02-26-03 Minutes - GPC
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
110 East Main Street, Los Gatos, CA 95030 (408) 354-6872
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE GENERAL PLAN
COMMITTEE OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS, FEBRUARY 26, 2003 HELD IN THE
TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CIVIC CENTER, 110 EAST MAIN STREET, LOS GATOS,
CALIFORNIA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
The meeting was called to order at 5:35 pm by Chair Mike Burke
ATTENDANCE
Members Present: Mike Burke, Josh Bacigalupi, Sandy Decker, Phil Micciche, Joe Pirzynski,
Lee Quintana, Mark Weiner, Jo Zientek
Members Absent: Mark Sgarlato
Staff Present: Bud Lortz, Director of Community Development; Tom Williams,
Assistant Director of Community Development; Suzanne Davis, Associate
Planner; Dave Dockter, consulting arborist
Others Present: Tim Boyd, Donna Carson, Laura Crowe, Ray Davis, Gregory Hardman,
Sam & Lucille Weidman, Dave Weissman, Larry Paulding, Richard Zai
Verbal Communications:
Dave Weissman said that he has been trying to get the Town to revise the Tree Ordinance for a
number of years. He recently met with Dave Dockter and he is impressed with him and thinks
the Town is going the right direction. He urged the Committee to give support to the ordinance.
It is very important to have enforcement criteria to back it up. Previous infractions have gone
unenforced, and he feels that if there is no deterrent, it will continue to go on.
ITEM 1: TREE ORDINANCE UPDATE
Suzanne Davis introduced the item, going through the attachments and asking the Committee to
provide direction on charging a cost recovery fee for Tree Removal Permits, creating a Tree
Technical Manual and moving forward with the draft ordinance.
Dave Dockter explained the tree pruning example and attached penalty assessment.
Mike Burke asked if construction projects in violation can have worked stopped. It was noted
that the ordinance includes a provision allowing work to be stopped if evaluation is needed.
Phil Micciche asked about a resident trimming branches from a tree overhanging a property line.
Dave Dockter said there is a limitation on pruning (25%).
Mike Burke asked about a tree limiting development potential of a property. Bud Lortz said that
the intent is to consider allowing removal of a tree that truly precludes development of a lot, but
that if the tree can be worked around, that is the objective.
Mike Burke said fees are generally acceptable. In some cases, a homeowner may be stuck with
a fee for a tree that they didn’t really want to remove (e.g. one that is damaged and/or requires an
emergency removal).
Mark Weiner suggested waiving fees for tree removal permits when the tree is dead or it is an
emergency removal.
Lee Quintana asked for clarification on fines for illegal removal. Dave Dockter explained that
the ordinance includes provisions that allow for enforcement.
Bud Lortz explained that code compliance issues require reimbursement on charges when
prosecution is required.
Lee Quintana said the Planning Commission sometimes has a resident who says a neighbor has
removed trees or detrimentally pruned a tree - how is that evaluated? Dave Dockter said that
estimates can be made based on size of limbs removed, percentage of tree that was removed, size
of trunk, etc. Enforcement in any capacity will be supported by the ordinance.
Sandy Decker said that clear cutting is sometimes a problem when a development is
forthcoming. DD said it would be a violation or illegal act to cut protected trees without permit.
Typically someone reports the brush/tree removal and it is then the enforcement procedures can
be followed.
Bud Lortz noted that the enforcement provisions are being increased and serious penalties can be
assessed.
Mike Burke asked if there will be more leeway for replacement trees. BNL said that the propose
ordinance will allow replacement trees to be planted off site if there isn’t an appropriate place on
the site.
Lee Quintana asked Dave Dockter to explain the discussion he had with Dave Weissman. Dave
Dockter said they discussed the draft ordinance, what happens if a penalty is assessed and the
property owner does not comply. Some of his concerns are related to the Grading Ordinance
and cannot be covered in the tree ordinance.
Joe Pirzynski said he is very impressed with the revised draft. It reflects the discussion from the
last General Plan Committee meeting and the model for a technical manual
A motion was made by Joe Pirzynski to accept the draft ordinance written. The motion was
seconded by Sandy Decker.
General Plan Committee Regular Meeting
February 26, 2003
Page 3 of 5
Ray Davis said that in Orinda they had tremendous experience with this subject. He feels that
only native trees should be protected. Eucalyptus, Palm trees, Monterey Pines, etc. should be
allowed to be taken out without a permit. He is also concerned about “monster trees” that have
outgrown a site. Homeowners should be allowed to remove a monster tree. The ordinance
does get to this, but in a round about indirect way. He feels this needs to be dealt with.
Mark Weiner asked if residents could be provided advice on indigenous trees that are of more
value.
Lee Quintana said there a couple of statements in the document that are conflicting and some
definitions that may need to be modified.
Joe Pirzynski said that this is a draft. Typographical and non-substantive changes can be made
before it moves forward to public hearing.
The motion with caveat that any comments on additional changes be forwarded to staff was
approved unanimously.
Joe Pirzynski said that a fee is reasonable if it is cost recovery. Emergency removal would be
exempt. A motion was made to this effect. The motion was seconded by Phil Micciche and
passed unanimously.
ITEM 2 TELECOMMUNICATIONS ORDINANCE
Tom Williams said that two community meetings have been held and the ordinance is in the
process of being drafted. He posed four questions to the Committee as follows:
1. Should there be an administrative level process for applications that meet all of the
standards of the ordinance?
2. Confirm that an alternative site analysis is mandatory for any proposed facility in a
residential zone?
3. Should the setbacks for wireless facilities extend greater than what is prescribed by the
underlying zone?
4. Confirm the use of existing structures for new wireless facilities (i.e. sport field light
standards) is preferred over new towers/monopoles.
The tentative Planning Commission meeting date is March 26, 2003. He would like to come
back to the Committee on March 12 with the draft ordinance.
General Plan Committee Regular Meeting
February 26, 2003
Page 4 of 5
Sandy Decker said she is worried about saying that certain applications can be approved
administratively versus going to Planning Commission. She would like to see a comparison so
she fully understands what she is advising on (a matrix was suggested by Mark Weiner).
Mike Burke said that adjacent to residential should be a secondary area discouraged after
residential zones.
Joe Pirzynski said he appreciates what Tom is trying to do here. If the ordinance is written
correctly, and an applicant fulfills every item in it, it would be a real disservice to no have an
administrative process. Removing a portion of applications from the Commission and Council
process allows more time for evaluation of those that need to go through the public hearing
process.
Bud Lortz said that if an applicant does what the community wants, there is a faster process.
Phil Micciche would like to encourage more stealth antennas.
Public Comments:
Larry Paulding asked for clarification on areas with RC zoning and whether facilities be
proposed there. TW said that alternative site analysis would be required, and based on the type
of antenna(s) or facilities being proposed. He said the least desirable places to locate facilities is
around small R-1 zoned lots. Commercial zones are preferred. Hillside properties are typically
larger, and if a property owner wanted to have antennas, it might be within 50 feet of a neighbor.
He suggested using a 150 foot minimum setback.
Lucille Weidman said that the ordinance should more restrictive because it can always be
loosened, but it is difficult to tighten it once it is adopted. She requested a community meeting
for discussion of the draft ordinance before it is sent to the Planning Commission.
Richard Zai requested that residential zones be excluded from the ordinance. There is no reason
for locating a facility in a residential area. The safety fall zone should apply to existing towers
and not just new ones.
Sam Weidman thanked staff for spending time with residents listening to residents’ concerns.
He is getting the impression that this is going the right way, but he would like to have time to
review the draft ordinance prior to it being sent to the Planning Commission.
Laura Crowe wants to see the ordinance before it moves into the public hearing stage. The
ordinance is about restricting something. She would like the ordinance to be as restrictive as it
can be without being noncompliant with federal regulations. A lot of the language in the outline
is wishy washy and she would like to see it tightened. She does not feel the ordinance can be
too restrictive.
General Plan Committee Regular Meeting
February 26, 2003
Page 5 of 5
Tim Boyd said that he is concerned about the timing issue. The current moratorium expires in
June. The Planning Commission doesn’t have to vote on this at its next meeting. The
moratorium can be extended. He urged some restraint in making and adopting an ordinance that
everyone can be happy with.
Ray Davis said the idea of asking the General Plan Committee for input on the questions
presented tonight without any advance notice or background is absurd. The DRC is a technical
committee only and in his opinion should not be making discretionary decisions.
Joe Pirzynski asked about the timing and said he is concerned about moving forward without
allowing enough time for community input. Tom Williams said he anticipates getting the
ordinance out next week. If the Committee would like more time, he could bring it back on
March 26, and then go to the Planning Commission on April 9 and to the Council in May.
Bud Lortz said that the Council’s direction to staff was that this be done in an expedited manner
and that staff try to avoid asking for an extension on the moratorium.
This item was continued to the meeting of March 26, 2003.
ITEM 3 Minutes of January 22, 2003
Joe Pirzynski moved to approve the minutes of January 22, 2003 as submitted. The motion was
seconded by Phil Micciche and passed unanimously (Mike Burke abstained as he was not at that
meeting).
Meeting adjourned at 6:50 pm
Prepared by:
___________________________
Suzanne Davis, Associate Planner
cc: Planning Commission Chair
General Plan Committee
N:\DEV\SUZANNE\GENPLAN\GPC\2003Minutes\GPC-2-26-03.wpd