Loading...
3.2 Attachment 3TOWN OF LOS GATOS STUDY SESSION PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Meeting Date: October 21, 2015 PREPARED BY: Joel S. Paulson, Planning Manager jpaulson aaosgatosca.gov 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: I. Public Comments (16 pages) BACKGROUND: The Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines (HDS&G) were adopted by 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: hup: Iosgatos.eranicus. coin GeneratedAgenda4'iewer.phn'?%view id=5&clip id -1452). Following limited discussion and receiving public testimony the Planning Commission continued the matter to a Study Session on October 21, 2015. The Planning Commission's limited discussion resulted in a few proposed modifications to the originally proposed amendments. These modifications are reflected below in shikeilifeu (deletions) and underline 'bold (additions) format. As requested by the Planning Commission. the Town's Consulting 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 statt report. Modifications to Chapter 11 (Constraints Analysis and Site Selection) In an effort to provide additional guidance to applicants, staff, and the deciding bodies regarding 320 visibility and how it is analyzed, staff has prepared draft methodology language for visibility ATTACuwNT 3 Planning Commission Study Session Staff Report - Page 2 Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines Study Session October 21. 2015 analysis. The drat! methodology language below would be added to Chapter Il 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 trom 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 eve • 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 necessar 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 2524.5% or more of an elevation can be seen from any ofthe Town's established viewing platforms *** * Other location(s) as deemed appropriate by the dee�dv 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: I. 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 StreeUBayview Avenue 5. Other location(s) as deemed appropriate by the deeidi»g-lwdy 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; 21 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 screening; • 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 1.2. (Page 41) of the HDS&G states: 1. The contrast benveen manmade buildings and the environment shall be minimced. A buildings color and materials shall complement and blend with the predominant colors and values of the surrounding natural environment. ?. F-werior 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. F-rposed metal surfaces shall be painted to compliment adjacent materials, be anodi_ed a dark color, or have the ability to develop a patina (e.g., copper). 5. Mirror-like xindow 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 of 30. 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 LRV 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 322 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 sN-ilkethreegh. 2. Exterior material colors shall Fiat eyeeed a Fefleeiwky 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. Prepared by: Joel S. Paulson, AICP Planning Manager LRP:JSP:sr N DEV PC REPORTS2015 H&dc_LRV_ VihNhtsSmdyS.vum diw 23 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 IMMAL011111"M 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' • 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.{ `- EXHIBIT 1 324 10/21/15 PC Study Session Processing of photographs: • Download color photographs into Photoshop, or a similar application, and enlarge the story pole area to almost completely fill an 8" x 11" sheet of paper. • Tones and contrast shall be adjusted to maximize the visibility and identification of the individual trees that may afford screening for the proposed project. • No other Photoshop changes shall be permitted. Trees that shall be counted as screening trees are: • Native to the immediate site • Naturally occurring (not planted or proposed as landscaping) • On-site • Have a preservation suitability rating of'fair/good, good, or excellent", as determined in the consulting arborist's final tree report • Recommended for retention in the consulting arborist's final tree report • Subject to `low" (or no) construction impacts, according to the consulting arborist Trees that shall be counted as providing partial screening: • Native deciduous trees shall be credited with 60% of screenings • Trees with sparse canopiess.6 Trees that shall not be counted as screening trees are: • Trees requiring more than 15% pruning to make way for construction • Trees subject to potential "low/moderate, moderate or sever" construction impacts according to the consulting arborist's final tree report • Trees that have a "poor, poor/fair, or fair" preservation suitability rating according to the consulting arborist's final tree report • Trees that are to be removed, or that are injured or harmed during any construction or grading activity, even if the latter two are incidental occurrences Provide the following color photos: • Photographs that label: 1. Trees that provide screening on-site when viewed from the viewing platforms/vantage points toward the project site 2. A photo that physically removes, through photo simulation, those trees that shall not be counted as screening and indicate which trees provide partial screening • Three-dimensional illustrations or photo simulations of structure may be required when determined necessary by the deciding body to assist in visibility analysis Determination: • Calculate the percent visibility of proposed structure(s) for each of the above 2 photos • If any one elevation of a house (plus related structures) is 25% or more visible, .5 2 rounded to the nearest whole number, the maximum height shall be 18' Such dead branch removal is also part of the HDS&G defensible space guidelines z 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 Usually reflective of poor baseline 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 structure's elevation, but the actual tree would only provide an estimated 30% screening of that structure because of its sparse 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 ZS% visibility cutoff too generous? Story poles, when viewed from 1.3 to 3.4 miles away, are essentially invisible to the naked eye. In contrast, completed houses, such as 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% since the Highland's Lot 6 house, for which no visibility analysis was required 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 lowered. 2. Should visibility calculations also consider the 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 square feet, visible from the valley floor. Such a house would be permitted under the present code. But a 500 square foot house, situated in the middle of a hillside clearing, might have 100% of its elevation visible to the valley floor and not 326 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 (NDS&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 S 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. "1 .,27 4 May 22. 2015 _ Members of Los Gatos Town Council c/o Laurel Prevelti 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 site 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 328 May 12, 2015 Members of Los Gatos Town Council c/o Laurel Prevetti 110 E. Main St I os Gatos, California 95031 Honorable Mayor and Council Members. 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 the 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 was 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 passed at the March 17'� Town Council Meeting for agenda item 2 The motion, per the meeting minutes, was to "amend the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines to add the option for the use, as appropriate, of the light value averaging method, and to research and determine a maximum light value that can be used in averaging " Sincerely, Melissa and Morgan MacDonald 11S Prospect Avenue 129 October 16, 2015 Joel Paulson Community Development Dept. Town of Los Gatos 110 E. Main Street los Gatos, CA 95030 RE: Visual Analysis Methodology Dear Mr. Paulson, (via email & overnight delivery) RECEIV OCT ] TOWN OF ,w vHTCis 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-site which contribute to screening be used in the onolysist I he 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 it the 6/15/2009 hearing (a hearing 330 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 n 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, Davidon 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 8.1, "trees 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 9606, 607 & 626 These photos were taken from a drone flying very close to the lot and either Al 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 requires analysis of visibility from the viewing platform. This means standing and looking with the naked eye from the viewing platform. For Lot 7, the Viewing Platform, at the SW corner of Los Gatos Blvd. and Blossom Hill, is 1.4 miles away. Please consider the attached Exhibit A. This photo was taken from the Viewing Platform with 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 clearly 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 the 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. This 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 building 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, what happens in a situation like we have today where in drought situations, when the trees are in survival mode by partially or entirely defoliating even during spring or summer? The results would be the same as performing the analysis in falx 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. 332 Comments regarding Staffs proposed methodology: Viewing Platforms The HSD&G currently allows for alternate viewing platform as deemed by the deciding body. Davidon 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 if 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, C3 stating "Providing Landscape screening is not an alternative to reducing building height or selecting a less visible site." What A3 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 potentially expose the house later? This "landscaping" is much different than native oak mitigation trees that are protected by the 1 own's newly amended Tree Ordinance. The current HSD&G allow for "Landscape" screening under Ridgeline View Protection. Ridgeline View Protection (HSD&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" Sincerel DAV/XN MES tswe Y� teue VicePresident, Site Development Cc: Jeff Thayer, Dennis Razzari 991:1 EXHIBIT A X35 * sN Is .ti Y!Ak i � xf 61 Ary Poo 'EN�:FANG� E1TfiNG. ir •'• � •w� iR .11� -�� � � ��,�yy��l �S �dF�',�e'�,h� 6:.,i'X�'- ,� •y 3,�w',1+'� 1` � {; _ 5�., TS •�: i•` � .... N . o ' r1t r � . ter+ for riE I