3.2 Attachment 6TOWN OF LOS GATOS ITEM NO: 3
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: December 2, 2015
PREPARED BY: Joel S. Paulson, Planning Manager
ipaulsonk losgatosca.gov
SUMMARY: Public hearing to consider adoption of amendments to Chapter if.
(Constraints Analysis and Site Selection) and Chapter V.
(Architectural Design) of the Hillside Development Standards and
Guidelines
RECOMMENDATION:
Forward a recommendation to the Town Council for approval of
amendments to Chapter II. and Chapter V. of the Hillside
Development Standards and Guidelines.
CEQA:
It has been determined that there is no possibility that this project
will have a significant impact on the environment; therefore, the
project is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act,
Section 15061 (b)(3): Review for exemption.
FINDING:
■ Find that there is no possibility that this project will have a
significant impact on the environment; therefore, the project is
not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act,
Section 15061 (b)(3): Review for exemption (Exhibit 1).
ACTION:
Recommendation to Town Council.
EXHIBITS: Previously received with the September 23 2015 Staff Report:
1. Required Findings
2. Proposed Amendments - Chapter 11. Constraints Analysis and
Site Selection (six pages)
3. Proposed Amendments - Chapter V. Architectural Design (12
pages)
4. Comments from Dave Weissman (10 pages)
Received with this Staff Report:
5. Verbatim Minutes from the October 21, 2015 Study Session
(90 pages)
6. Proposed Methodology previously submitted by Dave
Weissman and Lee Quintana (four pages)
7. Letter from Lee Quintana submitted at the October 21. 2015
Study Session (four pages)
8. Letter from Dave Weissman (five pages)
434
ATTACHMENT 9
Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 2
Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines Modification
November 23, 2015
BACKGROUND:
On September 23, 2015, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider proposed
amendments to the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines (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:
huP7 losgatos ¢ranicus comiGeneratedAaendaViewer php`'view id=5&clip id=14i?).
Following a short discussion and receiving public testimony the Planning Commission continued
the matter to a Study Session on October 21, 2015.
On October 21, 2015, the Planning Commission held a Study Session to discuss amendments to
the HDS&G regarding light reflectivity value (LRV) and visibility analysis (link to October 2015
report, Addendum to the Planning Commission report, and supporting attachments for the Study
Session: httV7 I lostatos haranicus corn GeneratedAeendaViewer phpwiew id=5&clip id=14611.
Verbatim minutes for the October 21, 2015 Study Session are included to Exhibit 5.
Following public testimony and Commission discussion regarding the proposed amendments, the
matter was continued to a Special Planning Commission meeting on December 2, 2015.
DISCUSSION:
The Commission had a number of questions at the Study Session and requested that staff address
the questions provided by Dave Weissman and Lee Quintana in their visibility methodology
document. Additionally, the Commission requested additional information regarding the LRV
averaging for further discussion.
Visibility Methodology
Staff previously provided a proposed methodology for completing view analysis for hillside
homes. Exhibit 6 contains additional suggestions for the visibility methodology prepared by
Dave Weissman and Lee Quintana. Staff appreciates the thought and time that Dr. Wiessman
and Ms. Quintana put into Exhibit 6 and their subsequent correspondence (see Exhibits 7 and 8,
respectively). At the meeting, staff is available to answer the Commission's questions on the
various components of the methodology and suggestions provided in Exhibits 6, 7, and 8. As the
Commission reviews the suggestions, consideration should be given as to the ability of
individual homeowners and their design professionals to complete the methodology. The
Commission could forward some or all of the proposed methodology components in Exhibit 6 to
Town Council if it is determined to be appropriate.
t
1"1
35
Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 3
Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines Modification
November 23. 2015
Exhibit 6 also contains the following three additional questions which are followed by staff
comments in italics:
I . Is the 25% visibility cutoff too generous?
This is the current standard in the HDS&G. If the Commission decides that this
percentage should be lowered then that can be included in the Commission's
recommendation to Town Council.
2. Should visibility calculations also consider the square footage of the elevation that is
visible?
The current and staff proposed methodologti• will use the square footage of elevations that
are visible from the viewing platforms) to calculate the risibility as is currently required
in the HDS&G. It should be noted that visible homes are limited to a height ofl8 feet.
Therefore, an 18 foot tall home with an elevation that is 100 percent visible would
comply with the HDS&G.
3. Should the all important visibility calculations be peer reviewed by an outside source
who has no potential conflict of interest with the applicant?
If the Commission decides that this is appropriate then that can be included in the
Commission's recommendation to Town Council. It should be noted that this npe of
review has cost implications to applicants and the Town would need to go through a
request for qualifications process to select a consultant to provide this sen -ice.
Staff is also requesting input on the following questions relating to visibility analysis:
1. Should a note be added to require a deed restriction regarding replacement of the trees
used for screening in the visibility analysis?
2. Should trees with poor or poor/fair ratings be used for screening in the visibility analysis?
3. Should trees with sparse canopies be used for screening in the visibility analysis?
4. Should visibility analysis be done at a specific time of year?
Staff will be available to address additional questions.
Staff also wanted to correct a statement that was made at the Study Session regarding
replacement requirements for trees that are blown over. The Town Tree Protection Ordinance
does not require replacement trees to be planted if a tree is dead or has an Extreme or High Tree
Risk Rating.
`- 436
Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 4
Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines Modification
November 23, 2015
LRV
Staff has pulled the following excerpts from Cannon Design Group's letter for the Highland's
PD modification to provide some additional general information regarding LRV:
"Stgf%has looked primarily at the wall color in interpreting this standard. That can be
appropriate when homes stand out on valley hillsides, and draw a great deal of attention to
themselves by virtue of very light colors and substantial exposed vertical wall areas which stand
out starkly from their natural hillside setting. In other circumstances, that interpretation can
lead to some overly somber home colors. An LRV of 30 is a relatively dark value, as shown on
the LRV value scale below. The scale can befound at the following link and includes additional
information regarding LRV: hnv thelandofcolor contiln-light-reflectance-value-of-Daint-
colorsi.
LRV Scale vat the farm as gwysnkl ever m
The Los Gatos standard of 30 LRV is relatively low in my experience. 1 have seen an LRV of 45
included in hillside design guidelines for Santa Clara County and also in a few places near
Phoenix and Scottsdale where the traditional adobe wall colorsfit comfortably with that color
value. The homes so jar have been carefully designed with identifiable historic architectural
styles with a great deal of attention to authenticity of detail. The colors that would be required
by adherence to a wall color LRV of 30 would, in some cases, work veru much against that
authenticity.
The applicant's proposal to consider the overall weighted averaging of the LRV values appears
to have merit. Many of the homes will not be visible from areas outside of the immediate
development neighborhood. In looking at the color studies, I find most of the wall colors which
have been modified to be much too dark for good design and for their appropriateness to the
individual architectural styles of the homes."
Staff is also requesting input on the following questions relating to visibility analysis:
1. Is LRV averaging appropriate for hillside homes that are not visible pursuant to the
HDS&G?
37
Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 5
Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines Modification
November 23, 2015
2. Should the roof material be included in the LRV averaging calculation?
3. Should there be a maximum LRV for individual exterior materials?
4. Should a maximum LRV apply to windows and trim?
Staff will be available to address additional questions.
CEOA DETERMINATION:
It has been determined that there is no possibility that this project will have a significant impact
on the environment; therefore, the project is not subject to the California Environmental Quality
Act [Section 15061 (b) (3)].
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION:
A. Conclusion
The draft amendments to Chapter 11. and Chapter V. of the HDS&G are recommended to
provide additional clarity to staff, applicants, and the deciding bodies regarding visibility
and light reflectivity and determining compliance with the HDS&G.
B. Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward the draft amendments to the
Town Council with a recommendation for adoption. The Commission should also
include any comments or recommended changes to the draft amendments when taking
the following actions:
1. Find that there is no possibility that this project will have a significant impact on
the environment; therefore, the project is not subject to the California
Environmental Quality Act, Section 15061 (b)(3): Review for exemption (Exhibit
1); and
2. Forward a recommendation to Town Council for adoption of the amendments to
the HDS&G (Exhibits 2 and 3) with modifications, if any.
Alternatively, the Commission may take the following action:
1. Continue the matter to a date certain with specific direction.
P aced by: Approved by:
oel Paulson, AICP Laurel R. Prevetti
438
Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 6
Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines Modification
November 23, 2015
Planning Manager Town Manager/
Director of Community Development
LRP:JSP:c
NrDEV PC REFORM -7015 Hillside_LRV_VisibilityI 2 -2 -dm
be
:39
See Attachment 5
of the
2/2/16 Town Council Staff Report
VERBATIM MINUTES
10/21/15 Planning Commission Study
Session — Hillside Development
Standards and Guidelines Study Session
EXHIBIT 5 440
12/2/15 PC Staff Report
This Page
/intentionally
Left Blank
41
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
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.3
OF
12/2/15 PC Staff Report
Processing of photographs:
• Download color photographs into Photoshop, or a similar application, and enlarge
h
the story pole area to almost completely fill an B" x 11" sheet of paper. -IN
• 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 screening'
• 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, -.N
A3
rounded to the nearest whole number, the maximum height shall be 18'
I 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
5Usually 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
I. Is the 25% 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
�1_- 444
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.
^—�\
45
PC Study Session 10/21/2015 Lee Ouinlana
To: The Planning Commission
From: Lee Quintana
Date: Oct 21, 2015
Subject: Revisions to HDS&G - Visual Analysis
DELETE FROM GLOSSARY
DELETE VISIBLE HOME FROM GI OS ARY MOST PEOPLE KNOWTHE
DEFINITION OF VISIBLE THE BODY OF THE HDS&G SHOULD PROVIDE
SUFFICIENT DIRECTION WITHOUT HAVING TO REDEFINE THE MEANING OF
VISIBLE.
DELETE VI WIN O PLATFORM FROM GLOSSARY AND TEXT AND SUBSTITUTE
VASNIAGE POINTS - WITH CURRENT LANGUAGE VIEWS FROM VANTAGE POINTS
NOT ON THE VALLEY FLOOR TEND TO BE IGNORED WHEN IDENTIFYING POINTS
FROM WHICH VISUAL ANALYSIS SHOULD BE DONE.
25% ORIGIN AND REASON BEHIND
THE 25°-b CRITERIA APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN ADDED AT THE LAST MINUTE.
(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)
ALTERNATIVE TO CONSIDER - AND I'M SURE THERE ARE OTHERS
a. DECREASE THE PER CENT OF VISIBLE ELEVATION ALLOWED AS USEABLE
OR POTENTIALLY USEABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE INCREASES
THIS WOULD INCLUDE SPACES THAT ARE NOT CURRENTLY PROPOSED
AS USEABLE SPACE- THIS WOULD INCLUDE CELLARS. BASEMENTS AND
OR SPACES SHOWN ON THE PLANS AS COVERED BY A ROOF - SPACES
THAT COULD EASILY BE CONVERTED INTO USEABLE INDOOR SPACE
WITHOUT CHANGING THE EFFECTIVE BULK OF THE PROPOSED
PROJECT
b. PER CENT OF TOTAL OF RIDGELINE LENGTH
Example: If the total ridgeline facing a vantage point is 75' long only 25° (or X
%) of the length of the ridgeline could be visible i e 18%
c PERCENT OF ROOFLINE ELEVATION:
EXHIBIT 7 446
12/2/15 PC Staff Report
PC Studv Session 10/21/2015
Lee Quintana
Example If the total square footage of the roof elevation facing a vantage point is
1000 sq ft only 25% ( or X %) could be visible, i e 250 sq. ft. —
d. ANY OF THE ABOVE.
e. OTHER POSSIBILITIES
CLARIFY DISCRETION OF PC/TC
CLARIFY OR CLEARLY STATE THAT WHATEVER LANGUAGE IS ADOPTED
REGARDING VISIBILITY AND THE VISIBILITY ANALYSIS 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
THE 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 WHOLE ON WHETHER IT IS
CONSISTENT WITH THE TOWN'S GOALS AND OBJECTIVES. A PROJECT THAT
PUSHES A NUMBER OF STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES TO THEIR TECHNICAL
LIMIT MAY NOT MEET. IN FACT MEET THE INTENT, OBJECTIVES, GOALS, OR
VISION OF EITHER THE GENERAL PLA
2
,47
PC Study Session 10/21/2015
Lee Quintana
SUMMARY OF CHANGES (FLOOR AREA, VISIBLE, RIDGELINE)
Floor Area. (Deleted)
• Originally listed both what was counted and what was not counted (Dec. 2001 Draft)
• Deleted and replaced with Floor area. gross (Sept 2002 Draft)
Floor Area, gross. (Added Sept 2002 Draft)
Replaced Floor area above
Lists only what is excluded from floor area calculations
Added Barns and Garages up to 400 sf (Dec. 2003 Draft)
Visible. That which can be seen (Deleted)
• Deleted after Preliminary Draft Dec 2001)
Visible home. (Added)
• Added to Dec. 2003 Revised Public Review Draft
• Text added: A single family residence where 25% or more of an elevation can be seen
from any of the Town's established viewing platforms (See Chapter II, section B).
(emphasis added)
Ridgelines (Added , deleted and then added back)
• Added Sept 2002 Draft
• Deleted Oct.. 2002 Draft
• Added back March 2003 Draft
Thees and other definitions or changes to definitions would appear to favor allowing
homes with larger usable floor area. more effective bulk and greater visibility.
3
EM
PC Study Session 10/21/2015 Lee Quintana
ii. Constraints analysis and site selection
• Page 12 II.AA
7th bullet: Visibility from off site; and last bullet: (emphasis added)
last bullet: Significant ridgelines (emphasis added)
Page 5. Forward: 4th Bullet: The illustrations provided in the HDS&G are schematic
and meant to show the intent of a standard or guideline.
Page 6. A. Vision Statement. All bullets, particularly
5th bullet: Protects and preserves viewsheds and the ridgelines of the mountains
Page 6. B. Overview. All bullets, particularly the
1st bullet and the last phrase of the 3rd bullet. " ..., and minimize changes to the visual
quality of the hillsides
Page 6. C. mat
Page 9 00jectiyes of HDS&C (all) but in particular
4.Maintain the natural appearance of the hillsides from all vantage points including
the valley floor. (emphasis added)
5. Protect ridgelines from development
6, 7, 9,10,11
49
To: Planning Commission, for meeting December 2, 2015
From: Dave Weissman, November 24, 2015
Re: Visibility analysis methodology
At the prior PC meeting of September 23, 2015, visibility analysis methodology was
considered, and helpful testimony was provided by the Town's consulting arborist.
Topics discussed included what constitutes a healthy tree, how significant are
construction impacts from any source, and how have 4 years of the most extreme
drought in CA history in, at least, the last 1,000 years, all played into these
considerations.
Since that meeting I have found new information that addresses some of these
issues and, l believe, should be incorporated into the guidelines because they would
give a firm, objective scientific foundation for these revised standards.
1. There was testimony by the consulting arborist that the drought has had a
`- significant negative impact on the trees in the Town's hillsides, especially blue oaks.
While no one can predict the long-term effects of the drought, discussions before the
PC assumed that if and when rains come, many if not most stressed oaks might
recover. This issue was recently addressed in an October 20, 2015 article in the LA
Times (ham://www latimes com/local/california/la-me-dying-forests-10151020
or . ml) that discussed studies by Greg Asner, a scientist with the Carnegie
Institution for Science. His basic findings were:
a. This drought may kill 20% of California's trees. Under normal
conditions, forests lose between 1% and 1.5% of their trees annually.
b. Low elevation forests are in greatest jeopardy.
c. Even if the drought were to end in a historic EI Nino this winter, the most
stressed trees will probably continue to fail.
EXH1i31T 8 450
12/2/15 PC Staff Report
In recognition of this crisis, Governor Jerry Brown declared a state of emergency on
October 31, 2015, to help California address fire risk from this massive tree die -off. -�
I believe that the take away message should be this: when considering which native
hillside trees should be counted as providing screening, their health at the time an
application is being considered, should be the only relevant information. One can
opine as to the fate of any tree but the most relevant information is how the tree is
doing at that moment. The rest is speculation.
2. There is an obviously complicated interaction between the health of a tree, the
age of the tree, the tree species, its resiliency to habitat disturbance, and the total
impacts from construction on the long-term viability of that tree. Such information
is critical when discussing which trees should be counted as providing potential
screening for a proposed house. What would be most helpful in making such a
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
reference book titled "Arboriculture. Integrated Management of Landscape Trees,
Shrubs, and Vines." I have attached the title page and the matrix from page 265 that
provides one way to make tree -retention decisions. First off, I exchanged emails
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 matrix, London Plane,
could be interchanged with our most common hillside tree, the coastal live oak. And
that the more disturbance -sensitive species in their matrix, Beech, could be
interchanged with our second most common hillside tree, the blue oak. One can put
these guidelines into practice, as follows: when the consulting arborist says in her
tree report, 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. (If this tree were a less disturbance -sensitive live 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 -1
51
providing screening because it will most likely die in the near future. The applicant
will no doubt argue that they can preserve the tree. But this subjective
pronouncement is meaningless given the self-serving interests of the developer. It is
best to make such a decision as objective as possible and the attached matrix allows
for just that type of decision based on scientific information.
Now there are A&S applications where developers have made construction
adjustments based on the consulting arborist's concerns and moved retaining walls,
decreased grading, etc. These promised changes usually only occur, in a letter to
staff, entitled "response to arborist" So what happens now? The project gets
approved and construction begins. And nearby trees are affected in the short term,
as predicted by the consulting arborist, but don't start to die until the house is
completed about 6-12 months later. Then the developer or the new owner applies
for a tree removal permit showing the Town arborist the recommendation of the
consulting arborist to remove that tree. At that point in time, how can the Town
arborist deny the permit? The tree is in decline and dying and is close to the house,
and the Town would have liability if the request was denied and the tree falls on the
house and injuries someone. So the removal permit is issued. That's a win for the
applicant who was able to count that tree as providing screening. A win for the new
homeowner whose view of the valley floor is now improved. But a loss for the
citizens of Los Gatos whose hillsides are now less sustainable and scared with
another large, visible house.
452
Fourth Edition
R Arboriculture
Intlegmted Management
Of Laardrscape Trees, Shrubs,
and Vines
Richard W Harris
#
Professor Emeritus
Department of Environmental Horticulture
University of California at Davis
tlLy v.
James R. Clark
-
Vice President
HorlScience, Inc.
Pleasanton, California
Nelda
President
Hortscience, Inc.
3
Pleasanton, California
Illustrations by Vera Al. Harris
, Y
Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458
531
41
)
0
2 cn
I be
Cl.
L
U)
m
L
IL
NO
L' a) a)
a_ C= cc
C�
j v
O O
N
CD m
�0
W CD Cu
O O O
� �
cc
ICT
LO
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
r55