Item 20 Staff Report Consider Report on Evaluation of Town Regulations that Restrict Removal of Vegetation in Hillside Areas.COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DATE: April 20, 2000
TO: MAYOR AND TO WT I COUNCIL
FROM: TOWN MANAGER
SUBJECT:
MEETING DATE: 5/01/00
ITEM NO. 0
CONSIDER REPORT ON EVALUATION OF TOWN REGULATIONS THAT RESTRICT
REMOVAL OF VEGETATION IN HILLSIDE AREAS
RECOMMENDATION:
Consider report on evaluation of Town regulations to restrict removal of vegetation in hillside areas.
DISCUSSION:
During the February 26, 2000, Town Council Study Session, information was received from Dr. David Weissman about
the removal of vegetation in hillside areas. The Council asked Town staff to research Dr. Weissman's concerns and
prepare a report for Council consideration. On March 21,2000, staffmet with Dr. Weissman and discussed his concerns.
Dr. Weissman submitted information for review and consideration that addresses his concerns about administrative
procedures, Town code, and public participation (Attachment 1).
Staff has reviewed the information submitted by Dr. Weissman with the Town Engineer and Town Attorney and the
results of that review are provided below.
General Comments
Dr. Weissman's suggestions are noted. Town staff will endeavor to incorporate his suggestions into administrative
procedures. In general, Town staff make every effort to respond to citizen inquiries in a timely manner. There are times
that a response is delayed due to workload, type of question asked, research needed to prepare the response and other
factors. Interdepartmental communication is constantly being improved. The use ofmodern technology (i.e. email, voice
mail and cell phones) has greatly assisted communication between departments.
Grading Permits
The Town of Los Gatos encourages maximum community involvement in its decisions and requires a public hearing for
many land use matters and notification to immediate neighbors and property owners for minor development projects
that other jurisdictions process at a staff level. Section 29.10.09045 of the Town Code states that no grading permit shall
be issued without Development Review Committee (DRC) approval. Approval shall not be granted for grading unless
the purpose for which the grading is proposed is essential for a use permitted by Town Code and unless the grading will
be compatible with its environs and will result in the least disturbance of the terrain. Following are the exceptions to
this requirement.
(Continued on Page 2)
PREPARED BY: PAUL L. CURTIS
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Reviewed by: Attorney Revised: 4/20/00 2:01 PM
Reformatted: 7/ 14/99
PAGE 2
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: EVALUATION OF TOWN REGULATIONS THAT RESTRICT REMOVAL OF VEGETATION IN
HILLSIDE AREAS.
April20, 2000
A. The grading is limited to street improvement work over which the Town exercises inspection authority.
B. The grading is necessary to accommodate construction which has already received Town approval and the
record shows that the specific grading was considered during the approval proceedings (ie: a new single
family residence).
C. Grading is required for emergency purposes.
Neighborhood notification of grading permits is not required by Town Code. However, about six months ago, the
DRC began treating applications for a grading permit similar to Minor Residential Development Applications due to
neighborhood concern about grading which occurred to accommodate a tennis court. Grading permits now include
notification to the immediate neighbors and property owners. If no one opposes the proposed grading, then the
application is approved by the DRC. If someone opposes the proposed grading, every effort is made to resolve their
concerns. If that is not possible and the proposed grading complies with Town regulations, the project is approved
by the DRC. The opposing party may then appeal the DRC approval to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Weissman mentions that only a $100 fine is imposed on grading violations, Currently, the Grading Ordinance
establishes a fee of $500 per day for each grading violation which is assessed and recovered as a civil action.
Attorney's fees and reasonable expenses may also imposed. In 1999, the Town Attorney assessed a $500.00 fine
against a property owner who had improperly filled a portion of a creek bed. The fine was paid.
Lot Line Adjustments
The DRC has authority to approve lot line adjustments and neighborhood notification is not required. The State
Subdivision Map Act requires that the deciding body for lot line adjustments shall limit its review to determining
whether or not the parcels resulting from the adjustment will conform to local zoning and building ordinances.
Typically, the request for a lot line adjustment is to straighten an odd shaped property line, to provide a better
building site for a difficult lot or to mitigate an existing structure which is crossing a property line. Staff does not
believe that there is any merit to require neighborhood notification for lot line adjustments.
Grading/Tree Protection Ordinances
Dr. Weissman points out problems with numerous sections of the Town Code that regulate grading and tree removal.
While the Town Code may have areas that can be improved, it generally provides adequate control over grading
activities and tree removal and has worked well for many years. "Recreational" grading has been and will continue
to be an issue that the Town will have to address in a proactive manner. Staff will consider drafting amendments to
the Town's grading and tree protection regulations to tighten the regulations but there will always be people who are
either ignorant of the Town's regulations and violate the rules or look for ways to circumvent the regulations. The
administrative procedures that are used to abate violations have been improved as well as internal communication to
ensure all affected Town staff are aware of a pending violation. The question of cumulative tree trimming and
removal of ground cover is a difficult one. It is possible that someone could trim a third of a tree every year and over
a period of years essentially remove the tree; however, this has not been a problem in the past. Mr. Weissman
suggests that the Code should be amended to restrict tree trimming of a third or less over a five year period. To
require documentation of all tree trimmings and ground cover removal in Town would be an enormous effort and
would involve significant amount of staff time and cost. The Town has purposely not required a fee for tree
removals to encourage people to be honest and go through the required process. If the Town requires owners to
document tree trimmings and dates, staff believes this would result in less compliance with the tree protection
ordinance.
Communication With Developers
Dr. Weissman makes numerous suggestions about how staff should communicate with developers. Every effort is
'made to provide complete information to applicants. Staff will revise the pamphlet on hillside development to
incorporate the information suggested by Dr. Weissman. Staff will be coming forward with a recommendation to
PAGE 3
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: EVALUATION OF TOWN REGULATIONS THAT RESTRICT REMOVAL OF VEGETATION IN
HILLSIDE AREAS.
A.pril20, 2000
fund updated hillside development standards as part of the 2000 - 2001 Operating Budget. These updated
development standards will address many hillside development issues that have come to light in recent years
including those raised by Dr. Weissman.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
The evaluation and review of town regulations is not a project defined under CEQA, and no further action is
required.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
Attachment:
1. Written communication from Dr. Weissman received March 21, 2000.
Distribution:
Dr. David Weissman, 15431 Francis Oaks Way, Los Gatos, CA 95032
PLC:BNL:mdc
N:1DEV\CNCLRPTSIHILLSIDE.SB
tv(J -1 2 1. ?Hu
GENERAL AREAS PT NI OFG OS GATOS
T
1. It should be staff policy that all phone calls to specific individuals, be returned within 1 working day. If a
letter is generated by any staff person and applies to a specific project that has a file in the Planning Dept,
then a copy of that letter should be cc: to that Planning Dept file.
2. It should be staff policy that all letters are answered within 3 working days. Such replies, whether from
Planning Department, Parks and Forestry, etc., should have the original inquiry and the reply placed in all
appropriate files even if such files are in another office or location. For instance, parcel 527-11-005 on
Francis Oaks Way has had a file available for reading at the Planning Department counter for almost 1 1/2
years because there was a proposed development. Simultaneously, there were a number of important
communications see enclosed_# 1) exchanged between Tony Jeans and Scott Baker referring to this property
that I had no know , pause they were not placed in the Planning Dept file (I was only recently given
copies of these letters by Tony Jeans. John Iaquinto [personal communication with Weissman on March 14,
2000j has never seen these letters and knows of no file at Parks Dept. With Scott Baker now gone, these
communications are possibly nonretrievable, a breech of what should be public record). My lack of
knowledge re these communications existed despite my many conversations with Scott Baker, John Iaquinto,
and Kevin Flavia during this 1 '/2 year period. Additionally, the arborist reviews and report promised from
Mark Beaudoin (see letter dated December 11, 1998), were not on file at the Planning Dept. as of March 14,
2000. For parcels 527-10-007,8,9, also on Francis Oaks Way, there is an arborist report that was done for
the trees on this proposed 3 lot subdivision. I know this report exists because it was produced at the DRC
meeting on January 4th, 2000. Despite 2 requests by Weissman to Tim Boyer, this report was still not on file
at the Planning Department as of March 14, 2000. (These 2 reports were sent to me on March 16, 2000).
Obviously, in cases of illness, vacation, emergencies, etc., these above timetables are flexible.
3. There should be a designated town "liaison" that citizens can call should staff not return phone calls or
answer letters. This person's name should appear in the Los Gatos Weekly -Times on the page that lists
"Important Information." I do not feel comfortable calling Dave Knapp because, say Scott Baker, or some
other town official, has not returned my phone call. I suspect just creating the "position" will increase staff's
responsiveness.
4. In an effort to increase citizen participation, if a hearing is scheduled before any Town Committee (eg. DRC,
Planning Commission, Town Council, etc.), and could have a significant impact on the neighbors, and that
committee's decision is appealable, then advance notice of that hearing should be sent to the neighboring
property owners (say 300 feet or 3 lots in any direction). Otherwise they may have no knowledge of the
hearing and no opportunity to exercise their right of appeal. An example concerns the properties adjacent to
Weissman on Francis Oaks Way that successively executed a lot line adjustment at DRC meetings of
November 9th and 16th, 1999. It is difficult to appeal a decision that one does not know about.
5. Those Town officials charged with enforcing the Town's codes, should be held accountable for knowing
those codes. They should carry a copy of the relevant codes in the field. It seems reasonable to insure that
they have read the codes and understand them. A quick read of my "Timeline" re APN# 527-11-005 will
reveal that several officials of Parks and Forestry had little or no knowledge of Town codes in the areas of
grading, illegal tree removal, and permissible tree trimming in the hillsides. Such knowledge could have
prevented more than 95% of the damage done on this 8.7 acre parcel adjacent to us.
6. It should be policy that staff keep track (with actual time cards as an attorney would do) of all chargeable
administrative costs, over and beyond nonual costs (which are covered by filing fees) relating to a specific
project (inspections, attorney intervention, answering calls, etc). These costs should include salary, gas,
prorated benefits, etc. For all the extra time the Town staff has spent on Parkside violations, only a $100
Attachment 1
administrative fee has been charged (see #2 — Bowman letter of 12/28/1998), and this has never been
collected. Imagine citizen's ire shot' nd out that violators of Town codes are not being assessed the
penalties described in the Town's codes for their violations, and that these same citizens were paying for
"policing" activities that, by law, could be charged to the applicant/violator!
AREAS OF TOWN CODE THAT NEED CLARIFICATION AND REINFORCEMENT
CHAPTER 12: Grading, erosion, and sediment control
EVENT: 8.7 acres of vacant property (APN # 527-11-005) cleared of all scrub and chaparral vegetation, except
for trees.
WHAT ORDINANCE SAYS:
Sec. 12.20.015 blb: grading permits not needed for "the removal of vegetation from an area less than one
thousand (1,000) square feet."
RECOMMENDATIONS:. 1. Define the time factor here. Can I remove 999 square feet on Saturday, 999 square
feet on Sunday, etc?
2. Limit removal of native vegetation without a permit, to only the 30 foot minimum around structures (the
main house or a guest house, not just any "structure" put on a property) as required by the fire department.
Poison oak is a native hillside plant, provides excellent erosion control, shelter and food for numerous animals,
and, according to the fire department, is preferred as a ground cover instead of introduced grasses and other
annual weeds that frequently replace poison oak where it is removed.
3. If want to clear more than 200 square feet of native vegetation within any one year period, then must get
approval. All native "climax" vegetation communities within the hillsides should be equally protected, whether
oak -woodland, chaparral, scrub, native grasslands, riparian, redwoods, etc. Presently, only mature trees are
protected. If people want to clear more than 200 square feet of introduced, annual weeds, than no permit should be
required.
4. If planning a construction project within the next year, must get site approval before can clear. Otherwise the
town may request the house(s) be resituated away from the area already cleared.
EVENT: 8.7 acres of vacant property (APN # 527-11-005) cleared of all scrub and chaparral vegetation, except
for trees.
WHAT ORDINANCE SAYS:
Sec. 12.20.015 Exemptions
(b) Specific Exemptions
(4) "Grading necessary for agricultural operations ....".The wording in this item seems to imply that an
unlimited area could be graded, without a permit if, say a vineyard, were being put in, or one
was "planning" for agricultural conversion. It is not clear if the restrictions under (b) (1) a,
through c. apply to item (4). I think they do, because of the wording of (c) "Effect. Exemption
from this requirement of a permit shall not be deemed to be permission to violate any provision
of this chapter." But Tony Jeans for Parkside has cited 12.20.015(b)4 of the town code (see
letter to Scott Baker in #1) as justification for their grubbing of the entire 8.7 acres.
RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Apply section 12.40.035, $500 per day. Clarify "per day for each violation" What
does that mean? If grade illegally for 2 weeks, is that 14 days of violations? If also, simultaneously, illegally
affecte a watershed area, is that now 2 violations per day? Rewrite this section so that the intent of 12.20.015(c)
comes first and the reader does not have to read to the end to see (c). If in fact (c) does not mean what I think it
means, that is (b) (1) a. through c. do not apply to (4), then the ordinance should be changed to prevent anyone
from clearing an unlimited hillside area simply by saying they are going to put in a vineyard. In fact, Parkside
announced at the Planning Commission Meeting of February 23, 2000, that they have no plans for a vineyard on
the 5 acre part of the property that lies south of the watershed area, despite the fact they cleared it of all
vegetation except for some oak trees. Developers can change their minds, but that doesn't help the environment.
2. Explicitly defuse in code what "work stop order" means. Does this include ALL WORK, including DRC,
Planning Commission, Town Council, and all ( except what is necessary for safety of people and the
environment) physical activity (weeding, spraying, trimming, grubbing, etc.) on the property? I believe a work
stop order should be in effect until the town attorney and/or town council decide on penalties, and those
penalties are paid, but that such penalties must be imposed within, say, 6 months, to allow for necessary
investigation. Whether or not to impose a work stop order, should NOT be at the discretion of any town official:
violate a code — get slapped with a work stop order. Clear cut, no argument. Only the town attorney should be
able to remove or modify a work stop order, thus ensuring that all staff are coordinated on this issue.
3. Any penalties imposed on the violating property owner are transferred to all subsequent owners. There are no
time limits for how long certain restrictions are in place.
CHAPTER 29: Tree Protection
EVENT: Mature trees removed illegally from APN #527-11-005 (I am not interested in debating whether the
number of trees was 14 or 24; I am interested here in the process of remediating the problem).
WHAT ORDINANCE SAYS: Sec. 29.20.960 says, re replacing unlawfully removed trees, that such trees
should be "replaced ...with a new tree as similar thereto as reasonably feasible, or if such replacement is not
feasible because of size or age of tree, with such number of similar trees as will provide reasonably equivalent
aesthetic quality... The cost of enforcing this chapter, which shall include all costs, staff time, and attorney's
fees."
I don't understand (please refer to Lee Bowman's letter of December 28, 1998, to property owner Parkside —
see ex1g ur # ): How does replacing 14 large trees (all with diameters greater than 4") with 12 tiny trees (oak
trees [Quereus agrifolia, the species of tree removed illegally] in 24" boxes at A to Z Nursery typically measure
1 inch or less in diameter) satisfy the above conditions? How does fining the developer $100 for all town costs
associated with his violations even come close to proper reimbursement? How does postponing planting of
these replacement trees, as later authorized by Mr. Bowman (phone conversation between Iaquinto and
Weissman on 2/4/1999), until there is water on the site, act as a deterrent to future violations?
RECOMMENDATIONS: I have no problem with the ordinance as written, just with its enforcement. In an
effort to clear up ambiguities re enforcement (for staff as well as for violators):
1. An immediate "work stop order" is placed on any site when violations discovered. This order is in place
until the replacement trees have been planted. If that requires that water be trucked into the site, then that is
what must be done. No expense is spared to correct the violation. Work stop order can only be removed by
town attorney.
2. Replacement trees as ordinance requires, not at discretion of staff. Remove a tree with a diameter of 4
inches, then replace it with a tree of 4 inches diameter. Have the Parks Dept determine where this new tree
should be planted, not the developer. Otherwise, the developer just removes a tree that is in the way, and
they get to replace it with a tree elsewhere as part of the landscaping they were going to do anyway. If the
illegally removed tree is so large that it can't be replaced by a similar sized tree, then it is replaced by
multiple 48 inch (or larger) box trees such that the total surface areas of the tree removed, is equalled by
what is planted. Cut down a 100 year old oak tree that is 60 feet tall, and expect to replace it with 10 to 15
48 inch box oak trees.
3. Replacement trees must be planted before the property can be sold. It becomes the responsibility of the new
owner to fulfill the 2 year written maintenance agreement with the town.
4. In addition to the replacement trees, invoke Sec. 12.40.035 for fines of $500 per day for each violation.
5. Replacement trees must be the same species, if native, as the illegally removed tree. If the illegally removed
tree is a non-native, then a native tree, consistent with the native trees in the immediate area, shall be
planted.
EVENT: Numerous protected oak trees on APN #527-11-005 were trimmed in excess of 33% during a 3 month
period.
WHAT ORDINANCE SAYS: Sec. 29.10.0970 prohibits the removal of any town protected tree without a
permit; and Sec.29.10.0955 defines tree removal to include pruning. "Pruning means the cutting or taking away
of more than thirty-three (33) percent of the living foliage material (including branches) of a tree in any twelve-
month period..."
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. This ability to prune 33% should be restricted to once every 5 years at the most. A property owner could trim
a slow growing (oak) tree 33% for 4 consecutive years, and have almost no tree left at the end of those 4 years It
should be prohibited if the tree is more than, say, 50 feet from the house to maintain its ability to provide cool
shelter for animals and to shade the ground underneath and thus provide animal habitat.
2. An owner is required to photograph any town -protected tree before it is significantly trimmed. Otherwise,
how is one to determine whether or not it was trimmed in excess of 33%? Parkside hired Mark Beaudoin to
supervise and certify that no more than 33% of any tree was pruned. Beaudoin first visited the site, according to
his letter of July 17, 1999 (see en 1 #3 on December 16, 1998. This first visit occurred 2 Y months after
illegal work started on this property an er they had been pruning for almost that entire period (see Weissman
Timeline entry of 10/28/98). How could he possibly certify that: "3. The clearance pruning of the lower tree
branches had been completed and no more than 30% of foliage removed" if he had never seen the trees before?
A quick comparison between unpruned live oak trees in this area with the pruned live oak trees on the Parkside
property, clearly indicates numerous trees pruned of more than 50% of their foliage. John Iaquinto agreed with
this assessment when he walked the property with me on 4/28/1999. But without before and after photographs,
how does one unequivocally document this?
3. Arborist report must be on file with town in the Planning Dept before any extensive tree trimming (say more
than 5 trees) is started. I asked staff to see the required arborist report for this property, several times before it
was even sent to the town on July 17, 1999. I had to ask John Iaquinto again on March 14, 2000, before it was
produced, since it was still not in the file in the Planning Dept.
4. This ordinance should be enforced. Despite numerous requests to staff and walking site with staff, no action
that I am aware of, has been taken. Why were these issues not enforced?
5. Since illegal tree trimming equals illegal tree removal, penalties for such should be as described in Sec.
29.20.960.
EVENT: Five (5) 60 to 150 year old oak trees were removed from an adjacent property at 15471 Francis Oaks
Way. These trees were removed legally with permits, and were supposed to be replaced 1:1 with a 15 gallon
tree (I believe no new trees have been planted as of March 20, 2000). Nevertheless, several problems have
turned up. These 3 lots (only one house presently sits on the 3 parcels) have numerous oak trees on them, some
clearly in need of maintenance due to many years of neglect. The 3 parcels were obtained in a lease option in
April, 1999. Permits (see enclosure or tree removal were filed on June 22, 1999 (1 tree); July 13, 1999 (2
trees); and September, trees). These trees ranged from 25 to 65 inches in diameter. It is impossible to
associate which trees on the property are covered by which pennits because there is no sketch attached with the
permits that are on file at Town Hall (the sketches were reportedly left at the site). There are also 2 letters
obtained by the applicant, pertaining to the health of some of these trees (again, I can't associate which trees the
letters refer to because there is no drawing)
I do know that the report from Deborah Ellis refers to a tree cut down December 20, 1999 (the permit to cut
this tree was submitted September 14, 1999). Robert Moulden was on the site and viewed the cut tree and
commented to my wife that the tree looked perfectly healthy. The report from Ms. Ellis was obtained by Dave
Feece, the property tenant, because Moulden had refused to certify this tree sick enough to remove; apparently
he was correct.
There is also an undated report from Boyd's Tree Service saying that Boyd could not guarantee that the
Feece kids would be "100% safe to play under the two oak trees in front of' Feece's house. Subsequent to these
tree removals, Feece filed plans with the Planning Dept to position houses where these trees had been.
WHAT ORDINANCE SAYS: I am told by staff that no ordinances cover the legal removal of protected trees.
Is this true?
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Implement legal tree removal policies. It is the Town's policy that every effort be made first to save a tree
before it is considered beyond salvage: design cost incentives to support this. These efforts should include
removal of dead branches, erecting supports (wires or struts) for leaning branches, fertilizing, etc. Require
that if tree can be saved for less than $1000, then the tree cannot be removed without first attempting to
save it.
2. Legally removed trees should be replaced, at a minimum, with a 48 inch box tree, not a 15 gallon tree. The
new tree should be planted as close to where the removed tree was, as possible. These trees cost around
$1700 each at A to Z Nursery, and would still be smaller than the trees they are replacing (presently,
permits are required for 4 inch diameter trees on undeveloped lots and 12 inch trees on developed lots). In
hillside areas, all replacement trees should be the same species as the removed tree (if native), or the same
as native trees in the area if the removed tree is not native.
3. If the property owner disagrees with the town arborist, a second opinion can be obtained by a town -
chosen, outside arborist. The town chooses the arborist to try to minimize a potential conflict of interest.
(perhaps the town signs a contract that limits who this arborist can work for.) Hopefully, the arborist will not
feel compelled to agree to tree removal thinking that will generate future work from this property owner.
4. The town recognizes that few things are 100% safe, including getting hit by a meteorite while walking in
one's front yard. Nevertheless, this is no excuse for removing a protected oak tree, because this
rationalization could be extended to all the oak trees in Los Gatos.
5. No development plans for a property can be submitted within 6 months of a legal tree removal.
If want to develop property, then all tree removals become part of that development application
6. Sketch of tree(s) to be removed must be on file with the town, and left at the residence. All trees in area
should be shown.
7. Trees on developed lots over 4 inches in diameter, should be protected just as they are on undeveloped lots.
At present, a property owner could remove, without permits, 100 11 inch diameter trees on a 2 acre lot if
there is a house.
SUMMARY THOUGHTS
There clearly are several areas in the present codes and in changes I am proposing, that will be difficult to
document. These include:
1. Percentages of trees trimmed since need before and after photos. Even then, percentages may be
argued.
2. Whether or not less than 50 cubic yards of earth are moved.
3. Whether or not unstable slopes are created (before they slide).
4. For how many prior days violations had occurred before they were discovered.
5. Whether a tree was 4 inches in diameter 3 feet above ground level, especially if the tree is cut up.
Perhaps there is an easy solution to get around these potentially contentious areas: we simply make a
blanket decree that all naturally vegetated, potentially open space hillside areas are untouchable, without
permits, as far as fencing that Iimits animal movements, native tree and native brush removal, tree trimming,
grading of any kind, spraying of any substance, etc. Then property owners and developers do not have any
doubts as to what is OK and what is off limits. Activities within, say, 25 feet of the residence, would be
exempt from regulation, unless they exceed those provisions as listed in the grading and tree protection
sections of the code. Such a provision at least narrows the physical area of possible conflicts.
COMMUNICATION WITH DEVELOPERS
I believe it is easier for all involved, if the town and its concerned citizens can work with
developers before they get too far into a project and have spent considerable time and money. I also
believe giving developers as much information as possible as early as possible also facilitates this
process. Thus I offer the following suggestions:
1. Developers coming into the Planning Dept and asking about hillside development guidelines, are
given the pamphlet "Standards for the Review of Architecture and Site Applications in the Los
Gatos Hillside Areas" This is a very useful item, but could be made more useful by
A. Including those relevant town codes that pertain to grading, tree removal, tree trimming, brush
removal, etc.
B. Defining what a "watershed" is and the protection afforded such habitats by the town codes.
C. Detailing the penalties involved in violating the above codes (an ounce of prevention is worth a
pound of cure).
D. A discussion about open space conservation easements versus dedicated open space, how the
town looks favorably on such, and thus give the developer time to think about this area and ask
questions.
E. Information should be supplied about what the Santa Clara County Fire Department requires:
"All flammable vegetation must be cleared a minimum of 30 feet around structures. Ornamental
shrubbery and trees cleared of dead leaves and branches."
2. The above pamphlet discusses (A. 3. a.) that open space should be contiguous with open space in
adjacent parcels. Yet it is clear from recent developments (SummerHill, Greenbriar) that the town is
interested in more than just contiguous open space. Let's help the developer here before they get
too far into their project by giving them some specific guidelines (as distinguished from mandates
which are not as flexible). I suggest these guidelines in addition to what is already in the pamphlet.
A. A significant part of the project should be open space. SummerHill had over 80% dedicated
open space in their final project and Greenbriar will have over 50%. (or more?). Open space
should not just be that land that is left over after all developable sites are taken into account.
B. As a way of increasing open space, planned developments (PD) are encouraged. Such PDs
might permit more houses than would be allowed under typical hillside slope -density formulas.
C. Limit roads and houses to near present roads, if possible.
D. No fencing in open space areas.
E. In open space areas, no native tree removal, tree trimming, or other activities except trail
maintenance. Preserve native vegetation.
F. Protect riparian areas.
G. No development on slopes greater than 30%.
3. All hillside subdivision applications should come with documentation of appropriate and necessary
easements.
4. All subdivision applications should come with detailed analysis of slope -density calculations
showing all relevant numbers and how they were obtained.
5. The town recognizes that oak -woodland communities are no more valuable than chaparral and
scrub communities, that all are climax (mature), and that all should be equally protected. Poison oak
serves a valuable function as animal food, habitat, shelter, fire suppressant, and in erosion control.
Town Council Minutes May 1, 2000
Redevelopment Agency Los Gatos, California
HEARINGS CONTINUED
LOS GATOS BOULEVARD 14801/BURTON ROAD 16185/SERVICE STATION/CONT:
The following people from the audience addressed this issue:
William Errico, 236 University Avenue, spoke of the history of the project, and the need for a gas
station in that location.
Roger Griffin, 405 Alberto Way, Paragon Design Group, architect for the project, explained the traffic
flow with the project in place.
Pat Connell, Burton Road resident, opposed the project.
Kathleen King, 20880 Canyon view Drive, Saratoga, did not support this project and asked that the
area be zoned to support hospital use.
Richard Fox, M.D., 211 Glen Ridge Avenue, asked that the area be zoned for hospital use to support
a children's hospital in the future, and asked that the General Plan be completed before decisions are
made for development in this area..
Dr. Taughinbaugh, 16190 Green Wood Road, supported the gas station in this location.
Rick Becker, 356 Bean Ave, supported a gas station and restaurant at this location.
Gary Webb, 100 Smith Creek Drive., supported the project.
Jim Richards, 108 Kilmer Avenue, Campbell, Cambrian Council, spoke against any concentrated use
in this location for safety reasons.
Paul Dubois, 340 University Ave, asked that the General Plan be completed before any more
development be allowed in this section of town.
Mark Brodsky, 17306 Grosvenor, spoke against the project and for completion of the General Plan.
Bryan Lasecke, 225 Edelen Avenue, approved the concept but asked that the General Plan be approved
before any more building takes place on that portion of Los Gatos Blvd.
Tracy Garaghan, 16245 Burton Road, is against any more development at this location.
Jim Grant, 14685 Oka Road, supported the proposal.
Jack Balletto, 2 N. Santa Cruz, #203, spoke in support of the proposal.
Joe Talamante Jr., 1635 Petri Place, spoke in support of the proposal.
Ray Davis, resident, opposed the project.
No one else from the audience addressed this issue.
Motion by Mr. Attaway, seconded by Mr. Pirzynski, to close the public hearing. Carried unanimously.
Motion by Mr. Hutchins, seconded by Mr. Pirzynski, to deny the zoning application as recommended
by the Planning Commission and to deny the appeal. Carried by a vote of 3 ayes. Mrs. Lubeck and Mr.
Blanton voted no believing that this was a project that was well designed and fit appropriately in this
location.
HILLSIDE VEGETATION REMOVAL (20.22)
The following people in the audience addressed this issue:
David Weissman, 15431 Francis Oaks Way, asked to be included in the process as policy and
ordinance is formulated.
Ray Davis, resident, supported the committee process.
Diane McLaughlin, 15626 Francis Oaks Way, asked to be included in the committee process.
Motion by Mr. Attaway, seconded by Mr. Hutchins, to accept and file the report as submitted and
complete the General Plan review before anything further is done on this subject. Carried by a vote of
4 ayes. Mr. Blanton voted no and supported the idea of a hillside committee.
TC:DII:MM050100
5