Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJuly 14Los Altos Hills Environmental Design and Protection Committee Meeting Minutes - APPROVED Date: July 14, 2020 at 5:45 p.m. Location: by Zoom Video Conference Committee Members: Peter Brown (chair), Nancy Couperus, Carol Gottlieb, Wai Lee Wong, Buvana Dayanandan, Vijay Chawla, Hajime Murakami Associate Members: Kjell Karlsson Council Liaison: Michelle Wu Guests: Jolie Wu, Zach Dahl, Jeremy Loh 1.Call to Order and Roll Call 2.Presentations from the Floor a.Nancy referenced the obituary of individual who donated Byrne Preserve 3.Future Committee Dates of Interest & Assignments a.EDPC Committee: Tuesday, August 11, 2020 @ 5:45 p.m. b.City Council: July 16, 2020, 6:00pm c.Planning Commission: August 6, 2020 d.Field Trips: Friday mornings e.Fast Track/Site Development Meetings: Tuesday mornings, 10:00 am 4.Old Business a.Tree Ordinance – see notes below. b.Fast Track Guide – nothing to report c.Outdoor Lighting Ordinance – Haj not available to report. d.Fence Ordinance Amendment – see notes below. e.Underground Utility Project: fire, earthquake, road hazard; fiber cable; beautification – Michelle updated that Environmental Initiative committee taking lead on this also. Project funding gaining traction. f.Heritage Tree designation for Pat Ley's Junipers – EDPC has supported. Waiting for arborist report. g.ADU ordinance – no update. h.Maintenance of the Site Records spreadsheet; other tech needs – Buvana, Carol, Vijay to meet. 5.New Business a.Introducing Zach Dahl and Jeremy Loh - tree and fence ordinance, site review contents, etc. <Moved up in the agenda> b.Are our field trip reports useful? i.Zach: Useful and informative. 3rd set of eyes. Not every recommendation moves forward. Our recommendations spur useful discussion. Confirms staff’s positions or shows something they hadn’t considered. ii.Jeremy: Agreed with Zach. Especially useful if EDPC goes for field trip prior to staff. If time is issue, EDPC does not need to ask about MDA, MFA, building heights, setbacks, was something approved? Permit status? We otherwise ask great questions: especially easements. iii.Peter: EDPC advocates for neighborhood, visibility, screening. We should avoid architectural questions that staff anyway checks. iv.Carol: Finds it important to make note of building height, that something architecturally could be wrong. v.Jeremy: Agreed with Carol. c.Jeremy: Tree ordinance discussion. Previously within Parks & Rec. Now bringing it into Zoning and Site Development. Because zoning is within planning, hence moving to Title 10, Chapter 1. A lot of the language and remedies are within current code. Biggest change is move to a blanket definition of protected tree. Away from calling out species as hard to identify and then have to enforce. Portola Valley has identified 10 species with diameters specified. This is too hard to enforce as often “tree” vaguely written on civil plans. Per 2 arborists Jeremy spoke to: Non-native/imported trees usually arrived to Los Altos Hills as part of landscape screening plans. Most are 24-30” in diameter. i.Therefore creating new definition on protected trees: Any species with 30” diameter at chest height or a heritage oak. At 30” diameter, usually at 10-40 years old and accounts for about 1/3 of plants planted in last 10-40 years. Lowering to 24” diameter would protect 66% more trees. And this would result in more fines, more conditions of approval for replacement trees, and more permit requirements. Jeremy suggests leaving this at 30”, or even bringing down to 24” diameter, but no lower than 24”. ii.Screening plants included in protected trees. iii.Exempt tree (eucalyptus or other fire hazards)… but did not want to list species as becomes issue to identify tree and then enforce. Would prefer more vague “invasive” tree, but deal with more on a case by case basis. Eg. An applicant could ask for removal of a black acacia, and staff would say ok no permit needed. iv.Street trees and public nuisance unchanged. v.Permits – that section uses new blanket definition (vs heritage tree). vi.New: Arborist report required for any tree removal associated with a new site development permit (new residence or pool, etc). Dead, dying or hazardous trees are otherwise permitted without arborist report. If tree is not obviously Dead, dying or hazardous tree, then staff will want an arborist report. If that is suspect, then adding provision for a peer review. vii.Removement conditions: Replacement is UP TO 1:5 ratio. Location, sizing and number of trees based on horticultural practices/professionals. Zach chimed in that this is lot specific. Sometimes applicant needs to thin number of oaks, but doesn’t make sense to plant additional on that lot. viii.New fines: removal of trees without permit. San Jose specifies up to 3x value of replacement tree is fine. EDPC please advise. Currently our fine is replacement value. ix.Added tree protection measures during construction. Tree protection fencing is standard. Sometimes see hand trenching or hand tools around tree. Occasionally see requirement for arborist to be on site. x.Added pruning permit requirements. Codifying the 25% or greater pruning requirement. xi.Trees obstructing views: Civil resolution of new disputes that town does not get involved. Today Title 5, chapter 8 captures unreasonable obstruction ordinance for views and sunlight which details civil resolution of disputes. Town does not get involved with view disputes. IF a homeowner has claim to a view, then must present proof of view prior to plants grown. Either neighbors come to agreement, or go to arbitration/court. Otherwise site development is time for neighbor to document view and request a different kind of screening. xii.Will need to add another section for provisions for such civil disputes. xiii.Zach: Hesitant to have tree species listed – challenging to enforce and increases complaints. Staff can’t identify tree through a stump once a complaint comes in. If you list species, then expectation is that it’s enforced. Los Altos Hills does not have staff to enforce complaints when trees are cut and no way to figure out what was cut. Discussion ensued. Some Feedback for Jeremy: d.EDPC would prefer to specify some species in the tree ordinance. e.EDPC would prefer to see a definition of NATIVE tree, and list them, even if it’s an appendix. f.EDPC would prefer to see a definition of STAND of tree and add to 10.1.402. g.EDPC does often see trees that are not native, but worth saving. We have no way of saving them. h.EDPC suggests no tree cutting allowed until AFTER site development. Jeremy said that exists already. i.Eucalyptus trees are already required to be cut during new development. EDPC suggests adding to the nuisance tree section. j.Include pertains to all the trees during permit phase. CAROL PLEASE ELABORATE THIS FEEDBACK. k.Please include language on how close trees can be planted next to a pathway, or property lines, or next to another tree – Jeremy suggests this is not the right place. Keep this about tree cutting during site development or if an owner wants to cut a tree. l.Street trees section – CAROL PLEASE ELABORATE THIS FEEDBACK. m.Birgitta said consider 20” diameter. She also suggests looking at height as some trees grow tall and some grow wide. n.Kjell brought up fire dangers such as conifers. Sometimes fire department or insurance companies have visibility into nuisance trees. Next steps: Study session with planning commission in September. Public hearing afterwards with town notices in October. Then move to City Council. EDPC should provide consolidated list of recommendations. Should be available in advance of PC and public to review. Vijay to circulate document for all EDPC to comment and consolidate one document. c.Fence ordinance amendment. Last year, council asked Peter to modify. Zach needs council support/direction. Zach agrees to take version 2.0 back to City Council. Get clarification and present in front of council. Possible to present to city council in August? Michelle suggested EDPC do 1:1 with individual council members, like Bob Olson. d.June 9, 2020 Minutes Approval. Yea: Vijay, Carol, Nancy, Peter, Buvana. No: None. e.City Council review of committees; survey – 4 members at least submitted survey. f.Committee Member Term Dates – Recruiting, Can Deborah send out town wide email or mailer? Birgitta suggested speaking at City Council public speaking time? g.Election of new officers – a.Chair - Vijay Yea: Vijay, Carol, Nancy, Peter, Buvana. No: None. b.Vice-chair – Peter. Yea: Vijay, Carol, Nancy, Peter, Buvana. No: None. c.Secretary – Buvana. Yea: Vijay, Carol, Nancy, Peter, Buvana. No: None. 6.Review of Field Trip Reports a.Arastradero – Building garage/ADU on flat area. Suggested removing retaining wall out of setback. Specify exterior materials. b.Fremont Road – Open space committee will look at the easement issues. Height of golf range fence recommended maxing to height of tennis fence. c.Amigos Ct – screening suggested. d.Ravensbury – lot up for annexation. Concern with MFA, 4 story façade, and cut trees. e.Edgecliff Place – Landscaping screening. f.Deer Creek Rd – Subdivided lot with creek and 25 feet setback from top of bank. g.Dawnridge – Large home, neighbor’s views compromised? Second driveway? 7.Review of Fast Tracks Meetings a.Maria b.Vinedo 8.Planning Commission Meeting Report 9.City Council Meeting Report 10.Adjournment Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Environmental Design and Protection Committee regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s office located at Town Hall, 26379 Fremont Road, Los Altos Hills, California during normal business hours.