Attachment 61
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A P P E A R A N C E S:
Los Gatos Planning
Commissioners:
Community Development
Director:
Planning Manager:
Town Attorney:
Transcribed by:
Kendra Burch, Chair
Mary Badame, Vice Chair
Charles Erekson
Melanie Hanssen
D. Michael Kane
Tom O'Donnell
Joanne Talesfore
Laurel Prevetti
Joel Paulson
Robert Schultz
Vicki L. Blandin
(510) 337 -1558
ATTAcHM ENT 6
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/25/2015
Item #1, Zoning Code Amendment
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
s
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
P R O C E E D I N G S:
CHAIR BURCH: We're now going to move into the
public hearings portion of our agenda and consider Agenda
Item 1, which is an application for Town Code Amendment A-
14-002 considering amendments to Chapter 26, Trees and
Shrubs; and Chapter 29, Zoning Regulations —Tree Protection;
of the Town Code.
Are there any disclosures at this point from any
Commissioners about this item? No?
Mr. Kass, I understand you're going to be giving
the report again this evening.
BOB KASS: That is correct. Thank you,
Commissioners. Third time here before the Commission on the
Tree Ordinance; I hope the third time is a charm, and we'll
walk you through tonight's report regarding considering
amendments to Chapters 26 and 29 of the Town Code, Tree
Protection Regulations.
As you recall, on February 11th the Commission
held a public hearing to consider adoption of some various
amendments to the Town Code relating to Chapter 26, which
is Trees and Shrubs, and Chapter 29, Zoning Regulations—
Tree Protection.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/25/2015
Item #1, Zoning Code Amendment
P_'
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
is
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Following discussion by the Commission, the
Commission continued the public hearing to tonight's
meeting on the 25th, but also scheduled a workshop on March
4th to further discuss and provide input to Staff on various
laspects of the Tree Protection Ordinance and some of the
(proposed amendments and changes that we were considering.
That was a very productive workshop and I think
we got a lot of good feedback from the Commission. We had a
good dialogue and we made a number of modifications in
response to the Commission's input regarding the proposed
changes to the Tree Protection Ordinance.
We also had a follow up meeting. Director
Prevetti and Planning Manager Joel Paulson met with Dr.
Weissman, as directed by the Planning Commission, to
discuss some of his concerns as a member of the public
regarding hillside provisions and how the hillside
component could be addressed more directly, or more
aggressively, if you will, as part of the Tree Protection
Ordinance.
What we have before you tonight is really the
third iteration of the proposed changes to the two sections
of the code, 29 and 26, and as we did with the workshop,
we've highlighted in yellow the most recent set of
revisions. All of the revisions are shown as either
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/25/2015
Item #1, Zoning Code Amendment
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
is
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
underlined for additions, or strikeouts as deletions, but
that last round of iterations that really came forward as a
result of the workshop are shown in highlighted yellow,
just to kind of pull those out for you.
I'm going to go through those briefly, and then
I'll be available to answer any questions that you might
have, or get any more feedback from the Commission, and
really follow along in the report as I address those
issues.
The first area where we've made some subsequent
changes has been in the addition of a number of new
definitions: Heritage Tree, Hillside, Large Protected Tree,
Multi -trunk tree, Native, Risk, Trunk and Trunk Flare, and
several of those definitions we also have made changes to
the code, and those are really the substantive issues that
we've added that I will address briefly following along in
the report.
The first area is what is the scope of protected
trees? The scope of protected trees has been reduced for
Hillside Developed Residential, meaning those trees that
are covered as protected trees from the current 12" to a
narrower threshold of 8 ". What we believe is that addresses
some of the concerns regarding the ability to identify
these trees, and in the dormant season and, the fact that
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/25/2015
Item #1, Zoning Code Amendment
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the hillside woodlands environment is a more fragile
environment than the flatlands, and so we've brought that
down to say that developed residential properties in the
hillside, if your tree is 8" or greater, it's protected and
you have to go through the permit process for removing
those trees. Flatlands, it's 12 ". There are a few
exceptions, which are addressed in the code.
I do want to point out that in the report, under
the discussion of hillsides, we incorrectly stated that
that reduction is in the special hillside provision. It's
actually in the protected tree section, of going from 12"
to 8 ". It doesn't affect the actual code itself; that's
just how we wrote it up in the report.
And again, some of these came out from the
Commission, but as well from the discussion with Dr.
Weissman in response to some of the hillside issues that he
was concerned about.
The second area where we've made a change is that
we've expanded the exceptions to allow in the hillside any
eucalyptus tree 24" or less to be removed without a permit.
Previously there were only two species of eucalyptus trees
that we were saying could be removed at a 24" threshold or
Less, which was the blue gum and the red gum. After
iiscussion with Dr. Weissman and discussion amongst Staff,
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/25/2015
Item #1, Zoning Code Amendment
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1s
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Re felt that it was reasonable, because they're non-
natives, to expand that up to 24" in the hillsides.
A lot of discussion throughout this process has
been on the definition of Heritage Trees; that's the fourth
idea here of the items in the staff report. And again, that
actually was really the catalyst of one of the directions
from the Council of why we even took on this whole
amendment, that the Council wanted us to develop a
definition of Heritage Trees.
In response to the Commission's discussion what
we have done is we've included a definition of Heritage
Trees, which is really a tree that's specifically
designated by action of the Town Council on the
recommendation of the Historic Preservation Committee. We
discussed this in the workshop, but that now is included in
the code as one of the changes that we're recommending.
We don't have a process yet for going through and
designating Heritage Trees, and a number of jurisdictions
have various different processes. They can be self -
nominated, or they can do an annual process of going
through and identifying public trees, or even trees on
private property. What we're doing is we're setting up that
definition, we're reserving it, and really it would be the
Council that would want to pull the trigger on asking Staff
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/25/2015
Item #1, Zoning Code Amendment
G
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to come up with a process to identify and designate trees
that would meet that special criteria as Heritage Tree. We
don't have that yet, but we do have this definition in the
code. So that's the Heritage Tree component.
In addition, as a result of this process, what
(we've done is we've really now crafted and carved out this
category of tree, which initially we were calling Heritage
Tree, and then the Commission said well how about Notice
Tree, but we've come up with —it's not an elegant term —Large
Protected Tree, because really, that's simply what it is;
it's a large, protected tree.
That's that category of trees that are now going
to be subject to a public noticing process, where
previously the Town Code and the tree removal process has
no public noticing involved unless there was an appeal for
the tree removals.
So we're now calling trees that are over a
certain diameter threshold Large Protected Trees. There's a
specific process that people who want to prune or remove
those trees have to follow as part of the code. The key
thing, and this is really probably one of the most
significant changes that we're recommending, that there is
now a public noticing process. If somebody wants to remove
a large tree, there has to be notification of abutting
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/25/2015
Item #1, Zoning Code Amendment
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
property owners; and as I said, currently there is no
notification process required.
The threshold is 48" in diameter, so that's a
pretty good size tree, except for oaks, buckeyes and
madrones, which are slower growing and have a 24" diameter
threshold, and in deference to the Iowa Buckeyes. Now I
finally got the joke after the third time.
COMMISSIONER KANE: Ohio State Buckeyes.
BOB KASS: See, I still didn't get the joke.
Okay, Wisconsin Badgers, how about that? Okay. Ohio State
Buckeyes. Iowa is Hawkeyes, is that right? Hawkeye and
Buckeye. Okay, enough digression there. I thought I had
that one, but I guess I didn't.
COMMISSIONER KANE: We trust you though.
BOB KASS: I know. I'll have to come back for
three more times with the Commission.
The other thing that we did, which really came
about as part of the workshop and also the discussions with
Dr. Weissman was really adding a definition of Hillsides in
the code. We've added a definition of Hillside, and we've
added a special code provision that's titled Special
Provisions Hillsides. There are a number of additional
criteria in that section regarding replanting with natives,
removals within the 30' zone, with the zone 30' and
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/25/2015
Item #1, Zoning Code Amendment
W
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
s
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Ifurther, and really links this code much more closely to
lour Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines. We're
very comfortable with what we have done; we feel that it
Imeets the direction from the Commission, and also helps
support our Town's effort to look at the hillsides
Idifferently and promote the restoration of hillsides and
the retention of the native woodland areas in our
hillsides.
The next area is Tree Risk Rating and emergency
action, and as we discussed at the workshop, we've made
some changes to that. We've clarified the language —some of
that is in the definitions —but we've made an effort to
really draw some limits along the lines of when a tree can
be removed for an emergency reason, that we've linked it to
this ISA tree rating matrix, and again, we discussed that I
think in some detail at the workshop.
We've also put that additional finding in that
allows for a finding that if a tree is going to be replaced
with a more appropriate species that will help enhance the
urban forest, that that finding can be made. Again, it has
to be made within the context of considering all the other
aspects, but the example is a crape myrtle that might be in
somebody's yard and they want to replace it with an oak
tree, and even though the crape myrtle is healthy
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/25/2015
Item ##1, Zoning Code Amendment
G
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
16
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
currently, we would be reticent to approve the removal of
it. Under this provision we can make a finding that
replacing a tree that's really maybe not contributing as
significantly to the urban forest as a replacement one
would be a reason for removal.
There was a discussion at the workshop of having
a replacement tree list that would be similar to the master
tree list for street trees. We discussed this a lot amongst
Staff about how much do we want to get involved in really
managing the types of trees that people plant. In the
hillsides we have the Hillside Development Standards, so
we're pretty clear on what kind of trees people can plant
in the hillsides. However, in the flatlands, we backed off
on that and felt that we really didn't think that that was
a list that we want to develop and tell people you can or
cannot plant these trees within the flatland areas. And
again, that dialogue occurs with the Town Arborist when
trees are removed, but we are not recommending a
replacement tree list broadly for the whole town.
That's it. I have a few concluding comments, and
again, our recommendation is that you forward a
recommendation on these amendments to the Town Council, and
make some findings and the standard actions that the
Commission makes.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/25/2015
Item #1, Zoning Code Amendment
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
s
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1&
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
But I do want to bring this back to what the
(genesis of this effort was, and the genesis really was from
the Council, and as I mentioned in my presentation, to
establish a Heritage Tree definition, and also review and
refine these pruning regulations that were currently at you
can't prune more than 25% of a tree. Really there were only
two narrow things, but to use a metaphor, we really wanted
to see the forest for the trees here, and we wanted to look
at the code. I had to say that. I think this is absolutely
what we did. We could have just said Heritage Tree and
pruning and then not looked at the rest of the code, and
not looked at the process, and not looked at how we're
dealing with it, but we did want to look a little more
holistically at this.
I think this process worked really well. We got
good feedback; it was a collaborative process with the
Commission. I think the end product after this now third
iteration of coming to the Commission is much better than
the initial version that we came up with. There's always it
could be a little better here, there's always this elegance
creep and where do you stop when you're trying to get the
perfect language for every sentence in the code, and at
some point you need to move forward and move on. I think
we're at that point now and I think that, again, we've done
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/25/2015
Item #1, Zoning Code Amendment
Roo
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
s
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
is
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
a good job, and I think it's been collaborative, and I
think we have a much better ordinance related to tree
protection.
So with that, I'll answer any questions, and if
there are any other comments from my colleagues in the
Community Development Department, I will defer to them.
Thank you.
CHAIR BURCH: Thank you very much, Mr. Kass.
Commissioner Talesfore.
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: In your concluding
remark you said you're feeling very good about this, so
what I wanted to know, just as a general question before
anyone gets into the specifics, in general changes to the
ordinance today will better assist and help you implement
what we're looking for here in Town prior to what we had?
BOB KASS: Absolutely. I think it gives a lot
more clarity to the Staff, both in Community Development as
well as Parks and Public works staff in reviewing Tree
Removal Permits. It provides the Standards of Review that
are clear, required findings. I'm optimistic that it will
be a more manageable process for Staff, and clear for the
public as well, as to what's the criterion with which a
tree can be removed or cannot be removed. There will still
be the occasional Tree Removal Permit that's going to get
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/25/2015
Item #1, Zoning Code Amendment
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
lappealed to the Commission, and there are still provisions
for that.
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Sure. Just a follow up
Iquestion? There was a term in one of the findings, and if
you could help me understand it, and it is under Section
29.10.099.2, Required Findings, on page 12 of our packet
tonight, Number 4. Can you explain just a little bit more
to me, because I think I know what this means, but I'd like
to be more specific about, "The retention of the tree
restricts the economic enjoyment of the property."
BOB KASS: Again, I think that's a really
reasonable one to ask some questions about, because it is a
finding I anticipate will be made in some of the tree
removal requests.
An example would be if every neighbor up and down
the street could put in a pool in their back yard, and you
wanted to put a pool in your back yard, but you had a large
cedar tree in your back yard; healthy cedar tree smack in
the middle of the back yard. Maybe you didn't plant it, but
when you bought the house it was there, and you'd like to
put a pool in your back yard. Under the current ordinance
there was no provision for saying you could remove that
cedar tree so you could put a pool in there. Well, you're
not being able to use your property to the same economic
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/25/2015
Item #1, Zoning Code Amendment
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
s
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
standard that your neighbors may be able to use their
property. Now, you still have to go through a permit
process, we still have to look at the tree, and if the tree
was a 350 year old oak tree, we might from a Staff
standpoint says we're sorry, that tree trumps the fact that
you want to put a pool in your back yard, because it is so
significant, it is so contributing to the environment that
we would want that one to come to the Commission or to the
Council to determine whether or not it was appropriate.
But again, the example that I like to use is if
your neighbor can put a pool in, and your other neighbor
can put a pool in, and you're stuck with a big cedar tree
or a big redwood tree in your back yard, that's the
definition of economic enjoyment of the property, at least
one definition of it.
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: So it could be not just
for a developer who wanted to develop a large piece of
property, but for an acre or a private builder, but also
for anyone who wants to change or add something to their
landscaping?
BOB KASS: It could be.
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: It could be all of those
things. So going back to the Heritage then, if that cedar
tree happened to be characterized as a Heritage Tree,
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/25/2015
Item #1, Zoning Code Amendment
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
s
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
because you said those Heritage Trees could be on both
public and private property?
BOB KASS: Again, we don't have a process for
Heritage Trees, but it could be theoretically if it was a
Heritage Tree that was planted by Harry Truman, it might
get designated as a Heritage cedar.
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Just wondering what we
might be looking at.
BOB KASS: The difference would be there would a
noticing process. Now, if that cedar tree currently was
bigger than 48" in diameter, all the neighbors are going to
get notified that Neighbor A wants to remove that tree to
put in a pool or re- landscape their backyard, and everybody
would have a chance to comment on that.
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: All right, thank you.
CHAIR BURCH: Commissioner Erekson, do you have a
question?
CHARLES EREKSON: I had a comment and a question
for the Chair that I could either ask the Staff person or
the Chair. My comment is I think that the Staff, and Bob in
particular, did an exceptional job of rewriting Chapters 26
and 29.
My question is this, and we can either do this
now or later through the Chair, I would be interested to
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/25/2015
Item #1, Zoning Code Amendment
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
know, there are about 10 or 12 points that David Weissman
articulated that weren't incorporated. I'm not judging
whether they should be in or not, but it would be helpful
to me to understand from the Staff why they chose not to
include them, and in each case it would be helpful just to
walk through that.
So I could either ask that question of Bob now,
or we could wait till deliberations to do that.
CHAIR BURCH: We only have one speaker card. Why
don't we go ahead and do the speaker, and then we can
discuss that further. Commissioner Hanssen.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I realize the Heritage
Tree hasn't been defined yet and there is going to be a
process for it, I was just interested in understanding what
you're view would be of what's the overlap between a large
protected tree? The trees I saw were likely to be a
Heritage Tree anyway, so would you see there being a big
overlap once the Heritage Tree is actually developed? It
doesn't change the findings or the requirements for
pruning, but just in terms of trying to understand how it
gets mapped out.
BOB KASS: It really depends on the criteria that
we would develop for designating a tree a Heritage Tree.
For example, the cedar tree in the Town plaza that we use
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/25/2015
Item #1, Zoning Code Amendment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
for the annual holiday lighting. I don't know if that's 48"
or not in diameter, it may not be, but it may be a tree
that we want to have as a Heritage Tree because it's got
some community significance, so there may not be an overlap
in a situation like that.
Trees that would likely become a Heritage Tree
might be large specimens of trees that would already be
characterized as Large Protected Trees, but it provides
another level of overlay. I think that although the code
doesn't have more restriction on a Heritage Tree than it
does on a Large Protected Tree from the standpoint of
environmental review process and the disclosures, the fact
that it's been a designated Heritage Tree adds another
layer of importance to it.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Just going down that path,
a year from now we have the Heritage Tree definition, and
so is there any reason that there could be a conflict? Like
there's a 50" oak tree and it now becomes a Heritage Tree,
is there any reason it being in both categories could
create any conflict?
BOB KASS: No, there's no conflict.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I didn't see any, but I
wanted to just see, looking down the road, is it going to
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/25/2015
Item #1, Zoning Code Amendment
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
s
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
require another code revision? It sounds like we'll be
okay.
BOB KASS: Yeah. It's conceivable that with the
Heritage Tree designation process, instead of the Large
Protected Trees where the noticing is the abutting
properties, it may be that if somebody wanted to remove a
Heritage Tree the Council might say we want a 300' noticing
for anything that's a designated Heritage Tree. So it is
conceivable as we go through the process to develop the
designation procedures that we might layer another series
of requirements, and the noticing would be the one that
would immediately come to mind for me.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: For the Heritage Tree?
Tree.
BOB KASS: For the Heritage Tree.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Versus the Large Protected
BOB KASS: The Heritage Tree.
CHAIR BURCH: Commissioner Kane.
COMMISSIONER KANE: Mr. Kass, our job here is to
recommend to Town Council approval of the attached
ordinance, and in the vein of recommending, if the
Commission does not disagree, and if you and Staff do not
disagree, we recommend Town Council recognize Dr.
Weissman's contribution for the past number of weeks on
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/25/2015
Item #1, Zoning Code Amendment
FE3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
s
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
this issue, and that in general he's developing expertise
and advocacy for the trees of Los Gatos. If you think
that's appropriate, and the Commission thinks that
appropriate, maybe a kind work or commendation from Town
Council would be in order.
CHAIR BURCH: Certainly that's something Staff
could look at.
JOEL PAULSON: That's clearly an option for the
Commission this evening and that can be part of the
recommendation.
CHAIR BURCH: Great, thank you. Do we have any
other questions? No? All right, we have one speaker card
for this item tonight. That would be Lee Quintana.
LEE QUINTANA: Lee Quintana. Good evening. I just
have a few things to say. Five Palm Avenue, although I now
understand that it is not required to give addresses, but I
will. Five Palm Avenue.
I'd just like to say that I think that this has
been a very good collaborative process and I'd like to see
more processes like this.
I would also like to ask the Commission to
seriously consider the recommendations by Dr. Weissman. I
like Mr. Kane's suggestion regarding David Weissman.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/25/2015
Item #1, Zoning Code Amendment
19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
David Weissman has been involved in the hillsides
and trees in the hillsides for as long as I have known him,
which is probably as long as I've lived here, which is 40
years. He's been very involved in this issue, and I do
believe that it would be appropriate to give him some
recognition, and I do believe that you should consider his
suggestions seriously.
to make.
In addition, I have two other personal comments
One is in respect to noticing adjacent homeowners
for tree removals, not just for large tree removals,
although for non -large tree removals just the adjacent
homeowners would probably be adequate. The reason why I ask
for this is that when a tree is removed, particularly if
it's quite a mature tree, and particularly if it's at the
edge of a property, the removal of that tree can have
effects on the adjacent properties and the adjacent
property owners. It can change the environment of the
neighbor's yard and in essence require a re- landscaping,
because the plants that were there that received shade may
no longer receive shade and therefore will die. It also may
affect whether or not an adjacent house gets sun in the
summer, which they didn't previously have, which would
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/25/2015
Item #1, Zoning Code Amendment
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
s
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
leffect their comfort in their home, so that's why I request
Ithat.
Lastly, and I don't know if this falls under this
particularly —I'm going to speed up my speech —in the past we
have used redwoods as screening trees often between
properties that have 5' setbacks, which to me is a
description for trouble in the future, and I'm wondering if
whether something could be added into this or some other
appropriate place that would not allow that to happen.
Thank you.
CHAIR BURCH: Thank you. Any questions?
Commissioner Kane.
COMMISSIONER KANE: Ms. Quintana, on adjacent
neighbors, what did you say, how far out did you want the
notices to go?
LEE QUINTANA: Just the adjacent neighbors. But
the ones on the sides, the back, and if the tree is large,
it might shadow directly across the street. Not your normal
expanse. The reason I say that is that I understand that
even in those cases if the tree removal is approved a
notice will go out to the normal noticing of neighborhoods,
I believe, to notify them that an approval has been made,
and unless they appeal it, it will be approved. But this
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/25/2015
Item #1, Zoning Code Amendment
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
s
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
might prevent appeals from neighbors in the future; there
could be some kind of discussion beforehand between them.
COMMISSIONER KANE: Thank you.
CHAIR BURCH: Any other questions? No? All right.
I'm going to close the public portion of the public hearing
and ask if any Commissioners have any questions of Staff,
comments, or would like to make a motion? Mr. Erekson, I
know that you wanted to continue the discussion. Would you
like to do that now as far as Dr. Weissman's letter?
CHARLES EREKSON: Sure. It would be great if the
Staff could respond, and I would suggest to the Staff that
the answers be 30 words or less each, because I believe
some of them are self- evident, but I would request that you
be very succinct and to the point, and if we don't think
you gave us an adequate answer, we'll ask you to use more
than 30 words.
LAUREL PREVETTI: Madam Chair, if it's okay, I
will start, and then Mr. Kass may augment some of my
comments. Dr. Weissman's letter is contained in Exhibit 14.
Item 1 regards exceptions. Since the publication
of the letter, we actually did include eucalyptus species
in the hillsides as a way of encouraging the removal of
non - native. We felt something too general would be very
difficult to implement, but we thought the comment about
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/25/2015
Item #1, Zoning Code Amendment
OEM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
s
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
leucalyptus in the hillsides was warranted, so it is in your
draft.
Item 2 has to do with determination of tree
removals when there is not yet an application for
development, and his concern is that we should really allow
dead trees to remain, because of their ecological benefits.
From a practical standpoint Staff felt that property owners
may still want to manage their land, and if they go through
a process to remove the tree, you have the findings and the
Standards of Review, so it could still be done in
accordance with the ordinance, so we didn't need to make
any special provisions for that circumstance.
Item 3 really pertains to grading as the kind of
underlying issue, and how we might want to protect the
understory species. Again, this is a tree protection
ordinance, not an understory ordinance. we have a separate
work item. The Parks and Public Works is working with
Community Development on the Grading Ordinance. That work
will get started again, so we'll have a chance to review
these particular issues in that context.
The next item, Item 4, talks about an issue that
you've seen before with respect how homes could change
their size and shape to better accommodate existing trees.
Really, that's an issue that happens through the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/25/2015
Item #1, Zoning Code Amendment
23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
s
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
development review process, so it doesn't appear to be
appropriate for the Tree Protection Ordinance.
Item 5, again, the policy should be that the
trees be given the benefit of the doubt, but really we
don't have years to make our decisions. Usually we try to
be a lot quicker than that, so again, the Standards of
Review and the findings were intended to help facilitate
that, but again, as appropriate we may need a consulting
arborist report, and if in their professional opinion the
tree could recover, then you would have that information to
consider.
New development, the thought was that one year is
too short and a five -year maintenance agreement might be
better. This is really a policy call. The one -year is the
existing, so we thought we should just hold with what we
already have. The Commission, if it wishes, could recommend
something higher.
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Because you already have
a policy like that, that was your only objection to not
expanding the years?
LAUREL PREVETTI: Well again, I wouldn't say that
we objected to the items in this letter. It was he was
raising policy issues that really went beyond the scope of
the ordinance, and so we didn't want to overstep our
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/25/2015
Item #1, Zoning Code Amendment
24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
is
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
boundaries by saying yes, let's do all of it. So we
encouraged Dr. Weissman to submit the letter, so that way
the Planning Commission as a recommending body could make
some of those policy calls, and that is that you're free to
Imake.
Item 7 is an interesting point in terms of story
poles. Here he's thinking perhaps we should include an
exception for story pole ropes, because they're temporary
and they really shouldn't affect the tree, so that's a
consideration, and maybe Mr. Paulson has something to add
on that.
JOEL PAULSON: I think the other general would be
we don't typically see story pole supports attached to
trees, but if someone was to attached them to trees Staff
would work with them to probably provide some kind of
barrier so the rope is not directly on the trunk, so that's
not something we're necessarily sure needs to be in the
code, but if that's something the Commission would like in
there, we can definitely add that.
LAUREL PREVETTI: Item 8 has to do with
enforcement, and I know that is a concern of the community.
Enforcement is really kind of a separate issue, and we
believe that the code as proposed has sufficient
enforcement parameters.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/25/2015
Item #1, Zoning Code Amendment
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
s
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Item 9 is related. What is a definition of
"violation "? It's helpful in terms of implementation to
have the flexibility to determine violations. Really
anything that is contrary to the code is a violation, and
if we define it more specifically we could in fact inhibit
enforcement, so that was our thought there.
Again, two -year versus five -year maintenance
agreement under Item 10. That's a policy issue for your
consideration.
And then he's got two general comments about
hillside lots not having sufficient space for the trees, so
again, he's thinking that perhaps the arborist could assist
in the locations for tree placement, and then he had a
comment about director, but again, I think for Town
operations we're comfortable that the way it's written will
be sufficient for both implementation and enforcement.
Thank you.
CHAIR BURCH: Thank you. Do we have any further
questions on the letter, or comments? Commissioner Kane.
COMMISSIONER KANE: I'm ready to make a motion,
through the Chair.
CHAIR BURCH: Okay.
COMMISSIONER KANE: I move that we recommend to
Town Council approval of the attached ordinance amendments
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/25/2015
Item #1, Zoning Code Amendment
26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to Chapter 26 and Chapter 29 of the Town Code. I find there
is no possibility that this project will have a significant
impact on the environment, therefore the project is not
subject to CEQA, and I find that we make the finding that
the Town Code amendments are consistent with the General
Plan if the recommendation is for adoption, and I recommend
that we add to the revised Town Code asking Staff to find a
way to incorporate Item 6 and Item 10 of Dr. Weissman's
letter providing the standard for tree maintenance, go to
five years instead of one, especially since it was at one
time five years. If there are other amendments to crossing
Ts and dotting Is, I'm open.
CHAIR BURCH: Commissioner Talesfore.
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: I'll go ahead and second
that motion. I don't know how we can put this in there, but
a point was made tonight about using redwood trees as
screening trees in neighborhoods. We seem to see a lot of
those as problems today. I don't know. Staff, can you give
me some advice on that? How would that be handled?
LAUREL PREVETTI: Well, I think our Town Arborist
has the experience in terms of how to advise homeowners as
they're looking at replacement trees, should they contact
the Town for that type of guidance, and I think just our
Dwn experience and his own experience would say there are
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/25/2015
Item #1, Zoning Code Amendment
27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
other species that could perhaps better meet that need. I
guess it's really a matter of is the Commission comfortable
with that being advice provided on a customer service basis
as opposed to it being legislated in the code? That would
be a way of distinguishing, and we could still provide that
advice without it being in the code.
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Okay, so maybe a list of
trees you might want to avoid. Okay.
CHAIR BURCH: All right, do we have any other
comments before a vote? Commissioner Badame.
VICE CHAIR BADAME: I'd also ilke some
consideration given to Dr. Weissman's letter on Section 4,
the Standards of Review, Item 6, and the reason why I have
paused on that —and I'd like to see how my other
Commissioners feel about this —is that there seems to be a
conflict with the intent of protecting trees with the
contradiction of removing trees, or actually promoting
maximum development intensity without consideration for
possibly changing the size, shape and location of a house.
And I did do some research with the City of
Saratoga, who does not contain this provision at all with
that 25% building envelope restriction, and the City of
Palo Alto, which does address it, but limits it to projects
other than single - family residential. So I look to my other
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/25/2015
Item #1, Zoning Code Amendment
`3e'.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Commissioners to see if they might consider removing Item
6, because it's somewhat addressed in Item 4 if somebody
wanted to expand beyond a 25% envelope.
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Can you do that again?
VICE CHAIR BADAME: I'm sorry?
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Could you point that
out, be specific with what you're...
VICE CHAIR BADAME: Okay. So under the Standards
of Review on page 11, Item 6 —and Dr. Weissman addresses
this in his letter to us —do we need to have Item 6 in
there? Because in some respects we're promoting cutting
down trees and not preserving them, whereas maybe a lot
cannot be developed to a maximum FAR, and we're not
supposed to develop the FAR as a goal.
CHAIR BURCH: Commissioner O'Donnell, and then
Commissioner Talesfore.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: I think it's useful,
because trees are important to people, (inaudible) the tree
takes up more than 25% of their building area, they ought
to be able to remove the tree, and that's a fairly simple
statement. But if the tree is more important than to the
people, then you can change it, but so far we have used
that kind of rationale repeatedly, and I think it works
very effectively, and so I don't think that promotes
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/25/2015
Item #1, Zoning Code Amendment
29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
removal of a tree any more than simply saying there has to
be a good reason to remove a tree, and I think in general
it's always about what does that mean? What does it mean to
say there must be a good reason? And here we're saying a
good reason is it reduces your otherwise permissible
building envelope by more than 250. I think it's a very
helpful thing. If you think 25% is the wrong number, maybe
we should talk about that. When people want to build a
house, I'd just as soon not make it any more complex than
it already is, so this I find to be a helpful addition.
CHAIR BURCH: Commissioner Talesfore, you had a
comment?
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: How are you seeing that
as something that's troubling you? Can you give us an
example? Maybe that would help.
VICE CHAIR BADAME: Well, on a hillside lot,
which tend to be larger lots typically, and you've got a
beautiful coast oak sitting in the middle, or maybe to a
third of the lot, and maybe somebody wants to build a 6,000
square foot home, perhaps they can build a 5,000 square
foot home with the goal of retaining the nice oak, and
still enjoy economic viability of the lot.
CHAIR BURCH: Commissioner O'Donnell.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/25/2015
Item #1, Zoning Code Amendment
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
is
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: We have the Hillside
Ordinance that deals with first ascertaining where you can
build a house, so if it were a one -acre lot it doesn't mean
you have a one -acre building site. So the first thing you
have to figure out is where the building site is, and we
know how you do that.
And then you say a 6,000 square foot house. That
assumes that we approve a 6,000 square foot house, and in
not approving a 6,000 square foot house we could say we
don't see why you need that in light of what you're doing
to the trees. We could already do that. A 6,000 square foot
house, as I recall, and maybe I'm recalling incorrectly, in
the hills is not a matter of right. I thought we had to
make a finding on 6,000. Is that the wrong number?
JOEL PAULSON: Six thousand is technically the
maximum FAR in the Hillside Development Standards and
Guidelines. You can make a finding to exceed that number. I
think just for the Commission's consideration, it's the
hillside is one example that typically would have a bigger
building environment. The LRDA may be smaller, so this I
think specifically talks of permissible building envelopes,
so we would probably have to look to legal counsel for that
type of interpretation. I think it's really when you get to
the smaller lots where you've got R -11) lots that are 5,000
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/25/2015
Item #1, Zoning Code Amendment
31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
is
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
square feet that you've got a much smaller building
envelope, so if a tree takes up more than 25 %, is that
reasonable to keep this existing requirement in there? I
just offer that for the Commission's consideration.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: The buildable portion of
the lot, as I recall, because we've had those problems of
saying on a hillside lot with the viewing platform and all
that, so a lot of times we center restrictively the
building area by a number of environmental considerations,
not the least of which is the visual. And so it seems to me
if we go through that process of saying oh wait a minute,
by the way there's a tree here, I think the 25% reduction
is helpful, and it's not like we haven't gone through a
fairly extensive process in the first place to find the
buildable site. So again, I mean obviously reasonable minds
can differ, but I think this is helpful to people and I
don't think it would have any substantial effects. For
example, if you had a Heritage Tree, that would be a
totally different ballgame.
LAUREL PREVETTI: Another option for the
Commission's consideration, if the issue really is with the
hillside, then one way of perhaps addressing it would be
that you would retain Item 6, but that you would say this
would not be considered in hillside locations as defined by
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/25/2015
Item #1, Zoning Code Amendment
32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
s
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the Hillside Standards. So if the valley floor example that
Mr. Paulson mentioned seems reasonable, then perhaps this
criterion would work, but if you're worried that it could
be applied in hillside locations where you have a very
different context, that could be an edit that you could
suggest, or the maker of the motion could suggest.
VICE CHAIR BADAME: I look to my other
Commissioners for their input, if they have any, other than
Commissioner O'Donnell.
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: I like what Ms.
Prevetti... Are you specifically (inaudible) the hillsides?
VICE CHAIR BADAME: I would be amenable to that.
I'm very concerned with the hillsides.
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Okay, I could see... Well,
I'm not the maker of the motion, so we'll let him take
that.
VICE CHAIR BADAME: Would the maker of the motion
be willing to include that as part of his motion?
COMMISSIONER KANE: Yes.
CHAIR BURCH: Great.
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: As well as the seconder.
CHAIR BURCH: Wonderful. Thank you. Do we have
any other comments before we vote? Commissioner Hanssen.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/25/2015
Item #1, Zoning Code Amendment
33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I just had a question. I
forgot to write down what you said on Dr. Weissman's Item
11. I know you had a reason for not including it, but I
didn't write it down, but I thought his suggestion was a
good one, because I do think that's an issue for people not
having a lot of tree expertise about where to put the
trees.
LAUREL PREVETTI: And again, I think the Town
Arborist is available for a consultation as appropriate, as
are other private arborists. Again, I think the distinction
is do we need to legislate it in the code, or is the
Commission comfortable with the arborist just providing
professional guidance on a one -on -one basis to the
homeowners?
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: For me personally, I'd
prefer to have it in there, because otherwise other than
committing to planting the trees they could be put anywhere
and it might not be the right thing to do. I would prefer
to have it spelled out, but I don't know if other
Commissioners feel the same way.
COMMISSIONER KANE: Was that an offer to the
maker of the motion?
CHAIR BURCH: I believe she's asking the maker of
Ithe motion.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/25/2015
Item #1, Zoning Code Amendment
34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER KANE: Not at this time. I think it
would run the Town Arborist ragged. The intention is
excellent. The application I don't think is that practical
or necessary. Thank you.
CHAIR BURCH: All right, do we have any more
discussion before we vote? Commissioner O'Donnell.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: I just have a question
of Staff. If we essentially amend Section 29.10.0990, which
we've been talking about, page 11, subparagraph 6, as
suggested, I assume that just means that one could find
that a tree could be cut down, but not simply because it
interfered with more than 25% of the property, is that
right? Okay, thank you. That's fine.
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: In the hillside.
JOEL PAULSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER KANE: And that was my intent.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: That's the language.
CHAIR BURCH: All right, great. We have a motion.
We have a second. All in favor? Passes unanimously. Good
job, Mr. Kass. And I assume since this is a recommendation
to Council there are no appeal rights or anything. Okay.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/25/2015
Item #1, Zoning Code Amendment
35
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank