Hillside Development Standards & Guidelines - Staff Report & Exhibit 1TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: October 21, 2015
PREPARED BY: Joel S. Paulson, Planning Manager
j pau 1 son@ lo sgatos ca. gov
STUDY SESSION
SUMMARY: Study Session to discuss amendments to Chapter II (Constraints
Analysis and Site Selection) and Chapter V (Architectural Design)
of the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines.
EXHIBITS: 1. Public Comments (16 pages)
BACKGROUND:
The Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines (HDS&G) were adopted b y the Town
Council in January 2004. The Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines are used along
with other policy and regulatory documents adopted by the Town, including the General Plan,
Zoning Ordinance, Blossom Hill Comprehensive Open Space Study, and the Hillside Specific
Plan.
On September 23, 2015, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider proposed
amendments to the HDS&G regarding light reflectivity value (LRV) and visibility analysis (link
to September 2015 report to the Planning Commission and supporting attachments for Agenda
Item 6: http ://lo s gato s .granicus .com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?v iew id =5&clip id= 14 52).
Following limited discussion and receiving public testimony the Planning Commission continued
the matter to a Study Session on October 21, 2015.
The Planning Commi ssion 's lim ited discussion resulted in a few proposed modifications to the
originally proposed amendments. These modifications are reflected below in strikethrough
(deletions) and unde rline/bold (additions) format.
As requested by the Planning Commission, the Town's Con sulting Arborist will be present at the
Study Session to answer questions from the Planning Commission regarding trees and their role
in visibility analysis.
DISCUSSION:
Staff has provided the following information, which was contained in the September 23, 2015
staff report, to provide a framework for Planning Commission discussion. For additional
information please refer to the September 23, 2015 statTreport.
Modifications to C hapter II (Constraints Analysis and Site Selection)
In an effort to provide additional guidance to applicants, staff, and the deciding bodies regardi ng
visibility and how it is analyzed, staff has prepared draft methodology language for visibility
Planning Commission Study Session Staff Report -Page 2
Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines Study Session
October 21 , 2015
analysis. The draft methodology language below would be added to Chapter II of the HDS&G
and is provided in bullet form for a step by step process. The proposed new text is shown below.
The following steps shall be taken in completing a view 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
• 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**
• 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***
* Other location(s) as deemed appropriate by the deciding body Community
Development Director may be chosen in addition to the existing viewing platforms
** Existing vegetation and/or landscaping proposed to be removed entirely or partially
shall not be included in the view analysis
***Percentages shall be rounded to the nearest whole number
Additionally, the Planning Commission recommended the following modification to page 13 of
the HDS&G .
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 A venue
5. Other location(s) as deemed appropriate by the deciding body Community Development
Director
The Commission should also discuss the following items and determine if any additional
amendments should be included:
• Should existing trees on-site and off-site which contribute to screening be used in the
analysis;
Planning Commission Study Session Staff Report -Page 3
Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines Study Session
October 21, 2015
• Do existing trees have to be of a certain rating or health category to be included as
screemng;
• Should trees with potential construction impacts from a project be included as screening
or excluded;
• Should the visibility analysis be required to be done during a certain time of year; and
• Should trees with sparse canopies be included as screening.
Exhibit 4 of the September 23, 2015 staff report also contains a letter from Dave Weissman
regarding the proposed visibility methodology and includes his recommendations for
modifications to the proposed visibility methodology.
Modifications to Chapter V (Architectural Design)
Exterior colors and materials for homes in the hillsides are governed by the requirements of the
HDS&G. Chapter V, Section I. 2. (Page 41) of the HDS&G states:
1. The contrast between manmade buildings and the environment shall be minimized. A
buildings color and materials shall complement and blend with the predominant colors
and values of the surrounding natural environment.
2 . Exterior colors shall not exceed a reflectivity value of 30 and shall blend with the natural
vegetation.
3. Roofs shall be a dark earth tone color with a variety of shades of that color that blend
with the environment.
4. Exposed metal surfaces shall be painted to compliment adjacent materials, be anodized a
dark color, or have the ability to develop a patina (e.g., copper).
5. Mirror-like window tinting is prohibited.
6. Contrasting color accents shall be kept to a minimum.
In applying the HDS&G, past practice focused on the main body color of the home and that it
should not exceed an LRV of 30. This practice allowed natural materials with a lighter palate and
light colored trims with an LRV greater than 30. On October 17, 2014, Town Council read item
2 above and stated that based on the language, all exterior material colors of the home (including
the main body color, trim, windows, doors , and any stone) should not exceed an LRV of30.
Most recently, applicants have expressed concerns to staff regarding application of this
requirement. For example, new homes would not be allowed to have light colored trim or stone
because the color exceeds LRV 30. In addition , a new accessory structure or addition to an
existing residence constructed prior to the adoption of the HDS&G would need to conform to the
LR V requirements, requiring repainting or changing the materials for the entire home to meet
LRV 30 or having the addition/accessory structure with a different color scheme. This would
result in a significant added cost to the homeowner and a significant alteration to the appearance
Planning Commission Study Session Staff Report -Page 4
Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines Study Session
October 21, 2015
of an existing home. This would affect existing trim, fascia, and windows with white mullions
and trim.
Staff is recommending amendments to Section I. 2. of Chapter V of the HDS&G to allow LRV
averaging for non-visible homes as defined by the HDS&G. Exhibit 3 provides a "redlined"
version of the full text of Chapter V indicating the proposed revisions. Proposed new text is
shown as underlined and deletions are shown with strikethrough.
2. Exterior material colors shall not exceed a reflectivity value of 30 for homes, with the
exception of homes with any elevation that is more than 25 percent visible from the viewing
platforms, may use color averaging of all exterior materials to meet the maximum light
reflectivity value of 30 and shall blend with the natural vegetation.
CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS:
The Planning Commission should discuss the proposed amendments to the HDS&G and provide
any comments or additional recommended changes to the proposed amendments.
Following the Study Session, staff will prepare revised amendments to the HDS&G which will
be considered at a future Planning Commission meeting.
B epared by:
oel S. Paulson, AICP
Planning Manager
LRP :JSP :sr
N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\20 15\Hill s ide_LRV _ Vi s ibil ityS tudyS essio n .doc
To: Planning Commission, Study Session of October 21, 2015
From: Dave Weissman, Lee Quintana
Re: Proposed draft for Visibility Calculations
We have started with Staffs draft template, as presented at the PC meeting of
August 26, 2015, and expanded it to try and include all of those issues and areas that
both the TC and PC expressed an interest in during several public hearings.
Additionally we have tried to remove as much ambiguity and subjectivity as
possible since several PC members expressed such concerns.
VIEW METHODOLOGY AND ANALYSIS
METHODOLOGY
Instillation of story poles:
• Install story poles per adopted Town Policy
Timing of story pole instillation:
• A&S: Early in staff review
• PD: Prior to determination of the LRDA, since visibility is identified as a constraint
to be considered when determining the LRDA
Identify points from which analysis shall be done:
• Determine identified viewing platforms to use
• Identify alternate viewing platform(s) from valley floor
• Identify vantage points within hillsides
If after story poles are installed, staff concludes that the development will be less
than 10% visible, no further visual analysis is required
Photographs:
• Equipment: Photographs of the project site shall be taken with a 300 mm or longer
lens using a tripod. The 300mm or longer lens will facilitate the identification of
individual trees and the tripod will ensure a quality image
• Ambient conditions: Photos shall be taken during the time of day and ambient light
conditions that provide the best visibility of the site
• Photographs shall clearly show the story poles and/or house and subject property
Timing of Photographs:
•Significant dead branches shall be removed from on-site trees before photos are
taken 1
•Evergreen trees only: Photos may be taken anytime of the year if only (native)
evergreen trees provide screening
•Deciduous trees: Where (native) deciduous trees provide screening, photos shall be
taken during maximum summer leaf-out2 and maximum winter leaf drop.3
1
Processing of photographs:
• Download color photogra ph s into Photos hop, or a similar application, and en large
the story pole area to almost comple t e ly fill an 8" x 11" sheet of paper.
• Ton es a nd contrast shall be adjusted to ma ximize the visibility and identification of
the individual trees that may afford sc reening for the proposed project.
• No other Photoshop changes s h a ll b e p e rmitted .
Trees that shall be counted as screening trees are:
• Native to the immediate site
• Na turally occurring (not pl a nted or proposed as landscaping)
• On-site
• Have a preservation suitability rating of "fair /good, good, or excellent", as
determined in the consulting arborist's fi nal tree report
• Reco mmended for retention in th e consulting arborist's final tree report
• Subject to "low" (or no) construction impacts, according to th e consulting arborist
Trees th a t s hall be counted as providing p a rti a l screening:
• Native deciduous trees shall b e cr e dited with 60% of screening4
• Trees with s parse canopiess, 6
Trees that shall not be counted as screening trees are:
• Trees requiring more than 15% pruning to make way for construction
• Trees s ubject to pote nti a l "low /moderate, modera te or sever" construction
impacts according to th e co n s ulting a rborist's final tree report
• T r ees that have a "poor, poor /fair, or fai r" preservation s uita bility rating according
to the co n s ulting arborist's fi n a l tree report
• Tr ees that a r e to be removed, or t ha t are injure d or h armed during any
co n stru ctio n or grading activity, even if the la tte r two are incidental occurrences
ANALY SIS
Provide th e following color photos:
• Photographs that label:
1. Trees that prov ide screening on-site when viewe d from t h e vi ewin g
platforms/vantage points toward the proj ect site
2. A ph o to tha t physically r e moves, through photo simulation, those trees that
s h a ll not be counted as screenin g a nd indicate which trees provide partial
screening
• Three-dimensional illustrations o r photo s imulations of structure may be required
when determined necessary by th e d eciding body to assist in visibility analysis
Determination:
• Calc ul a t e the perce nt visibility of proposed s t r ucture(s) for each of the above 2
photos
• If a ny one e levation of a hou se (plu s re la t ed structures) is 25% or more visible,
2
rounded to the nearest whole number, the maximum height shall be 18'
1 Such dead branch removal is also part of the HDS&G defensible space guidelines
2 Overall health of deciduous oaks can only be assessed during full leaf-out, usually
in early summer
3 That will reflect visibility during the late fall-winter months
4 Since such trees are with leaves for approximately 60% of the year
5 Usually reflective of poor b ase line health of that tree and poor, long term viability
6As an example, if the solid "block" outline of a tree screens 300 square feet of a
proposed s tructure's elevation, but the actual tree would only provide an estimated
30% screening of that structure because of its s parse canopy, then the applicant gets
"credit" for 90 square feet.
Other items to consider for discussion and/or inclusion in VIEW METHODOLOGY
AND ANALYSIS
1. Is the 25% visibility cutoff too generous? Story poles, when viewed from 1.3 to 3.4
miles away, a re essentially invisible to the naked eye. In contrast, completed houses,
such a s the house on Highland's Lot 6, are readily visible because of size and mass,
even if their visibility is less than 25%. The HDS&G speak to this issue on page 15:
"The visual impact of buildings or portions of buildings that can be seen from the
viewing platforms shall be mitigated to the greatest extent reasonable by reducing
the height of the building or moving the structure to another location on the site."
OUR PROPOSAL: Reduce the percentage visibility threshold to 15% s ince the
Highland's Lot 6 house, for which no visibility analysis was require d by Staff
because, we assume, it was less than 25%, is, nevertheless, readily visible to the
naked eye from Los Gatos Blvd. This observation supports that the 25% threshold is
too high and should be lowe red.
2. Should vis ibility calculations also consider th e square footage of the elevation that is
visible ? In other words, a 5,000 square foot house might have 20% of its elevation,
or 1,000 s quare feet, visible from the valley floor. Such a house would be permitte d
under the present code. But a 500 square foot house, situated in the middle of a
hillside clea ring, might have 100% of its elevation visible to the valley floor and not
3
be permitted, despite being less of an eyesore in the hillsides. In fact, it is the smaller
house that is more sustainable and should be encouraged (HDS&G, pages 9 & 33).
The present system favors the bigger, less sustainable, more visible house.
OUR PROPOSAL: That the PC discuss this topic and modify the code to be more
reflective of the goals and objectives of the HDS&G. Consider the "big picture."
3. Should the all important visibility calculations be peer reviewed by an outside
source who has no potential conflict of interest with the applicant? This is, possibly,
the single, most important number generated in any hillside application with a
potential visibility issue and should be peer reviewed, not because we don't trust
the applicant but because people make honest mistakes. The Town chooses the
consulting arborist and staff requires peer review of submitted documents and
studies all of the time. These important visibility documents should be no different.
OUR PROPOSAL: Require peer review of any critical document, such as a visibility
study, especially where the initial evaluation was done by a company chosen by the
developer.
We also have a quick comment on LRV averaging. Staff proposes the following:
"Exterior material colors ... may use color averaging of all exterior materials to meet
the maximum light reflectivity value of 30 .... " It thus appears that an applicant could
have a house with sides of LRV 5 but a roof with LRV of 90, but because of averaging
of areas, the overall LRV would be below 30 even though the roof would be
extremely visible. Plus what is averaged? just the elevation facing the valley floor or
all 4 sides and roof of the house? Since the HDS&G call for hillside homes to blend
with the natural environment, it seems to us that every part of the proposed house
should blend with the hillsides. One only has to look at the built house on Lot 6 in
the Highlands to see what visibility looks like from the valley floor along Los Gatos
Blvd.
4
May 22, 2015
Members of Los Gatos Town Council
c/o Laurel Prevetti
110 E. Main St.
Los Gatos, California 95031
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
I have been closely following the redevelopment of the Sisters of the Holy Names s ite
since they first announced their desire to relocate . Since they have sold the property to
SummerHill I have been in close contact with their Project Manager, Michael Keaney
and am grateful for the outreach and communication that they have had with the
neighborhood to manage the disruption created by the project. I also attended their
community meeting and have been interested in seeing the architecture that they are
proposing for the site . What I have seen so far has looked like it would be a positive
addition to our neighborhood. Michael has informed me that as a result of a change in
staff's interpretation of the Hillside Guidelines they will be forced to use very dark colors
and materials on all elements of the new homes and will have to make changes to the
elevations that I had previously seen and liked.
I am disappointed to hear that this change has occurred. I would like to request that the
Council prioritize an update to these requirements that will allow this project and other
hillside projects that are not visible from the valley floor to have more flexibility to use
natural materials and colors that are appropriate in a hillside setting but allow for greater
architectural variation .
Regards ,
Susan Kankel
Reservoir Road
Members of los Gatos Town Council
c/o laurel Prevetti
110 E. Main St .
Los Gatos, California 95031
Honorable Mayor and Council Members:
May 22, 2015
We live across the street from the SummerHill Homes project currently under construction at
the former site of the Sisters of the Holy Names. We have followed the approval process for
this project closely, including attending the Community Meeting SummerHill held on th e
project site, and one of the DRC meetings where Architecture for the first homes were
approved. As of today, we have been pleased with the proposed architectural design, use of
natural materials and color selections.
SummerHill recently brought to our attention that the pretty colors that were being
represented on the drawings we were shown were not an option based on changes in policy,
which were not applied to this project .
We would urge council to allow the SummerHill project to use the alternative method for
complying with the Hillside Development Standards related to materials and colors that wa s
used for the Davidon project on Shady lane.
SummerHill indicated that as a result of Council discussion, staff has changed their
interpretation of the current policy to be much more restrictive and eliminate the exception
that had previously applied to trim and natural materials such as stone. As residents who will
be living across the street from several homes which can't be viewed from the valley, that this
new more restrictive interpretation will have a negative impact on the appearance of these
homes.
We would like to request that the Planning Staff make it a priority to implement the motion
that was pa sse d at the March 1ih Town Council Meeting for agenda item 2. The motion, per
the meeting minutes, wa s to "a mend the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines to add
the option for the use, as appropriate, of the light value averaging method, and to re sea rch and
determine a maximum light value that can be used in averaging."
Sincerely,
Melissa and Morgan MacDonald
175 Pro spect Avenue
October 16, 2015
Joel Pau lson
Community Development Dept.
Town of Los Gatos
110 E. Main Street
los Gatos, CA 95030
RE: Vi sual Analysis Methodology
Dear Mr. Paulson,
MES
(via ema il & overnight delivery)
RECEIV ~: ·.:
OCT J ~ /I";.,
' •.t! I
TOWN OF LU~ GATOS
PLANNING DIVISION
Davidon appreciates the opportunity to be included in the discussion regarding potential
amendments to Visual Analysis Methodology within the HDS&G. Over the past couple of years
Davidon has likely performed more Visual Analysis than any other applicant in the history of Los
Gatos. We have valuable experience as to the methods and practicability of the
implementation. Davidon believes that the current methodology and past practice of the
Town has not been proven inadequate, but we do agree that some minor clarifications to the
methodology maybe warranted. It is very important however, that any amendments to the
document strike a balance of fairness between reasonable private property rights and the
interests of the citizens of Los Gatos. Furthermore, any amendment must result in clarity, not
confusion in application.
Over the past 9 months, staff has refined its policies and practices which has improved the
process. Under the recently revamped Planning Department led by Ms. Prevetti, staff has
become proactive in identifying additional viewing locations, in addition to the currently
designated Viewing Platforms. They have also implemented an infield verification system of
the submitted Visual Analysis. These efforts show that the methodology that is currently being
employed meets the intent of the HSD&G and is accurate, effective and verifiable .
Staff is recommending additional refinements to the guidelines that Davidon supports, with the
exception of the rounding to the nearest whole number, which is discussed at the latter part of
this letter. The staff report also, raises other questions for Planning Commission to consider.
The following are Davidon's opinion of each :
Should existing trees on·site & off·slte which contribute to screening be used in the analysis?
The HSD&G discusses " ... locating buildings on the least visible areas of the LRDA" and " ...
capable of being seen from a viewing platform if trees or large shrubs are removed, significantly
pruned, or impacted by construction". These standards suggest that existing trees are to be
used as screening. The complete removal of all trees from the Visual Analysis would result in
100% visibility in most cases. The Council members agreed i n the 6/15/2009 hearing (a hearing
1600 SOUTH MAIN STREET, SUITE 150, WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94596-5394
TELEPHONE (925) 945-8000 • FACSIMILE (925) 256-0140
often referred to in these discussions), that the use of existing trees for screening is the only
logical way to look at this. If the concern is that a property owner will remove a tree and
expose a structure, most, if not all, existing trees are protected by Town policy and require
approval for removal or major pruning .
Do existing trees have to be a certain rating or health category to be Included as screening?
Past practice is that all existing trees are allowed for screening. I think we all can agree that it is
impossible to predict how long a tree will live. It could be 5 years, or it could be a 100 years .
This life expectancy can be the same whether it is a tree in "poor" condition or "good"
condition. A tree's health can also vary based on environmental factors, like weather, and can
be very difficult to accurately assess. For example with the current drought, the trees that
appear to be struggling are downgraded in health by the arborist, but is it possible that the
health will rebound once the rains return or if supplemental watering is implemented?
Because the longevity of tree life is unknown and because there is not conclusive criteria for
estimating the life expectancy of a tree, David on believes every tree should be allowed for
screening.
A possible compromise would be to have the Town Arborist or the consulting arborist make the
determination whether an individual tree has value to be preserved. If the arborist believes
that a tree has long term survivability, and that this can be enhanced by proper clearance from
construction and by implementation of a maintenance program, including supplemental
watering, then the tree should be allowed for screening.
Should trees with potential construction Impacts from a project be included as screening or
excluded?
As the current HDS&G states, under the definition of "Potential" on page 13 section B.l, 11trees
or shrubs being removed, significantly pruned or impacted by construction" cannot be used as
screening. This policy is already practiced by staff and Davidon has been adhering to. The
essential tool used for determination of beneficial screen trees is the arborist report. The
arborist report recommends clearances from each tree to proposed improvements that will
provide an adequate buffer for preservation of the tree. Once this recommendation is made,
this gives the applicant an opportunity to design accordingly to either preserve the trees or in
an absence of a reasonable alternative, to porpose a course of action with some impact to the
tree(s). Davidon believes that the existing language is clear, fair and warrants no change
except to clarify that the determination of an impacted tree should be based on the opinion of
the Town or consulting arborist.
Should trees with sparse canopies be Included as screening?
Planning Commission has seen numerous times now, Mr. Weissman's photos of Lot 7 Tree
#606, 607 & 626 . These photos were taken from a drone flying very close to the lot and either
2
telescopically zoomed in or zoomed in using Photoshop. These photos are representative of
what you see when you stand 20' -50' away, not from a viewing platform over a mile away.
These trees, as Mr. Weismann points out, are very sparse due to the drought conditions. They
are Blue Oaks, and according to Deborah Ellis, "it is common to lose their leaves partially or
entirely" during drought situations.
We should not forget that the HDS&G r equires ana lysis of visibility from t he v iewing platform.
This means standing and looking with the naked eye from the viewing platform. For Lot 7, the
Viewing Pl atform, at the SW corner of los Gatos Blvd . and Blossom Hill, is 1.4 miles away.
Please consider the attached Exh i bit A. This photo was taken from the Viewing Platform w ith a
300 mm lens . This is equivalent to about 6 times the magnitude of what can be seen by the
naked eye . In this photo one can see clea r ly the orange netting of the story poles. Also, one
can see an obvious outline and massing of the very sparse canopy of Tree #607 . Notice the
difference between unobstructed/unscreened orange netting versus t h e netting screened by
Tree #607 . When story pole netting is behind Tree #607, there is obvious visual screening
taking place. Even with a zoom lens it is very obvious screening is occurring behind a very
sparse tree from this distance.
The next photo is taken with a 50 mm lens. Th i s is what is seen by the naked eye. Again very
obvious screening occurring. What can be seen in comparing the 50 mm photo with the 300
mm photo, is the clarity and level of detail diminishes the further away one gets. The further
away a person is, the less that can seen . The level of detail that Mr. Weismann suggests, by
identifying leafs, twigs and dead branches, is not seen by the naked eye from these distances.
What is seen is an obvious screening by a mass of canopy, even by the sparsest trees. The
bright orange netting is vaguely seen behind these sparse canopies. Now couple that with an
LRV compliant earth tone colored structure, you will not see the bui lding behind these sparse
trees from 1.4 miles away. Sparse trees do provide screening and should be included in the
Visual Analysis .
Should the visibility analysis be required to be done during a certain time of year?
Mr. Weismann is suggesting that Visual Analysis occur during the "full summer leaf -out". As
explained above, from far distances the level of detail of seeing twigs, leaves and dead
branches is not possible. As shown, even sparse or defoliate trees do provide screening year
round . The suggestion of having an applicant wait until a certain time of year can cause
unnecessary delays and a burden on the applicant. Also, as Commissioner Erickson asked Mr.
Weissman in the 9/9/2015 PC hearing, w hat happens in a situation like we have today where in
drought situations, when the trees are in survival mode by pa rtially or entir ely defoliating even
during spring or summer? The results would be the same as performing the analys is in f all or
winter. To suggest an applicant wait until the drought is over is not logical. Based on
experience, a valid Visual Analysis can be done year round.
3
Comments regarding Staffs proposed methodology:
Viewing Platforms
The HSD&G currently allows for alternate viewing platform as deemed by the deciding body.
David on has performed many alternate Visual Analysis from locations other than the
designated Viewing Platforms. These alternate analysis locations were chosen by Davidon,
assuming they were the most appropriate locations to perform the analysis. Staff has also,
recently, took the initiative to request additional locations from us . Commissioner O'Donnell
made a great point at the September 28th hearing, that in fairness to the applicant, the
alternate location(s) should be determined prior to being brought forth to a deciding body.
Davidon supports the modification of the language, as recommended by Ms. Prevetti, to read
as "5. Other location(s) as deemed appropriate by the Community Development Director."
Rounding to the Nearest Whole Number
Staffs recommendation of rounding to the nearest whole number revises the maximum
visibility from 24.99% to 24.49%. Based on this methodology, a percentage of 24.5% or 24.51%
would be considered visible defined by the HDS&G, even though the calculations clearly show it
to be otherwise. Though I believe the intent is to address a margin of error of +/-0.5%, this
language can cause contention. The current language stating 25% or more is clear, fair and
does not require an amendment.
Additional Topics/Comments
Peer Review
As mentioned earlier, under the recently revamped Planning Department led by Ms . Prevetti,
Staff has Implemented a verification system of the submitted Visual Analysis . This is a task that
staff is currently able to perform and I am assuming willing to continue to perform. Staff is
certainly qualified to objectively review the submitted documents. An automatic third party
review would be redundant. It should be staffs discretion i f a peer review is appropriate, based
on its inability to review based on workload, complexity or some other reasonable reason it
feels it cannot perform the task.
Identification of Trees
Google Earth has proven to be an effective tool used by our architect in identification of tree
canopies. The suggestion that an applicant shoot arrows with colored ribbon into the trees is
silly and quite possibly dangerous. Removal of the ribbon would be impossible, leaving the
hillsides littered with a rainbow of ribbon.
Screen Tree Planting
Currently, the interpretation of the HSD&G does not allow planting of trees for screening of the
building. This interpretation is taken from HSD&G Page 16, C.3 stating "Providing Landscape
screening is not an alternative to reducing building height or selecting a less visible site." What
4
happens once the applicant has mitigated these two criteria to the greatest extent reasonable?
In the 6/15/2009 Council Hearing, at 1:28,, Mayor Wassermann, who was on the Council that
approved the HSD&G, discussed that mitigating to the greatest extent reasonable included the
use of planting screen trees. He stated that in "the HSD&G there are many things subject to
interpretation, many phrases that have gray area, such as mitigating to the greatest extent
reasonable." He believed planting screen trees was allowable mitigation .
Is it possible, also, that the term Landscaping is referring to ornamental landscaping that a
property owner can remove without any approvals and can potenti ally expose the house later?
This "landscaping" is much different than native oak mitigation t rees that are protected by the
Town's newly amended Tree Ordinance.
The current HSD&G allow for "Landscape" screening under Ridgeline View Protection. Ridgeline
View Protection (HSO&G pg 16), states "landscaping shall be provided to screen the building
from the view to the greatest extent possible". Why not allow reduction of visual impact to
greatest extent reasonable by use of screen trees in all cases?
Shouldn't an applicant be encouraged to plant additional oak trees for screening? Wouldn't it
be beneficial to plant new trees in place of trees determined by the arborist to have no value in
preserving?
Planting a young, healthy, Coast Live Oak can provide immediate screening, and the screening
will only grow over time. New plantings not only enhance health to the environment and
sustainability of the oak woodland, but also mitigates the visibility of the houses. It is a win-
win for everyone. New trees should be encouraged & protected oak tree plantings should to be
allowed for screening.
Davidon looks forward to further discussing this topic at the Special Session on October 21 5t .
Cc: Jeff Thayer, Dennis Razzari
5
EXHIBIT A
0
0 .c
Cl.
E
E
0
0
(')
0 ....
0
J: a..
:!: ......
0
:!: <0
0 =*1:
0
('t)
LL
0
a..
::J
~
0
...J co
.s
0 .r::. a.-g
E ~ E ~
0
lt)
'+-
0
0..~ ::::J r:: ~ g
0 "0
-Q) m ~ ~g> o ·-(1)~ r:: Q)
~z