07 Attachment 6 - September 28, 2020 Planning Commision Verbatim MinutesLOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2020
Item #3, HDS&G Modifications re: Visibility Analysis
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A P P E A R A N C E S:
Los Gatos Planning
Commissioners:
Melanie Hanssen, Chair
Kathryn Janoff, Vice Chair
Mary Badame
Jeffrey Barnett
Kendra Burch
Matthew Hudes
Reza Tavana
Town Manager: Laurel Prevetti
Community Development
Director:
Joel Paulson
Town Attorney: Robert Schultz
Transcribed by: Vicki L. Blandin
(619) 541-3405
ATTACHMENT 6
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2020
Item #3, HDS&G Modifications re: Visibility Analysis
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
P R O C E E D I N G S:
CHAIR HANSSEN: Having finished Item 2 we are
now ready to move on to Item 3, which is discuss and
provide direction on potential modifications to the
Hillside Design Standards and Guidelines regarding
visibility. In this case the Town is the Applicant, so the
Staff Report will be the Applicant's statement as well.
It is my understanding that we are to make a
recommendation on the proposed language for elevation and
then provide direction on trees to be included as well as
the deciding body as both of these items had a split vote
by the Policy Committee, and I'm hoping staff will explain
in a little bit more detail. It was in our Staff Report as
well.
So, Ms. Shoopman, I understand you are also
giving the report for this item?
JOCELYN SHOOPMAN: Good evening, I am. In front
of you is a consideration of modification to Chapters 2, 3,
and 9 of the Hillside Design Standards and Guidelines
regarding the visibility analysis as recommended by the
Council Policy Committee and forwarded to you for your
recommendation to the Council.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2020
Item #3, HDS&G Modifications re: Visibility Analysis
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Recommendation from the Committee proposes to
make the two following changes: 1) define an "elevation"
for the purposes of a visibility analysis in Chapter 2; and
2) update an image in Chapter 3 to comply with the amended
defensible space zones.
The Committee had a split vote regarding the
following three potential modifications: 1) Whether
existing trees or branches subject to clearing in what's
known as zones 2 and 3 should be included in a visibility
analysis; 2) whether existing trees that meet the exception
as part of Chapter 29 of the Town Code for removal without
a permit but are proposed to remain as part of an
application should be included in the visibility analysis;
and lastly, 3) whether the deciding body for a visible home
that meets the allowable floor area ratio and maximum
allowable height of 18' should be allowed to be approved by
the Development Review Committee as opposed to the current
requirement for Planning Commission approval.
This concludes Staff's presentation and we are
available for any questions.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you very much, Ms.
Shoopman. Do any Commissioners have questions for Staff?
Commissioner Hudes.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2020
Item #3, HDS&G Modifications re: Visibility Analysis
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER HUDES: I think I know the answer,
but these for consideration by the Planning Commission, are
these one monolithic unit or is the Planning Commission
able to separate the several changes that are being
requested?
CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Hudes, it was my
intent, and I discussed it with the Vice Chair, to consider
these as three separate motions, because it's entirely
possible that people would have differing opinions just
like Council did on any one of them, so it was my intent to
separate it into three different motions.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Okay, thank you.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Any other Commissioners have
questions for Staff before we move to public comments? All
right, seeing none, so we will now move to the Public
Comments portion of the hearing. Do we have any members of
the public that would like to speak on this item? For
anyone that does, we ask you to limit your comments to
three minutes and you may choose to state your name and/or
your address, or you can speak anonymously knowing that we
will be recording this meeting for the public record. So,
do we have anyone that wants to speak in Public Comments?
JOEL PAULSON: We do. Dr. Weissman has his hand
up. I'm going to allow him to speak.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2020
Item #3, HDS&G Modifications re: Visibility Analysis
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIR HANSSEN: Okay.
DR. DAVID WEISSMAN: Can you hear me now?
CHAIR HANSSEN: We can hear you.
DR. DAVID WEISSMAN: Thank you. If you find
Agenda Item 3 confusing, I completely understand and hope
my comments will be helpful. Item 1 on elevation is
straightforward and was supported by the Policy Committee.
Items 2 through 4 concern what vegetation can count as
screening in visibility studies.
Now, hillside homeowners generally want to see
valley lights. How do I know? Just look at how realtors
advertise hillside homes for sale. In contrast, flatlanders
prefer to look at tree-covered hillsides and not see lots
of nighttime light pollution and daytime reflective window
glare.
Our Hillside Guidelines have "taken the side" of
flatlanders. Native hillside trees are protected trees
providing screening and now have deed restrictions against
their removal, and if removed those trees must be replaced.
Yard lights must shine down, window reflectivity is
considered, etc. But in the situation of fire not all trees
are equal, hence the basis for my proposed compromise.
Both Councilmembers Spector and Jensen agreed
that all trees and branches required to be removed by our
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2020
Item #3, HDS&G Modifications re: Visibility Analysis
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
new 2020 Defensive Space Ordinance shall not count in
visibility calculations. Their disagreement related to
those trees removed for defensive space.
I believe that non-native hillside trees, which
in many cases are extremely flammable—think eucalyptus—
should be removed in the interest of defensible space and
ecological health. These trees should not be counted as
providing screening even if the developer says that they
will be retained, because when a house is sold, whether it
be in one week or ten years, the new owner can then remove
the entire tree without permits or replacement.
In contrast, native trees such as oaks, which are
fire resistant, would be still protected under our Tree
Ordinance and should be counted as providing screening.
I believe adoption of this dichotomy would
address the concerns expressed by both Councilmembers
Jensen and Spector, and should you agree to support these
changes related to native versus non-native trees, then for
consistency the deed restriction clause in the Hillside
Standards on page 14, category H, should be amended to only
apply to native trees that are protected under Section 29-
10-0970, subcategory 3 of the Tree Protection Ordinance.
Thank you.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2020
Item #3, HDS&G Modifications re: Visibility Analysis
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for your comments. Do
any Commissioners have questions for Dr. Weissman?
Commissioner Hudes.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Thank you, Dr. Weissman, for
your comments and also for all the work that you've done on
this.
Is there any grey area on the trees? Is it very
clear as to in your proposal what would be permitted and
what wouldn't be permitted to be removed?
DR. DAVID WEISSMAN: If one separates native
trees like oaks, which are pretty straightforward, from
non-native trees, which are in that list, or just non-
native trees in general, I think it's pretty clear. I think
getting rid of non-native trees, which we have been
encouraging in the Tree Protection Ordinance for years
because they improve the ecological health, and now in the
context of fire preventions it's just frosting on the cake,
I think there's a very clear dichotomy there.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Thank you.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Any other Commissioners have
questions for Dr. Weissman? Okay. Director Paulson, are
there any other members of the public that would like to
speak on this item?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2020
Item #3, HDS&G Modifications re: Visibility Analysis
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JOEL PAULSON: Thank you, Chair. Let me take a
look. Would anyone else in the attendees like to speak on
this item? I don't see anyone else raising their hand,
Chair.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Okay. All right, with that in
mind we will… I'm going to ask a question of Staff. I don't
need to ask the Town Staff to come back up and respond,
even though you're the applicant, right?
JOEL PAULSON: That's correct. We're just here to
answer questions at this point.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Okay, so I will close the public
portion of the hearing and then we will move to our
Commissioner deliberations. This is a time for you to ask
any further questions of Staff or make comments or make a
motion. The way I'd like to do this is to consider each of
the three topics separately, so maybe we could start with
the definition of "elevation."
If I am recapping this correctly the Policy
Committee made a proposed definition of elevation. The
proposed language—I had it on page 14 of my packet—is
already defined, they did agree on it, so I want to put
that out to Commissioners and see if there are any comments
or suggestions to modify the language, or if you think that
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2020
Item #3, HDS&G Modifications re: Visibility Analysis
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that captures what is important for the definition of
elevation. Any comments? Vice Chair Janoff.
VICE CHAIR JANOFF: Thank you. You know, I agree
that what they have needed to be included, but my question
has to do with retaining walls maybe at the front or the
visible elevation. We looked at some applications recently
for hillside development that have pretty massive retaining
walls, and now the Town consulting architect is
recommending plantings that would screen those retaining
walls, but if the applicant doesn't plant anything we still
are looking at something that would read from an observer
as part of the front elevation or part of the visible
elevation. So, my question is whether or not we should
include visible retaining walls as part of the definition
of elevation?
CHAIR HANSSEN: Could I ask Staff, since I assume
you were present at the Policy Committee meetings, was this
discussed by the Councilmembers that formulated this
definition and debate aside to not include retaining walls,
or was it not discussed?
JOCELYN SHOOPMAN: This was discussed by the
Policy Committee at their multiple meetings and the
ultimate conclusion was not to include them. In one
specific case they were looking at it might give an
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2020
Item #3, HDS&G Modifications re: Visibility Analysis
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
advantage to an applicant to include retaining walls as
opposed to just looking at the building elevation itself
and based on that input they chose not to include exterior
features, specifically calling out retaining walls.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Interesting. Okay. I would have
thought it would have been in the opposite. Any other
comments on the language by Commissioners? What does the
Commission feel about should retaining walls be considered
as part of the elevation or should we go with the Policy
Committee's direction? Commissioner Burch.
COMMISSIONER BURCH: I think we should go with
the Policy Committee's recommendation. Perhaps the only
comment to that would be that obviously it would maybe
matter on what the retaining wall was made of. If it is a
natural stone façade or something that would actually blend
in with the natural landscape, I think it makes clear sense
that it wouldn't be included. If by any chance they were
proposing something that didn't (inaudible) landscape
perhaps we would look at that differently, however I would
assume that Staff would catch that before anything came to
us but I would defer to other Commissioners if they felt
like we should add a language in there around the
materials.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2020
Item #3, HDS&G Modifications re: Visibility Analysis
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JOEL PAULSON: Through the Chair, I would just
add that as Ms. Shoopman said, they had a lot of
conversations about this. A member of the public brought it
up and said it shouldn't be used over and over and so they
ultimately decided not to include it. Again, as Ms.
Shoopman said, you have some instances where it potentially
helps an applicant from a calculation perspective and then
you could have other items, as you're talking about, that
actually would hurt the applicant, so they chose to only
include the building and so that's what we brought forward
as a recommendation. Through a motion if you want them to
consider that or consider portions of that, I think that
could be added into your motion as direction as this
specific item goes forward.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you, Director Paulson. Do
other Commissioners have comments on the idea about the
retaining walls? Commissioner Barnett.
COMMISSIONER BARNETT: I may be missing something
here, but it seems to me that the definition is intended to
tie into the visibility analysis, and from that perspective
I would think that walls, decks, and exterior detached
structures should all be considered as part of the
elevation.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2020
Item #3, HDS&G Modifications re: Visibility Analysis
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIR HANSSEN: So, including the retaining
walls?
COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Correct.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Okay.
JOEL PAULSON: I guess I would just offer a
little more background. The whole reason this came forward
was an application on I want to say Santella that came
before us and Staff had actually looked at walls and things
like that because they can be visible, but in this case I
think it turned out that it may have helped the applicant
on the visibility analysis and so then that's when the
Council sent this item back to Policy Committee for
consideration just so that Staff could get clear direction
on what we should be counting in the visibility analysis,
and this is where we landed.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you, Director Paulson. Vice
Chair Janoff.
VICE CHAIR JANOFF: Just a question of
clarification for Staff. I'm trying to figure out how the
inclusion would help and I guess what I would say is
there's a greater square footage… If you could walk through
(inaudible) example I maybe could better understand why the
recommendation is going this direction.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2020
Item #3, HDS&G Modifications re: Visibility Analysis
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JOCELYN SHOOPMAN: I wasn't the project manager
on this until the application but I can do my best to kind
of give a background.
I believe in this case it was multiple retaining
walls downhill that were included in this visibility
analysis so it created a larger square footage amount that
the Applicant was working for computing his calculation,
and by including that additional square footage of
retaining walls that were visible it resulted in the
project being under that threshold of 25-percent.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Hudes.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Thank you. Coming back to
Commissioner Burch's question for Staff, how likely is it
that we're going to get a retaining wall that isn't a
natural compatible material on the hillside applications?
And also would there be any existing retaining wall that
wouldn't be of that type that would be part of the
consideration here?
JOCELYN SHOOPMAN: We have seen some more
contemporary and modern homes in our hillsides; I believe
one was approved on Santella Court actually by the
Commission in either 2018 or 2019. It was more of a
contemporary style. It did have some concrete walls,
although they also had landscaping to soften that material,
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2020
Item #3, HDS&G Modifications re: Visibility Analysis
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
but that was reviewed by the Town's consulting architect
with the Hillside Design Guidelines and found to be
compliant. As far as you're saying, if there is existing
retaining walls whether they can be including in a
visibility analysis?
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Yes, my comments were
strictly about the retaining walls. I remember the recent
approval but I'm really talking about the materials that
are used on the retaining walls, new and existing.
JOCELYN SHOOPMAN: If Staff is completing a
visibility analysis today we would be looking at what's
visible, so is that the building elevation? Are those
existing retaining walls regardless of their material? This
is part of the questions of a Commission's consideration is
should we still be looking at those visible walls
regardless of the material?
COMMISSIONER HUDES: If I could just follow up.
How likely is it that they will be of a non-natural
material?
JOCELYN SHOOPMAN: It's a possibility. There are
quite a few old structures and retaining walls out there,
so I would say that yes, there's a possibility that we
could see them.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2020
Item #3, HDS&G Modifications re: Visibility Analysis
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JOEL PAULSON: I would just add to that,
Commissioner Hudes, I mean natural stucco is technically
sand, so we see a lot of stucco walls, concrete walls; we
see those quite often. Generally how they're treated in the
hillside environment is either by screening as mentioned by
Vice Chair Janoff, or by color to help them blend in.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Okay, thank you.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Vice Chair Janoff.
VICE CHAIR JANOFF: I would like to support the
addition of language as Commissioner Burch alluded to that
if the material of the retaining wall is obvious and
visible or non-natural or however you might want to phrase
it, then it could be included in the elevation calculation.
I'm having a little trouble understanding how it could
work. I'm having a little trouble with the numbers on this
one but I think there could be instances where you'd have a
rather obvious retaining wall, and I'm thinking about that
house. I can't remember the street but it's…the lands of
pam is all I can remember, but it was that massive house up
on a hillside and there were retaining walls and all kind
of balustrades and stuff and you're just looking at it,
going wow. I can't imagine why we would not want to include
in that instance the retaining wall as part of that
calculation.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2020
Item #3, HDS&G Modifications re: Visibility Analysis
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JOEL PAULSON: I think that was Jerrod Lane…
VICE CHAIR JANOFF: Yes.
JOEL PAULSON: …and actually (inaudible) wasn't
visible at all so that wasn't even an issue, because it was
low enough in the hillside.
But that's the challenge and that's why Staff has
historically looked at them. In the instance, just for this
example, there was another planner as Ms. Shoopman
mentioned, and so we counted all the retaining wall and a
lot of the retaining wall was screened by existing
vegetation, so that added to their total wall square
footage for the calculation, which means technically the
house could be more visible or other components could be
more visible because they were getting credit for the wall
that was screened by vegetation.
So, that's where the challenge comes in. It kind
of cuts both ways, so that was the challenge. There are
always going to be items like that but that's why we were
happy that the Council sent it to Policy Committee so you
get clear direction. I think it gets to be challenging if
we try to take it if it's a wall that's visible then we're
going to count it, if it's not visible then we're not going
to count it; that gets to be problematic from our
perspective looking at that, but whatever the Commission
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2020
Item #3, HDS&G Modifications re: Visibility Analysis
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
wants to put forward as a recommendation to Council, we'll
carry that forward for their discussion.
VICE CHAIR JANOFF: Just a follow up. Thank you
for that clarification; I now understand it's a difference
between what's visible and not visible. Given that, I would
think the language as proposed is probably fine. I would
also expect that the consulting architect would provide the
guidance for screening for color modification.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Hudes.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Yeah, I would agree with
Vice Chair Janoff. I think that as it's written it would be
a perceptible improvement in the way that we're evaluating
elevation.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Okay. So, the way that this works
is if there are no further comments we could entertain a
motion from a member of the Commission and the motion would
be to forward a recommendation to Council to approve the
language as is, or approve with modifications, or go back
to the drawing board; those I think are the three options.
I don't think the third option is one we would recommend,
so would someone be able to make a motion to either do A or
B? Vice Chair Janoff.
VICE CHAIR JANOFF: Yes, I'll make a motion to
approve the language as is.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2020
Item #3, HDS&G Modifications re: Visibility Analysis
18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIR HANSSEN: And then Commissioner Hudes had
his hand up before Commissioner Badame.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: I second the motion.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Okay, great. Is there any further
discussion by the Commission on this matter? Seeing none,
we will do a roll call vote and I will start with
Commissioner Badame.
COMMISSIONER BADAME: Yes.
CHAIR HANSSEN: And then Commissioner Tavana.
COMMISSIONER TAVANA: Yes.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Burch.
COMMISSIONER BURCH: Yes.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Hudes.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Yes.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Barnett.
COMMISSIONER BARNETT: No.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Okay. And Vice Chair Janoff.
VICE CHAIR JANOFF: Yes.
CHAIR HANSSEN: And then I vote yes as well, so
it passes 6-1 with Commissioner Barnett voting against. Are
there any appeal rights for this action by the Commission,
Director Paulson?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2020
Item #3, HDS&G Modifications re: Visibility Analysis
19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JOEL PAULSON: There are not any appeal rights
because this is a recommendation, as will be the remainder
of these motions.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Okay, thank you. All right, so
then the second item was about trees and it is whether or
not trees that are subject to required clearing by the Fire
Department and also trees that don't require a permit to be
removed should be included, and there was a split vote by
the Policy Committee.
Vice Mayor Spector felt that we should be more
conservative and remove any of these trees that could be
removed without a permit or required by the Fire Department
from screening, and I'm interpreting, but the Mayor felt
that anybody could ultimately remove any trees so then no
one would be able to include them in their analysis. I
think I characterized the way that Staff said it, but if I
didn't get that right, let us know.
We also heard testimony from Dr. Weissman
recommending that we should exclude the trees that the Fire
Department would require to be removed as well as the non-
native trees that aren't protected by the ordinance, and I
think that was his recommendation.
So, where does the Commission come out on this
item? Commissioner Burch and then Commissioner Hudes.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2020
Item #3, HDS&G Modifications re: Visibility Analysis
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BURCH: We had a few discussions on
this (inaudible) previously on hillside applications based
on our own walking the site, recognizing which trees had
been highlighted to be removed as part of the application,
and then trying to determine how that actually lines up
with the visibility analysis. Ultimately in most of those
conversations what we circled back to was that we needed to
make sure that in understanding which trees were going to
be removed we were doing more of a visibility analysis
based on that. What will be the reality? I kind of feel
like yes, we need to be including the fact that they won't
be there in the visibility analysis as much as we can to
our abilities. I know in some instances that's very
difficult but in others we've gone back on an application
and actually seen that the removal of one or two in the
application had a huge impact on how the development would
be seen from different viewing points. So yes, I do feel
like we should be taking the removal of those trees into
consideration.
JOEL PAULSON: Through the Chair, I would just
like to say that the trees are one in the same but there's
really two different components.
So, the exceptions. Those are trees that can be
removed without any permit. The first one is the zone one,
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2020
Item #3, HDS&G Modifications re: Visibility Analysis
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
two, and three. Zone one, they have to remove; zones two
and three, they're not removing all of that vegetation,
it's not a clearcutting the forest. It's kind of, I can't
remember what the term is, I want to say lean and green or
clean and green. They're limbing up trees, they're clearing
vegetation that can be a fire ladder, things like that.
It's not just cutting down the trees.
So, there are two components of this when you're
looking at that, and so ultimately I think they split on
both of those issues, but we have a code that mirrors state
code, which is similar to the fire code, which mirrors
state code. I've talked to County Fire. They're not going
out to properties and saying we have to do this. You know,
we're getting more and more inquiries obviously, given the
continuing news every week that's going on, so those
provisions are available to property owners, but it's not
just to remove all of those trees, it's really to limb up
the ones in zones two and three and do some other clearing
of vegetation. Then with the ones that are on the exception
list, those are trees that people can just remove without a
permit regardless. So, just so everyone understands there
are kind of two separate but (inaudible) components.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2020
Item #3, HDS&G Modifications re: Visibility Analysis
22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BURCH: Thank you for that, because
I was a little confused when reading it about how those
different things meshed into each other, so thank you.
CHAIR HANSSEN: All right, so we really kind of
have two tree issues to discuss. I think Vice Chair Janoff
and then Commissioner Hudes.
VICE CHAIR JANOFF: I just wanted to clarify that
what Director Paulson is talking about… I have a list of
five items. It's a A, B, C, and D that I was expecting to
walk through, not the list of three which were the
decisions that I think Chair Hanssen is going through. I
think the topic that Chair Hanssen was discussing is Item
C, which is the visibility regarding tree removal, and then
what Director Paulson is discussing is Item B, the tree
clearing that's recommended by the Fire Department, so
yeah, we do have two separate items for consideration.
CHAIR HANSSEN: I think you have a good point, so
maybe we should do a separate motion on each one?
VICE CHAIR JANOFF: Yes.
CHAIR HANSSEN: To make it clearer, yeah, yeah.
Okay, thank you for that clarification, Staff and also Vice
Chair Janoff. Commissioner Hudes.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: I'm not sure which one it
fits into or whatever, but the comments from Dr. Weissman,
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2020
Item #3, HDS&G Modifications re: Visibility Analysis
23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I would be interested in Staff's reaction to that as to
whether it makes sense and whether it's feasible to have
different conditions for non-native versus native trees,
whether they think it's a good idea.
JOEL PAULSON: I think as he also mentioned most
of these trees in this exception list, which is Item C in
the Staff Report, those are all non-native with the
exception potentially of three, which is for fire
prevention, but I'm not sure if Ms. Shoopman has any
additional comments. I think that's a fairly simple
distinction as none of the trees in one or two are probably
going to be native.
JOCELYN SHOOPMAN: I would agree. We can easily
separate native from non-native.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Hudes.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Do you think it's a good
idea?
JOEL PAULSON: Well, neither of us are arborists
and we didn't bring the arborist with us, but I think that
might be some good direction should a motion go forward on
Item C regarding a distinction between native and non-
native, and potentially similarly in… It gets captured in B
by C in and of itself, but that might be helpful direction
to have them weigh in on, and we can also get some input
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2020
Item #3, HDS&G Modifications re: Visibility Analysis
24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
from either one of our consulting arborists or a Town
arborist.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Vice Chair Janoff.
VICE CHAIR JANOFF: I guess I take a little bit
different view from Dr. Weissman, and while I completely
appreciate where he's going with his thinking with regard
to preserving the native trees, and I agree that the native
trees need to be discussed for our visibility analysis, the
non-natives should absolutely not be required, and here's
the reason. It's precisely what Dr. Weissman led with, and
that is that people who buy hillside property really want
the view and there's no way to get the view unless you cut
your trees down, and I'm not aware that there's a follow up
that would make anyone accountable to hey, you said you
weren't going to cut that tree down even if it's a native.
I mean you would like to believe that people would want to
preserve the native trees but you can also understand where
people say, "You know what? That oak tree is right in the
middle of my beautiful view."
I just want to show you something quickly. This
is my view. I'm looking directly across the valley at
Levi's Stadium, and it's a bigger view than that. When we
purchased the property there were no trees in our view so
we haven't had to made the decision about cutting down
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2020
Item #3, HDS&G Modifications re: Visibility Analysis
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
trees, but there's got to be a lot of properties out there
that say great, we got the permit, we got the house built,
cut them down. So, I'm thinking that on a conservative side
we shouldn't put any trees that are on the property that
are larger than a certain diameter in the visibility
analysis.
CHAIR HANSSEN: All right, so thank you for your
direction on that. Are there other comments? Just to be
clear, Vice Chair Janoff did bring up that there are
actually three… So, B, C, and D are all on trees, right?
Let me just make sure. Yeah, so B was about regarding trees
subject to clearing, and then the exceptions for tree
removal, and then site planning regarding image update.
So, if it's the will of the Commission maybe the
best thing to do would be to take each one of these
separately, even though we've been discussing all three of
them, and see if we can get a motion on this. And again,
we're making our recommendation to Council. But let's see
if any of the Commissioners have any more comments on the
tree analysis.
While you guys are still thinking about it I will
weigh in. I completely agree with Vice Chair Janoff. I also
live in the hillsides and I haven't seen a lot of people
cutting down trees because we haven't had a whole lot of
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2020
Item #3, HDS&G Modifications re: Visibility Analysis
26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
building; we don't have available lots in our neighborhood.
And after we've heard so many of these hearings in the
hillsides I think people are highly incented to improve
their view, and so we should take the most conservative
view on what could possibly be included in the visibility
analysis, because it probably won't be there.
So, is there anyone that could make a motion?
Vice Chair Janoff, do you feel comfortable making a motion?
VICE CHAIR JANOFF: I do, I'm just not entirely
sure what my motion would be. I guess the more conservative
view is… I can't tell whether it's Vice Mayor Spector's or
Mayor Jensen's view, but I would recommend that the
language be conservative in that we could expect all non-
native trees that are not proposed to be removed could and
probably will be removed and they should not be included in
the visibility study.
With regard to the native trees, I think any tree
that is under I think it's the 9" diameter shouldn't be
included either because if they can be removed then they
probably will be removed. I hope that's clear.
CHAIR HANSSEN: I think that's pretty darned
clear. Commissioner Burch had her hand up and then
Commissioner Tavana.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2020
Item #3, HDS&G Modifications re: Visibility Analysis
27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BURCH: I was going to second the
motion.
COMMISSIONER TAVANA: Same here. I'll second it.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Okay. All right, so we'll say
Commissioner Tavana seconded it. So, we'll take Vice Chair
Janoff's motion on the matter, which was to exclude the
trees that were non-native that do not require a permit as
well as any of the native that are under the diameter where
they wouldn't require a permit for removal as well. Yes?
Yes. Is there any further discussion on that? Okay, so then
I will go ahead and take the roll call vote and I will
start with Commissioner Badame.
COMMISSIONER BADAME: Yes.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Tavana.
COMMISSIONER TAVANA: Yes.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Burch.
COMMISSIONER BURCH: Yes.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Hudes.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Yes.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Barnett.
COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Yes.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Vice Chair Janoff.
VICE CHAIR JANOFF: Yes.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2020
Item #3, HDS&G Modifications re: Visibility Analysis
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIR HANSSEN: And I vote yes as well, so that
passes unanimously. So that's basically one motion that
covered… Just to make sure I've got this right though, it
covers B, C, and D?
VICE CHAIR JANOFF: No, just C.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Just C. Okay, right. Okay, so we
still need to worry about B and D, right?
VICE CHAIR JANOFF: Yeah, and I'm prepared to
make a motion on those as well.
JOEL PAULSON: Through the Chair I would say your
motion on C kind of covers B, because we wouldn't include
any of those anyway because they're non-native and it's an
additional requirement to not include any natives that are
less than a certain diameter, and the zone language is
really, again, where they're going to be trimming up
vegetation and separating vegetation canopies, so they're
going to have to do that anyway, but if you want to make a
specific motion on B, that's fine as well.
CHAIR HANSSEN: I don't know what you think, Vice
Chair Janoff, but I think we're covered on B given what
Staff said.
VICE CHAIR JANOFF: That's fine. I'm okay with
that.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2020
Item #3, HDS&G Modifications re: Visibility Analysis
29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIR HANSSEN: All right. Then with D I'm trying
to remember…
VICE CHAIR JANOFF: D is the update on the
graphic in the…
CHAIR HANSSEN: The graphics, yeah, yeah, okay.
So, are there thoughts on that one? What's the Commission's
thoughts on the recommendation? Commissioner Barnett.
COMMISSIONER BARNETT: I don't see any reason not
to update the graphic.
CHAIR HANSSEN: I think I agree with that. Other
Commissioners have any thoughts on that one? It seems
pretty straightforward. Okay, so can we get a motion on
that one? Maybe Commissioner Barnett, or Commissioner Burch
has her hand up.
COMMISSIONER BURCH: I'm just going to make the
motion to approve the update of the image.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Right. Commissioner Hudes.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: I would second the motion
and just make a comment that we're balancing the interests
of the Town and visibility with safety and wildfire safety,
and I think it's always important to err on the side of
safety, especially in the environment that we're in, and so
I believe all of these are useful changes for that reason
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2020
Item #3, HDS&G Modifications re: Visibility Analysis
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and I think we need to continue to look at wildfire safety
improvements that we can make whenever we can.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Well said, Commissioner Hudes.
Okay, so we have a motion and we have a second. Any other
comments by Commissioners? I'll go ahead with the roll call
vote. Commissioner Badame.
COMMISSIONER BADAME: Yes.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Tavana.
COMMISSIONER TAVANA: Yes.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Burch.
COMMISSIONER BURCH: Yes.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Hudes.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Yes.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Barnett.
COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Yes.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Vice Chair Janoff.
VICE CHAIR JANOFF: Yes.
CHAIR HANSSEN: And I vote yes as well. All
right, so we've got A, B, C, D, and so we still have E.
So, E is about the project review and if the
application is over the visibility requirement of 24.5-
percent and they are required in our Hillside Design
Guidelines to reduce the height to 18', and so the question
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2020
Item #3, HDS&G Modifications re: Visibility Analysis
31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
is whether or not the Development Review Committee could be
the deciding body instead of the Planning Commission.
If I interpreted the comments from the Policy
Committee accurately Vice Mayor Spector said that there
could be other issues besides just the visibility that
might affect whether it is approvable or not, so she was
recommending to keep it with the Planning Commission, and
the Mayor felt the other way that we should move it down to
the Development Review Committee so that applicants
wouldn't have to spend as much money and could get their
approvals streamlined. Are there thoughts on that from the
Commission? Commissioner Badame.
COMMISSIONER BADAME: I would be in favor of
keeping the review process within the purview of the
Planning Commission rather than the DRC due to other
extenuating circumstances that might revolve around the
approval or denial.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Other comments? Commissioner
Hudes.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Yeah, I would agree. I
generally believe in streamlining, particularly when it
comes to things that relate to the economic vitality of the
Town. When it comes to the hillsides I don't think that
streamlining in general yields good results and I think
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2020
Item #3, HDS&G Modifications re: Visibility Analysis
32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
there were reasons why we enacted the Hillside Design
Standards and Guidelines and the decision-making bodies for
them, and I think the Planning Commission is more familiar
with some of the details of the analysis as well, and so I
would be in support of keeping it with the Planning
Commission.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you. Commissioner Burch.
COMMISSIONER BURCH: I want to ask a couple of
questions of Staff about it. I would assume if this is
being reviewed internally that the application would be
needing, as it said, FAR, visibility, height, privacy
concerns, the reflectivity of the materials, including any
of these updates that we're proposing as far as the
visibility around what trees would remain or not. Is that a
correct assumption?
JOEL PAULSON: I can jump in. Yes, all of those
things get analyzed. I think the other is understanding
that the Policy Committee, potentially the Planning
Commission and the Council, were going to make the
modifications we already talked about. That means there are
going to be far more homes that are visible, so you're
going to have homes that may or may not be visible from a
reality when they're built five years, ten years, or they
can be visible right away, and so you're going to have a
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2020
Item #3, HDS&G Modifications re: Visibility Analysis
33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
lot more homes of that nature that will be paying an
additional $4,000 approximately and adding an additional
six weeks approximately to their application timing to go
to the Planning Commission, but either way. Staff is
comfortable either way bringing it forward to the
Commission, it's just really something to help, as
mentioned, for streamlining for applicants.
COMMISSIONER BURCH: May I ask a quick follow up?
CHAIR HANSSEN: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER BURCH: Should the application come
to DRC and they've checked all the boxes would it
potentially be something that you would still though bring
to the Commission should there be perhaps a lot of
opposition by neighbors or somebody else who felt impacted
by the property?
JOEL PAULSON: We don't generally have a vote to
see how many people like or dislike a project. We're
looking at it objectively based on our standards. Obviously
DRC is appealable. You're going to be seeing a lot more
appeals, and you have seen a lot more appeals, and so we're
going to be processing it from that standpoint. If they are
a major exception or (inaudible) that after trying to work
with applicants and neighbors, because generally what
happens is we have the applicant work with the neighbor if
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2020
Item #3, HDS&G Modifications re: Visibility Analysis
34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
it's a privacy issue to try to come up with a solution.
Seventy-five percent of the time they come up with a
solution, 25-percent they don't, and then the process is
that someone has to appeal whatever decision that is. So,
generally that's the course of action.
COMMISSIONER BURCH: That was the answer that I
was hoping that you would say, and so based on that I feel
like with the conversations that we're having right now and
the (inaudible) work that so many people have done in the
last few years around really defining what requirements
need to be met in the hillsides as far as visibility and
materials and so forth(inaudible) setting those type of
parameters in place so that Staff…
We are streamlining these things and we aren't
holding up a potential homeowner additional months and
additional fees, a home that theoretically meets all the
requirements, and again, based on what Mr. Paulson just
stated, if there are issues with potential neighbors they
will appeal it and it would come to us, so I feel like all
the work that's been happening is to help streamline these
processes and make some things in the Town a bit easier for
our residents. There are still things in place to make sure
that somebody doesn't build a four-story glaringly white
home in the hills that's visible from everywhere, so I
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2020
Item #3, HDS&G Modifications re: Visibility Analysis
35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
think to me I feel a very safe thing to say is let's
continue down that streamlining process.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you. Do other Commissioners
have comments? Commissioner Barnett.
COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Mr. Paulson, how often do
you get neighbors appearing at the DRC?
JOEL PAULSON: We have neighbors at almost every
DRC right now. Obviously we're in a different time so
people have a lot more opportunity, because they're already
on Zoom all day long so what's one more Zoom meeting? So we
have had a lot more participation at DRC meetings.
Like said, it gets to be challenging because
we're looking at it from a technical perspective and
people's views or privacy, those are important issues. We
just don't have any objective standards, and if they meet
those technical requirements then we try to look for
solutions and try to get the applicants to work with
adjacent neighbors, but sometimes they just can't come to a
compromise, and then again, that's where a project gets
appealed.
I don't have any objective numbers for you as far
as what that looks like, but I'll definitely have Staff
look into that over the last six months, how many agenda
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2020
Item #3, HDS&G Modifications re: Visibility Analysis
36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
items have we had and how many folks have participated on
any one of those agenda items.
COMMISSIONER BARNETT: That's helpful to know.
Thank you.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Hudes.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: I'm definitely respectful of
the other Commissioners' points, however I don't think that
streamlining in the hillsides is a valuable thing for the
Town as whole and we have to balance the needs and
requirements of the hillside homeowner with the needs and
requirements of the Town, and we're not always going to be
in a situation where residents can attend DRC meetings, and
we've had glitches with notification and other things at
times, and our hillsides are finite in terms of what they
are and what is built on them.
I think that we're really not talking about
lengthening the time, we're talking about staying with the
existing timeframe, so I don't really think that it's
necessarily making it more difficult, I think we're just
saying let's stand by what people have put together to
protect our hillsides and that includes a hearing process
with the Planning Commission, which is I think well
equipped to balance the interests of the community and the
homeowner. It's hard work and I know the DRC does a very
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2020
Item #3, HDS&G Modifications re: Visibility Analysis
37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
good job as well but I also think that we need additional
prudent checks and balances on our hillsides and what gets
put on them, and particularly when they are visible we need
to really pay attention to that.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Badame.
COMMISSIONER BADAME: I would like to add that
hillside homes, they're a greater distance apart so they
have a greater propensity to be seen, but for residents not
to receive notice, so they wouldn't receive notice to even
go to a DRC hearing to possibly object, so I'm still going
to stick with Planning Commission purview on this one.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for your comments. I'm
going to weigh in and say that with all due respect we have
a lot of good things that have happened with the Hillside
Design Guidelines but I can think of any number of times
where we've had residences that were way more massive than
they could be and by changing the flow of their
architecture or something like that they could change the
dynamics of the visibility as well, and so I think it's not
as simple as always just making it 18' and having them
comply with the other things. There are often ways that
they could redo the design of the house or the situation of
the house, and so I feel like in the case where a house is
going to be visible we should really be diligent about that
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2020
Item #3, HDS&G Modifications re: Visibility Analysis
38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and so I side with Commissioner Hudes and others on that
point. Vice Chair Janoff.
VICE CHAIR JANOFF: I just wanted to say that I
agree with that. I think the notion that Staff is really
limiting their decisions to objective criteria does mean
that the more subjective or discretionary realm that a
planning commission does have the opportunity to operate
with them doesn't get addressed, and so I would be in favor
of keeping the process the way it is with these
applications coming to the Planning Commission.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you. Any other Commissioner
want to make a comment on this? If not, I would entertain a
motion. Commissioner Badame.
COMMISSIONER BADAME: I'll make a motion. I move
to forward to Town Council a recommendation to retain
project review and approval process with the Planning
Commission.
CHAIR HANSSEN: For the homes that are visible,
right?
COMMISSIONER BADAME: Yes, for the homes that are
visible.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Okay, thank you. Is there a
second? Commissioner Hudes had his hand up.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Second.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2020
Item #3, HDS&G Modifications re: Visibility Analysis
39
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIR HANSSEN: And any further discussion?
Seeing none, I will go with the roll call vote.
Commissioner Badame.
COMMISSIONER BADAME: Yes.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Tavana.
COMMISSIONER TAVANA: Yes.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Burch.
COMMISSIONER BURCH: No.
CHAIR HANSSEN: No? Okay. Commissioner Hudes.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Yes.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Barnett.
COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Yes.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Vice Chair Janoff.
VICE CHAIR JANOFF: Yes.
CHAIR HANSSEN: And then I vote yes as well, so
it passes 6-1. Are there any appeal rights on this action?
It's probably the same as the others, so I'm asking Staff.
JOEL PAULSON: I'm talking, I just don't have my
mike on. There are no appeal rights for this as it is a
recommendation to the Town Council.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Okay, thank you very much.
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank