Attachment 7 Aug 27 MinuteTOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
PUBLIC HEARING
ITEM 41
HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS & GUIDELINES
Town Council Chambers
110 East Main Street
Los Gatos, California
Taken on
August 27, 2003
#13484
Advantage �AT— Reporting
Services, LLLC
104 Linealn Awnite, San Jose, Calijilada 95125. 7elepdane (408) 920 -0]221. fax (408) 92I64J9N
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: Paul Dubois, Chair
Michael Burke
Jeanne Drexel
Phil Micciche
Lee Quintana
Joanne Talesfore
Morris Trevithick
Director
of Community
Development: Bud Lortz
Town Attorney: Orry Korb
Transcribed by: ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES
BY: LISA A. GLANVILLE,
CSR 9932
1083 Lincoln Avenue
San Jose, CA 95125
(408) 920 -0222
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 08/27/2003
t,
Advantage s, �" q Reporting
Services, LLLC
BSA PUBLIC HEARING ITEM #1 - WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 27, 2003 _ A_ XtAwc(III)
Page 1 I Page 3
(11 TOWN OF LOS GATOS
(s! - PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
(al PUBLIC HEARING
f4! ITEM #1
(s) HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT
(a) STANDARDS t GUIDELINES
(n Torn Council Charters
(a] 110 East Main Street
(9) Los Gatos, California
(1o) Taken on
01) August 27, 2003
Da) #13494
113) LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION DD /27/2003
nq
(15)
pe)
(171
(IN
691
ran
kll
Rzl
rut
III)
(1) PH OCE E DING S:
(2)
(3) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: That brings us to
(4) continued public hearings. Item Number 1, Hillside
(5) Development Standards and Guidelines. Mr. Lortz,
(9) are you going to be Delivering the Staff Report on
m this?
(s) MR. LORTZ: Just very briefly. I want to
(9) thank the Architectural Standards Committee for
(10) their hard work in getting the revised standards
(1 t) to - back to the Planning Commission. And we are
(12) certainly here to answer any questions you may have.
(1m) We did raise a fete comments In our Staff
(14) Report that we'd like for you to respond to, and
(15) then if you - if you're so inclined, as well as
(ie) Just a request that - and I think it would be
(v) helpful for the Council to understand If the
(18) Commission Is concerned about the DRC approving
(19) homes of a particular size, I think that Council
(20) would want to know what the Commission's concerns
(21) are so that those concerns could be addressed as
(22) Council views this matter once it's forwarded to
(23) them.
(24) But thank you for the opportunity to work
125) with all of you that were on the Architectural
r 1) A P P E A R A N C E Si
(1)'
ut nciards Committee, and thank you for your hard
1 z)
M
work. We're here to answer any questions.
tai Los Gatos Planning
(3)
CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Okay. Procedurally
Commissioners::
Paul Dubois, Chair
1 al
Michael Burke
(4)
see that we have at least six Items to address,
Jeanne Dmel
(s)
questions that need to be addressed by this
(5)
Phil Hicciche
Lee Quintana
tsl
Commission tonight, so - also, and whatever else is
( n
Joanne Talesfora
(7)
raised as a result of our discussions tonight and /or
(»
Morrie Trev!thic§
(a)
the public. So they need to be addressed, and then
r N Di rector
-
(a)
if we're going to send this off, and those questions
of- Coesmnity
1 9) 'Development:
Bud Lortz
(I O)
need to be forwarded up with the answers.
nm 1'm,n Attorney:
Orry [orb
Ili I)
So I guess I would like to start off with
ryD Transcribed by:
ADVANTAGE A. GLANVIL SERVICES
BY: LISA A. GLAMVILLE,
(12)
a abbreviated comments or questions from the
� q
(le!
CSR 9932
(1s)
Commission before we open this up to public
1083 Lincoln
04)
mmments, then come back for discussion of each
N)
San Jose, G 95125
95121
(408) 920 -0222
(is)
hem. Commissioner Burke.
(IN
Ile)
COMMISSIONER BURKE: Just procedural
(1a;
(17)
question for you. Was it your bellef that we would
(v;
I
ps)
go through the matrtK of Items, or at least the
na
N:
(la)
significant ones of Staff, and either a consensus or
(m1
(20)
yeah, nay on those before we vote on the document as
(al
rat
(21)
a whole from the standpoint the yeah and nay on
rm
(22)
those individual items may affect the way we vote
cep
rtsl
(w)
yeah or nay on the document as a whole?
(24)
CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: guess we could go
(2s)
through the matr61.
ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC (408) 920-0222 Page 1 to Page 4
aSA PUBLIC HEARING ITEM !
Page 5
01
COMMISSIONER BURKE: OrnotthemarIx.
(zt I'm thinking the -
(s) CHAIRMAN DUSOIS: The six major items,
(a) yes. Those -
(s) COMMISSIONER BURKE: Those six before we
(a) vote on the document as awhole?
m CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Yes, absolutely.
(e) COMMISSIONER BURKE: Okay, thank you.
tsl CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: All we're doing is
(1 o) making a recommendation. This is going to go to the
(19 Council. Actually (inaudible).
(12) MR. LORTZ. Yeah, it would be, you know,
(13) appropriate for the Commission H generally the
(14) document Is supported by the Planning Commission,
ti s) but this - this will be a verbatim transcript to
(is) the Council, so each Commissioner's comments will be
(17) then considered by Council, as well as any consensus
(is) motions that you may want to make.
(1s) You know, ft's possible that the
(M Commission Is - each Commissioner is generally
121) satisfied with the document, but may have certain
tzzl aspects of the document that they have concerns
rya) about, and that would be useful for both the Staff
I" and the Council to hear.
(2a7 CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Commissioner Miccichs.
Page 6
(1) COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: (Inaudible.)
(2) MR. LORTZ: The use of the word shall
(a) throughout a document like this can box you Into a
(t) comer, and absolutely, yes. And ifs - and thefs
(6) exactly why the word should is used, to give the
(q Commission or the DRC, depending on which body is
m deciding the project, the latitude to accomplish
(a) what the overall objectives of the Hillside
(a) Standards are.
(10) COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: (Inaudible.)
(11) MR. LORTZ: What we will do Is provide the
(1 z) Council with a verbatim transcript and then to
ti a) incorporate In a Staff Report the variety of
(14) camment3 along the lines of what the Council - the
(1sj Commission may be offering.
tie) For example, the Commission may offer
(17) certain kinds of comments that make a whale lot of
(1s) sense, and then we would mention that to the
(se) Council,
(2o) COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: Whatitsomebody
(z1) were to ask - somebody might ask you (Inaudible)
(M shall isn4 years and to make a determination
(z3) whether they are boxing in-
(za) MR. LORTZ: If that was a comment by a
(zs7 Commissioner and actually there was some consensus
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 27, 2003
Page 7
(1) on that particularly, then we could do that for the
(2) Council and offer some suggestions.
(a) COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: Thankyou.
(a) CHAIRMANDUBOIS: Commissioner Quintana.
(s) COMMISSIONERQUINTANA: Procedural
(a) question. When during the discussion I (Inaudible)
M and should, we hold off any responses that we might
is) have to those for discussions later, or should we
(a) respond to them now (inaudible)?
(fq CHAIRMAN DUSOIS: Why don't we- why
(11) don't we hold off on your response. Okay? I want
(12) to make this as efficient as possible, so keep
(13) copious notes on the areas that you're - you're
(14) bothered by and wait for responses. Any other -
115) Commissioner Quintana.
(16) COMMISSIONERQUINTANA: Youwantusto
(17) raise at this point issues that have not been raised
(19) (Inaudible)?
(1e) CHAIRMANOUBOIS: That's what this point
(zq is for. Go ahead.
(21) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: I'll try to just
(22} highlight. I first want to say that I think that
(zs) there's been a lot of work done on this document,
(24) and I think it has been monumentally Improved from
1251 the first administrative dreftthat the
I1) Architecture] Standards Committee saw.
(2) My major concerns are with the manner In
(3) -which the maximum allowable floor area Is being
(a) calculated based on adjustments for slope and a
(s) floor area ratio table that are In fad based on a
(a) model that was used for flatlands wherein the lot
(r) sizes tend to be smaller, the densities are
(e) anticipated to be greater.
to) We're not as concemed.with vlslbllity,
(1a) and if the majority of lots are - do not have
(1q slope, translating tot Into the hillside where
(12j densities with less slopes tend to be on an average
(13) greater than 30 percent does not seem a good mode].
(14) Most parcels In the hillside I suspect will qualify
(1sT for the maximum floor area. it takes slightly less
(16) than two acres, even with the major 60 percent slope
(17) deduction, to (inaudible) forthat Thafs one of
(1 a) my major areas of concern.
(1s) Another major area of concern is view
(2q analysis of visibility, The document has many
'(21) things in it that indicate that we're interested In
(zz) more than just the view from the valley floor, yet
(23) the view analysis concentrates on platforms from the
(24) valley floor, and (inaudible).
(25) CHAIRMAN OUSOIS: Okay. Weil come right
Page 5 to Page a (408) 920.0222 ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC
BSA _ PUBLIC HEARING ITEM #1 - WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 27. 2003
Page 9
(t) down the line. Commissioner Burke.
(2) COMMISSIONER BURKE: I'm going to start
(s) off by saying I've lived in the hillsides of Los
(4) Gatos for 40 years, and I've seen the hillsides
(s) pretty much devastated by development. But I look
(a) at this document as being more punitive and release
(7) oriented. It seems almost want to punish people for
(a) wanting to build in the hillsides rather than giving
(9) them reasonable options of how they do ft, which I
(1 0) think is too bad. -
(1 1) There are things in there that to me make
(12) no sense like limiting the floor two, three feet
(13) above the slope as - with the (inaudible). There
(14) may be times when that's incredibly reasonable to do
(15) without jumping through hoops.
(16) No grading within 20 feet of the property
(17) line. That might be the ideal place to grade, and
(is) you may force a lot more grading by putting in
(1e) restrictions than that.
(20) So I'm looking at this document and a
(21) little bit disappointed where, rather titan trying to
(22) tell people how they can develop and minimize the
(23) impact, it's more of how can we make it hard for you
(24) to develop by putting as marry hoops as we can jump
(25) through, but the people that do go ahead and develop
(1) I think we're not necessarily going to get much
(2) better projects because of ft. Thais my concern.
(3) And I wrote a quick paragraph here of what
(4) 1 would have kind of liked this document to be
A about. I'm going to read it And this Is kind of a
(e) mission statement, And this is not in the document,
(7) but I wish it was.
is) In designing of new hillside lots, an
(9) emphasis will be put on minimizing grading
(10) requirements, minimizing tree removal and situating
01) the building site such that the new homes are not
(1) readily visible from the valley floor or other areas
(13) deemed Important.
p4) These goals do not be - or need to be
(15) achieved even If they result In the creation of a
(1s) smaller number of new lots than allowed by the slope
(17) density formula. These goals may also be achieved
(1s) by limiting the size and design of the new homes and
(1e) landscape - and the landscaping associated with
(20) them.
(21) 1 think that's what we're trying to
(z2) achieve, but I don't see that document doing it.
t23) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Okay. Commissioner-
(24) anybody else? Yes, Commissioner Mlcciche.
(25) COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: (Inaudible) they
Page 11
(t) said that R states whenever possible, whenever
(2) possible, within the significant ridge line there is
(s) no primary accessory building shall be
(4) constructed - the word shall be - so as to - so
(5) as to protect above the physical ridge line not
(s) including (inaudible).
(7) So there's a shall there, but it says
(b) whenever possible, so (inaudible).
M Then we go on to say If the building
(1q cannot be sited at the LAVA, otherwise not suited
(i 1) for development (inaudible). I believe something
(12) like this should realty state whenever possible, the
(13) new home should avoid at all costs (inaudible). So
(14) 1 think by specifically allowing you to do something
(1s) (inaudible).
(16) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Commissioner Drexel.
(tn COMMISSIONER DRE (EL I had a bunch of
(1a) style, grammar Issues that I would be happy to just,
(19) you know, hand In and, you know, rather than boding
(20) you with them. But as ter as substantive issues
(21) beyond the words that were proposed by Staff, one of
(22) the things on page 38, guideline two, there's a
C4 conflict between the resources of the view shed Into
(24) the deeper and downhill windows. Minimized is too
(2s) restrictive. think it should read that the size
(1) and number of windows on the side of the house that
(2) would likely be exposed to fire from the deeper and
(3) downhill side should be carefully considered in the
(4) interest in safety, because what you're doing here
(5) Is saying that people who have their views are going
(e) to lose them, and we're going to have port holes as
M views. I think that's very Impractical, and it will
(e) mean that everything will come through the Planning
,(B) Commission.
(1e) So 1 just dont see how that as a
(1 1) practical matter would (inaudible). So I think the
(12) objective of the guidelines is to make them to apply
(m) to most houses will have downhill views. We need to
(14) take that into consideration now and allow the
(1s) deciding body discretion, since the guidelines are
(16) going to be followed like standards, unless there Is
(17) a substantial reason not to. I don't think having a
(1s) view downhill will necessarily qualify In any
(1e) concrete sense, at least substantially, reason not
(20) to have port holes down on the down side of the
(21) house. So that was disturbing for me.
(22) And the other one is a conflict between,
(2s) on page 55, standards three and seven, the conflict
{24) with requirement plan - plants to be fire retardant
(251 and mostly native species. The Fire Marshall has
ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC (408) 920-0222 Page 9 to Page 12
BSA PUBLIC HEARING ITEM #1 - V
Page 13
(1) stated that native species are not fire retardant.
(2) 1 suggest the following language, language be added
(a) to anticipate this confliaL But again, so that we
(4) don't end up seeing stuff that we really don't need
(s) to see.
(s) Fire safety shall be controlling in the
(7) choice of plant materials within 30 feet of the
(e) house.'rf native species do not provide or. adequate
(e) fire buffer. Something like that. So, you know,
(iq you take It out of the realm of, you know, In a
(f 1) perfect world I suppose native species would be
(12) great, but I think often you wind up with either
113) very baring plantings around all these nouses or
(14) wind up with native rock, because there aren't many
(15) fire retardant naive species. So those were
(16) (inaudible).
(17) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Okay. Commissloner
(1a) Miadche.
(1e) COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: (inaudible.)
(zo) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: No. I'm just going -
(21) I'm going to open the public,
(a2) COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: ( Inaudible) the -
(23) and this Is more for orientation. Probably ask this
(24) (inaudible). When we say viewing platforms, there's
(2s) four specific, and then we say other locations
(1) deemed appropriate by Staff or the Planning
(2) Commission. (Inaudible) plans or look around ahead
(3) of time? (Inaudible) mouse trap people, we can see
(4) it from here (inaudible). Staffs doing It now? 1
(6) guess I'm riot clear on why that is. (Inaudible.)
(s) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Okay. Ralse the
(n question.
(e) COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: (Inaudible) decide
(9) after the fact?
(1o) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Okay. Any other
(1 1) questions or comments?
(12) COMMISSIONER DREXEL• Is the Intent in
(1s) order to provide a flexibility when development
(14) occurs, Is that the intent of it, Bud?
(15) MR. LORT7: Well, I believe the committee
(is) was concerned about that. I think Commissioner
(17) Miccicha raises an Interesting Issue, and that Is
(1 e) let's say a project comes through the process, and
(191 k's a large home, and It's being considered by the
(m1 Planning Commission, and the Planning Commission
(21) goes and says well, what about this location for
(22) your viewing platform, which could completely change
(29) the design criteria. So then - 'cause then it
(24) could be, you know, like I say, raise all kinds of
(zs) issues In terms of the design criteria. And that
'EDNESDAY, AUGUST 27, 2003 xst
Page 15
11) would be late In the process.
(a So by having that language in there, it
(s) does open the door for a lot of problems down the
(4) road. The viewing platforms were very carefully
(s) selected to maximize the building's apparent mass
(e) and scale from the valley floor. And we - we drove
(7) around Town to make sure we picked the point that
(ai) really covered hillside areas that have been of
(e) concern to both the Planning Commission and Council
(to) and the community, and we were pretty strategic in
(11) that, and we wanted to be very speclAc about It,
(12) because then we could say to a developer okay, you
.(ia) take it, you know, a telephoto lens, and you shoot
(14) from these various locations your story poles, and
(1u7 we're going to see whether they're visible, and If
(1s) they are, then we know what we're dealing with.
(11) By opening the Issue As Commissioner
pa) Micciche polnted out, it does raise a concern late
(11a) In the ball game we're going to change the rules.
t2M As long as I've got the floor, if I may
(21) for Just a second, I want to make sure that the
(22) Commission understands that these rules will apply
M to a project during the architecture and site review
(24) process. I met with some folks today that were
(2s) concerned; because there were conditions of approval
(1) pieced on a home we're here to have the final - all
(2) the conditions were satisfied. After the conditions
(3) of approval are satisfied, and then final a house,
(4) the rules of the zone apply. So all of this no
(a) longer applies to a house.
(a) So M somebody wanted to put a chain link
M fence, for example, all the way around their
(a) pro perty, they're currently entitled to do so. So I
(s) just want to make sure that there's no false
(1 a) expectation in these standards that establish a set
(11) of rules and continue to nun with the property.
(12) The only thing that these things do is
(13) apply to an applicant who Is going through
(14) architecture and she review process. If somebody
(15) wanted to remodel their home, add on, these rules
(1s) would apply. If they wanted to do something that
(t7) does not require a building permit, for example, a
(1s) . fence, currently they'd be able to build afence all
(1e) the way around their property. That Is an Issue
In that's in the General Plan, and perhaps the future
(71) will have a new ordinance to regulate tot.
(221 But I just wanted to make sure that the
(23) Commission understood that any condition thatyau
(24) apply to a property runs during the duration of the
(25) architecture and she approval and to the time we
Page 13 to Page 16 (409) 920 -0222 ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LL C
BSA PUBLIC HEARING ITEM #1
Page 17
(1) ,Issue the final occupancy permit. After that, the
(2) rules of the zone apply, and you know, things could
is) change. So again, I just wanted to caution the
(4) Commission about that,
(s) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Are there any other
(e) comments from the Commission? (inaudible.)
M COMMISSIONER DREXEL• (Inaudible) to
(a) Mr. Lodz and Commissioner Mlcdche's (inaudible)
(9) changing view platforms during - after a project
(1o) has come to A and S, Is that going to be late adding
(n) view platforms, and maybe they could - the language
(12) of that could be adjusted (inaudible). That would
(is) be very unfair.
(14) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: You seem to be
(1 s) discussing Rem (inaudible) from my viewpoint. My
(1s) understanding Is that when he added that language,
p7) because viewing platforms addressed visibility from
(1e) the valley floor only, but the document as a whole
(19) has language In It that addresses visibility from
(2o) other areas, and the intent there was that on a
121) case- by-case basis as an application came in, in my
(2z) mind, that ft be baked at for its visibility from
(23) other prominent areas, whether ft was going to be
(24) visibly prominent, for example, say akmg major
(25) mountain collectors or major corridors that are
(1) in - coming In from Los Gatos, or ft's just on a
(2) highly visible hillside that will make ft visible
(3) from large numbers of other homes. So I don't
(4) particularly see that I want to take that away. I
(s) think it should be addressed as an application comes
(a) In, but as also happens sometimes, conditions and
M issues with the Staff didn't.
(a) _CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Commissioner Burke.
(9) COMMISSIONER BURKE: A follow -up on that.
(1q I think If an architect Is proposing a project in
(I I) the hillsides, he is - probably he or she Is the
p2) best person to realize what areas are going to be
(13) Impacted by this project from a view point So I do
(14) not see ft as mouse trapping or trapping the
(1s) applicant late in the process. They should, as
(1a) they're designing their project, could say how Is
(17) this going to affect the various view sheds that are
(1 e) seen from that area. They should know that up front
(19) and be prepared to justify why the project is
(20) appropriate from different angles. I would be
(21) dumHied If anybody came up with - you know, an
(22) architect came up and said I had no idea that it
(23) would be obtrusive from that angle. If they are,
(24) they weren't doing their job as an architect.
(25) CHAIRMAN DUSOIS: Okay. Any other
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 27, 2003
Page 19
(1) comments? Seeing none, I'm going to open this to
(2) the public hearing comments. I have two cards.
(3) We'll start with Mr. Weissman.
(4) DAVID WEISSMAN: David Weissman, Francis
(s) Oaks Way. As opposed to sari)er, I do think this
(6) document is now ready for prime time. it's a
M (inaudible) where ft was. A quick comment on
(e) Commissioner Burke's opening concerns.
(s) On I think what you've expressed most of
(10) the concems of the committee, this Is not meant to
(1 1) be a punitive document, and I would like to get -
(12) ICs my understanding that yes, there are a lot of
t13) shalis In there, but when the applicant can
(14) demonstrate that the best course Is to go against
(1s) one of the shells, then it's my understanding that
(1e) the declding body can make such a ruling. It would
(17) be interesting to have the Town's Atfnmey comment
(I s) on that.
119) On - two comments on the letter that I've
(20) given you. The issue of sustainabifily. I've
(21) actua)ly thought that the document would be a little
(22) bit more all encompassing, and I would like to see
(23) all houses, all new houses in the hillside come
(24) under these sustainablilty Issues.
CM Now, Staff has correctly noted that this
Page20
(1) requirement would only apply to hillsides and not
12) the flatlands. Wet), I think that we should make
(3) this sustalnablllty apply to all new houses In Los
(4) Gatos. We don't have to pull ft out of this
(s) document. We could leave the issue in here and then
(s) let the otter documents within the Town catch up to
M this.
(a) IYe done a lot of work on the temporary
(e) fencing issue, both around the property and around
(10) the trees. If any of you have any questions on some
01) of my research, I'd be happy to - to address that.
(12) 1 don't have enough time to do that
(is) I do support the points Commissioners
(14) Burke - Burke's letter that's in your packet.) do
(15) support the comments from Staff when they talk about
(1e) excluding the riparian areas from the overall
(17) calculation. They should not be developed in any
(1 a) case, riparian areas, and therefore, those areas
(19) should not court.
(20) And one last comment for Commissioner
(21) Drexel. On - my understanding of the document
(22) that within the 30 feet closest to the house, you
(23) can basically plant anything you'd IIke, whether ft
124) be natives, not natives, ornamentals, because thats
(25) the area that we acknowledge be watered, and we were
ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC {d08) 920 -0222 Page 17 to Page 20
BSA PUBLIC HEARING ITEM #1 -WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 27. 2003
Page 21
(1) concerned about having the border of Just having
(z) native plants. The concern about native plants that
(s) are extremely flammable was considered by the
(4) Committee, and In fact, we used the Fire
(5) Departments list of extremely flammable plants, and
(a) those plants were removed from the native plant
(7) list. So I think your concerns have already been
(s) covered there.
(9) •CFIAIRMANDUBOIS: Any other questions for
(1 o) Dr. Weissman? CommisslonerTrevfthick.
(11) COMMISSIONER TREVITHICK Dr. Weissman, as
(12) a member of this committee, you and I did work
it s) together (inaudible) Commissioner Burke and
(14) Mlcciche's support. (Inaudible) talks aboutthings
(15) to be considered before we begin the design process.
(16) Do you think we've covered that point by these two
(1.>) Commissioners where k says the site can be
(1 a) developed maximum density or Intensity to allow
(19) (inaudible), and it goes all over that line? Some
(20) sites cannot accommodate two, three homes or
(21) accessory uses.. I'm Just wondering If you think
(221 that would forestall some of the (inaudible).
(23) DAVID WEISSMAN: Yes. My- when we went
(24) over those, I thought we addressed thffi.
(25) COMMISSIONER TREVITHICK: That was my
(1) belief, too.
(2) DAVID WEISSMAN: But 9 some people have
(s) concerns and maybe would like to see It a little
(4) broader, then I think we should take that as an
(s) indication that maybe what we perceived 8 as is not
() perceived by everybody, and 9 that's the point we
(7) wanted to make, then making some modifications would
(a) be Fine.
(s) COMMISSIONERTREVITHICK: Thankyou
(1o) (Inaudible). Thank you.
(11) CHAIRMANDUBOIS: Commissioner MiccUw.
(12) COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: I am ofthe
(is) opinion that where the word shall is used its a
(14) mandate. Its not one that we as a Commission have
(1s) the flexibility to change. That's why I made the
(1s) point earlier. Now, I think In this point maybe we
(17) could ask collectively if that statement
(1s) ( inaudible). So I - I think the word should gives
(19) us the latitude to decide whether or not even'rf
(2o) it's within the sphere of we think it's too big,
(21) even if it doesnt view from the platform, we think
(22) that maybe in this case this is a bad situation,
(23) once you put the word shall in, I think we box
(24) ourselves In.
(25) DAVID WEISSMAN: I guess -
Page 23
(1) COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: And I belleveyou
(o said differently.
(s) DAVID WEISSMAN: Weil, 1- I thought it
(4) was the opinion that the - well, I guess putting in
(5) the shall directs the applicant to start out under
(s) as much effort as you can make to try to obey the
(7) shall. If irs absolutely impossible, If you - the
(s) applicant: may come In and say well, I'd like to put
(a) R there, but I'll accept It over here. It's a
(to) shall. I guess we did want to - we wanted to force
(1 1) the applicant to make every effort to put it where
(12) the shall said N should be, or to - to sa+Jsfy
(is) that condition.
(14) But 0 8's obviously impossible, there
(16) are certain other laws (inaudible) denying property
(1e) rights and things like that, that the deciding body
(17) can then come back and say okay, you made the
(1s) efforts, we've looked at the she, we agree with
(1s) you, that Is the best place to put ft. Even though
(2q ft may be within ten feet of the property border.
(21) And ft would be nice to have our Town Attorney here
(22) to ask him that.
(23) COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: Maybe I -
(z4) DAVID WEISSMAN: Or maybe Bud can do ft.
(25) MR.LORTZ: Well-
Page 24
(1) COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: My concern was the
(2) word shall is used, and what's being s here is
(3) not necessarily so (Inaudible).
(4) MR. LORTZ Well, actually them's a
(5) provision on page 71 that talks about exceptions.
(s) Exceptions from the standards, and thats shall,
(7) contained In this document may only be granted by
(s) the Planning Commission. Probably need to say or
(a) Town Council. But essentially we are taking away
(1o) from the DRC the opportunity to consider the same
(11) iss us that the Planning Co mmiss Ion add ressed.
(12) For example, Commissioner Burke raised 20
(1s) foot grading moratorium from the property line. If
(14) we had something that actually lent Itself better to
(1s) grading within 20 feet, we would have to bring this
(16) Rem before the Planning Commission, even though DRC
(17) could be able - be able to make the finding.
(is) So - but the Issue that Commissioner
(1e) Micciche raised, where you have two shells, and they
(20) compete with each other, yes, you kind of box
(z1) ',yourself in a corner. Then the question is which
(22) one are you going to give them. The use of shells
(23) Is wise to use. Use the word shall where it-
(24) where it is clearly appropriate, otherwise the word
(237 should is an encouragement to achieve that
Page 21 to Page 24 (408) 920 -0222 ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC
BSA PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 01 - WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 27, 2003 xnvxpm
tell you, Commissioner, we spent a let of time
Page 25
directive language and mandatory, and should is
rn
Page 27
(t) , objective, and then you balance that against the
understood to be less so, that it's the desired
(i)
although I have not read about this, I've always -
()
overall objectives of the document.
l4)
(2)
I've heard that deer can jump fences that are stK
(3)
CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Commissioner Quintana,
Burke.
(3)
feet tall. I don't know If that's true or not, but
(4)
do you have a question for Dr. Weissman?
()
(4)
1 was not directed towards - towards deer.
(b)
COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: No.1 just wanted
correct. If you were In a situation where you
(s)
And we do have a little vegetable garden
(a)
to comment on - on the issue - (Inaudible).
(9)
(6)
which Is fenced, and the only fencing on our
(7)
CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: - Let's hold comments.
mule deer, which are more a vermin than anything
m
property, except for our pool, and it is eight feet.
(9)
Then we have questions for Dr. Weissman first.
it i)
tai
CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Are there any other
(e)
COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Well, okay, I'll
use property. Well, then, my advice Is going to be
(s)
questions from Dr. Weissman? Seeing none, thank you
(to)
ask him a question In a question state, then. The
I
(rm
Dr. Weissman, appreciate your input. Mr. Korb,
(i t)
document, on page 11 under standards and guidelines,
above, because I know people say you need an eight
(i i)
would you respond to the comments that have been
(12)
the statement that says 0 an applicant believes the
(16)
p2)
brought up about shells and wills, please,
rya)
standard or guidelines is not tied to their project,
Good example would be ridge line. Another
(13)
clarification.
tie)
the burden Is on the applicant to demonstrate why
(19)
(14)
MR. KORB: Well, I'm not going to talk
(js)
and to suggest or provide a creative solution that
garden, and its only a s& foot high fence.
(is)
about - I'm not going to talk about wills. I'm not
(16)
still meet the Intent, goals and objectives.
{raj
going to talk about wills because that Implies
(in
(Inaudible.)
(M
something else entirely. But I mean, first of all,
(is)
It also states that standards must be
(is)
1'II just say that In - In the best intended
(19)
complied with and substantially all the guidelines
it e)
official language of the view ordinance resolution
(20)
that are applicable comply with. be you feel that
(2o)
guidelines and what have you, people always get
(2j)
gives enough flexibility to address the concerns
(21)
tripped up over what is intended to be directive
CM
that Commissioner Mlociche has?
(2z)
language versus what is language that is Intended to
(zg
DAVID WEISSMAN: Yes, I do. Taking into
(m)
suggest of the desired result, but if not ultimately
(24)
account what you brought up on page 11 and what
(24)
directive, meaning that not ultimately mandatory.
(25)
Mr. Loriz has pointed out on page 71. And; can
(2s)
And shall Is generally understood to be
(r)
tell you, Commissioner, we spent a let of time
ti)
directive language and mandatory, and should is
rn
talking about shells and shoulds. This was - we
rA
understood to be less so, that it's the desired
(3)
were aware. of the significance of the language.
(a)
result and not necessarily the mandated result
l4)
CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Okay. Commissioner
(4)
My - I listened to what Dr. Weissman said
(a)
Burke.
(s)
and'to what Mr. Lenz said, and both essentially
jag
COMMISSIONER BURKE: Dr. Weissman, In your
()
were saying the same thing, and they're both
m
letter where you talk about temporary fencing and
m
correct. If you were In a situation where you
(a)
raising them, you know, one of the most I think Ies
(e)
write, for instance, thou shalt do something, and it
(9)
prevalent animals In the hillside are our lovely
(s).
turns out to be factually probable to do, and
lio)
mule deer, which are more a vermin than anything
(to)
Dr. Weissman I think very correctly stated, it
(11)
else, its still not a pretty sight when you got to
it i)
results in the potential den lal of the ability to
(12)
remove a dead one that's been stuck up or over a
(12)
use property. Well, then, my advice Is going to be
(13)
fence. How would - any thoughts on how, you know,
(r3)
notwithstanding the directive language, you better
(r4)
we can allow the migration of those to (inaudible)
(r4)
allow the use of the property, because othejwse
(is)
above, because I know people say you need an eight
(15)
you're going to (Inaudible). Town's going to
(is)
foot high fence to keep the deer out, but on the
(16)
(inaudible).
(17)
hillsides I've never seen one clear a six foot high
(17)
Good example would be ridge line. Another
(is)
fence successfully unless irs, you know, very
(i a)
example would be a tree situated dead set In the
(19)
shallow. I've never had one enter my vegetable
(19)
middle of the only place where you can develop a
(20)
garden, and its only a s& foot high fence.
(20)
piece of property that Is otherwise not considered
(21)
DAVID WEISSMAN: I wasn't worried about
(21)
developable.
tz2)
deer in looking Into the fence issue. As you said,
(22)
So In those situations, you try as hard as
(zs)
there - you got plenty of deer in the hillsides.
123)
possible to recognize what they are and to use
(24)
They seem to have no trouble getting around. I list
(24)
language that doesn't (Inaudible). Gives you a
(25)
the smaller animals that I was concerned about, and
(zs)
little flexibility, and lt should. It's
ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC (408) 920 -0222 Page 25 to Page 28
BSA
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
la)
fai
m
(a)
(a)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(u)
115)
(tai
(17
rye}
{1 e)
(20)
(21)
(221
(23)
(24)
W
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM #1 - WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 27, 2003
Page 29
( Inaudible). If you use shall in (inaudible), but
it can create confusion, because those of you and
your successors will understand that shall is
directive. It's what must be done, and you feel
when facing an appilcatlon where that can't be done
that it somehow Is confusing and difficult to deal
with the fad that the language says one thing and
yet the applicant can't (Inaudible), what are you
supposed to, and then when I advise you or my
successor advises you, thou shalt let him go ahead
and build it anyway, you might be pretty frustrated
by it.
COMMISSIONER BURKE: Is there a middle
ground word? Seriously, I mean, is there like a
really strong should? .
MR. KORB: Well, some people would say
that will Is. I've never really accepted that shall
and will of any different meaning, but go - when I
write, I always use shall If I wanted to be
directive. I - you know, you could use will, but 1
would really try very hard to figure out, and I
think we did - I know when I looked at the draft, I
tried to find the areas where, at least based on
what I had seen happened before, that we could get
somewhat tangled up in our own language and tried
Page 30
(1) suggesting language like shoulds and so on that
(2) offered at least a little more flexibility
(3) (inaudible) problems similar to what (inaudible) in
(4) the past.
(s) I did want to make it a very strong point,
(s) and I thlnkthat everybody understands that should
m Is very strong language. Its saying whet you warn.
(a) But it is also saying that If you can't get it, then
('» you have the flexibility of saying okay anyway and
(1o) not- it won't create that much confusion about
(1 1) what (inaudible).
(121 But I also should suggest one other thing.
113) And that Is that it all ultimately depends on your
(14) own (inaudible) to some extent in dealing with the
(1s) (inaudible), because I you say should and an
(1) applicant comes in and says well, I don't want to,
(171 or it says should, so that doesn't mean I have to,
(1a) then its very easy for you to say well, should
(1o) means that that's what we want, and you better prove
(207 to me that you can't do it before you provide me
(21) with any other options. You have that ability.
(22) MR.LORTZ: Justanttemfor
in clarification. Staff did go through the original
(24) document and looked very carefully at the word shall
(zs) and made some adjustments, We have not gone through
Page 31
(1) this document and done that -done so.
(2) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Does Staff anticipate
(3) doingthai?
(4) MR. LORTZ: If theta the Commission's
(s) directive or ultimately the Council's.
(e) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Okay. Okay. Thank you,
m Mr. Korb, appreciate that Mr. McCarthy, been
(s) patient with us oxrtthere.
(e) JOE McCARTHY: Joe McCarthy, Constitution
(ie) Avenue, representing McCarthy Land. I think you're
(11) all aware of my apprlsal of the new Hillside
(12) Ordinance. I think this is the letter that you
t13) should have gotten today. It's our ssdh letter,
(u) and I think we've been pretty consistent In
(1 5) explaining our concerns.
(16) And, you know, after writing sax letters
(17) and making suggestions, we've just been treated like
(is). we haven't made any comments. So I'm getting very
(19) nervous on a project that I 've spent multi millions
{2e) on. We 've got an HR -2, two and a hall PD approval
(21) two years ago that the game was changing. You know,
(22) we - this is a very I think beneficial project for
Rat the Town, and now under the new guidelines, which
(24) seem to be getting more stringent every time they're
(2s) reviewed, can be very detrimental for, you know, my
Page 32
(1) new seller or home buyers that come in for the DRC
(2) (Inaudible) Commission.
(3) And I think there is a uniqueness to the
(4) project that should kind of superside - supercede
(s) these new Hillside Ordinances. We removed a
(a) building there that was the worst eyesore In the
m Town's (inaudible) and, you know, now we might be
(a) putting some homes up there that will be barely
(9) visible, but under the - all the changes that were
(1o) considered now, it could be very restrictive on
(1 1) these lots. It could be devastating for the
(12) project.
(13) Especially like consider the view sheds.
(u) 1 think, you know, my house from the view shed
(1s) (inaudible) was approved. I think it anybody
(is) knows the house Is up now, and you really can't see
(17) it, that you can always take a house from different
(18) view sheds and say you can see their house. I think
(im Irs very arbitrary, and the - you know, it will
(2o) scare people off from any kind of development.
(21) But there - Ithinkthere'salotof
(22) issues in there, and I've think we 've addressed them
(23) (inaudible) In our letter, so I just want to go on
(24) record that I think our project brought a lot of
(2s) benefit to the Town and should be considered with
Page 29 to Page 32 (408) 920 -0222 ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC
BSA PUBLIC HEARING ITEM #1 - WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 27, 2003
Page 33
(1) these Hillside Ordinances.
f2) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Thank you, Mr. McCarthy.
(3) Commissioner Burke.
(a) COMMISSIONER BURL: Couple questions, if
(s) I may. I'm somewhat schizophrenic on this document,
(e) part of It I think is too punitive, part of It 1
(7) think Is wo lax, and I'm going to ask you as a
(s) developer and somebody who's moving up there and
(a) you - and I've read your concerns, and I understand
(1 a) them. It we - and I know you think this is hard to
(11). separate, but If we look at a project going forward,
(I 2j and I know your lots are large, and the houses that
(is) are going to go on them are large, if you were to
(1a) pick a number, If we had a number where we talk
(1s) about 6,000 square feet, you know, in just building,
06) if we - If you were to pick a number for that you
(17) think is a reasonable size for somebody building in
(1a) the hillsides to say if that is a - you know,
(19) what - would you have a number in mind? Would that
(2o) be 7,000? Would It be 8,0001 I'm just Vying to
(21) get a feel, rather than an open ended number, If you
(22) have.
(2a) JOE McCARTHY: Well, I mean - in fact,
(24) when we first heard slot, we thought that was a
(25) little small, but I - that's where I think the
(i) project is somewhat unique. We're actually paving
(2) Foster Road these next two days, but after that, you
(a) could easily drive up there and see ft. I don't
(a) think there's any lots like this in Los Gatos that
(5) are flat and, you know, set back and can handle
(s) large homes.
m I agree with a lot of things on this
(a) Hillside Ordinance, that if you have a steep, you
(9) know, hill that's exposed to the valley, ft's very
fm) dtfficult to justify a 7,000 square foot house. But
(11) in my mind, you know, we - I evaluated the project.
(12) 1 was evaluating the current Hillside Ordinances,
(1s) which did (inaudible) restriction, so long story
(14) short, ! would say 7,000 would be reasonable with
(15) some kind of a basement. Whether that's ever built
(16) up there, I don't know.
(17) COMMISSIONER BURKE: Another statement I
(1e) made aw ier, when we talked about the -a floating
(1a) vantage point, and I said that the architect of a
(20) project should be, as he's designing the project,
(21) determine where the significant vantage points to
(22) that house are going to be. Is that in your mind a
(23) reasonable statement as a developer, that when the
(24) architect designs this Is going to say I'm going to
(25) have a visual Impact on this area, and that's
Page 35
(p something I should be prepared to justify? I mean,
() not that he's prepared to justify, but that he
(a) should know where his visual Impacts are going to
(a) be?
(s) JOE McCARTHY: You know, as long as It's
(e) (inaudible) visual impacts with, you know, some
M are - some houses are going to have them.
18) COMMISSIONER BURKE: Right.
. (s) JOE McCARTHY: So my house (inaudible) to
(to) beirrvislble-
(11) COMMISSIONER BURKE: Yeah, I-
(12) JOE McCARTHY: - be completely screened.
(13) So if you have - I think if you can take any
(1+) vantage point, you could just - the Town's going to
(15) take the position on the house being visible, I
(16) think Ts a fair criteria.
(17) COMMISSIONER BURKE: But- yeah, I -
(15) 1—
(19) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Are there any - any
(2o) other questions for Mr. McCarthy? Thank you,
(21) Mr. McCarthy, appreciate your time.
(22) JOE MCCARTHY: Thank you.
(23) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Thank you. Mr. Davis.
(ea) RAY DAMS: Yes. I must confess f don't
(25) have a single dollar at risk on themountslnside.
(1) What I see at risk is the potential rape of the
(2) public interest and the potential rape of the
r3! mountalnside, okay. That can't be measured in
(a) doilars.
(s) First I want to bring to your attention
fs) again the huge development up on shady Lane, okay.
(?) Go up Dn Drysdale off of Shady Lane. You look
(3) across at that, its even more exposed today, okay.
(9) They've taken all the fill away and piled ft
(1 o) alongside the cut to disguise ft. Thats ail gone.
(i i) You can see the enormity of the huge notch of the
(12) ridge, a million year old ridge, okay, unbelievably
(13) ugly. It deflnes the term Los Gatos ugly. Wow.
(14) Then you fook down below In the natural
(15) gully. All the swales from the out been taken down
(16) to the gully, and they filled the gully for the
(17) second house. I mean, Its unbelievable.
(18) Then you look to the left, and you see
(1e) this tunnel through a spur of the ridge, retaining
(20) walls ten foot tall on each side facing each other,
(21) and there's no roof to the tunnel. I mean, what a
(22) rape. All done under the auspices of Staff over
(23) there. And I - )adies and gentlemen, I defy you to
(24) show me how this new standard would stop that. I
MS) defy you.
ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC (ao8) 920 0222 Page 33 to Page 36,
BSA PUBLIC HEARING ITEM #1 -V
Page 37
(t) The - ona - there's a whole set of
(2) problems here with this - still with these
(3) standards, okay. Basically I see It as a tote -
(4) all due respects, some of you who worked hard,
(s) totally amateurish, okay. And case In point Is the
(s) fad that you would still allow garages to be
(7) exempted from the FAR. But you know on uphill lots,
(s) which most of half of ali lots are aware of, many
(a) more, on a mountainside are upstoped lots. And the
(1o) garage is normally always tucked under the living
(11) quarters of the home. So if you give the garage 800
(12) square foot free in the FAR, you automatically give
(13) every upslope hillside iota thousand square foot
(14) bonus. Now, that's Bud Lortz. That's what he's all
(1s) about. And it's a crying shame that this candidate
(1s) doesn't have enough political will to stop the rape
(17) of the ridges and the mountainside. Thais
(1e) terrible.
(19) And that's, as I said before, its why I'm
(20) leaving. I can't stand d. I'm liable to throw up
(21) right over here.
(z2) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Thank you, Mr. Davis.
tea) Please don't throw up.
(e4) RAY DAVIS: I hate to be demonstrative.
M5) You know that
(1) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Thank you, Mr. Davis.
(2) RAY DAVIS: Always willing to try.
(3) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Okay. Is there
(4) anyone - I don't see anyone else from the public
(s) who would like to speak to the issue, so I'm going
(6) to close the public hearing portion of this and
(7 return this to the Commission for additional
(a) questions, comments and directions, probably the
(t) right words.
(to) I'm going to start with Commissioner
(i 1) Quintana, who's sitting down there patiently with
(12) comments and questions Qnaudible)to be made, and
(is) then I would like to go - as we go through
(14) everybody then, I would like to go through these six
(1s) Issues here that are in the Staff Report and then
(1s) open ft to any other Issues that may be on the
(17) matrix or on individual minds of Commissioners or
(1e) something that has been addressed by the public
t16) tonight that needs to be commented on for the
(2o) Council to hear.
(21) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Tell me again.what
(22) I'm supposed to be commenting on right now.
(23) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Whatever you want to
(24) comment on.
(2s) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Arty of the
fEDNESDAY, AUGUST 27, 2003 xmm(fono)
Page 39
(1) comments that have been made -
r4 CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Yeah.
(3) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: - so far? Okay.
(4) 1 would like to support the inclusion of
(s) Commissioner Burke's paragraph in the document,
(s) perhaps In the goal or above the objectives, that
M the objectives were Intended to accomplish exactly
(a) what he - he said there, but I would like to also
(a) say that I don't think the document is - is
(to) Intended to be punitive. I think what the document
(11) is intended to do is to recognize that the hillsides
(12) are fragile and environmentally sensitive, and that
(13) large houses add to those concerns because of the
(16) increased need for grading, at cetera, the Increased
(15) need for use of materials to build them, for
(t s) resources used in maintaining them, etcetera.
(17) think it all comes together that way. it's nnt
(1e) meant to be punitive.
(1e) And again, I think the document tried to
(2o) encourage people to use creative means to meet the
(21) intent of the standards and the goals and ft
(2z) objectives. We're not locking people In per as to
(as) the exact standards and guidelines that are there,
(24) but we do put the burden - k does put the burden
cm on the applicant to show that their building Is
(1) sensitive to the hillsides.
(2) The question that was raised about windows
(s) on the fire side, fire vulnerable side of houses,
(a) that is - to me, the question of fire in the
(5) hillsides is one of the Important environmental
(6) concerns for building In hillsides, and I believe
(r) everything should be done to insure that not only
(a) are the homes themselves as fire safe as they can
la) be, but they are striated and bulk to landscapes In
(1o) such a way that they don't provide an opportunity
(t t) for a house fire to become a wildfire, which cannot
(12) only affect the Hillsides, but under certain
(13) circumstances have the potential of impacting the
(rc) whole Town, not just In the change in the view shed,
(1s) but actually the vulnerability of the fire moving
(1e) into Town and destroying houses that are - are much
It 7) closertogether.
(1 a) Oh, gosh, I have a lot of questions,
it s) things, but I think a lot of them have been
(2o) addressed In things that I've written and submitted
(21) to the Commission at various times.
(eat In response to shoulds and shahs, I think
(4 that shoulds are often viewed as oh, its only -
(ta) you know, Its only there, I don't need to adhere to
(2s) it. i think the language In the shalls often in the
Page 17 to Page 40 (408) 920 -0222 ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC
BSA
PUBLIC_ HEARING ITEM #1 - WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 27, 2003 xa
T
Page 41
Page 43
(i)
fdoaument are then clarifled with a where possible,
(i)
floor area has lowered it significantly, and I just
(2)
and If it can't be, then these are the guidelines
(2)
wanted to clarify are you sure thafs what you guys
(3)
that should be followed.
13)
want to do. I understand there's a debate of
(4)
1 concur with Dr. Weissman about the
(4)
whether cellars were actually taken out.
(s)
importance of sustainability, however, I think it is
(6)
The reason I think that - when we talk
(67
a compromise that until the Town develops a policy
(6)
aboutthe size of homes that should be structures i-
(7)
Town-wide, that we don't require of houses that are
(n
there's more than just homes In the hillsides, and a
(s)
of a common size within the flatlands, that we do
(s)
classic example of this is It you look over In San
(e)
require - but that we do require a greater
(s)
Jose, there's a new, you know,.massive private high
(i a)
sustainabillty requirements of houses that are
(i o)
school that was built up_ on a ridge line. I'd hate
(n)
larger. I think that is completely In - supported
(f i)
for something like that to go in Shady Lane and have
( ±2)
by the General Plan and Is Important because
(i z)
these documents not have any control over it, 'cause
(13)
hillside houses do use more resources.
I (ia)
we say homes, so I would hope that the word homes
(14)
1 think I would suggest that we add some
(14)
would be replaced by structures. It could be that
15)
language to the - to the document that states that
(i5)
it could be a winery, it could be all sorts of
(i e)
at the time that the Town ado pts a sustalnab llity
(16)
things.
(1 7)
policy for the whole Town, that that aupercedes
(17)
I'd also wanted to point out that I think
(ia)
whichever hillside standards.
(i6)
we ought to set an absolute maximum size for
(1e)
1 support recommendation that we exclude
Its)
structures or homes up there. When I go back with
(2o)
riparian areas from calculations. That's It for
(2o)
two thoughts on that. One is we had an application
(21)
now.
(21)
earner where justification for fire fighting water
(22)
CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Thank you. Commissioner
(22)
requirements were very large because of the size of
(23)
Burke, do you have comment0
03)
the structure. I don't think we ever want to built
(24)
COMMISSIONER BURKE: Yes, I do.
(24)
any more structures that have those requirements.
(2s)
Specifically on areas of the document I have
(2si
But secondly, I think sometimes people
p) concern. One is that the document still Ilmits
(2) caretakers' units to 900 square teat, and as I've
(3) said before, someone who lives in one, I think if
(4) the Commission has decided that 900 square feet is
(5) reasonable living accommodations, that we ought to
(6) apply that more as In just caretaker units.
(7) Secondly,) want to reference the letter I
(a) wrote, and I didn't want to go over it, but I wanted
(a) to clarify a couple of things. One is on the
(io) objectives. We talked a lot about visual design,
(i i) but I think we also ought to talk about - and 1
(12) hate to use acoustic design, but the hills are
413) more - are beautiful to the eyes, but also
(14) beautiful to ths ears. And while we may not be able
(15) to do anything, I think that would be a great
(16) objective, as well as lighting, both from the goal
(17) we see from the valley floor, but those of us who
(ia) like to go up there tonight and look at Mars, the
(is) glare up there is getting worse and worse.
(20) As I stated, I think moving the viewing
(21) platform is reasonable unless - especially when the
(22) architect should have a good idea of where It's
(23) going to come from.
(24) As I stated, the concept of taking cellars
(25) and garages and other non - livable space out of the
(i) that are going to build a massive house have a lot
Cq of political Input, and I know that there was a - a
(3) neighbor up In my general direction who was adding
(4) on to his house for the third time In three years,
(s) and the other neighbors had it up in arms, but he
(a) got support because he did a lot of stuff for the
(7 arts, and his Justification was that he put a lot of
(s) paales on for the ballet or the symphony and needed
(e) a bigger home, and I don't think land use should be
(i o) based on who lives in a house. I think it should be
(i i) based more - so I think R we put an absolute
(12) maximum in here it would take that - the political
(13) aspects away from those decisions.
(14) Also, !'m concerned about taking stables
(is) and bams out of or including those In the maximum
(1e), square footage. We want to encourage rural
(17) activities in the hillsides, and 9 we start lumping
fie) a stable and a bar in the same square footage that
(1s) we include a house when they're completely different
(2W structures, they may not be connected in any way,
(21) you may see a house up on - on a hill, large house,
(22) and you may see this nice clean barn down below, you
(ea) don't connect the structures, and we shouldn't
(24) penalize somebody for wanting to have horses. But
(2s) at the same time we need some sort of standard to
ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC (406) 920 -0222 Page 41 to Page 44
BSA PUBLIC HEARING ITEM #1 - WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 27, 2003
Page 45
(i) make sure the barn doesn't become a garage for the
(2) Ferraris and the Rolls Royces and things like that
(3) So we do need something.
(4) But those are - are, you know, my main
(s) concerns, and I'm going to leave it at that so we
(a) can go on, but thank you.
(7) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Commissioner Travithick.
(a) Commissioner Micciche. I'm going to go through all
(9) six (inaudible).
It o) COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: (Inaudible.)
(11) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Save hfor late(?
(12) Commissioner Drexel.
(13) COMMISSIONER DREXEL., While legislative
(14) Intent may be clear to the drafters of this
(is) document, someone reading the document will not know
(iii) that Intern. Maybe 30 feet from the house was
(17) intended to be landscaped anyway that the owner
(is) wanted, but that Is not clear in the document. If
(ia) that is what Is Intended, that's what should be
(2o) said. So I would propose that we need to modify the
(21) document (inaudible) thats what happens.
(2z) I would also say - reiterate that I
(m) support Commissioner Micciche's point of view that
(24) in the middle of the development of a piece of
(25) property, we should not be changing New platforms
Page 46
(t) and (inaudible) people. And that this - the
(2) document is to help people, planning, development
(3) and should often will offer an element of
(4) reasonableness that In many cases shall will not
(s) offer, so I hope that the Staff will go through and
(e) look at all of those and make sure that we haven't
(7) cornered people and made this document worthless
(s) because It prohibits effective planning.
(e) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Thank you. Well, let's
(to) go through first consensus hems here. The first
(1 1) one is number one, house size regulation FAR with
(12) slope reduction were considered and have been
(13) modified to require that all proposed buildings on a
(14) she to fit within the maximum FAR. Example,
(is) houses, garage and any other accessory buildings,
(1a) combined floor area shall not exceed the maximum
(t7) FAR. Refer to pages 29 through 31, Exhibit C.
it el Let's do some consensus on support this or
(1e) not support this or comments on this for the Council
(20) to here. Starting with Commissioner Quintana.
(21) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: (Inaudible) always
(22) start with me. First of all, I - actually this
(23) goes into several issues here. I think it is
(24) reasonable to regulate the house size - or,
(257 actually, I don't think housers)ze is a good - good
Page 47
(1) tern )f we're Considering all structures. The
(z) development size under a single FAR, because all of
(s) these factors - excuse me - all of these factors
(a) contribute to the Intensity of a house.
(a) And I do have a couple of suggestions,
(a) though. I think that the intent here is to keep the
(n intensity and the apparent mass of houses as small
(a) as possible. Therefore, I would suggestthat
(a) detached garages often accomplish that, and I - and
(to) should be encouraged, therefore, when - when it
(11) doesn't Involve more grading, I would therefore like
(12) to give some kind of break to houses that Have
(13) detached garage - garages, such as maybe 400 square
it 4) feet or 600 square feet, but 800 or 1,000 square
(ts) feet is excessive In my mind.
(1s) The fact that this is - that's what has
(17) been approved in the past does not necessarily
(1 a) reflect that that is appropriate, Wej List that's
(19) what's been approved sometimes, because in my mind,
(207 at least on things that I voted for, under the
(21) current regulations It's hard to say no because
(4 there were absolutely no FAR or any restrictions In
(z3) size at all.
(24) I'm rambling a little bill, and I'm sorry.
(25) But also I'd like to point out that k was not the
(1) intent of the Architectural Standards Committee to
(2) exclude cellars from exemptions -
(s) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Thats hem number two
(4) (inaudible).
(a) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Theis Item number
(a) two, but it ties into this. Okay.
(7) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Okay. Commissioner
(a) Burke. Are you through Commissioner Quintana?
(s) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: I think so.
(10) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: I didn't mean to cut you
(i t) off. Commissioner Burke.
(12) COMMISSIONERBURKE; Ithoughtthe
(t3) document ask was odglnallywritten with allowing
(14) the garage, and I don't know d 600 square feeVs an
(is) appropriate number or 600 to be excluded from the
(1e) FAR, as well as reasonable size accessory buildings
(t7) was the proper way to do h. So that's my belief.
(1s) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: CommissioneiTrevlthick.
(tai COMMISSIONERTREVITHICK: Isupportthe
(zo) original way of doing it as well. (Inaudible) to
C,!t) improve the situation (inaudible).
(22) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Commissioner Micciche.
(2m COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: I suppoitthe
(24) current document
(za) MR. LORTZ: Commissioner Micciche, just so
Page 45 to Page 48 (ace) 920 -0222 ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC
BS PUBLIC HEARING ITEM #1 - WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 27, 2003 xt
Page 49
Page 51
(1)
.the Council understands, you support the original
(p
they run with the permit.
(z)
method that was used, not the one that's in the
t2)
COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: Oh, that's right.
(3)
draft that's before you.
(3)
MR. LORTZ: But we could -
14)
COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: Yeah, I'm - I'm
(4)
COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: What otherway
(s)
quoting the Staff statement, supporting from the
(s)
could we (inaudible)?
(6)
method of calculating FAR.
(s)
MR. LORTZ A deed restriction. Now, that
(7)
MR. LORTZ: Thank you.
(7)
doesn't also mean that the deed restriction couldn't
is)
COMMISSIONER DREXEL I also support the
(a)
be lifted at some point In the future, but the Town,
(s)
current method of calculating FAR.
(9)
meahing the Town Council, ultimately would have to
(10)
CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Okay. I'm going to
(10)
lift that.
(11)
support whars proposed with the exception of the
(11)
COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: So as long as that
(12)
garages. 1 think that there is a reasonable -
(12)
can be done now, I agree that we should not Include
(1s)
reason to have an exception there, but I'm going in
(t3)
bams and stables In the FAR calculation
IF 41
vote to support what's proposed.
(14)
(inaudible).
(15)
Item number two. No exclusions to floor
(15)
COMMISSIONER TREVITHICK: i take the same
(1 s)
area are allowed. The entire section was deleted.
(16)
view on that as well, not to take the cellars out.
(17)
See page 31. I'll start with that one. I don't
(17)
CHAIRMAN DUSOIS: Not take the cellars
(1s)
think that was an Intention to remove cellars from
(18)
out?
(1e)
the - from the policy. The other hems, such as
09)
MR. LORTZ: The cellars would -would not
(2o)
barns and stables, I think Commissioner Burke hit on
r, 0)
be counted into floor area.
(21)
the problem that we were definitely concerned about,
(21)
COMMISSIONER TREVITHICK: Yeah, excuse me,
(22)
the other changed uses of what barns and stables
(22)
MR. LORTZ: Right
(23)
were going to be converted into because
ra)
COMMISSIONER TREVITHICK: Thank you very
(24)
they couldn't get the secondary structure they
(24)
much.
(25)
wanted, so this was designed to include It all in
(25)
MR. LORTZ: Yeah.
Page 50
(1) the FAR. You can do whatever you want If its
(2) included in the FAR, but I don't believe my - my
(s) remembering of this, I don't believe that cellars
(4) were excluded, period. Commissioner Drexel.
(5) COMMISSIONER DREXEL - I think that barns
(s) and stables are part of rural life and should be If
(7) you're going to live In the hillsides. That's one
(a) of the reasons wiry you would want to live there, so
(e) 1 cannot Imagine having to give up part of my - my
(1o) house in order to have a decent place to let my
(1 1) horse live. So I cannot support that.
IF 2) 1 th ink that the- the section should be
(1) reinstated that allows that exemption as well as
(14) garages. And I think 8 wt we can - we ran manage
(15) overdevelopment of a lot in ways other than this
(16) Just through constraints maps, and I think that this
(17) Is - gets punitive, boxes us in and does not give
(18) us better designed houses in the hillside.
176) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Commissioner Micciche.
t2o) COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: Just one question.
(21) The - f someone is proposing to build a barn or a
(2z) stable, can we put restrictions that they can't use
(23) (inaudible) in the conditions?
(24) MR. LORTZ: I was going to mention
(25) something. The conditions of approval, remember
(1) COMMISSIONER BURKE: Oh, I - I obvlousty
M bel[eve that cellars should not be counted in the
(3) floor area I've been pushing cellars for five, slot
(4) years.
(s, Stables, by their open des!gn, if I
(a) understand what a stable is, I think you could - we
(7) could safety delineate a stable from a garage, so I
(a) definitely don't think that those should be included
(o) in the floor area.
IF o) Barns, like I said, this is where I'm
(11) schizophrenic. Our family has a barn, and what do
(12) we keep In It? Well, we keep a boat, we keep a
(13) motorhome. I don't - not a motorhome, a boat, but
(14) that was what It was built for, and a tractor and a
(1s) couple of other things. So I think that we need to
(16) come up with guidelines for what a barn is, and that
(17) could be what its surface is made of and its walls
(1a) and, you know, doors and things like that.
(1 a) For now, I think they should be excluded
(20) just with the Idea being is they're a bam, not a
(21) garage, but I definitely think we ought to come up
(22) with barn guidelines. And i know the - so that the
(za) Architectural Standards people will have fun with
124) that, but I think we ought to define what a barn Ls,
w but exclude it.
ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC (406) 920-0222 Page 49 to Page 52
BSA PUBLIC HEARING ITEM #1 -1f
Page 53
(i> CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Commlasloner QuInarm
(zi COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Okay. Since
(3) Commissioner Burke is familiar with the hillsides,
(a) what Is a stable as opposed to a barn?
(s) COMMISSIONER BURKE: Well, as [stated, I
(6 thought I knew what astable was. Tome a stable is
(7) a semi open structure with a non - Impervious floor,
(a) either a gravel or something else. It may have
(9) walls. it may actually have windows, but It's not
(lo) necessarily weather tight other than the roof.
(i i) That's what 1 would consider a stable, based on
(+2) stables I have seen. I'm sure there are very fancy
(i3) stables that are air- condhioned and have carpet,
(14) but I've never seen one.
its) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Sod's not an
(ie) enclosed structure, it's - and irs a partially
(t7) covered structure.
(ie) COMMISSIONER BURKE: There may be enclosed
(19) areas like a tack room, but to me, the main thing
(2o) that you're gotng at there Is We typically an
(21) Impervious - non - Impervious floor, and it is -
(22) while there may be walls and a door, its not what
(p) we would consider weatherproof.
(24) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Okay. Question
W number one, cellars. I don't believe the document
(i) has excluded the exclusion of cellars. The glossary
m states that under floor area gross, that the
(a) following are excluded, Number C, cellars. I think
(4) that maybe we need some clarification language in
(57 the document. I don't think we need to reinstate
(e) that whole section. I think It can be handled as a
(n footnote to table two, and in the handout that I
(a) have passed out to Commissioners, and I apologize
(9) for not getting It In earlier, I have suggested some
(io) language that handles that question.
(i i) The concern for me about barns has been
(12) expressed by other people abo Lit how they will
(is) actually be used. I think that there needs to be a
(is) definite agricultural connection, and I think
(is) guidelines for them could be appropriate if we're
(ie) going - if we're not going to exclude them. I
(171 think - I won't ao into what I think the guldelines
(1 s) should be.
Iis) Stables I'm concerned about, because on
(2a) small parcels horses that are kept In small areas
(21) that cannot be rotated do cause problems with
(z4 erosion and MPDS concerns. So I, again, If we're
A going to exclude them, 1 think there need to be
(24) guidelines on those. In particular, they need to be
(25) guidelines regarding the size of the lot, the slope
'EDNESDAY, AUGUST 27, 2003 _ x..%
Page 55
(i) of the lend, et cetera.
('q 1 think those were the issues that were
(3) covered hers.
(a) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Okay. Inclusion of
(s) sustainable design features as required for all
(s) houses that exceed 3,500 square feet. Commissioner
m Drexel.
(a) COMMISSIONER DREXEL: As suggested by
(9) Staff, I think we should forward the concept of
Ii9) establishing Town -wide sustalnability, standards to
(i i) Council for its consideration. I think we should
(i2) delete standard two under design sustainabilhy on
li3) page 35. Something more concrete is necessary for
(iq the appllcat)on of standard, and standard one covers
(is) the issue.
(ie) COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: I believe we
(17) should have sustaMablldy for all homes. I'm not
(ia) sure that we need (inaudible). And I think that's
(ie) going to do that through Town Council. So I would
(2o) exclude here until we get our act together for the
(21) whole Town.
(zz) COMMISSIONER TREVITHICK: I would view as
(2� well.
(24) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Commissioner Burke.
(25) COMMISSIONER BURKE: While I think that Is
(1) a reasonable goal, I think it's easier to achieve
(2) things like that In the larger new construction
(3) that's going to go in the hillsides than It will be
(a) done here. So I would like to leave it in, but with
(5) the thought being we should adopt the polio
(s) Town -wide.
(n CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Commissioner Quintana.
(6) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: I've already spoke
M to this, but I'll Just read what I passed out.
(to) While sustalnabllly Is an Important Issue
(ii) throughout the Town, it is even more important In
(12) the hillside areas where homes tend to be larger,
(i3) therefore, consuming greater amounts of resources,
(in) materials, energy, water, to be bulk and to
(is) maintain them and generally have a greater impact on
(ie) trees and the existing land forms.
(17) Therefore, I think we should keep the
fie) language as recommended by the Architectural
(i9) Standards Committee and add language that encourages
pa) the Town to adopt Town -wide policies and that both
W) policies would then supersede the ones in the
(22) hillside If there was any conflict between them.
(23) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Thank you. I'm going to
(24) ditto Commissioner Quintana's remarks. I believe
(25) that that's exactly what the intern was, was to
Page 53 to Page 56 (408) 920 -0222 ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC
BSA
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(s)
(n
l�
(10)
(11)
[12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(15)
f1n
(1�
flee
(20)
IV)
(22)
(23)
(24)
(25)
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM #1 - WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 27, 2003
Page 57
Impact the large proposed structures that are going
in the hillside, the Impact that they do have on the
environment, but I think this Commission concurs
that sustalnabllity should be spread across the
Town, I believe, not just limited here. And I think
that's - that's part of the problem that needs to
be addressed.I think Dr. Weissman has brought that
up correctly.
Caretaker units criteria was re- worked.
Commissioner M!cciche.
COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: (Inaudible.)
CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Okay. N! jump over to
Commissioner Mike and let him say his thing, and
then we'll go around.
BURKE: I don't see that the
criteria was re- worked. I mean, I read that report,
and said ch, great, then I see that it's - if I go
to page 53, It's still limiting Itto 900 square
feet, and its still saying they cannot be rented,
and I think in - you know, first of all, I'll take
the rented thing first.
The caretakers' units that I know
typically go out they're rented, you know, cheaply,
but you're also - you're paying - you know, for
tax reasons you're renting 1, and you're paying the
(1) people. So say you can't rent it to the caretaker,
(2) that's - you know, I don't know M legally that
(3) realty flies the way things truly happen, because
(4) part of their compensation Is the rent and vice
(5) versa, So that's one of the concerns I have.
(s) And secondly, the 900 square feet, that's
m relatively small. If I step away from it
(a) personally, and I look at - there's a caretaker's
(9) unit at the - why am I drawing - Switzer's
(1o) property, and I - they have a world -class stable,
;11) and equestrian training facility. If they have the
(12) chance to bring in a top notch trainer who's going
(1a) to live in that caretakers unit, but maybe has two
(14) kids, and they need to add on a room, you're going
(1s) to say well, sorry, you can't do that. Well, they
116) may lose, you know, atop notch trainer at their
(17) facility because of that So 1 think that having an
(1e) artificially low number there Is a mistake, and I
(19) would like to see that number lifted.
(20) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: I'll jump back to
(21) CommisslonerMicciche.
(22) COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: I've got a
(23) question, but maybe I (inaudible) how is the second
(24) floating unit (Inaudible) play into this careMkeR
(25) MR. LORTZ: Well, it doesn't, because the
Page 59
(1) second unit ordinance only applies to the single
l4 family zone properties. So in an HR zone you
(s) couldn't have a second unit.
(4) COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: Ijustwantedto
(5) make sure. I agree, my senilments are with
(s) Commissioner Burke on this (inaudible) same
M statements.
(a) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Okay. Commissioner
(e) Trevithick.
(10) COMMISSIONER TREVITHICK: I agree with R
(11) CHAIRMANDUBOIS: Commissioner Quintana.
(12) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Seems to be a
(13) pattern. I disagree. Okay. 1 do agree with the
(14) not to be rented, because it is sort of
(1s) contradictory to tax laws. You have to count it as
(16) if it were rented.
(1n I think the900 square feet was
pa) specifically discussed at the Architecture!
(1a) Standards Committee, and that figure was picked
(2o) because, in essence, a caretaker's unit Is sort of a
(21) secondary unit by another name, and we limit the
(22) size of secondary units to 900 square feet.
(m) The example that Commissioner Burke used
(24) for the stable, that's a commercial enterprise, it's
(25) not just a private home with a caretaker's unit. I
Page 60
(1) also had problems with the language that deemed
t4 necessary or desirable, because I think that
(a) language could be used anywhere in Town for a
(4) caretaker's unit. I would deem it desirable to have
(5) somebody to take rare of my property, 'cause it's an
(e) old one and takes constant, constant, constant work.
in So I think this intent of caretaker's
(a) units - get to the point - was for agricultural
(s) purposes, and I think I would prefer to see It stay
(10) that way.
(11) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Okay. I'm going to echo
(12) a lot of those concerns. I also agree that there
(13) shouldn't be a restriction on the rent and the size.
(14) I'm not having a problem with those. Commissioner
115) Drexel.
(1e7 COMMISSIONER DREXEL I'm notsure I
pn understood what you just said. You're agreeing
Ite) with-
1197 CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Yes.
2o) COMMISSIONER DREXEL: - Commissioner
z1) Quintana?
24 CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: (Inaudible.)
23) COMMISSIONER DREXEL• All right. Well, l
24) think that Commissioner Burke has some good points,
2s) and I agree with him. think perhaps some upper
ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC (aoB) 9240222 Page 57 to Page 60
BSA PUBLIC HEARING ITEM #1 - %
Page fit
(1) end restriction on size might be helpful, but
12) perhaps 900 square feet is too low. So we can talk
(3) about that (inaudible),
(4) COMMISSIONERBURKE: CommissionerQuintana
(6) made a comment about secondary units. l think If
(e) any of you have ever seen my house, unless I told
M you it was a - well, technically - actually,
(a) technically I guess It's a nonconforming caretaker's
(s) unit because It was built when it was in the County
(1n) as my grandmother's house on the family property.
(11) You would have no due that it was not on a separate
(12) lot, separate house, not visible from the same
(13) vantage points as the other house on the property.
(14) You'd assume these were two different lots,
(15) So when you - as this document does all
(1 a) over, It tries to come up with a common way of
(17) addressing all situations In the hillsides. It's
(1a) very dffficuft to do. So I look at it as that
(1e) option or the other option Is a subdivision, which I
(2o) certainly don't want to do. But at some point, you
(21) know, that's - you would say this isn't a secondary
(22) unit. it's a separate house that's farther away
(m) from the nearest house than 95 percent of the other
(24) houses in Los Gatos. So its just how you look at
(2s) things,
(1) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Okay. Commissioner
M Drexel.
(3) COMMISSIONER DREXEL: So what we're really
(4) saying is that we have other aspects of the hillside
(5) plan,that would limit the size of this house anyway,
(a) and that we should just be flexible and use those
(7) rather than having a definitive square footage
Is) increase. I agree with that.
(9) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Commissioner Quintana.
(10) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Would you repeat
(1 1) the last part of your statement, Jeanne. I
(12) didn't- I'm not sure I understood.
(13) COMMISSIONER DREXEL: I agree with that.
(14) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: No. The statemeni
its) before I agree with that
(16) COMMISSIONER DREXEL' Okay. Well, that
(17) was the part I remembered. All right. What I'm
(1a) saying Is that we have all sorts of tools to - to
(1e) restrict the size of structures In the hllWds, all
(2o) sorts of tools available to us. We do not have to
(21) be as definitive perhaps as we have been, and that's
(2z) basically what I'm saying.
(za) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Okay. And I would
(24) say that caretaker's unit is supposed to be
(2s) subordinate to the main unit as -; wont mention
JEDNESDAY, AUGUST 27, 2003 XW
Page 63
(1) secondary units again, and that the guidelines or
(2) this document provides the ability of an individual
K9 applicant to come and argue their case if they think
j (4) they should be relieved of any specific standard
(s) based on that particular property.
(e) So I think - I think leaving it the way
C7) 4 is reinforces what the original Intend of the
(a) caretakers' unds were, but allows for exceptions
(a) when there are substantial reasons for them.
(10) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Any other comments?
(11) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: That's the 900
(12) square feat, but -
(13) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Any other comments on
(14) thls7
(15) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: No.
(16) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Thank you very much.
(17) Okay. Maximum house size that can be approved by
(16) the ORC was reduced from 5,000 to 4,000 square feet,
(1e) homes must be one story. I'm sorry?
(2o) MR. LORTZ: Just for clarification, I
(21) think Items five and sb( are essentially -
(22) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: The same.
p3) MR. LORTZ - tied together.
(24) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Yeah, they are. We'll
(25) just tie them together. Let's tie them together.
(1) Let's save some time. Ability to approve the home
(2) of 5,000 square feet or less on a site that Is not
(3) visible from the valley floorwas eliminated. Homes
(41 on sites that are not visible could potentially be
(s) two stories. Seepage 70. Commissioner Travkh!ck.
(a) COMMISSIONER TREVITHICK: On the committee
M I had thought the Idea of 5,000, to 4,000 was a good
(a) idea, but in light of the fact we might be changing
(9) some of the FARs and otllerthings as well, it could
(1o) be a complex burden, so I'm going back to the
(11) original 5,0001n the first (Inaudible). And 1
(1e) don't see the - I don't see a problem there with
(13) leaving as it was.
(u) A VOICE: Six.
(15) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: I'm sorry, what was your
(is) questl
(17) MR. LORTZ: I think Commissioner
(1s) Trevhhick-
(19) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Lacs clarify that,
(2o) Commissioner Trevithick, what you just said.
(21) COMMISSIONER TREVITHICK: I'd like to see
(22) it as the six figure rather than dropping it down to
(m) the -
(24) COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: (Inaudible.)
(25) COMMISSIONERTREVITHICK: Yes,that's
Page 61 tc Page 64 (408) 920.0222 ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC
BSA PUBLIC HEARING ITEM #1 - WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 27, 2003 XMAX(rrn -,
Page 65
(1) . (Inaudible).
(2) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Okay, thank you. Thank
(s) you for helping him. Commissioner Burke.
(4) COMMISSIONER BURKE: Nottobeaskinga
(s) circular question, but Is the four or 5,000 square
(s) feet Inclusive of a garage or exclusive of a garage?
(7) 'Cause to me that makes a big difference. Are we
(a) talking about a 45 - 800 square foot home or a
(9) 5,800 square foot home, or do we know?
(10) MR. LORTZ: Well, the way ft was in the
(1 1) original document was 5,800 square feet, including
(12) the garage. So it's a 5,000 square foot home with
(13) an 600 square foot garage. And this Is real
(14) important I think for the Council to understand
(15) your concern, what would be your concern about the
(16) DRC's ability to take action on a project of this
(17) nature as opposed to forcing It to come to the
(1a) Planning Commission. I think the Council was -
(19) would be real Interested In all the Commissioners'
(20) comments about what it is that the DRC might do that
(21) is contrary to what the Planning Commission might be
(22) doing if indeed a project is compliant with these
(23) standards.
(24) COMMISSIONER BURKE: My only concem (s
(25) noticing. Up to this point, unless this is -.I'm
(1) wrong, it it's going to the DRC, the abutting
(2) property owners get notified, If Its going as a
(s) public hearing, you have the 500 foot radius. So
(4) how is that affected by this?
(5) MR. LORTZ: Well, that's a good comment,
(e) and I think thats an appropriate comment. So If
(n your concern is more of the one of notice, that is
(e) one that can be addressed.
A COMMISSIONER BURKE: Okay. In that case,
h0) 1 would support this going to approval through the
(1 1) DRC If there was the standard notification, because
O2) In the hillsides - well, you got two - several
(13) things going on. One Is you have bigger lots, which
(14) in theory makes the abutting property owners a
(15) larger radius, but you also typically have more
(16) visibility.
(17) MR. LORTZ And in response to a question
(18) that you didn't ask, but I'll ask R for you; that
(19) Is, there's been some discussion about going beyond
(20) the 500 foot radius, because we may be noticing the
(21) abutters because of the size of the parcels If you
(22) use a 500 foot radius. So we have taken it upon
(23) ourselves to go beyond that in the hillside areas
(4) and make sure that we're trying to notice what we
(25) feel as being a reasonable number of people beyond
Page 67
(1) 500 feet.
(2) COMMISSIONER BURKE: Not to get Into a
(3) debate on this, but I appeared as a member of the
(4) citizens about tan years ago in front of this
(5) committee - different committee then, but this
(a) Commission, and asked that the law be rewritten
(n because of this very fact Is you might have a 500
(e) foot radius that encumbered ten property owners, and
(9) then our attorney Larry - whoever the attorney was
Ii of before Mr. Korb, the old Town Attorney, wrote the
(11) rules, and it was supposed to be in effect now that
f12) It would be the same number of people the it would
(13) be. in a typical downtown zone, would be - of
(14) property owners would be noticed.
(15) MR. LORTZ: I remember that conversation,
(16) 'cause I've been here a long time, and we had some
(1i) difficulty with that because, you know, what's a
(1e) typical downtown lot So what we've done, absent
(1s) any change of rules or anything else, is just taken
(20) it upon ourselves to do that -
(21) COMMISSIONER BURKE: Okay.
(22) MR. LORTZ: - because we feel that its a
(23) reasonable approach to noticing.
(24) COMMISSIONER BURKE: Yeah.
(z,7 MR. LORTZ: And sc we look at the
Page 68
(1) properties in the proximity of the subject
(2) property -
(a) COMMISSIONER BURKE: Uh -huh.
(4) MR. LORTZ: - and make sure that
(s) properties all around that area are noticed. So I
(a) just wanted to let you know that No changes in the
(7) rules have occurred, but we do oversubscribe on
(a) noticing for hillside development
(9) COMMISSIONER BURKE: I thought the policy
(10) was adopted in about 1997, as far as the GPS system
(1 1) went in. At least - well, 191 find it.
(12) MR. LORTZ: But we are doing h.
(13) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Commissioner Quintana.
(14) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: On item number
(i s) four, I -
(1s) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Four. Slx.
(17) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Excuse me. Five.
(18) Item five.
(19) CHAIRMAN OUBOIS: Its six.
(20) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Item sx,
(21) regarding the single story homes. I don't thin k the
(22) Issue should be whether it's single story or two
(23) story. I think the document provides enough
(24) guidance there. You can have a one story home
(25) that going to be more visible than a two story
ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC (408) 920 -0222 Page 65 to Page 68
BSA
11)
t-0
(4)
(a)
(6)
(n
(s)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
11�
ltsj
(17)
(1 e)
(1s)
J20)
(21)
(22)
(z3)
(24)
(2a)
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM #1 - WEDNESDAY. AUGUST 27, 2003
Page 69
home, so I don't think- I think it should not be
just for one story homes.
1 would tend to agree with Commissioner
Burke that if there's noticing done, that the 5,000
square feet would be an - okay. I would add to
that the recommendation that If it Isn't being
decided by DRC, it still goes to DRC, but ultimately
comes to the Commission, that the surrounding
homeowners also be noticed of the DRC meeting so
that there can be Input early In the process rather
than wRiting for it to come to the Commission and
then have a lot of reaction from the neighbors. I
think that would aid the whole process.
And - and I think that the issue of
visibility needs to be just- more than just from
the valley floor.
CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Okay. I think tCs-
its dear from comments that have been made by
several Commissioners that I agree with that there's
been a concern of the public's ability - to hear
public's ability to Input on a project just through
the DRC, and I think noticing Is the big Issue, and
Commissioner Burke really brought to that well. i
personalty don't care whether it's four or 5,000
square feet what we hear - what we hear. It
Page 70
(i) doesn't matter to me. Sc we go back to the other.
(2) Okay. Now - yeah, thats right, 1
(a) didn't - Idon'twant to forget you (inaudible). 1
(4) did.
(r) COMMISSIONER DREXEL: A!1 rlght. I think
(a) we should allow the DRC to approve houses up to
In 5,000 square feet as recommended by Staff. DRC
(e) will be applying these same guldelines. If a 5,000
(e) square foot house is inappropriate because of the
po) constraints on the site, it will be denied at DRC
(1 1) level and referred to us anyway. However, making
(12) the limit 5,000 square feet will encourage
it 3) applicants to design to that size on lots without
(14) constraints. We have not required anyone to build a
(15) 4,000 square foot home on a site without building
(16) constraints, so it seems excessive to do that.
(17) COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: I'm in favor of
(is) the standards that have been established in the
(1s) previous HSDS (inaudible) with the exception that
(zo) (Inaudible).
(21) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Okay. Commissioner
la) Quintana, you look like you're jumping up and down
(23) and have something.
(24) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: I have a question
(25) of Staff regarding DRC. IYe heard R said many
Page 71
(1) times that DRC is - does not do site review, they
(2) just conf{nn, that its a technical committee, and
(a) therefore, I'm having a little bit of trouble with
(4) the fact that DRC Is going to be approving homes up
(s) to 5,000 square feet and making judgments about
(6) guidelines and standards, which I think they should
(7) be, but its always been my understanding to Its
(a) a technical committee that doesn't make those kinds
(s) of Interpretations.
(to) MR. LORTZ Well, I think what has
(1 i) happened here at the Town is there's been some
(12) evolution. The - the code that talks about the
(13) Development Review Committee does not state anything
it 4) about it just being a technical committee. I think
(15) Its purpose In a project that's coming before the
(16) Planning Commission is a technical review body, but
(17) for the purposes of deciding a project, it Is the
(1s) hearing body. It is the deciding body. So it plays
it e) a multitude of roles, and so maybe what you've
(zo) heard, and we need to maybe be clear about this at
(21) DRC, Is that Its role shifts, depends - depending
r4 on where the project Is ultimatey being decided.
(23) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: fan I ask another
(24) question, then? Would it be possible when a project
Ms) does come to the Planning Commission, that while the
(1) DRC Isn't making the decision, that the DRC does
(2) give the Commission some guidance so-to-speak on how
(3) they view the project meeting the standards and
(4) guidelines?
(s) MR. LORTZ: Certainly we can do that, and
(s) perhaps we might wary[ to do a better job than we're
m doing. We try to do that, but thats something we
(s) can probably discuss in October in terms of a study
(9) session.
(10) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Okay.
(11) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Okay. Now I want to go
(12) into other matru issues or issues that the
(1s) Commission wishes to bring up, and I'm going to
p4) startthistime.
(15) 1 wish to bring some Reins to the
(is) attention that have been brought to our attention by
(17) Dr. Weissman. Number one, there is reference to
(1s) potentially extending grading moratoriums to
(1s) April 15th to April 1. I'm not sure I'm - agree
(2o) with that or not, but I think it - it may be
(21) something that ought to be looked at at Staff that
(22) we should (inaudible) a fire year period of whet our
(23) rainfall has been or something like that to
(z4) determine whetherthis is realistic to look at those
W) dates, because I think we are seeing some more
Page 69 to Page 72 (409) 920.0222 ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC
BSA PUBLIC HEARING ITEM #1 - WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 27, 2003
Page 73
(i) stranger weather coming later in the year, and
m perhaps we ought to be looking at it just from that,
(s) Just for comment
(4) The other part of it Is there's quite a
(s bit of research has been done here regarding the use
(a) of temporary construction fences during
m construction, and the movement of small animals.
(a) What has been happening Is these fences have been
(9) placed In the ground, the pole's been placed in the
(io) ground. What he's suggesting is that not occur,
(11) that there - use the temporary construction fence
(12) is set up enough at (east eight Inches or something
(13) above the ground to allow the movement of small
(14) animals, and that clearly needs to be I think better
(16) defined In these documents, and I think these
(16) comments are reasonable and should be looked at by
(17) all those concerned.
(1s) Those are my Initial comments. I'll move
(19) on to Commissioner Drexel for anything on the matrix
(20) that you wish to -
(21) COMMISSIONER DREXEL: Actually 1 don't -
t22) I don't have anything specifically theta haven't
(23) already addressed -
R4) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Okay.
PA COMMISSIONER DREXEL - and I don't - I
(1) think that most of the Issues- or many of the
(2) Issues in here have already been addressed in the
(3) new version of this document, so -
(4) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Okay.
(s) COMMISSIONER DREXEL - ( Inaudible) thank
(s) you.
(7) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Commissioner Miociche.
(e) COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: I Ilke the Issue
(s) of the building allowing 18 feet in height for a
(10) building on a ridge (Inaudible) be reviewed again to
(1 1) see if there's any way that we cannot Just give that
(12) away. In other words, force the situation where
(13) they get underneath it somehow as much as possible.
(14) MR. LORTZ: So lower the house to the
(is) maximum extent possible.
(16) COMMISSIONERMICCICHE: Lowerit,yes.
(17) Even If It requires grading.
(18) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Okay.
(1e) MR. LORTZ Just so that we're clear -
(20) COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: Yeah,
(21) MR. LORTZ: -the intent there being Is
(2z) to lower that -
(23) COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: The intent is that
(24) 1 think we can give away 18 feet over the ridge line
(25) by allowing (inaudible). We're saying If you
Page 75
(1) believe that the least restrictive development area
C4 is at the top of the ridge, it allows 18 feet high.
(m (Inaudible.)
(4) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Okay.
(s) COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: i'msayingthat
(6) that may be because there's too much grading that
M would have to take place, and therefore, restricted
(a) the HCDA by saying there's no grading. You can't
(s) use the grading. I'm saying rs4Dok at the grading
(1 o) and see If you can lower it
(11) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Okay. Commissioner
(12) Quintana -
(13) COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: Is that clear?
(1a) MR. LORTZ: So even if there's more
(1s) grading involved, if that lowers the height of the
(1e) home, that would be a-
(17) - COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: Yeah. The
(1s) priority is not to be over the ridge line rather
(19). than grading, and we should accommodate that is what
120) I'm saying.
(21) MR. LORTZ: So your primary objectve Is
(M lower dud -
(23) COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: Lowerthe-
(24 right. I don't want (Inaudible).
(2s) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Question of Staff,
Page 76
(1) 'Cause I don't quite remember this, but if my memory
(2) doesn't deceive me, the document does allow that you
(a) can place a structure outside the HCDA if that's
(4) more advantageous when Owl structure Is on the
(s ridge line.
(6) MR. LORTZ. Well, I believe that's the
M case, but I think Mr. Micciche is talking about a
(a) little bit different thing Is where, you know, maybe
(e) the better place Is on the ridge line, but I think
(to) what Mr. Micciche is saying Is that we should allow
(11) addlt)onal grading to occur to lower that house in
(12) that location H it achieves a lower roof line. So
(1s) it may work against the objective of minimizing
14) grading.
(15) You've got two objectives. Minimize
(1 a) grading, lower the house as much as possible. What
(17) Mr. Miociche is saying Is forget the grading issue,
(1e) lower the house.
(19) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Okay. I think
(2q that really needs to be looked at on a case -by -case
(21) basis rather than a-
(22) COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: (Inaudible.)
(23) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Isthattheway
t24) Staff would interpret it? If a project came in, and
W it appears that it would be better to place the
ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC (408) 920.0222 Page 73 to Page 76
C HEARING ITEM #1 - WEDNESDAY. AUGUST 27, 2003
Page 77
(1) house there or on the ridge line, but allowing
r4 additional grading would even lower h further,
(a) that's a maximum, that's not - you can't go lower,
la) would -
(s) MR. LORTZ: I think R could be clarified
(6) to achieve both your objectives.
(n COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Okay.
.(a) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Commissioner Burke.
p) , COMMISSIONER BURKE: I'm wondering R
(1 o) there - R there was a sentence or something to the
(1 1) effect that might take Into - or wording for
(12) Mr. Micciche's Issue and other similar issues, you
(1a) know, such that when the goals, guidelines and
(14) standards of this document appearto be In conflict
(1s) for a given project, the deciding body can, you
(16) know - well, the deciding body would be given
(17) leeway to determine which ones took pdodty or
(1s) precedent, 'cause we may come Into very much case of
(1e) let's go back to the project up on Shady Lane.
(20) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: That's a good one.
(21) COMMISSIONER BURKE: Ridge Ilneversus
(22) trees versus grading. We said a lot of shells In
(23) this thing, and I think It would be very nice to
(24) have a paragraph that says hey, you know, R Its a
(2s) ridge line Issue versus grading versus tress, the
(1) deciding body is going to have to make -you know, .
(2) can and should make the call of which takes
(a) preoedent on a project by project and lot by lot
(s) basis.
(s) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: That makes sense. I
(a) would concur with that
(7) COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: (inaudible.)
(e) CHAIRMANDUBOIS: Commissioner Quintana.
(s) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: I would agreewlth
(1o) that also, as long as that isn't used as an excuse
(1 1) to not make the house smeller and fit the
(12) constraints of the lot
(13) CHAIRMANDUBOIS: Say that again, please.
(14) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Okay.
(167 CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: You completely lost me
(1s) on that one.
(17) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Okay. See R I
(1s) can say that better. In other words, a plan may
(1s) come In for a 5,000 square foot house on a lot that
(20) allows a 5,000 square foot house, but that house
(21) requires a certain amount of grading. It requires a
(22) certain amount of tree removal, R requires some
(23) other things, all of which may and - there may be
(z4) problems wfth placement of the house with respect to
Cam) the severity of exposure to wildfires or other
Page 79
it) things. All those things are in conflict.
M What I'm sayfng Is that R you - just
(3) assuming they're in conflict for a 5,000 square foot
(a) house without looking at reducing the size of the
(6) house or changing where ft Is or a whole number of
(a) other things that could eliminate some of those
M conflicts, that 1 wouldn't go along with IL
(e) I think one of the things that needs to be
(e) looked at the most is what are the constraints of
(1 o) that lot, and if the constraints of that lot create
(11) the oonfilcts, then look at reducing the impact on
(12) the - In other words, what we've been trying to say
(13) all along is build a house to suit the lot. I'm
(14) having a lot of trouble tonight -
06) CHAIRMAN DUBOM: Okay.
(1e) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: - explaining.
(17) But thrd's the major thing. And just because there
(1e) are constraints on the lot should not be the reason
(1e) not to meet the standards or guidelines. That's the
(2o) crux of R, the just, the design -
(21) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Commissioner Burke, did
(22) you have a comment -
go) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: -first.
(24) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: - you were going to
(26) make?
Page 80
(1) COMMISSIONER BURKE: Nothing - I mean, l
(2) think that, you know, the original statement I made
(3) could be tweaked or adjusted such that you know, we
(a) ought to look at other alternatives besides, you
(s) know, something we have to, you know, charge one of
(67 the things we're in conflict, but we also have to -
(7) realize that, you know, these guidelines and
(a) standards are something we've come up - and I
(9) won't - I wouldn't go say they are arlat", but
(1o) we have picked numbers like 18 feet as opposed to 17
(i 1) as opposed to 19.1 think we have to have a little
(1z) bit of flexibility, in that- in that we say well,
(1a) If you, you know, bulld a- Iithe more grading,
(1a) but also to say that, you know, we picked
(15) constraints, and R all those constraints are
(1 e) working agal nst somebody, very much 11 k you'd grant
(17) a variance down here, 1 think we have to be a little
(1e) bit reasonable.
(19) CHAIRMAN DUSOIS: Okay. I think there
(m) also should be a safety valve In the - there
(21) basicafiy what you're looking at is a safety valve.
122) Somewhere you have to draw the line to create
(23) guidance. These are guidelines.
(24) COMMISSIONER BURKE: Rlght.
12s) CHAURMAN DUBOIS: Somebody has to have
Page 77 to Page 80 - (408) 920 -0222 ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, L.LC
BSA PUBLIC HEARING ITEM #t - WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 27, 2003 X Mx(21/2,)
Page 81
Page 83
(t)
something to look at and say okay, this is what
(f)
CHAIRMAN DUBOiS: That's a good comment to
(2)
we're shooting for, but the conditions -site
0
make and probably Is worth polling the Commission on
(s)
conditions sometimes don't allow all guidelines to
(3)
that I think - and I'll start with Commissioner
(4)
be applicable, and so you have to have a safety
(4)
Burke raises a lot of good issues, one that I've -
M
valve in there, and I think thetihat s what we're
(s)
most all of us have struggled with every time an
(6)
aiming at frying to accomplish here, yeah.
(e)
application comes forward. I happen to believe that
M
COMMISSIONER TREVITHICK: Mr. Chairman.
M
through the design criteria that we need to do
(s)
CHAIRMAN DUSOIS: CommissionerTreNtitick.
Is)
everything we can to minimize visibility through
(9)
COMMISSIONER TREVITHICK: In this document
(a)
burying mass and scale, setting It back from the
(in)
we have four- we have introduction, and then we
(fo)
ridge line and all or these things, but 1 also think
(11)
have objectives. Seems to me we're all trying to
(i i)
that we can do some things to hide some vfslbllity.
(14
say the same thing, but we should be able to put tit
(12)
1 believe that we can use trees and things
(rm)
into a paragraph a two that we are giving certain
I's)
like that. We have said - we have not done that in
(f 4)
emphasis to this, this and this for priority. I
(f4)
some of our applications. We've felt that theirs
(is)
just wonder if the first three pages shouldn't bring
(1s)
not necessarily appropriate. l do happen to feel
(tie)
out a little more depth and direction for the
(tie)
that It Is appropriate, so I don't know that 1
(17)
applicant. And it would also be helpful for us as
(17),
always agree with Commission - Commission on that
(ra)
well at a later stage.
(is)
And I don't think we're going to tilde
(tie)
CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Okay. Do you have any
(is)
every element at a house. That's just not
(20)
comments on the matrix or anything else to add?
(t)
realistic. What I - I guess my test for visibility
(21)
COMMISSIONER TREATHICK: I have no
(21)
is is the house - does the structure dominate the
(22)
comment (Inaudible).
tt4
hillside, or does It blend with the hillside.
(23)
CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Or other comments?
(m)
Thais my test If I can see a structure, like 1
(24)
Okay. Commissioner Burke, do you have anything also
(24)
can see some of these sitting up on top of these
(2s)
to add in terms of the mairW
126)
ridge lines up there, that's dominating the ridge
Page 82
(f) COMMISSIONER BURKE: tts kind of on the
(2) matrix, but It goes to an underlying theme, and It's
M more of a question, and I know ifs a concern to
(4) some people In the audience here. We talk a lot
(s about visibility and not visible and things like
(s) that, and I guess my question Is what is the
(7) standard of invisibility. I can see the corner of
(a) the roof. Is that irwisible? I see the chimney
(e) sticking up behind the tree. Is that Invisible? I
(19) see the roof line, and I can't L41 if a's a 500
if f) square foot garage or a 6,500 square foot house.
(f 2) While not Invisible, does it fall into oh, you can't
(is) add 500 square feet that's not necessarily going to
(14) be visible to iii
(16) So as I expressed in my letter,
(is) Invisibility is a really tough standard, and Is It a
(1 7) reasonable standard, and how do we define - you
(fa) know, truly how do we define invisibility. So I
(19) would - I'd put that as a question to the
(20) Commission right now of what their expectation of
(21) this Is, because I would hate to see a project
(22) disapproved because you can see a corner of X and
(23) no matter how big or small it is, because of the
(24) constraints of the lot you're always going to see a
(26) comer of it.
(1) line, the hillside up there. Thais not what I'm
M looking at. That's visibility that s sticking out,
(a) and that's what I'm bothered about.
(4) Is It something that's blending with the
(s hills de through the use of landscape, through
(s) burying of mass and scale. That's what I'm looking
(n at in terms of visibility. Will I see a comer of
(e) the roof maybe? Yeah, maybe. Am-I bothered about
(a) that? No. Thais where I stand on ft.
(fa) COMMISSIONER DREXEL:. Wefl, I'm sort of
(i i) the same - of the same mind. t think that If the
(12) structure - sometimes you're going to see more than
(t'3) a roof line. You're going to see quite a bit of it,
(14) especially while the trees grow and whatnot, but I
(is) don't think that houses are ever going to be
lie) invisible, so we have to make them blend as well as
(17) we can with the guidelines that we propose here
(is) tonight.
(1e) COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: Bud made a
(20) statement earlier that said that conditions go with
(21) the A and S, during the A and S phase, sort we
(z2) force trees to be built, does that mean after the A
(23) and S they can cut them all down?
(24) MR. LORTZ No. There are somethings
(2s) that run with the land after the approval.
ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC (408) 920 -0222 Page 8'1 to Page 84
BSA
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(s)
(6)
M
l31
1�
(10)
(t1)
(1�
(13)
(14)
11 sl
(1sf
(17)
n e}
(19)
(20)
(21)
CrA
(23)
(z4)
cm
(1)
C2)
(3)
(4)
(s7
(ei
M
(a)
(9)
(10)
(l 1)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(19
118)
(17)
(se)
(1»
(2e)
(21)
(99
(23)
(24)
W
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM #1 - WEDNESDAY. AUGUST 27.2003
Page 85
COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: Oh, okay. So that
(Inaudible).
MR. LORTZ:. The color, through the deed
restriction -
COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: Okay.
MR. LORTZ: - perhaps a deed restriction
one-
COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: Trees.
MR. LORTZ; - barn.
COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: Okay.
MR. LORTZ: And arty tree that Is part of a
zoning approval is a protected tree.
COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: Okay. That being
the case then, I do agree. I think that people that
propose then to cover the site with trees or
landscaping, you know, It may take a couple of years
to get there, we should consider that as something
that's going to ultimately be Invisible. We should
request landscaping that's going to get there pretty
quickly, though, sizeable landscaping to get there.
And like yourself, If it's only a portion of It
that's showing, (Inaudible). It Is the dominant
ones ( naudible). .
COMMISSIONER TREVITHICK: I agree wfth
what's been said already, what we have already as
mass and size and items like that which are handled
In the usual routine way, but we're starting to talk
a little bit more like predominant right now, and I
don't think you'd ever make a house if this - that
people wanted up on the hill, so there's a certain
prominence, but I don't think Its predominant as
far as that (Inaudible).
CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Commissioner Burke, you
started this, but do you want to add any more?
COMMISSIONERBURKE: Well- weli,111
ask- you know, I asked a question, and I will say
I'm very pleased with the response, because I - as
my letter said, I thought the invisible standard
wrls - was (inaudible), and ! think Mr. McCarthy
pointed out, I have looked for his house, and it's
visible from the valley floor, I think, but Is 4
noticeable? No. I think that's really in my mind
the standard Is it's not - It's visible, yes,
noticeable, no. Objectionable, definitely not.
CHAIRMA14 DUBOIS: CommisslorterQuintana-
COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: I basically agree.
I don't think the issue is that the house Is
invisible..) think that It should not draw you to
It It should not be prominent. And maybe we
should look at all those houses on the hillside that
Page 87
(1) are prominently visible and figure out what makes
(a) them that way.
(3) My - my major concern Is with the thought
(4) of landscaping as mitigating that, because
(s) landscap)ng can change, trees can die. Often trees
(a) that are appropriate to hillsides are very slow
M growing trees, and again, the Issue of the placement
(e) of the trees and fire also comes up. So I'm - I'm
(e) a little bit more concerned about assessing
(1o) visibility based on landscaping that's going to be
(11) put in.
ri2) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Commissioner Micciche.
(13) COMMISSION -eR MICCICHE: Would that mean
(u) that If there's existing landscaping there that
11 s) hides It, that falls Into that category! Those
paj trees could die? You said some day It could be
(17) visible, so no? I'm not sure I understand.
(18) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: I'm not sure that's what
(19) she's saying, because I think that you know, you've
(2o) got a hillside full of trees up there people are
(21) working very well to blend into, so if we're -1
(22) think she's expressing a concern. But that Is only
(zq one mitigating portion. There are three things that
(24) we mitigate with. That's how we set it back In
(25) terms of visibility, how we bury the mass and scale,
Page 88
(1) and then third Is the use of landscape and color and
M things like that
(3) So those are all issues to help reduce,
(4) you know, the Asibli ty. So its not totally -
(s) we're not totally hiding by landscaping.
(6) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Yeah, I guess I'm
m saying that landscaping shouldn't- shouldn't be
(a) used as the reason to say well, It won't be visible.
(a) Rather, first you do all the other things you can,
(1o) and then you use the landscaping.
(1t) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Commissioner Burke.
(12} COMMISSIONERBURKE: Now that I've opened
(13) the visibility issue or made It easier now to have
(14) houses be invisible, one of the - the things: put
(1 s) in my letter was do we want to have a maximum house
pa) size, and I'm just wondering flat out this is as big
p7) as will ever be built in the hillsides. You know,
liB) Woodside has such an ordinance, and other towns have
(is) such an ordinance. I'm just wondering what the
Ito) Commission thinks about lt. And I'm not saying a
21) particular number, if it's 8,000, 10,000, 12,000,
22) but do we set (inaudible). Say that's big enough?
zs) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: I'm going to - I'd like
z4) to start with a response to that, 'cause -
zs) actually, the committee actually kicked that around
Page 85 to Page 88 (408) 920-0222 ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC
BSA _ PUBLIC HEARING ITEM #1 - WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 27, 2003
Page 89
Page 91
(1)
very early. That was kicked around very early,
(q
here, myself and others, amending an 8,000, 5,000
t2)
putting the maximum hillside - house size on It.
(2)
square foot (inaudible) and many a time we've sat
(s)
And like all the other numbers in there that were
(a)
there and said ft's too big. We said Its the size
(4)
arbitrarily picked out of the hill that have been
(4)
of it We stiii have that option. So -
(s)
criticized here, it was dlff[cuk to do that
(s)
CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Yes, we do.
(6)
So we thought that if we didn't go In that
(a)
COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: - I think N an
(n
direction, that the - you could - you know, ff you
(4
8,000 square foot home architecturally blends in,
(a)
could, based on the restrictions and all the things,
(a)
ft's not visible from the hillside, if the neighbors
(9)
you could build It within these restrictions, you
(9)
don't complain, why shouldn't we, This is what I
(to)
could build ft. That's why the direction we went
Ito)
feel, so I think we should lift that 6,000, leave ft
(1 1)
tn. Somebody else wart to comment on that? Okay.
(t 1)
to the Commission to say its too big. And I think
(12)
Commissioner Quintana, you want to comment
I (t2)
we will. I don't think there's many of us that will
(1a)
on thar7
(;3)
s2 there and allow an 8,C00 foot ham just to go up
(14)
COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: I'm conflicted on
(14)
there because it isn't stated that ti's a maximum.
(15)
that, actually, 'cause I agree with what you said,
(15)
So I give the leeway according to size lot ft Is, ft
(16)
but I also agree with what Commissioner Burke sald.
(is)
fits in, whatever. Let the Commission make the
pA
On the other hand, as we all know, we put numbers on
(1 -/)
decision (inaudibie).
(i a)
things, people tend to shoot for them, so there's
(18)
CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Commissioner Drexel.
p9)
that aspect of ft, too. And I think its probably
(19)
COMMISSIONER DREXEL How da you feel
(2r)
better at this time to just leave ft as it is, and
(20)
about this, Bud? I mean, Is this going to be more
(21)
can I segue Into another comment?
(21)
difficult for (inaudible) to administer? We don't
(22)
CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Please do.
(zz)
have an upper end. It doesn't- ft does make more
(23)
COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: This brings up the
(23)
sense realty to look at the site rather than putting
(24),
question of recommending that the document Itseff
(24)
some arbitrary number there.
(25)
has a mechanism written into ft for periodic review
(zs)
MR. LORTZ: We have homes In Town that are
Page 90
o) and amending, and what I would suggest is something
(2) along the line of at one year, at two years, and
(a) then maybe at five year intervals, unless there's
(4) something that comes up that is really specifically
(s) looks like ft needs to be addressed.
(a) I'm saying the one and two year because
(n one year would give us the opportunity to see
(e) whether our ianguage is cisar enough and people are
(9) understanding ft as we intended ft to be understood
(10) and allow for changes to be made with respect to
(u) that Two years would give us enough time to
(1e) actually hopefully see enough examples of the
(13) results of the guidelines to know whether they
(14) needed to be tinkered with further, either because
(15) some of the standards and guidelines are too
(16) restrictive or, conversely, some of them aren't
(17) strict enough. And then five years because things
pe) change.
(19) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS- Okay. Commissioner
RM Micciche.
(21) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: And I would like
(22) that to be a recommendation the committee -
(2s) Commission makes.
(24) COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: I guess fm going
its) to go back a couple years, and I remember silting
(1) much larger than 6,000 square feet, and they didn't
(2) raise any objections. People don't know they exist,
(a) and life moves on. I think Its an artificial
(4) number. I think It needs to be looked at on a
(s) case -by -case basis, and you know, I - I've never
(s) seen the Planning Commission reluctant to exercise
(7) its authority.
(8) COMMISSIONER DREXEL So 1 guess I - my
(9) feeling is that we should get dd of the 6,000
(1o) square foot maximum as well then.
(11) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Open up the upper end.
(12) While I have you at the microphone, Mr. Lanz, over
(1a) several hearings, there's been several comments
(1 A) addressed to us, particularly by Mr. McCarthy,
(1s) regarding vineyard heights. I would like your
(16) thoughts on that particularly.
(17) MR. LORTZ: Yes. I was going to raise
(16) that as one of two things that I wanted to make sure
(1e) the Commission addressed before we finalized our
(2o) discussion this evening. First Is Mr. McCarthy's
(21) request, and he has requested again that there's
(22) been no comment about his letter and his Input, and
(23) that might be a good thing. But regardless, I think
(24) ft- Mr. McCarthy is due a response from the
(2s) Planning Commission, and think the Council would,
ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC (408) 920 -0222 Page 89 to Page 92
BSA PUBLIC HEARING ITEM #1 -1
Page 93
(1) yott know, enjoy the benefit of your wisdom on this
(2) subject.
(s) Essentially, the question Is whether or
(s) not vineyard heights should be exempt from the
(s) provisions of the hillside standards or certain
(6) aspects of them, and the way it - the way the rules
m of the zone work Is unless there's an application
(a) that - technically that's vested, which means A and
(9) S approval has been granted, and they have used the
(is) permit which may mean grading or all the rest of
(1 1) it, then any new rule applies.
(12) The way the Town has been fair about, you
(13) know, enforcement of that s that if someone Is In
(1U the building permit process and the rules change, we
(1 s) don't go back and halt their app licatlon, but any
(1s) project that comas through the pipeline certainly is
(17) subject to all the rules that are in affect at the
(is) time. And while, you know, the - Mr. McCarthy
tie) raises a lot of Interesting points, and certainly I
(2o) think everyone would agree removed an eye sore off
(21) our hill sides, the fact thatthe Planning Commission
(22) this evening has made comments about the house size
(23) may interest some of his concerns to, you know, a
(2e.) significant degree, but I think the one question
(26) that Is not addressed whether or not the standards
(i) should apply to vineyard heights. And the
(2) Commission should give some guidance to the Council
(3) on that.
(a) And I suppose the way that perhaps the
(s) regulations could be crafted Is that an application
(e) that a subdivision, or a PD in this rase, that was
(n considered during some time frame would not be
Is) subject to these rules, and, you know, that's an
(s) option, but = I think the Commission should
(1s) discuss that and then provide recommendation to the
(1 1) Council. I think there's enough discussion this
(12) evening that loosened up things to some degree that
(is) Mr. McCarthy would probably be a little more
(re.) satisfied because of that upper end floor area
(16) Issue, but I think it would be worthwhile to, you
(1s) know, at least answer that one question is whether
(w) these standards should apply to vineyard heights.
(r a) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Commissioner Micciche.
(19) COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: I think, you know,
(20) 1 love that project because I love what they did in
(21) taking things off and so forth, but I'd be very
I22) reluctant to give special consideration to any
(23) specific project. I would think that If there's -
(2{) there's an issue in the person or a group that have
Its) come up with a design concept or a financial plan
VEDNESDAY, AUGUST Z7,2003 xnutx(24r24)
Page 95
(t) that was based on existing rules, we ought to take
(2) that into consideration for every (inaudible), not
(3) any one speck situation. So I'd be against
(a) looking at any one specific (inaudible).
(s) CHAIRMANDUBOIS: Commissioner Burke.
(6) COMMISSIONER BURKE: I, like Mr. Lodz, is
M hopeful Mr. McCarthy is a We more comfortable
(a) with the way the discussion went today, but like
(9) Commissioner Micciche, I think you can't exempt
(to) property, a development like that, 'cause If we did
(11) that, would we also want to exempt lots that are
tt2) currently undeveloped that have not new
(13) subdivisions, but lots that are currently
(1e.) undeveloped that somebody wants to build a house on
(15) we're not subdividing. I don't see that that's -
(rs) those are necessarily different Yes, they didn't
(17) remove an eyesore, but, you know, they're- we're
(1 a) not talking about a new subdMsion.
(19) So it's my hope they're a Ibe more
i2o) reasonable now, and he feels a little more
(21) comfortable.
(zz) CHAIRMANDUBOIS: Commissioner Quintana.
(2e.) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: I would concur,
(24) and then after we've gone around, I would like to
MM make a statement about removing the maximum house
Page 96
(1) size.
(2) CHAIRMANDUBOIS: Okay. I'm going to just
(3) shorten things down and say that I concurwith the
(a) previous speakers on that one. Commissioner Drexel.
(s) COMMISSIONER DREXEL: I'll say the same.
(s7 I think that we've loosened things up so that now
(7) we're basically using the same (inaudible) quantity
(a) some of the same crIterla we 've been using for
(B) deciding, and so the houses up there would probably
(1 0) have maybe even have an easier time that
p1) Mr. McCarthy did when he was getting his approval.
(12) CHAIRMANDUBOIS: CommIsslonerTrevithick.
(is) COMMISSIONERTREVITHICK: Thesameway
(1e.) about this as well. (Inaudible,)
05) CHAIRMAN DUBOiS: Then I'll come back to
(1s) your comment, Commissioner Quintana
(17) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Okay. My comment
(is) is that H It's a decision of the Council to remove
(1s) the maximum house size that - Veen I wantto
(2o) reinforce my earlier comments and written statements
(21) that table two should be revised to reflect hillside
(2x) conditions. It was adopted from flatland
(29) conditions, and you reached the maximum house size
(2e.) at 32,000 square feet on a.lot size. I think there
125) needs to be a greater gradation of that.
Page 93 to Page 96 920.0222 ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC
esn PUBLIC HEARING ITEM #1 -WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 27, 2003
Page 97
(1) Also - do you want me to just go ahead
(4 and get them all -
(s) CHAIRMANDUSO(S: Actually - actually,
(4) Commissioner Micciche's asked for a clarification on
(5) that Do you have have a question on that,
(e) Commissioner Micciche?
M COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: I'm not sure you
(e) .mean flatlands when you've got a slope calcu)abon
(e) in there.
(10) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: What i - can I
(10 clarify what I mean?
(12) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Clarify.
(13) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Okay.
(14) COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: I'm asking -
(15) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: The reduction for
(16) slope table in this document and the maximum floor
(17) area were taken from the floor area ratio document
(1e1 that was developed for slope on R -1 lots. R -t lots
(i9) tend mainly to be flatter. There are fewer
(20) exceptions - I mean, there are fewer lots that are
t21) sloped. Their slopes tend to be )ess steep than in
(22) the hillsides, and the lot sizes are smaller, and
(23) ttlats why I say all that.
(24) There are many, many, marry more houses in
(25) the hillsides that exceed 30 percent slope than
(1) there are in R-1 districts.
(2) CHAIRMAN DUSOIS: Does that answer your
(a) question, Commissioner Micciche?
(4) COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: (Inaudible.)
(s) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:. There aren't very
(6) many.
(r) COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: (Inaudible.)
(a) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Okay. What I am
(9) saying Is that the situations are different. The
(1o) hillsides are different than the flatlands. A
(11) lot - most - most lots on - on the - I'm going
(12) to say flatlands, but I really mean R -1, are less
(1a) than an acre. And I think thats why the figure 32
(14) was used. That - that's a more common size In R -1.
(1s) On the hillsides you have a site that is a
(1a) little bit less than 2,000 - excuse me, two acres,
(17) and even with the b'0 percent deduction for 30
(1a) percent slope, you can have a 6,000 square foot
(19) house. In many, many rases a 6,000 square foot
(to) house on two acres would, I don't think, receive
(21) approval from the Planning Commission, and I think
(22) it sets up an expectation that's unrealistic.
(2a) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Commissioner Burke.
(24) COMMISSIONER BURKE: Well, a couple
(25) things. I'm not - I'm a little mb(ed on totally,
Page 99
(1) you know, getting rid of the 6,000 square foot
(2) limit, but a couple of thoughts.
(3) One is that we might want to have some
(4) wording just letting prospective applicants know
(N that getting approval of more than 6,000 square
(e) feet, the burden of proof is realty going to be on
m them is one thing.
(a) The other thing I look at, I'm going to
(9) use, for example, the Greenbriar project They had
it al originally wanted to go to an HR -1 zoning, and they
01) have a fair amount of flat land there, and I just
(12) want you folks to think about what that project
(13) would have looked like u there was a whole bunch of
(14) 6,000 square foot lots - houses on one acre lots
o5) there, or even maybe smaller than, you know, the
(1e) 32,000 square foot lots. I think it might have been
(17) fairly hideous looking.
(1e) And I know you guys would approved It - I
(19) mean, would not have approved it, but as we're
(20) looking at these standards, I am wondering is if you
(21) want to have a couple of triggers for going over
(221 6,000 square foot, and one of them might be the two
(23) and a half acres or the two acre or something like
(24) that that at least you could set expectations for
(25) people and, you know, maybe instead of a shall,
(1) there's a should. But at least there's an
(2) expectation, then, if you're coming in with less
(3) than two and a half acres and want to put more than
(4) 6,000, Its going to be tough. So maybe it's a
(s) should.
(6) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Good comment
M Commissioner Micache.
(e) COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: I guess the way I
(9) look at it is the less than 5,000, according to the
(1 o) DRC is (Inaudible). I think If - I believe we can
(11) say. i think we should say generally. Any large
(12) home In the hillside (inaudible) strong analysis
(13) from the Planning Commission. I think that any
(14) house, okay, if what we' saying is anything over -
(1s) what we're saying right now Is anything over 5,000
(15) feet, ICs going to come to us. So, you know, be
(17) prepared to tell us why you think a big home is
(16) going to be (inaudible). I think we do that now.
(19) We should just continue that. An artificial number
(20) does nothing as far as I'm concerned. If you leave
(21) the loophole, you come In and justify a big one.
(zz) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Okay. Commissioner -
(23) COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: All It means is
MO it's more work for us.
(25) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Commissioner Quintana,
ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, 11C (408) 920 -0222 Page 97 to Page 100
esA PUBLIC HEARING ITEM #1 -1
Page 101
(1) r4OMMiSSIONERgU1NTANA: Ithinkthatwhat
R) Commissioner Burke brought up in the first place was
(a) not to eliminate the 6,000 square foot maximum, but
(4) to have a cap on If you go over the 6,000 square
(6) feet, And I think part of the confusion is that we
(s) call it allowable, the maximum allowable, We don't
(7) say It's the maximum that could be allowable. And I
(s) do think that we should have a - some kind of
(e) number set to clue people In that if they try and go
(I al over that its going to be much more difficult.
(11) I'm not sure we should have an absolute maximum, but
(12) 1 do think having some kind of strong suggestion is
(1s) a good idea.
(14) 1 also would ask, If Commissioners have
(1s) the time, to read what I suggested on exception to
(1s) the maximum floc r area, to make it stricter than
t171 what is currently in the document There was one
(1s) comment from somebody who submitted a letter, said
(1s) it was - the exceptions were big enough to drive a
(zq truck through, and I agree with that, especially
(21) based on the FAR table there in the document now,
(221 and I would suggest - and I Just threw out whole
(23) bunch of things to sort of get people to think about
(24) a little bit strider standards to even consider
(25) going over that 6,000, such as a site thats five
(1) acres, site that is less than 30 percent slope, that
(2) the whole project has little grading or construction
(3) that occurs on slopes greater than 20 percent, at
(4) cetera, at cetera, which will really get at the fad
(s) that we don't want these houses to have an Impact on
(a) the hillside, not just that they're net visible.
(7) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Thank you. Mr. Lortz,
(s) are there any other comments that you fee! that the
(e) Commission needs to comment on?
(10) MR. LORTZ: One that was discussed this
(1 1) evening, and I think there was generally some
(12) consensus on k, but I wanted to confine @ in an
(13) effort to try to keep processes moving here.
(4) Legally I'm not sure, and I asked the Town Attorney
(is) as he was exiting if this was the case, and he
(16) wasn't in a position to be able to offer an opinion, .
(17) but on the noticing, is it generally the consensus
(1e) of the Planning Commission that the noticing for DRC
n9) should be greater then the abutters? And the
(2o) consensus I'm seeing right now is a yes.
(21) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Yes.
(22) MR. LORTZ Okay. Now, the reason that 1
(23) ask that is that the Commission, under the rules of
(24) the State, whenever a zoning ordinance Is proposed,
(2s) it must come before the Planning Commission. What
VEDNESDAY, AUGUST Z7,2003 )NAx(zfi/zsj
Page 103
(1) you're talking about here Is a zoning ordinance
(2) amendment, and k's not before you. So what I'm
(3) trying to avoid, as I think you're understanding, Is
(4) to have that item come before you and then slow down
(s) this process of getting these standards adopted.
(a) I'm not sure If I'm going to be successful
(7) hare, but at least the fact that the Commission
(e) discussed It will allow us to at least research the
(6) issue from a legal perspective, and then the Council
(1 0) may be able to then hold a public hearing and not
it t) have that ordinance amendment come before you.
(12) And what I'm hearing as a consensus is
(1st that you're agreeable the, an ordinance amendment to
(14) expand noticing requirements for single family homes
(is) In the hillsides at the DRC level Is a good thing.
(1s) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Absolutely.
(17) MR. LORTZ: Okay. That's the last item
(1e) that I have for you, and I appreciate very much all
ps) of the wisdom that you've offered to ghre the
t2o) Council, The one thing that you would need to do
(21) this evening before you depart is through - and
(22) It would probably be beat If it was a consensus
(23) motion or a vote as to forwarding these standards to
(24) the - standards and guidelines to the Council with
(25) the caveat that the Council consider very carefully
(1) all the comments from the individual
(q Commissioners.
(a) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: (Inaudible.) Do we have
(4) such a motion? Commissioner Quintana
(s) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Mr. Lortz, would
(6) it be appropriate for us to make some suggestions
(7) about some changes that the Commission might like to
(a) see considered by the Council, not necessarily as a
(a) part of this document but to, follow very closely
(10) after?
(11) MR. LORTZ: You could do that. I think
(12) the best way to do that you know, it may be an
(1s) Issue that needs to be thought through to some
(14) dRgrea at the Architectural Standards Committee with
(15) a memo and to the Planning Commission end a separate
(1 b) motion, but It you wanted to try a consensus on a
(17) couple of Items, that's your prerogative.
(18) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: When you say to
(1 e) the Architectural Standards Committee, would that
(2o) occur before or after the - this goes to the
(21) Council?
(M MR. LORTZ hwould probably be after.
(23) So It its a, you know, time constraint issue, then
(24) you might want to make your comments known now.
(2s) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Okay.1 will,
Page 101 to Page 104 (408) 920 -0222 ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC
BSA PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 01 - WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 27, 2003
Page 105
(1) then. I would recommend looking at Instituting a
(z) grading moratorium In the hillsides, modifying the
(3) zoning code to reflect the height maximums that were
(4) In this document
(s) Also, same thing for the setbacks for
(a) accessary structures, to look at changes In slope
(7) density and zoning of hillsides that the greater
0) reflect the actual reality of what -
(a) MR. LORTZ: Did I countsb(zoning
(1o) ordinance amendments that you want to recommend?
(11) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Yeah, uh•huh.
(12) MR. LORTZ Is the Commission prepared to
(1s) discuss those this evening?
(14) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Okay.
(15) MR. LORTZ: So the Architectural Standards
(16) Committee would look at each of those Items, If you
(1 7) so choose, and then come forward with
(18) recommendations on each of those. But before you
(1s) do, I think we would want to ask the Council If they
(20) want to pursue those, so -
(21) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: I think - wasn't that
(2z) the point of putting this on the record so the
M Council would hear that?
(24) MR. LORTZ: They'll hear that, and then
(2s) we'll see if we can get some feedback from the
(1)
(2)
(M
(4)
(sl
m
(e)
Is)
(1q
(1 t)
(12)
(1�
(14)
11�
(18)
(17)
(18)
p s)
(20)
(21)
t�
(24)
(2S)
Council on those.
COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Well, achialy
R - they're in my comments -
MR. LORTZ That would be perfect.
COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: - sothatwlllgo
forward to them, and -
MR.LORTZ: Thankyou.
CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Commissioner Burke.
COMMISSIONER BURKE: Shall I makes
motion?
CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Please do.
COMMISSIONER BURKE: I've been looking
here to see What I have to do to make a motion, and
I don't really sea anything. Pretty simple. So I'd
like to make a motion to forward to the Council the
Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines public
review drafted August 2003, with this Commission's
comments associated with it for their, I guess
consideration and approval.
And I don't know If I need to make tha
findings, but for environmental issues, the -
developing these standards and guidelines was part
of the 2000 General Plan update, which a
environmental Impact report was filed for, and this
is just an implementation measure of that General
Page 107
(1) Plan, therefore, no additional environmental
(2) documents should need to be flied.
(3) COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: I'll second.
(4) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Okay. We have a motion
(s) and second. Any comments? (inaudible,) Hearing
(6) none, all those In favor of the motion, signify by
(7) saying aye.
(a) (Ayes.)
(s) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Opposed? Motion carries
piii unanimously, Its moving on to Council. Wow.
(11) MR.LORTZ: It would be probably the first
(12) meeting in October at this Juncture. Please check
(1s) with me, but I believe the 15th already is - t5th
(14) of September is already pretty full, so k'd be
(15) October 6th.
(16) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Commissioner Mioclohe,
(17) do you have a question?
(18) COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: I know it's
(19) (inaudible). We made direction to the Planning
(2o) Department to review the should and shads and make
(21) sure we weren't boxed in.
tea CHAIRMAN DUBOfS: You know what, that's a
tzt) comment-
(24) COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: (Inaudible.)
(25) CHAIRMAN DUSOIS: But that was part of the
Page 108
(1) comments earlier, but let's underline that that
(2) needs to be done.
(3) MR. LORTZ: Thank you for that direction.
(4)
Is) (End of Item 1, Hillside Development
(6) Standards and Guidelines.)
m
(e) -000-
(10)
p 1)
(12)
(131
(14)
(151
(16)
(17)
(16)
pa)
f�
(a1)
(2z)
(23)
(24)
(25)
ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC (405) 920.0222 Page 105 to Page log
LIMA
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM #1 - WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 27, 2003
Page 109 1
(2) I, LISA A. GLANVILLE, C.S.R. #9932, a
(3) Certified Shorthand Reporter in and for the State of
(4) Callfomla, do hereby certify:
(s) That the preceding tape transcription was
(a) taken down by me In shorthand to the best of my
(7) ability and thereafter reduced to computerized
(a) trarscrlptlon under my direction and supervision,
(s) and I hereby certify the foregoing transcript is a
(w) full, true and correct transcript of my shorthand
(i t) notes so taken.
(12) 1 further certify that I am neither
(13) counsel for nor related to any party to sad action
(14) nor interested in the outcome of this action.
(1s) Witness my hand this day of
(1s) September, 2003.
(171
(16)
(19) LISA A.GLANVILLE
CSR No. 9932
(20) State of Caifornla
(21)
t22f
t23)
(24)
(25)
Page 109 to Page 109 (408) 9200222 ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC