town of los gatos
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
STUDY SESSION
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Meeting Date: October 21, 2015
PREPARED BY:
Joel S. Paulson, Planning Manager i oaul son@losgatosca. uov
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:
l.
Public Comments ( l6 pages)
BAEI(GBOUND: The Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines (HDS&G) were adopted by the Town Council in January 20O4. 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 Septernber 23,2015, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider proposed amendments to the HDS&G regarding light r€flectivity value (LRV) and visibility analysis (link to September 2015 report to the Planning Commission and srpporting attschments for Agenda Itan 6: htto:/llossatos.Eranicus.com/GeneratedAeendaViewer.oho?view id=5&clio id= 1452). Following limited discussion and receiving public testimony the Planning Commission continued the matter to a Study Session on October 2 I , 20 I 5 . The Planning Commission's limited disctssion resulted in a few proposed modifications to the originally proposed amendments. These modifications are reflected below in seik€thr€t gh (delaions) and underline/bold (additions) format. As requested by the Planning Commission, the Town's Consulting Arborist will be presenl at the Study Session to answer queslions 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 Septernber 23, 2015 staffreport. Modifications to Chapter ll (Constraints Analvsis and Site Selection) In an effort to provide additional guidance to applicants, staff, and the deciding bodies regarding visibility and how it is analyzed, staff has prepared draft methodology language for visibiliry
ATIACHMEM
3
Planning Commission Study Session Staff Report - page 2 Hillside Develooment Standards and Guidelines Study Session October 21,2015
analysis. The draft methodology language below would be added to Chapter II of the HDS&G and is provided in bullet form for a step by step process. The proposed new text is shown below. The followinq steos shall be taken in comoletine a view analysis:
. .
.
lnstall storv ooles per adopted policy After the installation of story poles. photoeraohs of the proiect shall be taken from the applicable viewine platforms * usinq 50 MM and 300 MM lenses A ohotopraoh with a 50 MM lens will represent the visibilitv of the prooosed residence from the naked eve A ghotosraoh with a 300 MM lens will represent an up-close perspective and help identifu anv visible story ooles. nettine trees. and/or shrubberv +* If determined necessarv bv the Commuaitv Develooment Director. three dimensional
.
A visible home is defined
. .
illustrations or photo simulations of the structure may be required as a single-family residence where 35245olo or more elevation can be seen from anv ofthe Town's established viewinq platforms ***
*
of
an
t*
Other location(s) as deemed aoorooriate bv the deeidins-Hy Communitv Develooment Director mav be chosen in addition to the existine viewine olatforms Existine veeetation and/or landscapine oroposed to be remov€d entirelv or oartiallv
***
shall not be included in the view analysis Percentae€s shall be rounded to the nearest whole number
Additionally, the Planning Commission recommended the following modification to page 13 the HDS&G.
of
The locations of the viewing platforms are shown on the map on the next page, and are as follows:
l.
2. 3. 4. 5.
Blossom Hill Road/Lns Gatos Boulevard Los Gatos - Almaden Road/Selinda Way (across from Leigh High School) Hwy l7 overcrossing/Los Gatos - Saratoga Road (Highway 9) Main Street/Bayview Avenue Other location(s) as deemed appropriate by the deeidi*g$edy Communitv Develooment
Director
The Commission should also discuss the following iterns and determine
if
any additional
amendments should be included:
o
Should existing trees on-site and off-site which contribute to screening be used in the analysis;
Planning Commission Study Session Staff Report - Page 3 Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines Studv Session October 21,2015
o
r o o
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 Ilom Dave Weissman regarding the pmposed visibility methodology and includes his recommendations for modifications to the proposed visibility mahodology. Modifications to Chaoter V (Architectural Desiqr) Exterior colors and materials for homes in the hillsides are governed by the requirernents ofthe HDS&C. Chapter V, Section I. 2. (Page4l) of the HDS&G states:
l. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
The contrast between manmade buildings and the environment shall be minimized. A buildings color and mateials shall complement and blend with the predominant colors and values of the surrounding natural environment. Exterior colors shall not exceed a reflectivity value of 30 and shall blend with the natural vegetation. Roofs shall be a dark earth tone color with a variety of shadx of that color that blend with lhe environment. Exposed metal surfaces shall be painted to compliment adjacent materials, be anodized a dark color, or have the ability to develop a patina (e.g., copper). MirrorJike window tinting is prohibited. 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 of30. 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 ofthe home (including the main body color, trim, windows, doors, and any stone) should not exceed an LRV of30.
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 acc€ssory structure or addition to an existing residence constructed prior to the adoption ofthe HDS&G would need to conform to the LRV requirements, requiring repainting or changing the materials lbr the entire home lo meet LRV 30 or having the addition/accessory strucnlre with a different color scheme. This would result in a significant added cost to the homeowner and a significant alteration to the appearance Most recently, applicants have expressed concerns
Planning Commission Study Session Staff Report - page 4 Hillside Development Standards and Guidetines Study Session October 21, 201 5
of an existing home. This would affect existing trim, fascia, and windows with white mullions and trim.
Staffis 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 'tedlined" version of the full text of Chapter V indicating the proposed revisions. Proposed new text is shown as underlined and deletions are shown with s$l*ethreugh
2.
colors
Exterior material for homes. with the exception of homes with any elevation that is more than 25 percent visible from the viewine platforms. mav use color averaeine of atl exterior materials to meet the maximum lieht reflectivitv value of30 and shall blend with the natural vegetation.
CONCLUS1ON AND NEXT STEPS: The Planning Commission should discuss the proposed amendments to thc HDS&G and provide any comments or additional recommended changes to the proposod amardmens.
Following the Study Session, staff will prepare rwised amendments to the HDS&G which will be considered at a future Planning Commission meeting.
S. Paulson, AICP
Planning Manager
LRP:JSP:sr
N:,DEV'PC
R
EPORTS90I
5
'Hiltsi&
tlv
visibilitysrudys6sion.doc
To: Planning Commission, Study Session ofOctober 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 ofthose issues and areas that both the TC and PC expressed an interest in during several public hearings. Addirionally we have tried to remove as much ambigirity and subjectivity as possible since several PC members expressed such concerns.
VIEW METHODOLOGY AND ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
lnstillation 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 LRDAv 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 . Identifu alternate viewing platform(s) from valley floor . ldentiry vantage points within hillsides lf after story poles are installed, staffconcludes that the development will be less than 1096 visible, no further visual analysis is required Photographs:
. Equipment:
Photographs ofthe 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 ofthe site . Photographs shall clearly show the story poles and/or house and subject property
Timing of Photographs: oSignificant dead branches shall be removed from on-site trees before photos are takenr oEvergreen trees only: Photos may be taken anytime of the year if only (native) evergreen trees provide screening oDeciduous trees: Where (native) deciduous trees provide screening, photos shall be taken during maximum summer leaf-out2 and maximum winter leaf drop.e
Loi2rl..s
*"
,.;uffi"f";'
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 ofpaper. . 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 scteening 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 . Subiect 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 6090 of screeninga . Trees with sparse canopiess,6 Trees that shall not be counted as screening trees are: . Trees requiring more than 15olo pruning to make way for construction . Trees subiect 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 iniured or harmed during any construction or grading activity, even ifthe latter two are incidental occurrences
ANALYSIS
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 proiect site 2. A photo that physically removes, through photo simulation, those trees that shalt 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 . lf any one elevation of a house (plus related structures) is 25ol0 or more visible,
rounded to the nearest whole number, the maximum height shall be 18' l Such dead branch removal is also part ofthe HDS&G defensible space guidelines Overall health ofdeciduous oaks can only be assessed during full leaf-out, usually in early summer 3 That will reflect visibility during the late fall-winter months a Since such trees are with leaves for approximately 600/o ofthe year sUsually reflective ofpoor baseline health ofthat tree and poor, long term viability 6As an example, ifthe solid 'block" outline ofa tree screens 300 square feet ofa proposed structure's elevation, but the actual tree would only provide an estimated 300/0 screening ofthat structure because of its sparse canopy, then the applicant gets "credit" for 90 square feet. 2
Other items to consider for discussion and/or inclusion in VIEW METHODOLOGy AND ANALYSIS 1. ls the
25% visibility cutofftoo 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 ofsize and mass,
even if their visibility is less than 2590. The HDS&G speak to this issue on page 15: "The visual impact ofbuildings or portions ofbuildings that can be seen from the
viewing platforms shall be mitigated to the greatest extent reasonable by reducing the height ofthe building or moving the structure to another location on the site." OUR PROPOSAL: Reduce the percentage
visibility threshold to
1596 since the
Highland's Lot 6 house, for which no visibility analysis was required by Staff because, we assume, it was less than 25o/o, is, nevertheless, readily visible to the
naked eye from Los Gatos Blvd. This observation supports that the 25yo threshold is
too high and should be lowered.
should visibiligr calculations also consider the square footage of the elevotion thot is visible? ln other words, a 5,000 square foot house mighthave20Vo of its elevation, 2.
or 1,000 square fee! 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 ofa hillside clearing, might have
100o/o
of its elevation visible to the valley floor and not
be permitted, despite being less ofan 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 modiry the code to be more
reflective ofthe goals and objectives ofthe HDS&G. Consider the "big picture."
3. Should the all importont visihility calculations be peer reviewed by an outside source who has no potentiol conJlict of interest with the applicantT 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
ofany 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 of90, but because ofaveraging
ofareas, the overall LRV would be below 30 even though the roof would be extremely visible. Plus what is averaged? fust the elevation facing the valley floor or all 4 sides and roofofthe house? Since the HDS&G call for hillside homes to blend
with the natural environment, it seems to us that every part ofthe proposed house should blend with the hillsides. One only has to look at the built house on Lot 6 in the Highlands to see what visibility looks like from the valley floor along Los Gatos Blvd.
4
May 22,2015 Members of Los Gatos Town Council c,/o Laurel Prevetti 110 E. Main St. Los Gatos, Califomia 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 pojec{. I also attended their community meeting and have been interested in seeing the architecture thal 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 staffs interpretation of the Hillside Guidelines they will be forced to use very dark colors and materials on all elemenls of the new homes and will have to make changes to the elevations that I had previously seen and liked.
disappointed to hear that this change has occuned. I r,rould like to request that the council prioritize an update to these requirements that will allow this project and other hillside projecls that are not visible from the valley lloor to have more flexibility to use natural materials and colors that are appropriate in a hillside setting but allow for greater architectural variation. I am
Regards,
Susan Kankel Reservoir Road
May 22, 2015
Members of Los Gatos Town Council c/o Laurel Prevetti 110 E. Main St. Los Gatos, California 95031 Honorable Mayor and Council Members: We live across the street from the SummerHill Homes proiect 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 Meetint SummerHill held on the proiect 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 desiSn, use of natural materials and color selections.
summerHill recendy brought to our attention that the Pretty colots that were beinS represented on the drawinEs 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 proiect to use the ahernauve method for complying with the Hillside Development Standards related to matetials and colors that was used for the Davidon pioject on Shady Lane. SummerHill indicated that as a tesult of Council discussion, staff has changed their interpretation of the current policy to be much more restrictive and eliminate the exception that had previously appli€d to trim and natural materials such as stone. As residents who will be living ac.oss the street lrom several homes which can't be viewed from the valley, that this new more restrictive interpretalion will have a neSative impact on the appearance of thes€ homes.
We would like to request that the Planning Staff make it a Priority to implement the motion that was passed at the March 17th Town Council Meeting for agenda item 2. The motion, per the meeting minutes, was to "amend the Hillside Development Standa(ds and Guidelines to add the option lor the use, as appropriate, of the light value averaging method, and to research and determine a marimum liBht value that can be used in averaging."
Sincerely,
?--.''>--,4-22
r /7LU,t-7k'.-
Melissa and Morgan MacDonald 175 Prospect Avenue
CIMES October 15, 2015
(via email & overnlght dellveryf
Joel Paulson
Communlty Development Dept. Town of Los Gatos 110 E. Maln Street los Gatot CA 95030
RE:
RECEIV.
OCIl'i
r;r
TOWN OF LUS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION
Vlsual Analysis Methodology
Dear Mr. Paulson,
Davidon appreciates the opportunity to be included in the discussion regarding potential amendments to MsualAnalysis Methodolog'y within the HDS&G. overthe past couple of years Davidon has likelY performed more visual Anahris than any other applicant in the history of Los
Gatos. We have valuable experienc€ as to the methods and practlcablllty ofthe implementation. Davidon believes that the curent methodology and past practice of the Town has not been proven inadequatc, but we do agree that some minor clariffcations to the methodoloty maybe warranted. lt ls very important however, that any amendments to the document strike a balance offairness between reasonable private property rights and th€ interests o, the citizens of Los Gatos. Furthermore, any amendment must resuh ln clarhy, not confuslon ln applicatlon. over the past 9 months, staff has reffned fts policies and practices which has improved the process. under the recently revamped plannlng Department led by Ms. pr€vetti, staff has become proactive in identifoing additional vaewing locations, in addition to the currently designated Vr'ewing Platforms. They have also implemented an lnfield verificatlon synem of the submitted vlsual Analysis. These efforts show that the methodology that is currently being employed meets the lntent ofthe HSD&G and is accurate, effecffve and verlfiable. staff is recommending additional refinements to the guidelines that Davidon suppons,, wfth the exception of the rounding to the nearest whole number, whlch ls discussed at the latter part of this len€r. The staff report also, raises other questions for planning commisdon to consider. The following are Davidon's opinion of each: should exlsting trces on*ite & ofi-she whlch contrtbut to *rucntng
.
b
used
in the onotysls?
The HSD&G discusses '...locating buildings on the least visible areas of the LRDAl and .... capable of beinS seen from a vlewing platform iftrees or large shrubs are removed, significantly
pruned. or impacted by construction". These slandards 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 in the G/15/20Gt hearing (a hearing
1600 SOUTH UIAIN STBEEI, SUITE .150, WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94596.5394 TELEPHONE (925) 945-8000. FACStMILE (925) 256-0140
often referred to in these discussions!, that the use of existint trees for screenlng is the only logical way to look at thls. lf thc concern is that a property owner will remove a tree and expose a structure, most, if not all, existing trees are protected by Town poliry and require approval for removal or maior pruning. tto exlsdrry trEjes how to be a e,rtotn mtlng or heallh .,trry/oty to be Includ.d os ,da.nitry? past practice is that all existlng trees are allowed for screening. I think we all can atree that it is impossible to predict how long a tree will live. tt could be 5 years, or h could be a 1fi) yearc. This life expectancy can be the same whether ft ls a tree in "poor' condition ot'good" condition. Atree,s health can also vary based on envlronmental facto6, like weather, and can be very difficuh to accurately assess. For example with the current drought, the trees that
appearto be struggling are downgraded in heahh bythe arborist, but is h posslble that the health will rebound once the rains retum or if supplemental waterlng is lmplemented? Because the lontevity oftree life is unknown and because there is not concluslve criteria fol estimating the llfe expectancy of a tree, Davidon belierres every tree should be allowed for screening.
to have the Town Arborlst ol the consuhing arborist make the determination whether an individual tree has value to be preserved. lf the arborist believes that a tree has lont term suryivability, and that this can be enhanced by proper clearance from construction and by implementation of a maintenance protram, including supplemental watering, then the tree should be allowed for screening. A posslble compromlse would be
Should tees wfth potentiot @nstru.dion lm,,/Lls rfom o Pmlect bc excluded?
lncluM u *rccnlng or
the current HDS&G states, under the definition of'Potential' on pate 13 section B'1, 'trces or shrubs being removed, slgnificantly pruned or impacted by construGtlon' cannot be used ts screentng. This policy ls already practiced by staff and Davidon has been adhering to. The essential tool used for determination of beneficlal screen trees is the arborist report. The arborist report recommends clearances from each tree to proposed improvemenG that will provide an adequate buffer for preservation of the tree. Once this recommendation is made, this glves the applicaBt an oPportunity to desatn accordintly to elther preserve the trees or ln an absence of a reasonable ahematlve, to porpose a course of actlon with some impact to the tree(s). Davidon believes that the existing language ls clear, fair and warrants no change excepi to clarify that the determination of an impasted tree should be based on the opinion of As
the Town or consuhlng arborist' Should trces wtth spotrr aaoples be lndudcd os screenhtg? Planning Commission has seen num€rous times now, Mr. Weissman's photos of Lot 7 Tree fl506, 607 & 626. These photos were teken from a drone flying very close to the lot and ehher
telescopically roomed in or roomed in using Photoshop. These photos are representative of what you see when you stand 2d-5d 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 ls mmmon to lose their leav€s panlally or
entirely'' during drought situations. We should not forget that the HDS&G requires analysis of visibilitv from the viewinr olatform. 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 mlles 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 maEnitude of what can be seen by th€ naked eye. ln this photo one can see clearly the orilnge netting of the story poles. Alrc, one
can see an obvious outlin€ and massing of the very sparse canopy of Tree #807. Notlce the
dlfference between unobstructed/unscreened orange nettint versus the netting screened by f607. When story pole netting is behind Tree 11607, there ls obvious visual screening taking place. Eraen wlth a zoom lens it ls very obvious screening is occurring behind a very spanse tree from this distance. Tree
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 comparint the S0 mm photo with the 3oo
mm photo, is the clarity and level of detail dlmlnishes the further away one gets. The further away a person is, the less that can seen. The level of detail that Mr. Weismann sugtests, by identifying leafs, twigs and dead branches, is not seen by the naked eye from these distances. What is seen ls an obvious screening by a mass of canopy, even by the sparsest trees. The bright onnge netting is vaguely seen behind these spa6e 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 rreening and should be included in the Visual Anatysis.
Should thc vlsibtllty onotysls be rcqulrcd
a
be done durtng a
cerfrln dmc ol por?
Mr, Weismann is suggesting that Msual Analysis occur during the ,full summer leaf-out". As explained above, from far distances the level ofdetail 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 tlme of year can cause unnecessary delays and a burden on the appllcant. Also, as Commissloner Erickson asked Mr. weissman ln the 9/9/2015 PC hearing what happens in a situation like we have today wfiere in drought shuations, 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 fall or winter. To suggest an applicant wait until the drought ls over is not logical. Based on experience, a valid Visual Analysis can be done year round.
Commerlts retrrdlng Steffs proposed mettrodology:
viewins Platforms The HSD&G currently allows for ahernate vlewing platform as deemed by the deciding body. Davidon has performed many ahernate visual Analysis from locations other than the designated VlewinB Platforms. These alternate analysis locatons were chosen by Davidon, assuming they were the most appropriate locatbns to perform the analy:is. Staff has also, recently, took the initiative to request addhional locatlons from us. Commlssioner O'Donnell made a great point at the September 28th hearln& that in fairn€ss to the applicant, the aJtemate location(s) should be determined prior to belng brought forth to a deciding body. Davidon supports the modification ofthe languate, as recommended by Ms. Prevetti, to read as '5. Other loation(s) as deemed appropriate by the Communlty De\relopment Director.'
Roundinr to the Nearest Whole Number staffs recommendation of roundlng to the nearest whole number revises the maximum vlsibility from 24.9r%to 24.49%. Based on this methodology, a percentage of 24.5% ot 24.5L% would be consldered visible defined by the HDS&G, even though the calculations dearly show it to be othenflise. Though I believe the lntent ls to address a margin of error of +p.5%, this language can cause oontention. The current lantuage staung 25X or more is dear , fair and does not require an amendment. Addltlona I Toplcs/Comments Peer Review As mentioned earller, under the recently rwamped Planning Department led by Ms. Prevetti. Staff has lmplemented a veriftcation system of the submitted Visual Analysls' This ls a task that staff is currently able to perform and I am assuming willint to oontinue to perform. Staff is
certalnlv quallfled to objectively .eview the submltted documents. An autometic thlrd pafty review would be redundant. lt should be staffs dlscretion if a peer review is apptopriate, based on tts inability to revlew based on workload, complexity or some other reasonable reason it feels lt cannot perform the task. ldentification of Trees Google Earth has proven to be an effectlve tool used by our architect in identlfication of tree canopies. The suggestion that an applicant shoot arrows with colored ribbon into the trees is silly and quite posslbly dangerous. Removal of the rlbbon would be impossible, leavinS the hlllsldes littered with a rainbow of ribbon. Screen Tree PlantinP
-urrently,
the i4lggElelqqof the HSD&G does not allow planting of trees for screening of the building. This interpretatlon is taken from HSD&G PaSe 16, C.3 stating 'Providlng Landscape screening is not an alternative to reducing building height or selecting a less visible she." What
happens once the applicant has mitigated these two criteria to the treatest extent reasonable? ln the 6/L512@9 Council Hearing atLi28,, Mayor Wassermann, wfio 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 Bray area, such as mitigating to the greatest extent reasonable." He believed planting screen trees was allowable miti8ation.
lt possible, also, that the term Landscaping is referring to omamental landscaping that a property owner can remove without any approvals and can potentially expose the house later? This "landraping" is much different than native oak mitigation trees that are protected by the Town's newly amended Tree Ordinance. ls
The current HSD&G allow for "Landscape" screening under Ridgeline View Protection. Ridteline view Protection (H5D&G pg 161, states "tandscaplng shall be provided to screen the building from the vlewto the greatest extent possible'. Why not allow reduction of Msual 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? Plantin8 a youn& healthy, coast Live oak can provide immediate screening, and the screening will only grow over time. New plantints not only enhance heahh to the environment and sustainability of the oak woodland, but also mitigates the visibility of the houses. tt is a win win for everyone. New trees should be enoouraged & protected oak tree plantings should to be allowed for screening.
-
Davidon looks forward to further discussing this topic at th€ special session on october 21n.
Cc: Jeff Thayer, Dennis Razzari
5
EXHIBIT A
300 mm Photo
\ $
t: Free #607
*- li\i 1.*,.,# t
i.
ffi, ,
\
.r.i;tr.f';,:',:..r:sI..h.":.:.\*t1iffirii.i-..i t' . i .(.'
. ifi
r--ir-?slYre
lffi i.ft"*'fur..t"
"iffir,$.,
.
.'!
1.
.;.i.. .;iJflli Ir,Et
BLOWUP OF 3OO MM PHOTO
#607
rFr
L-
t
I
\
EHatce.ti*ifr NG
t
I
M
Blowup of 50 mm Photo t
l'4,
Unscreened Orange Netting
Screened Orange Netting
I
STUDY SESSION
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Meeting Date: October 21, 2015
PREPARED BY:
Joel S. Paulson, Planning Manager i oaul son@losgatosca. uov
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:
l.
Public Comments ( l6 pages)
BAEI(GBOUND: The Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines (HDS&G) were adopted by the Town Council in January 20O4. 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 Septernber 23,2015, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider proposed amendments to the HDS&G regarding light r€flectivity value (LRV) and visibility analysis (link to September 2015 report to the Planning Commission and srpporting attschments for Agenda Itan 6: htto:/llossatos.Eranicus.com/GeneratedAeendaViewer.oho?view id=5&clio id= 1452). Following limited discussion and receiving public testimony the Planning Commission continued the matter to a Study Session on October 2 I , 20 I 5 . The Planning Commission's limited disctssion resulted in a few proposed modifications to the originally proposed amendments. These modifications are reflected below in seik€thr€t gh (delaions) and underline/bold (additions) format. As requested by the Planning Commission, the Town's Consulting Arborist will be presenl at the Study Session to answer queslions 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 Septernber 23, 2015 staffreport. Modifications to Chapter ll (Constraints Analvsis and Site Selection) In an effort to provide additional guidance to applicants, staff, and the deciding bodies regarding visibility and how it is analyzed, staff has prepared draft methodology language for visibiliry
ATIACHMEM
3
Planning Commission Study Session Staff Report - page 2 Hillside Develooment Standards and Guidelines Study Session October 21,2015
analysis. The draft methodology language below would be added to Chapter II of the HDS&G and is provided in bullet form for a step by step process. The proposed new text is shown below. The followinq steos shall be taken in comoletine a view analysis:
. .
.
lnstall storv ooles per adopted policy After the installation of story poles. photoeraohs of the proiect shall be taken from the applicable viewine platforms * usinq 50 MM and 300 MM lenses A ohotopraoh with a 50 MM lens will represent the visibilitv of the prooosed residence from the naked eve A ghotosraoh with a 300 MM lens will represent an up-close perspective and help identifu anv visible story ooles. nettine trees. and/or shrubberv +* If determined necessarv bv the Commuaitv Develooment Director. three dimensional
.
A visible home is defined
. .
illustrations or photo simulations of the structure may be required as a single-family residence where 35245olo or more elevation can be seen from anv ofthe Town's established viewinq platforms ***
*
of
an
t*
Other location(s) as deemed aoorooriate bv the deeidins-Hy Communitv Develooment Director mav be chosen in addition to the existine viewine olatforms Existine veeetation and/or landscapine oroposed to be remov€d entirelv or oartiallv
***
shall not be included in the view analysis Percentae€s shall be rounded to the nearest whole number
Additionally, the Planning Commission recommended the following modification to page 13 the HDS&G.
of
The locations of the viewing platforms are shown on the map on the next page, and are as follows:
l.
2. 3. 4. 5.
Blossom Hill Road/Lns Gatos Boulevard Los Gatos - Almaden Road/Selinda Way (across from Leigh High School) Hwy l7 overcrossing/Los Gatos - Saratoga Road (Highway 9) Main Street/Bayview Avenue Other location(s) as deemed appropriate by the deeidi*g$edy Communitv Develooment
Director
The Commission should also discuss the following iterns and determine
if
any additional
amendments should be included:
o
Should existing trees on-site and off-site which contribute to screening be used in the analysis;
Planning Commission Study Session Staff Report - Page 3 Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines Studv Session October 21,2015
o
r o o
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 Ilom Dave Weissman regarding the pmposed visibility methodology and includes his recommendations for modifications to the proposed visibility mahodology. Modifications to Chaoter V (Architectural Desiqr) Exterior colors and materials for homes in the hillsides are governed by the requirernents ofthe HDS&C. Chapter V, Section I. 2. (Page4l) of the HDS&G states:
l. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
The contrast between manmade buildings and the environment shall be minimized. A buildings color and mateials shall complement and blend with the predominant colors and values of the surrounding natural environment. Exterior colors shall not exceed a reflectivity value of 30 and shall blend with the natural vegetation. Roofs shall be a dark earth tone color with a variety of shadx of that color that blend with lhe environment. Exposed metal surfaces shall be painted to compliment adjacent materials, be anodized a dark color, or have the ability to develop a patina (e.g., copper). MirrorJike window tinting is prohibited. 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 of30. 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 ofthe home (including the main body color, trim, windows, doors, and any stone) should not exceed an LRV of30.
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 acc€ssory structure or addition to an existing residence constructed prior to the adoption ofthe HDS&G would need to conform to the LRV requirements, requiring repainting or changing the materials lbr the entire home lo meet LRV 30 or having the addition/accessory strucnlre with a different color scheme. This would result in a significant added cost to the homeowner and a significant alteration to the appearance Most recently, applicants have expressed concerns
Planning Commission Study Session Staff Report - page 4 Hillside Development Standards and Guidetines Study Session October 21, 201 5
of an existing home. This would affect existing trim, fascia, and windows with white mullions and trim.
Staffis 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 'tedlined" version of the full text of Chapter V indicating the proposed revisions. Proposed new text is shown as underlined and deletions are shown with s$l*ethreugh
2.
colors
Exterior material for homes. with the exception of homes with any elevation that is more than 25 percent visible from the viewine platforms. mav use color averaeine of atl exterior materials to meet the maximum lieht reflectivitv value of30 and shall blend with the natural vegetation.
CONCLUS1ON AND NEXT STEPS: The Planning Commission should discuss the proposed amendments to thc HDS&G and provide any comments or additional recommended changes to the proposod amardmens.
Following the Study Session, staff will prepare rwised amendments to the HDS&G which will be considered at a future Planning Commission meeting.
S. Paulson, AICP
Planning Manager
LRP:JSP:sr
N:,DEV'PC
R
EPORTS90I
5
'Hiltsi&
tlv
visibilitysrudys6sion.doc
To: Planning Commission, Study Session ofOctober 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 ofthose issues and areas that both the TC and PC expressed an interest in during several public hearings. Addirionally we have tried to remove as much ambigirity and subjectivity as possible since several PC members expressed such concerns.
VIEW METHODOLOGY AND ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
lnstillation 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 LRDAv 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 . Identifu alternate viewing platform(s) from valley floor . ldentiry vantage points within hillsides lf after story poles are installed, staffconcludes that the development will be less than 1096 visible, no further visual analysis is required Photographs:
. Equipment:
Photographs ofthe 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 ofthe site . Photographs shall clearly show the story poles and/or house and subject property
Timing of Photographs: oSignificant dead branches shall be removed from on-site trees before photos are takenr oEvergreen trees only: Photos may be taken anytime of the year if only (native) evergreen trees provide screening oDeciduous trees: Where (native) deciduous trees provide screening, photos shall be taken during maximum summer leaf-out2 and maximum winter leaf drop.e
Loi2rl..s
*"
,.;uffi"f";'
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 ofpaper. . 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 scteening 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 . Subiect 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 6090 of screeninga . Trees with sparse canopiess,6 Trees that shall not be counted as screening trees are: . Trees requiring more than 15olo pruning to make way for construction . Trees subiect 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 iniured or harmed during any construction or grading activity, even ifthe latter two are incidental occurrences
ANALYSIS
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 proiect site 2. A photo that physically removes, through photo simulation, those trees that shalt 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 . lf any one elevation of a house (plus related structures) is 25ol0 or more visible,
rounded to the nearest whole number, the maximum height shall be 18' l Such dead branch removal is also part ofthe HDS&G defensible space guidelines Overall health ofdeciduous oaks can only be assessed during full leaf-out, usually in early summer 3 That will reflect visibility during the late fall-winter months a Since such trees are with leaves for approximately 600/o ofthe year sUsually reflective ofpoor baseline health ofthat tree and poor, long term viability 6As an example, ifthe solid 'block" outline ofa tree screens 300 square feet ofa proposed structure's elevation, but the actual tree would only provide an estimated 300/0 screening ofthat structure because of its sparse canopy, then the applicant gets "credit" for 90 square feet. 2
Other items to consider for discussion and/or inclusion in VIEW METHODOLOGy AND ANALYSIS 1. ls the
25% visibility cutofftoo 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 ofsize and mass,
even if their visibility is less than 2590. The HDS&G speak to this issue on page 15: "The visual impact ofbuildings or portions ofbuildings that can be seen from the
viewing platforms shall be mitigated to the greatest extent reasonable by reducing the height ofthe building or moving the structure to another location on the site." OUR PROPOSAL: Reduce the percentage
visibility threshold to
1596 since the
Highland's Lot 6 house, for which no visibility analysis was required by Staff because, we assume, it was less than 25o/o, is, nevertheless, readily visible to the
naked eye from Los Gatos Blvd. This observation supports that the 25yo threshold is
too high and should be lowered.
should visibiligr calculations also consider the square footage of the elevotion thot is visible? ln other words, a 5,000 square foot house mighthave20Vo of its elevation, 2.
or 1,000 square fee! 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 ofa hillside clearing, might have
100o/o
of its elevation visible to the valley floor and not
be permitted, despite being less ofan 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 modiry the code to be more
reflective ofthe goals and objectives ofthe HDS&G. Consider the "big picture."
3. Should the all importont visihility calculations be peer reviewed by an outside source who has no potentiol conJlict of interest with the applicantT 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
ofany 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 of90, but because ofaveraging
ofareas, the overall LRV would be below 30 even though the roof would be extremely visible. Plus what is averaged? fust the elevation facing the valley floor or all 4 sides and roofofthe house? Since the HDS&G call for hillside homes to blend
with the natural environment, it seems to us that every part ofthe proposed house should blend with the hillsides. One only has to look at the built house on Lot 6 in the Highlands to see what visibility looks like from the valley floor along Los Gatos Blvd.
4
May 22,2015 Members of Los Gatos Town Council c,/o Laurel Prevetti 110 E. Main St. Los Gatos, Califomia 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 pojec{. I also attended their community meeting and have been interested in seeing the architecture thal 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 staffs interpretation of the Hillside Guidelines they will be forced to use very dark colors and materials on all elemenls of the new homes and will have to make changes to the elevations that I had previously seen and liked.
disappointed to hear that this change has occuned. I r,rould like to request that the council prioritize an update to these requirements that will allow this project and other hillside projecls that are not visible from the valley lloor to have more flexibility to use natural materials and colors that are appropriate in a hillside setting but allow for greater architectural variation. I am
Regards,
Susan Kankel Reservoir Road
May 22, 2015
Members of Los Gatos Town Council c/o Laurel Prevetti 110 E. Main St. Los Gatos, California 95031 Honorable Mayor and Council Members: We live across the street from the SummerHill Homes proiect 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 Meetint SummerHill held on the proiect 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 desiSn, use of natural materials and color selections.
summerHill recendy brought to our attention that the Pretty colots that were beinS represented on the drawinEs 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 proiect to use the ahernauve method for complying with the Hillside Development Standards related to matetials and colors that was used for the Davidon pioject on Shady Lane. SummerHill indicated that as a tesult of Council discussion, staff has changed their interpretation of the current policy to be much more restrictive and eliminate the exception that had previously appli€d to trim and natural materials such as stone. As residents who will be living ac.oss the street lrom several homes which can't be viewed from the valley, that this new more restrictive interpretalion will have a neSative impact on the appearance of thes€ homes.
We would like to request that the Planning Staff make it a Priority to implement the motion that was passed at the March 17th Town Council Meeting for agenda item 2. The motion, per the meeting minutes, was to "amend the Hillside Development Standa(ds and Guidelines to add the option lor the use, as appropriate, of the light value averaging method, and to research and determine a marimum liBht value that can be used in averaging."
Sincerely,
?--.''>--,4-22
r /7LU,t-7k'.-
Melissa and Morgan MacDonald 175 Prospect Avenue
CIMES October 15, 2015
(via email & overnlght dellveryf
Joel Paulson
Communlty Development Dept. Town of Los Gatos 110 E. Maln Street los Gatot CA 95030
RE:
RECEIV.
OCIl'i
r;r
TOWN OF LUS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION
Vlsual Analysis Methodology
Dear Mr. Paulson,
Davidon appreciates the opportunity to be included in the discussion regarding potential amendments to MsualAnalysis Methodolog'y within the HDS&G. overthe past couple of years Davidon has likelY performed more visual Anahris than any other applicant in the history of Los
Gatos. We have valuable experienc€ as to the methods and practlcablllty ofthe implementation. Davidon believes that the curent methodology and past practice of the Town has not been proven inadequatc, but we do agree that some minor clariffcations to the methodoloty maybe warranted. lt ls very important however, that any amendments to the document strike a balance offairness between reasonable private property rights and th€ interests o, the citizens of Los Gatos. Furthermore, any amendment must resuh ln clarhy, not confuslon ln applicatlon. over the past 9 months, staff has reffned fts policies and practices which has improved the process. under the recently revamped plannlng Department led by Ms. pr€vetti, staff has become proactive in identifoing additional vaewing locations, in addition to the currently designated Vr'ewing Platforms. They have also implemented an lnfield verificatlon synem of the submitted vlsual Analysis. These efforts show that the methodology that is currently being employed meets the lntent ofthe HSD&G and is accurate, effecffve and verlfiable. staff is recommending additional refinements to the guidelines that Davidon suppons,, wfth the exception of the rounding to the nearest whole number, whlch ls discussed at the latter part of this len€r. The staff report also, raises other questions for planning commisdon to consider. The following are Davidon's opinion of each: should exlsting trces on*ite & ofi-she whlch contrtbut to *rucntng
.
b
used
in the onotysls?
The HSD&G discusses '...locating buildings on the least visible areas of the LRDAl and .... capable of beinS seen from a vlewing platform iftrees or large shrubs are removed, significantly
pruned. or impacted by construction". These slandards 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 in the G/15/20Gt hearing (a hearing
1600 SOUTH UIAIN STBEEI, SUITE .150, WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94596.5394 TELEPHONE (925) 945-8000. FACStMILE (925) 256-0140
often referred to in these discussions!, that the use of existint trees for screenlng is the only logical way to look at thls. lf thc concern is that a property owner will remove a tree and expose a structure, most, if not all, existing trees are protected by Town poliry and require approval for removal or maior pruning. tto exlsdrry trEjes how to be a e,rtotn mtlng or heallh .,trry/oty to be Includ.d os ,da.nitry? past practice is that all existlng trees are allowed for screening. I think we all can atree that it is impossible to predict how long a tree will live. tt could be 5 years, or h could be a 1fi) yearc. This life expectancy can be the same whether ft ls a tree in "poor' condition ot'good" condition. Atree,s health can also vary based on envlronmental facto6, like weather, and can be very difficuh to accurately assess. For example with the current drought, the trees that
appearto be struggling are downgraded in heahh bythe arborist, but is h posslble that the health will rebound once the rains retum or if supplemental waterlng is lmplemented? Because the lontevity oftree life is unknown and because there is not concluslve criteria fol estimating the llfe expectancy of a tree, Davidon belierres every tree should be allowed for screening.
to have the Town Arborlst ol the consuhing arborist make the determination whether an individual tree has value to be preserved. lf the arborist believes that a tree has lont term suryivability, and that this can be enhanced by proper clearance from construction and by implementation of a maintenance protram, including supplemental watering, then the tree should be allowed for screening. A posslble compromlse would be
Should tees wfth potentiot @nstru.dion lm,,/Lls rfom o Pmlect bc excluded?
lncluM u *rccnlng or
the current HDS&G states, under the definition of'Potential' on pate 13 section B'1, 'trces or shrubs being removed, slgnificantly pruned or impacted by construGtlon' cannot be used ts screentng. This policy ls already practiced by staff and Davidon has been adhering to. The essential tool used for determination of beneficlal screen trees is the arborist report. The arborist report recommends clearances from each tree to proposed improvemenG that will provide an adequate buffer for preservation of the tree. Once this recommendation is made, this glves the applicaBt an oPportunity to desatn accordintly to elther preserve the trees or ln an absence of a reasonable ahematlve, to porpose a course of actlon with some impact to the tree(s). Davidon believes that the existing language ls clear, fair and warrants no change excepi to clarify that the determination of an impasted tree should be based on the opinion of As
the Town or consuhlng arborist' Should trces wtth spotrr aaoples be lndudcd os screenhtg? Planning Commission has seen num€rous times now, Mr. Weissman's photos of Lot 7 Tree fl506, 607 & 626. These photos were teken from a drone flying very close to the lot and ehher
telescopically roomed in or roomed in using Photoshop. These photos are representative of what you see when you stand 2d-5d 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 ls mmmon to lose their leav€s panlally or
entirely'' during drought situations. We should not forget that the HDS&G requires analysis of visibilitv from the viewinr olatform. 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 mlles 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 maEnitude of what can be seen by th€ naked eye. ln this photo one can see clearly the orilnge netting of the story poles. Alrc, one
can see an obvious outlin€ and massing of the very sparse canopy of Tree #807. Notlce the
dlfference between unobstructed/unscreened orange nettint versus the netting screened by f607. When story pole netting is behind Tree 11607, there ls obvious visual screening taking place. Eraen wlth a zoom lens it ls very obvious screening is occurring behind a very spanse tree from this distance. Tree
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 comparint the S0 mm photo with the 3oo
mm photo, is the clarity and level of detail dlmlnishes the further away one gets. The further away a person is, the less that can seen. The level of detail that Mr. Weismann sugtests, by identifying leafs, twigs and dead branches, is not seen by the naked eye from these distances. What is seen ls an obvious screening by a mass of canopy, even by the sparsest trees. The bright onnge netting is vaguely seen behind these spa6e 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 rreening and should be included in the Visual Anatysis.
Should thc vlsibtllty onotysls be rcqulrcd
a
be done durtng a
cerfrln dmc ol por?
Mr, Weismann is suggesting that Msual Analysis occur during the ,full summer leaf-out". As explained above, from far distances the level ofdetail 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 tlme of year can cause unnecessary delays and a burden on the appllcant. Also, as Commissloner Erickson asked Mr. weissman ln the 9/9/2015 PC hearing what happens in a situation like we have today wfiere in drought shuations, 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 fall or winter. To suggest an applicant wait until the drought ls over is not logical. Based on experience, a valid Visual Analysis can be done year round.
Commerlts retrrdlng Steffs proposed mettrodology:
viewins Platforms The HSD&G currently allows for ahernate vlewing platform as deemed by the deciding body. Davidon has performed many ahernate visual Analysis from locations other than the designated VlewinB Platforms. These alternate analysis locatons were chosen by Davidon, assuming they were the most appropriate locatbns to perform the analy:is. Staff has also, recently, took the initiative to request addhional locatlons from us. Commlssioner O'Donnell made a great point at the September 28th hearln& that in fairn€ss to the applicant, the aJtemate location(s) should be determined prior to belng brought forth to a deciding body. Davidon supports the modification ofthe languate, as recommended by Ms. Prevetti, to read as '5. Other loation(s) as deemed appropriate by the Communlty De\relopment Director.'
Roundinr to the Nearest Whole Number staffs recommendation of roundlng to the nearest whole number revises the maximum vlsibility from 24.9r%to 24.49%. Based on this methodology, a percentage of 24.5% ot 24.5L% would be consldered visible defined by the HDS&G, even though the calculations dearly show it to be othenflise. Though I believe the lntent ls to address a margin of error of +p.5%, this language can cause oontention. The current lantuage staung 25X or more is dear , fair and does not require an amendment. Addltlona I Toplcs/Comments Peer Review As mentioned earller, under the recently rwamped Planning Department led by Ms. Prevetti. Staff has lmplemented a veriftcation system of the submitted Visual Analysls' This ls a task that staff is currently able to perform and I am assuming willint to oontinue to perform. Staff is
certalnlv quallfled to objectively .eview the submltted documents. An autometic thlrd pafty review would be redundant. lt should be staffs dlscretion if a peer review is apptopriate, based on tts inability to revlew based on workload, complexity or some other reasonable reason it feels lt cannot perform the task. ldentification of Trees Google Earth has proven to be an effectlve tool used by our architect in identlfication of tree canopies. The suggestion that an applicant shoot arrows with colored ribbon into the trees is silly and quite posslbly dangerous. Removal of the rlbbon would be impossible, leavinS the hlllsldes littered with a rainbow of ribbon. Screen Tree PlantinP
-urrently,
the i4lggElelqqof the HSD&G does not allow planting of trees for screening of the building. This interpretatlon is taken from HSD&G PaSe 16, C.3 stating 'Providlng Landscape screening is not an alternative to reducing building height or selecting a less visible she." What
happens once the applicant has mitigated these two criteria to the treatest extent reasonable? ln the 6/L512@9 Council Hearing atLi28,, Mayor Wassermann, wfio 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 Bray area, such as mitigating to the greatest extent reasonable." He believed planting screen trees was allowable miti8ation.
lt possible, also, that the term Landscaping is referring to omamental landscaping that a property owner can remove without any approvals and can potentially expose the house later? This "landraping" is much different than native oak mitigation trees that are protected by the Town's newly amended Tree Ordinance. ls
The current HSD&G allow for "Landscape" screening under Ridgeline View Protection. Ridteline view Protection (H5D&G pg 161, states "tandscaplng shall be provided to screen the building from the vlewto the greatest extent possible'. Why not allow reduction of Msual 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? Plantin8 a youn& healthy, coast Live oak can provide immediate screening, and the screening will only grow over time. New plantints not only enhance heahh to the environment and sustainability of the oak woodland, but also mitigates the visibility of the houses. tt is a win win for everyone. New trees should be enoouraged & protected oak tree plantings should to be allowed for screening.
-
Davidon looks forward to further discussing this topic at th€ special session on october 21n.
Cc: Jeff Thayer, Dennis Razzari
5
EXHIBIT A
300 mm Photo
\ $
t: Free #607
*- li\i 1.*,.,# t
i.
ffi, ,
\
.r.i;tr.f';,:',:..r:sI..h.":.:.\*t1iffirii.i-..i t' . i .(.'
. ifi
r--ir-?slYre
lffi i.ft"*'fur..t"
"iffir,$.,
.
.'!
1.
.;.i.. .;iJflli Ir,Et
BLOWUP OF 3OO MM PHOTO
#607
rFr
L-
t
I
\
EHatce.ti*ifr NG
t
I
M
Blowup of 50 mm Photo t
l'4,
Unscreened Orange Netting
Screened Orange Netting
I
