I could not wait for that extended period to secure my permanent insurance and maintain my loan commitments. Because I was required to obtain permanent homeowner’s insurance and end my “Builder’s Risk” insurance, I could no longer wait for the administrative process to obtain the tree removal permit. Much of what is contained in this letter was included in my Appeal application, but I wanted to restate it for clarity. I applied for the tree removal permit for two primary reasons: 1) Insurance and Safety The primary reason was my insurance company made an inspection of my property as part of the process for issuing insurance. Their response was to require I substantially trim the tree in order to gain the insurance coverage. A copy of the notes from the inspector is attached (Attachment #1). I informed Ms. Fusco of this but she did not appear to give it any weight or consideration. While I understand this process is not based on popular opinion, the adjoining neighbors have written emails to me in support of my past actions. I enclose them for your file and review (attachment #2.) As you may be aware many insurance companies are canceling policies in tree- wooded areas due to the past losses from wildfires the insurance companies have experienced. See the enclosed article that recently appeared in the San Jose Mercury News, on March 21, 2024 (attachment #3). Recent articles have indicated that one insurer alone (State Farm) is canceling in excess of 6% of the home policies in zip code 95070. Before issuing new policies, insurance companies are now scrutinizing potential clients for possible liability issues. The comments from my property inspection (enclosed) list the requirements of the inspection to substantially trim the trees away from the home. In this case, a minor trimming would not accomplish the insurance requirements and total removal of the tree (referenced as tree #1) was the only option. The Saratoga City Code section 15-50.080 (2) provides for justification for removal of a tree because of “…physical damage or threatened damage to improvements…” Page 3 of 10 Jonathan Choi It seems apparent that this is the case based upon the Insurance inspector's notes regarding this tree. Subsection 9 of the same ordinance section provides for “The necessity to remove the tree for economic or other enjoyment of the property when there is no feasible alternative to the removal”. I think all would agree that not being able to secure insurance and keep my loan in place for the property would impair the economic or other enjoyment of the property. I needed to do this in order to 1) secure the property insurance and 2) provide a safer environment for my family by minimizing property damage and injury from falling limbs during storms and high winds. Page 4 of 10 Jonathan Choi Solar System As part of my new home construction, I am including a solar system on my roof. The limbs of the subject tree shaded a portion of the roof and reduced the solar eƯiciency. The solar company recommended removal of the limbs to increase the eƯiciency of the system. JeƯ Warrick, my solar engineer, Ms. Fusco, City of Saratoga - City Arborist and I had a virtual meeting on May 9, 2024. During the meeting, we detailed to Ms. Fusco where the solar panels were going to be installed. The tree blocked most of the sun Page 5 of 10 Jonathan Choi above the proposed solar panel. On May 30, 2024, a public notice was sent out to my neighbors concerning my request for tree removal. There were no objections raised by the neighbors for this request. JeƯ Warrick then designed the solar system and secured the building permit. In the original design, seven of the solar panels were directly under the tree and another six panels on top of the garage roof. After further review, JeƯ thought it would be more eƯective to relocate six panels to the upper roof instead of at the north side of the lower roof. The remaining seven panels were still directly under the tree. In completing his analysis, JeƯ performed a solar shade analysis. The results showed an increase in the solar output from 3,600 kWh to 4,500 kWh per year, a 25% increase. The solar panels were installed, and JeƯ obtained the final inspection by the building department with permit #23-2183. In her follow-up inspection, Ms. Fusco insisted that the solar panels were not installed per the original agreed plan. Without considering anything else, she insisted a fine/Tree Fund contribution of $50,980 will be applied to my account via the denial of the original tree removal permit. This is not mentioned anywhere in the staƯ documents. Page 6 of 10 Jonathan Choi In Ms. Fusco’s analysis of the change, she did not consider the importance of the insurance requirements and increase in safety to my family and property as the primary motivation for the tree removal. We do not dispute that some of the solar panels were relocated on the roof from the original plan but irrespective of the solar system installation, we would still have proceeded with the tree removal for the insurance and safety issues already mentioned. We also did not follow the exact City guidelines by having the inspection of the installed solar panels before the tree removal. This is not disputed but irrespective of when the inspection would have occurred, and the determination that emanated from that inspection, the subject tree would still need to be removed due to my complying with the insurance and loan requirements. Again the Saratoga City ordinance cited above, subsection 10, relates to tree removal “for installation and eƯicient operation of solar panels…”. This is the case and demonstrated by the energy calculations provided by my solar company. Closing I understand the importance of trees for a pleasant and harmonious environment. I also agree that trees are a big part of the ambiance and vitality of Saratoga. By way of example, we have planted numerous trees back onsite including nine 48” box Jacaranda trees, fifteen fruit trees, two 15-gallon size Jacaranda trees, three 36” box Crepe Myrtles, and Page 7 of 10 Jonathan Choi thirty 15 gallon Texas Privets - all within my home property. This was documented in the details of Permit #ATFTRP 24-0020. As important as the trees are, I feel people’s safety of life is an overriding concern. In addition, dealing with the erratic home insurance marketplace which forces us to be at the sole control of the home insurance companies leaves little opportunity for error or non- compliance. Without home insurance, lenders will not lend money and new homes will not be built. As a secondary benefit, producing more green energy is another positive benefit to the environment. I feel this is not a very reasonable decision and some weight should be given to the good faith eƯorts I have made in meeting the city codes and working with City staƯ. My email history with Ms. Fusco is 18 pages long, in my attempt to understand and comply with the various applicable codes. The installed solar panels are directly under the tree as agreed; we only moved an array to the upper roof to obtain better performance. While the result was a permit denial and requested Tree Fund donation, the information's background is more detailed and not as black and white as may first appear. I am seeking your fair judgment. Please consider my appeal. Thank you so much for your time. Sincerely, Larry & Evelyn Wang 20388 Zorka Avenue Saratoga CA 95070 cc: Planning Commissioners via email Page 8 of 10 Jonathan Choi Attchment #1 Page 9 of 10 Jonathan Choi Attachment #2 Page 10 of 10 Jonathan Choi Attchement #2 California home insurance meltdown worsens as State Farm sheds 72,000 policies Announcement comes as state proposes regulation changes A firefighter works to protect homes surrounding residences engulfed in flames by the CZU Lightning Complex fire in Boulder Creek, Calif., on Friday, August 22, 2020. (Dylan Bouscher/Bay Area News Group) By JOHN WOOLFOLK | jwoolfolk@bayareanewsgroup.com | Bay Area News Group PUBLISHED: March 21, 2024 at 3:42 p.m. | UPDATED: March 22, 2024 at 9:19 a.m. State Farm, California’s largest insurer, announced that it will discontinue coverage for 72,000 homes and apartments starting this summer, a move likely to sharply inflate housing costs for affected residents in a state that’s reeling from a series of destructive recent wildfires. The Illinois-based insurance giant, which accounts for a fifth of the California home insurance market and is the largest property and auto insurer in the U.S., cited rising costs, increasing catastrophe risk and outdated regulations in declaring it won’t renew California policies for 30,000 homes and 42,000 apartments. “This decision was not made lightly and only after careful analysis of State Farm General’s financial health,” the company said in a March 20 statement. “State Farm General takes seriously our responsibility to maintain adequate claims-paying capacity for our customers and to comply with applicable financial solvency laws. It is necessary to take these actions now.” The announcement comes less than a year after State Farm announced it would not issue new policies in California, citing similar concerns. And it comes as the state’s elected insurance commissioner embarks on a yearlong overhaul of home insurance regulations aimed at calming California’s imploding market by giving insurers more latitude to raise premiums while extracting commitments from them to extend coverage in fire-risk areas. The California Department of Insurance said the move raises questions about State Farm’s financial health. “One of our roles as the insurance regulator is to hold insurance companies accountable for their words and deeds,” said Deputy Insurance Commissioner Michael Soller. “State Farm General’s decision today raises serious questions about its financial situation — questions the company must answer to regulators. … We need to be confident in State Farm’s strategy moving forward to live up to its obligations to its California customers.” But it was unclear whether the department would launch an investigation into State Farm’s move. Harvey Rosenfield, the Consumer Watchdog founder who authored the state’s insurance regulation system approved by voters in 1988’s Proposition 103, said the company’s announcement comes just after the state Department of Insurance approved a 20% premium increase for the company. That approval was based on State Farm’s existing number of policy holders, and he said the state should take another look at the rate hike considering the new cancellations. “The commissioner has the authority and the responsibility to open up an investigation,” Rosenfield said. “The rate we’ve just approved is excessive based on the fact you’re dumping 72,000 policyholders.” State Farm said the pending coverage cancellations account for just over 2% of its California policies but did not say where they are and what criteria the company used to mark them for non-renewal. But Karl Susman, an independent broker and industry expert based in Los Angeles, said those who will be dropped are almost certainly properties in and around wildland areas considered at greater risk of wildfires, where standard coverage has become nearly impossible to get. “You get rid of the worst risks,” Susman said. Property owners who lose their coverage almost certainly will be left with no option but the California FAIR Plan, Susman said. The state-created private insurance pool provides minimal last-resort coverage that can cost much more than a standard policy. Dependence on the FAIR plan has soared as many of California’s largest home insurers began limiting coverage in recent years after a series of destructive wildfires that followed a prolonged drought — 14 of the state’s 20 most destructive wildfires on record occurred in the last 10 years. The number of FAIR Plan policies has more than doubled in five years, from 154,494 in September 2019 to 339,044 in December 2023. Total liability exposure topped $311 billion in 2023 compared to $112 billion in 2019. State Farm said non-renewals would roll out starting July 3 for home, business and rental dwelling policies and Aug. 20 for commercial apartments. RELATED ARTICLES • Opinion: California governor and commissioner push to raise insurance prices • Elias: California insurance chief giving in to the industry’s demands • Inflation is easing. Why is car insurance still so expensive? • California pushes insurers to cover more homes. Is your ZIP included? • California homeownership costs jump 32% since pandemic began Soller said those notified that they will lose coverage should call the insurance department at 800-927-4357 or use its insurance.ca.gov website to get help finding new coverage. He said the department “is on track for enacting the state’s largest insurance reform in over 30 years by our December 2024 target date.” “Changes to outdated regulations will improve choices for all Californians so everyone has options beyond the FAIR Plan,” Soller said. But that might not come soon enough for State Farm’s cancelled customers. Susman said the department should just put out all of its proposed changes at once, rather than dribbling them out over the course of the year. Consumers are suffering now, and it will take time for any regulatory changes to provide improved coverage options, he said. Soller said that “we are moving quickly to implement them while respecting the strong public review and transparency principles of California law.” Rosenfield, who has defended the state’s regulatory framework and criticized the commissioner’s office as overly deferential to the industry, said “the insurance commissioner has given the industry everything it wants, and they’re still not satisfied.” CITY OF SARATOGA Memorandum To: Saratoga Planning Commission From: Christina Fusco Date: June 26, 2024 Subject: Application APTR24-0005; 20388 Zorka Ave (386-53-008) - Supplemental Memo No. 2 The following public comments were received after materials were able to be made public before the hearing. These comments were published publicly on June 25, 2024. Frances Reed From:Christina Fusco Sent:Tuesday, June 25, 2024 12:45 PM To:Frances Reed Subject:FW: Regarding Larry Wang Public Hearing APTR24-0005, ATFTR24-0020 Hello Frances, Here is another email. Cheers, Christina Fusco Arborist City of Saratoga | CDD 13777 Fruitvale Avenue │ Saratoga, CA 95070 408.868.1276 │ cfusco@saratoga.ca.us Tell us how we did! Complete the City of Saratoga Customer Service Survey From: Eric Yang Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 9:56 AM To: Christina Fusco <cfusco@saratoga.ca.us> Subject: Regarding Larry Wang Public Hearing APTR24-0005, ATFTR24-0020 CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Dear Christina, We are neighbors of Larry Wang, residing at Sea Gull Way. Larry has informed us about the removal of the large oak tree in his backyard. We understand this decision is to secure insurance for his house and to improve the exposure of the solar panels on his roof. We appreciate Larry's efforts to plant additional trees along the west side of his property to enhance privacy for nearby homes. His consideration for maintaining harmony among neighbors by addressing their concerns is commendable. Yours sincerely, Eric Yang