Loading...
Attachment 11 - Public Comment received between 1101 Sep. 13, 2017 and 1100 Dec. 31, 2017Sean MuDl h FTorrt: Erin M. Walters Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2017 9:01 AM To: Jeffrey Casale Cc: Sean Mullin Subject RE: Amendment A-17-002 Good Morning Jeffery, Thank you for your email. I will forward your comment to Sean Mullin, the project planner for hillside fences. You comment will be included in the next report to Town Council. Last night the Planning Commission forwarded the proposed amendments to the Town Council with Planning Commissioner comments and no recommendation. Please keep in contact with Sean regarding the upcoming Town Council meeting on this matter. Best, Erin Walters e Associate Planner Community Development Department e 110 E. Main Street, Los Gatos CA 95030 Ph: 408.354.6867 e 408-354-6872 www.losgatosca.gov e ewalters@losgatosca.gov Erin's Office Hours: 9:00 AM — 1:00 PM, Monday — Friday Community Development Counter Hours: 8:00 AM — 1:00 PM, Monday — Friday Please note the upcoming Town closure: November 23 & 24 — Thanksgiving Holiday CONFIDENTIALITY DISCLAIMER This e-mail is intended only for the use of the individual(s) named in this e-mail. If you receive this e-mail and are not a named recipient, any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of the e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us at the above e-mail address. 0 Think Green, please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. Original Message From: Casale, Jeffrey [mailto:Jeffrey.Casale@dell.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2017 6:45 PM To: Planning Subject: Amendment A-17-002 I am a resident in the hillsides. 17400 Phillips Ave. I am against the proposed amendment. All fences deteriorate and this will require costly changes to existing fences while exposing my children to an increase in ticks and Lyme disease. Jeff Casale. ATTACEEV EI 1 1 Dear Los Gatos Planning Commission, In reading through the proposed new regulations for hillside area fencing it is clear that much thought and care gone into balancing the needs of the residents with the needs of the wildlife and the open space feel of the hillside areas. The exceptions put in the proposal for orchards, vineyards, gardens, and the protection of livestock go a long way in ensuring that the residents' usage of the land is not unduly limited by the new proposed fencing regulations. That being said, there is one aspect of the new regulation that could pose a major impediment to raising livestock responsibly in this area of Los Gatos. Rotational grazing is considered best practice for raising livestock in order to limit the environmental impact of the animals on the landscape. That means that animals graze in a limited area for pasture for a short period of time. They are then rotated onto another part of the pasture. The animals are usually rotated through four or more sections of pasture, being moved as often as weekly depending on the size of the pasture and the number of animals. This is most often done using moveable fencing that is moved to enclose the area containing the animals. This method of rotational grazing allows the grasses to regrow between grazing periods, reducing erosion and increasing the fertility of the soil rather than depleting it. This also helps increase the soil's water storage capacity, which makes the area more drought resistant. The proposed permitting fee of more than $2000 in new fencing proposal would make rotational grazing cost prohibitive. It would be impossible for people to apply for weekly, or even monthly, permits to move fences. As a result it could encourage people to use less sustainable agriculture practices, thereby increasing erosion. Alternatively, it might encourage people to permanently enclose the entire pasture area with a fence and add fences within the area to subdivide it into multiple pastures. This would result in a larger permanently fenced area than might be necessary, just to avoid the fees associated with permits to move the fences. This is opposite desired effect of the proposed fencing ordinance, which is designed to reduce the fencing that limits wildlife throughways and access. I urge the Planning Commission to consider adding an exception to the required permitting fee for temporary moveable fences used for livestock pasturing. That would help ensure that there is not undue burden on the residents while at the same time maximizing the environmental benefits of reducing erosion and leaving unobstructed passage for wildlife. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Rabbi Shoshana Ohrienr 14320 Arnerich Rd Los Gatos, CA 95070 RECEiVED SEP 13 2011 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION Sean Mullin From: Janette Judd Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2017 9:23 AM To: toddgummow@gmail.com Cc: Joel Paulson; Sean Mullin Subject: FW: proposed Hillside Fencing ordinance A-17-220 cc: Town Council Town Manager CDD Director J. Paulson Associate Planner S. Mullin Good morning, Thank you for your e-mail, received by the Town Council and Town Manager. Your communication was received after the Planning Commission agenda public submittal deadlines and after the meeting occurred. However, your comments will be included (along with all Public Comment) in the project file as well as any subsequent Town Council meeting materials. By copy of this message your comments are referred to Associate Planner Sean Mullin, staff liaison for matter. Should you have additional questions or comments, Sean can be reached at (408) 354-6823 or by email, SMullin@LosGatosCA.gov. Thank you once again for contacting the Town of Los Gatos and voicing your comments. Best regards, Janette Judd • Executive Assistant Town Council and Town Manager • 110 E. Main St., Los Gatos CA 95030 Ph: 408.354.6832 • JJudd@LosGatosCA.gov www.LosGatosCA.gov • https://www.facebook.com/losgatosca From: Todd Gummow [mailto:toddgummow@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2017 5:24 PM To: Council Subject: proposed Hillside Fencing ordinance A-17-220 Dear Council members, I am writing concerning the proposed Fence Ordinance for Hillside homes, A-17-002. My wife and I will be attending the planning commission meeting tonight to strongly oppose the proposed ordinance. We have lived at 17144 Mill Rise Way in Los Gatos for over 25 years. Our lot is a flat one acre parcel that is fully fenced and designed for use. We would not have bought the property if it was not fully fenced, as this was necessary to protect our children, their friends and our pets, as our property is very close to Kennedy Road. We have our young Grand -nieces & nephews over regularly, ages 2 — 7, and hope to have Grandchildren some day. 1 Because our parcel is large, all of the fencing is further than 30' from the residence. In fact we have a brick wall at the entry to our property that is over 30' away. Under the proposed ordinance if more than 50' or 25% of any fence or wall needs repair it would have to meet the new ordinance. In our case, should a truck or earthquake damage our front wall (which is approximately two 20' walls with a driveway gate) we would have to put a 42" high split rail fence to replace. Ridiculous Should a large portion of our yard fencing be damaged, we would have to comply with the new ordinance, which means we would have to put a safety fence (to protect our pets and young children) within 30' of our home, and a separate compliant fence outside that one. Again, ridiculous I could go on and on, but I think you see some of the problems with this proposed ordinance. If for some reason the Planning commission allows it to move forward, I would hope you would see fit to deny. Thank you, Todd & Gwen Gummow 408-529-9632 17144 Mill Rise Way Los Gatos, CA 95030 2 Sean Mullin From: Janette Judd Sent: Friday, October 06, 2017 10:08 AM To: rnt97@yahoo.com Cc: Sean Mullin Subject: FW: Proposed amendment to fencing regulations Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged cc: Town Council Town Manager CDD Director J. Paulson Associate Planner S. Mullin Good morning, Thank you for your e-mail, received by the Town Council and Town Manager. Following the September 13 Planning Commission meeting, this matter is currently scheduled for discussion at the October 17 Town Council meeting. Your communication will be included (along with all Public Comment) in materials distributed for the October 17 meeting. By copy of this message your comments are referred to Associate Planner Sean Mullin, staff liaison for the matter. Should you have additional questions or comments, Sean can be reached at (408) 354-6823 or by email, SMullin@LosGatosCA.gov. Thank you once again for contacting the Town of Los Gatos and voicing your comments. Best regards, Janette Judd • Executive Assistant Town Council and Town Manager • 110 E. Main St., Los Gatos CA 95030 Ph: 408.354.6832 a JJudd@LosGatosCA.gov www.LosGatosCA.gov • https://www.facebook.com/losgatosca From: Rick Tinsley [mailto:rnt97@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, October 06, 2017 8:42 AM To: Council Cc: Rick Tinsley; Carol Tinsley Subject: Proposed amendment to fencing regulations To: Los Gatos Town Council Members Fr: Rick Tinsley, 16555 S. Kennedy Rd Re: Town Code Amendment A-17-002 Applicant: Town of Los Gatos Project Planner: Sean Mullin Consider amendments to Chapter 29 (Zoning Regulations) of the Town Code regarding fences, 1 hedges, and walls; and includes new regulations and requirements for fences, hedges, and walls in the Hillside Area. As a long time resident of Los Gatos, my family and I love observing and being close to our local wildlife. It is one of the reasons we bought our property and is a great souce of enjoyment. Having said that, the proposed amendment to current fencing regulations for hillside properties is an extremely flawed and misguided for the following reasons: 1. The proposed ordinace is burdensome and impractical. During the 16 years that I have lived at the above address, I have at times grown grapes, blueberries, blackberries, figs, lemons, nectarines, pomegranates, all sorts of vegetables, flowers and ornamental plants. None of these would have been possible without a deer fence in distinct violation of the proposed ordinance. Note that I do not have "an orchard" but rather have established trees, berry bushes and raised veggie beds in various small spots around my property where there is sufficient sun exposure in between the many large native oak trees. To comply with the proposed ordinance l would have to construct at least 8 or 10 seperate fenced enclosures on my 1.1 acre lot. This would create an extraordinary eyesore and be far more expensive than the normal common sense solution of a perimeter fence around my back yard. Hillside properties often have very limited planting zones. Slopes, trees, sun exposure and irregular lot shapes limit where various items can be planted. The proposed ordinance completely ignores this practical reality of hillside properties. During the Sept 13, 2017 Planning Commission meeting, one of the two proponents of the Amendment suggested it was simply "codifying what was already in the Hillside Guidelines" however several Commissioners pointed out problems with this blanket justification since the Amendment goes far beyond what is specified or even contemplated in the Hillside Guidelines. 2. The deer population is thriving despite the explosion in development including many noncompliant fences over the past few decades. At the Sept 13 Planning Commission meeting on this topic, multiple long-time residents provided testimony supporting this. Our local black tail deer populations adapt quite readily to human development and the notion that our fences have hurt the deer is simply naive and not supported by facts. I would challenge the proponents of the proposed amendment to provide any empirical evidence that the local deer population is in decline or otherwise suffering. On the contrary, fences are normally used to restrict the deer from feeding on various irrigated and non- native plants (fruits, vegetables, berries, flowers, etc) that would never be part of the deer's natural and healthy ecosystem. 3. Fleas and ticks are a serious problem. Many people have commented on ticks and the diseases they vector but fleas are also a concern. One summer several years ago when my children were smaller, they were unable to use their trampoline and swing set due to a flea infestation. Our local herd of deer liked to lie down in the play yard during the afternoon which was very cute but resulted in the area being overrun with fleas. We were all covered with flea bites that summer and I had to hire a professional exterminator to deal with the problem. 4. Fences have a finite life and need to be replaced from time to time. In 16 years on my property l am now on my third fence. When it ages out and needs to be replaced again, I will be unable to replace it with a fence that will protect my pets, fruit trees, berry bushes, vegetable gardens, etc. Similarly, any future owner of my home will effectively be prohibited from enjoying the property as I have. 5. The Town has neither the capability nor the intention of enforcing the proposed regulations which means this entire effort is a colossal waste of time and taxpayers' money. During the Sept 13, 2017 2 Planning Commission meeting, testimony was provided that many fences both in the downtown area and in the hillsdies do not comply with the CURRENT fence regulations. This was readily acknowledged by the Commissioners, some of whom admitted to having such noncompliant fences themselves and Town Staff agreed that the current fence regulations are NOT ENFORCED and there are countless examples of illegal fences that can be readily observed throughout our town. Town Staff also indicated very few people ever apply for a fence permit as required by our current regulations. Several builders have indicated there is never a need to get a permit for a (noncompliant) fence since the Town of Los Gatos does not police or enforce fence regulations. Since the proposed amendment raises the fence permit fee to an exorbitant $2200 (five times as much as Los Altos Hills) we can expect that virtually no one will apply for such a permit or otherwise comply with the increasingly onerous regulations. A sound and effective government does not pass laws that is has neither the capacity nor the intention of enforcing. Why are we wasting our time with this ridiculous proposal? Our town faces numerous challenges with traffic, parking, school crowding, decreasing school quality, a $50M unfunded pension liability, etc. In Tight of these very real and evident problems, WHY IS OUR TOWN GOVERNMENT CHOOSING TO PICK THIS FIGHT? WHAT EXACTLY IS THE PROBLEM THAT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT SOLVES? Please reject this naive and misguided proposal and get back to addressing the real challenges that our town faces. Thank you, Rick Tinsley 3 RE: Proposed Hillside Fence Ordinance, Town Code Amendment A-17-002 Dear Los Gatos Town Council, RECEVED OCT 0 6 2017 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION The September 13, 2017 meeting of the Planning Commission of the Town of Los Gatos addressed Proposed Amendment(s) to the Hillside Fence Ordinance. The stated objective of the amendment is to insure free movement of wildlife in the area. Apparently, there is a perception that improved properties in the hillsides are somehow restricting this movement, and forcing wildlife out of their natural habitat. Many, if not most, of the public attendees were only made aware of this meeting and its agenda by way of an alert the day before from a concerned hillside resident. On that short notice, approximately 30 to 40 Los Gatos residents attended. Of the 24 attendees who offered public comment, 22 spoke in opposition to the proposed ordinance, recognizing it as an overreach, while only 2 speakers, 1 of which was involved in authoring the amendment, spoke in support. During the meeting, over 90% of those speaking indicated that the proposed amendment was a "solution in search a problem." All of the commissioners voiced serious concerns with the amendment as it is written, more than half openly stating that they would not support it. It is clear to those who live in the hillsides and stand witness to it on a daily basis, that wildlife travels with relative freedom, as evidenced by their increased presence in and around hillside properties. In fact, this has placed an increased burden upon the residents to protect themselves from property damage, as well as health and safety hazards posed by the increase in wildlife. Limiting multi -acre parcels to a 30 ft perimeter around the primary dwelling, together with permitting restrictions and expense, places an undue burden upon these owners in their efforts to simply protectthemselves, let alone to realize full use and enjoyment of their property. Hillside residents choose to live there because the rural, less congested environment allows for larger parcels, which provide greater privacy and increased enjoyment for their families. The proposed amendment would represent a material intrusion upon their property rights, affecting residents' security, safety, health, property value, privacy and quiet, economic enjoyment of their property. As such it may constitute a compensable regulatory "taking" of these properties, and could even create a future liability for the town, were an incident to occur that could have been avoided, but for the restriction on the property owner's ability to protect themselves, as a result of such an amendment. The comments heard at the September 13th meeting represented an impassioned plea for the Town Council to reject the proposed amendment, thereby placing no further restrictions upon the property rights of hillside residents. It also served as an example of why the Town Council must make a more concerted effort to solicit input from those that would be most directly, and significantly, affected by such changes. Rather than the "one -size -fits -all," overly restrictive, approach of the proposed ordinance, several reasonable alternatives were offered by hillside residents to address any case wherein an actual problem might exist. These should be considered as a necessary element of informed decision -making. Finally, one can only surmise how many residents might have attended and offered comment, had the meeting and its subject matter been better communicated. The town frequently mails notices to residents in proximity to proposed developments, soliciting input. At the very least, the Town Council should make the same effort, ensuring that those living in the hillsides are fully alerted to proposed changes such as these, and afford them the opportunity to comment, before making unilateral decisions with such broad affect. The hillside residents are tax paying citizens, equal in every way to in -town residents. They deserve to be afforded all the same considerations, and the Town Council should act accordingly to protect their rights. Michael Michaelis From: Pam Bond [mailto:pamabond@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 24, 2017 9:22 PM To: Council Subject: Proposed Code Amendments regarding hillside property fences Dear Councilmembers, I read the proposed code amendments. Our property is in the hillside zoning and so we did see some of the requirements when we were building our house 5 years ago. So am somewhat familiar with the wording, etc. My concerns with these proposed changed to hillside residences are that a 42" fence height is not great for people with kids. I know that the goal is to let wildlife pass through but this could be pretty scary for kids to encounter a coyote or basically any wildlife that can jump a 42" fence. We are always out with our kids and can generally see them but I would be nervous to have a shorter fence and feel comfortable letting the kids run around. The hedging option only partially solves this since there would still be periodic gaps. Also, anyone with dogs will need to figure out what to do about their dogs if they want them to run around. I don't think 42" will keep larger dogs inside their property. I guess they'd need a dog run and I'm not sure how people will feel. We don't have a dog but have been thankful on walks when we walk past a property with a dog and find a much higher fence (I'd assume maybe 5' for safety?). I would imagine people would have concerns for security and safety with a 42" fence limit too. We still get bobcats and foxes and smaller animals with our metal 6' fence. Bobcats hop our fence easily. Foxes can slip under and coyotes, if they manage to dig a little, can get in as well. We had a coyote problem where the neighbor's chickens were being poached by a coyote and brought to our yard to eat them. We can keep the coyotes out when we plug holes under fences, and I'd prefer to keep it that way for our kids' safety. If we let the deer in, there would be more limitations to what we could grow with our grey water irrigation system. We have mostly natives but even the natives are not deer proof I would imagine people will have issues with more limited landscaping plants due to deer. I think we could adapt if our fence ever falls down. But I am not sure others would. My main concerns are safety with the fencing height limit. Safety as relates to kids (keeping them in and keeping them safe), aggressive dogs (keeping them from jumping fences), and property safety (keeping criminals out). I do care about wildlife corridors and I am concerned that residential encroachment will harm wildlife movement and health. I think there may be another solution. Wildlife corridors are great. Fencing setbacks on property are great. This proposal is seriously flawed and I think it would benefit from more research. Talking to other towns with similar hillside property and wildlife who have had success in creating wildlife corridors would be helpful. I didn't read anywhere with this proposal what they based their solution on. I'd like to know how wildlife is truly impacted and whether creating property set backs so that there are effective corridors either between properties or along roads would be helpful. We have deer that have a regular route where they walk along our fence on a small hill. There are regular tracks there. I am fairly certain that, at least in my neighborhood, the deer are the only somewhat restricted animals. All others have ways to get around any possible fence barriers. Even at that, if a deer really wants to, it can jump a 6' fence. They just don't seem to need to. Thanks, Pamela Bond 17140 Mill Rise Way Los Gatos, CA 95030 My name is Peter Donnelly and I live in a new residence at 15305 Suview Drive in Los Gatos. My wife and I worked hand in hand with the Planning Department to design and build a home that met the wide ranging conditions outlined in the Hillside Standards and Guidelines. While this was a lengthy and at times painful process I think our home and the neighborhood are better for the diligence and effort that went in to making it work for our 4.3 acre hillside property. I made comments on this topic at the last Planning Commission meeting which I assume are part of the record and are included in the materials you have reviewed in preparation for this meeting so I am not going to repeat those. Instead I wanted to raise three specific comments for your consideration We have Tots of rules in place today to govern development activity in the Hillside area. The Los Gatos Hillside Standards and Guidelines is a lengthy and wide ranging document that covers many topics including fencing (specifically chapter six: Site Elements). In fact there are six standards and a further five guidelines on fencing alone. I'm not going to document each of these to you as no doubt you are familiar with them. Needless to say they are comprehensive and designed to balance the needs of the property owners as well as ensure the free flow of wildlife in the hillsides. In Chapter 1 Standards are defined as "mandatory nondiscretionary regulations that must be followed". It seems pretty clear to me that we don't need any more rules At the previous Planning Meeting where this topic was discussed the sponsor of the document stated that the proposed ordinance simply codified what already exists in the Hillside Standards and Guidelines. This is simply not true. For example nowhere in the Hillside Standards and Guidelines does it call for taller fencing to be limited to within 30' of a primary residence (which by the way is not even defined in the document itself ... does it only include the house; what about an attached garage; or a detached garage; what about an in-laws quarters). There is language referring to ornamental landscaping to be restricted to within 30' of a primary residence (Chapter 7, Landscape Design) but that is not the only reason one might want to have taller fencing. What about a playground, an outdoor entertaining space, a guest cottage, detached garages, a fruit orchard, a utility area, an area for wild stock like goats or for domestic animals. All legitimate uses for the land and in most cases these development are governed by rules in the Hillside Standards and Guidelines. If you can build these elements per existing development rules then you ought to have the right to use and protect them. While the author of the document has subsequently tried to include exceptions for items such as a pool, sports court, livestock areas and orchards that are outside the 30' area this is very much a band -aid approach. If the document had been written properly there would not be a need for a long list of exceptions. Also if these exceptions are deemed acceptable by the author even though they could very well impact wildlife migration pathways why just these exceptions. Why not others? Surely if securing wildlife corridors RECEIVED NOV 2 8 2011 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION is a primary objective then that is what ought to be focused on as the outcome ... see next bullet point below • The language for the proposed ordinance makes the assumption that a problem exists everywhere as opposed to trying to address those situations where a problem may be created by introducing taller fencing. Rather than severely restrict a property owners use of their property to within 30' of a primary residence why not take an approach that requires minimum wildlife corridors. If it can be demonstrated that sufficient wildlife corridors exist then there isn't a problem and if there isn't a problem then we don't need any new rules. I personally don't think we need a new ordinance. If the Town Council concludes that we need to have something in place over and above what exists today in the Hillside Standards and Guidelines then it ought to be designed to solve the problem or achieve the desired outcome (the free flow of wildlife within the Hillsides) as opposed to penalizing everyone even though a problem doesn't exist across the majority of parcels. You can do better than what has been presented and I urge you to listen to the concerns raised by many residents around this topic and ensure whatever is implemented doesn't create unnecessary bureaucracy and further limit the rights of the property owners who pay dearly to live in this wonderful part of the Bay Area. Sean Mullin From: Cassandra Joseph <cjsmail2me@gmail com> Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 6:56 PM To: Sean Mullin Subject: Proposed town code amendment for fence heights Hello Sean, I would like you to know that I fully support the proposed town code amendment for fence heights, and to increase it to 7 feet. The 6 foot fence with 1 foot of lattice is what seems to be standard, as far as what I see pretty much all through Los Gatos. I think it would make sense to heighten the limit. People want and need privacy and escape from possibly noisy neighbors. I am in full support of this proposition. Thank you for your time in researching and making these proposed amendments. I think they would be beneficial to all. Sincerely, Cassandra Joseph From: Maud Gleason [mailto:maudgleason@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2017 8:31 AM To: Planning Subject: Hillside Fence Ordinance Ladies and Gentlemen, Here is my husband's perspective on the proposed ordinance.I have signed the petition against it. Sincerely, Maud Gleason 15298 Kennedy Road Los Gatos, 95032 15298 Kennedy Road Los Gatos, CA 95032 The proposed new fence ordinance, although well meaning, betrays a lack of understanding of the predator — prey behavior in our wonderful northern California ecosystem. We have lived on our property in Los Gatos, at the top of Kennedy Rd and adjacent to 20,000 acres of Mid Pen Open Space, for nearly 30 years, and have observed all of the species native to this area. We know by personal experience that a 6 foot fence does little to deter smaller predators, such as raccoons, coyotes, and bobcats, at least when there is a chicken dinner on the other side of the fence. However, a 6 foot fence does deter deer. Deer are the principal food of the apex predator in our hills. Each adult mountain lion kills one every 3 or 4 days, approximately 100 per year. This town wasn't named for house cats! The only times that mountain lions have been sighted on our property is when they have been hunting — in one case stalking a dog, in another, killing our goats. By reducing fence heights and making it easier for wildlife to travel, we will be inviting deer into our yards. And their predator will follow. Inevitably, mountain lions will have interactions with people and pets. The ones that persist in these behaviors will need to be seriously relocated or euthanized. This will be the unintended consequence of a "wildlife friendly" fence policy, which is therefore a bad idea! We have a local resource, if we need further information on mountain lion behavior. The UC Santa Cruz Puma Project has studied our local cats, and tracked them with radio collars. They would certainly be able to provide expert advice. Sincerely Yours, Frederick Holley MD Sean Mullin From: David Weissman <gryllus@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 8:04 AM To: Sean Mullin; Joel Paulson Subject: For TC 12/5 fence ordinance meeting Attachments: PV. FenceSketch (1).pdf; 11-28-2017. DBW draft. Fences.docx Please distribute the attached draft, and figure, to the TC members, and place them in the staff report and online. My changes from the staff draft presented to the PC on 9/17/2017, are shown in red type. Also, please distribute these articles to the TC members and place online: 1. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article24727537.html 2. https://ww2.kged.org/science/2017/07/27/Iyme-disease-in-california-sorting-fact-from-myth/ Thank you. Dave Dave Weissman 15431 Francis Oaks Way Los Gatos, CA 95032 H: (408) 358-3556 gryllus@gmail.com 1 1 My changes to staff draft presented at PC meeting of 9/17/2017, are shown in red type 2 3 Sec. 29.40.030xx. — Purpose and intent. 4 The Fence Ordinance is divided into two parts: non -hillside and hillside areas. The use of fences, walls. 5 gates, gateways, entry arbors, and hedges in the hillside areas shall be minimized and located so that 6 natural landforms appear to flow together and are not disconnected. The primary emphasis shall be on 7 maintaining open views, protecting wildlife corridors and habitat connectivitzr, and maintaining_the rural, 8 open, and natural character of the hillsides. Additional details are available in the HDS&G. 9 Sec. 29.40.030xx. — Definitions. 10 The following words, terms, and phrases, when used in this division. shall have the meanings ascribed to 11 them in this section. 12 Building envelope is the three-dimensional space on a parcel, excluding the required yard areas. The 13 building envelope area plus the required yard area constitutes the entire parcel. 14 Domestic fence is any fence that does not conform to the conditions of a horse fence. 15 Fence means a man-made structure serving as a barrier or screen constructed os wood met I wire 16 masenrYrelessrelastic tone er any .,,aterr..i 17 Fence height means measured from finished grade and shall be measured from either side of the 18 property line which affords affected property owners the most buffering from noise. light, glare, or 19 privacy impacts. 20 Hedae means a boundary formed by closely growing deciduous or evergreen bushes or shrubs. 21 Hillside lot means aparcel of land that is shown on the Hillside Area Map in the Hillside Development 22 Standards and Guidelines regardless of zoning district. 23 Horse fence means a fence not exceeding 48 inches in height above natural grade. It shall be of split rail 24 design, constructed of wood, and be at least 50% open in design. The minimum height above grade shall 25 be 16 inches and shall have 12-inch spacing between rails wherever feasible. 26 Movement corridor means a movement pathway that is typically independent of season and used by 27 animals on a near daily basis for the acquisition of food, shelter. water, and mates. 28 Open -view design means a fence or other structure that permits views through it. 29 Planting Zone 1 means that area within a 30-foot radius of the primary dwelling unit on a hillside lot. 30 Required yard means that area of open space between the parcel line and the building envelope. The 31 minimum width of this yard is equivalent to the setbacks listed in Sec. 29.40.270, except for rear 32 setbacks on parcels located in HR-20 (see below). 33 Retaining wall means a man-made structure designed to retain soil. 34 Riparian corridor means an area comprised of habitat strongly influenced and delineated by the 35 presence of perennial or intermittent streams. 36 Stream means a body of water that flows at least periodically or intermittently through a bed or channel 37 having banks. The body of water may include watercourses having a surface or subsurface flow that 38 supports or has supported riparian vegetation, fish. or aquatic life. RECEIVED NOV. 302017 TOWN OF LOS GATOS 1 PLANNING DIVISION 39 Top of bank means a stream boundary where a majority of normal discharges and channel forming 40 activities take place. The top of bank will contain the active channel, active floodplain, and their 41 associated banks. Where there are no distinguishable features to locate the top of bank, the local 42 permitting agency will make a determination and document as appropriate. In the absence of this 43 determination, the 100-year water surface will be used. 44 Traffic view area means that area, on corner Tots, which is within fifteen (15) feet of a public street and 45 within two hundred (200) feet of the right-of-way line of an intersection, or a distance of thirty (30) feet 46 measured horizontally in any direction from the point of intersection of the property lines at street 47 corners. 48 Wall means a man-made structure that defines an area, carries a load, or provides shelter or security, 49 Wildlife -friendly design means a fence, wail, hedge, or other structure that permits any animal, 50 regardless of size, to easily climb under, pass through. or lump over. 51 Sec. 29.40.030xx. — Non -hillside lots: Proposed new fences, walls, bates, gateways, entry arbors, and 52 hedges. 53 (A) In residential zones, no permits are required for the repair, replacement, or construction of 54 fences, walls, gates, gateways, entry arbors, or hedges that are less -no more than six (6) feet 55 high; or fences, walls, or gates that are no more than six (6) feet high, with one (1) foot of lattice 56 on top (seven (71feet high in total) on, or within all property lines. 57 (B) The following height exceptions shall apply: 58 (1) Corner lot: In a traffic view area, no corner lot or premises in the Town shall have any fence, 59 wall, gate, gateway, entry arbor, or hedge higher than three (3) feet above the curb unless 60 permission is secured from the Town Engineer. 61 (2) Properties not on a street corner: At the discretion of the Director of Community 62 Development, side yard and rear yard fences, walls, gates, gateways, entry arbors, or 63 hedges, behind the front yard setback, may be a maximum of eight (8) feet high provided 64 the property owner can provide written justification to the Planning Department that 65 demonstrates either of the following conditions exists: 66 a. A special privacy concern exists that cannot be practically addressed by additional 67 landscaping or tree screening. 68 b. A special wildlife/animal problem affects the property that cannot be practically 69 addressed through alternatives. Documented instances of wildlife grazing on 70 gardens or ornamental landscaping may be an example of such a problem. 71 72 (3) Historic Districts and/or Landmark and Historic Preservation Overlay: The maximum height of fences in the front yard shall be three (3) feet and shall be of open -view design. 73 (4) Gateways or entryway arbors: May be up to eight (8) feet high, including within Historic 74 Districts or for properties with a Landmark and Historic Preservation Overlay, and shall be of 75 open -view design. A gateway or entryway arbor shall have a maximum width of six (6) feet 76 and a maximum depth of four (4) feet. No more than one (1) gateway or entryway arbor 77 per street frontage is allowed. 78 (5) Adjacent to commercial property: Boundary line fences or walls adjacent to commercial 79 property may be eight (8) feet high if requested or agreed upon by a majority of the 80 adjacent residential property owners. 2 81 (C) Materials. The type of fencing materials within the non -hillside zone are generally unrestricted, 82 and fences can be a combination of materials, with the following exceptions: 83 (1) Plastic fencing is discouraged everywhere and is prohibited in Historic Districts. 84 (2) Barbed wire or razor ribbon wire is prohibited in all zones. 85 86 Sec. 29.40.030xx. — Hillside lots: Proposed new fences, walls. gates, gateways, entry arbors. and 87 hedges. 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 This division section covers any new fence, wall. gate, gateway, entry arbor, or hedge, and the replacement, modification, and/or repair of any existing fence, wall, gate, gateway, entry arbor, or hedge whether the primary dweliing_unit is new or existing. uuiding principles come from the HDS&G which state that rural -character fences s 'all allow wildlife to pass throuugh,that fences shall not be allowed in areas that would impede the movement of wildlife, and that deer fencing shall be limited to areas around ornamental landscaping with larger areas not to be enclose. •le the 3bsenee of zi ..rigiew For purposes of this division, hillside lots are divided into 2 sections — the building envelope, in which minimal fence restrictions are enforced; and the required yard, which is regulated to be more wildlife -friendly. 99 Fences within the building envelope of hillside lots do not require a permit and are subject to Section 100 29.40.030, Non-hiliside residential Tots above; however, fencing is limited to six (6) feet high in total. 101 Deer fencing up to eight feet in height shall be limited to areas around ornamental landscaping. 102 103 Fences within the required yards on hillside lots require a permit and are subject to the following 104 standards: 105 (1) HR-1 (one (1) to five (5) acres for each dwelling unit). Domestic fences or fences consistent 106 with the standards of a horse fence are allowed in required yards, including along property lines. 107 108 (2) HR-210S (two and one-half (21) to ten (10) acres for each dwelling unit). Only horse fences are 109 allowed in required yards, including along property lines, and shall be allowed only on slopes of 110 twenty percent (20%) or Tess. 111 112 (3) HR-5 (five (5) to forty (40) acres for each dwelling unit). Only horse fences are allowed in required 113 yards, including along property lines, and shall be allowed only on slopes of twenty percent (20%) or 114 less. 115 116 (4) HR-20 (twenty (20) to one hundred sixty (160) acres for each dwelling unit). Only horse fences are 117 allowed in required yards, including along property lines, and shall be allowed only on slopes of twenty 118 percent (20%) or less. Rear yard setbacks shall be 35 feet minimum width. 119 120 The following fence types and materials are not of wildlife -friendly design and are therefore prohibited 121 in the required yard: 122 la) Chain -link, chicken wire, welded wire, wire mesh, cyclone or similar fence material. 123 (b) Buck and rail fences. 3 124 (c) Any fence with bare lengths of wire stretched between hosts. 125 (d) Electric fences, including any fence designed to produce an electric shock. 126 (e) Barbed or razor wire fences, including any fence with attached barbs, sharp points, or razors. 127 (f) rouble fens. 128 (g) All hedges 129 130 131 All new hillside fences, hedges, and walls are subject to the following restrictions: 132 (1) Open -view design fences, that do not detract from the scenic nature or character of the 133 surrounding area, are encouraged everywhere within the hillsides. Only open fencing should 134 be located within 20 feet of the property line adjacent to a street. 135 (2) Traditional split -rail fences are encouraged. Rural styles shall emphasize natural colors such 136 as brown, grey or green. 137 (3) Fences and hedges shall be located to follow natural contours. whenever possible. 138 (4) Fences and hedges shall be located to avoid impacts to trees, animal movement corridors. 139 and other natural features. 140 141 (5) Riparian corridor. No domestic or horse fence, wall, gate or hedge shall be constructed within a riparian corridor or within 30 feet of its top of bank. 142 16) Prohibited materials. Barbed or razor wire fences, including any fence with attached barbs, 143 sharp points, or razors, are prohibited. 144 145 146 (7) No fence, wall, gate, or hedge shall be constructed in the public or private right-of-way or within any trail easement or other easement precluding their construction unless allowed, in writing, by the Town Engineer. 147 (8) All domestic yard hedges, greater than 30 feet from the primary residence, and outside 148 planting zone 1, shall consist of only plant species listed in Appendix A of the HDS&G. 149 (9) Walls 150 (A) Walls are prohibited unless needed for privacy as determined by the Director of 151 Community Development. 152 1B) Town approved retaining walls are permitted. 153 (10) Fences existing when this ordinance takes effect, are exempt from these conditions, except 154 as described below under repair, replacement or modification. 155 (F) Repair, replacement or modification of existing fences, walls, hedges or gates: 156 a, When a portion of a fence exceeding twenty-five percent of the total length (a straight 157 run) of fencing within required yards on a property is damaged or voluntarily removed, 158 any replacement fencing of that portion shall conform to the fence regulations pursuant 159 to a fence permit. The permit shall be posted on site during construction. 160 gj Are encouraged if such changes improve wildlife movement or animal corridors. 161 j Replacement or modification of any fence, wall, hedge or gate shall be prohibited if the 162 Town Engineer determines that a public safety hazard exists. 163 (G) Exceptions: 4 164 (1) A temporary (1 to 3 year), animal excluding, protective circular enclosing fence may be erected 165 in required yards to protect, until established, a newly planted tree or shrub, when that plant 166 species is listed in Appendix A of the HDS&G. 167 12) Enclosure fencing around vineyards, orchards. and vegetable gardens shall be limited to those 168 areas requiring., enclosure and does not have to be wildlife friendly. Such fencing is prohibited in 169 required yards except for HR-1 zoning. 170 f3) Security fencing required to protect a public utility installation. 171 (4) Written exceptions may be granted when the Director of Community Development finds that 172 the strict application of these requirements will result in a significant hardship for the property 173 owner. 174 (H) Fees. The fee, as adopted by ` , prescribed 175 therefore in the municipal fee schedule, shall accompany any application for a fence in the 176 Hillside area submitted to the Town for review and evaluation pursuant to this division. (NOTE: 177 f ortold 'valley cndr ;es 110 tur s horse fence permits arid $225 for aii'other ier ce permits). 178 (I) Enforcement. Any fence,wall,gate, gateway, entry arbor, or hedge constructed, replaced, 179 modified, or repaired without required approval, is a violation of this Code. 180 (J) Where a conflict exists between the Covenant& Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) of a hillside 181 Planned Development (PD) and this document, the requirements of this document shall prevail. 182 (K) Notices. Noticing_shall comply with the public noticing procedures of Section 29.20.480 of the 183 Town Code. 184 (Ord. No.1316, § 4.10.020, 6-7-76; Ord. No. 1493, 3-17-81; Ord. No. 1873, § I, 10-7-91; Ord. No. 185 2049, § I, 10-5-98; Ord. No. 2062, § I, 6-21-99; Ord. No. X)XX, § ) 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 5 Ati riaoftegor N 1Z HIM 1,1411ter M1450,5 teitata resa PEW rr fsom c 1oWM aND nn+nsT MX* LJOtAtISP #1 tiMett SIAS co r- or drnul lee 44,i1►l0 lapek lT ttop POW 4404i/flof u t 1 lie eaxe l g tkivgMT. 104 = OttvulatiP IftePs- OtiN -- aow*n a ED (.01601 of feta u u. it 00010 pi ebrionl egAg• $ t3 K ....... a r .... o offir a Ar arm . . a. a.. ... ...I. .... a. ...r.ro AY • .0. • ..... • .....wis i �.— OAS —1 --Kamer aVP ubPew Crzewuti 4- ttol i 1* 9011104 ON 1 cAwot atINA Ow NJ kl►. AN IHrrih Itioak a4uSr GtAliii m eequiesiviewe RECEIVED NOV. 3 0 2011 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION This Page Intentionally Left Blank KED Science NEWSfHTTPS:/IWW2.KQED.ORG/SCIENCE/CATEGORY/f(EWS/1 Know How to Protect Yourself From Lyme Disease on Bay Area Hikes Lyme -infected western blacklegged ticks have been found in 42 out of California's SE counties. (ErvicAquino) By Anna Kusmer thttps://ww2 kqed org/science/author/akusmer/1 JULY 27, 2017 Northern California has many attractions, but the fact that it's prime tick habitat isn't one of them. RECEIVED NOV 3a'ti'1r -rnwN OF LOS GATOS Adding to the angst surrounding outdoor activities is that tick hotspots are unevenly distributed on a patchy landscape. SHARE `Medicine has the tendency to want a vaccine or a clear antibiotic silver bullet, and I don't think the Lynne system gives us that luxury.' — Nate Nieto, University of Northern Arizona One moment you're strolling through redwood forests, the next through oak forests, and a couple of hours later you may come across scenic chaparral. While on this iconic hike, you probably don't realize that you've moved through both high- and low -risk Lyme disease areas. The question is, do you know where you are most at risk? The answer is in the oak forest where layers of rich leaf litter are a kind of Club Med for ticks. It's Always Tick Season "Tick season" exists year-round in northern California, The highest risk is in the spring and early summer due to an abundance of juvenile ticks, known as nymphs (the most virulent life -stage). However, peak diagnosis time extends into July, because it can take a few weeks to realize that you have the disease. Summer is also particularly dangerous for Lyme disease because that's when people spend the most time outside, and many of the most beautiful hiking areas tend to be tick -ridden. It's always tick season in Northern California. Peak season is spring and early summer. (Bay Area Lyme foundation) Most people associate Lyme disease with the Northeastern U.S. and the upper Midwest, and for good reason (https:lhvww.cdc.govllymelstats)maps.htmll; the vast majority of cases are reported there, due mostly to the fact that the landscape is blanketed with prime tick habitat. On the west coast, the risk is real, but it's different. How to prevent a tick bite in the first place. • Dress the part: Ticks tend to like to climb upwards, so wear full-length pants, tucked into your socks, and a full length shirt, tucked into your pants • Pesticide options: Chemical tick -repellents or acaricides can be very effective et low dosages. Be sure to read manufacturer's instructions carefully. • Clean your body and clothes: Take a shower once you get home from a hike and throw your clothes in a hot dryer for a 1-hour cycle. • Check your pets and yourself: Perform a thorough tick check when you get home. Ticks can travel into your house on dogs and cats. "There are definitely patches in California where the risk is just as high as the East -it's just not the same spatial extent," says Dan Salkeld, research scientist at Colorado State University. The overall abundance of Lyme ticks is relatively low on the West Coast; however, the risk is spread unevenly. Hikers can move from high -risk area to a low -risk area and never know it. In California, "You can be in one valley and rates of Lyme can be as high as in upstate New York, Connecticut or Rhode Island," says Nate Nieto, a microbiologist at Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff. "Then you go over one ridge, the habitat changes completely - and there's nothing," Part of what puts Californians at risk is a lack of awareness — among the public and even among doctors. Much of the research and public health information is based on east coast ecology and may not apply to the West. For many Californian physicians, Lyme disease is just not on the radar, even though according to the Bay Area Lyme Foundation (}lttp:/Iwww.bavarealyme.orgI), Lyme -infected ticks have been located in qz of California's 58 counties (highest incidence were in Trinity, I Iumbolt and Mendocino as of 2014). About ioo cases of Lyme disease are reported in California each year, but according to Supervising Public Health Biologist Kerry Padgett of the state Department of Public Health, the disease is likely more widespread. "There is an under -diagnosis and under -reporting of Lyme disease in California," says Padgett. How Ticks Make Us Sick Lyme disease is caused by a microscopic spiral -shaped bacteria called borrelia burgdorferi. On the west coast, these Lyme disease - causing bacteria live inside the guts of the western blacklegged tick and can travel into the blood streams of bitten animals.Ticks generally live for two or three years. They are born Lyme -free, and will contract or transmit Lyme during feeding, once during each of their three life stages. Slue -bellied lizards are our friends. Their blood actually cures infected ticks of Lyme disease. The "grapes" in this lizard's ear are all feeding ticks, (ErvicAquino) When a Lyme -infected tick bites, it typically takes 36-48 hours for the bacteria to make the journey from the tick's gut to their mouth and into the blood of their host. The process can take as little as 24 hours. Only 15-zo percent of backlegged ticks contain Lyme disease during their nymph stage, and that number is much lower, t-z percent, in adults. A Forest Full of Frenemies To determine disease risk of a particular place, researchers look to some of the tick's favorite foods. The most common reservoir of Lyme disease — the species that initially infects ticks — is the western gray squirrel, So avoid gray squirrel habitat and you're safe? Not so fast. Enter the blue -bellied lizard (also known as the western fence lizard), which is naturally immune to Lyme disease, and has special proteins in its blood that will cleanse infected ticks of the pathogen. WHAT TO DO IF YOU FIND A TICK ON YOU: Adult (left) and nymph (right) western blacklegged ticks. (BayArea Lyme Foundation) If you find a tick on your body, don't panic! Remove the tick and keep track of what happens. • Is the tick feeding? That is, is the tick embedded in the skin? • If the tick is embedded, slowly and steadily, with even pressure, remove the entire tick by pulling it straight out with a pair of tweezers. Do not jerk or twist the tick. Remove any mouthparts that break off during removal. Then, if possible, save the tick in a jar or plastic bag. DO NOT try to kill the tick with oil or snatches while it's feeding. (If you do, it will release the contents of its gut into you,) • Clean the bite area with rubbing alcohol or soap and warm water. • How long did it feed? If it's less than 36 hours, there's a high probability that you are safe. • Pay attention to your symptoms. If in 6-to-12 days, you have any kind of fever, go and see a doctor. • A bulls -eye rash around the tick bite is a sure-fire way to know if you've contracted Lyme, but this symptom only shows up in 5p-70 percent of cases. Other symptoms include headache, fatigue, and skin rash. So, a tick could feed on a squirrel and contract Lyme, which could then be neutralized when it bites a lizard. "If you go into dense black oak woodland, which is prime habitat for ticks and squirrels, we find a higher proportion of infected ticks," explains Salkeld. "However, if you move into a broken clearing with more light, you're going to find more lizards, and the prevalence of Lyme goes down." Lyme disease involves many different species and is ecologically complex, which makes it a notoriously difficult problem to solve for researchers and public health officials. "Nledicine has the tendency to want a vaccine or a clear antibiotic silver bullet, and I don't think the Lyme system gives us that luxury," says Nieto. "Lyme disease is something that we call, in the science world, a complex system, meaning that there's a bunch going on here," be continues. " there's a bunch of hosts, there's a bunch of vectors, and there's a bunch of pathogens, and that makes things difficult." Mapping a Pathogen California's diverse landscape and the complex interplay among species makes predicting Lyme tricky. However, the greatest risk posed to Californians might be a lack of awareness. Doctors here are less likely to suspect Lyme when patients come in with characteristic symptoms. "I have talked to physicians who say that they are not aware of Lyme disease in California," says Salkeld. Organizations, such as the Bay Area Lyme Foundation, along with researchers like Nieto and Salkeld, are working to change the narrative and build the necessary evidence to make doctors aware of the scale of the problem. The foundation has a J ttp:Jjwww.bayarealyme.org/bloglbay-area-Lyme-foundation-offers-free-tick-testing-nationwide f offering free tick testing nationwide, which aims to map tick -borne diseases across the country by encouraging concerned citizens to send in samples. "We're working on gathering real empirical data to show that Lyme is in the ecosystems of the West Coast," says Nieto, "We're getting clinical samples, ecological [tick] samples, and wildlife host samples_._so we can change the educational paradigm within the medical schools and say, 'It's not just the Northeast and upper Midwest' —it's in California too." "I think Californians should be aware of ticks, and the risks of tick -borne diseases, but the fear of disease should not keep them from enjoying the great outdoors," adds Padgett. "I really do feel it's possible to stay tick -safe while recreating and spending time outside." EXPLORE: BIOLOGY(HTTPS://WW2.KOED.ORG/SCWENCEICATEGORY/BIOLOGY/1 .ENVIRONMENT (HTTP5://WW2.KOED.ORG/SCIENCE/CATEGORY/ENVIRONMENT/) HEALTH fHTTPS://WW2.KOED ORG/SCIENCE/CATEGORY/HEALTH/I NEWS IHTTPS://WW2.KQED.ORG/SCIENCE/CATEGORYCNEWSII, BAY AREA fH. TTPS /C WW2.KOED i gG/SCIENC /TAGII�fi'L AIR a!I•HIKING ]TPS://WW2.KOEQ QRG/SCIENCEfTAG/HIKING/1 LYME DISEASE 1HTTPS://WW2.KOED.ORG/SCIENCE/TAG/LYME-DISEASEf) TICKS fHTTPS://WW2.KOED.ORG/SCIENCE/TAG/TICKS/) (https:/Aww2. kged, or glscie nce/2017/O 7I27/lyre. disease. in-california-sorting-fact-ft om6n ythI sha e=facebook&nb -1) (htIps://vvw2.kgect.o g/science/ ' ' 71C)7I27/ 'rne-disease. ire c:3lifoI.nia sorting. fact- fr.orn-t1l 11hi shdre:fitter rile:: 1) (laps://v'v'2.kged.orgfscience!2O17If7/2 7/1,ynie.. disease faci fE0r -moil r() :�l ��ah l �� ►E'.`.>t it l= i //VOA'7 1 .rI:-c ( r.c-.I''��I f/(}il.'��'i,�IEF�(' .c,i�.� tpi"1 1i opL,f,fl:,,�r�ic. p c� 7 Comments (https://ww2.kged.arg/science/2017/07/27/Iyme-disease-in-california-sorting-fact-from- myth/Stdisqusthread) AUTHOR ANNA KUSMER Anna Kusmer joins the KQED Science team as the 2o17 AAAS Mass Media Fellow. She has recently completed a MSc at McGill University in natural resource science in Montreal, Canada. Her interests range from sustainable and resilient agriculture to inclusive narratives of conservation and sustainability. Anna believes that stories can change the world. VIEW ®iL POSTS BY THIS AUTHQR SPONSORED BY Demme a KQED sponsor x ABOUT KQED SCIENCE Support of KQED Science is provided byFRbbi211111S ENi 1, Jr. Foundation, The Dirk and Charlene Kabcenell Foundat J(OED Science (https://sua.isged.orgifilaOrctrildMisgriqighArggilittili9PARYVItAPEI Afc# 1'nM'P8r51'neRirMPA i9f fl14iTh f 414d3ii89AcEII$ , embe the flagship Northern California PBS and NPR affiliate. Partners. Uscience/about/#oartnersl and lean more our 19 Community COPYRIGHT e 2017 KQED INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. I TERMS OF SERVICE UABOUT/t$ELP/TERM5-SERVICE/I I PRIVACY POLICY (/ABOUT/HELP/PRIVACY/1 i CONTACT US (!ABOUT/CONTACT/I NATIONAL As habitat disappears, so does California's deer r opulation Matt Weiser- The Sacramento Bee APIiIL 09.2012 06:41 AM UPDATED APRIL 09, 2012 06:46 AM An estimated 445,000 deer live in California, or about equal to the city of Sacramento's human population. Which sounds like a lot, until you realize the deer are spread over the entire state: 99 million acres. If there were only 445,000 people in California, how long would it take you to find somebody you really wanted to hang out with? Such is the plight of the state's deer population, our most iconic emblem of the forest. Without much notice, the species has declined slowly but relentlessly in virtually every corner of the state. The decline has been almost too small to see on an annual basis. But since 1990, California has lost nearly half its deer population, according to the state Department of Fish and Game. "Our deer are surviving, they're not thriving," said Craig Stowers, deer program manager at Fish and Game. "Quite frankly, until people start taking this seriously, we're going to continue to experience these types of declines." This forest icon is on the wane mainly for one simple reason: habitat loss. Between 1990 and 2000, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 75,000 acres per year were converted to low -density housing across California. A recent Bee analysis of housing data showed a similar trend over the past decade, at least until the recession began. The rate was even greater before 1990. This land conversion eliminated food and migratory corridors vital to deer. "You can't have a good migratory deer population when their wintering ground is covered in residential development for humans," Stowers said. "They're competing for the same resources we need, and they're losing." The species in question are mule deer and blacktail deer. Both species are lumped together in Fish and Game's 2011 population estimate of about 445,000 deer statewide, a drop from 850,000 in 1990. The state manages its deer herds according to zones defined by habitat and deer behavior. Of the 45 zones, only about six have deer populations that held steady or increased slightly since 1990. These are generally found in some of the least -populated areas of the state. All the other zones declined significantly. Rural residents might tell a different story. They see deer frequently around their yards, in their gardens, and as roadkill. Indeed, deer in these areas are often considered a pest. Deer require a particular type of forest habitat called "early seral." This means they prefer to eat the tender, nutritious, young vegetation that surges for several years after a forest fire or other land disturbance. The problem for rural residents, these days, is that deer primarily find this kind of food in the vigorous growth of gardens and landscaping that tend to go with rural housing development. The natural sources of this deer food have been largely eliminated by a century of fire suppression in forests - the same problem that has caused forests to become overstocked with small, young trees that now pose an enormous fire risk. Land management agencies such as the U.S. Forest Service now understand this error of excessive fire suppression. The problem is that allowing more fire is difficult because the overly dense forests pose a massive wildfire risk, and because so many people and homes have cropped up in and near forests. It's a "double whammy" for deer, Stowers said. Much of their habitat has been eliminated by rural development. And the habitat that remains is poor quality. RECEIVED NOV 3 0 2011 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION "If deer numbers are poor, they are a real canary in the coal mine, so to speak," said Randy Morrison, Califor tia regional director at the Mule Deer Foundation, a conservation and hunting organization. "They are a real bellwether species for a given habitat. r.nd our habitat is not healthy, no question about it." Complicating the problem is that, when a wildland fire does occur, there is often a rush to remove the burned trees and replant with seedlings. Often this comes with herbicide spraying to prevent other plants from competing with the seedlings. This impulse eli ninates the natural forest regeneration that would support deer populations. And ifs not just deer. A study last year by PRBO Conservation Science, which examined conditions after fires 3n the Plumas and Lassen national forests, found that dozens of songbird species benefit from the same kind of post -fire habitat that emerges when a burned area is left alone. "It's a hard sell," said Craig Thomas, executive director of the environmental group Sierra Forest Legacy. "People look at burned trees and they say, 'Oh God, let's get the green ones back.' The early seral habitat could be really diverse and beautiful if we thought about it as a valuable thing. Deer suffer when we don't think that way." Deer are also an iconic species for hunters, and the population decline has not gone unnoticed in their circles. Mule and blacktail deer are California's primary big -game hunting species. Yet it has become increasingly difficult to harvest one. The statewide hunter success ratio for deer hunters in 2010 was 15 percent, according to Fish and Game data. That means about four out of five hunters who purchased a License and deer tag from the state and attempted to harvest venison for their family failed to bring any home. In Colorado, by comparison, the hunter success rate for deer in 2011 was 43 percent, according to that state's Department of Wildlife. "Our deer numbers are down to a point where success is definitely limited, which has been very discouraging to many hunters," Morrison said. Because deer are a popular hunting species, they are intensively managed by Fish and Game and vast quantities of data are gathered when a hunter reports a kill. As a result, Fish and Game knows there are problems with the demographics of the remaining deer population. The leading concern is that the species is now dominated by older females, Stowers said, which do not have the same breeding success as younger females. This makes it more difficult to rebuild the population. Going back to the habitat problem, many of the fawns that do get born don't make it to adulthood - apparently because there just isn't enough to eat. Fish and Game grades deer on a health scale from zero to 100, and most get a rating of 50 or below. "We have yet to find a doe in this state that we would rate above a medium to poor condition," Stowers said. In contrast, bucks are generally healthy. Being larger, they are able to outcompete other deer for whatever food there is. Complicating matters is the fact that hunting regulations - and many hunters - are focused on harvesting bucks. Only male deer have the showy antlers that make a good take-home trophy. In 2010, the most recent data available, California hunters harvested 25,956 bucks and just 469 does. This means the older does, instead of getting culled from the population, are just growing older. Stowers said regulations need to be adjusted to encourage a larger doe harvest. Morrison agreed. He said it would be appropriate in some areas - and hunters would support it - if the doe harvest was carefully monitored to avoid harming breeding success. Many hunters blame the deer decline on mountain lions, which primarily feed on deer. The claim is that a state law that banned mountain lion hunting, passed by voters in 1990, allowed the deer -hungry mountain lion population to grow unchecked. There has not been a thorough study of the state's mountain lion population in many years, and there are no formal monitoring programs in place. Fish and Game estimates the population at between 4,000 and 6,000 lions, but even this estimate is dated. There are hints, however, that even mountain lions are running out of deer to eat and turning to other food instead. Recent evidence of a decline in porcupines across the state could be attributed to mountain lions, one of the few predators known to eat the prickly rodent. There also have been reports of mountain lions eating feral pigs in the state's coastal regions. Morrison, however, doesn't buy the mountain lion argument. "I believe it's habitat, habitat, habitat," he said. "So far, I don't believe we're turning the tide at all. I'm concer led. Very concerned." To read more, visit www.sacbee.eom. From: Tanya Kurland[mailto:tsavkgmail.crocodile.orq] On Behalf Of Tanya Kurland Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 9:34 AM To: Council Cc: Town Manager Subject: regarding Town Code Amendment A-17-002 Hello, My name is Tanya Kurland and I live at 15275 Suview Dr., Los Gatos. I am writing to you to express my disagreement with the proposed Town Code Amendment A-17-002 "Draft Amendments to Chapter 29 of Town Code — Hillside Fences." My feedback focuses on one of the aspects related to the proposed restrictions on fence height in the hillside areas of the town. Restricting the height of the fences to 42" and bringing them as close as 30' from homes allows deer and other wild animals to come close to, and possibly in contact with, people. This brings potentially lethal Lyme disease closer to the townspeople and unnecessarily elevates the risk of the infection. The chronic forms of tick -borne infections have left many patients mentally and physically debilitated. New reports suggest Lyme disease and its co -infections may be life -threatening. Many patients go undiagnosed for years. Most never recall being bitten, less than half ever show the telltale "bullseye rash," and as many as 20% continue to experience symptoms even after treatment. Current diagnostics miss up to 60% of cases of early -stage Lyme disease, as it can take weeks for the body to develop measurable antibodies against the infection. http://www.sheamedical.com/the-overlooked%E2%80%93and-deadly%E2%80%93 complications-of- lyme-disease-and-its-coinfections The author of the proposed Amendment, Dr. David Weissman, wrote to me in an email that "keeping habitats open that support good numbers of western fence lizards, is the best way to combat Lyme Disease since the young ticks that feed on lizards, are cleansed of the bacteria." While some other studies do show that ticks feeding on western lizards stop carrying Lyme disease bacteria, a prominent UC Berkley study published in 2011 found evidence to contradict that conclusion. The study showed that areas where lizards had been removed actually saw a subsequent drop in the population of the ticks that transmit Lyme disease. Ticks could not find substitute hosts and died. http://news.berkeley.edu/2011/02/15/ticks-lizard-lyme-disease/ In addition, it would be false to assume that the presence of western lizards in our area means that we don't have Lyme disease carrying ticks. In fact, Stanford research determined widespread presence of Lyme disease carrying ticks in Santa Clara county in 2014. According to Dan Salkeld, a disease ecologist at the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment, the study also found a second tick -related bacteria, previously undetected in the region, that can bring on flu -like symptoms such as relapsing fever and severe aches and pains in infected humans. http://www.mercurynews.corn/20 1 4/02/19/stanford-study-finds-lyme-di cease -widespread -in -bay -area - open -spaces/ Deer and other wild animals carry the ticks that spread Lyme disease. Tick larvae and nymphs feed on small animals, like squirrels and lizards, but adult ticks feed on big mammals such as deer and coyotes. These wild mammals carry the infected ticks and, without fences to restrict therm, bring ticks closer to people. The Bay Area Lyme Foundation, in a website page titled, "Manage your property" advises that individuals should "build fences to keep out deer" to prevent Lyme disease. http://www.bayarealyme.org/lyme-disease-prevention/manage-property/ The Bay Area Lyme Foundation has a very impressive Scientific advisory board with such names on it as John N. Aucott, MD, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Charles Chiu, MD, PhD, University of California, San Francisco, Monica Embers, PhD, Tulane University Health Sciences, Christine Green, MD, Board Member, LymeDisease.org & ILADS, Robert S. Lane. PhD, University of California, Berkeley, William Robinson, MD, PhD, Stanford University School of Medicine, Neil Spector, MD, Duke University School of Medicine, Irving Weissman, MD, Stanford University School of Medicine. I think that we should listen to the expert advice and not lower our fences. I would like to bring your attention to Chapter 30 - NEIGHBORHOOD PRESERVATION of Town Code, sec 30.10.010 -Purpose, it says: "This chapter is adopted to promote the health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the Town of Los Gatos". i believe that passing of the proposed Amendment would increase the odds of people getting sick and therefore its passing would contradict the very core of Town Code. Thank you, Tanya Kurland This Page Intentionally Left Blank