3.1 Staff ReportM o MEETING DATE: 02/02/16
ITEM NO: 3.1
COs s�taS COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DATE: JANUARY 21, 2016
TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
FROM: LAUREL PREVETTI, TOWN MANAGER
SUBJECT: ENDORSE THE DRAFT PREFERRED ALLOCATION OF 2016 TRANSPORTATION
SALES TAX MEASURE FUNDS WITH DISCRETION FOR THE MAYOR AND
TOWN MANAGER TO ADVOCATE THE TOWN'S POSITION AND REFINE THE
DRAFT ALLOCATION IN COORDINATION WITH NINE WEST AND NORTH
VALLEY CITIES.
RECOMMENDATION:
Endorse the Draft Preferred Allocation of 2016 Transportation Sales Tax Measure Funds (Attachment 1)
with discretion for the Mayor and Town Manager to advocate the Town's position and refine the draft
allocation in coordination with the nine West and North Valley Cities.
BACKGROUND:
The Mayors and Managers of nine West and North Valley Cities have been meeting for several months
to review the collective needs with respect to a regional transportation plan. These meetings have
resulted in the establishment of Guiding Principles (Attachment 2) and correspondence with the VTA
(Attachment 3), the second letter of which the Town chose not to sign as it appeared to infer support of
the sales tax initiative. The letters also identify the nine agencies.
Subsequently, this group reviewed regional priorities as it relates to a potential November 2016
transportation sales tax measure, known as Envision Silicon Valley. This measure is currently seen as a
%z cent thirty year sales tax increase that would result in an estimated $6 billion over the life of the
measure. Currently approximately $49 billion in potential projects have been identified. The review
resulted in a consensus document titled Draft Preferred Allocation of 2016 Transportation Sales Tax
Measure Funds for funding allocations should a ballot measure succeed.
PREPARED BY: MATT MORLEY
DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND PUBLIC WORKS
241
Reviewed by: Assistant Town Manager Town Attorney Finance
PAGE 2
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: ENDORSE THE DRAFT PREFERRED ALLOCATION OF 2016 TRANSPORTATION
SALES TAX MEASURE FUNDS WITH DISCRETION FOR THE MAYOR AND
TOWN MANAGER TO ADVOCATE THE TOWN'S POSITION AND REFINE THE',
DRAFT ALLOCATION IN COORDINATION WITH NINE WEST AND NORTH
VALLEY CITIES
JANUARY 21, 2016
DISCUSSION
The draft allocation document has been created as a working document that will serve to demonstrate a
unified voice on prioritization of funding allocations should a measure pass. Additionally, having
direction from the Council will assist the Mayor and Manager in building consensus with other
jurisdictions towards an acceptable allocation. Staff also has a role through the Valley Transportation
Authority's (VTA's) Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) in recommending funding allocations and
project prioritization. Council endorsing the draft allocation will provide some direction to staff in this
role as well.
Most notably, the draft allocation provides for funding of "Expanded transit and other innovative
strategies focused on congested commute corridors based on the results of a comprehensive, system
wide study and plan."
The draft allocation document has been crafted as a working document. It is anticipated that the
allocations will change as the discussion seeks to achieve a broader common ground. By granting the
Mayor and Town Manager flexibility in speaking for the Council as the draft document evolves, the
Town's voice can more easily be included. The Town Manager will provide updates to changes as
necessary to the entire Council.
It is important to note that endorsing the allocations does not necessarily require the Council to endorse
the ballot measure. Rather, endorsing the allocation provides the best opportunity for regional benefits
should a ballot measure be successful. Staff recommends that the Council not take a position on the
ballot measure until after it is complete in August 2016.
CONCLUSION:
Endorse the Draft Preferred Allocation of 2016 Transportation Sales Tax Measure Funds (Attachment 1)
with discretion for the Mayor and Town Manager to advocate the Town's position and refine the draft
allocation in coordination with Nine West and North Valley Cities.
ALTERNATIVES:
Alternatively, the Council could:
1. Support the allocation and not provide discretion to the Mayor and Town Manager to
advocated the Town's position and refine the draft allocation.
2. Not endorse the allocation as recommended by the Nine West and North Valley Cities.
3. Take another action as a result of the Council discussion on this item.
'�N2
PAGE 3
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: ENDORSE THE DRAFT PREFERRED ALLOCATION OF 2016 TRANSPORTATION
SALES TAX MEASURE FUNDS WITH DISCRETION FOR THE MAYOR AND
TOWN MANAGER TO ADVOCATE THE TOWN'S POSITION AND REFINE THE
DRAFT ALLOCATION IN COORDINATION WITH NINE WEST AND NORTH
VALLEY CITIES
JANUARY 21, 2016
ALTERNATIVES (cont'd):
These alternatives are not recommended as they provide less flexibility towards achieving a regional
voice on the allocation.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
This is not a project defined under CEQA, and no further action is required.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact from this action.
Attachments:
1. Draft Preferred Allocation of 2016 Transportation Sales Tax Measure Funds
2. Guiding Principles of the North and West Valley Cities
�. 3. Correspondence with VIA from the North and West Valley Cities
,%� 243
Draft Preferred Allocation of
2016 Transportation Sales Tax Measure Funds
Expenditure Category
Allocation
Allocation
($ millions)
(Percent)
BART
(Phase II of BART Silicon Valley Extension)
$1,200
20.0
Caltrain
(Santa Clara County portion of costs to expand capacity,
improve reliability, and major station upgrades and
400
6 7
improvements)
Congestion Relief/rransit/Mode Shift*
500
8.3
Rail/Road Grade Separations
(Caltrain and VTA light rail rail/road separations—similar
900
15.0
to Measure A program in San Mateo County)
Expressways
(Funding for projects identified in the County Expressway
1,000
16.7
2040 Plan)
Streets and Highways
(Key interchange and operational projects)
500
8.3
Local Streets and Roads
(Agencies would have flexibility to focus on maintenance
1,000
16.7
or other local needs)
Bicycle/Pedestrian
(Bicycle and pedestrian improvement projects)
500
8.3
TOTAL
$6,000
100.0
* Expanded transit and other innovative strategies focused on congested commute corridors
based on the results of a comprehensive, systemwide study and plan. Potential projects
include express commuter bus service, new transit options, last mile strategies (e.g., bike
share), and other commute alternatives.
These strategies would be aimed at supporting the continued economic vitality and
employment growth in the Silicon Valley, further reducing reliance on single -occupancy
vehicle use for commuting, and providing new options to get people from where they live to
where they work.
LF/7/ PW K A4
901-01-19-16PA-E 1 of I
ATTACHMENT 1
Revised Draft Guiding Principles
(December 2015)
We need an innovative, intermodal and geographically balanced long-term
transportation vision for Santa Clara County that:
— Thinks beyond the car and focuses on mode shift to address current and future
travel needs.
— Sustains and improves current transportation systems and facilities.
• This vision should inform and support an integrated regional strategy and decisions
on future mass transit investments.
A comprehensive strategy for Santa Clara County mass transit needs should be
developed as soon as possible focusing ore
— Current and future employment, housing and commute patterns/data within
and outside of Santa Clara County.
— Transit and other alternatives in congested commute corridors (with a priority
focus on the Highway 85/U.S. Route 101/State Route 237/Interstate 280
corridors).
— First- and last -mile connections.
— Expansion of and better connections to the regional transit network.
— Implementation and funding strategies.
• Projects identified for inclusion and funding in the VTP 2040 and Envision Silicon
Valley sales tax measure should support these principles.
�11 245
Revised 12.02.15
ATTACHMENT
S A 11 I A ( I A R R
Vnlley'I'rallsportutiou Authority "IN
September 3, 2015
I Ion. Jeflirey Crisiina, Mayor, City of Campbell; I Ion. John McAlister, Mayor, City of Mountain View:
Hon Rod G. Sinks, Mayor, City of Cupertino; Hon Karen Holman, Mayor, City of Palo Alto;
Hon. Jan Pepper, Mayor City of Los Altos: I Ion. Howard Miller, Mayor, City of Saratoga;
Hon. Courtenay C. Corrigan, Mayor, Town of Los Altos Hills: Hon. James Griffith. Mayor,
City of Sunnyvale; Hon. Murcia Jensen, Mayor, Town of Los Gatos
Honorable Mayors:
Thanks for your letter of August 27. 2015 encouraging the VTA to pursue creative and innovative
solutions to the transportation challenges that your cities, and die region as a whole, are experiencing.
am gratified that you recognize the importance of holistic approach to solving congestion and closing
the gaps throughout the county's transportation network.
V"fA is committed to identifying and implementing these types of solutions and to working in close
cooperation with your cities' land use authority and regional transportation. From planning and funding
bicycle and pedestrian pathways, roadway, expressways and street improvements to capital improvements
and operations of light rail, buses and Caltmin and extending BART service to Santa Clara County, VTA
is well positioned in our role of forming the long-range vision for transportation in Silicon Valley.
In response to your letter. I am pleased to inform you that at its August Board Meeting, the VTA Board of
Directors established the Policy Advisory Board you had requested. We have received appointments
from all the cities listed in your letter for principal and alternate representatives to the SR 85 Corridor
Policy Advisory Board. The first meeting is being planned and announcemcnts will be made in the near
loture.
Further, the current Envision Silicon Valley process provides leaders in our region the ability to help
formulate a comprehensive vision of the County's transportation future as we collectively address the
challenges of providing mobility options with limited financial resources as cities continue to plan for
higher commercial and residential density within limited geographic resources.
As you may know, this vision for the future will be funded firm a variety of sources. Depending on the
specific solution, we will be accessing funds from a combination of local, state and federal sources. For
that reason it is so critical for cities and the county to submit their priority projects to be entered into the
regional pool for evaluation and selection. In addition. we are examining the potential of a county wide
sales tax to once again demonstrate the willingness of our citizens to tax themselves to provide solutions
to much needed transportation enhancements.
At tyle September 3, 2015 Board Meeting I will refer your request to staff to initiate a comprehensive
study that results in a plan for a transportation network that addresses the overall mobility needs in our
County. This study will build upon the strong foundation V'FA has established. The work of the SR 85
Corridor Policy Advisory Board will closely align with this comprehensive study and will be directly
46
3331 Ilmrh first Sheet • San Jose. (A 95134 1927 • Adminisllolion 408.371.555S -Uiloo m Sen•ise 408 371,7300 • svas..vin. oro
ATTACHMENT 3q
West Valley and Not County Cities Mayors
VTA's Response to West Valley/Noah County Cities letter
September 3, 2015
Page 2 of 2
involved with the areas ofconcern you described in your letter. These studies will benefit greatly font
the advice and guidance of the Policy Advisory Board and your input will be essential in prioritizing
potential new and creative transportation solutions.
While your letter asks that the study inform near-term project funding decisions, I do not agree that this
will be a desirable approach. As you know, it takes time to accomplish the objectives of these types of
studies. Major investment studies can, in some cases, take Iwo or more years to complete. Whilert
comprehensive, major investment study will certainly inform decision making for future projects, out-
regional
urregional needs are immediate and continuous. We don't have the luxury of a pause while we consider
future options. Development in your cities will certainly continue as will our need to address their
impacts to the existing transportation network. h is very encouraging, however, that with this request we
can strengthen our partnership in coordinating your land use decisions with transportation projects and
programs.
The ongoing Envision Silicon Valley process, with its extensive community outreach and input, will
allow its to evaluate projects in the near teen as well as define an outline for the future and identify
credible sources for funding the projects.
Thanks again for your interest and support of transportation issues in our region. It is only through the
active engagement and critical input from our city and county leaders that we will cooperatively and
successfully address the transportation challenges before its.
�...
YOU rr�y
%/ ///sib✓/
/j
Perry Woodward
Chair
Enclosure
cc: VTA Board of Directors
County Board of Supervisors
Carl Guardino, Silicon Valley Leadership Group
Mark Linder, City Manager, City of Campbell
David Brandt, City Manager. City of Cupertino
Marcia Somers, City Manager, City of Los Altos
Carp Cahill, Town Manager, Town of Los Altos Hipps
Les Whites, Interim Town Manager, Town of Los Gatos
Daniel H. Rich, City Manager, City of Mountain View
James Keene, City Manager, City of Palo Alto
James Lindsay, City Manager, City of Saratoga
Deanna Santana, City Manager, Cit' of Sunnyvale,
`- 247
f
CALIFORNIA
CUPERTINO
PALOrna
ALTO
August 27, 2015
The Honorable Perry Woodward, Chair
Valley Transportation Authority
3331 North First Street
San Jose, CA 95134-1906
Dear Chair Woodward:
The Mayors and City Managers of West Valley and North County cities have been
meeting in recent weeks to discuss regional transportation issues and our common
interests in addressing the transportation -related needs of our residents and businesses.
A commitment to an innovative, intermodal and geographically balanced
transportation vision for Santa Clara County is critical to the continued growth and
vitality of the Silicon Valley as well as the quality of life of its residents.
The Valley Transportation Authority's (VTA's) current effort to update the list of
projects to be included in the Valley Transportation Plan (VTP) 2040 provides Valley
leaders with a critical opportunity to shape a new and transformative long-range vision
for transportation in Santa Clara County.
Representatives of the West Valley and North County cities believe that in addition to
VTP project requests submitted from each city, a stronger "systems" perspective is
needed to support an integrated regional strategy and decisions on future mass transit
investments. Specifically, the cities signing this letter respectfully request that the VTA
initiate a comprehensive study, leading to an alternatives analysis and formal Federal
environmental review process and clearance, to develop a system -wide plan that
integrates future mass transit investments in Santa Clara County with connections to
other counties, via such systems as Caltrain, as well as community -level systems and
"first/ last mile" strategies. The study's initial focus should be on the Highway 85/ U.S.
Route 101/State Route 237/Interstate 280 corridors, recognizing the changing dynamics
of commute patterns within the Peninsula, East Bay and southern Santa Clara County
that affect West Valley and North County cities.
The undersigned cities all agree that it is imperative that work on this study begin as
soon as possible, so that the study can inform near-term project funding decisions, and
'"\
48
The Honorable Perry Woodward
August 27, 2015
Page 2
that the study process include the consideration of the formation of a joint powers
advisory board.
Thank you for your attention to this request.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey Cristina, Mayor John McAlister, Mayor
City of Campbell City of Mountain View
Nw dti"'y-. Au" /wL
Rod G. Sinks, Mayor Karen Holman, Mayor
City of Cupertino City of Palo Alto
cc: Nuria Fernandez, General Manager, VTA
VTA Board of Directors
Carl Guardino, Silicon Valley Leadership Group
Mark Linder, City Manager, City of Campbell
David Brandt, City Manager, City of Cupertino
Marcia Somers, City Manager, City of Los Altos
Carl Cahill, Town Manager, Town of Los Altos Hill
Les Whiles, Interim Town Manager, Town of Los Gatos
Daniel H. Rich, City Manager, City of Mountain View
James Keene, City Manager, City of Palo Alto
James Lindsay, City Manager, City of Saratoga
Deanna Santana, City Manager, City of Sunnyvale
249
Jan Pepper, Mayor
Howard Miller, Mayor
City of Los Altos
City of Saratoga
t� le A
Courtenay C. Corrigan, Mayor
James Griffith, Mayor
Town of Los Altos Hills
City of Sunnyvale
Marcia Jensen, Mayor
Town of Los Gatos
cc: Nuria Fernandez, General Manager, VTA
VTA Board of Directors
Carl Guardino, Silicon Valley Leadership Group
Mark Linder, City Manager, City of Campbell
David Brandt, City Manager, City of Cupertino
Marcia Somers, City Manager, City of Los Altos
Carl Cahill, Town Manager, Town of Los Altos Hill
Les Whiles, Interim Town Manager, Town of Los Gatos
Daniel H. Rich, City Manager, City of Mountain View
James Keene, City Manager, City of Palo Alto
James Lindsay, City Manager, City of Saratoga
Deanna Santana, City Manager, City of Sunnyvale
249
oA'`A414
Nr I�iJLR
e o rR57r��\
i
°erv,Rd L•
IAS91a fus
t y'
CALIFORNIA
CUPERTINO
0 `y ISAgA 4O\t Ok i'
,.,,.s PALO
GITO
December 3, 2015
The Honorable Perry Woodward, Chair
Valley Transportation Authority
3331 North First Street
San Jose, CA 95134-1906
Dear Chair Woodward:
We are writing to follow up on our letter dated August 27, 2015 regarding the need to
initiate a comprehensive study to develop a system -wide plan that integrates future
mass transit investments in Santa Clara County. The continued economic vitality of the
region is dependent on congestion relief and getting people from where they live to
where they work to ensure a continued high quality of life for all residents.
We appreciate your quick response dated September 3, 2015. In that letter, you stated
that you would refer our request to Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) staff at the
VTA Board of Directors' September 3 meeting. It has been almost three months now
and we are not clear what the status of our request is.
We ask that the Board take up this issue by the end of the year. If that is not possible,
please provide a firm commitment of when it will happen. Although a draft scope of a
transportation study of the State Route 85 corridor was discussed by the State Route 85
Corridor Policy Advisory Board (PAB) during its first meeting last week, we want to
make it clear to the VTA Board that the proposed West Valley study, while beneficial, is
not the comprehensive study the nine cities requested in our joint letter.
We understand the comprehensive study we are requesting cannot be completed before
a 2016 sales tax measure, but, as we noted in our letter, it is imperative that work on the
study begin as soon as possible and not wait for the sales tax measure before it gets
underway. Please let us know when the VTA Board will be taking up the issue of
initiating the comprehensive study.
We would also appreciate your assistance in directing VTA staff to share any relevant
data they have developed regarding current and future employment, housing and
50
ATTACHMENT 3 to
The Honorable Perry Woodward
December 3, 2015
Page 2
commute patterns/ data within and outside of Santa Clara County. This information
will help cities as we evaluate and prioritize all the VTP 2040 proposals.
Thank you for your attention to this request.
Sincerely,
Jason Baker, Mayor
City of Campbell
Far- all�
Barry Chang, Mayor
City of Cupertino
Jeannie Bruins, Mayor
City of Los Altos
John McAlister, Mayor
City of Mountain View
Karen Holman, N1a\or
City of Palo alto
Howard Miller, Councilmember
City of Saratoga
r 'e �4de
Courtenay C. Corrigan, Mayor James Griffith, Mayor
Town of Los Altos Hills City of Sunnyvale
cc: Nuria Fernandez, General Manager, VTA
VTA Board of Directors
Carl Guardino, Silicon Valley Leadership Group
Mark Linder, City Manager, City of Campbell
David Brandt, City Manager, City of Cupertino
Marcia Somers, City Manager, City of Los Altos
Carl Cahill, Town Manager, Town of Los Altos Hill
Laurel Prevetti, Town Manager, Town of Los Gatos
Daniel H. Rich, City Manager, City of Mountain View
James Keene, City Manager, City of Palo Alto
James Lindsay, City Manager, City of Saratoga
Deanna Santana, City Manager, City of Sunnyvale
�. 251
N
MEETING DATE: 02/02/16
ITEM NO: 3.2 �
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DATE: JANUARY 26, 2016
TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
FROM: LAUREL PREVETTI, TOWN MANAGER
SUBJECT: HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES
MODIFICATIONS. APPLICANT: TOWN OF LOS GATOS
ADOPTA RESOLUTION TO AMEND CHAPTER II. (CONSTRAINTS
ANALYSIS AND SITE SELECTION) AND CHAPTER V. (ARCHITECTURAL
DESIGN) OF THE HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND
GUIDELINES.
It is recommended that the Town Council adopt a resolution to amend Chapter IL (Constraints
Analysis and Site Selection) and Chapter V. (Architectural Design) of the Hillside Development
Standards and Guidelines (Attachment 11) and make the required findings that the amendments
are consistent with the General Plan and its Elements and that the amendments are exempt from
the California Environmental Quality Act [Section 15061(b)(3)].
The Planning Commission has recommended approval of amendments to the Hillside
Development Standards and Guidelines (HDS&G) (Chapter II. — Constraints Analysis and Site
Selection and Chapter V. —Architectural Design) which would provide additional guidance to
applicants, staff, and the deciding bodies regarding visibility, light reflectivity, and determining
compliance with the HDS&G.
The Town's HDS&G were adopted by the Town Council in January 2004. The HDS&G are used
along with other policy and regulatory documents adopted by the Town, including the General
Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Blossom Hill Comprehensive Open Space Study, and the Hillside
Specific Plan.
PREPARED BY: JOEL PAULSON
Interim Community Development Director
Reviewed by: Assistant Town Manager Town Attorney Finance 52
/tmp/ufc/conversion-1215/input.docx
PAGE 2
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES MODIFICATION
JANUARY 26, 2016
�- On September 23, 2015, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider proposed
amendments to Chapters II. and V. of the HDS&G regarding light reflectivity value (LRV) and
the visibility analysis. The staff report and exhibits for the September 23, 2015 Planning
Commission meeting are included in Attachment 1. Verbatim minutes for the Planning
Commission meeting are included in Attachment 2. Following a short discussion and after
receiving public testimony the Planning Commission continued the matter to a Study Session on
October 21, 2015.
On October 21, 2015, the Planning Commission held a Study Session to discuss the amendments
to Chapters II. and V. of the HDS&G regarding LRV and the visibility analysis. The staff report
and exhibits for the October 21, 2015 Planning Commission Study Session are included in
Attachment 3. Verbatim minutes for the Planning Commission Study Session are included in
Attachment 5. Following public testimony and Commission discussion regarding the proposed
amendments, the matter was continued to a Special Planning Commission meeting on December
2, 2015.
On December 2, 2015, the Planning Commission held a Special Meeting to consider revised
amendments to Chapters II. and V. of the HDS&G incorporating prior Commission comments
and input from Dr. Weissman and Lee Quintana. The staff report and exhibits for the December
2, 2015 Planning Commission Special Meeting are included in Attachment 6. Verbatim minutes
for the Planning Commission Special Meeting are included in Attachment 8. After full
consideration of the proposed amendments, the Commission is recommending that the Council
`.. approve the proposed amendments to Chapters II. and V of the HDS&G.
Attachments 9 and 10 detail the recommended changes to the HDS&G. All proposed new text is
shown as underlined and all deletions are shown with saikethrough. Additional changes
recommended by the Planning Commission at the December 2, 2015 Special Meeting are
provided in bold. More detailed discussion and supporting information for the proposed changes
to the HDS&G are available in the attached Planning Commission reports, exhibits, and minutes
(Attachments 1 through 8).
DISCUSSION:
A. Chapter II. (Constraints Analysis and Site Selection)
Chapter II. of the HDS&G ensures that development is sensitive to the goals and objectives of
the HDS&G, respects the existing site constraints, and provides guidance for a development
project with the potential for being visible from an established viewing platform(s).
The Planning Commission is recommending the addition of the following methodology language
to Section B. of Chapter II. of the HDS&G, as detailed in Attachment 9:
1.... 253
PAGE 3
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES MODIFICATION
JANUARY 26, 2016
The following steps shall be taken in completing a view analysis:
• Install story poles per adopted policy
• After the installation of story poles. photographs of the project shall be taken from the applicable
viewing platforms * using 50 MM and 300 MM lenses
• A photograph with a 50 MM lens will represent the visibility of the proposed residence from the
naked eve
• A nhotograoh with a 300 MM lens will represent an up -close perspective and help identify any
visible storypoles. netting. trees, and/or shrubbery **
• If determined necessary by the Community Development Director. three dimensional
illustrations or photo simulations of the structure may be required
• A visible home is defined as a single-family residence where X24.5% or more of an elevation
can be seen from any of the Town's established viewing platforms ***
• A Deed Restriction shall be required that identifies the trees that were used
to provide screening in the visibility analysis and requires their replacement if they
die or are removed.
• Trees with a poor or fair/poor rating shall not be included in the visibility
analysis.
• The Community Development Director shall determine if the use of a third
party consultant is required to peer review an applicant's visibility analysis.
* Other location(() as deemed appropriate by the deeidinZ:hftdv Community Development
Director may be chosen in addition to the existing viewing platforms
** Exerting vegetation and/or landscaping proposed to be removed entirely or partially shall not
be included in the view analysis
*** Percentages shall be rounded to the nearest whole number
Additionally, the Planning Commission recommended the following modification to Section B. of
Chapter II. of the HDS&G, as detailed in Attachment 9.
The locations of the viewing platforms are shown on the map on the next page, and are as follows:
1. Blossom Hill Road/Los Gatos Boulevard
2. Los Gatos - Almaden Road/Selinda Way (across from Leigh High School)
3. Hwy 17 overcrossing/Los Gatos - Saratoga Road (Highway 9)
4. Main Street/Bayview Avenue
5. Other location(s) as deemed appropriate by the deei&ngbody Community Development
Director
At the December 2, 2015 Planning Commission Special Meeting the Commission recommended
including the following points:
• A Deed Restriction shall be required that identifies the trees that were used to
provide screening in the visibility analysis and requires their replacement if they die or
are removed. 54
PAGE 4
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT. HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES MODIFICATION
JANUARY 26, 2016
• Trees with a poor or fair/poor rating shall not be included in the visibility analysis.
• The Community Development Director shall determine if the use of a third parry
consultant is required to peer review an applicant's visibility analysis.
B. Chapter V. (Architectural Design)
Chapter V. of the HDS&G provides standards and guidelines intended to encourage architectural
design that visually blends with the environment, is compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood, and is respectful of the rural character of the hillsides.
The Planning Commission is recommending the following changes to Section I. of Chapter V. of
the HDS&G, as detailed in Attachment 10:
2. Exterior material colors for homes. with the exception
of homes with any elevation that is more than 25 24.5% percent visible from the viewing platforms,
may use color averaging of all exterior materials to meet the maximum light reflectivity value of 30
and shall blend with the natural vegetation. Roof materials shall be calculated separately and
shall not exceed a light reflectivity value of 30.
�.�g1►I1gLl�K�]�Iu1I,Y.y[a7►itiaCK�lul�ld►n7_�IfI�]�
The Planning Commission recommends that the Town Council adopt the attached amendments
to Chapters II. and V. of the HDS&G.
CONCLUSION:
It is recommended that the Town Council adopt the resolution in Attachment 11 to amend
Chapter II. (Constraints Analysis and Site Selection) and Chapter V. (Architectural Design) of the
Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Reject the Planning Commission recommendation and do not modify the HDS&G
2. Accept the Planning Commission recommendation with modifications
3. Continue this item to a date certain with specific direction to staff
4. Refer the item back to the Planning Commission with specific direction
Staff does not recommend any of the above alternatives because the draft HDS&G amendments
were carefully evaluated and modified based on public involvement. In addition, the proposed
HDS&G amendments would provide additional guidance to applicants, staff, and the deciding
bodies regarding visibility, light reflectivity, and determining compliance with the HDS&G.
`1 255
PAGE 5
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES MODIFICATION
JANUARY 26, 2016
Staff received a public comment from Steve Abbs representing Davidon Homes who provided
alternative language regarding the use of poor or fair/poor trees in the visibility analysis (Exhibit 12).
Staff also received a public comment from Lee Quintana and Dr. Weismann regarding the proposed
visibility methodology and additional recommendations for modifications to the proposed visibility
methodology (Exhibit 12).
This report has been coordinated with the Community Development Department and the Town
Attorney's Office. Additional input was provided by the Town's Consulting Arborist at the
October 21, 2015 Planning Commission Study Session.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no anticipated Fiscal Impact from the proposed HDS&G amendments.
I !I CLU I OWWWW's;
It has been determined that there is no possibility that this project will have a significant impact
on the environment; therefore, the project is not subject to the California Environmental Quality
Act [Section 15061 (b)(3)].
1. September 23, 2015 Planning Commission Staff Report (includes Exhibits 1-4)
2. September 23, 2015 Planning Commission Meeting Verbatim Minutes
3. October 21, 2015 Planning Commission Study Session Report (includes Exhibit 1)
4. October 21, 2015 Planning Commission Study Session Addendum (includes Exhibit 2)
5. October 21, 2015 Planning Commission Study Session Verbatim Minutes
6. December 2, 2015 Planning Commission Special Meeting Report (includes Exhibits 5-8;
Exhibit 5 is now included as Attachment 5 to this February 2, 2016 Town Council Staff
Report)
7. December 2, 2015 Planning Commission Special Meeting Desk Item (includes Exhibit
9).
8. December 2, 2015 Planning Commission Special Meeting Verbatim Minutes
9. Proposed Amendments — Chapter II. Constraints Analysis and Site Selection
10. Proposed Amendments — Chapter V. Architectural Design
11. Draft Resolution (includes Exhibits A and B)
12. Public comments received through 11:00 a.m. Thursday, January 28, 2016
'1
W
TOWN OF LOS GATOS ITEM NO: 6
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
}j4 Meeting Date: September 23, 2015
PREPARED BY: Joel S. Paulson, Planning Manager
jpaulson(ielosaatosca.gov
SUMMARY: Public hearing to consider adoption of amendments to Chapter Il.
(Constraints Analysis and Site Selection) and Chapter V.
(Architectural Design) of the Hillside Development Standards and
Guidelines
RECOMMENDATION: Forward a recommendation to the Town Council for approval of
the attached amendments to Chapter U. and Chapter V. of the
Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines.
CEQA: It has been determined that there is no possibility that this project
will have a significant impact on the environment: therefore, the
project is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act,
Section 15061 (b)(3): Review for exemption.
FINDING: ■ Find that there is no possibility that this project will have a
significant impact on the environment; therefore, the project is
not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act,
Section 15061 (b)(3): Review for exemption (Exhibit 1).
ACTION: Recommendation to Town Council.
EXHIBITS: I. Required Findings
2. Proposed Amendments - Chapter II. Constraints Analysis and
Site Selection (six pages)
3. Proposed Amendments - Chapter V. Architectural Design (12
pages)
4. Comments from Dave Weissman (10 pages)
BACKGROUND:
The Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines (HDS&G) were adopted by the Town
Council in January 2004. The Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines are used along
with other policy and regulatory documents adopted by the Town. including the General Plan.
Zoning Ordinance, Blossom Hill Comprehensive Open Space Study, and the Hillside Specific
Plan.
The sections with proposed amendments contain areas of recent discussion by the Planning
Commission and the Town Council. Staff was directed by the Town Council to prepare proposed
amendments for consideration with the intent that further clarification would assist the deciding 257
bodies in their analysis of applications.
ATTACHMENT 1