2001-095- Town Manager-Executive Director To Execute An Agreement With Design, Community And Environment To Prepare An Update To The Housing Element Of The General PlanRESOLUTION 2001- 95
RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING A TREE
REMOVAL PERMIT DN PROPERTY ZONED R-1:8
TREE REMOVAL PERMIT: T-00-0252
PROPERTY LOCATION: 220 MARCHMONT DRIVE
PROPERTY OWNER /APPELLANT: JEAN JACQUES DENNLER
WHEREAS:
A. This matter came before Council for public hearing on July 16, 2001, on an appeal by Jean
.Jacques Dennler from a decision ofthe 'Planning Commission and was regularly noticed in conformance with
State and Town law.
B. Council received testimony and documentary evidence from the appellant and all interested
persons who wished to testify or submit. documents. Council considered all testimony and materials submitted,
including the record of the Planning Commission proceedings and the packet of material contained in the
Council Agenda Report dated July 5, 2001, along with subsequent reports and materials prepared concerning
this application.
C. The property owner !appellant proposed to remove one Conifer (~ 9" in diameter) and one of
two Redwoods (each ~ 24" in diameter) because he asserts that the trees are lifting the patio, causing damage
to a property fence, causing damage to a neighbor's retaining wall, and causing debris problems. in neighbors'
backyards and pools.
D. A tree removal permit was.approved on April 12, 200 for the removal of one Conifer and one
Redwood tree. The removal ofthe second Redwood was denied because the Town Arborist determined that
the tree was healthy. On October 31, 2000, the applicant appealed the Community 'Development Director's
decision to deny the removal of the tree. The Planning Commission considered this item on March 14, 2001,
April 25, 2001, and denied the appeal on May 23, 2001.
Page 1 of 3
E. Appellant claims that the Planning Commission erred or abused its discretion when reviewing
the safety concern created by removing only one of the two Redwood trees .and the standards in Section
29.10.0990, which are used when considering tree removals, are biased and flawed as they do not include
provisions for annoying debris problems.
F. The Planning Commission decision was correct. Healthy trees .are important to the image,
appearance and health of the entire community, .Appellant failed to demonstrate that the removal of the second
healthy tree would serve any purpose otherthan his own convenience, to the detriment of the entire community..
RESOLVED:
The appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission on Tree removal Permit T-00-0252 is
denied..
2. The decision constitutes a final administrative decision pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure
section 1094.6 as adopted by section 1.10.085 of the Town Code of the Town of Los Gatos. Any .application
for judicial relief from this decision must be sought within the time limits and pursuant to the procedures
established by Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.6, or such shorter time as required by State and Federal
law.
Page 2 of 3
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting. of the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos,
California, on the 20t~' day of August, 2001 by the following vote.
COUNCIL MEMBERS.:
AYES: Randy Attaway, .Steve Glickman, Mayor Joe Pirzynski.
NAYS: Steven Blanton, Sandy Decker.
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
SIGNED: G~J~'V
MAYOR OF'THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
ATTEST:
CLERK OF' THE fiOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATI~S, CALIFORNIA
Page 3 of 3