Attachment 3 - April 20, 2017 Town Council Policy Committee Staff Report (with Attachment 1)DATE:
TO:
FROM :
SUBJECT:
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
POLICY COMMITTEE REPORT
APRIL 17, 2017
POLICY COMMITTEE
LAUREL PREVETT!, TOWN MANAGER
M EETING DATE : 4/20/201 7
ITEM NO : 5
REVIEW AND DISCUSS SECTION B. OF CHAPTER II. (CONSTRAINTS
ANALYSIS AND SITE SELECTION) OF THE HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES
RECOMMENDATION :
Review and discuss Section B. of Chapter II. (Constraints Analysis and Site Selection) of the
Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines (HDS&G) and provide direction to staff for next
steps .
BACKGROUND :
On September 23, 2015, the Planning Commission considered proposed amendments to
Chapters II. and V. of the HDS&G regarding visibility analysis and light reflectivity value (LRV),
respectively . The Planning Commission continued the matter to a Study Session on October 21,
2015. Following public testimony and Commis sion discussion, the matter was continued to a
Special Planning Commission meeting on December 2, 2015 . After consideration of the
proposed amendments, including incorporating prior Commission comments and input from
members of the public, the Commission recommended that the Council approve the proposed
amendments to Chapters II. and V. of the HDS&G .
On February 2, 2016 the Town Council adopted the proposed amendments to Chapter V. of the
HDS&G regarding LRV.
PREPARED BY : JOEL PAULSON
Community Development Director
Reviewed by: Town Manager and Town Attorney
110 E. M ai n Street Los Ga t os , CA 95030 • 408-354-6832
www.losg atosca.gov ATTACHMENT 3
PAGE20F4
SUBJECT: REVIEW AND DISCUSS SECTION B. OF CHAPTER II. (CONSTRAINTS ANALYSIS
AND SITE SELECTION) OF THE HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND
GUIDELINES
DATE: APRIL 17, 2017
BACKGROUND (Continued):
The Council remanded the proposed amendments to Section B. of Chapter II. of the HDS&G to
staff with direction for the following additional analysis:
l. Remove the asterisks and include the language in the body of the document;
2. Examine consistency in language (e.g . the words view versus visibil ity);
3. Include more specific language regarding the analysis of screening;
4 . Require a maintenance agreement for trees that were included in the visibility analysis;
and
5. Consider view corridors or language that recognizes that there is a larger area than the
specific platforms from which visibility can be analyzed.
Attachment 1 contains suggestions from the public regarding this matter.
DISCUSSION:
In response to the Council's direction, staff has prepared a draft update to the visibility analysis
contained in this r eport. Item #1 is included in the visibility methodology by removing the
asterisks and adding the language into the body of the document. Item #2 has been addressed
by replacing the term view with visibility when referring to the analysis in the methodology.
Item #4 has been incorporated by requiring a Maintenance Agreement in the body of the
document. Items #1, #2, and #4 as recommended by the Council at the February 2, 2016
meeting are provided below in bold font and deletions are shown in strikett:ireYgl=l font.
B. ~ Visibility Analysis
The following steps shall be taken in completing a~ visibility analysis:
• Install story poles per adopted policy.
• After the installation of story poles, photographs of the project shall be taken from
the applicable viewing platforms using 50 MM and 300 MM lenses. Other locatlon(s)
as deemed appropriate by the Community Development Director may be chosen
in addition to the existing viewing platforms.
• A photograph with a 50 MM lens will represent the visibility of the proposed
residence from the naked eye.
• A photograph with a 300 MM lens will represent an up-close perspective and help
identify any visible story poles, netting, trees, and/or shrubbery.
• Existing vegetation and/or landscaping proposed to be removed entirely or
partially shall not be included in the ~ visibility analysis.
N:\MGR\AdminWorkFiles\Council Committee -POLICV\2017\4 .20.17\Visibility\Visibility _ 4-20-17.docx 4/18/2(
PAGE 3 OF 4
SUBJECT: REVIEW AND DISCUSS SECTION B. OF CHAPTER II. (CONSTRAINTS ANALYSIS
AND SITE SELECTION) OF THE HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND
GUIDELINES
DATE: APRIL 17, 2017
DISCUSSION (Continued):
• If determined necessary by the Community Development Director, three
dimensional illustrations or photo simulations of the structure may be required .
• A visible home is defined as a single-family residence where 24.5% or more of an
elevation can be seen from any of the Town 's established viewing platforms.
Percentages shall be rounded to the nearest whole number.
0 A Deed Restriction shall be required that identifies the trees that were used to
provide screening in the visibility analysis and requires their replacement if they die
or are removed.
• Trees with a poor or fair/poor rat ing shall not be included in the visibility analysis.
• The Community Development Director shall determine if the use of a third party
consultant is required to peer review an applicant's visibility analysis.
• A five year Maintenance Agreement shall be required for trees that were used to
provide screening in the visibility analysis and requires their preservation.
* Ott'ler loeation!s) as aeeffiea appropriate b~· the aeeiEling bee·; Con:imunity
Develepment Direetor n:iay be ehosen in aElaition to tt'le existing viewing platforms
** existing vegetation ana/or lanaseaping proposes to be removed entirely or partially
shall net be induaeEI in the view analysis
***Percentages shall be rounEleEI to the nearest whale number
The locations of the viewing platforms are shown on the map on the next page , and are
as follows:
1. Blossom Hill Road/Los Gatos Boulevard
2. Los Gatos -Almaden Road/Selinda Way (across from Leigh High School)
3 . Hwy 17 overcrossing/Los Gatos -Saratoga Road (Highway 9)
4 . Main Street/Bayview Avenue
5. Other location(s) as deemed appropriate by the Community Development Director
Staff is requesting input from the Committee on the following topics related to the direction
provided by the Council on items #3 and #5:
3. Should trees with a sparse canopy be allowed a percentage of screening to be included in
the visibility analysis?
5. Should language be added that a measurable d istance in any one direction of a viewing
platform also be analyzed as part of a larger v iew corridor?
N:\MGR\AdminWorkFiles\Council Commi1tee -POLICY\2017\4 .20.17\Visi bil ity\Visib ility_ 4-20-17.docx 4/18/21
PAGE40F4
SUBJECT : REVIEW AND DISCUSS SECTION B. OF CHAPTER II. (C ONSTRAINTS ANALYSIS
AND SITE SELECTION) OF THE HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND
GUIDELINES
DATE : APRIL 17, 2017
DISCUSSION (Continued):
Staff is also requesting input on other topics suggested by members of the public :
• Should only native trees be allowed to be included in the visibility analysis?
• Should only trees on-site be allowed to be included in the visibility analysis?
Staff looks forward to the discussion and direction of the Committee for next steps.
COORDINATION :
The preparation of this report was coordinated with the Town Manager's Office and the Town
Attorney.
ATIACHMENTS :
1. Proposed View Methodology and Analysis submitted by members of the public, received
April 14, 2017 (three pages)
N:\MGR\AdminWorkFiles\Cou n cil Co mmittee -POUCY\2017\4 .20.17\Visibility\Visibility_ 4-20-17 .docx 4/18/2l
1 lus \ er,ion supersede' till dr. ft , dated I 0 21 2015 . that LcL Quintana and Da\l' \\'eissman
submitted for the Pt Stud) Session of 10 21 12015 . This nc\\ est draH is totally revised and
reflects all discussion" and decisions made at the~ PC and 2 TC meetings in 2015 2016 \\herein
Visibi l ity Mcthmh1log) \\as disl'll'scd .
VIEW METHODOLOGY AND ANALYSIS
METHODOLOGY
Instillation of story poles:
• Install story poles per adopted Town Policy.
•Ropes supporting poles shall not be anchored to on-site trees, as per the Town's Tree Protection
Ordinance (Sec. 29.10.1005 (b) (4)).
Timing of story pole instillation:
• Prior to determination of the LRDA, since visibility is an identified consideration when
determining the LRDA (see HDS&G, page 12).
Location(s) from which visibility analysis shall be done:
•Identified viewing platfonn(s) #1-4 in the HDS&G (see page 13).
•Additional location(s) as deemed appropriate by the Community Development Director and/or
deciding body, including but not limited to the following:
I . Alternative or additional viewing platform(s) on the valley fl oor.
2. Vantage points/viewing platform(s) within the hillsides.
After story poles are installed, if staff concludes that the primary structure will be less than I 0%
visible, no further visibility analysis is required .
Photographs:
• Equipment: Photographs of the project site shall be taken with a 300 mm or longer lens using a
tripod, to facilitate the identification of individual trees.
• Ambient conditions: Photos shall be taken when ambient light conditions provide good
visibility of the site.
•Photographs shall clearly show the story poles and/or house and subject property.
Timing of Photographs:
•Photos may be taken at any time of year.
•Significant dead branches shall be removed from on-site trees before photos are taken 1•
Processing of photographs:
•Download color photographs into Photoshop, or a similar application, and enlarge the story
pole area to completely fill an 8" x 11" sheet of paper.
•Tones and contrast shall be adjusted to maximize the visibility and identification of the
individua l trees that may afford screening for the proposed project.
• No other Photoshop, or s imilar application, changes shall be pennitted.
Trees counted as scree ning trees shall meet all of the following criteria:
4/20/ 17 Policy Comm ittee Rpt -ATTACHMENT 1 TO'IVN OF ! OS G.'.T 0S
PLA NNIN G LJl'/JSION
•On-site.
• Healthy -have a preservation suitability rating of "fair, fair /good, good, or excellent", as
determined by the Consulting Arborist. Some deciduous oaks may require complete late-
spring.learly summer leaf out for accurate assessment.
• Native to the immediate geographic area.
• Naturally occurring (that is , not planted within the past 5 years or proposed as landscaping).
• Recommended for retention in the Consulting Arborist's tree report.
• Not impacted, or potentially impacted, by construction, according to the Consulting Arborist.
Trees shall not be counted as screening trees if they meet any of the following criteria:
• Trees or large shrubs that are to be removed entirely or partially.
•Trees requiring more than 25% pruning to make way for construction.
• Trees subject to potential "low /moderate, moderate, or severe" construction impacts according
to the Consulting Arborist's tree report , or trees given a "debatable action" or "disposition
unclear" assessment by the Consulting Arborist.
•Trees that have a "poor or poor/fair" preservation suitability rating2, according to the
Consulting Arborist's tree report .
• Trees that are injured or harmed during any pre-construction (including surveying and story
pole instillation), construction, or grading activity, even if such injury is an incidental
occurrence.
ANALYSIS
Applicant shall provide the following color photographs for each relevant viewing
platform/vantage point. Each photograph shall identify trees using the Consulting Arborist 's tree
numbers:
• A photograph showing on-site trees that currently provide screening when viewed from
relevant viewing platfonns/vantage points looking toward the project site .
• A photo-simulation that physically removes those trees or large shrubs that shall not be
counted as screening.
Three-dimensional illustrations, additional photo simulations, and/or scale model of the structure
may be required , when detennined necessary, by the Community Development Director and/or
the deciding body, to fully understand the impacts of a proposed project.
Detennination:
• Calculate the percent visibility of proposed structure using the photo-simulation photograph
that physically removes those trees or large shrubs that shall not be counted as screening.
• The maximum height of the residence shall be 18 feet if any elevation of a single-family
residence is 24.5% or more visible.
• The Community Development Director and/or the deciding body shall determine if the use of a
third-party consultant is required to peer review an applicant 's visibility analysis.
• A Deed Restriction shall be required that identifies the trees that were used to provide
screening in the visibility analysis and will require their replacement, in their original location, if
they die or are removed .
2
•As provided for in the Town 's Tree Protection Ordinance (Sec. 29.10.1000. (d)), a 5-year
maintenance agreement shall also be required for any tree covered by a Deed Restriction .
1 Such dead branch removal is also pa11 of the HDS&G defensible space guidelines (see page
25).
2Usually reflective of poor long term viability.
3
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank