Attachment 13 - Public Comment received by 1100 Nov. 30, 2017To: Town Council , meeting 12/5/2017
From : Dave Weis sman , 11/30/2017
Re : Vi si bility Analysi s -Sugge stions for items to add to (presumed) staff draft.
The se sugge stion s are based , in part, on the "dry run " PC hearing for Highlands ' Lot 10, A&S
S -17-009, on 11/8/2017. That applicant followed many of the requirements listed in the
staff visibility draft that you have, but some particulars , as discussed below, would be
improvements . It has been 13 years, since the publication of the HDS&G , that this
methodology was last addressed . We should make this current revision the best we can
since it may be another 13 years before we revisit.
1. Photographs taken for vi sibility analysis, should be taken to avoid obstacles . Example : The
Chevron gas station sign (Highlands lots 6 and 7) and the batting cage of Leigh High School
(Highlands lot 10). Moving a few feet to get an unob structed view of the story poles is only
common sense . Yet it is still not being done routinely (Highland s Lot 10) and this requirement
should be added to the proposed draft.
2 . We should use the science -different tree species, of different health status, have
different responses to disturbance during construction : large blue oak trees are not as
resilient as large live oak trees. Moderate trauma to a "fair'' condition blue oak may kill it.
Similar trauma to a "fair'' condition live oak probably won't kill it. What's the point in
requiring a tree report, if we don't use this information? Trees predicted to not survive a
certain anticipated level of construction trauma, should not be counted as screening
trees. This information, previously provided , is from the industry standard text book
A rboricul t u re. Integrated Management of landscape t rees , shrubs, and vines by
R.W. Harris, J.R. Clark, and N .P . Matheny, 2003, Prentice Hall ; and from
correspondence with the 2 junior authors in 2016.
3 . Trees "impacted by construction ," as discussed on page 13 of HDS&G, at a moderate
or severe level , especially blue oaks, should not be counted as screening trees. I
ATTACHMENT 1 3
support counting trees subject to only a low or low/moderate level of construction impact
if the Town's Consulting Arborist feels they can survive .
4. Trees "significantly pruned," as discussed on page 13 of HDS&G, should not be
counted as screening trees. We have a Tree Protection Ordinance pruning threshold for
hillside trees -prune more than 25% and a tree pruning permit is required. Need to
prune more than 25% of a tree to construct a house, then that entire tree should not be
counted as screening since it is at increased risk of dying from the trauma . Example:
tree #606 on Highlands Lot 7.
5. Trees injured or harmed anytime during story pole installation, grading, or
construction, should not be counted as screening trees. Presently, there is no other way
to penalize a developer for not protecting a tree, as required , in the Tree Protection
Ordinance. Even with a 5-year maintenance agreement and deed restriction, a large
dead tree can 't be "replaced" by a new, 20-gallon tree. This requirement will incentivize
good practices. Example: Tree #720 on Highlands Lot 10 -sustained a mechanical
injury in 2015 and "failed" in 2017 , according to the Consulting Arborist.
6. Lastly, the Consulting Arborist 's reports should be standardized. Since they are hired by the
Town, the Town should give them standardized directions as to what is required in the tree
report . Plus, there will always be turnover in personnel. Example #1 : Both the PC and TC agreed
during 2015 and 2016 hearings, that trees rated "poor" or "fair/poor" should not be counted
as screening trees. This determination was based on past Consulting Arborist Debra
Ellis' statements that "No effort should be made to retain trees with "fair/poor" or "poor"
preservation suitability" because of their likelihood of not surviving, even without
construction impacts. In past drafts, we had asked that sparse canopies not be given
the same screening rating as a full canopy. We subsequently agreed to remove this
requirement because a sparse canopy tree was more likely to receive a poor or fair/poor
rating and would, thus, not be counted as a screening tree anyway. Unfortunately, the
Town's 2 current Consulting Arborists don't use intermediate categories such as
"fair/poor." Biological systems are not precise and intermediate categories are
sometimes necessary, useful, and informative. These intermediate categories should be
required , where appropriate. Example #2: The Town's Tree Protection Ordinance
requires a "Preservation suitability" determination for trees close to a construction site -
such information was not provided in the Consulting Arborist's report for a 2017 Gum
Tree Lane A&S . Standardized directions from the Town to each Consulting Arborist will
insure fair and equal treatment of all applicants now and into the future.
In closing, I would like to say that it would have been nice to actually see the staff report
before having to write this letter to meet the packet submission deadline , so that I
wouldn 't have to guess some of its contents .
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank