3.2 Attachment 81
A P P E A R A N C E S:
2
Los Gatos Planning g
Kendra Burch, Chair
Commissioners:
Mary Badame, Vice Chair
4
Melanie Hanssen
Torr; 0' Donnell
5
Joanne Talesfore
6
Town Manager:
Laurel Prevetti
7
Planning Manager:
Joel Paulson
s
9
Town Attorney:
Robert Schultz
10
Transcribed by:
Vicki L. Blandin
11
(510) 337-1558
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ATTACHMENT 8
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
460
1 P R O C E E D I N G S:
2
CHAIR BURCH: We will now consider Item 3. item 3
3
4 is a public hearing to consider adoption of amendments to
5 Chapter 2, Constraint Analysis and Site Selection; and
6 Chapter 5, Architectural Design of the Hillside Development
7 Standards and Guidelines.
e Are there any disclosures by any Commissioners
9 concerning this item?
to Mr. Paulson, I understand you're going to be
11 giving us the report.
12 JOEL PAULSON: Yes, I have a brief report this
13
evening.
14
Tonight, as mentioned, we're here to continue the
is
discussion relating to visibility, methodology, and light
16
reflective value for colors for the hillside. This was last
17
discussed at a study session on October 21" where the
18
Planning Commission asked a number of questions and then
19
20 asked Staff to specifically respond to questions that were
21 included in the methodology document that was submitted by
22 Dr. Weissman and Ms. Quintana.
23 Additionally, the Commission requested
24 information regarding light reflective value, so both of
25 those issues have been addressed in the Staff Report, and
.d1
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines 2
I we're here to answer any further questions or go through
2 any other documentation that you have.
3
Staff also provided four questions regarding
4
visibility, methodology, and four questions regarding the
s
LRV, just to get some input or to allow the Commission to
6
discuss those specific items as they're going through. I
a imagine in the course of the discussion that most of those
9 are going to be touched on anyway, but we wanted to put
to those in the Staff Report.
11 As mentioned before, there is a Desk Item for
12 this matter, and we are available to answer questions.
13 CHAIR BURCH: Does anyone have any questions of
14 Staff about the Staff Report or procedures? Commissioner
15 Talesfore.
16 COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: (Inaudible).
17 JOEL PAULSON: The questions are in the Staff
16 Report for this evening.
19
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: I have a housekeeping.
20
I've read this more than twice and I wanted to bring it up
21
22 to Staff, and it has to do with two sentences, and I'll
23 tell you where they are. One is in the -September 23`a Staff
24 Report on page 4; it talks about exterior material colors.
zs "For homes, with the exception of homes with any elevations
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
N
462
1 that is more than 25% visible from the viewing platforms
2 may," et cetera.
3 But then chapter 2, section 1, page 14 of your
4
Staff Report—Do you have that in front of you?—says, 'A
s
visible home is defined as a single-family residence where
6
25% or more of an elevation can be seen."
So I'm reading the 25% as different in both of
e
those points.
9
JOEL PAULSON: We can do some wordsmithing and
10
make sure that the language in both of those sections
11
12 mirror as close as possible to each other.
13 COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Thank you, because
14 otherwise it is a little confusing. All right, thank you
15 very much. That's all I have for now.
16 CHAIR BURCH: Commissioner Hanssen.
17 COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I had a question about the
1e history of one of the criteria in the guidelines. My
19 question was it was relative to the different approaches to
20
the view analysis, and if I understood it correctly, an
21
correct me if I'm wrong, in today's standards if it is more
22
than 25% visible, then the height has to be restricted to
23
18' instead of 25', is that correct?
24
JOEL PAULSON: That's correct.
25
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines 4
I I COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: So what I wondered was
2 (there was a comment in the Staff Report that a smaller
3 house with an 18' elevation would be in compliance, because
4
they're already at 181. What was the history behind
s
deciding on 18' as height criteria? You'd still see 18'
1.1
from the viewing platform, or a portion of that, and so I
s wondered what was behind that? We hadn't talked about that
9 (before, and that seemed to be the only corrective action
10 (for whatever the viewing criteria set, that the height
11 (would have to be reduced by 7'
12 I JOEL PAULSON: We don't have that handy. I
13 (believe there will be speakers tonight that were on the
14 (Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines Committee
15 Ithat may be able to shed some light on that. I think the
16 (point was that if you read the Town Code, it allows
17 actually 30' for hillside residential. However, when the
18 guidelines were adopted, they were adopted with a height of
19
251, and in looking through the visibility analysis I would
20
imagine that they assumed that if something was going to be
21
visible that they wanted it to be single story, and so 18'
22
23 is a fairly common single -story house at this point.
24 CHAIR BURCH: Any other questions? No? All right,
25 we're now going to open the public portion of the public
hearing and give anyone who would like to speak tonight
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
5
QomE=
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
is
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
three minutes to address the Commission. If anyone has not
turned in a card, please do so.
The first card I have is Dennis Razzari. Please
make sure you state your name and pull that microphone
close so we can hear you clearly.
DENNIS RAZZARI: Good evening, members of the
Commission. I'm Dennis Razzari and I represent Davidon
Homes. I appreciate the opportunity once again to speak to
you about this. Staff had raised a number of questions and
I first would like to respond to those.
The current standard on the Hillside Development
Standards and Guidelines was for 25%, as we've all been
discussing. It's not ambiguous; it's very well defined. It
works; it has worked for the Town for 12 -plus years. It's
being contested with the result of what Davidon has been
doing was the Highlands development, but even with that
it's a discretionary approval that remains your purview to
approve or deny.
I think you have the ability to override that
regardless of how the language is amended. Any application
that goes before the Commission can be appealed to Council.
There are three opportunities, despite what the guidelines
say, that allow you the purview to make a decision on that.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015
.05
item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
6
I The Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
2 allow for homes to be a maximum of 18' high if they're over
3 25% visibility. Commissioner Talesfore has just raised that
4
question. So that home can be 100% visibility on that
5
hillside if it exceeds the 25%. We've been spending a lot
6
of time on reducing the visibility of these homes based on
7
e whether the trees screen them or not, but there's always
9 that alternative that these houses can drop down to 18' in
to height and be 100% visible based on the Hillside
11 Development Standards and Guidelines.
12 The Town's arborist is an independent consultant
13 to the Town. They aren't retained by Davidon Homes or any
14 applicant; they're retained by the Town. The applicant ends
1s up paying their bill, so they are an appropriate
16 independent consultant to the Town to make decisions and
17 make determinations on the stature of the tree, the health
19 of the tree, the vigor of the tree. They should be used, I
19
believe, to determine whether that tree can qualify for
20
screening characteristics or not.
21
Staff raised questions, as was mentioned prior to
zz
23 opening the public hearing, that they were looking for
feedback on.
24
25
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
7
1
2
3
4
s
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Deed restrictions are doable. They are very
doable and we would support that for mitigation tree
planting.
The Town arborist, as I mentioned, should be the
determining consultant to determine the character of the
tree, whether it's poor, fair or healthy, and use that
tree.
Sparse canopy should still be allowed for
screening. Screening doesn't mean cloaking. It's doesn't
mean it's going to be invisible. When you look out your
window and you have a screen, you see through it. These
houses, or any house, are going to be visible to some
degree.
It is screening, so if anything, rather than
deleting definitions in the glossary, add a definition for
screening. What is intent of screening? We believe it works
and should continue to work with the current guidelines.
Thank you.
CHAIR BURCH: Thank you. Do we have any questions
for the speaker? No? Thank you. The next card that I have
is for David Weissman.
DAVID WEISSMAN: I'd like to make two quick
points.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
e
67
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
s
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
is
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
OR
CHAIR BURCH: I'm going to interrupt you before
they start your time. You need to state your name for the
record, please.
DAVID WEISSMAN: Dave Weissman. Sorry. Two
points, if I may.
Since the last time that we discussed this issue,
and Lee Quintana and I submitted a draft ordinance, I have
come across new information, which is in Exhibit 8 in your
packet. I believe the matrix presented in Exhibit 8 could
be substituted for the narrative of which trees should and
should not be counted as screening that is presented on
page 2 of the sample draft ordinance that Lee Quintana and
I sent you for the prior study session.
This matrix has the advantage of treating the two
different species of our hillside oak trees differently
since they do respond differently to disturbance. I would
recommend that trees given an in-between classification by
the consulting arborist, for example, a tree graded as poor
to fair be treated as poor in the matrix, since this gives
the benefit of the doubt to the hillside visibility
standards and not to the developer.
Secondly, I want to put forth one last appeal for
peer review for the visibility calculations. If I can, I
will use a story to illustrate.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
N
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
is
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
In 1989 a group of scientists in Utah promised
the ultimate solution to the world's energy crisis: cold
fusion. People started talking Nobel Prize despite the
seeming violation of the law of thermodynamics. But it
wasn't until the Utah group actually published their
methodologies that others could find errors in their
experiment. That is the power of peer review.
For our purposes here tonight, peer review is not
Staff looking over numbers submitted by an applicant and
saying that all looks okay. It is an outside firm without
potential conflicts of interest doing an independent
analysis using their own derived numbers and coming to
their own conclusions.
Now, Davidon has raised the specter of these
extra costs to a developer interested in building a single
house, but don't be persuaded by these fears. Peer review
would only be needed in unusual cases, a situation indeed
very rare, according to Staff.
To cite an actual example of why peer review is
sometimes necessary, at past Town meetings Davidon has
merely stated that they don't count trees that are to
removed in the visibility calculations, but nowhere does
the architectural firm actually doing the calculations
lexplain their specific methodologies for removing trees
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
10
139
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
from screening included in their lengthy letter of April
130, 2015.
Why should be believe them without concrete
evidence? For the Highlands project we still don't know how
the trees that will be removed for construction have been
removed from the visibility analysis, we have only Davidon
telling us that they were. But don't tell me that you did
it, show me how you did it, and the results both before and
after. That's transparency.
CHAIR BURCH: Thank you. Any questions for the
speaker? No? Thank you. The next card I have is Steve Abbs.
STEVE ABBS: Hi, good evening, I'm Steve Abbs
with Davidon Homes.
I have submitted a Desk Item here, which Joel is
passing out. Basically what I've done is taken Mr. Weissman
and Ms. Quintana's proposed methodology and point -by -point
gave an applicant's perspective on how we don't agree with
the language. We find that this proposed methodology is not
only unfair to an applicant, it's very ambiguous, and in
fact it lacks expert input and opinion.
In fact, I'm kind of disappointed that Ms. Debbie
Ellis is not here. The experts that the Town has to rely on
with a document like this is Community Development and
Planning, and the Town Arborist. Debbie actually had some
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
11
470
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
great testimony last hearing that was very useful, and
again, I think it's disappointing that she's not involved
in this conversation.
But it's very important as you read through my
comments that the current guidelines, the way they're set
up and the current methodology actually, relies on the
arborist's comments as far as each tree. Each tree is
different, each lot is different, each viewing platform has
different distances for each application, so to apply
certain criteria to all doesn't necessarily work in this
situation, and that's in respect to asking the question if
a deciduous tree or a sparse tree or a defoliated tree
should be used for screening. Every tree is different,
every canopy is different; it has a different structure. So
that's one point I wanted to make.
Mr. Kane has put it for a Desk Item. He's
basically recommending—he's not here to defend himself—that
no vegetation should be used for screening, and that
absolutely to me, with all due respect, makes to sense. In
that case, if you have a down-sloping lot, you have 100%
visibility every single time. That's what visibility is
screened by, the trees; there's nothing else that can
screen it besides the trees.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015 71
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
16
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The other point I want to bring up that didn't
get in the Staff Report as far a question that needs to be
discussed is to plant screen trees. Again, the past mayor,
Mayor Wasserman, and Councilperson McNutt, publicly stated
that trees should be used for screening. With the fact that
a deed restriction is possible, it just seems like it's a
win-win for everybody, the fact that it will mitigate
viewing, and it will replenish the oak woodland that is
depleting, according to Debbie Ellis.
CHAIR BURCH: Thank you. I'm going to ask you to
hold on a minute. This is a Desk Item that then came up in
his discussion. Can we take a moment to review this before
we ask questions?
JOEL PAULSON: Yes.
CHAIR BURCH: Okay. Would you guys like to take a
minute to look at this prior to questions? Commissioner
O'Donnell.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: I'm concerned that it
looks like a lot of work went into this, but because a lot
of work went into it, taking five or ten minutes now I
don't think is going to do it, and I guess the question I
was going to ask is why are we getting it now? That's fire,
they can do that, but it looks like a lot of work went into
this, and the work may be good, I don't know, but I'll tell
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
13
472
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
you right away that I won't be able to digest this in five
or ten minutes. So if the Chair wants to take time, that's
fine, but I can tell you right now, I will not feel like
I'm familiar with this in any reasonable time this evening.
If somebody submits something at the absolute last moment,
if in fact its the pleasure of this Commission once again
not to reach a decision, and we can do that, but I'm very
disappointed that we got this much material at this late
moment.
CHAIR BURCH: Thank you, Commissioner. Any other
comments? Commissioner Badame, you had your hand up.
VICE CHAIR BADAME: I would be in agreement with
that. There's a lot of material to absorb and we need to
make an informed decision, and we can't get through this in
five minutes.
CHAIR BURCH: Okay. Well, does anyone then have
any questions of the speaker at this time? Commissioner
O'Donnell.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: The question I have is
why did you deliver it to us at essentially 7:15 this
evening?
STEVE ABBS: That has been done by Mr. Weissman
and Ms. Quintana at prior hearings, and you guys have
reviewed that document and asked questions regarding that
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
14
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
specific document. I don't know if it was Chairperson Burch
or Vice -Chair Badame that actually said that you guys
encourage written documentation up to the hearing.
And honestly, it is a lot of work, but if you go
through it, if this is the methodology that the Planning
Commission is considering, it's a point -by -point. It looks
like a lot of information, but they're just little bullet
points that rebut what this language has. So I mean if this
is something that if that methodology—and in fact I think
there is maybe some confusion—is not what Staff is
proposing, it is methodology that Ms. Quintana and Mr.
Weissman are proposing. Staff's recommendations for
methodology are completely different.
If you are considering that methodology, as you
go down that, and if those recommendations are made for
this methodology, my little bullet point, it takes one
second to read each item for each of those bullet points.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: My question was...
STEVE ABBS: I apologize for submitting it late.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Yeah, my question was
simply why did you wait until 7:15 to give it to us? You're
correct; everybody seems to abuse that position, but
everybody takes the risk that their what may be cogent
points will not be as well received or as understood if
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
15
474
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
la
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
they got it in so we could read it. But that's your risk,
not ours.
STEVE ABBS: And again, from the prior hearings,
to me, and it was a miscalculation on my part then, but it
seems like in the prior hearings when Mr. Weissman and Ms.
Quintana hand in that document, it gets your immediate
attention, and that was my miscalculation. I had submitted
on October 16`h a 12 -page letter that there is no
acknowledgment in this Staff Report that we even supplied
that letter to you guys. I dont know if you guys have even
read that. I had called Joel on that earlier this week and
said, "Why is our document not even included in this Staff
Report? Why is Davidon not even included in the Staff
Report as if we didn't even exist and showed up to the
hearings?"
So there is a little bit of frustration on the
fact that I feel, especially in the Staff Report, it's
leaning more to Ms. Quintana and Mr. Weissman's point of
view when it should be equally weighed on all citizens of
Los Gatos, all applicants of Los Gatos. I don't think we're
getting that fair shake.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Let me just say this,
and I don't direct this just at you, but I think if you put
yourself, or if anybody puts themselves, in the position of
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
16
:75
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
s
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
a Commissioner and they hand them a good document at 7:15
on the evening of the hearing, the limitations of the human
mind being what it is, you take a risk that your points
will not be fully understood, so all I'm saying is it's not
directly at you...
STEVE ABBS: Understood.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: ...and I agree with you
that this position is often done, but everybody that does
that takes the risk that instead of studying it, we're
going to have to act quickly, and that's not the preferred
way to do it in my book.
STEVE ABBS: Understand. And I actually had asked
Joel to hand it out prior to the meeting, and he did not.
CHAIR BURCH: Commissioner Badame.
VICE CHAIR BADAME: Mr. Abbs, I'd like to point
out that we do have in our possession a letter from you
dated October 16`h regarding the visual analysis
methodology, so I hope that's the one that...
STEVE ABBS: Thank you. I appreciate that being
acknowledged, and I appreciate that it be acknowledged that
we are putting in as much time and effort as Mr. Weissman
and Ms. Quintana.
VICE CHAIR BADAME: Thank you.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
17
476
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
13
14
15
16
17
is
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIR BURCH: Okay. So then to step in here,
based on history, we have often been given items at the
dais, and I know that it isn't everybody favorite, but
historically we've given that about two or three minutes
for people to review. whether you choose to review it or
not is completely your choice, but I'm going to ask if we
can just have a couple minutes for us to flip through, see
if there's anything that jumps out that any Commissioners
would like to question.
(Pause.)
CHAIR BURCH: All right, I'm going to ask if my
fellow commissioners have any questions of the speaker
concerning the document in front of us? I do know it was a
lot. Does anyone have any questions on this? Okay, no.
Thank you.
STEVE ABBS: Thank you for your time. It was not
my intention to do that, and duly noted, won't happen
again. Sorry about that.
CHAIR BURCH: Thank you. Our next speaker is
Michael Keaney.
MICHAEL KEANEY: Thank you, Chair Burch and
members of the Commission. My name is Michael Keaney; I'm
with SummerHill Homes, and I am the project manager for our
17 -unit project on Prospect Road.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
18
,17
1
2
3
4
s
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
19
20
21
22
23
24
2s
I spent a lot of time over the last year talking
to neighbors about construction (inaudible) site, and the
homes that we are proposing. They have all expressed the
desire for high-quality architecture that integrates into
the neighborhood. Three of them have submitted letters to
the Town requesting that the LRV averaging methodology be
allowed for all homes in the hillside area.
The LRV averaging methodology takes the square
footage of each elevation and requires that an applicant
calculate the percentage of the square footage that is
allocated to each color used. This creates an average that
is weighted based on the colors used and how much they are
used on each elevation. This method is completely
quantifiable and eliminates the opportunity for an
applicant to circumvent the goals of the LRV Policy under
the previous Staff interpretation. It will result in higher
quality architecture that integrates into the hillside
environment and the existing neighborhood.
We are not opposed to the idea of including an
LRV cap, but we feel it's important that the cap be high
enough to maintain the goal of creating high-quality
architecture. If the cap is too low, you could have a
scenario where a home that has predominantly dark colors
with a small amount of light colored trim had a lower LRV
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
19
ru:0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
is
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
average than a home that used more colors from the middle
of the spectrum. It effectively squeezes people in to the
middle colors, because there's less of an advantage to
create the contrast with the really dark shade, so I think
there's a benefit to having a little more flexibility, and
that the average achieves the goal that you're trying to
get to of keeping anything from being too far up the color
spectrum.
I'm available to answer any questions you have,
and we also have our architect here this evening who is
going to speak a little more in the direction of where on
the spectrum those colors fall, and help provide some
information on what some of those styles are and how they
would benefit the Town as a whole. Thank you.
CHAIR BURCH: Thank you. Any questions?
Commissioner Hanssen.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I think you started to go
there. In your opinion, if there were an LRV averaging cap
or maximum LRV value that could be allowed, what would you
recommend?
MICHAEL KEANEY: I'm going to let our architect,
Dan Hale, answer that, because he's got some palettes and
some different things that will provide some visual
characterization that helps put it in context.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
20
19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
is
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
PIN
CHAIR BURCH: All right, any other questions?
Commissioner Talesfore.
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: My question is when you
read one of the policies of the guideline here, and it says
that exterior material colors... I'm sure you're familiar
with the new language that's been proposed?
MICHAEL KEANEY: Yeah, I think so...
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: So wait a minute, here's
the question. I wanted to make sure you were familiar with
it. So when it says at the end of the sentence, "and shall
blend with the natural vegetation," what does that mean to
you?
MICHAEL KEANEY: You're talking about the
language in the existing guidelines?
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: And the proposed ones.
MICHAEL KEANEY: Well, I think the previous
guidelines had a couple things that were all pointed
towards having homes that integrated with the hillside, and
they encourage the use of natural materials: stone and
wood. I think that's part of the reason Staff for years
interpreted those as being exempt, because they looked like
part of the environment, so it's not as important that they
not be reflecting a lot of light, like a window or a really
light colored home.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I think part of the benefit of the averaging
alternative is that you're making an effort to show what
that natural material's reflectivity would be, but you're
also not penalizing someone for using it on the home just
because it's a little bit lighter than an LRV of 30, which
is a pretty dark shade, as you'll see when Dan shows some
color chips.
I'm not sure if your question is what's the
natural setting. It could be stumps, it could be brown, it
could be light colored stone, it could be limestone, it
could be...
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: But how do you address
that when the sentence ends with, "and shall blend with the
natural vegetation." I mean do you have conflict with that?
Maybe that's a better way of asking the question.
MICHAEL KEANEY: To my mind the guidelines'
primary goal as it relates to the light reflexivity was to
prevent seeing reflections and seeing starkly colored homes
on the hillside from the valley floor. When you're driving
through a hillside neighborhood, kind of down in some of
the valleys that are around, and you're getting into darker
areas as it is, in some cases a lot of the houses up there
that I think really look great don't comply, they're
lighter colored houses, but they're in locations where they
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
22
31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
fit into the environment because they're using a balance of
materials and stone and stucco and clay tiles and all kinds
of different things, and it's not as important that they
fit perfectly there. It's that you don't want to see them
from the valley floor and feel like you're looking up at
the Oakland hills or something where they're really
standing out and they don't look like they really belong.
CHAIR BURCH: All right, thank you. Do we have
any other questions? No? Thank you. The next card I have is
for Lee Quintana.
LEE QUINTANA: Lee Quintana, 5 Palm Avenue.
I'd just like to start with one comment on the
color averaging. It's never been clear to me, so I would
ask if you or Staff could clarify, when you're talking
about color averaging, are you including both the roof
structure and the side elevations, or are those determined
separately? Because it seems like roofs have much more of
an impact on visibility if they're high reflectivity.
I really only have a couple of comments on the
rest of it.
The Town has a deadline for Desk Items to ensure
that the Commission or the Council can have adequate time
to review them, because they receive them ahead of time.
It's true that sometimes in response to a Desk Item
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
23
482
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
is
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
somebody would submit something late, but it is taking a
chance. The comments that Dave Weissman and I have
submitted have all been submitted in time to appear as a
Desk Item to give you time to read them.
In addition, I have two other comments that have
to do with the fact that Joel and Dave and I had a
discussion on Tuesday, and looking at what little bit I
could read of this—I'm a slow reader—some of the issues
that were brought up we did discuss, and I think Dave and I
would be very happy to meet with Davidon and discuss this
and maybe come up with some compromises.
Lastly, I want to make a comment on the 25% and
on "vantage points" versus "viewing platforms." Basically
the objectives and goals of the Hillside Design Guidelines
were to minimize the visibility of homes in the hillside,
including from the valley floor. Somehow viewing platforms
became used as from the valley floor and other vantage
points were sort of lost in translation. I think there
should be one term used for both, and maybe it should be
viewing platforms within the hillsides and the valley
floor, or whatever, but I think we make a distinction that
was never intended.
I'm out of time, unless you have questions.
CHAIR BURCH: Commissioner Badame.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
24
s3
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1a
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
VICE CHAIR BADAME: Ms. Quintana, you were on the
committee that developed the Hillside Development Standards
and Guidelines, correct?
COMMITTEE MEMBER QUINTANA: That's correct.
VICE CHAIR BADAME: I'm really bothered by this
25%, where it came from, and I can't get a reason behind it
other than it was thrown in at the last minute. Are there
any Town records that can tell us the discussion that went
into that 25%? I will look to Staff for that, and I will
also look to you to answer that if you remember that from
any of the discussion.
COMMITTEE MEMBER QUINTANA: My recollection is
that there was an ad hoc committee of the Planning
Commission, I believe, to go over some issues that had been
raised at the public hearing of the draft for the hillside.
I was appointed to the committee, however, we were told
that there were going to be four meetings and you couldn't
miss any of them, and when the meeting schedule came out I
found that I was on vacation for one of the meetings, so I
was replaced by another commissioner who missed one of the
meetings.
So my answer to you is that one, had I been in
that discussion I probably would have wanted some very good
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
25
484
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
16
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
reasons for 25%; and two, I don't know where it came from.
It wasn't there in the final draft before that meeting.
VICE CHAIR BADAME: I will look to you, Staff. It
may be a little late in the game to retrieve that
information, but is there any documentation, any
transcripts, or any discussion on record that told us how
they derived the 25% visibility cut-off?
JOEL PAULSON: Not that Staff is aware of, and if
it would have been part of the ad hoc process, there for
sure would not have been verbatim minutes, and there
probably wouldn't have been any minutes.
VICE CHAIR BADAME: Thank you, Mr. Paulson.
CHAIR BURCH: Commissioner Hanssen.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I have a question for Ms.
Quintana about the vantage point versus the viewing
platform. What I was trying to understand was what were you
trying to get out it? Other than seeing things from the
valley floor, where would a vantage point be that wasn't on
the valley floor? Whether it was the existing viewing
platforms or down the street, where would a viewing
platform example be that's not down at the street level?
COMMITTEE MEMBER QUINTANA: I'm not sure I can
answer that exactly; I think that's something that would
have to be determined as each project came in so that you
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
26
35
1
2
3
4
5
6
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
is
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
would know where the project was located, and know the
developments that were around it and the streets that were
around it, and the areas that it could be visible from.
One example that I can think of, which is just
one example, after the Highlands was approved there was an
A&S that may have involved the subdivision too, I don't
know, for one home in the area behind the Highlands I think
on Drysdale or Green Terrace or something up there -Staff
can probably remember the street names better than I can -
and that applicant was required to reduce the height of the
house because it would be visible from one of the lots in
Highlands. So that's one example.
Could be if you did a development along Shannon
Road you could see numerous houses from Shannon Road, or
some of the major streets in the hillsides. I mean it was
never specifically determined, but the Hillside Design
Guidelines themselves and the very first portion of it do
Say, "Views of the hillsides, including from the valley
floor," almost as if they were emphasizing views within the
hillsides more than the valley floor and we flipped it
around, although I think both are equal, in my opinion.
And the use of platforms versus vantage points, I
think it was all vantage points to begin with and a
director of planning came up with this platform idea, and I
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
27
MAE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
think our initial response was we sort of laughed, because
we thought there was actually going to be a platform built
that you stood on to view.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I think I understand more
about where you're coming from, but isn't it true that any
house in the hillside though would be visible from some
other place, if not in their own neighborhood? Because
there has to be some kind of line where you draw it and say
that...
COMMITTEE MEMBER QUINTANA: Sure, there's
discretion that has be used, but if the intent is to
maintain the rural, open feeling of the hillsides, that's
part of what I would assume would be taken into
consideration in making that kind of a decision of whether
it needs to be addressed or not.
CHAIR BURCH: Commissioner Talesfore, did you
have a question? You had your hand up earlier.
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Well, I think it was you
wanted to address two things.
COMMITTEE MEMBER QUINTANA: It was the 2596.
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: It was the 25%?
COMMITTEE MEMBER QUINTANA: Yeah, I don't
understand that, and I don't understand saying that if you
reduce the house height from 25' to 18' the house would
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
28
37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
1s
16
17
is
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
still be 100% visible, because in many cases a good portion
of the part of the house that's visible is the roofline or
the roof, and the size the house that's allowed is, our
previous planning director, many directors back, used the
word `nominal," the FAR is nominal, which means that it's
not a fixed number, and if that size a house is going to
cause a house to be prominently visible, then perhaps the
solution is a smaller house. I shouldn't be opining.
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: You and Dr. Weissman put
in a tremendous amount of work on these documents, and
there's a lot that I would hope that we pay attention to;
there's a lot there.
But let me ask you, if you were going to draw up
the new visibility from the hillsides, would you even
include a percentage, or not?
COMMITTEE MEMBER QUINTANA: No. My opinion? No. I
wouldn't include a percentage.
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Because?
COMMITTEE MEMBER QUINTANA: Because if it's
visible, it's visible. I was shocked when I went to the
glossary and found the definition for visible in the
glossary as being 25% visible, because visible to me is you
can see it. And that definition also went in at the very
end of the process, so when a person reads the rest of the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
29
RUM
1
2
3
4
5
6
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
document, unless they happen to flip to... I mean visible is
visible. If you can see it, you can see it. And if we want
to minimize visibility, the way to do it is in the design
and the siting and the size.
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Fair enough. Thank you.
CHAIR BURCH: Any other questions? No? Thank you.
IDan Hale.
DAN HALE: Good evening, Dan Hale with Hunt Hale
Jones Architects.
CHAIR BURCH: Mr. Hale, I'm going to ask you to
give us just one second to get this passed out.
DAN HALE: Okay. Sorry.
CHAIR BURCH: So we also have these. I'd like my
Commissioners to please note that if you flip it over, the
LRV percentage is on the back of these cards. You don't
want to look at this first?
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: No.
CHAIR BURCH: Okay.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: (Inaudible).
CHAIR BURCH: All right, Mr. Hale, go ahead.
DAN HALE: Good evening, Dan Hale with Hunt Hale
Jones Architects.
As Mike Keaney mentioned, I am working with
SummerHill as their architect on the Sorellas project. As
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
their architect I'm very familiar with trying to come up
with color schemes that have an LRV maximum 30€; it's
extremely challenging. The actual color samples that I
passed out, I was going to have you pay attention to the
bottom three colors and the top color in particular. With a
maximum of 30% you're limited to the bottom three colors to
provide interest and character to the architecture, and I
find that with the 30% maximum you really end up with dark,
kind of dreary, uninspired elevations.
I do have a couple of examples to show you what
averaging can give you to enhance the architecture in your
town, not for just our particular project. On the first
page there are two examples of traditional architecture,
and what I'd like to point out is I think the contrast in
colors provides interest and detail and accentuates the
architectural design.
Now, in these two homes the body colors are still
higher then 30, but it's the point of having some
contrasting colors. You can look at the gable in detail.
You can look at the window boxes. You can look at the porch
railings, the masonry used. All the contrast provides
interest in the architecture and enhances the architectural
design.
490
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
31
1
2
3
4
5
6
e
9
10
14
15
16
17
19
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
on the next page, the house on the lower right
actually I think would meet the averaging idea in this
town. You have a dark body color, but you're using a
lighter trim color, which provides some interest and
accentuates the architectural details: the corbels, the
window boxes, the columns on the front. This home also has
a darker masonry base that I think would fit.
But masonry is not all equal. Many architectural
styles use pre -cast trim around windows, around doors,
around columns. Pre -cast trim is meant to be stone. Stone
is a lighter, natural color, like a gray or tan. Having
that come into an LRV of 30, we'd end up painting it, and
it's historically not an appropriate way to use that type
of material.
The next page shows two additional houses. The
one on the right-hand side has real cedar shingle siding
with a natural stain and white trim. The cedar siding,
although beautiful, doesn't meet LRV 30, so you're limiting
the amount of natural materials you can use.
But you can have nice looking homes. The home on
the left is a real wood house with a darker stain in the
shingles, but lighter trim. The light trim, again, I think
enhances the architecture.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
is
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
001
I'm in support of the LRV averaging. I think for
the Town it provides better architectural design for
homebuilders, architects, homeowners, and really maintains
the character of the history of your town much better than
a maximum of 30.
I'll be happy to answer any questions.
CHAIR BURCH: All right, does anyone have any
questions of the speaker? Commissioner O'Donnell, then
Commissioner Hanssen.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: I'm curious about
averaging insofar as the roof is concerned. You said it's
your position that the roof should be included in the
averaging?
DAN HALE: We've talked about this internally in
working on the Sorellas project in particular. I do think
that the roof can be taken separately and you can look at
just the vertical wall planes. I'm okay with a maximum of
30 on the roof, and then you take each horizontal plane of
the house and material used there, and average those. I
think you can create nice architecture.
Along with averaging, if I may continue the
question, when I mentioned the maximum LRV that might be
used, if there's a limit on it, my personal opinion is
something in the order of 75. That sounds high, but on the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
33
492
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1e
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
swatches that I passed out, the top color is 75. You can
get a sense of the brightness of that. So anything above 75
really excludes bright whites, but it gives you a chance to
use some color and lighter trim. And again, you still have
to average to 30.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Could I ask him...
CHAIR BURCH: Yes, please.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Looking at the small
colors that you gave us, where would 75 fit in this six or
so...
DAN HALE: It's the top. The top one is 75. The
lightest color there is 75.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: All right, thank you.
CHAIR BURCH: Did you have a question,
Commissioner Hanssen? Did I see your hand up?
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: He answered my question,
and it was also clear after I looked at the pages that he
had up to 75; that was my guess.
CHAIR BURCH: Any other questions? Commissioner
Talesfore.
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Also, when you are
choosing colors for a home you can do variations of the
same color, correct? And that would enhance and perhaps
make certain elements stand out if you needed to, but they
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
34
.g3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
`' 14
15
16
17
is
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
could also blend in with the hillsides or whatever the
natural terrain is, if you're in the hillsides. And we're
talking about the hillsides; we're not talking about our
valley floor here, so this is all about hillsides.
DAN HALE: Understood.
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: So you know the
question.
DAN HALE: One of the reasons I passed out those
color swatches is to have a real visual about your choices
that are 30. If you want to have complementary colors
they're going to be just one tone or two off, and once you
apply that on a house, it just becomes all blending in, and
I find it very uninspiring and it does not complement
typically the architectural style.
I think even your architectural consultant, Larry
Cannon, in the past has supported the idea of averaging,
supported the idea of it being able to enhance good
architectural design with a little bit of color contrast.
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Thank you.
CHAIR BURCH: All right. Any other questions? No?
Thank you, Mr. Hale.
DAN HALE: Thank you.
CHAIR. BURCH.: All right, I don't have any
additional speaker cards, so unless we need to have any
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
35
rME
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
other discussion I'm going to close the public portion of
the hearing and ask my fellow commissioners if they have
any questions of Staff, any discussion, or want to make any
kind of recommendation to the Council. Commissioner Badame,
then Commissioner O'Donnell.
VICE CHAIR BADAME: I'd like to separate this out
and attempt a motion with the color averaging, so I'll
throw it out there and see what kind of comments I might
get from my Commissioners.
I would move to forward a recommendation to Town
Council to consider adoption of amendments to Chapter 5,
Architectural Design of the Hillside Development Standards
and Guidelines. I can make the required findings for CEQA.
The recommendation would be Staff's proposed amendment on
page 4 of the Staff Report dated October 21, 2015, with the
added language that the roof material shall be calculated
separately and shall not exceed a maximum light
reflectivity value of 30.
CHAIR BURCH: All right, so we have any questions
or discussions before we vote? Commissioner O'Donnell.
COMMISSIONER OIDONNELL: I guess where I am is
there are so many issues that we've talked about I had
hoped that we might talk about the three or four issues
that Staff has enumerated before breaking them up into a
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
36
.95
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
is
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
motion, so I just add that. Obviously if you've got a
second we can vote on it, but I'm just wondering if you
would consider discussion? I've had real trouble dealing
with all these issues, and I was hopeful that some
conversation among ourselves would certainly help me to
understand it better.
VICE CHAIR BADAME: I would be happy to withdraw
the motion. I have a lot of concerns as well, but most of
them have to do with the visibility analysis, but most
certainly I'd be happy to withdraw the motion at this time.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: If that's the case, let
me comment on that motion, because that's probably the
easiest thing I can comment on.
I kind of like the motion. I'm not sure that the
percentage you use for the roof is necessarily a percentage
that I would use, and we can discuss that, but I thought
the motion itself, that was not a problem for me. I thought
it was a good motion notwithstanding I want to talk about
the whole thing.
VICE CHAIR BADAME: Yes.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: But what I thought would
be helpful is because we have these key issues, to me one
of the issues, for example, is what you said: Shouldn't the
roof be considered separately? And the architect made that
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
1s
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
point too, I think, and I think it makes a lot of sense to
say you've got the walls, and then you've got the roof.
Let's deal with the roof separately and let's deal with the
walls separately. So I throw that as a discussion point.
Also, we've had discussions as to what does
visible mean, and obviously the word "visibility" means a
number of things, but within the context of this statute
visibility doesn't have to mean the dictionary definition,
because what we're saying here is visibility is what would
the community consider visibility, i.e. acceptable
visibility? That's why I think there's a problem with the
term visibility, and so I think we have to talk about that.
I'm just throwing these things out so we can talk
about them. One of the key things that we're going to I
think talk about tonight was the question of using trees,
that kind of thing, as screening, and I think that's going
to require a fair amount of conversation. So I'm just
trying to put on the table the issues that I see that we
want to talk about, and asking my fellow commissioners to
throw on the other things that we should talk about before
we start making a motion or motions. Let me just look here
for a second.
There are two things going on here. One, we're
trying to protect the community; and two, we're trying not
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
38
,g7
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
to essentially confiscate the property of the person who is
in the hillside, and essentially that means the person
ought to be able to build something, so we start with that.
otherwise, it would be really easy to say
visibility means we can't see you, and then it's from
where? And I've heard arguments tonight that it's from
anywhere, because it isn't just from the valley floor, it's
from the guy who's higher up, or whatever. So if that's the
case, we're going to buy the park, because that means
people can't build, and my understanding of law is if they
can't build, you just bought the park. So I don't think we
want to do that.
Personally, I think we have to come up with a way
to allow people to build without offending the
sensibilities of those of us who do not live in the
hillsides, and that's what we're talking about tonight. So
I'm hopeful that we get a really good discussion, because I
am troubled with how we enact something so when somebody
comes in and says I'd like to build a home up here, and we
say okay, here's what you have to do, to me it has to make
sense and it has not to be confiscatory, so that's what
we're talking about, and we've talked about a couple of
things.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
39
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
is
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
One is if it's 18' or less it's like it doesn't
exist, and I don't think that's the case. I think an 18'
house can be quite visible, and I don't think we want an
18' house to be quite visible, so I think to the extent
that we've ignored that in the past we ought not to ignore
it now.
So I just throw those out, stream of
consciousness, to see if I can get some feedback from my
fellow commissioners.
CHAIR BURCH: If I can step in, part of the
reason that we had previously discussed perhaps looking at
this as two conversation points, the color averaging and
then the visibility, is the color averaging has been met by
this Commission and with the Council, which agreed with the
idea of the averaging of the, I'm going to say the house
vertical surfaces and average of 30, with the roof being
separate with a cap of 30, and I believe it was a March
meeting of the Town Council. They reviewed this document,
asked Staff to go back, do some wordsmithing, and bring it
to us as a bit of formality.
JOEL PAULSON: It was part of Davidon's request
to do the averaging that was reviewed by the Planning
Commission and ultimately reviewed by the Council, and the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
40
A9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
L�
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Council did say direct Staff to bring back the potential to
allow color averaging in other areas of the hillside.
Now, the one distinction or clarification I'd
make is that the proposal from Davidon did include the
roofs. We don't have to include the roofs. There is an
opportunity to separate that, and I've drafted some
language to address that. I think Vice Chair Badame's
motion was strictly dealing with colors and wasn't dealing
with the visibility, but we can move forward from there.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: But wasn't what she said
separating the roof from the walls? (Inaudible) clear.
CHAIR BURCH: Yes.
JOEL PAULSON: She did include that.
CHAIR BURCH: Which if we want to pass this down,
this is the document that Staff created based on the
guidance of Council that provides an item that discusses,
again, as I said, the vertical surfaces of the house
separately from the roof. The roof is not involved in the
average. The roof has a maximum LRV of 30.
So Commissioner O'Donnell, the reason in perhaps
looking at this as two motions is one has already been
reviewed by the Commission and the Council. We know that
the other point which you spoke to so eloquently is going
to involve a very, I think, lengthy discussion. This
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
41
.11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
s
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1e
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
perhaps may be something that we may be able to look at -Mr.
Paulson has the document up there -and perhaps might be able
to make a recommendation to Council on this document and
then move into the discussion of the visibility.
Commissioner O'Donnell.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: I appreciate that and I
think you're correct on that, and what that may mean is we
go back to Commissioner Badame's motion in a few moments.
But the one thing I'm concerned about is the use
of what we use for reflectivity on the surfaces of the
walls. We've gotten a written statement by our Town
Architect saying the 30% is too low, and we've heard some
discussions that in some instances it may be too low for
really good architecture, so I don't know whether we're
going to discuss that or not. To the extent that people
feel that's something that Council wants and it's already
considered, maybe it's not the right time to do that.
But I've been persuaded by what the Town
Architect said, and also by the demonstration we had
tonight of the colors, and I for one would not like to see
a bunch of homes up in the hills that were all just dark
colored homes, and I think that 30% pretty much does that.
So if you take a shingled house, like we were shown in this
exhibit, the LRV review, you couldn't have that house I
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015 JJ1
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
don't believe, because it's too light, and in fact it may
be too light for the hillside. But does that mean that we
just automatically drop it back down to 30%. I have trouble
when the Town Architect raises a serious question about
that and when my visual observation also has doubts that
that's the way to go.
So I think in considering the motion—assuming
that Commissioner Badame makes that again, because I think
it's a good motion—I would like to at least be sure that my
fellow Commissioners think that 30% as suggested in that
document, for the walls, not the roof, is the right way to
go. Once we dispose of that as you suggest, then we can go
into the more difficult matters, although I think the LRV
thing is a reasonably difficult thing, but it has a fairly
quick answer, because you can say 30%, you can say 40%; I
mean that's a fairly simple word, but the concept is not.
CHAIR BURCH: Commissioner Hanssen, one minute.
Commissioner O'Donnell, I hope this is all right with Mr.
Hale, but on these color chips I did write on them 27 and
41 based on the back, just so as we are doing this
discussion we can pass this back and forth to one another
to look at the comparison between those percentages.
Okay, sorry, Commissioner Hanssen.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
43
502
1
2
3
4
s
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
is
16
17
1e
19
20
21
22
23
24
2s
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I wanted to respond to
Commissioner O'Donnell's comments. I too thought that we
were having this special meeting so that we could take a
little more time and maybe go through the questions that
Staff had raised, and/or some of the documents we got
presented with.
In the case of the color averaging, at the
50,000 -foot level it makes a lot of sense. The 30% is
clearly too restrictive and the color averaging makes
sense, but the devil is in the details, and I just thought
it would be worth maybe going quickly over some of the
questions before I was ready to take a vote. I'm pretty
comfortable with where we are right now, but there are
maybe a couple of nuances.
Just for example, one was what happens to houses
that aren't more than 25€ visible? Do they have to comply
with the 30% and they're not allowed to use color
averaging, or they don't have to worry about colors at all?
That's some stuff that I thought we should talk about, just
to be sure.
JOEL PAULSON: I just offer that the intent of
the language is that if the house is not visible, which
using the current definition of visible it's 25% or mcre,
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
44
..03
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
s
9
10
11
12
13
14
is
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
then they could use LRV averaging. If the house is visible,
then they cannot use the averaging concept.
That was what was applied for the Highlands
Planned Development. There was not a separation of the
roof. Vice Chair Badame's motion did separate the roof.
There was a lot of discussion around that at the last
meeting, so I just drafted some language, and that's the
language that they passed around that's currently up there
that excludes the roof and uses only the vertical walls for
doing the averaging.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: All right, let me play
that back. What I heard you say is if the house is defined
as visible, whatever that percentage is, they must have all
the materials be under 30% LRV.
JOEL PAULSON: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: And then it's only if
they're not visible that they can use color averaging.
JOEL PAULSON: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Okay, that helps. And then
just to comment on the viewing platform, I think that's
more complicated, and so I thought we would need to talk
about that one a little bit more.
CHAIR BURCH: We're going to talk about the
averaging, and then move into the viewing platform.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
45
504
1
2
3
4
5
6
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
is
16
17
1e
19
20
21
22
23
24
2s
Commissioner O'Donnell.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Obviously this whole
thing is perplexing to a certain extent. When you look at
the color samples we have here and you get to 41% I think,
and then once you get past 41% you start getting fairly
light colors.
Personally, I don't like 30%, and I do like
averaging, and I don't like the distinction between the 18'
house and every other house, because visibility, if you're
using binoculars, as we're using, I don't care if the house
is 18' or 35' in height, it's either going to be visible or
not visible, and if we're saying because you're 18' somehow
you're not visible, that doesn't make any sense to me.
I guess I would like to not be bound by what now
exists, but to make our recommendations, and our
recommendations would be it doesn't make any difference
whether you're 18' or not, the rules of visibility apply.
As far as whether it's 25% or not, we can talk about that,
but whatever the visibility issue is should apply to both,
not simply on the square footage of the smaller house
versus the larger house.
Then as far as the LRV is concerned, I think 35%
is too dark. When I'm looking at the exhibit we have here,
it's six colors I guess, the Chair marked up to the 41% and
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
46
X05
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
`.-
not beyond, and I can see why. I personally would feel more
comfortable with something like the 41% on averaging, and I
would think that the averaging should apply whether the
house is 18' or higher.
I also think that the suggestion made by
Commissioner Badame that we separate out the roof is a
really reasonable thing to do, because the roof should not
dictate the rest of the house, and yet the roof should have
fairly good rules, because if anything is going to be
visible, it's going to be the roof.
So those are I think three points that I would
like us to consider when we get to the roof.
Then on the question of the more subtle things, I
think the Chair is correct. We probably could take care of
the visible issues, the LRV, now, leaving open some of
these more difficult conversations for after the motion
this evening. We'd still do it, but at least we would have
the LRV thing taken care of, if everybody is comfortable
with that.
CHAIR BURCH: I know I certainly am, because it
has been something that's been discussed, and while we may
want to say as we move forward, when it says with the
exception of home of 24.5%, if we want to say at this
moment a percentage deemed acceptable by the Planning
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
47
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Commission and Council, if we're going to discuss what that
percentage is, we can always put that wording into this
motion, knowing that it is tied to the next discussion if
that makes the Commissioners more comfortable that we are
not tying into a percentage that's written up here. Of
course this was Mr. Paulson's draft. We can do that, is
that correct?
JOEL PAULSON: At one of the previous meetings
the (inaudible) was discussed, and so we were asked to
change the visibility to 24.5%, so I made this consistent.
Regardless of what the final number is here, the Council
will make the final decision on whether there's a number,
what that number is if there is a number, and so all of
these sections will be trued up to make sure that the
numbers all match from a visibility perspective, so I
wouldn't get too caught up in the number on this piece.
It's really are we comfortable with averaging? If
we are comfortable with averaging, should the roof material
be included? Those are the first two questions, and I think
Vice Chair Badame's motion gave me the perspective that she
was comfortable with those first two questions for sure,
and then you end up with the second two questions on should
there be a maximum for individual exterior materials, and
if there is, should there be some exception for small trim
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
48
a07
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
is
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
details and things like that? Those were the last two of
the four questions. The first two I felt were answered by
the vice Chair's motion.
CHAIR BURCH: Commissioner Talesfore.
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Where to begin? First of
all, I would accept the motion to separate the roof from
the rest per our discussion.
Regardless of the colors, what we have to realize
is we're speaking about the hillside, so whenever we're
making these decisions they have to be linked back to what
is in this document that actually for the most part has
been serving us pretty well since 2004, and I think it's
been fairly good.
I would hope that anyone coming into this Town
that wants to put something in our hillsides realizes how
much they mean to this town. They are our character. They
are our value. We value them.
That being said though, I do think that there can
be reason to do color averaging, especially as I went
through the minutes and realized that Joel said that... When
you do the color averaging, Joel, it's weighted, correct?
JOEL PAULSON: Correct.
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: That gives it more
detail, and so I can live with that.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
49
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
1e
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
But what I'm concerned about is getting into
these lighter colors of trim, I suppose, but if they're on
a house that can't be viewed by the valley floor, I'm more
comfortable that it could be weighted and averaged.
I don't want to cramp any architectural style,
and I will say that I drove through the hillsides the other
day. The Highlands was one place I drove and there were a
lot of very light homes there with the stone that they were
using, but things will darken after a while. Ewen if it is
stone, it tends of darken, and the trees haven't even been
put into most of those areas, so I think I'm more
comfortable now with what I'm seeing, and I think we need
to be reasonable about this.
Or the other suggestion I would make is this
about color: If it is a one subdivision, or one grouping of
homes, that perhaps, because this is what usually happens
when developments are put in, color palettes are already
chosen, so I think that if those color palettes kept in
mind that what we are trying to do here is to be reasonable
but yet to be respectful of what we want as a town, I'm
comfortable with that. That language isn't in any of this,
so I'm just hoping that somehow there's a preamble either
when a document is filled out for an application for
building that there might be some caveat that says please
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
50
j09
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
pay attention to whatever. I don't know what the language
would be, but those would be my thoughts at the moment.
CHAIR BURCH: I'm going to ask Commissioner
Talesfore a question before we go on with the discussion.
Was that a second to the motion with some added comments?
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: I would second that
motion.
CHAIR BURCH: With the added comments at the end?
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: With the added comments.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Can we have the motion
read back; it's been so long.
CHAIR BURCH: Yes.
VICE CHAIR BADAME: I'd be happy to do that.
CHAIR BURCH: Thank you.
VICE CHAIR BADAME: Almost come full circle here.
I move to forward recommendation to Town Council to
consider adoption of amendments to Chapter 5, Architectural
Design of the Hillside Development Standards and
Guidelines. I can make the required findings for CEQA. The
recommendation would be Staff's proposed amendment on page
4 of the Staff Report dated October 21, 2015, and include
language that the roof material shall be calculated
separately and shall not exceed a maximum light
reflectivity value of 30. I believe Joel Paulson has also
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
51
510
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
is
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
included a document on the overhead projector that can be
included as an exhibit that also incorporates the language
of my motion.
CHAIR BURCH: All right, so we have a motion and
we have a second. Actually, Commissioner Hanssen had her
hand up first, and then Commissioner O'Donnell.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I was going to say I was
going to be comfortable with the motion, the only exception
being it seemed like I heard a lot of support for having a
maximum LRV cap, which isn't in the current motion other
than on the roof. So I wondered if the maker of the motion
would consider putting in a cap for the other materials
besides the roof?
CHAIR BURCH: It's my understanding that if it's
visible, there is a cap. Can you clarify this?
JOEL PAULSON: There's the distinction of visible
versus non-visible, so if it is visible, then there is the
cap of 30. If it's not visible, then it's averaging and
there is no cap. I think what Commissioner Hanssen is
asking is do we want to have a cap for either all exterior
materials on the elevation using the averaging option, or
do we want to have something where trim is separated out,
which are the last two questions in the Staff Report
relating to LRV.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
52
ill
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
VICE CHAIR BADAME: With that explanation, are
you still asking me to amend my motion?
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Yes.
maximum.
JOEL PAULSON: I think she would like to cap
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: To add maximum LRV value
to any exterior materials. Just to throw out a number, I
just pulled out a number earlier today that 608 seemed
reasonable. They were suggesting earlier tonight 758. What
the number is doesn't matter, but other than that it could
be bright white, and if we're going to be having these
standards in the hillsides it seems like you want to keep
the average within range.
CHAIR BURCH: Can I take a moment to point out to
my Commissioners this document provided by Mr. Hale? The
last two pages give us some colors that have samples that
would show those LRV numbers. So if what we're mostly
talking about here is putting a cap on perhaps trim, which
was the last question from Staff, are we comfortable with I
think this is 58, and that's a 71? Is there a cap we want
to place on those, as Commissioner Hanssen said, so we're
not looking at stark white? So would we like to make that
clarification and add that to the motion?
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Could I ask a question?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
53
512
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
is
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIR HURCH: Sure.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: I'm a little confused
now, not that I was ever not confused. We're still getting
into visibility, and I guess we'll discuss that later, but
the definition of visibility that we're using basically
says you're not visible if you're 18' or less, and I
personally don't like that, because I think that's crazy.
To me, if you're visible, you're visible, but the
question is what color should you be able to use if you're
visible? Forgetting for the moment the 18' and greater and
lesser and that kind of thing, and I do believe that if you
stay at 30% for everything, you're going to have a lot of
dark, dark houses out there, and I don't think that's a
good idea.
Secondly, if you want to have some trim, I don't
think it makes a lot of sense to have the trim being the
same color as the house, and therefore it's got to be a
different color. Well, you can make it 30 or 25 or whatever
and make it so dark, but if you do what Commissioner
Hanssen was suggesting, and that is raise it a bit... I'm not
sure I'd go up to that particular number she had in mind,
but in looking at the package of smaller exhibits we had,
certainly 41 happens to be 41%, this exhibit, and there's
no magic to 1%, but the 41% is something I could live with
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
54
j13
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
on averaging, but I would like to see the averaging applied
to anything up there which is visible as normally defined,
and not as defined by if it's 18' it's suddenly invisible,
and that seems to be what we're doing.
If you're 18' or less, maybe I'm wrong, but I
hear us saying well, you're not visible. We have enough
trouble with the term "visibility," which was just pointed
out to us, but I don't have a problem when you define
visibility and say this is what visibility means. You don't
look it up in the dictionary anymore; that's what it means.
So to me visibility means if you build a house up
there and to the extent that it's visible, no 18'
exception, then you have to deal with the colors that we
are imposing, and those colors, I think 30 is just too dark
and I would like to see something higher, at least 40%, and
I would like to see averaging on whatever you build up
there.
I agree though that the roof ought to be separate
and apart, and the roof could be 30%; that doesn't bother
me at all, although somebody pointed out well what if you
put tile, and I have no idea what the LRV would be for
tile, but clearly sometimes tile could be a nice texture to
use up there. I don't know whether Mr. Paulson has some
handle on what tile is from an LRV standpoint. Do you?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
55
514
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JOEL PAULSON: Generally, in looking back at some
of the old documents for the Highlands specifically, I
think of the 18 or 19 homes that they have, there's only
one roof that exceeded 30, and that was 31. They had some
clay tile, some Mission tile, and those were all well below
30, so I don't think the 30 is an issue.
I also wanted to clarify, the 18' visibility is
not relating to the color, so if it's visible as defined in
the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines, whatever
that is, then they would have to comply with the LRV of 30
for the exterior materials.
The difference for the visibility as it relates
to height is the height gets reduced if they're more then
25% visible, so they would not be afforded the ability to
do averaging as we're currently looking at it, to clarify
that.
more?
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: If they were 25% or
JOEL PAULSON: Correct. They become visible based
on our current definition, and whatever that definition
becomes, whether they're 181, 121, 25', they'd have to meet
that requirement.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: All right, thank you.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
56
,,15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
is
16
17
16
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: I'm glad that this came
up, because we should have caught it. With looking at the
samples we have here, I would be comfortable with this at
least at 40% for trim; I could live with that, I think. I
don't think that would be taking us too far out of what
we're trying to do, which is to protect our environment and
to make the houses fit in to where they are if they're up
in the hillside. I think for trim, maybe a 40; that's what
I might recommend.
CHAIR BURCH: Can I ask for a clarification?
That's a cap, so anything else...
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: That would just be on
the trim. That would only be on houses that met the current
visibility definition.
JOEL PAULSON: LRV averaging would be allowed for
houses that were not visible as defined by the Hillside
Development Standards and Guidelines. I don't want to put
words in Commissioner O'Donnell's mouth, but I think he was
talking more of the 30 as the baseline is too low, and the
whole baseline should be raised to 40, not for trim.
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Oh, you were talking
about the whole...
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
57
516
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JOEL PAULSON: Whereas I think Commissioner
Hanssen was talking about whether or not there should be a
cap, and maybe that should be higher, the 60 number.
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Oh, I see. Okay. I
thought we were going to... Okay.
JOEL PAULSON: So those are two different ideas,
and I think those are the topics that we probably want to
discuss to remedy these last two questions of the four in
the Staff Report.
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Then my suggestion would
be that the trim could be at 40, but I don't think I'd
raise it any higher than that.
JOEL PAULSON: I think you run the risk, and I
know it's hard and a color copier probably doesn't come
across, and you have two colors there on the last two
pages.
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Right. And you can't
look at... Believe me, colors like this, you can't...
JOEL PAULSON: So I think the challenge, just
looking at the copy of the LRV scale that's in your Staff
Report, the difference between 30 and 40 is extremely
slight, so that is not going to provide a lot of
opportunity for contrast, which is what I believe some
people have been speaking to.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COhMdISSION 12/2/2015
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
58
X17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
That's why I say I think there are two separate
issues that Commissioner Hanssen and Commissioner O'Donnell
are talking about. I think Commissioner O'Donnell was
comfortable with raising the 30 to 40 just generally, and
then the average could be down to 40, and then Commissioner
Hanssen was talking about the maximum of any exterior
material being 60. I think those were the two points that
were being made. Now obviously the maker of the motion and
the seconder can discuss that.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: And my thing applied to
the houses that were not defined as visible. I didn't make
a recommendation relative to that.
JOEL PAULSON- I assumed that, yes.
VICE CHAIR BADAME: With the explanation given by
Mr. Paulson between the 30% and the 40%, that it's so
slight, I'd rather simplify this rather than complicate it
with more wording, so my motion stands as originally read.
CHAIR BURCH: Commissioner O'Donnell.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: What I heard Mr. Paulson
say was that the homes which have been built by Davidon
have not really had a problem with the 30%, except in one
instance. Now, maybe I misremembered what you just said.
JOEL PAULSON: I was specifically talking to
roofing materials.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
59
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
is
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Oh, okay, so yes, I did
misunderstand.
I guess my problem is if the motion is we don't
care whether it's the roof or it's the walls, they're not
going to exceed 30%. Okay, then again, I'm lost on what
your motion is.
out.
VICE CHAIR BADAME: My motion separated the roof
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: And what is the
percentage on the roof?
VICE CHAIR BADAME: Thirty percent.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: What is the percentage
on the walls?
VICE CHAIR BADAME: It's color averaging.
CHAIR BURCH: Cap on the roof is 30. Cap. On the
roof. Cap. Does not go higher than 30.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: That's fine.
CHAIR BURCH: The average on the vertical walls,
and that would include trim, is 30. So you could have a
trim that's 60, but the house color is darker; the average
of those have to be below 30.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: And that would apply to
any house, whether 18' or more or less?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
60
619
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JOEL PAULSON: It would apply to any house that
was not visible as ultimately defined in the Hillside
Development Standards and Guidelines.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Right. Okay, I
understand.
CHAIR BURCH: So that said, Commissioner Badame
has stated that her motion stands, and we do have a second
from Commissioner Talesfore with a couple of comments. Do
we feel comfortable now making a motion, understanding the
differential between the averaging on the vertical, the cap
on the roof, and understanding that this is for what we are
going to consider—the percentage could change in the next
discussion—visible. Is that something we're comfortable
with now?
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: I want to be sure.
Earlier in the evening I thought somebody said if you are
visible 25% or more, then you have to go down to an 18'
house, as I understand it. Then the question is are you now
not visible? Because I would like to think you are visible,
and if you are visible, then the motion would apply.
JOEL PAULSON: You're not necessarily not
visible. You could be 18' and completely visible, so you
still would not be able to use the averaging in that case.
The averaging would only be allowed to be used for any
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
61
520
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
is
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
home, whether you're 18' or 251, if you're less then the
25% threshold for visibility.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: All right, I understand.
Thank you.
CHAIR BURCH: All right, so we have a motion and
a second, and I'm going to ask are we ready to take a vote?
This is for the LRV content only; this is not visibility.
Are we ready to move for a recommendation to Council on
this item? All in favor? Passes unanimously.
Now we have, with Commissioner O'Donnell's
comments, moved perfectly into our visibility portion of
this, and I would ask perhaps to assist us, because this is
a wide ranging topic, that we maybe first look at the four
questions developed by Staff to begin this discussion, the
first being, "Should a note be added to require a deed
restriction regarding replacement of the trees used for
screening in the visibility analysis?"
Commissioner O'Donnell.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: we all know the position
taken by one Commissioner who submitted a letter this
evening, so if for the moment we assume that that position
does not prevail, I think we should have a deed restriction
to the extent that if we're going to use trees as any kind
of screen, I think those trees ought to assured of being
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
62
,i21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
35
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
there, and therefore I think we should have a deed
restriction. The language of the deed restriction will have
to be worked out, because obviously if you have a 50 year
old tree that dies you don't replace it with a five gallon
tree. The language would have to be worked out, but I think
to the question of should we have a deed restriction my
feeling is yes.
CHAIR BURCH: Commissioner Badame, and then
Commissioner Talesfore.
VICE CHAIR BADAME: I would be in agreement with
a deed restriction as well.
CHAIR BURCH: Commissioner Talesfore.
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: And I would as well.
Also I did catch in this Desk Item from Mr. Abbs that he
even suggested it, and I think it's a good suggestion. I
maybe would have been a little hesitant in suggesting it
myself, but he also talks about having a deed restriction
on trees: "Encourage tree plantings and replacement of
declining trees," even putting a deed restriction on
declining trees. Have that just be part of the building of
the house. Does that make sense?
CHAIR BURCH: Yes, it does. Commissioner
O'Donnell. It does to me.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
63
522
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: I think the deed
restriction has to be clear enough to be enforceable, and
therefore to the extent that trees are used as screening,
they will have to be identified.
CHAIR BURCH: Right.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Because you could have,
let's say, 30 trees up there and only five or ten of them
were used for screening. Those should be identified, and
let's call that one through ten. If trees one through ten,
and/or any one of them, comes down by storm or just dies,
or gets such that it loses the screening effect, then the
deed -and we're not drafting the deed -but the deed
restriction would say that will be replaced, and it will be
replaced some definition of promptly, and it will also say
how big the replacement tree will be. Obviously a 50 year
old tree is not going to be replaced with a 50 year old
tree, but we may say X size.
That's my understanding of the deed restriction:
We identify which trees the deed restriction applies to. It
will be hard enough to enforce this, and it will largely be
enforced by people saying on my goodness, we didn't used to
be able to see that, why can we see that now? Oh, that
tree's gone. So that's the way I perceive that to be.
CHAIR BURCH: Commissioner Hanssen.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
64
,,23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
s
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
OR
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: This one seems like a no
brainer in terms of something that we should definitely
include it the view analysis criteria, especially because
things could happen to the trees and there's no other way
to mitigate it.
CHAIR BURCH: I agree. I think that we could look
to Staff when it goes to look at the wording on if it's
damaged and how it's replaced.
JOEL PAULSON: Staff will craft that language
after this process is completed.
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Especially if that tree
is being used as part of the screening.
CHAIR BURCH: Based on Commissioner O'Donnell's
comment, when we get the arborist report, my recollection
is it's identified the trees that are for screening, so we
would be utilizing the arborist report, the trees
identified as screening for that deed, correct?
JOEL PAULSON: Correct.
CHAIR BURCH: Then the next one is, "Should trees
with poor or fair ratings be used for screening in the
visible analysis?"
Commissioner O'Donnell.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: (Inaudible).
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
65
524
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JOEL PAULSON: Oftentimes when our consulting
arborist, or even outside arborists, do arborist reports
they will rate the trees poor, fair, good, or excellent.
Depending on the number of their preservation suitability
and health, they may fall on the border, so they end up in
that poor/fair category or the fair/good category. There
are gradations between the solid four categories generally
looked at by our arborist.
CHAIR BURCH: Commissioner Talesfore, then
Commissioner Badame.
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: I just have a question.
Do we care that a tree is deciduous or evergreen in these
visibility calculations?
JOEL PAULSON: Clearly that's something that was
brought up by Dr. Weissman and Ms. Quintana.
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Right.
JOEL PAULSON: So that's something that the
Commission for sure could consider, as I'm sure is clear to
all the Commissioners. Staff had a recommendation for
methodology that covered the broad categories, many of
which are discussed in far more specificity in Dr. Weissman
and Ms. Quintana's version of the methodology.
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: For me, it's almost like
should more weight be given if a tree, or it could be a
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
66
,25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
cluster of trees, that for the most part screen the house,
but then at eight months of the year, I don't even know.
JOEL PAULSON: Sure. That could be part of your
recommendation to the Council, whether or not you want to
include those or not.
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: I think we should talk
about that, yeah.
JOEL PAULSON: That's definitely something that
could be discussed.
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Especially on a house
that could be extremely visible.
CHAIR BURCH: Commissioner Badame, then
Commissioner O'Donnell.
VICE CHAIR BADAME: I was going down the line
with the questions on the Staff Report, so I was on number
two, "Should trees with poor or poor/fair ratings be used
for screening in the visibility analysis?" and with the
explanation given by Joel Paulson, I would have to say no,
that they should not be used for screening in the
visibility analysis.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: I agree with that.
CHAIR BURCH: Commissioner Hanssen.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I thought when we had the
consulting arborist that she talked a little bit about the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
67
526
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
rating, that they were in pretty bad shape if they had that
rating, because she has a fair to good rating as well, but
this is fair to poor and poor, so I would be comfortable
taking those out of the calculations.
CHAIR BURCH: Okay, good. Then the next item is,
"Should trees with sparse canopies be used for screening in
the visibility analysis?"
Commissioner O'Donnell.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: That's an interesting
question, because if one assumes that it has a sparse
canopy as always, as opposed to ill health, then it simply
is a question of you're taking certain trees and you're
identifying them as your screening, and to the extent that
the sparse canopy tree is used... Let's say we have ten trees
that screen, one of them is not that good because of the
canopy, but taken together, it's fine. Clearly you couldn't
have ten trees that have sparse canopies, but you could
perhaps have one out of ten that had a sparse canopy,
whatever that means, and that's to me somewhat subjective.
When you look at it, you may say that isn't sparse, that's
almost nonexistent, and you say that doesn't work. Sparse
to me means it does screen; not as much as perhaps some
other trees might screen, but it does screen. So there's a
lot of room there, and I'm not sure how we benefit
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
68
-27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1e
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ourselves to throw up just blanket sparse screening if we
don't know what it means; and I don't know what it means.
CHAIR BURCH: Just quickly my thought on this. It
had been that if it was a tree that had been identified as
screening, yet it was healthy, but again sparse to me may
not be sparse to you, then yes. If it's sparse because it's
not healthy, then no. What do you guys think?
Commissioner Badame.
VICE CHAIR BADAME: I'm kind of torn on that one
too, but some of it is going to depend on Item 4, "Should
visibility analysis be done at a specific time of the
year?" so we would have to determine that as well.
CHAIR BURCH: Okay.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Can we do that first?
CHAIR BURCH: Yeah, let's do that first.
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: That also falls under
deciduous and evergreen, right? Yeah, same thing.
CHAIR BURCH: Commissioner O'Donnell.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Let me comment on Item 4
then, because I think that's a good idea to tie them
together.
The problem I have with specific time of the year
is if you come and you want to build your house, and you're
eight months away from "the" specific time of the year, I'm
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
69
528
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
is
19
20
21
22
23
29
z5
not sure that's necessary if what you say is we're going to
judge it on what it looks like today, and if you want to
come in when it's not at its best, that's your problem. If,
on the other hand, you want to wait until it's in fill
bloom—I will use that phrase—that's okay too. That's your
choice whether you wait.
So if I were a homeowner and I came in eight
months before it was going to be really big, I'd have to
have enough other screening to take care of that, and I'd
have to make my own decision. I don't think that's unfair.
If you just arbitrarily say no matter what the screening
looks like, we're going to wait for some eight-month period
or whatever from now, I think that is unfair. To allow the
applicant to take the tree as it is at the time the
applicant is filing shouldn't hurt the public, and
certainly the applicant has chosen to do that, so I don't
think the applicant should be heard to complain either. So
that's my thought on that.
CHAIR BURCH: I agree. Commissioner Hanssen, then
Commissioner Talesfore.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I thought definitely that
we shouldn't hold up any development process on whether the
tree was in leaf out or not, but one thing I thought about
was would it be possible to put in a percentage screening
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
70
.,29
I factor to a deciduous tree, because there are certain times
2 of the year when it wouldn't be just throw out any number,
3 like 50% or something like that. It would make it simple
4
and at least would factor in that it's not going to be
s
available for screening year round. I don't know if that's
6
the right number; maybe we should ask the arborist or
7
a somebody, but that was a way I thought of handling it. I
9 definitely wouldn't want to support holding up a
to
development for another six months if they have done all
11 the other things.
12 CHAIR BURCH: I would say that might be of a very
13 specific question for the arborist, because I wonder if in
14 11 years a Planning Commission will be sitting up here
15 saying, "Where did 50€ come from?" I'm just saying, right?
16 I mean trees are funny. So if we're going to start putting
17 a percentage on it, I want it to come from a professional,
18 and I want it in writing in the record.
19
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I completely agree.
20
CHAIR BURCH: Tom and Joanne will still be here
21
and remember, but we won't.
22
23 COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: I'm coming back from the
(grave.
24
zs
CHAIR BURCH: Commissioner Talesfore.
530
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
71
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: My feeling about it is
although I appreciate the sentiment and the spirit of
measuring these tree screens at different times of the
year. It's not really fair to anybody that's trying to
build a home or whatever, and so I wouldn't be in favor of
that. But I think a professional would be able, as they're
evaluating all the trees on the plot, to very easily say
now you realize that in this time of year there will be no
leaves on these trees, and that could be incorporated into
the report, I would think. Joel, does that happen now at
all?
JOEL PAULSON: It doesn't happen now. I think
that that's something that could be looked at. I guess the
question is then it requires that, depending on the time of
year when it comes before the Planning Commission and you
see the photos, you have to imagine what it looks like with
leaves on it.
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Right. well, and I think
you can. I think we all can.
JOEL PAULSON: Well, sure, you're free to make
that determination. I don't know how you make that
objectively. Obviously will be variable across species, I
would imagine, as well.
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Exactly.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
72
Al
I JOEL PAULSON: So you could make this part of
2 your recommendation that you're not necessarily interested
3 in time of year per se, but that you want to have
4
additional input prior to the Council meeting before
5
they're making their decision regarding this specific
6
topic.
7
e COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Right. Because right now
9 the Blue Oaks, as I learned, in this drought are losing
10 their leaves, because that's how they're protecting
11 themselves, so I take that into consideration when I look
12 at lots. That would be my comment.
13 CHAIR BURCH: Commissioner Hanssen, then
14 Commissioner O'Donnell.
15 COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Is there anywhere in the
16 proposed documents to take any trees out that are there
17 today? I mean we're talking about what should and shouldn't
18 be included. For example, if
p you're going to do like a
19
simulation based on the photos that were taken and
20
eliminate trees that are fair to good, couldn't you do the
21
same thing with a deciduous tree and see where they stand?
zz
If the meet the visibility criteria without those as
23
24 screening, then they should be fine, and if they don't,
zs then maybe further investigation would have to be done. If
that's a way that the analysis part of this could be
532
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
73
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
1z
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
handled, then you could eliminate those trees from the
screening to see where they stand. Does that make sense?
CHAIR BURCH: It does. Following up on that, my
question to Staff is in the past we've had some follow up
with the arborist with things like this. Is that something
we could perhaps put in there as an option to the
Commission if there is a property of concern, that that
could be something we could request of the arborist, to do
some screening analysis?
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Yeah, okay, but the
screening analysis is after. In other words, a person comes
in, the tree is not leafed out, it's not going to leaf out
for, let's just take a number, eight months. They build a
house. Guess what? It didn't come out the way we thought it
would come out. What do you do? You clearly can't say tear
the house down. I guess you could say plant another tree,
but the tree is not going to be like the tree that it was.
I'm just going to say it once, then I'll shut up
for a change, but if the applicant wants to use living
things as a screen, I think I'm personally a little
nervous, because living things have a habit of dying or not
being well or whatever, but I can see well, okay, that's
all right, because we know those things are there. But if
you want to do it and I've got to guess what it's going to
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
74
.33
1
2
3
4
s
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
look like in six months, even an arborist has to make an
educated guess as far as I'm concerned.
I can tell you to come back in six months and
let's look at it, or I can say make sure your screen
doesn't rely on that. Now, that may sound harsh, and maybe
it is harsh, but it certainly is clear. So whatever the
rest of you all agree, I just want to say I personally
would like to judge the screen at the time I'm asked to
(judge the screen without having people interpret it for me,
such as saying well in six months, or eight months, or four
months, it's going to look like this.
We also know that it takes longer than six
months, or eight months, or whatever, to build a house, so
what happens if they're halfway through the house and we
find out that tree just didn't make it or it doesn't look
like we thought it would. I don't know why we would put
ourselves at risk for that.
CHAIR BURCH: Can I ask Commissioner O'Donnell a
question just to make sure that I understand it clearly,
because I think I understand and agree? The onus is on the
property owner or the applicant. You came in in January and
there's not a lot of coverage, but you need this
percentage, whatever that percentage, coverage now. So that
means maybe if everything is very healthy and the rains
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
75
534
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
is
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
come, you may have twice that coverage, but you came in
today. Is that what I understand you're saying?
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: That's what I'm
espousing.
CHAIR BURCH: Okay. Commissioner Talesfore.
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: And also I think that
you're espousing that you don't depend on trees, you depend
on how you're supposed to build on the lots in constrained
regions with the guidelines we have for building, because
the screening is secondary.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: But it's critical.
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: It's critical, but it's
secondary.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: My comment applies only
to the screening issue. The house and where it's located is
totally different. All I'm saying is we're all talking
about when you judge the screening. Some of you have said,
and it certainly is a fair position, we'll try to estimate
what it's going to look like in six months, and I'm saying
I don't want to do that. But if you want to come in now and
say this is my screening, I'm going to say well no it
isn't, because it's not going to work. Or yeah, that's
great, and it's going to be even better in six months, but
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
76
.35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
16
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
you qualify right now. I don't know why we should take the
risk of that kind of screening; that's all I'm saying.
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: I understand that, but I
know when I go out and look at a lot that we have to
consider and screening is there, I do try to imagine it
when trees would lose their leaves. That's helps me a
little bit in making a decision.
CHAIR BURCH: Any other questions?
To make sure, I'm going to go back. The
visibility analysis done at a specific time of year, we've
all said no, we're not going to have an applicant wait six
months.
And the trees with sparse canopies to be used for
screening, that ties somewhat to Item 4 if the sparse
canopy is because it's lost its leaves due to the season.
That is at the onus of the homeowner, but if it's a healthy
tree at any given time, then yes, it would be considered.
Is that what I'm understanding on these four:
That being said, I hit these four before I hit these three
top topics, because they're going to be a longer
discussion. Could we take a five-minute break, and then
dive into what I think is going to be a lengthier topic? Is
everyone comfortable with that? All right, we're going to
take a quick break.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
77
536
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
(Pause.)
CHAIR BURCH: All right, we're going to reopen
the Planning Commission meeting. There are three questions
up on the top of this sheet. We're locking at page _3 of the
Staff Report. I kind of focused on those bottom four; I
felt those would be a little bit easier discussion point.
I'd like now to go back up to the number 1, which
I think people have just been talking about off and on this
whole night, is the 25% visibility cut-off too generous?
Staff has replied to this question that this is the current
standard, and if we decide that this percentage should be
lowered, then that can be included in our recommendation. I
think when we discussed it previously, there's no real hard
fact on the 25%, so does anyone have any comment? Do we say
obviously 25% is kind of hard to quantify, there's a range
anyway?
Commissioner Hanssen, then Commissioner
O'Donnell.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I actually had a question.
Because we were doing a lot of work on the Planned
Development as well, we were looking at other
jurisdictions. We're clearly not the only town that has
hills in it and has viewing issues, so I was just curious,
because I was pondering the question of if there were other
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
78
37
I (benchmarks out there and how others looked at it. Because
2
it seems to be a number that no one knows where it came
3
from, and it would help me to know if there was any
4
precedent for this one way or the other.
5
JOEL PAULSON: Staff didn't look at any other
6
jurisdictions in terms of visibility percentages. We did
look at some of the LRV percentages, but not visibility.
e
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: And those comments that
9
10
you made were helpful in terms of looking at this, and I
11
thank you for that.
12
CHAIR BURCH: Commissioner O'Donnell.
13
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: A comment, then I have a
14
Question.
15
I guess the comment is that the 25% is purely
16
arbitrary, but any percentage is basically really
17
arbitrary. It's not somethingyou can
Y prove mathematically
18
one way or the other, so somebody thought the 25V sounded
19
reasonable to them, and I'm sure that's what they thought,
20
and we have to explore I suppose what is it that is
21
reasonable.
22
If I were to ask Mr. Paulson again to explain to
23
29
me the impact of the 25%. In other words, one suggestion
zs
we've seen tonight was that we reduced that to 20%. I'm
sorry for being slow on this, but I need some reminder on
�-'
538
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
79
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
s
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
impact of the cut-off. So whether it's 25% or 30% or 15%,
iiscuss with me a little bit what happens?
JOEL PAULSON: There's a specific impact as it
relates to heights. Currently if you're not visible you can
lave up to a maximum height of 25', and you can have up to
a maximum height from the maximum high to the maximum low
Df 35'. If you are visible, the 25% or more, then you have
a maximum height of up to 18' and the maximum high to
maximum low—I'll have to look exactly—I believe it's 281,
but I will confirm that if that's different. So that's the
impact.
The other impact would be based on your previous
action tonight, that if it's visible you would not be able
to use the color average option should that be adopted by
Council. So those are the two that come to mind.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Thank you.
CHAIR BURCH: Commissioner Badame.
VICE CHAIR BADAME: To Commissioner Hanssen's
inquiry about other jurisdictions and what they use with
their measurements, I did come across the City of Montecito
with their hillside standards and guidelines, and they
don't use a visibility percentage cutoff. In fact, they
just state that the average height of the primary residence
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
80
.39
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
should not exceed 16', which I felt was rather interesting,
so I did want to share that with the Commission.
CHAIR SURCH: All right. Commissioner Talesfore.
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: I have a question of
Staff, so I can understand this as well. That 25%, is that
in one place, or is that in the collection of the entire
house as it may appear across... I think I know the answer,
but I want to be sure that I understand that.
JOEL PAULSON: I believe it would be across an
elevation, so the elevation that's visible.
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Though it could be 15
here, 10 here.
JOEL PAULSON: You could have portions of
multiple elevations.
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Right, okay. I looked at
anything that is a number as a limit. It's sort of like a
speed limit, isn't it? We can go 65 miles an hour, and yet
many people go 75 miles an hour or more and it seems to be
the goal of some people on the road today—which is a whole
other conversation—but what I just want to avoid is that
when a developer or builder sees a percentage that says 25%
visible, that that isn't what they're going to build to, so
that they're thinking I can build this house like this,
because I can let 25% of it show either on one space or
�- 540
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
81
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
across the elevation. That is what I am trying to prevent,
I guess, or would like to preserve or protect, that that
isn't a number that's a goal. Sometimes when you have
limits like that, it becomes the goal instead of what we...
You know, it's the extreme. Do you see what I mean? It's
the extreme when we don't really want that. So how do you
prevent that? I'm not sure that having a number prevents
it. My comment for now anyway.
CHAIR BURCH: Commissioner Badame.
VICE CHAIR BADAME: I'm not comfortable with the
number either, or even what we have now is actually a
creative definition of a visible home. A visible home is
what it is, a visible home, capable of being seen.
Back to a little bit of the tree canopy
conversation. You can have a full canopy on a tree, but you
can still see through the leaves. I mean it's still going
to be visible somewhat.
Back to the height percentage, we're arguing over
7' in height and bulk that really could be more
appropriately spread out by stepping a home down a hill,
which should be done, and maybe keeping these visible homes
being visible to 18'. I am going to throw that out there.
CHAIR BURCH: Commissioner O'Donnell.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015 Al
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
82
OR
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
is
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: I have a problem saying
that anything that is visible... Well, I guess what you're
saying is the zoning ought to say everything up there is
single -story, and if that's what you want to do, that's
what you want to do. But you say there's not percentage,
it's just anything that is visible, whatever that means—I
think it means a dictionary definition—has to be 18' or
less. That will be a dramatic change from everything we've
lever done.
I'm just thinking out loud, and maybe I'm
thinking wrong, but I'll let you have your say in just a
minute, because I'm trying to think it through. It seems to
me that I personally have not had a problem with a two-
story house if properly built and then the visibility is
okay, whatever that means, so I wouldn't want to have a
simple solution, which is to say all homes will be no
greater than, as Montecito sounds like, 161. That's a very
simple solution, but I'm not sure it's a solution that I
personally would favor.
And if you say no, there could be some homes that
could be two stories, you're saying one way to handle that
is a stepping down the hill, and therefore the height of
that home taken from the ground level as it changes would
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
83
542
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1e
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
be whatever it is, 20' or 25' or something, you could do
that.
On the other hand, that presupposes that every
lot and the buildable space in every lot will fit that, and
I don't know that, and I don't think any of us know that.
So notwithstanding the arbitrary nature of 25%, and I'm not
advocating 25%, I haven't pulled anything out of the air
what it is. I think if 25% represents what somebody thought
was an acceptable level of visibility, then I would like us
to discuss is there any level of visibility which is
"acceptable": Because if there is, then the problem is
simply 25%.
If there isn't, as you said, visibility is
visibility, that's certainly true, except as defined by us,
then I have a problem, because if you say anything which is
visible must be 18' or must step down so that in fact it's
18' from the declining contour of the ground insofar as the
roof is concerned on that declining portion of the ground,
that's a dramatic change, one that we have never discussed,
I don't think. And I'm not saying it's wrong, maybe it is
right, I don't know, but boy, that's a dramatic change, and
I don't know that we've been briefed on that. In other
(words, I would have real problems, unless I understood it
(better.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015 ,43
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
84
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
16
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
M
CHAIR BURCH: I have asked Mr. Paulson to place
this up on the overhead. The left is obviously what we
encourage in the hillside; the right is Please Don't Do
IThis.
I wanted to ask Commissioner Badame, with what
you were stating as far as potentially looking at height
restriction, the house on the left, what we've done is
we've encouraged that it contour to the hillside. So when
you're saying 181, are you saying on any one of those
vertical planes those are 181, or the lowest to the highest
point is 181?
I'm asking that pretty specifically because I
would worry then that we would have people that would
almost go to the right and keep it on one even plane,
rather than look at the contour, unless you were saying
each vertical plane cannot exceed 181, so I wanted some
clarification on your thought.
VICE CHAIR BADAME: I would say Exhibit 1, the Do
This, would be where I'm going at, and I'd also like to
clarify with Commissioner O'Donnell that when we talk about
a visible home, I'm not saying all the homes in the
hillside. They are subject to the viewing platforms, or
vantage points, whatever we want to call them, so those
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
85
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
would be the homes that I would be concerned about with the
18' restriction.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: But almost any home is
visible with a 500 millimeter lens, so if you're saying I
want a home up there that nobody can see, otherwise it's
visible, I think that is a dramatic departure from anything
we've gotten, and if it's correct, I would like to have a
lot more Staff input and legal input.
As I said before, at some point you're going to
make things unbuildable. I'm not saying this is it, I'm
just saying that to me is such a big departure that I would
need more help before I could make that departure.
CHAIR BURCH: Any other questions? Commissioner
Talesfore.
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: I would like to, if we
could leave the height for right now, just get back to the
25%, or 24.5%, because that is an arbitrary number to me.
How about if it was 15%, or 10%? Is that pretty
unreasonable? Is 10% pretty unreasonable? Let's just go
through the percentages. What sounds reasonable here? What
sounds not reasonable? I'm not sure how to approach this.
CHAIR BURCH: I don't know how we would answer
that. We had this discussion last time, so I'm going to go
back to not the special meeting that Commissioner Badame
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
86
.,45
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
87
1
led, but the Commission meeting prior to that when I think
2
we brought up the 24.5%. Even at that, depending on where
3
we stand and where we look at, 25% is still a range, right?
4
So I think then what we need to look at is, again, we don't
5
want it to turn into where the Town is buying all the
6
hillside because we won't let people build on it, sc 254
7
seems to be the right lot, you can build on it.
e
I would worry if you got down to a number of 10%.
9
10
We're saying you can't build anywhere, and then we may be
11
getting ourselves in some legal issue. I would look to our
12
Town Attorney.
13
JOEL PAULSON: I think the visibility, it doesn't
14
say that you can't build anything, but it would restrict
15
you from height perspective, yes.
16
CHAIR BURCH: That's my concern.
17
COMMISSIONER TALES£ORE: I'm just throwing these
18
numbers out. To me, 10% isn't reasonable.
19
CHAIR BURCH: Okay.
20
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: But I don't know if 25%
21
is. On the other hand, we do have restrictions now with the
22
colors. I mean we have that settled, so that makes me a
23
little more comfortable. My whole thing is I just don't
24
25
want people thinking this is going to be okay and I get to
have 25% of this house... Do you know what _'m saying?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
87
1
2
3
4
5
6
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
is
16
17
19
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JOEL PAULSON: And I think you're right on that.
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Now, I'm thinking people
aren't like that. Pardon me?
JOEL PAULSON: I think you're right in that same
situation, regardless of the number.
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: And I think you're
right.
JOEL PAULSON: So changing the number doesn't
really help you there.
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: It's sort of like the
FAR, isn't it?
JOEL PAULSON: Sure.
JOEL PAULSON: It should not be a goal to be 25%
visible, so I think that's what we're really grappling with
here. How do we prevent that, and how do we protect our
hills from that? What I'm trying to do is link it all back
to what's in this document.
CHAIR BURCH: Commissioner O'Donnell.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: I don't think it's like
a speed limit. I don't think it's like this is a 65 zone.
Whoever builds a house out there, and to the extent they
understand what the standard is, let's assume it's 25%,
there's a lot of subjectivity to determining 25%. For
example, we've talked to viewing platforms; we've talked
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
88
.i47
I about vantage points, because we're not going to be locked
2 into a viewing platform. It may be that the viewing
3 platform isn't reasonable. It ought to be 500' the other
a
way, or whatever.
5
So if I'm a builder am I'm trying to, like you
6
say, go 70 miles an hour, that's fine, because we all
7
e figure a cop will give us five miles or whatever it is, but
4 here you don't know what 25% means. So I don't think 25%
to will set the standard, but at least it's something.
11 I can say this: 25% now exists, and if I want to
12 change 25%, I probably ought to have a reason, and it's not
13 a reason to say I think 10% sounds unreasonable, because I
14 don't know what "sounds" means. I would not defend 25%. On
is the other hand, I don't know what to use. And if we say
16 let's make it totally subjective, and somebody comes in and
17 says well what do you think, and whoever looks at it says I
is don't like it, that's not going to work either. So the only
19
good thing about some percentage is there is some
20
objectivity. It's a difficult objectivity, but at least
21
it's something.
22
23 I don't care if it's 25� or what it is. I don't
za have a defense for any number of any percent. Twenty-five
25 percent may be too high, I don't know. But I will say this:
Since we have the number, we ought to have a reason to
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015 548
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
89
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
change the number. I can't defend the number, but I sure as
heck can't defend one to change it to.
CHAIR BURCH: Commissioner Hanssen, then
Commissioner Talesfore.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I just wanted to say I
support Commissioner O'Donnell's position on this. Absent
having some specific reason to change it if it has been
working, if we felt that there was a need to tighten things
up, the way to do it in my mind would be rather than making
a dramatic statement about the percentage and what's
viewable or not, is to look at the calculation parts of it
and how you figure out what 25% is or what viewing platform
you use. If that were in place that we got to and we
thought that it needed to be tightened up, that's the way I
would do it without having any benchmark or any specific
reason to change it.
CHAIR BURCH: Commissioner Talesfore.
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Yeah, see, I'm
struggling with this as well, because 25% of the whole
house that could be seen here, and here, and here, and
here, isn't like 25% of one portion of it. If it were 25%
of one portion of a house, a wing of the house showed
because that's the way they built it on the land, I would
think that that might come before the Planning Commission
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
90
1 as being too visible. Would that in any case? We've seen a
2 lot of homes like that. What happens? Is there a caveat to
3 that? Is there someoint that
p you say well, if it was
a
spread across the...
5
JOEL PAULSON: I guess we go back, and I did look
6
back in the 25% visibility is for a visible elevation, so
7
8 we'd be looking at the elevation as a whole, and you could
9 have multiple elevations that were visible from either one
to single platform or from two different platforms
11 theoretically, so that's what we'd be looking at. If it met
12 the threshold of the 25%, that's not something that we
13 necessarily bring to the Planning Commission at this point.
14 So that's where we are, and I can't think of any
15 in the last 15 -plus years where that's been so close that
16 we've raised that question. That's just some recent
17 projects where that's come up.
1e
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Okay, but we did have a
19
trigger, obviously, and we had a process, so the number did
20
do something to bring it to our attention.
21
JOEL PAULSON: Yes.
22
23 COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Okay.
za CHAIR BURCH: Commissioner O'Donnell.
2s
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: One thing I think which
would be helpful is where we view it from, because we have
550
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
91
1 heard some people say using a viewing platform, because
2 that's where it's defined, doesn't always work, and I think
3 that's true. So the 25% is one way to look at it, but it's
4
125% when viewed from where?
5
If somebody comes in and makes the case that yes,
6
from that viewing platform it's 10%, but if you walk down
501, it's 50%, 1 think that ought to be paid attention to.
8
I think what I'd like to make sure is that whoever it is,
9
and I think one of the drafts in there says the decision
10
maker, I don't think that's the right way to go, because I
11
12 don't think the decision maker, in our case the Planning
13 Commission, somebody shouldn't have to wait until they come
14 (before the Planning Commission to find out where the thing
15 should be viewed from. I think that's more of a Staff
16 Idecision.
17 I But I think you aren't locked into 25% as an
18 larbitrary number, Well, it is an arbitrary number, but you
19 laren't locked into it, except to the extent that wherever
20
it's viewed from is deemed to be the right place, or a
21
reasonable place to view it. As long as we have that
22
flexibility, and maybe we should have that flexibility, I
23
don't' feel bad about the 25%.
24
25
---�I
LAS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015 .,51
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines 92
I CHAIR BURCH: Is there a comment back from Staff?
2 I know we've discussed this. We've the set four viewing
3 platforms, and then we have this number five.
4
JOEL PAULSON: Correct.
5
CHAIR BURCH: Would you clarify that?
6
JOEL PAULSON: As we evolve our review, and in
7
a light of some recent decisions, there have been instances
9 specifically where you go 150' or something in one
10 direction or another where that becomes visible, and so
11 that's where the analysis for those homes were done, and
12 they'll be back before you shortly.
13 To your deciding body comment, at the first
14 meeting we changed that to Community Development Director
15 to address that concern.
16 I think the challenge gets to be from a vantage
17 point perspective what's that distance? Are we going up and
18 down Los Gatos Boulevard because there is a viewing
19
platform on the Boulevard? Up and down Blossom Hill because
20
there's a viewing platform on Blossom Hill? Up and down
21
Main Street, up and down Highway 9? From the arbitrary
22
23 perspective, the vantage points, depending on whether
24 that's the valley floor and/or in the hillsides, I think is
zs a little different conversation, but I think we definitely
are trying to take a fresh look at that and make sure that
552
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
93
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
s
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1s
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
if there is a possibility in a reasonable distance from the
actual viewing platform where it's visible, that's where
ae'd be asking folks to look at that.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: The argument ought to be
that the viewing platform is presumed to be the right
place, except to the extent that based upon reasonable
evidence, it can be seen that some viewing platform in some
proximity to that viewing platform is in fact better. So
that issue could either be raised by Staff or by a citizen,
saying well that's great, but you're looking at this sign
right there and you can't see through the sign. If you went
50' to the left, then you could see it. So I think as long
as Staff has that flexibility, then I don't feel bad about
that.
The other question you're raising that we've
heard tonight is what does it mean from the valley floor
when in fact somebody was saying but you'd be in undulating
hills, and some guy that's at the bottom of the undulating
hill is looking up at the guy who is above him. We haven't
gotten into that. I think we're talking about the valley
floor being basically where we presently have our viewing
platforms, and as long as you have flexibility on the
viewing platform, I don't feel so bad about staying with
Isomething that I don't have enough evidence to change.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMMISSION 12/2/2015
item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
94
j53
I JOEL PAULSON: We do have that flexibility.
2 CHAIR BURCH: Commissioner Badame.
3
VICE CHAIR BADAME: I was going to point out to
4
Commissioner O'Donnell, which was already explained by Joel
5
Paulson, that on the Staff Report page 2, dated October 21,
6
2015 they do address that as Item 5. "That other locations,
a as deemed appropriate by the Community Development
9 Director," so I'm going to hope that provides you that
10 comfort, because it does for me.
11 CHAIR BURCH: Are we comfortable then with the
12 idea of viewing platforms, at least from the valley floor?
13 I'm not talking about if we're up in the hills. I know that
14 was one of the topics that I had listed for us, and then
15 that falls back to what we were just discussing. Nobody has
16 really said I have a substantial reason to change the 25%.
17 Commissioner O'Donnell said what does that mean? Is that
18 from the viewing platforms. ?
19
So I hear my fellow commissioners say I don't see
20
any reason tc change the 25%, and it's 25% from the viewing
zl
platforms or at the discretion of the Community Development
zz
23 Director if within that range there's another viewing
24 point. Do I hear my fellow commissioners correctly?
25
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
95
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
17
is
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: You are, and I think
also any residents that live around, they know where to
:ome. That's part of it too.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: To raise the issue.
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Yeah, to raise the
issue. I'm comfortable, especially because Staff
understands -they've been here long enough -that we can move
that viewing platform. They understand the question. Now, I
don't know if we need to put that in any kind of further
language though. That's my only thought: Do we need to put
something in about that, just so we are clear about why we
kept the 25%, so we're not guessing in 20 years where that
came from and why is it still here?
JOEL PAULSON: No, I think this will live on for
quite some time on video, and we'll have verbatim minutes
when it goes to Council, and they'll have the same
conversation as well, so I think we'll have plenty of
record of that long after any of us are still here.
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: But could there be some
Ilanguage crafted around this?
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: (Inaudible).
VICE CHAIR BADAME: Item 5.
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: I understand that, but I
mean do we need to craft it any clearer?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015 155
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
96
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
is
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: I don't think so. I
(think it gets back tc Commissioner O'Donnell's comment that
the 25% number is what it is. It sounds like generally
people are comfortable with that, with the viewing platform
language that's proposed.
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: And really, it is the
extreme, and we would hope that that wouldn't happen often,
so that's the caution I would hope that we put out there
somewhere. Thank you.
CHAIR BURCH: So in 11 years, when it's you two
and Mr. Paulson, Joel will have the verbatim minutes of
this meeting to share.
So this then brings us to the next one, which is
number two on the top of this list: "Should the visibility
calculations also consider the square footage of the
elevation that is visible?"
This rolled a little bit into what Commissioner
Badame was bringing up, I believe. The response from Staff
is, "The current and Staff proposed methodology will use a
square footage of elevations that are visible from the
viewing platforms," and as we understand now, there's a bit
of flexibility with number five, "to calculate the
visibility as currently required. It should be noted that
visible homes are limited to a height of 18', therefore an
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
97
556
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
18' tall home with an elevation that is 100% visible would
comply."
I know Commissioner O'Donnell brought this up
earlier, so do you want to talk further on this?
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: I think I said
previously I don't like that, and I have not changed my
position.
CHAIR BURCH: Do you have a proposal on perhaps
changing that wording, or what you would like to see?
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: I would like to see it
applied to any home. Now, Mr. Paulson could (inaudible). It
seems to me that everybody should try to be building a home
up there that is not very visible (inaudible) is a very
arbitrary number, 25€. I don't see why it makes a
difference if it's a small home, and I don't see why a
small home couldn't also comply with these regulations as
well as a large home.
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: I just offer that it
complies. Technically that does not take away the Planning
Commission or Council or Staff's discretion to say this is
a very visible home, so maybe 18' or the siting isn't
appropriate, and to look at those possibilities.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: You're saying it's
technical, but are we addressing whether we can change
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
98
.,57
I that? Is it technical only because of what we're trying to
2 interpret?
3
JOEL PAULSON: The 25%- deals with the visibility
9
at 181, which I think we were talking about earlier, which
5
crossed over in the LRV component as well. I understand
6
your comment is that if you have an 18' tall house that has
e a 100' elevation that is completely visible from the valley
9 floor, that that 18' may not be restrictive enough; they
to may need to look at other opportunities to either put that
11 in another location on the site, or look for areas where it
12 would be more screened.
13 COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Yeah, some sites just
19 don't work. As long as the law itself is a reasonable law
15 it is not our problem to deal with your land problems, so
16 yes, I think I just agreed with what you just said.
17 LAUREL PREVETTI: Right, and I would just add
18 that the Commission or the Town Council would continue to
19
have all of its land use discretion, so you could still
zo
deal with the mass and bulk and overall size of a home
21
independent of this visibility analysis issue.
zz
23 COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: But let's assume that
29 you would otherwise be satisfied, but from a viewing
zs platform or a vantage point it stands out like a small sore
thumb.
558
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
99
1 LAUREL PREVETTI: Right.
2 COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: I wouldn't want somebody
3 to be able to says well golly, you specifically told us
4 that if it's this height or whatever, by and large we're
5
okay on that one issue.
6
LAUREL PREVETTI: No, and what I'm trying to
reinforce is that you retain your full land use discretion
a
to say the real issue isn't visibility or not, the real
9
issue is that the house is too big for the site and within
10
the least development restrictive area that you have your
11
12 ability to say make this house smaller. So the visibility
13 analysis has a purpose in terms of the height of the
14 structure, but that's just one component. You still have
15 all the other issues to deal with.
16 COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: What I'm trying to find
17 out is have I given away that one issue. Forget the fact
1e that I've got all the other issues. You're telling me that
19 I've got all these other issues; that's great. I'm saying
20
have I given away the other... What if I want to say I don't
21
like your house because it's quite visible from down there,
22
and they say oh wait a minute, we're only a single story,
23
we're at 18', to heck with you. You don't get to turn me
24
down because it's visible. That's what I'm asking.
25
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015 J59
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
100
I LAUREL PREVETTI: Well, look at the guidelines,
2 because I think the overt purpose and intent of the
3 guidelines is to minimize impact to the hillsides, and I
4
think that's really the frame of reference. So what we're
5
trying to do tonight is really determine what methodology
6
makes sense for the visibility determination, but that
e doesn't preclude the Council or the Commission from all the
9 other guidelines that are in this document.
10 COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: I was just going to
11 comment that that is what the intent of the Hillside Design
12 Guidelines is, to prevent visibility. At 181, I don't care
13 what it is, if you see it, you see it. Fix it, right?
14 JOEL PAULSON: I think in the Vision Statement it
1s talks about that the "vision of Los Gatos that this natural
16 asset be preserved by ensuring that any development in the
17 hillside areas," and it has a list, and the last one,
18
"protects and preserves view sheds," is part of that
19
statement.
20
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: As a lawyer, and I guess
zl
zz I can involve our lawyer, if you draft something that says
23 you're okay, don't forget you got all these other things,
24 and we've got these wonderful statements about how God is
zs good and the country is wonderful, we can get you on those.
Why are we doing that? I'm just saying why do we have that
560
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
101
1 exception. Why don't we say if you're visible from the
2 valley floor, I don't care how big you are, you have to
3 comply with the same rules everybody else complies with.
4 Why do we have an exception because you're a single story?
s
JOEL PAULSON: It's not an exception; it's a
6
requirement.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: It's an exception from
e
the visibility rule that we just went over. If you say no,
9
then fine, but let's get rid of this one-story thing.
10
LAUREL PREVETTI: First let me just say I think
11
12 one of the statements in our Staff Report might be a little
13 bit misleading. The visibility analysis helps us to
14 determine the maximum height of the building. That's just
1s one issue, as you know, being Commissioners, of all the
16 issues you consider when considering a brand new home in
17 the hillsides. I think where we probably need to clarify is
is in the middle of page 3 of the Staff Report, that an 18'
19 tall home with an elevation that's 100% visible would
zo
comply with this portion of the Hillside Design Guidelines.
21
Rather than the blanket statement that therefore you comply
22
with the entirety of the guidelines, our intention was to
23
be very specific, but I can appreciate how the Commission
24
might see that as a very broad declaration, which we
2s
apologize if that's throwing you off.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines 102
X61
S%.
1 CHAIR BURCH: I'm just going to ask a quick
2 clarifying question, just so I understand. The way that I
3 would interpret that is that last line, 18' tall home with
4
an elevation, blah, blah, blah, complies with the
5
visibility portion, period. However, it must also comply
6
with the list of other, and if it doesn't, it's coming
7
here.
a
9 Commissioner Badame, the Commissioner Hanssen.
10
VICE CHAIR BADAME: I'd just like to point out
11 that Exhibit 7 as provided by Lee Quintana, she added a
12 suggestion in here to, "clarify the discretion of the
13 Planning Commission and the Town Council that clarify or
14 clearly state that whatever language is adopted regarding
15 visibility and the visibility analysis, that meeting the
16 criteria is not a guarantee that the project will be
17 approved." So we might want to consider adding that in as
19 part of our recommendation.
19
JOEL PAULSON: I guess we just offer that that's
20
true of every application, but if we want to add...
21
22 COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: (Inaudible) it's fairly
23 clear. You're saying it satisfies that portion, which says
24 that there are other portions that you have to satisfy. I
25 agree with what Commissioner Badame said, and what was
submitted to us, I'm just not sure it's necessary in light
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015 562
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
103
I lof the words that are suggested be added, but I'm not
2 (fighting against it.
3 CHAIR BURCH: Commissioner Hanssen.
4 COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I don't know if there's a
s
resolution for this, but I wonder if the intent and purpose
6
of the Hillside Design Guidelines was for there to be any
homes that were 100% visible? So I'm still struggling with
a
that even with the discretion and that sort of thing. It
9
seems like a loophole in the process. Do we have homes that
10
are 100% visible, especially since these guidelines were
11
12 put together?
13 JOEL PAULSON: I can't recall any off the top of
14 my head that are 100$ visible, but clearly there have been
is homes that are visible. You guys have seen a couple of them
16 where they've requested exceptions to height, where they
17 were already visible. Many of those were existing houses
19 where they're doing additions, or the existing home is
19 visible and they're tearing it down. I think it was up on
20
Aztec Ridge and they wanted an exception for a tower
21
element.
22
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: That still makes me feel
23
uncomfortable that there's a loophole for something to be
24
that visible when we have all the statements of intent in
25
the guidelines to not let that happen. But I don't know
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015 X63
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
104
I what the answer would be other than rely on the rest of the
2 development process, or have something additionally in
L
3 there that said in no event could a house be more than X
4
visible regardless, but I don't know what X would be.
5
CHAIR BURCH: Commissioner Badame.
6
VICE CHAIR BADAME: I believe that's our purpose
as a planning commission, and our role is to address
e
9 discretionary items and make judgment on them; otherwise,
10 we wouldn't have a Planning Commission unless we had issues
11 like this come before us.
12 CHAIR BURCH: Commissioner O'Donnell.
13 COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: This is the last time
14 I'm going to beat this horse, but that's what I was trying
15 to say earlier. That is to say, why do we have the
16 exception for the 18' house? The bad example of that is the
17 100%; it's okay from that one point. That wouldn't satisfy
19 me. I don't see any reason why because it's an 18' house
19
being 100% visible is okay from that position. I would like
20
to Say it isn't. I would like to say no house up there
21
should be greater visibility... I mean I'd stay with 258,
zz
23 quite frankly, unless somebody can make the case that that
doesn't apply.
24
zs
That conceptual issue is not solved by the
language suggested, I can live with it, but it seems to me
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015 564
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
105
1 it's a fairly... This is your example of about 100% visible,
2 and if that's the case, then I don't know why we're doing
3 Iit.
4
ROBERT SCHULTZ: I guess one example would be if
s
you had that case where you had a 18' home and it was 100
6
visible and you were not able to move the home, you
s
9
10
11
12
13
couldn't shrink it, you couldn't do anything; it just
didn't have screening. Then it would be a taking, because
basically you're preventing them from putting any structure
on. Maybe we can craft some language in that exception, but
that's where I would be worried is if you've got a lot that
just is completely visible, there's no screening on it,
14 Imaybe there's no trees, and it's going to be seen from the
15 valley floor and it's a legal lot, are you saying he can't
16 build at all?
1? COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: No, I'm saying we have
18 discretion just as we talked about having higher and all
19 that. If somebody came in and said there's this one lot in
20
Los Gatos and we want to build this house that otherwise 1s
21
small, it's 18' high, but dog gene it, it's 50$ visible,
22
they might make the case that you're making, and if we
23
can't build anything here we're going to send you a bill
24
for the lot. And we might say tell you what; we're going to
25
make an exception. You have to plant to screen, and here's
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015 X65
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines 106
I how you plant it, and all these kinds of things. I'm not
2 saying we're trying � y g tc prevent people from building at all,
3 but I am saying I don't know why there should be a general
a
exception saying if it's the 18' house, then 100% is fine.
s
That seems to be the reverse of saying if you have an
6
7 unusual hardship, we can deal with it. I personally would
e rather say that than to say 100% is okay, but we can look
9 to height, mass and all that stuff. So I agree with
10 Commissioner Hanssen.
11 CHAIR BURCH: So with that discussion then, Ms.
12 Prevetti, is there a way we can look at the wording?
13 LAUREL PREVETTI: I think what we can do is look
14 at the guidelines and see if there are other provisions. I
1s think the spirit of this conversation has been very good,
16 and it's clear that what we're trying to do is there's the
17 visibilityanalysis y part of it, but then there's also the
18 other objectives of minimizing visibility, period. To the
19
extent new screening or other conditions could be added, we
20
can just either check through the guidelines—maybe not
zl
22 right now—but see if there's already language in there, and
23 then as your recommendation goes to Council we can remind
za the Council that those opportunities exist. If it doesn't
zs exist, that could be another recommendation from this
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
107
566
1 Commission to the Council to make sure that other efforts
2 are undertaken to minimize overall visibility.
3 COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: I don't know if this is
4
an appropriate question, but what exactly was the Staff
s
hoping to get from that question from us? Are we missing
6
something on this? You asked the question, and I'm not
sure...
8
JOEL PAULSON: This was a question from Dr.
9
Weissman and Ms. Quintana's letter, so we pulled that
10
forward.
11
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: All right, thank you.
12
13 CHAIR BURCH: Yeah, number three is the idea of,
14 "Should the all important visibility calculations be peer
15 reviewed by an outside source?"
16 Commissioner O'Donnell.
17 COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: I would like to resist
1e making applications too expensive in general. On the other
19 hand, there may be exceptions when you do need peer review,
20
but I would like Staff, in considering the application an
21
all that kind of thing, to at least take an educated view
22
as to whether it's going to run into trouble, and if it's
23
going to run into trouble, then they ought to have the
24
right to say look, we want you to get an independent party
25
1
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015 ,,67
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines 108
04
1 to review this. That might then save the applicant some
2 money of having it done by their person.
3
But it wouldn't mean that everybody would have to
4
do that. I mean some have got to be easy, and so if Staff
s
had some discretion I would like to make it as inexpensive
6
as possible for the applicant, so on most of these cases I
8 would think you could say fine, this is not going to be
9 controversial, submit your stuff. But it's always subject
10 to the fact that if we get a report from you and it just
it doesn't hold water, we're going to tell you that you need a
12 third party.
13 Or, going in you know it's a controversial thing,
14 maybe because you think it's questionable or because you
15 anticipate the community thinking it is difficult, in which
16 case I think you ought to be able to say to the applicant
17 don't bother to get your own, unless you want to do it,
18 that's fine, but we want to get a third -party, p y, independent
19
evaluation. So that would be my suggestion.
20
21 JOEL PAULSON: We do that with some of our other
zz peer review consultants currently, the arborist, traffic,
23 where they can prepare their own arborist's report and have
24 lit peer reviewed by our arborist where they can provide the
zs funds to the Town and an arborist prepares the report,
which isn't peer reviewed.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
109
-
I So I guess we just need to look into what those
2 consultants are and then send out and RFP, so we had
3 someone on call in those few instances where that may come
4
up.
s
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: I would agree with that.
6
Many times these outside consultants have helped us make
our decisions and enlightened us in ways that I feel are
8
not prejudiced at all. I would agree with that; I think
9
that's a fair idea.
10
CHAIR BIRCH: All right, if we're all in
11
12 agreement on that, that was the list of questions that were
13 here, but I would like to ask -it was a lengthy document,
14 there were a lot of points brought up by Dr. Weissman and
15 Ms. Quintana -does anyone have other discussion points that
16 we would like to make sure that we include on any type of a
17 recommendation that we send to the Council?
18 COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: I'm just bringing up the
19 one from Michael Kane. I'm not sure that this is the
20
appropriate meeting for that, because this has been pretty
21
specific to two topics. I think he's referring to the fact
22
that if we're in review of a document, that's what I'm
23
thinking anyway, he said, "We should take another look at
24
the provisions regarding garages, cellars, and language
25
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015 .09
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines 110
I could be more specific about houses stepping down the
2 hillsides."
3
JOEL PAULSON: I think his closing statement that
4
that's not really what's before us now, I believe that's
5
part of a...
6
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: And that was my opening
a statement, so I didn't know if... Do we put that on the
9 parking lot?
10 CHAIR BURCH: Anyone have any other comments, or
11 does anyone want to form a recommendation to Council based
12 on this discussion?
13 COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Sure, what was it? How
14 do we make that? I think that I would like to make a motion
15 that we forward the recommendation to Town Council for
16 approval, and also the extra comments that were made here
17 tonight. Or not approval, but just to forward this on with
1s
any comments, right?
19
CHAIR BURCH: It's a recommendation for approval.
20
21 COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Yeah, for approval.
zz Okay. Of amendments to Chapter 5. We already did Chapter 2.
23 Oh, okay, so this is Chapter 2 of the Hillside Development
24 Standards and Guidelines.
25 I can make the findings that there's no
Possibility that this project will have a significant
�-'
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015 570
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
111
1 impact on the environment, therefore the project is not
2 subject to California Environmental Quality Act Section
3 15061(b)(3), Review for Exception, Exhibit 1. Am I missing
a something?
s
CHAIR BURCH: I don't know if this is necessary.
6
I've been taking notes on all of these items.
JOEL PAULSON: Sure. And so has Staff, and I can
e
go through some of the consensus points that would be added
9
to that.
10
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Can you do that? Thank
11
12 You.
13 JOEL PAULSON: And then any that I may miss,
14 either Ms. Prevetti or Chair Burch can go into those.
15 I think the first was that there was consensus on
16 requiring a deed restriction and making sure that we had
17 the tree numbers identified in that deed restriction and
is making sure that the replacement was not necessarily a
19 replacement of the full canopy of that tree, but it wasn't
20
also a five -gallon tree, so something reasonable.
21
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Should we put another
22
number on that? It could be a 48 box or something.
23
JOEL PAULSON: I think it's going to depend on
24
the size of the tree that's providing the screening,
25
---,I
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015
.71
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines 112
1 (because you may have some smaller trees. I think it would
2
depend on the size of tree, and so we would look at that.
3
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Okay.
4
JOEL PAULSON: I think there was consensus on not
s
including trees that are in the poor or poor/fair category;
6
those could not be included.
7
The other was that we should get a peer review
e
9
consultant so in those certain instances that we should
to
have that option when the Community Development Director
11
determines that that's necessary.
12
COMIMISSIONER TALESFORE: Also the vantage points.
13
JOEL PAULSON: That's already in the document, so
14
we don't need to add anything there.
15
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: That's right, I'm sorry.
16
JOEL PAULSON: I don't know if you had a couple
17
of additional ones, Chair Burch.
1s
CHAIR BURCH: The only other one I had, which
19
maybe is just a note to Staff, was on the question number
20
two, which was a discussion point about the 18' tall home,
21
that you're going to go back and review the existing
22
guidelines and ensure that there is some kind of wording
23
24
that reflects that the goal of the Commission and the
zs
Council is not to have a 100% visible home.
JOEL PAULSON: Thank you.
�
572
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
113
1 CHAIR BURCH: Aside from that, I think, because
2 the sparse canopies we actually already do include in our
3 analysis, right? And we don't at this point require a
4
visible analysis be done at a specific time of the year, so
s
we agreed with the guidelines.
6
JOEL PAULSON: Correct.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: The records will simply
a
reflect that on Item 4, the lower four numbers, we decided
9
that it didn't have to be done at a specific time of the
10
11 year.
JOEL PAULSON: We wouldn't carry that forward.
12
13 That's why I didn't include that.
14 COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Okay, I just wanted to
is be sure that was clear. Okay.
16 CHAIR BURCH: I will second the motion. Is there
17 any other discussion or questions before we vote?
18 Commissioner Hanssen.
19 COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I just wanted to ask a
20
question, just to make sure I understand what we're voting
21
for. We had this draft language from the October 218
22
meeting and I was looking at that, and that's to be added
23
to the existing Hillside Design Guidelines. And then on top
za
of that the comments that we made on the questions, if it
25
required being carried forward, are also going to go along
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015
.3
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines 114
1 with it, but there isn't necessarily any change to the
2 written language that
�you have proposed at this point in
3 time?
4
JOEL PAULSON: Correct, other than the things
5
that will be added for the direction, so we will include
6
those in Staff's originally proposed methodology.
7
e CHAIR BURCH: All right, all in favor then?
9 Passes unanimously.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
is
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
�
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/2/2015 574
Item #3, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
115
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
15