Item 03 - Hillside Development Standards & Guidelines - Desk Item & Exhibit 9TOWN OF LOS GATOS ITEM NO: 3
DESK ITEM PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: December 2, 2015
PREPARE D BY:
SUMMARY:
EXHIBITS:
REMARKS :
Jo e l S. Paulson, Planning Manager
jp au l so n@ losgatosca.gov
Public hearing to consider adoption of amendments to Chapter II
(Constraints Analysis and Site Selection) and C hapter V
(Architectural Design) of the Hillside Development Standards and
Guidelines.
Previously received with the September 23, 2015 Staff Repo rt :
1. Required Findings
2. Proposed Amendments-Chapter II. Co n straints Analysis and
Site Selection (six pages)
3 . Proposed Amendments -Chapter V. Architectural Des ign (1 2
pages)
4. Comments from Dave Weissman (10 pages)
Previously received with the December 2, 2015 Staff Report :
5. Verbatim Minutes from the October 21,2015 Study Session
(90 pages)
6. Proposed Methodology previously submitted b y Dave
Weissman and Lee Quintana (four pages)
7. Letter from Lee Quintana submitted at the October 21, 20 15
Study Session (four pages)
8. Letter from Dave Wei ssman (five p ages)
Recei ved with thi s Desk Item :
9. Comments from Commissioner Kane
The attached comments from Commissioner K ane (Exhibit 9) were received after the report on
thi s matter was finalized.
repared b y:
J oel S. Paulson, AICP
Planning Manager
LRP:JSP:cg
A roved by:
Lautel R . Prevetti
Tqwn Manager/Community D evelopment Director
N :\DEV\PC REPORTS\201 5\Hi ll side_LRV _ Visibil ityl 2-2Deskltem.doc
Joel-
I have re-read the minutes of the 10/21 study session. Whatever I would say is in there and I
hope those thoughts are reflected in the recommendation we send to the town council ...
Essentially:
Substantially reduce the ability of the 25% (or 20%!) vis ibility requirement to me meant by tree
or bush coverage. There is the letter of the law, but there is also the spirit of the law. As Lee
Quintana points out in the minutes, "Discretion" ought to be u sed to preserve the hillsides --as it
was intended by the authors of the document. That is the spirit of the law --not that people find
ways to get around the "letter," but that we also require compliance with the "spirit." Use of
trees as helping meet the visibility requirement is a good example. Trees and bushes can die or
otherwise "go away" and there is no requirement that they be replaced in kind or "in place." That
is simply not what was intended ... That an act of God (or man) could result in, possibly, a full
view of a large house from the valley floor. As I think about it , take out any provision of
vegetation screening. That ends the argument , that ends the "game," and insures compliance
with the letter and the spirit of the HDS&G. Also, I think due consideration should be given to
the learned, impressive, considerate and appropriately passionate recommendations of Ms.
Quintana and Dr. Weissman. Finally, as mentioned above , consider reducing the 25%
requirement to 20% --to include a "cap" on the size of the exposed portion of the structure.
We should take another look at the provisions regarding garages and cellars and language could
be more specific abo ut houses "stepping down" the hill side ... but those items are not b efore us at
this time .
Again, my sincere apo logies for not being able to attend this important meeting.
Yours,
Michael
EXHIBIT 9