3.2 AddendumCOUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DATE: JANUARY 29, 2016
TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
FROM: LAUREL PREVETTI, TOWN MANAGER
MEETING DATE: 02/02/16
ITEM NO: 3.2
ADDENDUM
SUBJECT: HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES
MODIFICATIONS. APPLICANT: TOWN OF LOS GATOS
ADOPT A RESOLUTION TO AMEND CHAPTER IL (CONSTRAINTS
ANALYSIS AND SITE SELECTION) AND CHAPTER V.
(ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN) OF THE HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES.
REMARKS:
Attachment 13 contains a public comment that was erroneously not included in Attachment 12.
Attachments (previously received with February 2. 2016 staff renort
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 received with this Addendum:
13. Public comment received January 28, 2016 (13 pages)
PREPARED BY: JOEL PAULSON
Interim Community Development Director
Reviewed by: Assistant Town Manager Town Attorney Finance
C:\Us \slombardo\Desktop\Hillside_LRV_ Visibi1ity_Addmdum.dmx
To: Town Council, meeting of February 2, 2016.
From: Dave Weissman and Lee Quintana, January 28, 2016.
Re: Hillside visibility revisions
-,IN
After 3 PC meetings, staff is now preparing a draft revision for the Hillside
Visibility methodology. Since we won't see the staff draft until after comment letters
are due, we still want to offer some suggestions for improvement based upon our
informal discussions, with staff, as to what will be included in their draft. While we
believe that staffs draft is much improved over current policy, we feel that certain
tweaks, listed below, will improve the document even more by clarifying language
and including other areas already discussed by the TC and PC. We briefly list these
areas in the first part of this letter, and then provide more extensive discussion and
documentation for each area in the second section.
Items to add to improve staffs draft:
1. Specify that only unharmed, healthy trees "native" to the immediate area can be
counted as providing screening.
2. Only on-site trees that provide screening should be included in visibility
calculations, to conform with the required deed restriction.
3. The PC decided that trees providing screening shall be covered by a deed
restriction. We suggest that such trees should also be covered by a 5 -year
maintenance agreement as an added incentive for monitoring and compliance.
4. The attached Table 11-3 matrix from Harris' Arboriculture (4th edition, 2003)
should be used to determine the suitability of counting a specific native tree as
providing screening or not. If the matrix, or the Town's consulting arborist, says to
remove the tree, then it should not be counted as providing screening, even when
the developer says that they will attempt to retain the tree.
ATTACHMENT 13
5. Screening trees, especially those with sparse canopies, should be given a
percentage of effective screening.
6. Trees harmed during any phase of construction, whether intentional or not, shall
be eliminated from any screening calculations.
T We have one concern about wording: In the draft guidelines from staff, for the PC
report of 10/21/2015, under **, it says the following: "Existing vegetation and/or
landscaping proposed to be removed entirely or partially shall not be included in the view
analysis." It seems to us that this statement can be read two ways: (a) only that part of the
tree to be removed (pruned) will be excluded from the visibility calculations, or (b) the
entire tree from which vegetation is being removed, is now excluded from the visibility
calculations. We suggest that (b) should apply since this action is a potential 'harm' to the
tree as defined in the tree protection ordinance under the definition of "remove". This
harm puts the tree at an increased risk of dying sometime in the future and certainly
reduces the vigor and viability of that tree.
S. Our last comments involve 2 inter -related issues that were discussed at some length by
the PC, although no consensus was reached or motion made. We feel that these 2 issues
are so integral to the integrity and goals of the HDS&G, that we urge the TC to discuss
them further and take appropriate action. Specifically:
A. /s the 2596 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, to give an
example, completed houses, such as the house on Highland's Lot 6, are readily
visible with the naked eye 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."
2
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 thought less than 25% visible, is, nevertheless, readily
visible from Los Gatos Blvd. This naked eye observation supports that the 25%
threshold is too high and should be lowered. This sentiment was also expressed in
the passed TC motion of 5/19/2015, where getting under 25% to meet the intent of
the HDS&G was passed. And Commissioner O'Donnell thought that even a one story
house should be less than 25% visible. Alternatively, an absolute limit to visible
square footage elevation could also be adopted.
B. Should visibility calculations also consider the square footage of the
elevation(s) 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 since it is below the 25% visibility
threshold. Yet a proposed 500 square foot house, situated in the middle of a hillside
clearing, might have 100% of its elevation visible from the valley floor and not 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. The present system
favors the bigger house.
OUR PROPOSAL: That the TC discuss this topic and modify the code to be more
reflective of the goals and objectives of the HDS&G. Consider the "big picture." As the
Town Attorney told the PC on 8/26/2015, the Standards on p.15 of the HDS&G
should be your main guideance.
Discussion and documentation for our suggested changes to staffs draft:
1. It is obvious to us that only "native" trees were being discussed by the PC on
12/2/2015, as providing screening, for the following reasons:
a. All discussions that night were centered on "native" evergreen and deciduous
oaks. The Town's consulting arborist, Deborah Ellis, was present at an earlier —1�
meeting and just discussed native oak trees on the Highland sites. There was not
�1_ one question to her, at this earlier meeting, about non-native trees nor were they
brought up at the meeting of 12/2.
b. In Weissman's letter dated 9/23 and our letter dated 10/15, we, explicitly, only
discuss native trees. These two letters were referred to during the PC meeting of
12/2. Not including the word "native" in the motion appears to be an unintentional
oversight.
c. The recently revised tree protection ordinance now provides incentives to
property owners to remove non-native hillside trees. What possible reason would
there now be to count these non-native trees as screening when the Town is trying
to encourage their removal in the hillsides?
d. Use of landscaping (and, by extension, non-native trees) is specifically excluded
in the HDS&G (page 15) as an alternative to reducing building height or selecting
`._ a less visible site.
e. The passed motion of the TC 6/15/2009 meeting on the proposed McCarthy
house, did specify that only "native" trees could be counted as providing screening.
2. Since the property owner has no control over the health, maintenance, and well
being of off-site trees, they should not be counted as providing screening. Both Staff
and then -Mayor Spector took this position at the 6/15/2009 McCarthy hearing. This
issue was on staffs agenda for both the PC 9/23/15 and 10/21/2015 meetings but
was not discussed due to time considerations. Unfortunately, this item was
"dropped" from staffs agenda for the 12/2 PC meeting even though no decision had
been reached earlier.
4
3. Replacement trees mandated by the Tree Protection Ordinance are already
covered by a 5 -year maintenance agreement. Such a requirement here would
standardize this time frame.
4. The PC addressed the issue of tree health but did not address the impact from
construction. This issue is important because on page 13 of the HDS&G, one sees that
"potential" is defined as capable of being seen from a viewing platform if trees or large
shrubs are removed, significantly pruned, or impacted by construction (our emphasis).
According to the Hams matrix, even a blue oak tree in good health can be killed by a
"moderate" or "severe" impact from construction. This issue was also on staffs agenda
for both the PC 9/23/15 and 10/21/2015 meetings but was not discussed either
time. Unfortunately, this item was "dropped" from staffs agenda for the 12/2 PC
meeting even though no decision had been reached earlier.
There is a "liability game" that many developers now successfully play: The
Town's consulting arborist recommends removal. Nevertheless, the developer says
that all efforts will be made to retain the tree and now it can count as providing "1
screening. After approval, the developer (or, later on, the owner) applies for a tree
removal permit. The Town arborist finds him/herself between a rock and a hard
place: deny the permit, which the Town's consulting arborist said should be granted,
and when the tree drops a branch and hurts someone, the Town gets sued. Or grant
the permit and protect the Town while, significantly, providing the homeowner a
better view. And if such trees don't immediately die, their condition will probably
continue to deteriorate such that the Town's arborist will eventually feel compelled
to issue a tree removal permit, citing the recommendation in the Town's consulting
arborist's report But at the time of application, these trees will be counted as
providing screening.
Utilizing the Harris matrix will improve the objectivity of the process. This
matrix considers tree species, tree species tolerance to disturbance, tree condition,
and intensity of impact Most undeveloped hillside lots in Los Gatos have a
predominance of live oaks (equivalent to "London Plane" in the Harris matrix, and
independently verified, to us, through emails, from both Drs. Clark and Matheny)
but also include some blue oaks (equivalent to "Beech" in the matrix). The Harris
�1-- matrix provides an easy way to objectively gauge multiple impacts since the Town's
consulting arborist presents the necessary information in the tree report for each
lot, The Town's consulting arborist assessments can then be incorporated into the
Harris matrix and whether or not to retain the tree is easily determined. The
developer or lot owner always has the option to try and salvage the tree but it can't be
included in the visibility analysis.
We suggest that trees that are "harmed", or will be harmed during construction,
include the following: (1) trees that will be removed for construction, even if transplanted
(since many transplanted trees, especially the larger ones, do not survive), (2) trees with
recent, mechanical physical trauma, say within the last 2 years, to the trunk or major
limbs, (3) trees where more than 25% of the canopy needs to be pruned or removed for
construction, and (4) all trees that will sustain severe construction impacts and some trees
that will sustain moderate impacts (see Harris' matrix for specific details). Such harmed
trees should not be counted in visibility calculations because their survivorship is
unpredictable and in doubt.
5. Trees typically have sparse canopies, and poor screening ability, either because of poor
tree health and/or because such trees are deciduous and they are being examined during
leaf -drop. There is the issue of how much screening does a tree's canopy provide at that
moment in time. As Commissioner O'Donnell said on 12/2/2015, 10 trees with sparse
canopies won't screen but 1 tree with a sparse canopy combined with 9 trees with full
canopies will screen. His statement, and those of Commissioners Hanson and Birch (a
majority of Commissioners present that night), supported assigning screening trees a
percentage screening value when the A&S is being considered.
At the 10/21/2015 PC study session, the Town's consulting arborist said that there
are forestry charts that can be used to gauge the percentage screening provided by a tree.
As an example, say deciduous blue oak tree X, if it were a solid block, would screen
an elevation area of, say, 300 square feet if its entire outline were used. But, to
continue our example, if tree X, at the time of application, would only screen about
50% of the built house, according to the forestry charts, then the developer gets
`.
"credit" for screening 150 square feet of the elevation, not the entire 300 square
feet. In contrast, say screening is provided by evergreen live oak Y, should such
screening exceed, say 85-90%, then maybe count the screening as 100% because
the built house will essentially be hidden (it would be nice to see some sample mock
ups to see if 85%, or some other number, is a better cut off).
Giving a percentage credit in this situation is very different than what has been
used by Davidon`s architectural firm for the Highland's project: In those cases, the entire
outline of a tree has been counted as providing 100% screening. No consideration was
given as to whether major branches (or the tree itself) were even alive or dead.
6. Developers apparently need incentives to care for trees on their property. The
Town's consulting arborist has documented, since 2012, that many trees on many
Highland lots had fresh, large, machinery -associated wounds on their trunks. Such
wounds, she continues (e.g. tree #723 on Lot 13), can predispose that tree to
developing a wood decay fungus that can cause tree failure. Another example she
gives of a harmed tree is screening tree #626 on Lot 7 with its trunk wound. This
tree's condition was downgraded, since the previous report, because of this tree's
fungal infection at the site of the injury. And Weissman has submitted a series of 6
letters between 7/17/2015 and 10/28/2015 that document recent mechanical
injuries to at least 13 "large protected" oak trees on Highland's lots 7-13 (these
letters are available from the Town's attorney). While the Town's tree protection
ordinance has no specific section to address remediation for such injuries, the tree
protection ordinance does define "remove" as "taking any action foreseeably leading
to the death of a tree or permanent damage to its health". Plus p. 13, B.1. of the
HDS&G implies that trees impacted by construction shall not be counted as
screening. It seems only appropriate that trees with developer -caused, potentially
life threatening injuries, or injuries that have the potential to decrease a tree's vigor,
should not be counted as providing screening of any degree since they can be
considered as "removed" from the site. Especially given that such injuries may take
a couple of years to kill or affect the vigor of an injured tree. And, also given that
_1�
such injuries are entirely preventable if the required tree protection fences were in
place.
At the PC meeting of 8/26/2015, the Town Attorney told the Planning
Commissioners that Standards on p. 15 of the HDS&G, should be their main
guidance when they were considering how to revise the Visibility Methodology for
proposed hillside homes. 1 present those Standards below since they are so
pertinent to our discussions:
C. Selecting the building site.
Standards:
1. Locate buildings within the Least Restrictive Development Area.
2. Preserve views of highly visible hillsides. Views of the hillsides shall be protected
from adverse visual impacts by locating buildings on the least visible areas of the
LRDA. —�
3. Reduce visual impact. 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. Providing landscape screening is not an alternative to reducing
building height or selecting a less visible site.
4. Ridgeline view protection. Whenever possible within the significant ridgeline
areas, no primary or accessory building shall be constructed so as to project above
the physical ridgeline (not including vegetative material) as seen from any viewing
platform. A significant ridgeline means any hill or mountain, the uppermost part
of which forms the skyline visible from any established viewing platform.
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
Fourth Edition
R ArUoriculftu-e
Intiegmted ement
of Landscape Trees, Shrubs,
and Vines
Nom
Richard W. Harris
Pro essor Emeritus f
Department of Environmental Horticukure
University of California at Davis
M4v v.
James R. Clark
lice President
IlortScience, Inc. }
Pleasanton, California
7
Y Nelda E Matheny `~
President
HottSnence, Inc.
Pleasanton, California to
f
�'. Illustrations by vera M. Harris
t '?.
r:
t
Upper Sade liver, New Jersey o7458
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
OR
Comparison of tree preservation and removal decisions considering species tolerance to disturbance,
tree condition, and intensity of impact
London Plane -z: c, e�
iU- &e
Tree condition
Intensity of impact
Poor
Moderate
Good
Low
Remove
Preserve
Preserve
Moderate
Remove
Preserve
Preserve
Severe
Remove
Redesign/Preserve?
Redesign/Preserve?
Beech
Tree condition
Intensity of impact
Poor
Moderate
Good
Low
Remove
Preserve?
Preserve
Moderate
Remove
Remove
Redesign/Preserve?
Severe
Remove
Remove
Remove
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
ISSUES RAISED AT TOWN COUNCIL 5/19/2015, THAT WERE NOT, OR ONLY PARTIALLY,
ADDRESSED AT SUBSEQUENT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS
1.. Methodology used to calculate screening.
A. Can native trees only provide screening?
B. Can off-site trees provide screening?***
C. Consider health of screening trees?
D. Does impact of construction on a tree matter,
as to whether or not that tree can be counted as providing
screening?***
INSERTING INFORMATION IN THE TOWN'S CONSULTING ARBORIST REPORT,
INTO THE HARRIS MATRIX, CAN OBJECTIVELY ADDRESS G AND D. SIMULTANEOUSLY
E. Does mechanical injury to tree affect its screening potential?
See P. 7, Item 776 in our letter 1/28/2016, for extensive discussion.
A. Implied by PC but not specified in motion. Landscaping is
already excluded from screening calculations on p. 15, C. 3.of the HDS&G
See p. 3-4, item M1 in our letter 1/28/2016, for extensive discussion.
B. No - was addressed indirectly by PC when they required a deed restriction for screening
trees, which can only be applied to on-site trees. Should be stated in methodology.
See p. 4, item N2 in our letter 1/28/2016, for discussion.
C. PC decided that trees in poor or poor/fair condition, according to Town's
consulting arborist, are not to be counted as screening. We believe that trees that
the Town's consulting arborist says to remove, should also not be counted
as screening. See p. 4-6, item #4 in our letter 1/28/2016, for extensive discussion.
D. Not addressed by PC but addressed on p. 13, HDS&G, wherein
logical implication is that trees to be "removed, significantly pruned,
or impacted by construction", should NOT be counted as providing
screening. "Significantly pruned" can be defined as greater than 25% to be consistent with
Town's Tree Protection Ordinance. Town's consulting arborist reports should be guide for
impact from construction.5ee p. 4-6, item 774 in our letter 1/28/2016, for extensive
discussion.
E. Not addressed by PC but indirectly addressed on p. 13, B. 1. of HDS&G,
since Town's Tree Protection Ordinance defines "remove" as "...any action
foreseeably leading to the death of a tree or permanent damage to its
health."
According to the Town's consulting arborist, such mechanical injuries can
result in the subsequent death of that tree.
F. Should trees with sparse canopies get a % "screening credit"?
G. Must screening be determined at a specific time of year?
H. Should visibility analysis show before and after simulations
of those trees to be removed from screening calculations?
I. Should screening trees have extra protection beside a deed
restriction?
J. Viewing Platforms
2. Is the 25% visibility cutoff too generous?
3. Should visibility calculations also consider the square footage of the elevation
that is visible?
4. We have one concern with reference to wording in staff's draft. Please see
p.2, item 7 of our letter 1/28/2016 for specifics
••* These items were in staff's PC report for both the 9/23/2015 and
10/21/2015 meetings, but were "dropped" from staff's agenda for the
12/2/2015 meeting, without having been addressed earlier.
F. Was a general PC consensus but not formalized in motion because
staff indicated already part of Town's methodology. THIS IS NOT TRUE. See p. 6-7, item p5
of our letter 1/28/2016, for extensive discussion. The Town's consulting
arborist told PC that forestry charts exit to facilitate this % screening assessment.
G. No, according to PC, because assigning a % "screening credit"
will reflect those deciduous trees that may be in leaf -drop. This decision not in staff report
but it is the only way that "F" makes any sense.
H. Not addressed by PC but specifically required on p. 54 of HDS&G:
"If the Town determines that a tree may not survive construction,
information on the visual impact of the removal.... shall be submitted with plans."
This requirement should be stated in the methodology.
I. Not considered by PC but we feel that such trees should also
have a 5 -year maintenance agreement to be consistent with Town's Tree
Protection Ordinance time line.
J. At the PC meeting 12/2/2015, staff said that they are taking a fresh look at
being flexible on viewing platforms. This "flexibility" should include the intent
of the HDS&G definition of viewing platforms: "Specific locations on the valley floor
or surrounding hillsides... from which field observations are made to
assess the visual impact of development within the Town's hillside areas."
See p. 2-3, discussion item 8A in our letter dated 1/28/2016
See p. 3, discussion item 8B in our letter dated 1/28/2016