Item 25 Staff Report Report to Consider Planning Commission Recommendation Regarding Amendments to the HIllside Development StandardsCouncil Agenda
Date: 4/16/90
Item: essoqs—
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
Council Agenda Report
DATE: April 6, 1990
TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
FROM: ROBERT F. BEYER, INTERIM TOWN MANAGER
SUBJECT: REPORT TO CONSIDER PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION REGARDING
AMENDMENTS TO THE HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
FINDINGS:
The Town Council must make a finding that the proposed amendments are consistent with the General Plan
and Hillside Specific Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt by Resolution the recommended changes to the Hillside Development Standards.
BACKGROUND:
On January 16, 1990, the Town Council directed staff to initiate the process for amending the General Plan,
Hillside Specific Plan and Hillside Development Standards to reflect proposed changes as a result of the
Blossom Hill Open Space Study.
Amendments to the General Plan and Hillside Specific Plan are not proposed at this time. Amendments to
these documents are complex and a time consuming process due to state law, CEQA (California
Environmental Quality Act) requirements, and the degree of public participation required. In addition, the
Hillside Specific Plan is a joint venture with the County requiring consideration and review by the Board of
Supervisors. Projected time frames for completing the amendment process are six months to one year.
These documents are the Town's general policy and goal statements. The proposed refinements to the
Hillside Development Standards clarifies those policies and goals and is not proposing to change the general
intent of protecting the natural environment in the hillsides. Therefore, it is not necessary to amend these
documents concurrently with the Hillside Development Standards as long as the proposed changes are not
in conflict.
Proposed amendments to the General Plan and Hillside Specific Plan have been referred to their respective
committees for review. This report is proposing specific recommendations to the Hillside Development
Standards to be used in review of those projects already pending at the Development Review Committee,
and all subsequent Hillside Development applications in the HR and RC zones.
PREPARED BY:
LEB:KH:Ikj
P L02\Cn cl rp is \4-16#8
Z-,c
LEE E. BOWMAN
Planning Directory'
Reviewed by: Attorney
TOWN COUNCIL ACTION DIRECTED TO:
(Continued on Page 2)
PAGE 2
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS TO THE HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
DATE: APRIL 16, 1990
DISCUSSION:
The Council, at the January 16, 1990 meeting, proposed several conceptual amendments to the Hillside
Development Standards. On March 16, 1990, the Planning Commission reviewed specific language changes.
(See Planning Commission minutes attached as Exhibit 1). The Planning Commission is recommending to
the Town Council the following revisions to the Hillside Development Standards:
A. Following the direction of the Town Council, the Planning Commission recommends that
subdivisions in the hillside shall be Planned Developments to encourage smaller lots, maximize open
space and minimize impacts to the natural environment. Specific language is proposed as follows:
Objective 4.1 of the Hillside Development Standards is proposed to be amended as follows:
Objective 4.1 - Planned Development shall be required in hillside areas to maximize
contiguous and usable open space and to minimize grading and roads.
Developers are encouraged to use smaller than one acre lot sizes. The
houses shall be designed and sited to create the least disturbance to the
natural landscape.
B. The Blossom Hill Open Space Study identified "least restrictive areas" within Sub Area One of the
Hillside Specific Plan, in which development would have a minimal impact on the natural landscape
and environment. The Council directed the Commission to identify specific conditions under which
one could justify development outside the least restrictive areas. The Council found that the areas
immediately outside the least restrictive areas may be acceptable locations for development in some
cases. Specific language is proposed as follows:
Objective 4.1 of the Hillside Development Standards is proposed to be amended by adding
language as follows:
Within Sub Area One of the Hillside Specific Plan, development outside of the least
restrictive areas, as identified by the Blossom Hill Open Space Study, is prohibited
except when all of the following conditions exist.
• When the development is clearly in compliance with the other provisions
of the Hillside Development Standards, Hillside Specific Plan and General
Plan.
• When development outside of the least restrictive areas does not result in
unnecessary grading, tree removal or threaten the natural landscape; and
is more advantageous as determined by the Planning Commission to
accomplish these goals.
When access to a development within a less restrictive area can only be
attained by traveling outside a least restrictive area.
When project visibility from the valley floor will be minimized or will not exist.
C. The Blossom Hill Open Space Study proposed a formula for more accurately determining when a
structure protrudes above the natural ridgeline. It is recommended that this formula be applied to
each hillside home when applicable. Specific language is proposed as follows:
Section 4.2.6 of the Hillside Development Standards is proposed to be amended as follows:
4.2.6 The <n, l ridgeline> ridge view protection line <will e defined> shall be
determined <
> by using the formula demonstrated on Attachment "A"
of these standards. Projection above the ridge view protection line is prohibited.
PAGE 3
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS TO THE HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
DATE: APRIL 16, 1990
<4 277> < ,
baekgreenth>
<48> <
heweverr >
<429>4.2.7 Projection above the <natural -rye line> ridge view protection line is only one of
the standards to be used in review of applications, and the Planning Commission
will use their judgement considering each application on an individual basis when
there is a conflict between any of the standards.
D. The Town has not been satisfied with the architectural design of buildings in the hillsides. The
following proposed amendments were based on direction from the Council. The Commission did
discuss some interest in limiting the total elevation of a project (see Planning Commission minutes).
However, consensus could not be reached on this issue. Some Commissioners contended that
each house is different and that given the current and proposed height restrictions (30 feet for
houses not visible and 25 feet for houses that are visible) that mass would be evaluated on a case
by case basis. Other commissioners indicated that if each level or building step is allowed a 25 foot
height, that the perception from the valley is that of a much larger house.
Section 6.1.1 of the Hillside Development Standards is proposed to be amended as follows:
6.1.1 Materials and colors shall not visually detract from the natural hillside surroundings
when viewed from off -site, especially from the valley floor. Exterior colors shall not
exceed the reflectivity value of 30 and shall blend with the natural color of vegetation
that surrounds the site. The use of natural materials such as wood and stone is
highly recommended.
Section 6.1.3 is proposed to be added to the Hillside Development Standards as follows:
6.1.3 Three story elevations are prohibited in the hillsides and two-story houses should
be articulated to reduce mass and scale. On parcels where development may be
visible, maximum building height is 25 feet.
E. The Council made it clear that 30 ft. trail easements shall be required where a trail is proposed or
required by the General Plan and Hillside Specific Plan. This easement is to ensure development
is adequately setback from any trail system.
Also, through the planned development process, those areas outside of the least restrictive areas
and areas of development, shall be dedicated permanent open space, with easements granted.
The Council also determined that approval of subdivision applications shall include the formation
of maintenance districts for payment of maintenance of these trails. The Town would accept the
responsibility for doing the actual maintenance. Specific language is proposed as follows:
Objective 7.1 of the Hillside Development Standard is proposed to be added as follows:
Objective 7.1 Hillside trails and open space.
7.1.1
Open space should be provided in mass rather than in fragments. Open space
should not consist of remnants "left over after a developer has chosen his building
sites. Development within the hillsides should occur by first identifying the open
space plan for the subdivision and then identifying building sites. Open space shall
be contiguous and usable to provide for the flow of wildlife in natural corridors.
7.1.2 A 30-foot trails corridor shall be provided in easement to ensure development is
adequately set back from the hillside trail system.
PAGE 4
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS TO THE HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
DATE: APRIL 16, 1990
7.1.3
EXHIBITS:
As a part of any subdivision approval, a maintenance district for the payment of
maintenance of these trails shall be formed.
1. Minutes from the March 14, 1990 Planning Commission meeting.
2. Current Hillside Development Standards.
3. Resolution
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES —7
March 14, 1990
MOTION
ITEM 4
Is not architecturally attractive; the stair is not totally enclosed and can still be seen
my backyard. I'm spending over $100,000 trying to landscape by backyard and object
o the . irs. There are other ways the stair can be hidden.
mm. A ►: ay: This turned out exactly the way I intended it to be; thought it would take
an unattract staircase off the sidewall and put it behind a stem wall. Has to be open at
e base so • • • • e can get out. I think It's very attractive.
hair Morgan: Whic of the elevations shows the wall in question.
mm. Rudolph: Exhibit where it says line of wall beyond".
F
udolph: I thought this was a creative suggestion and it has turned out as intended.
on't have sympathy with the ap.:. tonight.
ark Segall, 15690 Oak Knoll Dr.: The :sign is exactly what the Commission requested.
I it against the law to build the stairway? not, why does Mr. Maghribi acquire the right
approve it? His protest is that he does .t like the looks of it; however, he can only
tentially see parts of the redesigned stairway one corner of his yard. Submit pictures
owing views of that sideyard area and what of hings may have potential affect on the
esore issue.
air Morgan: Pictures taken from your house or towarour house?
Segall: From our house; however, it also shows the views fro the Maghribi residence.
r. Maghribi seems to never be willing to agree to anything that ' 1 allow our addition.
o one else wished to speak; public portion of hearing closed.
m. O'Laughlin moves, seconded by Comm. Gherardi, for approval of .nd-story
r
tion Application X-90-2 subject to the recommendations and findings in the ..ff report.
on passes unanimously, 7-0.
S: Commissioners Abkin, Attaway, Alimand, Chase, Gherardi, Morgan, O'Laughlin a
Rudolph
S: None
TENTIONS: None
ENT: Commissioners Alimand and Grimes
man gave appeal rights and procedures.
Public Hearing to Consider Revisions to the Town's Hillside Development Standards
Chair opened the public hearing; no one from the audience wished to testify; public hearing
closed.
Comm. Abkin: Under'6" of Objective 4.1, regarding the statement "development outside
of the least restrictive areas as identified by the Blossom Hill Open Space Study, is
prohibited except when the following conditions exist." Does that mean all those conditions
have to exist or any one of those conditions to have an exception?
Bowman: Was our concept it would mean all of them. Idea from the Council was that when
they meant "least restrictive" they meant it. There are circumstances where a property has
no least restrictive area within its boundary. You would need some way of approving
EY �Ia 1T
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -8
March 14, 1990
projects in that case.
Abkin: Would it be going too far to insert 'when all of...".
Bowman: May want to put a caveat somewhere that if a parcel is a legal parcel
development will not be totally prohibited. The Idea was to get things into areas where
development should occur.
Morgan: Would leaving out the word "all' provide some flexibility?
Bowman: Works both ways, leaving "all' out gives flexibility but also means people would
say they meet one condition so what's wrong with their project. I'm sure there will be
circumstances in which a project will not meet 'all° and you'll still want to approve the
project. These are standards to be met in your review. Depends on how much strength
the Commission feels it needs from the written standards as opposed to what you'll be doing
in the review of the application.
Comm. Abkin: Propose we insert the words "all of.
Comm. Chase: Think this is flexible enough that we can work with it with the word "all' in
it. We should consider all of those things and each one has to be completely considered.
Chair Morgan: By consensus motion add "...except when 'all' the following conditions exist.'
Comm. Abkin: There are four bullets under there now. Maybe this was Implicit but would
like to make it explicit that the area proposed for development is adjacent and contiguous
to a least restrictive area. Would it be possible for these conditions to exist and have an
area not contiguous to a least restrictive area?
Bowman: Believe so. Least restrictive areas are quite scattered. The way the overlays are
drawn you don't get a nice contiguous least developable area, you get lots of spots.
Abkin: Is it possible for someone seeking an exception to be in an area that is not
contiguous to one of these scattered least restrictive areas?
Bowman: On an application you had last month not only did the property have no least
contiguous areas on it, none of the adjoining properties did either.
Abkin: Is there any advantage to saying that should be a condition? That it be contiguous
to a particular area?
Chair Morgan: Why would you want it?
Comm. Chase: That would prohibit building on it.
Bowman: Like the idea but concerned about the legality of it.
Comm. Abkln: Under the second bullet, can the "or" be an "and"? '...and is more
advantageous...'
Morgan: "Or means can be one or the other; "and" means has to be both.
Comm. Chase: You're wanting to say It's got to be the best way to do it and it minimizes
destruction.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES —9
March 14, 1990
Chair Morgan: Consensus of Commission is to change the second "or" in the second bullet
paragraph to "and" reading '...landscape; and Is more advantageous..."
Comm. Abkin: Item C under 'ridgeview protection line' is a wonderful addition, however,
think there are other subsections throughout Section 4.2 that need to be changed. Other
areas refer to the natural ridgeline and all need to be changed to'ridgeview protection line'.
Morgan: You're proposing changing all relevant sections of 4.2 so they're consistent with
the proposed revisions.
Chair Morgan: Adopted under consensus vote.
Comm. Abkln: Staff report shows Sec. 4.2.7 should be deleted; Sec. 4.2.8 should also be
deleted.
Morgan: Ask staff to investigate.
Comm. Abkin: Sec. 6.1.3 says two-story houses should be articulated to reduce mass and
scale. Think that is talking about stepping up the hillside. How do you count stories when
you're stepping? Is one step automatically two stories?
Bowman: A three story elevation is where have a wall; if have stepping have a drawn
elevation where cannot see the depth and houses step down, looks like you have a massive
wall and you don't; in reality have a step back. We wouldn't call that a three story elevation.
Chair Morgan: Define "articulated".
Bowman: Architectural term meaning varied.
Comm. O'Laughlin: Say a house has a three-phase articulation, or stepdown, In the
backyard and applicant says it only goes up 16 feet high, 18 feet and 20 feet, which is true
for each elevation but from the very bottom to the top maybe it's 45 feet. That's my
concern. Maybe each phase is within the confines but adding It all it can get quite tall.
Bowman: If it steps down that much on the hillside, then the building hill Is fairly steep.
Unless you're in an airplane you never see it straight on; always looking at it from an angle.
The lower floors are hiding part of the upper floors.
O'Laughlin: Understand that but think there should be a maximum height in the hillside so
can't step a house down a hillside indefinitely.
Comm. Abkin: Agree. When we forwarded this to the Council before, a limit on total
elevation was part of our recommendation. Looks like the Council explicitly left that out.
Chair Morgan: Could request the Council put that back in; some total limit is important.
Comm. Attaway: Believe should be considered on a case by case basis. Sometimes the
advantages of a house being stepped that way is better than the same size house that's
spread out as a single story. Mass can be less imposing if stepped than if 120' across.
Comm. Abkln: Already have guidelines concerning visibility. If there were a limit on total
elevation, someone would still be prohibited from spreading out horizontally because of the
visibility issue.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES —10
March 14, 1990
Chair Morgan: You're in favor of some kind of a limit. Chair polled the Commission on that
Issue and received split vote of 3-4.
Bowman: Sec. 6.1.3 talks about visibility from the valley floor; question Is what is the valley
floor? Have had as many complaints about properties being visible across valleys and from
Kennedy Road and Shannon Road.
Morgan: Cross out "from the valley floor; if it's visible from anywhere we should consider
its Impact.
Comm. Abkin: Say "visible"?
Comm. Chase: Every house is visible.
Abkin: Visible from the valley floor or any road way?
Bowman: Have received complaints from people who live across the valley; maybe we can't
deal with them but only from a public vantage point which is what the valley was intended
to be.
Comm. Chase: Better off leaving it the valley floor. Could have next door neighbors
complaining that a house Is visible.
Abkin: Would you object to inserting any roadway?
Chase: Have a road running up to or in front of every house. What we're worried about
is what happens when we look at the hillside from some offsite location like the valley floor.
Comm. Abkin: Also along Hicks Rd., Shannon Rd.; there's no valley floor there.
Chase: We're reducing the height requirement due to the visibility of the valley floor; almost
any other wording ...
Lortz: The original language restricted the building to one-story in height; we backed off
of that and went to the 25'--a two-story structure.
Chair Morgan: 25' is enough visibility.
Chase: What is visibility; we're talking about visibility further away than the street in front
of the house.
Comm. Attaway: Agree with Comm. Chase. Some houses have flat, ugly looking roofs; a
pitch of two more feet can make it much more attractive. I feel strongly about the valley
floor but believe we should have more flexibility.
Comm. Gherardi: I'm very concerned about seeing the house across the same little valley
it may be located in. We probably can control this by being very strict on the color of the
house and making sure it's a dark tone that matches the hillside surroundings. Can see
where it can expand sideways and have the same problem.
Chair Morgan: Sec. 6.1.1 states 'Exterior colors shall not exceed the reflectivity value of
30..." Does that still include purple?
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES —11
March 14, 1990
Bowman: That's why we added the phrase "...and should blend with the natural color of
vegetation..."
Comm. Abkin: Some of these refer only to the Blossom Hill Open Space area.
Bowman: Those that refer to the least restrictive areas refer only to the Blossom Hill Open
Space Study area; all the others are to everywhere including the military ridge.
Lortz: On the section regarding color, we're saying it "shall" not exceed the reflectivity value
of 30 and "should" blend with the natural color of the vegetation. So purple is a possibility.
Comm. Gherardi: Change that to "shall".
Chair Morgan: Concur with that; there is a consensus agreement.
MOTION Comm. Abkin moves, seconded by Chair Morgan, to recommend to the Town Council that
they adopt these recommended amendments to the Hillside Development Standards with
the additions approved by consensus tonight. Findings are that these are very consistent
with the General Plan, particularly the Land Use Element and the Open Space Element that
refer to the need to protect the ridgeline, preserve open space, natural environment, etc.
Motion passes unanimously, 7-0.
AYES: Commissioners Abkin, Attaway, Chase, Gherardi, Morgan, O'Laughlin and Rudolph
NOES: None
ABSTENTIONS: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Allmand and Grimes
Consideration of amendments to the Town Zoning Ordinance concerning hotels/motels
located in residential zones that were converted to apartments prior to March 22, 1986.
C opened the public hearing; no one from the audience wished to speak; public portion
of hear closed.
Comm. O'Laug" '• What problem is this meant to address?
Bowman: A former resta nt and group of guest cottages that were run as a motel, were
subject to our nonconformin dinance and should have been converted to single family
use in 1986. Somewhere prior Q.1986 they were converted to apartments without
knowledge of the Town. When the n started to enforce the regulations the owner
claimed we would be destroying housing t s meeting a need in the community and that
no one in the neighborhood has a problem with ' The Council had to concur because no
complaints have been received from the neighborh This is similar to legalizing the illegal
secondary units.
Chair Morgan: The purpose is to legalize them?
Bowman: Legalize them but will have to get a Conditional Use Permit. A p is hearing will
be held and the neighborhood will have an opportunity to be heard. The Com sion can
put conditions on the use, i.e. parking requirements, number of units or whatever is
necessary based on testimony received.
Morgan: Bringing up to code? safety? Bowman: Yes.
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STANDARDS FOR THE REVIEW OF ARCHITECTURE AND SITE
APPLICATIONS IN THE LOS GATOS HILLSIDE AREAS
Recommended by the Planning Commission 1/23/80
Adopted by the Town Council 2/4/80
Section 5.20.040 of the Zoning Ordinance specifies the types of consideration that must be given to all
architecture and site approval applications. The Town has adopted the specific objectives and standards
listed below to be used in the review of applications in the Los Gatos hillsides. The italicized portions are
excerpts from the Los Gatos Zoning Ordinance.
SEC. 5.20.040: CONSIDERATIONS IN REVIEW OF APPLICATIONS
The deciding body shall consider all relevant matter including, but not limited to, the following:
(1) Considerations relating to traffic safety and traffic congestion:
The effect of the site development plan on traffic conditions on abutting streets, the layout of the
site with respect to locations and dimensions of vehicular and pedestrian entrances, exits, drives,
and walkways; the adequacy of off-street parking facilities to prevent traffic congestion; the location,
arrangement, and dimension of truck loading and unloading facilities; the circulation pattern within
the boundaries of the development, and the surfacing and lighting of offstreet parking facilities.
Objective 1.1: Driveways must be safe and must allow for access by emergency vehicles.
Standards:
1.1.1 The maximum slope of any driveway cannot exceed 15% unless it can be demonstrated that a
flatter driveway cannot be built without massive grading. Whenever a proposed driveway will exceed
15% grade, the plans submitted must include a profile of the driveway and a grade break at the
street and at the garage.
1.1.2 Driveways must be 18 feet wide unless such width would require excessive grading, in which case
the driveway may be reduced in width to a minimum of 12 feet of pavement with a 3-foot shoulder
on one side.
1.1.3 Driveways that are less than 18 feet wide and more than 150 feet long shall have turnouts in
locations as specified by the Development Review Committee (DRC).
1.1.4 All driveways shall have an overhead clearance of 15 feet.
1.1.5 All driveways must be paved in accordance with Town standards. Steep driveways shall have a
special traction surface when specified by the DRC. All driveways must be paved prior to
occupancy.
1.1.6 If the back of the house is more than 150 feet from the street, the driveway must include a
turnaround area for emergency vehicles. The turnaround area may be any one of the following: (a)
rectangular area 40 feet x 48 feet; (b) circle with a minimum radius of 32 feet; (c) hammerhead with
design and dimensions as specified by the fire department. In all cases, the turnaround area cannot
have a grade exceeding 5%.
EMIT 2
Objective 1.2: Driveway approaches should be located to maximize on -street parking, especially on curves
or cul-de-sac bulbs.
Standards:
1.2.1 Driveway approaches shall be spaced 20-22 feet minimum apart or immediately adjacent.
1.2.2 Driveway approaches shall be located a safe distance from all intersections and street furniture.
(2) Consideration relating to outdoor advertising:
The number, location, color, size, height, lighting and landscaping of outdoor advertising signs and
structures in relation to the creation of traffic hazards and the appearance and harmony with
adjacent development.
Not applicable for residential properties, for non-residential uses. See Chapters 3.30 through 3.39
of the Zoning Ordinance.
(3) Considerations relating to landscaping:
The location, height, and materials of walls, fences, hedges and screen planting to insure harmony
with adjacent development or to conceal storage areas, utility installations or unsightly development;
the planting or ground cover or other surfacing to prevent dust and erosion; and the unnecessary
destruction of existing healthy trees.
Objective 3.1: Preserve natural landscape.
Standards:
3.1.1 Consider the preservation of existing trees when siting the house, pool and any paved areas. A tree
is considered impacted if there is any construction or grading within the dripline of the tree.
3.1.2 When any tree may be impacted by the proposal, information on the size, condition, actual driplines,
elevation of natural ground at the trunk, species and variety of tree shall be submitted with the plans.
3.1.3 If a tree must be removed, information on the visual impact of the removal as well as the impact on
adjoining trees shall be submitted with plans.
3.1.4 The optimal situation is that there would be no construction or grading of any kind within the dripline
of any existing trees. However, when work is necessary within the dripline of a tree, information
concerning paving materials, foundation (including the use of piers and grade beams), etc., shall
be submitted with the plans, and consideration shall be given to using retaining walls to maintain
natural grades around the base of trees.
3.1.5 On heavily wooded Tots, it is strongly recommended that an arborist be retained, and that the
builder and arborist meet with the Parks Department on the site prior to the design of the house.
3.1.6 Plans should specify what type of pruning, if any, will be required on the trees that are to remain.
Objective 3.2: Use of native materials.
Standards:
3.2.1 All planting plans, including erosion control plans, shall maximize the use of native plants, woody
plants, as well as grasses. The use of exotic plants should be restricted to areas close to the house.
(4) Considerations relating to site layout:
The orientation and location of buildings and open spaces in relation to the physical characteristics
of the site and the character of the neighborhood; and the appearance and harmony of the
buildings with adjacent development.
Objective 4.1: The houses shall be designed and sited to create the least disturbance to the natural
landscape.
Standards:
4.1.1 It is strongly recommended that an architect, landscape architect, civil engineer, or other
professional skilled in the siting of buildings and roadways in hillside areas be retained to advise
on the siting of each house.
4.1.2 The existing natural grade as well as the proposed final grade shall be shown on all elevations
submitted with plans.
4.1.3 The design, location and orientation of the house on the lot shall be in harmony with the physical
features of the land. Design elements which shall be considered include appropriate pad and
floor elevations, foundation system, split or multi -level on steeper Tots, or flat pad construction on
more level sites, proper orientation relative to the slope of the land, and the location of trees and
other physical features.
Objective 4.2: Projection of structures above natural ridge line.
a. The Hillside Plan states:
No new construction shall be allowed which would protrude above the natural ridge line or otherwise
alter its natural contour as determined by the deciding body.
Standards:
4.2.1 The plans for each house shall indicate whether or not it will project above the natural ridge
when viewed from specified vantage points, and if so, indicate by profile and sightline where and
how much of the house will be visible.
4.2.2 Vantage point(s) shall be determined for each existing or proposed lot at the time an application
for a tentative map or Architecture and Site is considered.
4.2.3 The vantage point(s) will be chosen by the staff in consultation with the subdivider or designer,
subject to confirmation by the Planning Commission.
4.2.4 Each vantage point will be from a specific geographic location, a road, intersection, or other
location from which the property is visible.
4.2.5 The purpose of choosing a vantage point or points is to allow a more precise evaluation of
whether a proposed structure will appear to protrude above the natural ridge line when viewed
from the vantage point(s).
4.2.6 The natural ridge line will be defined by a silhouette formed by the highest elevation of the visible
ground or trees. When there is a break in the trees, the protected ridge line will drop to the
ground between the trees.
4.2.7 If the silhouette is formed by trees, the trees may be in the foreground or background.
4.2.8 If a site is otherwise unbuildable, trees may be planted to fill in gaps and the new trees will by
definition form the silhouette. Trees may be deciduous or evergreen, however, native species
are preferred.
4.2.9 Projection above the natural ridge line is only one of the standards to be used in review of
applications, and the Planning Commission will use their judgement considering each application
on an individual basis when there is a conflict between any of the standards.
Objective 4.3: All houses should be well sited in relationship to houses on adjoining lots.
Standards:
4.3.1 The plans for each house should show the location and schematic elevation of the houses on each
adjoining lot. If there is no house existing or approved for the adjoining lot, then a sketch showing
the most likely site for the house with a possible building envelope must be included on the plans.
(This requirement may be waived by the DRC where the terrain makes the requirement
inappropriate.)
(5) Considerations relating to drainage:
The effect of the site development plan on the adequacy of storm and surface water drainage.
Objective 5.1: All drainage should be handled in a positive manner.
Standards:
5.1.1 Avoid drainage down graded slopes.
5.1.2 Avoid concentrated drainage from one lot to another.
5.1.3 Avoid drainage across the toe of graded slopes.
Objective 5.2: Preserve the natural terrain.
Standards:
5.2.1 Minimize exposed cuts and fills.
5.2.2 All plans shall include provisions for restoration of cuts and fills and erosion control plans including,
but not limited to, silt basins, planting plans, soil preparation and irrigation plans.
5.2.3 Between October 1 and April 1 interim provisions for erosion and sedimentation within 20 days of
the date the grading is begun.
(a) Provide erosion protection for any concentrated drainage discharge, including channel lining,
energy dissipators, and erosion control panting.
(b) An erosion/sedimentation control plan shall be included with all site plans and/or grading
plans. The erosion/sedimentation control plan shall provide interim (during construction) and
ultimate plans for control of erosion and sedimentation or show in detail why this is not
necessary.
5.2.4 Choice of plant materials for erosion control planting shall be based on aesthetics as well as
practicality.
5.2.5 Short retaining walls should be substituted for long graded slopes whenever possible.
5.2.6 Critical retaining walls shall be made of permanent materials, i.e., concrete or concrete block rather
than wood.
(6) Considerations relating to the exterior architectural design of buildings and structures:
The effect of the height, width, shape and exterior construction and design of buildings and
structures as such factors relate to the existing and future character of the neighborhood and
purposes of the zone in which they are situated, and the purposes of architecture and site
approval.
Objective 6.1: Harmonious development.
Standards:
6.1.1 Materials and colors shall not visually detract from the natural hillside surroundings when viewed
from off the site, especially from the valley floor.
6.1.2 Architectural detailing should be continued all around a house and not just on a "false front."
Objective 6.2: Safety.
Standards:
6.2.1 Roof materials shall be fire retardant or special purpose.
6.2.2 There shall be spark arrestors on all chimneys, and branches of trees must be trimmed back 10
feet from all chimneys. Therefore, fireplaces cannot be located within 10 feet of the dripline of any
existing trees.
6.2.3 Water for fire suppression must be available before any framing.
PL05\11eports1A&S
RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL
OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
REVISING THE HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
APPLICABLE IN THE HR AND RC ZONES
WHEREAS, the purpose of the HR zone is to provide for an orderly, harmonious
development of the foothills and mountains resulting in the minimum amount of
disturbance of the natural terrain; and
WHEREAS, the Hillside Development Standards are to encourage and provide
incentive for excellence in design principals and engineering techniques, and to provide for
a variety of dwelling types where a unified development plan are made more appropriate.
THEREFORE, the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos does hereby resolve
that the attached Hillside Development Standards and Revisions thereto, reflect the Town's
commitment to the utilization and development of land in the Hillsides in balance with its
natural capabilities.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town
of Los Gatos this 16th day of April, 1990 by the following vote:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
A'1'1'EST:
SIGNED:
MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
CLERK OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
EON 3
OrdRes\Resos\HRZone
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STANDARDS FOR THE REVIEW OF ARCHITECTURE AND SITE
APPLICATIONS IN THE LOS GATOS HILLSIDE AREAS
Recommended by the Planning Commission 1/23/80
Adopted by the Town Council 2/4/80
Section 5.20.040 of the Zoning Ordinance specifies the types of consideration that must be given to all
architecture and site approval applications. The Town has adopted the specific objectives and standards
listed below to be used in the review of applications in the Los Gatos hillsides. The italicized portions are
excerpts from the Los Gatos Zoning Ordinance.
SEC. 5.20.040: CONSIDERATIONS IN REVIEW OF APPLICATIONS
The deciding body shall consider all relevant matter including, but not limited to, the following:
(1) Considerations relating to traffic safety and traffic congestion:
The effect of the site development plan on traffic conditions on abutting streets, the layout of the
site with respect to locations and dimensions of vehicular and pedestrian entrances, exits, drives,
and walkways; the adequacy of off-street parking facilities to prevent traffic congestion; the location,
arrangement, and dimension of truck loading and unloading facilities; the circulation pattern within
the boundaries of the development, and the surfacing and lighting of off-street parking facilities.
Objective 1.1: Driveways must be safe and must allow for access by emergency vehicles.
Standards:
1.1.1 The maximum slope of any driveway cannot exceed 15% unless it can be demonstrated that a flatter
driveway cannot be built without massive grading. Whenever a proposed driveway will exceed 15%
grade, the plans submitted must include a profile of the driveway and a grade break at the street and
at the garage.
1.1.2 Driveways must be 18 feet wide unless such width would require excessive grading, in which case
the driveway may be reduced in width to a minimum of 12 feet of pavement with a 3-foot shoulder
on one side.
1.1.3 Driveways that are Tess than 18 feet wide and more than 150 feet long shall have turnouts in locations
as specified by the Development Review Committee (DRC).
1.1.4 All driveways shall have an overhead clearance of 15 feet.
1.1.5 All driveways must be paved in accordance with Town standards. Steep driveways shall have a
special traction surface when specified by the DRC. All driveways must be paved prior to occupancy.
1.1.6 If the back of the house is more than 150 feet from the street, the driveway must include a
turnaround area for emergency vehicles. The turnaround area may be any one of the following: (a)
rectangular area 40 feet x 48 feet; (b) circle with a minimum radius of 32 feet; (c) hammerhead with
design and dimensions as specified by the fire department. In all cases, the turnaround area cannot
have a grade exceeding 5%.
Objective 1.2: Driveway approaches should be located to maximize on -street parking, especially on curves
or cul-de-sac bulbs.
1
Standards:
1.2.1 Driveway approaches shall be spaced 20-22 feet minimum apart or immediately adjacent.
1.2.2 Driveway approaches shall be located a safe distance from all intersections and street furniture.
(2) Consideration relating to outdoor advertising:
The number, location, color, size, height, lighting and landscaping of outdoor advertising signs
and structures in relation to the creation of traffic hazards and the appearance and harmony with
adjacent development.
Not applicable for residential properties, for non-residential uses. See Chapters 3.30 through 3.39
of the Zoning Ordinance.
(3) Considerations relating to landscaping:
The location, height, and materials of walls, fences, hedges and screen planting to insure harmony
with adjacent development or to conceal storage areas, utility installations or unsightly development;
the planting or ground cover or other surfacing to prevent dust and erosion; and the unnecessary
destruction of existing healthy trees.
Objective 3.1: Preserve natural landscape.
Standards:
3.1.1 Consider the preservation of existing trees when siting the house, pool and any paved areas. A tree
is considered impacted if there is any construction or grading within the dripline of the tree.
3.1.2 When any tree may be impacted by the proposal, information on the size, condition, actual driplines,
elevation of natural ground at the trunk, species and variety of tree shall be submitted with the plans.
3.1.3 If a tree must be removed, information on the visual impact of the removal as well as the impact on
adjoining trees shall be submitted with plans.
3.1.4 The optimal situation is that there would be no construction or grading of any kind within the dripline
of any existing trees. However, when work is necessary within the dripline of a tree, information
concerning paving materials, foundation (including the use of piers and grade beams), etc., shall be
submitted with the plans, and consideration shall be given to using retaining walls to maintain natural
grades around the base of trees.
3.1.5 On heavily wooded lots, it is strongly recommended that an arborist be retained, and that the builder
and arborist meet with the Parks Department on the site prior to the design of the house.
3.1.6 Plans should specify what type of pruning, if any, will be required on the trees that are to remain.
Objective 3.2: Use of native materials.
Standards:
3.2.1 All planting plans, including erosion control plans, shall maximize the use of native plants, woody
plants, as well as grasses. The use of exotic plants should be restricted to areas close to the house.
(4) Considerations relating to site layout:
The orientation and location of buildings and open spaces in relation to the physical characteristics
of the site and the character of the neighborhood; and the appearance and harmony of the buildings
with adjacent development.
2
Objective 4.1: Planned Development shall be required in hillside areas to maximize contiguous and
usable open space and to minimize grading and roads. Developers are encouraged to
use smaller than one acre lot sizes. The houses shall be designed and sited to create the
least disturbance to the natural landscape.
Within Sub Area One of the Hillside Specific Plan, development outside of the least
restrictive areas, as identified by the Blossom Hill Open Space Study, is prohibited except
when all of the following conditions exist.
• When the development is clearly in compliance with the other provisions of the
Hillside Development Standards, Hillside Specific Plan and General Plan.
• When development outside of the least restrictive areas does not result in
unnecessary grading, tree removal or threaten the natural landscape; and is more
advantageous as determined by the Planning Commission to accomplish these goals.
• When access to a development within a least restrictive area can only be attained by
developing a road outside a least restrictive area.
• When project visibility from the valley floor will be minimized or will not exist.
(Amended by Resolution No._)
Standards:
4.1.1 It is strongly recommended that an architect, landscape architect, civil engineer, or other
professional skilled in the siting of buildings and roadways in hillside areas be retained to advise
on the siting of each house.
4.1.2 The existing natural grade as well as the proposed final grade shall be shown on all elevations
submitted with plans.
4.1.3 The design, location and orientation of the house on the lot shall be in harmony with the physical
features of the land. Design elements which shall be considered include appropriate pad and
floor elevations, foundation system, split or multi -level on steeper lots, or flat pad construction on
more level sites, proper orientation relative to the slope of the land, and the location of trees and
other physical features.
Objective 4.2: Projection of structures above ridge view protection line.
a. The Hillside Plan states:
No new construction shall be allowed which would protrude above the ridge view protection line or
otherwise alter its natural contour as determined by the deciding body.
Standards:
4.2.1 The plans for each house shall indicate whether or not it will project above the ridge view
protection line when viewed from specified vantage points, and if so, indicate by profile and
sightline where and how much of the house will be visible.
4.2.2 Vantage point(s) shall be determined for each existing or proposed lot at the time an application
for a tentative map or Architecture and Site is considered.
4.2.3 The vantage point(s) will be chosen by the staff in consultation with the subdivider or designer,
subject to confirmation by the Planning Commission.
4.2.4 Each vantage point will be from a specific geographic location, a road, intersection, or other
location from which the property is visible.
3
4.2.5 The purpose of choosing a vantage point or points is to allow a more precise evaluation of
whether a proposed structure will appear to protrude above the ridge view protection line when
viewed from the vantage point(s).
4.2.6 The ridge view protection line shall be determined by using the formula demonstrated on
Attachment "A" of these standards. Projection above the ridge view protection line is prohibited.
4.2.7 Projection above the ridge view protection line is only one of the standards to be used in review
of applications, and the Planning Commission will use their judgement considering each
application on an individual basis when there is a conflict between any of the standards.
(Amended by Resolution No. _)
Objective 4.3: All houses should be well sited in relationship to houses on adjoining lots.
Standards:
4.3.1 The plans for each house should show the location and schematic elevation of the houses on each
adjoining lot. If there is no house existing or approved for the adjoining lot, then a sketch showing
the most likely site for the house with a possible building envelope must be included on the plans.
(This requirement may be waived by the DRC where the terrain makes the requirement
inappropriate.)
(5) Considerations relating to drainage:
The effect of the site development plan on the adequacy of storm and surface water drainage.
Objective 5.1: All drainage should be handled in a positive manner.
Standards:
5.1.1 Avoid drainage down graded slopes.
5.1.2 Avoid concentrated drainage from one lot to another.
5.1.3 Avoid drainage across the toe of graded slopes.
Objective 5.2: Preserve the natural terrain.
Standards:
5.2.1 Minimize exposed cuts and fills.
5.2.2 All plans shall include provisions for restoration of cuts and fills and erosion control plans including,
but not limited to, silt basins, planting plans, soil preparation and irrigation plans.
5.2.3 Between October 1 and April 1 interim provisions for erosion and sedimentation within 20 days of
the date the grading is begun.
(a) Provide erosion protection for any concentrated drainage discharge, including channel lining,
energy dissipators, and erosion control planting.
(b) An erosion/sedimentation control plan shall be included with all site plans and/or grading plans.
The erosion/sedimentation control plan shall provide interim (during construction) and ultimate
plans for control of erosion and sedimentation or show in detail why this is not necessary.
5.2.4 Choice of plant materials for erosion control planting shall be based on aesthetics as well as
practicality.
5.2.5 Short retaining walls should be substituted for long graded slopes whenever possible.
4
5.2.6 Critical retaining walls shall be made of permanent materials, i.e., concrete or concrete block rather
than wood.
(6) Considerations relating to the exterior architectural design of buildings and structures:
The effect of the height, width, shape and exterior construction and design of buildings and
structures as such factors relate to the existing and future character of the neighborhood and
purposes of the zone in which they are situated, and the purposes of architecture and site
approval.
Objective 6.1: Harmonious development.
Standards:
6.1.1 Materials and colors shall not visually detract from the natural hillside surroundings when viewed
from off -site, especially from the valley floor. Exterior colors shall not exceed the reflectivity value
of 30 and shall blend with the natural color of vegetation that surrounds the site. The use of natural
materials such as wood and stone is highly recommended.
6.1.2 Architectural detailing should be continued all around a house and not just on a "false front."
6.1.3. Three story elevations are prohibited in the hillsides and two-story houses should be articulated to
reduce mass and scale. On parcels where development may be visible, maximum building height
is 25 feet.
(Amended by Resolution No. _)
Objective 6.2: Safety.
Standards:
6.2.1 Roof materials shall be fire retardant or special purpose.
6.2.2 There shall be spark arrestors on all chimneys, and branches of trees must be trimmed back 10 feet
from all chimneys. Therefore, fireplaces cannot be located within 10 feet of the dripline of any
existing trees.
6.2.3 Water for fire suppression must be available before any framing.
Objective 7.1 Hillside trails and open space.
7.1.1 Open space should be provided in mass rather than in fragments. Open space should not consist
of remnants "left over after a developer has chosen his building sites. Development within the
hillsides should occur by first identifying the open space plan for the subdivision and then identifying
building sites. Open space shall be contiguous and usable to provide for the flow of wildlife in natural
corridors.
7.1.2 A 30-foot trails corridor shall be provided in easement to ensure development is adequately set back
from the hillside trail system.
7.1.3 As a part of any subdivision approval, a maintenance district for the payment of maintenance of these
trails shall be formed.
(Added by Resolution No. _)
PL05\Reports\A&S
5