Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Heritage Oak Program topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Staff report: Los Altos Hills processed nearly 190 tree-removal permits since 2020; replacement requirements vary by site
Summary
Community Development staff reported the town processed 189 tree-removal permits since 2020 and typically requires at least one replacement oak per removal, with the municipal code allowing up to five; discretionary removals are vetted with arborist reports and HIZ surveys.
Get email alerts on the Heritage Oak Program topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Staff from the community development department presented a summary of the town's heritage oak removal and screening permit activity and answered committee questions about spacing, replacement and enforcement.
Tim McBurney reported that since 2020 staff processed 189 tree-removal permits and about 90 landscape-screening permits. "In almost all cases, at least one oak tree is required to replace the one that was removed," he said, noting the municipal code allows up to five replacement oaks though staff typically recommend fewer where site conditions do not support dense replanting. Tim said fees for discretionary tree removals are nominal (the standard permit fee cited was $2.50) and that fee waivers are available when removals are documented as hazards or part of HIZ recommendations.
Committee members asked how the town handles unauthorized removals and whether the town imposes penalties. Tim said retroactive permits and replacement requirements are applied, and that code enforcement records would be the place to confirm whether civil penalties had been levied; he added that in many cases the town requires replacement planting as part of retroactive approvals. On spacing, staff again deferred to arborist recommendations and noted best practice guidance commonly uses 10'15 feet of canopy-to-canopy spacing for mature screening trees, though specific spacing varies by species and site.
The presentation closed with staff offering to work with applicants and their arborists on tree placement and with the committee asking staff to incorporate clearer language on how replacement plantings should be sited. There was no vote; the committee adjourned and asked staff to return with materials and an updated guide draft later.
