3.2 Attachment 7TOWN OF LOS GATOS ITEM NO: 3
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DESK ITEM
Meeting Date: December 2, 2015
PREPARED BY: Joel S. Paulson, Planning Manager
jpaulson!alosgatosca. m
SUMMARY: Public hearing to consider adoption of amendments to Chapter 11
(Constraints Analysis and Site Selection) and Chapter V
(Architectural Design) of the Hillside Development Standards and
Guidelines.
EXHIBITS: Previously received with the September 23, 2015 Staff Report:
I . Required Findings
2. Proposed Amendments — Chapter 11. Constraints Analysis and
Site Selection (six pages)
3. Proposed Amendments — Chapter V. Architectural Design (12
pages)
4. Comments from Dave Weissman (10 pages)
Previously received with the December 2, 2015 Staff Report:
5. Verbatim Minutes from the October 21, 2015 Study Session
(90 pages)
6. Proposed !Methodology previously submitted by Dave
Weissman and Lee Quintana (four pages)
7. Letter from Lee Quintana submitted at the October 21, 31115
Study Session (four pages)
8. Letter from Dave Weissman (five pages)
Received with this Desk Item:
9. Comments from Commissioner Kane
REMARKS:
The attached comments from Commissioner Kane f Exhibit yi were received after the repoort on
this matter was finalized.
Prepared by: A00roved by:
Joel S. Paulson. AICP Laurel R. Prevetti
Planning Manager Town Manager Community Development Director
LRP:JSP:cg
A'T'TACHMENT ' 456
% DE% PC REPORTS 2015 H116xic IRV VmNhnt12-:Deskk m dm
This Page
Intentinnalty
Left Blank
67
Joel -
I have re -read the minutes of the 10.21 study session. Whatever I would say is in there and
hope those thoughts are reflected in the recommendation we send to the town council...
Essentially:
Substantially reduce the ability of the 25% (or 20%!) visibility requirement to me meant by tree
or bush coverage. There is the letter of the law, but there is also the spirit of the law. As Lee
Quintana points out in the minutes, "Discretion' ought to be used to preserve the hillsides -- as it
was intended by the authors of the document. That is the spirit of the law -- not that people find
ways to get around the "letter." but that we also require compliance with the "spirit." Use of
trees as helping meet the visibility requirement is a good example. Trees and bushes can die or
otherwise "go away" and there is no requirement that they be replaced in kind or "in place." That
is simply not %%hat was intended... That an act of God (or man) could result in, possibly, a full
view of a large house from the valley floor. As 1 think about it, take out any provision of
vegetation screening. That ends the argument, that ends the "game," and insures compliance
with the letter and the spirit of the HDS&G. Also, I think due consideration should be given to
the learned, impressive, considerate and appropriately passionate recommendations of Ms.
Quintana and Dr. Weissman. Finally, as mentioned above, consider reducing the 25%
requirement to 200/6 -- to include a "cap" on the size of the exposed portion of the structure.
We should take another look at the provisions regarding garages and cellars and language could
he more specific about houses "stepping down" the hillside... but those items are not before us at
this time.
`' Again, my sincere apologies for not being able to attend this important meeting.
Yours.
Michael
12/2/15 PC Desk Item
458
This Page
lntentionalhv
Left Blank
!161:]