The URL can be used to link to this page

3.2 Desk Itemwll MEETING DATE: 02/02/16 ITEM NO: 3.2 DESK ITEM COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT DATE: FEBRUARY 2, 2016 TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL FROM: LAUREL PREVETTI, TOWN MANAGER SUBJECT: HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES MODIFICATIONS. APPLICANT: TOWN OF LOS GATOS ADOPT A RESOLUTION TO AMEND CHAPTER 11. (CONSTRAINTS ANALYSIS AND SITE SELECTION) AND CHAPTER V. (ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN) OF THE HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES. After the distribution of the staff report and first Addendum, it was brought to staffs attention that two items submitted at the Planning Commission's Special Meeting on December 2, 2015 were not included. Attachment 14 contains those two items. Additionally, staff received inquiries from two Councilmembers which are identified below, followed by staffs response. What is staffs response to each issue identified in Dr. Weissman and Lee Quintana's letter? Was each issue discussed by the Planning Commission? Was it decided upon by the Planning Commission? Attachment 13 contains a letter from Dr. Weissman and Lee Quintana that provides the following eight suggestions (abbreviated below): 1. Only trees "native" to the immediate area should be counted as screening. 2. Only trees on-site should be counted as screening. 3. Add tree maintenance agreement in addition to a deed restriction. 4. If tree matrix or Consulting Arborist says to remove the tree it should not be counted as screening. 5. Provide a percentage of screening to trees with sparse canopies. PREPARED BY: JOEL PAULSON Interim Community Development Director Reviewed by. Assistant Town Manager Town Attorney Finance C:\Users%slombwdo\Desktop\Dms _I1em_Hillside_LRV_Visbility.2-2-16.12pm.dmx PAGE 2 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES MODIFICATION FEBRUARY 2, 2016 6. Trees harmed during any construction phase shall not be counted as screening. 7. If removing vegetation from a tree then it should not be counted as screening. 8. a. Reduce the visibility threshold from 25 percent to 15 percent. 8. b. Visibility calculations should take the square footage of visible elevations into consideration. With the exception of Items 3 and 7 above, the information in Attachment 13 was provided to the Planning Commission in one or more of the staff reports for its consideration. The Commission did not include the six items in its recommendation to Town Council. The Planning Commission did recommend that the Town Council include three additional modifications to the visibility methodology language as suggested by Dr. Weissman (Exhibit 4 of Attachment 1), and Dr. Weissman and Lee Quintana (Exhibit 6 of Attachment 6). The three additional modifications were: • 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 rating 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. Items 3 and 7 were not presented to the Planning Commission for their consideration at the December 2, 2015 Special Meeting. Staff believes that Item 3 is not necessary given the fact that '1 a requirement to record a Deed Restriction for screening trees is already incorporated in the Planning Commission's recommendation. Staff does not believe incorporating Item 7 is appropriate because tree pruning can be done in a responsible manner that does not adversely affect the tree. Regarding Item 8 a., the current standard in the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines (HDS&G) defines a visible home as a single-family residence where 25% or more of an elevation can be seen from any of the Town's established viewing platforms. The Planning Commission discussed whether the 25% visibility cutoff was too generous at the December 2, 2015 Special Meeting; however, no recommendation was included in the motion to request the Council to lower the percentage. Regarding Item 8. b., the Planning Commission recommended and staff proposed methodology would use the square footage of the elevations that are visible from the viewing platform(s) to calculate the visibility as is currently required in the HDS&G. Additionally, Section F. of Chapter V. of the HDS&G provides both standards and guidelines that address the issue of new homes in the hillsides that may appear overly large and bulky, resulting in high visibility from surrounding properties and the valley floor. The Planning Commission discussed whether the visibility calculations should also consider the square footage of the elevation that is visible at the December 2, 2015 Special Meeting; however, no recommendation was included in the motion to the Council to consider using square footage of visible elevations. PAGE MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES MODIFICATION FEBRUARY 2, 2016 Staff does not have any specific comments on the remaining suggestions and will be available at the meeting to answer any questions on any of the other suggestions provided in Attachment 13. Additionally, the Town Council can incorporate any of the proposed suggestions into the visibility methodology language. Does staff have any comments to the suggestions provided in Attachments 12 and 13? Are there benefits or disadvantages the Town Council should know about with any of the suggested language changes? Staff does not believe the suggestion in Attachment 12 is appropriate. For reference, Section C. of Chapter II. of the HDS&G states that providing screening is not an alternative to reducing the building height or selecting a less visible site to reduce the visual impact of a residence. Staff will be available at the meeting to answer questions on the suggestion provided in Attachment 12. The Town Council can incorporate the suggestions into the visibility methodology. A discussion of Attachment 13 is provided above. In terms of advantages and disadvantages, incorporating one or more of the suggestions would likely result in more single story homes in the hillsides. Depending upon your perspective, this could be a disadvantage (property owner view point) or an advantage (Town -wide view point). Attachments (previously received with February 2 2016 Staff Report): �.. 1. September 23, 2015 Planning Commission Staff Report (includes Exhibits 1-4) 2. September 23, 2015 Planning Commission Meeting Verbatim Minutes 3. October 21, 2015 Planning Commission Study Session Report (includes Exhibit 1) 4. October 21, 2015 Planning Commission Study Session Addendum (includes Exhibit 2) 5. October 21, 2015 Planning Commission Study Session Verbatim Minutes 6. December 2, 2015 Planning Commission Special Meeting Report (includes Exhibits 5-8; Exhibit 5 is now included as Attachment 5 to this February 2, 2016 Town Council Staff Report) 7. December 2, 2015 Planning Commission Special Meeting Desk Item (includes Exhibit 9). 8. December 2, 2015 Planning Commission Special Meeting Verbatim Minutes 9. Proposed Amendments — Chapter II. Constraints Analysis and Site Selection 10. Proposed Amendments — Chapter V. Architectural Design 11. Draft Resolution (includes Exhibits A and B) 12. Public comments received through 11:00 a.m. Thursday, January 28, 2016 Attachment (previously received with February 2. 2016 Addendum): 13. Public comment received January 28, 2016 (13 pages) Attachment received with this Desk Item: 14. Public comments submitted at the December 2, 2015 Planning Commission Special Meeting �. (20 pages) • x _�, 0 y - i December 2, 2015 Planning Commission Town of Los Gatos 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 RE: Visual Analysis Methodology Dear Commissioners, (submitted as desk item) Please see the attached comments in red in response to the language submitted by Mr. Weissman and Ms. Qulntata. Davidon's comments provide an applicant's perspective to the proposed methodology. Davidon has extensive experience In visual analysis and its opinion should be considered in improving the methodology. I look forward to discussing this further Sincerely, DAVIDON40MES 65teve Abbs Vice President, Site Development 6ATfACHMENT 14 1600 SOUTH MAIN STREET, SUITE 150, WALNUT CREEK. CAUFORNIA 94596-5394 TELEPHONE (925) 94546000 • FACSIMILE (925) 256-0140 This Page Intentionally Left Blank there is a gnificantly Ked dead anch(s) that II effect the ructure of the inopy, this akes sense To: Planning Cominiulon, Study Session of October 21, 2015 From: Dave Weissman, Lee Quintana Ile: Proposed draft for Visibility 09culadons We have started with Stalls draft template, as presumed at the PC meeting of August 26, 2015, and expanded it to try and indude 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 sub jec4nhy as possible since several FC members expressed such concerns. VIEW MMMODOLOGY AND ANALYSTS only the i gni= :es that are ing used as htstiilationofstorypotes: reening. But•htstallstory poles per adopted TmvnPoifcy trim all dead ,e De Cause seeing twigs and small branches from long distances with the naked eye is not possible. -'4N Story Poles cannot be installed until the house is designed and all DRC comments are addressed. Installation of poles any earlier can result in multiple changes to the poles, which is a -ost hurden to the aoDlicant. 1:u„i:.s of scan rp'-- ..�: P,:r;y fr, :.: ;: ate• Fr1: Dr{nr M AahrnvMeHnn of the i R_nl ",, a ViliMn. to li f4flad at a eDnStraim— i be w,w�w a.v i'I•ua.:, d a.Nw7w:y. Nag 1 UnA pow from which analysts shat) be dons See comment above. A determined by house cannot even tun • Determine Identified viewing platloruls to use for of CD ; A. :.;; design until the LRI,. .s • i��'r-^,; ::,, :�. ;�;;,m � Ir, OI: A— established. IfaRer story poles are Installed, staff concludes that the development to be arse these 10% visible, no farther visual ana}gsls is required ori staff conclude this calculation without an analysis? •aEEquipment Photographs of the project site shall be fsben with a 300 mm or longer 1"" -Inn; ", d, The 300mm or longer lens will facilitate the W of c,w u individual trees &-.A .Ir `a'i^^a wiri ena,wa a nnalifv aanm � ,1„aVic„a wrnl w„s l�uv"tvo su':,:ul w ivLweu :lw'2r. N..` .N..T...a n/rl� fwd wm{.la.^.+I iffh, wuwaii= uwt ^provide -Ae -i INv of An site ••y e-P1WaalJ!-gCe- JOW the -Vto. palma enA /wr Iware— .-., Timft of photogi apps: cSlgnificant dead branches shall be removed from on-site trees before photos ars bd=a ntnote 1 i� EVe. n frne�e nnly P{ nMc en v M Ikon anvfima of }lag vn-� if �nlv /neNvel ,...._-_._, _ correct. "-ew-e•"•'•re-- provide .---A,rs ad wood I Dedd,Imtf: trees: Nihrre (Mdw) deci�r uoulls "e -e nraviAoe mme tn• nlanHr el,a w y requirec tz"-r! dc-Caf-oueand :,.o:.... us. removed en it exists - _ -. Hs shown in Davidon's Letter dated 10/16/15, sparse or defoli-ated — yin S vertical trees viewed by the naked eye from 1.4 miles away do provide 1 t from the screening year round. This also requires a full 6 months to acquire und. photos. causing unnecessary dPlavc a quality common sense and is not required. Maybe state "quality of photo should be ro the (Isatisfaction of 0 sta� �- Comms _,elopmant r irArtnr Determination: . taladste the percent vtWblhty ofpr VaNd st ruchlie(s) fr w m *ke •?+ore z • If any one elevation of a house (plus rehod shuftres) is 25% or more vlsfhlP. Calculations can 'only be done on 'the exhibit with the structure simulation. Processing should be at the discretion of applicant's consulting architect and to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. Because of Should evolving technology, can't specifv software, etc.. include on &� ff site trees ^sem^�� ,—Y"""'b Y' phaco a-phz hat are aiv� alV..a pqN 1iYV W�1 ..�W .YM I N N f .V protected '' �y.,*dMWY�"i..i. Y JF k= r'�i�•W,/w � underthe _ a `----.. �a..n � .Al....+— W Y ..r...i..�. WWaAff� M"A - .w.o.g3.. ............ _.., ,.._......._ _ ._.. y ._._ Town's Tree .L_._•.,^�._ .r,..... .^a �_ .ss+.rsM..,... ,.Y,..a.,..,v,,. 1{IG NYI ♦!•iYY, N VGO uYV Yav Y{1 M. Y OM i...Y� .V. Y.Y Y..•._w� r_r w.. ho n►•7,tirfti•tl Protection Native tree mitigation All trees Ordinance. TreesdWzbnRbecmnriedassdeenfngtmesWW1 plantings can be used. determined t< •1 L;e*_ ,!hetm+..�w. f" be suitable • M W (W� YYLY1 r11.� 4t--. IiLY W �.. V�I.RY Y rYrM Y.,y - for All trees in preservation compliance _ _ J_--L.Lt_l��i i _..ril_r✓ _a -w•a•}"'r'",...Y,s..,....,N,.,...,,EY..Y,�sYYw�w,.G...,.G...,., by the with determined to the coffiulting arboiistrs Dual tree report `consulting • Recomarended for retention to the consaltfr� arbmWs firrpl tree report consulting • Cnr.t.. r m •rte .1� rR. ,,.,� construction Imparts, according to the consulting arlloefst � � �' arborist can arborist's ` `� be used for recommendati --firrµ� gr.�nb.%e� screening. ons for • - construction e Sparse or impact clearances TnxawatUMM nus accbiwwu ai sciiasm,$ UWM i� defoliated can be used = 21G /RrUt M4 MOE rhe:,15� y„itiu,s W 5 -W— w ►wmuNaw,iN trees viewed for screenin •heessubject InpotendW`:.:,1.^..".».rs..^'' wv.sever'tnnrtruction >ythe naked impacts according to the consul ft arbors feral tree report eye from 1.4 here do they -„.iL L L_ . a-- w MVYI4>GG miles away do fa,u,eau,sivau,�.,YY.YR.naw.,.. ..• ._ provide get . Tres that are to be removed, c,-' =::.-s uglw o ba.—mod a =:, i screening yea u ld b Should be �iLTMRFI/rrnR tp.i,Rr..*R. t lffe ye :ar^rC.._ e _ ..ea, ... ._._.to ^..L round. based on - - - consulting One zoom photo to be taken that Exhibits , includes the full limits of the arborist's opinion of structure. impact to the Provide forowingoeior `rl:sr First Exhibit to show story poles & Second exhibit tree. •P�a-r�drstlahett shall show i. Trees that providescreentngon-aioewhen iWeed fimdwvim InR simulation of pJatfortns; Y—WanUWA dthepr P:ctshe structure with 2- A photo that pbysiladlry removes, through pbft dMdadM thMtaeaa th t proposed tree shall not be counted as screening and Inthemwhfeh trees prmWe pmtfal removals deleted. screening • Three-dimensional fUustratioas or phow simuiatfom ofstruct ure may be required when determined nevessary by the daddhra to ai” In vi9flMW aosb+rfss Comms _,elopmant r irArtnr Determination: . taladste the percent vtWblhty ofpr VaNd st ruchlie(s) fr w m *ke •?+ore z • If any one elevation of a house (plus rehod shuftres) is 25% or more vlsfhlP. Calculations can 'only be done on 'the exhibit with the structure simulation. ,nere noes 30% come from and how is this determined when every tree is different 'ould a tree that is seen from a platform from only 1000' away versus the tree seen miles away have the same percentage applied? The further away less is seen, on't forget the structures will be an LRV Earthtone color behind these trees. r^ rounded tv fire iwresst whole merbitr. tate t»imtpm beltgb sWbe lr I1�11r11. Aisarh 1\+•u11et rew mi is Otto pert n99 ww (7T QJ/ _.-A 'wle rw.ww w1lAwliwws w ...... r.rr.. .w.rv.... w...r.. Yom' V .aW VMV rwwr.ve� i A...�..11 6—lw W A..rA.. 'M ..../r ..w...... 1... .wa M .(. 11 Vr4aVu♦rGeaW W Vgdli\11lyy awwa li{i va Vr 4a wa v syaau{>Ct' f 71.E war �. www �YY:Rr ei..wllu A.w IwM Il n w1.wNAe 4 -%M such bWW;are rvftlh 11@;n, * f?r °Ffi�-� .i__- ! ) C _L _ 4..._1.1. l J \ \:• uwwy laueulve m ywr oua calm uauw w tool silio MW pour, "W E&I.4 ViduiulyAA-N e.......le :s«r...I:a �I.IwnV ....rliw� ws� 2n,,... &, Cfa w.w..+Y""vlur +vu.. ...vww wwww+v.w..w....amlrvw ayalw.cavwa nw eLAft#40l1 dkflu ems! 1ltlrl is . �on�WIA n��h wri.ia 171R7A JK� GGLLIg VI�Y�L+ YKW Q Yq,Y� �i(.r gl,wa w Niiv�I � alit .� it would be difficult to differentiate the visibility of a house that has 25O% visibility from one that has 15% from over 1,5 miles away with the naked eye. For example, can one say that Lot 6 looks like it is 15%, 23% or 27%? It is not possible. Reducing the visibility only makes it more difficult for the applicant to design a functional and architecturally attractive home and it achieves very little, because the house is still visible. 25% visibility was fairly vetted & established and has been effective since inception of the document. L h the 2596 v{fi ft mWfftosgsir»ra? Stung palm Nbva viewed from U to 3.4 miles away, are essentially Invisible to the naked eye. In contrast completed boas", such as the house on Highland's Lot 4 are readily visible because of sine and mass, even if their visibility is leas than 25% 77he HDS&G speak to this tune on page 15: '71'te visual impact of buildings or portions of buildings that can be sem Prom the viewing platforms shall be mitigated to the greatest at eat reasonable by reducing the height of the building or moving the structure to another location on the site.' p tv PRo cA t . Reduce the percentage visibility threshold to 15% dace the Highland's Lat 6 house, for which no VkM tit3+analysis was required by Staff because, we assume, tt+vas less than 2596, is, nevertheless, readily vW& to the nalded eye from Los Gatos Blvd. This observation supports that the 25% thresbold is too high and should be lowered ?-Should tWbh #y cuulcttletiata also consider thesgumfoaerrpe o/the a don that 1s vidblelln otter words, a 5,000 square foot house might have 20% of its elevation, or 1,000 square feet. visible from the valley floor. Such a house would be permitted under the present code, But a 506 square That house; situated In the middle of a hillside deirlisa inight have 100% of fts elevation visible to tate valley floorand not n the HDS&G were developed and adopted, the FAR for the known, in most cases, to be 6000 sf. The 25% visibility was dished knowing that the houses can be that size. 3 A potential solution to the 500 Sf scenario would be to provide an incentive to design smaller homes by increasing the percent visible as the house gets further below the FAR for that particular lot. If the FAR is 6000 sf and you build a 500 sf home, maybe 100% visibility should be allowed. For a 3000 sf home. maybe 30% visibility.?? be permitted, despite being leas of an egesor In tine hillside&.1u fact, K is the smaller bouse that is more sustainable and should be encouraged (HDS&C% pages 9 & 33} The proem system favors the blow, Jess su tatziable, more bible house. OUR PROPOEALThat the PC discuss this topic and modify the code to be more reflective of -die goals and objectives of the HDS&G. Consider the 149 picture.` 3 Should the an fmporiunt Wslbi * cakubdorts ice Peer roWewed b!' an ouW* source who hos no poser W cmg?kt oft *tb the app& mt?This ti, per ft4, the single, mast important number generated In any hill" Apptiotlon with a potential vlslbfiitj issue and should be peer revievred, not beause we dolt trust the applicant but because people make honest mistakm The Town chooses the consultbcg arborlat and staff requires peer review of submitted documents and studies all of the time, These important visibility documents should be no diflomt. OM PROPOSAL Require peer review of any attial domnest, aadr as o visibility study, eapiodaliy where the initial evaluation was dote by a axopany chosen by the We also have a quirk comment on LRV averaging. Staff proposes the following: lb tenor material colors-aw use color averaging of all eaterior.materials to meet the matdmum light reflectivity value of 30 ,..` R 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 ettregoolyvillaW Plus what Is averaged? brat the deviation feting the vatiey floor or all 4 sides and roof of the house? Since the HDS&G call for hillside homes to blend with the nauiral environment, it seems to its that every part of the proposed house should blend with the hfIlsides. One only has to look at the built house on Lot 6 in the Highlands to we what visibiitiy looks ft fi n the valley floor along Los Gatos Blvd. 1 to obiectively review the submitted documents. An automatic party review would be redundant. It should be at staffs discretion. M PC 8t dy SUSOW i01Y1M15 Lee Quo t ft Tb: The PMhrting ConwasMon Prone LM GLMUM DdM Oat 21, 2016 Subod: RMIa101118 100 HDSM! - Vhwel Analysis DELETE FROM GLOSSARY RolAli 44601 4'AM194;_' l 10,• 91'j-11 EEO VANTAGE EVIUM - WITH CURRENT LANGUAGE VIEWS FROM VANTAGE PONTS NOT ON THE VALLEY FLOOR TEND TO IE IGNORED WH EN MENTIFY(NG pCXtM FROM WHICH VISUAL ANALYSIS SHOULD BE DOPE. viewing Plattu,r, tt t �Qrrect term to use. There still will be designated X ORIGIN AND REASON BEHIND determined and alternate location(s) may be determined by the Director of CD. THE 25% CRI TERM APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN ADDED ATTHE LAST LOMM (AFTER AT LEAST 5 DRAFTS) IT IS NOT CLEAR WHY % OF VISIBLE ELEVATION WAS CHOSEN, HOW OR WHY 25% WAS CHOSEN AS THE CUT OFF, OR EVEN WHETHER ALTERNATIVE METHODS WERE CONSIDERED (SEE HANDOUT) he 25% had to �iATIVE TO CONSIDER -AND IM SURE THERE ARE OTHERS' based on scussion and IDECREAS6 THE PER CENT OF VISIBLE ELEYAT10N ALLOWED AS USEABLE )reed upon. iis is what was OR POTENTIALLY Y USEABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE INCREASES_ j afted and THIS WOULD INCLUDE SPACES THAT ARE NOT CURRENTLY PROPOSED iopted by all AS USEABLE SPACE. THIS WOULD INCLUDE CELLARS, BASEMENTS AND no were OR SPACES SHOWN ON THE PLANS AS COVERED 13Y A ROOF - SPACES volved. THAT COULD EASILY BE CONVERTED INTO USEABLE INDOOR SPACE WITHOUT CHANGING THE EFFECTIVE BULK OF THE PROPOS® PROJECT I:L PER CENT OF TQTAL OF RIDGELIKE LENGTH Example' If the til ridgellne faring a vantage point is 75' lone only 25% (or X %) of the lergtll of the Refine Gould be visible, Ie. 18% a scenario, where an applicant has 500 sf of uuuntauie livable space and 5000 sf of undergrour sement, why would the applicant get penalized for house space that is not visible, not only from les away, but even when standing on the site? >o, what 6 the house is 6000sf but the elevation that faces the valley floor is designed to be very nanuw. iy should the size of the house determine how much of that elevation is visible? Again it is penalizing :a that cannot be seen. The current 25% of the facing elevation is the least ambiguous criteria. For Doth C. & u.: In most cases, the only thing that screens the roof are existing trees. To require only 25% roof visibilty or ridgeline length, would reduce the overall visibility of the house to single digit visibility. It doesn't make sense that no credit is given if the building face is screened. For the Highlands lots. and most downslopinn In these restrictions we: !Id prohibit a feasible desii 6ampfe: If fhl` IoW serve foatape of the rocl "i0on ft*V a v~ pM is 1000 eq IL onty 25°x6 (or X %) Could be vMft i,e, 290 eq tt. d. ANY OF THE ABOVE. . -Ill 7- - 617- [I. CLARIFY OR CLEARLY STATE THAT WHATEVER LANGLY QE IS ADOPTED REGARDING VISIBILITY AND THE VI$iBII..ITY ANAL1YM THAT MEETING THAT CRITERIA IS NOT A GUARANTEE THAT THE PROJECT WILL BE APPROVED APPROVAL OF ANY PROJECT THAT COMES BEFORE THE PC OR TC IS A DISCRETIONARY DECISION AND TFC£ TOWN IS NOT REQUIRED TO APPROVE ANY PROJECT IF THERE REASONS NOT TO. THERE ARE MANY OTHER FACTORS THAT GO INTO A DECISION A PROJECT SHOULD ULTIMATELY BE JUDGED AS A WFIOLE ON NMETFER IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE TOWNS GOALS AND 01 WTIVES. A PROJECT THAT PUSHES A NUMBER OF STANDARDS AND GUIDE TO THEM TECHNICAL LIMIT MAY NOT MEET, IN FACT MEET THE INTENT, OBJECTIVES, GOALS, OR VISION OF EITHER THE GENERAL PLA ieve PC & TC already have this discretion.? But what is the point of having a set of dards and guidelines if TC & PC have the discretion to deny an application even if all of dards and guidelines are met? The intent of this document is to provide a pathway to ting the goals of the Town and should be what both the citizens and the deciding body Isn't the intent of these language proposals to the methodology by Weissman/Quintata to improve this document and provide clear guidance to the applicant and the deciding body? I am assuming by addition of this "cladfiy discretion" language, it appears even the methodology language they (Weiss man/Quintata) propose still isn't good enough, just as they are not satisfied with the language that they were originally part of drafting that ultimately got adopted. The current document is not broken. It is tough, but it is fair and is effective in protecting the hillsides. Some clarifications may be necessary, but a full changing of the rules is not warranted. 2 PC Study Session 1(1)21 W B Lam- !TI"7 SUWAARY OF CHAMES ( MFI ARE& VtS KF4 RDGELMIE) Floor Arae. (Deleted) • Originally I(sted both what was counted and whet was not counted (Dee 2001 Draft) • Deleted and replaced with Floor arae. gmas (Sept. 2002 Draft) Floor Area, groes. (Added Se;X 2002 Drat) • Replaced Floor area above • Lists only, what is excUled Strom Roar area calculati PC Baldy BMW 100 " DIS LM Outlrtieru fl.0undrdinte amyale and dits aelection • Pege 12lMI- Ah btdlet V Ow oNat , and tad WWI: (ennphawadded) teat axdtet, SfgrOc" rregerrnee (&vMW no" Page 5 EtWAMW: 4th Bullet: The ltludretIlwa provided at the H)M are whemalk and .meant to stow the intent of a stwWard or guldelfne Page 6 B SAA tudtets, perti dv* the id bulls and the M* phase of the Sid btdlet ' and minlm!2e dwan lo the visual gtallfly at the rdltatdea— it was determined by 11 the authors of this document that 25% visibility of the home was indeed minimizing changes to the Pepe 6. G. floe! visual quality of the Hillsides. Page 9. QWma vms or MDOSG (aft) btA In pwUm9 r 4.Matntain the irohn appowanoeotOmMOWdeskwnagmw&Wp*Okwkcft ft vaAby floor (emphesls aak m 5. Protect ridgeltnesfrom development -.- 6, project meets all of these objectives. Davidon has complied with the HDS&G and the oDfecatves are being met, with the emphasis being that the current language of the document is effective. Is there any case where it is not beina met? not considered a "Ridgeline" Development. Is there any instance within the Town the does not comply with this language? 4 To: Punning Commission, for meeting December 2, 2015 Pirnn: Dave Weissman, November lay 7015 Re: Visibility analysts methodology At the prior PC mating of September 23, 2015, visibility analysis methodology was ommddered, and helpful testimony was provided bytbeTown's consut trgarborhst Topics discal included what constitutes a healthy tie % how significant are construction impacts from any source, and how have 4 yaws of the most estrane drought to CA history in, at least the last 1,000 years. all played Into these considerations, Since that meeting I have found new information tbatadds some of these issues and, I bellem should be incorporated into the gaidelinss bemuse they would give a firm, objective scllentiflc foundation for these revised standards. L There was testimony by the consulting arborist that the drought has had a significant negative impact on the trees In the Town's hAddes, sapectalty blue oaks. While no one can predict the long-term effects of the draught, discussions before the PC assumed that Hand when rains come, many if not most stressed oaks might or recover. This issue was recently addressed In an Octolm 20, 2015 article in the LA """""""a Times Fon m;_//lwww3it rnmxLom.�laceiaifbrna-me-dyne-foreanr-20151020- arborist's opinion should that discussed studies by Greg Asner, a scientist with the Carnegie be considered. for Science. His basic findings were: L This draught may kill 20% of California's trees. Under normal conditions, forests lose between 1% and L5%oftheir trees annudl . b. Low elevation forests are in greatest jeopardy c- liven if the drought were to end in a ldstaoor: E Nina this winter, the most stressed trees wfll probably continue to fail. n more reason the Town should encourage tree replacement of declining trees. In recognition of this crisis, Goveraor Jerry Brown declared a state of emergency on October 31, 2015, to help California address fine risk from this massive tree dl"fE I believe that the take away message should bethis: when considering which native New plantings i hflWde trees should be counted as providing screening; their health at the time an that are I application is being considered, should be the only relevant mforahation. One can irrigated will l as to the fate of anytree butthe Most relevant informatics is hoar the tree Is insure ngevity and doing at that moment. The rest is specalatkmL sustainable idland. A I2. Them is an obviously complicated interaction between the heahh ota tree, the d age of the tree, the tree species, Its resiliency to habitat disturbance, and the total cto acelost imps from cwnstruction on the long-term viablbty ofthat tree. Such information alo !en trees Is critical when discoesingwhich trees should be counted as providing potential mitigate screening for a proposed house What would be most helpful in malting such a issue. decision, would be a matrix that could be used in an objective manner. And such a matrix Is provided by Richard Harris and colleagues in their widely recognized refererrce book titled 'Arboriculture. Integrated Man+gemeat of landscape Trees, Shrubs, and Vines! I have attached the tide page and the matrix from page 265 that provides one way to make tree -retention decisions. First off, I exchanged emalls with both of the junior authors, Drs. Clark and Matheny, on 11/11/2015. They independently said that if one wanted to apply their matrix to the Los Gatos hillsides, the relatively disturbance- tolerance species in their mam London Plane, could be interchanged with our west common hillside tree, the coastal We oak. And that the more distufiance-sensitive species in their matrix, Beech, could be interchanged with our second most common hillside tree. the blue oak. One an put these guidelines into practice, as follow. when the consulting arborist says in her tree repots that a disturbance -sensitive blue oak has fair preservation suitability and will be subjected to a moderate construction Impact, the matrix recommends that this tree be removed. Of this tree were a less disturbance -sensitive dive oak, then the matrix recommends preserving the tree.) If the applicant elects to try and save the blue oak that is their option. But such a tree should not be counted as T The Town arbc„st or consulting a uorist input/opinion is needed in this eva uation. The Town's arborist(s) may disagree with this analysis, they may also have differing ways of measuring impacts and conditions of trees. A third party opinion cannot be used unless the Town's expert representative concurs. Ping st eening because it wHl most Ilieely the in the now faturo. The spplkant will no doubt argue that they can presem the tri. But this svbjecar e pronouncement is meaningless given the self-serving interests ofthe developer. Itis bent to make such a decision as obju dw as possible and the attached matrix allows far just that type of decision based on adentt}!c iofommoon. Now there are AAS applications where developers have made constrnctimu adjustments biased on the consulting arbonses concerns and moved retaining wells, deceased gradh% etre. ram prombW lunges usually only occur, in a kner to stat£ entitled'respwae to arboriW So what happeaa nW 7be pm*tyets approved and construction beghm And nearby trees are affected in the dwrt tens, as predicted by the consulft arbo iso but don't start to die until the house is oomplehed about 6-12 months later. Then the developer or the um owner aWtea for a tree removel permit showing the Town arborist the recommendation of the consulting arborist to remove that tree At that point to time, how can the Town arborist deny the permit? The tree is in decline and dying and is dose to the house, and the 7 oven would have I labft if the request was denied and the tree falls on the house and injuries someone; So the removal permit is rued. TTaes a win for the applicant who was able to count thattree as providing screening. A win for the new homeowner whose view of the valley Boor is now improved. But a loss for the citizen of Los Gatot whose Wades ars now less sustainable and scared with aw ther large, vMIe house. can be addressed by a deed a L �y Four& $ditim ' i 00! �gM iwMk�HaeN9�fdtro � ihbve!as'ep'i�u �%1eYi! 3ataa, ti3ee Nelds�t�miy PlmnrboK CytaforRi. musueriow by Nae AL Rana y . j Upper Saddle RtM New Jew MM rborists will have iffering opinions or ays to rate condition r impacts. The owns'expert rborist's opinion could be the basis r any evaluation. his should be on a ee by tree basis, as currently exists, for fair & accurate S Q 0 a According to Matheny, the=' yak is more tolerable than the Beech tree. This Page Intentionally Left Blank 2 2 h"WW Z O r�, UML Mr -•r , i �Lu�D Q�=> H nm c o m> > 'O c to v No Ln m a > CO CC > Q m a m� LD ms J z J Q V P W n n �3ICL m N > to n Cen C Q > d C o Ln 3 0 J 1 � i 1 N r 40 "o to i F I W n n �3ICL