Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-28-2004 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Chair Garakani called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Hunter, Garakani, Nagpal, Rodgers, Schallop, Uhl and Zutshi Absent: None Staff: Director Tom Sullivan and Assistant Planner Ann Welsh PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES – Regular Meeting of April 14, 2004. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of April 14, 2004, were adopted as submitted with corrections to pages 1, 2, 7, 13, 14 and 18. (6-0-0-1; Commissioner Zutshi abstained) ORAL COMMUNICATION There were no Oral Communications. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director Tom Sullivan announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on April 22, 2004. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS Director Tom Sullivan announced that appeals are possible for any decision made on this Agenda by filing an Appeal Application with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15.90.050(b). CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar Items. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 28, 2004 Page 2 *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 1 APPLICATION #03-140 (403-27-049) – Appellant DUVALL, Site Location – 18325 Swarthmore Drive: Appeal of an Administrative Decision to DENY a Tree Removal Permit at 18325 Swarthmore Drive to remove a large Redwood tree. The tree in question is a 161-inch, mature Redwood and is located next to the driveway. (TOM SULLIVAN) (CONTINUED FROM MEETING ON APRIL 14, 2004) Director Tom Sullivan presented the staff report as follows: • Reminded that at the last meeting, the Commission continued this item and asked that specific information be provided by the City’s Arborist including providing recommendations for types and locations of replacement tree; whether the removal of this tree would harm the second nearby Redwood tree and whether the raised curb can be removed without further damaging this Redwood tree and a timetable from Mrs. Duvall for improvements if the Tree Removal Permit is approved. • Described the newest Arborist Report in which the Arborist recommends one 48-inch box tree as a replacement, planted at least 30 feet from the existing Redwood. Elm or Oak trees are named as possible replacement species. The City Arborist states that the removal of this tree would not adversely impact the second nearby Redwood tree. Additionally, the rolled curb could be removed without impacting this tree. There is the potential for additional curb and gutter damage within another 10 to 15 years. Overall, the tree is rated as being in good condition and the appraised value is $18,700. Replacement values were provided in the report. • Reported that Mrs. Duvall has asked for a two to three month time frame. • Explained that a letter from PG&E to Mr. Corson has been provided and has a letter from Mrs. Duvall indicating her position. The Commission has been provided with copies of the previous staff report and attachments. • Advised that the staff recommendation has not changed. • Suggested that the Chair reopen the Public Hearing and that new information be addressed this evening. Commissioner Hunter asked if the Redwood tree is considered native to the area. Director Tom Sullivan replied that the Redwood is native to California but not indigenous to the flatlands of Santa Clara County. Commissioner Hunter asked whether a Redwood tree is held in greater esteem than, for instance, a Chinese Elm. Director Tom Sullivan replied yes, it is per the Tree Ordinance. It is one of approximately 11 trees called out. Commissioner Rodgers pointed out that while the Ordinance does not state whether any of the tree species listed are native to the area, except for the Redwood, the others are native species for the area. Chair Garakani opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 28, 2004 Page 3 Mr. Jim Dillinger, Applicant’s Representative and Tenant, 18325 Swarthmore Drive: • Stated that he is speaking on behalf of Mrs. Duvall and himself. • Said that he can see that the Planning Commission takes this issue seriously and thanked the Commission for that, adding that he is impressed with the demeanor of the Commissioners. • Said that he has some concerns as a result of the previous meeting. One is the statement that trees are an asset and not a liability. • Agreed with that sentiment but added that in some instances, some trees can be a liability. • Reported that Mrs. Duvall has the desire to remove this tree, a decision that was based on advice from two certified arborists. As a responsible homeowner, she applied to the City for a Tree Removal Permit. • Pointed out that the options offered by the City’s Arborist are only temporary. • Disagreed that the letters from Mrs. Duvall’s arborist were not professional. Rather they were simply follow up letters to Mrs. Duvall for her personal records. She submitted them with her request for a Tree Removal Permit simply as substantiation of her request. These arborists are qualified and have been around for a long time. In fact, their license numbers are lower and therefore longer held than the City’s Arborist. • Said that the newest report provided by Mrs. Duvall’s Arborist addressed the concerns the Commission might have. The final conclusion was that the only viable long-term/permanent solution is removal of this tree. Anything less is simply a temporary solution. • Expressed concern with the City’s lack of desire to deal with the street issues for two years. That street will be significantly more damaged in two years time. If the City waits, it represents negligence whereby people can get hurt. • Reminded that if the tree is retained, the roots on two sides (driveway and street) will be impacted. • Suggested that even cutting the roots on one side makes the tree’s viability questionable. • Said that no one would be able to find an arborist that is willing to guarantee that this tree won’t fall over if its roots are cut. • Countered the comment made by one person that standing water is a fact of life by saying this does not include large puddles of water that are the result of the uprooting of a street by a tree’s root system. This puddle creates a very real problem both with mud and the potential of mosquito infestation. • Stated his opinion that the purpose of the City’s Tree Ordinance is not to stop homeowners from being responsible but rather to stop the arbitrary removal of trees. In this case, Mrs. Duvall is trying to be a responsible and good citizen by removing all liability and all danger to the public. Commissioner Hunter asked whether the two arborists who provided Mrs. Duvall with reports were also providing estimates for removal of this tree. Mr. Jim Dillinger replied no. They were only asked to provide Mrs. Duvall with advice on what to do with this situation. Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Jim Dillinger if this arborist is here this evening. Mr. Jim Dillinger replied no, the cost to have an arborist in attendance at this meeting would be $150 per hour. Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Jim Dillinger how long the driveway has been in this condition. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 28, 2004 Page 4 Mr. Jim Dillinger replied that it appears about 10 years per the PG&E letter. Commissioner Nagpal asked if any interim measures were attempted during that 10-year period. Mr. Jim Dillinger replied no. Commissioner Hunter asked Mr. Jim Dillinger about his liability concerns as a renter of this property. Mr. Jim Dillinger advised that he had discussed the condition of the driveway when he initially spoke with Mrs. Duvall about renting her property and he was told that she was making every effort to remove the tree and repair the driveway. Reminded that he currently parks his truck to prevent people from tripping. Stated his concern that if someone were to trip and fall, he would become involved in liability issues. Mr. Tom Morman, Coldwell Banker, 12029 Saratoga Sunnyvale Road, Saratoga: • Identified himself as a real estate broker for Coldwell Banker who worked with Mrs. Duvall for years. • Said that he is here to speak out on her behalf. • Stated that some flexibility is required when problems like this come up. Commissioner Hunter asked Mr. Tom Morman whether the replacement of the concrete driveway with pavers and the retention of this tree could enhance the value of this home. Mr. Tom Morman: • Stated that a mason has told Mrs. Duvall that this tree must be removed for the new driveway. • Pointed out the conflicting arborist reports. • Said that property values are in the eye of the beholder. • Said that a mistake was made in placing this tree too close to the driveway. • Advised that he made a similar mistake in the 1970s and wonders if the current owners of that property are now faced with a similar dilemma. • Expressed his hope that, as a government body, the Planning Commission will be flexible. Commissioner Rodgers asked Mr. Tom Morman whether he believed that the property value would be reduced with the retention of this tree. Mr. Tom Morman replied that it would depend on the buyer. With conflicting opinions, he would recommend the removal of this tree. Commissioner Schallop asked Mr. Tom Morman whether he is saying that a buyer would want to buy certainty. Mr. Tom Morman replied yes. Ms. Christa Werling, 2847 Gazelle Drive, San Jose: • Identified herself as a friend of Mrs. Duvall. • Said that she has arguments on the criteria. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 28, 2004 Page 5 • Said that there is necessity for this removal based upon damage. The reason given to deny this removal is that there are alternatives available. However, of the two options offered, one offers a 10 to 20 year solution while the other offers a 15 to 25 year solution. It is unreasonable to offer such a short-term solution. • Described Criteria #4 (number of species, size, location, etc). Pointed out that removal of this tree is not expected impact the viability of the second nearby Redwood tree and that there are other healthy and large trees available on this property. • Pointed out that the property value of where this tree stands is impacted. If that tree stays, this situation would have to be disclosed upon sale of the property. • Regarding Criteria #5, she advised that poor long-range planning took place when this tree was originally planted in this location. • Regarding Criteria #9, which pertains to economic enjoyment of the property when no feasible alternatives to removal exist, said that the alternatives offered are not practical or permanent. Mr. Drew Kelly, 5790 Hillbright Circle, San Jose: • Identified himself as a Mechanical Engineer for PG&E. • Explained that he wrote one of the letters from PG&E and became of friend of Mrs. Duvall’s after he had done that letter. • Stated that future growth of this tree will destroy the future driveway. • Questioned the charge of lack of maintenance regarding this tree, saying that no maintenance could have been done that would have prevented the growth of this tree. • Cautioned that the unintentional message to Saratoga’s residents is “don’t plant trees.” Commissioner Hunter asked about the potential impact on utilities if too many trees are removed, increasing energy use to defray the loss of natural shade and cooling provided by trees. Mr. Drew Kelly said that he supports conservation of trees located in the right place on a property. That is a great thing. This is the wrong tree in the wrong spot. Commissioner Hunter asked if there is cause for the removal many trees due to their proximity to gas lines. Mr. Drew Kelly replied that this is the largest tree he has ever seen on top of a gas line. This is not the ordinary tree situation. Commissioner Rodgers asked Mr. Drew Kelly to explain the scope of his duties for PG&E. Mr. Drew Kelly advised that he is the Gas Distribution Engineer who provides technical support for the entire Santa Clara Valley area. Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Drew Kelly whether PG&E has a program to evaluate trees in relation to gas lines. Mr. Drew Kelly replied no. Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Drew Kelly if his letter on PG&E letterhead is personal or professional correspondence. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 28, 2004 Page 6 Mr. Drew Kelly replied that it is based upon his individual evaluation on PG&E letterhead. Mr. Olegario G. Lara, 18324 Swarthmore Drive, Saratoga: • Reported that this tree has been damaging this driveway for over 12 years. In the last 8 to 10 years or so, the driveway has been cracking and buckling. • Advised that he has resided on this street for 42 years. • Said that this problem could have been resolved years ago when the driveway first cracked and began lifting up. Mr. Elizabeth Lara, 18872 Devon Avenue, Saratoga: • Thanked the Commission for spending the time to deal with the issue of this tree. • Pointed out that the City’s Arborist gave Mrs. Duvall several options to repair her driveway and that nothing has been done over the last year to resolve this situation. Since that time, the City’s Tree Ordinance was adopted to help protect the City’s tree canopy and culture of what our town represents. • Provided photographs of Redwoods in the City that are located near hardscape. • Said that her father has an Ash tree and has had to do water, sewer and driveway repairs over the years. • Suggested that thinking outside the box should occur in solving this situation. • Said she was available for any questions. Mr. Karl Clemons, 18349 Swarthmore Drive, Saratoga: • Said he is an eight-year resident of the street and that he is in favor of keeping this tree. • Pointed out that the Tree Ordinance is now even tougher than it was when this Tree Removal Permit was denied on appeal a year ago. • Advised that mosquitoes travel 12 miles or more and that there are other sources of mosquito infestation than a puddle on this street. • Said he had made a suggestion to Director Tom Sullivan via an email message that the slab is pulled up to see what is going on beneath. Right now, there is a great deal of speculation. This might save Mrs. Duvall money in the long run using these viable alternatives to removing this tree. • Reminded that Redwood trees intertwine their roots. • Restated that he is in favor of keeping this tree if at all possible. Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Clemons if he were a tenant of Mrs. Duvall. Mr. Karl Clemons replied no, he is a homeowner on this street. Ms. Nancy McGuire, 18336 Swarthmore Drive, Saratoga: • Reminded that at the last meeting, she heard hysteria of the potential of exploding gas lines. However, since that time, a letter from PG&E states that there is no eminent danger and that they are continuing to monitor the situation. • Assured that she can sleep without fear. • Said that Redwood trees are stable and sturdy trees and that having these two close together enhances their strength as their roots intertwine. • Reported that the objective Arborist’s report (the City’s) gave a 100 percent stability ranking for this tree. There is no liability to Mrs. Duvall, only if gross negligence occurs per one insurer he questioned. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 28, 2004 Page 7 • Pointed out that the four households closest to this tree are the ones who have been fighting to retain this tree over the last 1.5 years. • Said that it is reasonable to expect the property owner to maintain the property. • Said that it is not unusual to call Roto Rooter every six months or so to deal with roots that interfere with sewer lines. Additionally, she herself experienced a rat infestation and learned that these rats were accessing her attic from a nearby Oak tree. However, she never considered the removal of this tree as a solution to the rat problem. • Stated that Mrs. Duvall is within her rights not to maintain her property. Mr. Tom Corson, 18337 Swarthmore Drive, Saratoga: • Reported that he has provided documents pertaining to the insurance liability issue. • Advised that he spoke with both an attorney and an insurance agent. • Stated that it is nonsense to say that nothing can be done to correct this situation. Rather a property owner must deal with problems early on. • Pointed out that he has a crack in his own driveway and it cost only a couple of hundred dollars to correct. • Said that if a tree falls onto his house, his insurance pays the costs. • Stated that the issue is the tree and not the driveway. If Mrs. Duvall’s driveway is repaired, her insurance company will be happy. • Said that staff was being generous in saying that Criteria #5 and Criteria #9 were met. • Said that two Redwoods planted near each other are more stable than one standing by itself. • Reminded that the Tree Protection Ordinance was carefully crafted and that if the cost to retain this tree is not exceeding its appraised value, the tree should be kept. • Restated his opinion, given at the last hearing, that this tree needs and deserves the protection by the Planning Commission. • Agreed that trees are assets and not liabilities as expressed by Commissioner Uhl. • Asked the Commission to implement the Ordinance with respect to this particular tree. Chair Garakani said that one could understand the reasons Mrs. Duvall states for seeking removal but what is a reason for keeping this tree. Mr. Tom Corson said that he has watched numerous trees get destroyed over the years. Chair Garakani asked Mr. Tom Corson if he enjoys looking at trees. Mr. Tom Corson replied yes. They provide enjoyment, seclusion and beauty. This tree is irreplaceable. Mr. Jim Dillinger, providing rebuttal on behalf of Mrs. Duvall: • Said that while the use of pavers is recommended in the Arborist’s Report, at this point with this mature tree, this is not recommended per Mrs. Duvall’s arborists and mason. • Said that the PG&E letter says “no problem.” However, there is a problem and it is not just today. PG&E says they will watch it but since PG&E is operating under budget constraints at this time, if there is no problem today they will not fix it today. While the problem is not eminent, it is a less than desirable situation. • Stated that this tree should not have been planted in this spot 43 years ago. Mrs. Duvall should not be penalized for an inherited problem. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 28, 2004 Page 8 • Pointed out that her original request for a Tree Removal Permit was approved by staff and later appealed by Mr. Tom Corson. Mrs. Duvall was not able to attend the original appeal hearing as she was at UCLA undergoing heart surgery. • Argued that Mrs. Duvall has been trying to deal with this for a long time. While the City wants to wait before allowing the removal of this tree, this Redwood tree will continue to be a problem until it is removed. The City’s Arborist has not provided a single viable solution. • Stated that the City Arborist was given specific mandate and his report does not represent an unbiased recommendation. He only answered the specifically asked questions. • Reported that the City’s Arborist told him that if this tree were his, he would take it out. • Countered that Mrs. Duvall’s arborist gave an unbiased opinion and that it is not fair to impose this burden on Mrs. Duvall, to make a homeowner spend money needlessly. • Said that while a tree is an asset, this specific tree is a liability. • Stated that he cares about the entire situation, the tree, the street and the driveway. • Said that he would not want to try to buy this home from Mrs. Duvall until this is solved. Chair Garakani asked if Mr. Dillinger has looked at the price of removing the roots and fixing the driveway per the City Arborist’s recommendations. Mr. Jim Dillinger replied that Mrs. Duvall has not sought specific bids yet due to the uncertainty of the recommendations. Chair Garakani asked Mr. Dillinger if he could provide an estimated cost. Mr. Jim Dillinger said that his guess would be approximately $5,000, adding that he has worked both as an insurance agent and contractor in the past. Commissioner Rodgers said that the City’s Arborist was given the charge to find options for this tree. Mr. Jim Dillinger said that with this appeal, the City’s Arborist was instructed to report back as to whether cutting the roots is viable and if so how to go about doing so. In conversation with this Arborist, he told me it would be gone if it was on his property. Mr. Mark Beaudoin: • Said that he is an Arborist. • Stated that this is a policy issue. • Described an urban forest as consisting of a mixture of young, mid-aged and old trees. • Said that if a mistake has been made in locating a tree, a lot of trouble occurs for the owner to remove that tree. It becomes safer to not plant trees at all, especially Oak and Redwood Trees. Chair Garakani closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Commissioner Hunter asked staff for clarification on the instructions provided to the City Arborist. Commissioner Uhl also questioned the instructions given. Director Tom Sullivan said that the first instruction, with the original report, was to investigate the Urban Soils Replacement Process and to develop alternative methods of replacing the driveway while Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 28, 2004 Page 9 saving the tree. The Arborist was not specifically asked if the tree should or should not be saved as staff had made the decision to retain the tree. Commissioner Uhl said that a legitimate concern exists regarding future liabilities. Is there any advice regarding the future removal of this tree. Director Tom Sullivan said that the criteria, as it exists today, does not say that a feasible alternative has to last forever. The property owner can apply again but that it would probably be in another 20 years. Commissioner Schallop asked if other alternatives could be more long term. Commissioner Uhl suggested that a 10 to 20 year solution is a long time and reminded that there is no stability issue with this tree. Commissioner Schallop: • Said that there is some uncertainty about the impact of root cutting and that it is unclear how long this solution will last. • Pointed out that using pavers is more expensive than concrete. • Questioned what message this sends to the community. • Said that one reaction might be that property owners might cut down a tree before it becomes protected. • Advised that several people from the community approached him following the last hearing on this tree saying that the City’s position does not make sense. • Said that this must be looked at from a practical standpoint. Commissioner Nagpal pointed out that 10 years have passed and that many driveways are doing well despite nearby trees. Commissioner Schallop: • Said that there is no way to know if 10 years from now this owner might have to come back as these proposed repairs have a potential lifespan of 10 years. • Pointed out the new issues brought forward today, the tree replacement recommendation, the impacts on the adjacent Redwood Tree and the impacts of replacing the rolled curb and gutter. • Said it is important to balance the impact of cost versus certainty of the solution. • Stated his agreement that this is an exceptional tree but planted in the wrong location. • Expressed concern that this issue devalues being a property owner in Saratoga. Commissioner Uhl asked where financial liability comes to play in the Ordinance. Director Tom Sullivan replied under Economic Enjoyment and Use of the Property (Criteria #9). Commissioner Schallop reminded about the significant cost differences between cement and pavers. Commissioner Uhl questioned when the cost is too great. Commissioner Nagpal said that it is important to determine whether the preponderance of criteria does or does not support this request. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 28, 2004 Page 10 Commissioner Uhl said that there is no evidence that financial liability supports removal of this tree. Chair Garakani reminded that the estimated cost of root cutting is about $5,000 and the cost to replace the tree would also be about $5,000. Therefore, there is no financial issue. However, Mrs. Duvall is very frightened about this situation and the potential of this tree falling over. The picture shows a puddle of water and roots tend to grown toward water sources. Director Tom Sullivan reminded that the City Arborist’s report says that rolled curb and asphalt can be removed and those roots trimmed whenever necessary. Commissioner Uhl asked the difference in cost to fix versus remove the rolled curb and gutter. Commissioner Schallop: • Said that the applicant was not asked to do so. It would be an unfair burden on this applicant. • Stated the importance of using the same criteria for an existing tree on a developed property as for a property slated for new construction. • Provide his rundown on the required criteria. • Criteria #1 – Condition of Tree – There is nothing to say that this is not a healthy tree. • Criteria #2 – Necessity of Removal – The driveway is damaged. The solutions include grinding down the roots and putting pervious pavers down for a new driveway. The questions raised include length and certainty of this solution and the cost. • Criteria #3 – Topography – Agree with staff that this is not an issue. • Criteria #4 – Number of Trees, Species, Size, etc. – Agreed that this is an exceptional tree that stands out. The City’s Arborist has established a replacement value. • Criteria #5 – Age and Number of Trees the Property is Able to Support – Agree that a replacement tree would be required if this appeal is granted and the tree removed. • Criteria #6 – Alternatives – Agree that there are alternatives available. The question is whether it is appropriate to mandate alternatives where certainty and cost are in question. However, they may be a better trade off than removal of the tree. • Criteria #7 – Contrary to Purpose – This is a policy question. When the tree is destroying the driveway, the potential tradeoff to removal is replacement. • Criteria #8 – Any other Information – New information has been provided, including competing PG&E letters, potential gas line impacts and a staff report that is no longer accurate. • Criteria #9 – Economic Enjoyment – This is hard to apply. It is a tough call and somewhat subjective. • Stated that on balance, he is not comfortable that these criteria can be met. Commissioner Hunter advised those in attendance that the Planning Commission is appointed and has to this point spent 10 hours on this matter. If each Commissioner gives their own evaluation of the required criteria, this could run hours longer. Chair Garakani pointed out that this is the first Tree Removal Permit request under the new Tree Ordinance and is a sensitive issue. The Commission will learn from this process. Said that trees are here to serve human beings. This represents an unbalanced situation as some enjoy this tree while others suffer as a result of this tree. The question is how to balance the issue. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 28, 2004 Page 11 Commissioner Nagpal said that she has issue with the economic issue and pointed out that Mrs. Duvall did not raise this. Chair Garakani agreed that Mrs. Duvall is most concerned about liability. Commissioner Nagpal: • Provided an itemized list of issues that she came had developed based on what the applicant has stated during testimony today and last time. • Stated that the gas line issue no longer concerns her with the most recent PG&E letter dated April 15, 2004. • Identified the second issue as being the potential for people getting hurt on the driveway. • Said that it appears that Mrs. Duvall has not looked into the Arborist’s recommendations. • Stated that she is inclined to support the City Arborist’s recommendations. In the face of competing arborist reports, she would support the City’s Arborist. Commissioner Schallop asked whether the limited scope in the instructions given to the City’s Arborist changes that opinion. Commissioner Nagpal: • Replied that she has no problem with the instructions provided to do what is necessary to save the tree because tree protection is the basis for the Ordinance. • Stated that this is a policy issue and it is important to address policy regarding existing trees as well as trees to be removed to allow new construction to occur. • Said that she had been concerned about cutting roots on two sides. • Disagreed with the Applicant’s argument that this is not a great species. • Said that Mrs. Duvall’s liability argument is solved if issues are fixed. • Stated that if this were her own driveway, she would have tried to fix it years ago. Chair Garakani: • Said that the purpose of the Tree Ordinance is to preserve trees. • Pointed out that he helped to write this Ordinance. • Said that not only older trees but also young trees are important. • Expressed concern that perhaps one message inadvertently being sent is to cut trees before they get too big to be able to cut. Commissioner Uhl reminded that this tree could be cut at a later date. At this time, none of the findings can be met. Commissioner Nagpal: • Said that it is a valid issue to investigate how trees are viewed during construction review. • Stated that it would be worth another discussion to look at this Ordinance. • Said that she believes that Mrs. Duvall is trying to do the right thing but that the City’s Arborist is telling us that the tree will be stable if certain steps are taken. Chair Garakani asked at what cost would removal be preferable to retention. Commissioner Nagpal replied when all criteria are considered. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 28, 2004 Page 12 Chair Garakani reminded that Mrs. Duvall is scared. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that Mrs. Duvall has owned this house for 32 years. Chair Garakani said that the Planning Commission is trying to determine what is fair to this homeowner, her neighbors and the community. Commissioner Uhl said that the message being sent out to the community is that trees are an asset in Saratoga and that everything must be done to save trees. Driveways are a liability, not trees. Commissioner Nagpal pointed out that this same request came to the Planning Commission a year ago and that no efforts have been made since. Commissioner Uhl stressed the importance to demonstrate economic impacts. Chair Garakani pointed out the costs of replacement and to fix the street. Commissioner Uhl said that he was not sure the Commission could impose the street repairs on this property owner but that there is nothing to support removal at this time. Commissioner Nagpal reminded that there is an appeal process available to Mrs. Duvall whereby she can go before the City Council. Commissioner Schallop said that if appealed, perhaps Mrs. Duvall would be provided some counsel by the City Council. Commissioner Rodgers: • Stressed the fact that it is unlawful to remove a protected tree per the Tree Ordinance. • Said that if the nine required criteria could be met then a permit can be issued for removal of a tree. • Said that the Commission denied this request last year using Criteria 1 through 5 of the Tree Ordinance and now need to consider Criteria 6 through 9 • Said that the balance starts with preservation of trees. It is up to the property owner to prove the necessity of tree removal. However, if plausible alternatives to removal are available, those alternatives should be given priority and consideration. • Said that the cost is not just for the driveway repair now but we also need to factor cost over the years that it should have been maintained but we have no solid information on cost to use in Criteria #9. • Reminded that no one says that this owner cannot come back in the future. The denial should be without prejudice. • Said that the original request stated a fear of tripping on this driveway. It is clear that this driveway has to be replaced. The gas supervisor with PG&E says that this tree is not a problem. • Pointed out that the City’s Arborist says if the roots are cut, this tree will be stable. However, if future damage occurs, this owner can reapply. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Uhl, the Planning Commission denied an appeal and upheld the Administrative denial of a Tree Removal Permit (Application #03-140), without prejudice to allow the Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 28, 2004 Page 13 property owner to reapply in the future if conditions change, on property located at 18325 Swarthmore Drive, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Hunter, Nagpal, Rodgers, Uhl and Zutshi NOES: Garakani and Schallop ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Chair Garakani advised that this request has been denied and that Mrs. Duvall has 15 days to appeal this action to the City Council. *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 2 APPLICATION #04-041 (APN#393-36-026) WU/CHEN, 19708 CHRISTOPHER DRIVE: The applicant proposes to demolish an existing two-story home and construct a new 4,492 square foot, two- story home. The parcel is zoned R-1-20,000 and the General Plan designation is RLD (Residential Low Density). The height of the structure is proposed to be 25.86 feet. A two-car attached garage with a two-car carport is proposed for the site. The existing circular driveway is to remain and the swimming pool is to be demolished. (ANN WELSH) Assistant Planner Ann Welsh presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking to demolish an existing two-story home and construct a new 4,492 square foot, two-story home. No trees are proposed for removal and the impervious coverage totals 46.3 percent. The existing pool is to be removed. • Stated that the new home will include a slightly expanded footprint and a maximum height of 25.5 feet. • Said that the neighborhood consists of a mix of one and two-story homes. • Advised that the minimum setbacks are exceeded. • Described the architectural style as being Contemporary. The design is consistent with the Design Guidelines and staff recommends approval. Commissioner Nagpal asked if staff had any discussion with the applicant about being at the maximum lot coverage and if the applicant might be willing to give up any square footage. Planner Ann Welsh replied that staff had not discussed a reduction. If necessary, the applicant could possibly reduce the second floor. Commissioner Hunter questioned categorizing this home as being a Contemporary architectural design. Planner Ann Welsh agreed that this design is hard to categorize. It fits into the general category of Contemporary design with its simple lines, not a lot of ornamentation and the scaled down entrance. Commissioner Hunter agreed that this is a simpler design that is not ornate. Commissioner Uhl asked how tall is the existing home. Planner Ann Welsh said she did not know. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 28, 2004 Page 14 Chair Garakani, upon hearing a cell phone ring in the audience, asked staff what the general rule is for cell phones. Director Tom Sullivan replied that they should be turned off during public meetings. Commissioner Zutshi asked if there have been any additional communications with the neighbors who had concerns about this project. Planner Ann Welsh said that she spoke with them today and they are still concerned with the sale of this home fitting into the neighborhood. She went out and verified setbacks with them by measuring them out. This will be a larger home than the neighbors’ but is similar in height to the two-story home, located two doors down. Chair Garakani opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Mr. Dick Fang, Project Architect: • Said that he is representing the property owners. • Described the lot as 20,000 square feet with an existing 2,800 square foot home. The existing height is 22.5 feet. Two big maple trees will be retained and the driveway will be curved around them in order to preserve them. • Described the second floor window placement and said that existing on-site screening trees exist. They are not removing any trees and tree protection fencing will be installed during construction. The garage door will be side facing and therefore not visible from the street. The driveway leading from the existing driveway to the new garage will be interlocking pavers. • Said that the house will consist of concrete shake tiles that are flat rather than curved. Their color is neutral. • Stated that this design is not contemporary but more Mediterranean. • Said he would be available for questions. Commissioner Hunter congratulated Mr. Fang for using a side-loading garage, which will be a real asset to this house as it makes the front of the house more attractive. Commissioner Nagpal asked if this would be a two-car garage. Mr. Dick Fang said that it would be a two-car garage with a two-car carport. Mr. Phillip Wu, Owner/Applicant, 19708 Crestbrook Drive, Saratoga: • Said that he has followed the City guidelines in designing his home and met with neighbors to show them the plans. • Stated that no issues were raised and that he hopes the Commission will approve his application. Commissioner Nagpal asked if this house would be the largest on the street and whether any consideration has been given to reducing the size while still meeting his family’s needs. Mr. Phillip Wu replied that the house next door is about 3,100 to 3,200 square feet. The other homes, which were constructed in the 1956, are by today’s standards small and out of date. Reminded that the City allows up to 4,500 square feet on a parcel this size. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 28, 2004 Page 15 Chair Garakani said that if the City allowed for a larger home, they would want more square footage. Commissioner Nagpal asked if this was currently the tallest house on the street. Mr. Phillip Wu advised that there are approximately five homes on this street. Three are two-story and two are one-story homes. Commissioner Nagpal asked if the new home would be three feet taller. Mr. Phillip Wu replied yes. Commissioner Hunter said that she thought his home was one of the prettiest houses when she first saw it 22 years ago. She added that she thinks it is beautiful now and asked if there are any other Mediterranean style homes in the neighborhood. Mr. Phillip Wu said that in terms of function, his current home is pretty old. There is no family room and the staircase is close to the front entrance and is too steep. Said that he has the right to keep or change this home. Commissioner Hunter agreed and said she had just wanted to state it is a pretty home. Mr. Jim Stillman, 19740 Braemar Drive, Saratoga: • Said that this is a neighborhood with different style houses. • Said that there are two other homes of this same style so there will still be others left like it. • Informed that he looked at the plans today and find it to be a nice design that will fit in nicely with the neighborhood. • Said that he talked with Mr. Wu and hoped that there might be some latitude to change materials. Chair Garakani said that normally the project must match the color board approved with the project. Mr. Jim Stillman said that he recommends the use of brick instead of stone. Commissioner Uhl asked Mr. Jim Stillman if he has any concerns about bulk. Mr. Jim Stillman replied no. Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Jim Stillman the square footage of his own home. Mr. Jim Stillman said his home consists of about 3,000 square feet on a quarter acre. Mr. Dick Fang, Project Architect, said that the stone they are proposing is a unique thin material that is not too different from brick. Chair Garakani closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Commissioner Zutshi said that she too likes the side facing garage and said that this project is fine with her. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 28, 2004 Page 16 Commissioner Rodgers said that she likes the smaller scale entryway. Commissioner Uhl expressed appreciation for the preservation of trees and for the use of pervious surfaces on the new portion of the driveway. Said that bulk had concerned him but does not appear to be an issue with the neighbors. Commissioner Hunter said that this is the beginning of a Mediterranean phase in the Golden Triangle Area. She added that she appreciates the side-loading garage and is okay with this project. Commissioner Nagpal said that she echoes what has been said and was also concerned about size. One positive is the fact that this is a corner lot that is larger. Said that instead of brick, as proposed by a neighbor, she prefers the stone proposed by the applicant. Chair Garakani said that everything looks good and that there are plenty of trees to screen the house. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, the Planning Commission granted a Design Review approval to allow the construction of a new two-story residence on property located at 19708 Crestbrook Drive, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Rodgers, Schallop, Uhl and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 3 APPLICATION #03-218 (APN# 503-13-067) WILLIAM WAI YAN HO, Mount Eden Road, South of Villa Oaks Lane: The applicant proposes to subdivide a 29.28 acres property into five clustered lots with an average lot size of 1.73 acres. The remaining 19.49-acre portion of the property is to remain in open space with a pedestrian, equestrian trail winding through the open space. Access to the property is to be via a cul-de-sac, which egresses onto Mount Eden Road. An emergency access road is proposed from Vista Regina Road to the cul-de-sac. The property has a general plan designation of RHC (Hillside Conservation) and is zoned HR (Hillside Residential District). (ANN WELSH) Assistant Planner Ann Welsh presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is proposing to subdivide a 29.28 acre lot into five lots, clustered in a 10 acre area, with the remaining 19.49 acres to remain open space with a pedestrian and equestrian trail. The lots would range from one to three acres with average slope of 21.8 percent. There is a Riparian Corridor on the property. • Said that there is no public road access and that a 60-foot easement road accesses the property. • Stated that the Zoning is Hillside Residential, which requires a reduction in lot size. The five lots would require 14.3 acres of open space. The applicant proposes to provide 19.49 acres, which is greater than required. • Explained that clustering these residential lots reduces the impervious coverage and no single lot can be smaller than 20,000 square feet. Eight lots could be developed so this project is less than Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 28, 2004 Page 17 maximum. The fact that no residence may exceed 7,000 square feet will be addressed during Design Review. • Said that the use of cluster lots results in the preservation of natural terrain. • Said that during the site visit, some of the Commissioners requested that grounds for denial be provided. Said that in order to deny this request, the finding must be made that the Tentative Map is not consistent with the General Plan and/or Specific Plans; the design of the Tentative Map must be inconsistent with the General Plan; the site must be found to be physically unsuitable for the type of development proposed; the site must be found not suitable for the proposed density; the development must be found to likely cause environmental damage and likely to cause public health damage. • Advised that staff does not believe those findings can be met for denial as there has been considerable geotechnical review of this property. • Added that the Hillside Specific Plan allows clustering as long as sufficient open space is provided. • Recommended approval. Commissioner Nagpal asked if all findings must be made. Director Tom Sullivan said that to deny, only one finding must be made but with specific reasons. Commissioner Hunter expressed concerns about the volume of water in the Riparian Corridor. Planner Ann Welsh said that each property owner is required to retain water runoff on site. A condition of approval requires compliance with C-3 requirements that address retaining water on site. Commissioner Hunter said that including large basements with the corresponding soil removal sounds like setting this area up for disaster. Director Tom Sullivan replied that the Basement Ordinance requires geotechnical report to qualify a property for a basement and reminded that the concrete used for a basement actually helps to stabilize an area. Chair Garakani asked if the maximum square footage of 7,000 square feet for each residence includes the basement space. Planner Ann Welsh replied no. Basement space is not usually counted. She reiterated that the City has to comply with C-3 requirements as best as possible. She said that a geotechnical engineer and designer of water retention systems would design a system for this site. Thirty acres should be able to retain the storm water from five houses. Commissioner Hunter expressed concern for development of property that ranges from 21 to 36 percent slope and said she believed that the higher end was considered not developable. Planner Ann Welsh replied that it is the three-acre parcel that has the 36 percent slope but that there is a development area that would be less than that on the property. Commissioner Uhl asked if the actual homes would go through Design Review. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 28, 2004 Page 18 Planner Ann Welsh replied yes and said each lot would also go through an individual geotechnical review process. Commissioner Hunter asked whether this property was previously determined to be not acceptable for development. Planner Ann Welsh said that a previous owner had a hard time getting the geotechnical approval but it was for a larger project with eight lots. He sold this property to Mr. Wu. Commissioner Uhl asked if geotechnical review would be based upon specific design of each home. Planner Ann Welsh cautioned that there is a certain entitlement to build on an approved lot. Commissioner Nagpal: • Thanked Planner Ann Welsh for the guidance on denial findings. • Asked about traffic analysis and suggested that it include both an expanded area and weekends. • Said that she would like a better understanding of the geotechnical issues and that she recognizes that the owner has done additional borings and geotechnical studies. • Questioned whether approving these lots would create stability issues for other surrounding properties. • Asked if a Biological Resources Survey has been done. Planner Ann Welsh replied no. Commissioner Nagpal: • Suggested that such a survey be sought, as there could be sensitive issues there. • Asked about the Cultural Resources and about the Geotechnical, including whether they would have to go into bedrock. Planner Ann Welsh replied that they would have to. Commissioner Nagpal asked about indirect and direct impacts on the Riparian Corridor. Planner Ann Welsh said that Commissioner Nagpal is asking for a lot more data, which would require an Environmental Assessment. Commissioner Nagpal said that she is looking for embellishment in a couple of areas, particularly Biological Resources. Commissioner Rodgers: • Asked if the proposed fill area includes anything near the Riparian Corridor and, if so, what the potential effects might be. • Pointed out that the road over the property is fill and that the emergency road should follow the natural contours of the land. • Questioned the impacts on the stream. Commissioner Nagpal thanked Planner Ann Welsh for the quality of information provided. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 28, 2004 Page 19 Chair Garakani opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Mr. Maurice Abraham, Planning Consultant/Applicant’s Representative: • Said that they have tried to create a development that fits the unique characteristics of this site, that respects the existing topography and geographical constraints as well as relating to its neighbors and preserves open space through the cluster concept. • Advised that they have worked with City staff and neighbors, including holding one neighborhood meeting. In addition, Mr. Ho met with individual neighbors. Some concerns were expressed but most have been supportive. They were surprised at the small turnout at the Community Meeting so they also did a second mailing. They have refined their plan based upon feedback. • Added that the Marineros still have significant concerns regarding access. Other than that, they have addressed neighbor concerns to staff and neighbors’ satisfaction and staff is recommending approval. • Gave a PowerPoint presentation that included: an overview of the site, project specifications, photo simulations and architectural concepts. • Showed an aerial photo to indicate the site boundaries as well as a slope analysis map, whereby they have tried to keep the development in the flatter areas of the site. The open space area has had a considerable number of slides or potential slide areas. Of the existing trees, they are proposing the removal of 18, 13 of them Eucalyptus. Two Coastal Live Oaks will be relocated on site. • Provided project specifications as follows: 29 acre lot; 5 homes; 1.7 acre average (minimum being 1 acre and largest lot being 3 acres); 19 acres of common open space. • Showed a Tentative Map of the proposed lots, including emergency access and private access. • Advised that a small area requires grading with cut and fill equaling about 11,000 cubic yards. This equals about three inches off the entire 29 acres. • Showed conceptual building elevations for the five residential lots and photo simulations of how these homes would be visible with and without landscaping at 15 years’ growth. • Reminded that the site is not visible from the road and that there would be an emergency access road off Vista Regina. Commissioner Hunter asked if these homes are proposed as two-story. Mr. Maurice Abraham: • Replied that they would be two-story homes that are stepping downhill while the front elevations would be single-story. • Thanked the Commission and said he hoped his presentation was helpful. • Stated that the Marineros’ concerns include safety, visibility, traffic, noise and headlight glare. They would like access to Mt. Eden Road eliminated completely but this is not likely. • Said that he believes the revised entrance location is an improvement as it is safer and removes fewer trees. • Added that he understands the Marineros’ concerns regarding safety. • Said that he hopes the Commission agrees that access from Mt. Eden is the most logical and approves this project. • Advised that the project architect, Jeff King, is also present this evening. Commissioner Rodgers asked about the fill and the connecting emergency road, which she said seemed close to the Riparian Corridor. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 28, 2004 Page 20 Mr. Maurice Abraham said that it has been revised from the original. They have pulled it up and added retaining walls. Commissioner Rodgers asked how close to the stream Mr. Maurice Abraham said that he would have to have the Civil Engineer figure that out. Commissioner Rodgers asked how tall the retaining walls would be. Mr. Maurice Abraham replied five feet maximum. The constraint is that they must meet up with Vista Regina. Commissioner Rodgers asked if the emergency access road must cross the creek. Mr. Maurice Abraham replied no. Chair Garakani pointed out how on-coming cars are coming uphill and therefore speed up. They would have to slow down to turn onto the site. Asked if there would be some area onto which they could pull off the road in order to slow down and turn onto the site. Mr. Maurice Abraham said that they could try to do that. Commissioner Nagpal asked if the 11,000 cubic yards of cut and fill includes the basements. Mr. Maurice Abraham replied no, just the subdivision itself. It does not include the grading on the five residential lots. That will be determined as the specific homes are developed. It does include the roads. Commissioner Nagpal pointed out the gate included on a picture and asked if this would be a gated community. Planner Ann Welsh replied yes. Chair Garakani said that a gate creates concerns about safety when leaving Mt. Eden Road. Planner Ann Welsh said that the gate could be set back from Mt. Eden Road so that more than one car can be off the road. Director Tom Sullivan agreed that the gate could be moved back. Commissioner Rodgers expressed concern about a gated community. She said that she likes the concept of cluster houses with the open space but asked how pedestrians and equestrians would access the trails. Mr. Maurice Abraham replied that access is from Mt. Eden Road, uphill from the entrance road and not gated. Commissioner Rodgers asked if there would be room for parking. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 28, 2004 Page 21 Mr. Maurice Abraham said three spaces but not large enough for a horse trailer. This is not an appropriate place to create a trailhead. Chair Garakani asked if this trail is connected to another trail. Mr. Maurice Abraham said he was not sure but that he didn’t see a trail. Planner Ann Welsh reported that there are some missing links and this would not be a contiguous trail. Commissioner Nagpal said that she thought that a biological survey to look at wildlife in the Riparian Corridor would be important. Mr. Maurice Abraham said that that have not done so but would if required by the Planning Commission. Reminded that it is larger than required by San Jose and the Santa Clara Valley Water District. Commissioner Nagpal: • Said that a survey should establish that there are no species to be concerned about. • Asked if there is any issue with the Cupertino Sanitary District, other than the fact that they can accommodate sewage but not storm water from these properties. • Asked if the identified landslides are active or ancient. Mr. Maurice Abraham replied both. He said that two would be stabilized. Commissioner Nagpal asked if this project would exacerbate conditions on or off site. Mr. Maurice Abraham assured that the geotechnical study was pretty extensive. Commissioner Rodgers asked how the swampy area near the Mt. Eden access would be handled. Mr. Maurice Abraham said that the access misses the swamp area. If they have to relocate the entrance, they may get into that. If so, they would have to put in sub-drains. Commissioner Hunter asked about the access easement. Mr. Maurice Abraham said that both are just on Carstin property. Commissioner Hunter asked if this property is landlocked. Mr. Maurice Abraham said that there is a 60-foot easement for a road. Chair Garakani asked if the water retained and detained would be enough for an irrigation system. Mr. Maurice Abraham said that could be looked into but added that they plan to use drought tolerant and native species. Commissioner Rodgers asked if the plants would be fire resistant. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 28, 2004 Page 22 Mr. Maurice Abraham replied he was not sure but that they would be deer resistant. Mr. Jack Daly, 21931 Via Regina, Saratoga: • Expressed appreciation for how Mr. Ho has designed the trail system and all the open space. • Said that he has concerns about looking onto 7,000 square foot homes, specifically on Lots 1, 2 and 3, where he envisions a wall of concrete or stucco. • Stated that one option is to allow less than 7,000 square feet. Another option is to allow fewer lots. • Reiterated that this is his biggest concern. Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Jack Daly how large his home is. Mr. Jack Daly replied that there are two houses on his lot, one is 2,000 square feet and the other is 1,000 square feet, as well as a horse facility for a total of 3,500 square feet. Mr. Till Guldimann, 21891 Via Regina, Saratoga: • Identified himself as a neighbor to Mr. Jack Daly. • Thanked Mr. Ho for keeping everyone informed. • Stated that he has two basic concerns. One is the potential for landslides. If the geologist is wrong and a house slides downhill, what happens? Who is liable for cleanup? The second concern is the fact that today when he looks at the site, he sees nature. In the future will he see start-up castles? • Asked that the size of these homes be contained, as he is appalled at the idea of 7,000 square foot houses. Commissioner Uhl asked about the size of houses. Director Tom Sullivan said that nothing sets that up. The zoning simply addresses the maximum. Commissioner Nagpal asked if the size of the homes could be limited as part of this approval. Director Tom Sullivan said that this limitation would have to be justified. Commissioner Hunter expressed support for one-story homes that are built into the hillside, earth colored and blending right in. Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that Mr. House’s house was built on the downhill side and is two- story. These are things that can be part of the conceptual requirements. Commissioner Hunter said that she agrees that these are tall castle sized houses proposed. Mr. Jeff King, Project Architect: • Introduced himself and said that he is available for questions. Commissioner Hunter asked Mr. Jeff King if he is aware that houses should be blended into a hillside and not stand out. Mr. Jeff King replied absolutely. He added that 7,000 is based on lot size and determined by Code. However, it is not practical to build houses that big. In reality, they would range between 3,500 to 5,000 square feet. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 28, 2004 Page 23 Commissioner Hunter pointed out that the designs shown are very obvious and visible to neighbors. Mr. Jeff King said that they are simply trying to show variety to be consistent with Saratoga guidelines. Chair Garakani asked Mr. Jeff King if he would be comfortable with restrictions to 3,500 to 5,000 square feet. Mr. Jeff King said that he would defer that question to the owner but that it seems reasonable. Mr. John Keenan, 22215 Mt. Eden Road, Saratoga: • Said that his property abuts the southwest side of Lots 2 and 3. • Said that he is experiencing contained enthusiasm about this project because of a two-lane road that will run along their backyard as well as concerns about noise during construction. • Advised that they have resided in this home for 28 years. It is a rural community and they have large animals, a burro and lamb. • Expressed concern that future neighbors will complain about their animals. • Suggested a disclaimer on the deed so that the buyers must acknowledge that this is a rural community with large animals nearby so that they don’t complain once they move in. • Said that he is concerned about people staring down into their yard from the road and about noise during the construction phase. • Requested that prior to construction a solid wall be built along the property line to mitigate noise and hazard to their animals. • Questioned the heights of the building sites on Lots 2 and 3. Director Tom Sullivan said that the top of the hill is about 760 feet. The midpoint on the two lots is 720 to 725 feet. Commissioner Hunter asked Mr. John Keenan how large his property is. Mr. John Keenan replied three acres. Planner Ann Welsh advised that one Condition requires that a revised landscape plan with buffering and fencing be provided. Mr. John Keenan said that a wood fence would not cut it. He is requesting a masonry or solid wall to act as a sound barrier. Ms. Hazel Marinero, 22501 Mt. Eden Road, Saratoga: • Said that her property is directly opposite the proposed driveway, where Mr. Carstin allowed an easement. • Said that Mr. Huerta has not yet given consent for the second easement. • Said she cannot understand why the driveway would be put there, as this is a dangerous part of the road. • Asked what kind of gate and how it would be opened and closed. • Pointed out that there are four cars for their family. They have problems getting in and out of their driveway onto Mt. Eden Road. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 28, 2004 Page 24 • Said that this is a landlocked piece of land and that this is not a good location for the entrance to that land. • Suggested further studies for a safer location of access. • Advised that weekend traffic is much heavier than weekday, including bicyclists and those accessing Stevens Creek Dam. • Said that she has provided a letter outlining concerns for her family and the public and that the major concern is safety. • Stated that when they moved in, this was a rural area. • Expressed concern about the aesthetics of having a road entrance across from their home. Chair Garakani asked Mrs. Hazel Marinero if they have a gate at their access. Ms. Hazel Marinero said that they do. It is difficult but they use this driveway because it is the existing entrance to their home. They left room for two cars to be off-road. She questioned how the open space would be accessed. Chair Garakani asked Ms. Hazel Marinero how their gate works. Ms. Hazel Marinero replied that right now it is a manual gate. Commissioner Rodgers asked Ms. Hazel Marinero what mitigations could be done to alleviate her concerns, be it driveway improvements or landscaping. Ms. Hazel Marinero said that her home fits into its environment. They have a 3,000 square foot home with a pool and barn. She cannot envision what could be done that would work but that she believes more thought needs to be given as to where access can go out. Mr. Ernesto Marinero, 22501 Mt. Eden Road, Saratoga: • Said that it is impressive what Mr. Ho and others have gone through but said that zero consideration has been given to the dangers of accessing this property. • Reported that he bicycles through the area with his dogs, which is already a challenge. • Said that this proposal would worsen the situation. • Explained that he works as a physicist. • Requested that a more thorough consideration of site access be done. • Said that he is pleased to hear of other residents’ reservations with this project. • Stated that it must be determined how to best blend this project into the area, taking safety into consideration very carefully. Chair Garakani asked Mr. Ernesto Marinero if he has looked at other alternatives for access road. Mr. Ernesto Marinero said that it is not his job to do so. He prefers not to give his private opinion. Chair Garakani said that other options have been looked into but found not to be possible and that Mr. Marinero’s suggestions would be welcome. Mr. Ernesto Marinero suggested Villa Road. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 28, 2004 Page 25 Chair Garakani pointed out that there is a landslide there and that the land is very soft. Commissioner Hunter agreed that it is the responsibility of Mr. Abraham to figure this out. Ms. Anne Sanquini, 14087 Loma Rio Drive, Saratoga: • Identified herself as a member of the Parks and Recreation Commission and the Trails Subcommittee. • Thanked Mr. Ho for working with us to develop a trail, saying that she appreciates what he is doing as well as the Planning Commission’s support of this effort to develop trails. Commissioner Uhl asked Ms. Anne Sanquini if their feedback has been incorporated into the plans. Ms. Anne Sanquini replied yes and said that they appreciate that fact. They are looking for ways to get dedicated trails and easements. Commissioner Rodgers expressed her appreciation for Mr. Ho’s efforts too. She asked if this would be an isolated trail. Ms. Ann Sanquini replied that there is public access from Mt. Eden Road and over time efforts will be made to talk to neighbors to see if more connector routes are possible. Mr. William Brooks, 20230 Merrick Drive, Saratoga: • Said that he is a member and citizen volunteer of the Trails Subcommittee. • Said that this would be a significant trail line. • Stated that he has one safety concern relating to the driveway, where the existing trail will cross. • Advised that a smooth surface and metal hooves are not compatible and encouraged some consideration to the asphalt swath (about 8 to 10 feet wide) where the surface could be roughened to accommodate the horses. Mr. Maurice Abraham: • Said that the 7,000 square foot limit is a maximum square footage allowed derived on a formula. The homes are probably going to be between 3,500 and 5,000 square feet. • Agreed to Mr. Keenen’s request for a deed restriction to disclose during the sale of these lots the fact that there are large animals in this area with the corresponding noise. • Said that they have no problem adding screening landscaping to protect privacy and prevent people from looking down onto the Keenen property but said that they have a concern regarding use of a masonry wall as it seems out of character. However, they will work out whatever is the pleasure of the Commission. • Stated that he understands the safety concerns raised by the Marineros. • Pointed out that in designing intersections like that, they are at the optimum spot of coming in outside of a curve while the Marineros come in on the inside of a curve. Commissioner asked whether this is where the Eucalyptus trees will be removed. Mr. Maurice Abraham replied yes. He added that traction in the pavement can be worked out to satisfy the needs of the horses. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 28, 2004 Page 26 Chair Garakani closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Director Tom Sullivan said that the staff has heard the concerns of the Commission and suggests that a Study Session be set. When it is time to continue with the public hearing, another notice will go out to the whole neighborhood. Mr. Maurice Abraham asked if they would be participating in this Study Session. Director Tom Sullivan said that Study Sessions are still public meetings. Commissioner Hunter explained that the Study Session format is more informal. *** DIRECTOR’S ITEMS There were no Director’s Items. COMMISSION ITEMS Memorandum regarding noticing requirements: Director Tom Sullivan advised that the City is following procedures as prescribed by State Law. The City must use the Assessor’s Roll for addresses of property owners. Commissioner Uhl advised that he would be absent for the next meeting on May 12th. COMMUNICATIONS Minutes from the City Council meeting held on April 9, 2004. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, Chair Garakani adjourned the meeting at 11:50 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission meeting of May 12, 2004, at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk