Loading...
3.2 Attachment 1TOWN OF LOS GATOS ITEM NO: 6 }' PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT .tom Meeting Date: September 23, 2015 PREPARED BY: Joel S. Paulson, Planning Manager jpaulsonQ los tag osca.gov SUMMARY: Public hearing to consider adoption of amendments to Chapter 11. (Constraints Analysis and Site Selection) and Chapter V. (Architectural Design) of the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines RECOMMENDATION: Forward a recommendation to the Town Council for approval of the attached amendments to Chapter 11. and Chapter V. of the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines. CEQA: It has been determined that there is no possibility that this project will have a significant impact on the environment: therefore, the project is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15061 (b)(3): Review for exemption. FINDING: ■ Find that there is no possibility that this project will have a significant impact on the environment; therefore, the project is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 15061 (b)(3): Review for exemption (Exhibit 1). ACTION: Recommendation to Town Council. EXHIBITS: 1. Required Findings 2. Proposed Amendments - Chapter ll. Constraints Analysis and Site Selection (six pages) 3. Proposed Amendments - Chapter V. Architectural Design (12 pages) 4. Comments from Dave Weissman (10 pages) BACKGROUND: The Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines (HDS&G) were adopted by the Town Council in January 2004. The Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines are used along with other policy and regulatory documents adopted by the Town. including the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Blossom Hill Comprehensive Open Space Study, and the Hillside Specific Plan. The sections with proposed amendments contain areas of recent discussion by the Planning Commission and the Town Council. Staff was directed by the Town Council to prepare proposed amendments for consideration with the intent that further clarification would assist the deciding 257 bodies in their analysis of applications. ATTACHMENT ! Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 2 Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines Modification —� September 23, 2015 ANALYSIS: Modifications to Chapter ll. (Constraints Analysis and Site Selection) Recently, the Planning Commission has considered a number of applications with concern related to the visibility of proposed homes from the established viewing platforms. The definition of a visible home is contained in the glossary of the 11DS&G and states, "a single-family residence where 25% or more of an elevation can be seen from any of the Town's established viewing platforms (see Chapter 11, section B)." In an effort to provide additional guidance to applicants, staff, and the deciding bodies regarding visibility and how it is analyzed, staff has prepared draft methodology language for visibility analysis. The draft methodology language below would be added to Chapter 11. of the HDS&G and is provided in bullet form for a step by step process. The proposed new text is shown below in underlined format. The following steps shall be taken in completing a view analysis: • Install story poles per adopted policy • After the installation of story poles, photographs of the project shall be taken from the applicable viewing platforms * using 50 MM and 300 MM lenses • A photograph with a 50 MM lens will represent the visibility of the proposed residence from the naked eve • A photograph with a 300 MM lens will represent an up -close perspective and help identify any visible story poles, netting, trees, and/or shrubbery ** • If determined necessary, three dimensional illustrations or photo simulations of the structure may be required • A visible home is defined as a single-family residence where 25% or more of an elevation can he seen from any of the Town's established viewing platforms *** * Other location(s) as deemed appropriate by the deciding body may be chosen in addition to the existing viewing platforms ** Existing vegetation and/or landscaping proposed to be removed entirely or partially shall not be included in the view analysis *** Percentages shall be rounded to the nearest whole number Staff is recommends the inclusion of the visibility methodology above to Chapter 11. of the HDS&G. Exhibit 2 provides a "redlined" version of the full text of Chapter 11. indicating the proposed amendments. While the Town Council has discussed this topic in the past on previous applications, no specific direction has been provided to applicants or staff in regards to a consistent methodology. While N Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 3 Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines Modification September 23, 2015 it has not been included in the draft language, the Commission should also discuss the following items and determine if they should be included in the proposed amendments: • Should existing trees on-site and off --site which contribute to screening be used in the analysis: • Do existing trees have to be of a certain rating or health category to be included as screening; • Should trees with potential construction impacts from a project be included as screening or excluded; • Should the visibility analysis be required to be done during a certain time of year; and • Should trees with sparse canopies beincluded as screening. Modifications to Chapter V. (Architectural Design) Exterior colors and materials for homes in the hillsides are governed by the requirements of the HDS&G. Chapter V., Section 1. 2. (Page 41) of the HDS&G states: 1. The contrast berxren manmade buildings and the environment shall be minimized. A buildings color and materials shall complement and blend with the predominant colors and values of the surrounding natural environment. ?. Exterior colors shall not exceed a reflectivity value of 30 and shall blend is ith the natural vegetation. 3. Roofs shall be a dark earth tone color with a variety of shades of that color that blend tirith the environment. 4. Exposed metal surfaces shall be painted to compliment adjacent materials. be anodi_erl u dark color, or have the ability to develop a patina (e.g.. copper). 5. Mirror-like windox• tinting is prohibited. 6. Contrasting color accents shall be kept to a minimum. On March 17. 2015 the Town Council approved an amendment to Ordinance 2147 for the Highlands Planned Development to allow the use of light reflectivity value (LRV) averaging. Council further requested that an amendment to the HDS&G he considered to include LRV averaging. There is merit to the LRV averaging approach due to existing homes that were constructed prior to the adoption of the HDS&G that contain light colored trim (exceeding LRV 30) and for maintaining the integrity of architectural styles. 259 Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 4 Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines Modification September 23, 2015 In applying the HDS&G, past practice focused on the main body color of the home and that it should not exceed an LRV of 30. This practice allowed natural materials with a lighter palate and light colored trims with an LRV greater than 30. On October 17, 2014, Town Council read item 2 above and stated that based on the language, all exterior material colors of the home (including the main body color. trim, windows, doors, and any stone) should not exceed an LRV of 30. Most recently, applicants have expressed concerns to staff regarding application of this requirement. For example, new homes would not be allowed to have light colored trim or stone because the color exceeds LRV 30. In addition, a new accessory structure or addition to an existing residence constructed prior to the adoption of the HDS&G would need to conform to the LRV requirements, requiring repainting or changing the materials for the entire home to meet LRV 30 or having the addition/accessory structure with a different color scheme. This would result in a significant added cost to the homeowner and a significant alteration to the appearance of an existing home. This would affect existing trim, fascia, and windows with white mullions and trim. Staff is recommending amendments to Section 1. 2. of Chapter V. of the HDS&G to allow LRV averaging for non-visible homes as defined by the HDS&G. Exhibit 3 provides a -redlined- version redlined'version of the full text of Chapter V. indicating the proposed revisions. Proposed new text is shown as underlined and deletions are shown with strkethfeagh. 2. Exterior material colors for homes, with the exception of homes with any elevation that is more than 25 percent visible from the viewing platforms, may use color averaging of all exterior materials to meet the maximum light reflectivity value of 30 and shall blend with the natural vegetation. CEOA Determination It has been determined that there is no possibility that this project will have a significant impact on the environment; therefore, the project is not subject to the California En\ ironmental Quaht} Act [Section 15061 (b) (3)]. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Exhibit 4 contains a letter from Dave Weissman regarding the proposed visibility methodology and includes his recommendations for modifications to the proposed visibility methodology. .00 Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 5 Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines Modification September 23. 2015 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION: A. Conclusion The attached amendments to Chapter 11. and Chapter V. of the HDS&G are recommended to provide additional clarity to staff, applicants, and the deciding bodies regarding visibility and light reflectivity and determining compliance with the HDS&G. B. Recommendation For the reasons mentioned in this report, staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward the draft amendments to the Town Council with a recommendation for adoption. The Commission should also include any comments or recommended changes to the draft amendments when taking the following actions: 1. Find that there is no possibility that this project will have a significant impact on the environment; therefore, the project is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15061 (b)(3): Review for exemption (Exhibit 1). and 2. Forward a recommendation to Town Council for adoption of the amendments to the HDS&G (Exhibits 2 and 3). Alternatively, the Commission may take the following action: I . Forward a recommendation to the Town Council for adoption of the Town Code amendments with modifications. 2. Continue the matter to a date certain with specific direction. Prepared by: VApproved by: Joel Paulson. AICP Laurel R. Prevetti Planning Manager Assistant Town Manager, Director of Community Development LRP:JSP:cg N OI % I'( REPOR lti 2015 Hillside IRV Pimbilm doc �- 261 This Page Intentionally Left Blank _62 PLANNING COMMISSION — September 23, 2015 REQUIRED FINDINGS: Consider adoption of amendments to Chapter Il. (Constraints Analysis and Site Selection) and Chapter V. (Architectural Design) of the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines. FINDINGS Required Findings for CEQA: • It has been determined that there is no possibility that this project will have a significant impact on the environment; therefore, the project is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15061 (b)(3): Review for exemption. NADEVT1NDn.GS1015-,Hiasidt_IRV_Visibiliry.dmi 9/23/15 PC Staff Report 263 This Page Intentionally L_ t Blank Im Tou-N of Los GATOS HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND GIIDELINES II. CONSTRAINTS ANALYSIS AND SITE SELECTION A. Prior to Selecting a Building Site. 1. Constraints analysis. Each development application subject to the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines shall be accompanied by a constraints analysis when it is deemed necessary by the Town to identify the most appropriate area or areas on the lot for locating buildings given the existing constraints of the lot. This is a critical step in the overall planning and design of projects in the hillsides. When all constrained areas have been identified and mapped, the remaining area(s) will be designated as the "LEAST RESTRICT VE DEVELOPMENT AREA" (LRDA). These are the areas most appropriate for development. To ensure that new development is sensitive to the goal and objectives of the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines and respects the existing site constraints, the following elements shall be mapped by appropriate professionals and taken into consideration when determining a site's LRDA: Topography, with emphasis on slopes over 30% Vegetation such as individual trees, groupings of trees and shrubs, habitat types Drainage courses and riparian corridors Septic systems Geologic constraints including landslides and active fault traces Wildlife habitats and movement corridors Visibility from off site Areas of severe fire danger Solar orientation and prevailing wind patterns • Significant Ridgelines Many of the above topics are covered in more detail in Chapter II.B. and Chapter III. The accurate determination of the LRDA early in the planning process could avoid delays once an application has been submitted. Site specific studies such as geotechnical or other environmental evaluations, tree survey and/or topographic survey may be necessary to accurately determine the LRDA. I-.XH101f 2 265 9/23/15 PC Page I' TOWN OF Los GATOS HILLSIDE DECEIMMEN7 STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES 2. Consultation with Neighbors. Before siting and designing the house and landscaping, the property owner, architect or builder should meet with neighbors to discuss any special concerns they might have. Resolution of issues early in the design process can save time and cost as well as reducing the processing time for applications. If a conflict occurs between a property owner's desire to develop their property and legitimate issues raised by a neighbor, a design solution will be sought that attempts to balance all issues or concerns that are raised by both parties. 3. Pre -application meeting/staff consultation/site visit. Before designing a project, the property owner/architect/builder is strongly encouraged to meet with Town staff to consider a building location that best preserves the natural terrain and landscape of the lot and positively addresses the objectives of the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines. On heavily wooded lots, or on lots where trees may be impacted by proposed development, an arborist's report shall be prepared which evaluates potential tree impacts. The report shall be prepared at the applicant=s expense. B. View Analysis. \'ie�� ing platforms. Each development project with the potential for being visible (see glossary for definition) from any established viewing platform shall be subject to a view analysis. (`Potential` is defined as capable of being seen from a viewing platform if trees or large shrubs are removed, significantly pruned, or impacted by construction.) The view analysis shall be conducted in compliance with established Town procedures using story poles that identify the building envelope. After installing the story poles, the applicant shall take photographs of the project from appropriate established viewing platforms that clearly show the story poles and/or house and subject property. Visual aids such as photo simulations or three dimensional illustrations and/or a scale model may be required when it is deemed necessary to fully understand the impacts of a proposed project. The locations of the viewing platforms are shown on the map on the next page, and are as follows: 1. Blossom Hill Road/Los Gatos Boulevard 2. Los Gatos - Almaden Road/Selinda Way (across from Leigh High School) 3. Hwy 17 overcrossing/Los Gatos - Saratoga Road (Highway 9) 4. Main Street/Bayview Avenue 5. Other location(s) as deemed appropriate by the deciding body TOWN OF LOS GATOS IIILI SIDF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES The following steps shall be taken in completing a view analysis: Install story poles per adopted policy After the installation of story poles, photographs of the proiect shall be taken from the applicable viewing platforms * using 50 MM and 300 MM lenses A photograph with a 50 MM lens will represent the visibility of the proposed residence from the naked eve A photograph with a 300 MM lens will represent an up -close perspective and help identify any visible story poles, netting, trees, and/or shrubbery ** If determined necessary, three dimensional illustrations or photo simulations of the * Other location(s) as deemed appropriate by the deciding body may be chosen in addition to the existing viewing platforms ** Existing vegetation and/or landscaping proposed to be removed entirely or partially shall not be included in the view analysis *** Percentages shall be rounded to the nearest whole number 267 Town of Los GATOS HILLSIDI. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES 2. Determination of significant ridgelines. Significant ridgelines include: a. Aztec Ridge; b. The ridge between Blossom Hill Road and Shannon Road; c. Other ridgelines as determined by the approving body C. Selecting the building site. Standards: 1. Locate buildings within the Least Restrictive Development Area. f 2. Preserve views of highly visible hillsides. Views of the hillsides shall be protected from adverse visual impacts by locating buildings on the least visible areas of the LRDA. 3. Reduce visual impact. The visual impact of buildings or portions of buildings that can be seen from the viewing platforms shall be mitigated to the greatest extent reasonable _ by reducing the height of the building or moving the structure to another location on the site. Providing landscape screening is not an alternative to reducing building height or selecting a less visible site. 4. Ridgeline view protection. Whenever possible within the significant ridgeline areas, no primary or accessory building shall be Refer to the Ellossorn o constructed so as to project above the physical ridgeline (not Comprehensive including vegetative material) as seen from any viewing platform. A even space significant ridgeline means any hill or mountain, the uppermost part Study of which forms the skyline visible from any established viewing platform. If a building cannot be sited below a significant ridgeline because the area away from it is not the LRDA or is otherwise not suitable for development, the following shall apply: a. The building shall not exceed 18 feet in height. b. Landscaping shall be provided to screen the building from view to the greatest extent possible. R:M l"!YC Ii, TOWN OF Los GATOS HILLSIDE. DL%Fi.opmu%T STANDARDS AND GCIDELINES c Houses do not project above significant ridgeline S. Preserve natural features. Existing natural features shall be retained to the greatest extent feasible and integrated into the development project. Site conditions such as existing topography, drainage courses, rock outcroppings, trees, significant vegetation, wildlife corridors, and important views will be considered as part of the site analysis and will be used to evaluate the proposed site design. 6. Avoid hazardous building sites. Building in areas with more than 30 percent slope or areas containing liquefiable soil with poor bearing capacity, slide potential, fault rupture zones and other geotechnical or fire hazards shall be avoided unless no alternative building site is available. 7. Protect riparian corridors. Building sites shall be set back an appropriate distance from riparian corridors to be determined on a site by site basis. Natural drainage courses should be preserved in as close to their natural location and appearance as possible. 8. Protect wildlife. Existing wildlife usage of the site and in particular any existing wildlife corridors shall be identified and avoided to the maximum extent possible. Guidelines: 1. Solar orientation. Building sites should be selected to take maximum advantage of solar access. 2. impact on adjacent properties. Building sites should be located where they will have the least impact on adjacent properties and respect the privacy, natural ventilation and light, and views of neighboring homes. 3. Minimize grading. The building site should be located to minimize grading. 270 Page 1 This Page Intentionally Left Blank TOWN OF Los GATOS HILLSIDE DEVELOPNIFNT SIA^DARDS AND Gl'IDELINES V. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN A. Design objectives. The standards and guidelines in this section are intended to encourage architectural design that is: 1. in harmony and visually blends with the natural environment, 2. responsive to site constraints and opportunities, 3. compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and respectful of neighbors, and 4. respectful of the rural character of the hillsides. Building form reflects hillside form/setting 272 Page 31 9/23/15 PC Staff Report ToHT of Los GATOS HILLSIDE DEVELOPMLNT STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES B. Design to be neighbor friendly. Protecting the privacy of neighboring homes is a high priority in the siting and design of a new house or addition. The following design standards shall be followed to the greatest extent feasible to ensure privacy to surrounding neighbors. Standards: 1. Privacy impacts shall be addressed and resolved during the constraints analysis phase and initial design stage, not with mitigation measures imposed as an afterthought. Sight lines shall be studied so that windows and outdoor areas are placed to maintain privacy. Guidelines: 1. The following design guidelines should be implemented to the greatest degree feasible where privacy impacts are of concern; a. Minimize second -story windows facing close neighboring properties. b. Orient upper floor windows, decks, and balconies to avoid impacting the privacy of neighbors. c. Incorporate screening measures (e.g., solid railing walls, lattice work, or planters) to obscure lines of sight to neighboring properties. d. Limit the size of decks and balconies to six feet in depth in areas where privacy is a concern. This will limit their use to passive activities. e. Use landscaping to screen views to your neighbor=s living areas most sensitive to privacy. Use evergreen trees and shrubs to provide year-round privacy. f. Existing vegetation that protects privacy should not be removed. g. Screen and control noise sources such as parking, outdoor activities, and mechanical equipment (e.g., air conditioning and pool equipment). h. Locate outdoor activity areas adjacent to neighbors= outdoor activity areas rather than in close proximity to their quiet areas (bedrooms). 13 Page 3' TowN of Los GATOS HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND GuIDELINES C. Design for sustainability. Sustainability and the conservation of natural resources are important issues to Los Gatos residents. Sustainability refers to the use of natural resources in a manner that insures their continued availability to future generations. The term "green building" is often used to relate sustainability to development. Green building addresses a broad range of techniques to reduce the consumption of natural resources during construction and over the lifetime of a home. These include designing structures to be energy water efficient, utilizing building materials that reduce resource consumption and improve indoor air quality, and taking maximum advantage of renewable energy resources. Refer to Appendix B for additional information on green building. Appendix B, Green Building Strategies and Materials, contains design strategies that maximize the use of renewable energy resources for heating, cooling and lighting, additional strategies that conserve energy and water, a list of building materials that reduce the consumption of nonrenewable resources and improve air quality, and a list of various sources for "green building" information and their web sites. The following design guidelines are aimed at maximizing energy efficiency and reducing consumption of resources. Standards: None. Guidelines: 1. The design of each house should show evidence to the satisfaction of the deciding body that a significant effort has been made towards incorporating energy -conservation and water saving techniques above and beyond the minimum requirements of Title 24. 2. All homes over 3,500 square feet should incorporate a variety of green building strategies and materials (see Appendix B). Homes less than 3,500 square feet are also encouraged to incorporate additional energy and resource saving features. 3. Homes should be designed and located to take maximum advantage of passive solar heating (space and water), natural cooling and lighting. Houses should be designed to maximize the benefits of sun and wind as follows: a. Orient the house and arrange doors and windows to take advantage of prevailing summer winds for natural ventilation and cooling (also see Appendix B). b. Orient the house and the most used living areas to take advantage of passive solar heating. Orient the house on an east -west access and locate the most used living areas and the majority of windows on the south side (also see appendix B). 274 Page ? I TON1r OF Los GATOS HILLSIDE DE%'ELOPSIENT S1 ANDARDS AND GUIDELINES c. Landscaping should be used to control exposure to sun and wind (Refer to Chapter VI, Section B, Landscape Design Concepts for ways to meet this guideline.). Shading and solar access should be balanced when both heating and cooling is needed. • Where protection from summer sun is needed, tall spreading deciduous trees should be planted to the south, east and west sides of pavement and buildings. Trees should be placed so they do not block winter sun. • Where protection from winter wind is needed, plant dense evergreen trees and/or shrubs in random discontinuous groups. A distance of four to five times the ultimate height of the plants is recommended to allow light to penetrate into the home. 4. Selection of building materials that reduce the consumption of natural resources and are non-toxic is strongly encouraged. This includes, but is not limited to, salvaged or reused materials and products made from recycled materials (also see Appendix B). D. Design for fire safet-. A home that is located, designed and maintained for fire safety will not only protect the individual homeowner, but will reduce the chance for a home fire to become a wildfire. Conversely, in the case of a wildfire, the home will have a better chance of surviving and may help limit a fires spread. See Chapter III, section D for guidance in choosing a building site to minimize exposure to potential wildfires. See Chapter VII, section A for guidance on how to landscape and maintain a site with fire safety in mind. The following standards are intended to maximize protection from wildfires: O»pter 11 semw C Standards: 1. Structures shall be designed to maximize protection from wildfires. 2. Roofs shall have a Class A covering or a Class A roof assembly. 3. Eaves and soffits shall be protected on the exposed underside with noncombustible material or by materials approved for a minimum one-hour rated fire resistive construction. 4. Gutters and downspouts shall be constructed of noncombustible material. 5. Exterior walls shall be constructed with noncombustible materials on the exterior side or materials approved for a minimum one-hour rated fire resistive construction. WAN Page 34 TowN OF Los GATOS HILISIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES 6. Under floor areas and areas below decks shall be enclosed to the ground with noncombustible materials or with materials approved for a minimum one-hour rated fire resistive construction. 7. Attic and under floor vents shall be covered with corrosion -resistant mesh not to exceed 1/4 -inch. 8. Automatic fire sprinklers shall be installed in accordance with National and Fire Department Standards. 9. Roof skylights shall be tempered or have multi -layered glazing. Guidelines: L. 1. Exterior windows should be tempered glass. 2. The size and number of windows on the side of the house that would likely be exposed to a fire approaching from the downhill side should be minimized. 3. Roof eaves should be designed with minimal overhang to prevent entrapment of heat and flames. Refer to Building height. Chapter 11 section C Standards: 1. The maximum allowed height for homes in hillside areas shall be 25 feet. Building height shall be measured in compliance with provisions of the Town's Zoning Ordinance, 2. The maximum height of a building=s tallest elevation shall not exceed 35 feet measured from the lowest part of the building to the highest part, except buildings extending above a ridgeline or that are visible from a viewing platform where the maximum height from the lowest to highest points shall not exceed 28 feet. Pagc 35 c 0 r - I W I o I � _ I N L x 1 � f I B I m I £ I M 276 TOWN OF LOS GATOS HILISIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES 3. Ridgeline and visible homes shall not extend more than 18 feet above the existing grade. 4. The height of the lowest finished Floor(s) of a structure, excluding cellars, shall not be more than four feet above the existing grade to ensure that buildings follow slopes. —4-4 it maximum 5. Three-story elevations are prohibited. Guidelines: None, F. Minimize building bulk and mass One of the primary concerns of Los Gatos residents is that some new houses in the hillsides appear overly large and bulky, resulting in high visibility from surrounding properties and the valley floor, The design standards and guidelines in this section address this issue. Standards: 1. Buildings shall be designed to minimize bulk, mass and volume so as not to be prominently visible from a distance or from surrounding properties. 2. Buildings shall be designed to conform to the natural topography of the site and run with the contours. Blending with the existing terrain reduces the appearance of bulk. _/7 Page 30 Town OF Los GATOS IIILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND GIL IDELIVES Do this Don't do this Building is parallel with the contours. Building is perpendicular to the contours Guidelines: 1. The building design should incorporate but not be limited to, the following techniques to effectively reduce the appearance of mass, bulk and volume: a. Keep building forms simple. b. Avoid architectural styles that are inherently viewed as massive and bulky. Don't do this Don't do this c. Minimize square footage. d. Minimize volume; avoid large volume buildings. e. Avoid overhanging decks, large staircases and patios formed by retaining walls that make buildings appear more massive. Avoid use of balustrades and solid wall 278 Page 37 TOWN OF LOS GATOS HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES railings that add to the mass of the design. (Revised 1121/05 by Council Resolution 1005-11) f. Step the building foundation and roofs with the natural slope. g. Use horizontal and vertical building components to reduce bulk. Avoid two story wall planes. h. Create light and shadow by providing modest overhangs, projections, alcoves, and plane offsets, and varying elevations such as stepping second stories. i. Vary elevations, such as stepping back second stories, to conform with topography. k. Excavate or use below -grade rooms to reduce effective bulk. The visual area of the building can be minimized through a combined use of grading and landscaping techniques. I. Use vaulted ceilings rather than high walls and ceilings with attics above to achieve a feeling of volume. m. Second stories should be stepped back so the difference in wall planes is visible from a distance. (Revised 2122105 by Council Resolution 2005-11) 79 have 3, TONT OF LOS GATOS HILISIDF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES G. Roofs. Standards: 1. Roof forms and rooflines shall be broken into smaller building components to reflect the irregular forms of surrounding natural features. 2. The slope of the main roof shall generally be oriented in the same direction as the natural slope of the terrain. Do this Don't do this Guidelines: 1. Large gable ends on downhill elevations should be avoided. Roof forms are kept small and reflect the surrounding topography Pa4e iq To%%N or Los GATOS HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND GUIDELINLS H. Architectural elements. Standards: 1. Exterior structural supports and undersides of floors and decks not enclosed by walls are prohibited unless it is proven that no alternative type of construction is feasible and that fire safety and aesthetic considerations have been adequately addressed (also see Chapter III section D.2). Don't do this 2. Skylight glazing material shall be selected to reduce glare at night. Large skylights with dome -style glazing should be avoided. 3. Architectural detailing shall be provided on all sides of the building. Elements of the architectural treatment used on the front facade shall be repeated on all sides of the building. Guidelines: I. The use of large windows and glass doors should be kept to the minimum to reduce the daytime glare and nighttime lighting emanating from large glazed areas, and to increase heating and cooling efficiency. Of particular concern is glare that impacts neighboring properties and is visible from the valley floor (also see Chapter V section I.). 2. The use of architectural features that increase visual prominence should be avoided. Massive, tall elements, such as two-story entries, turrets, and large chimneys should be avoided. Such elements on the downhill facade of the house is of particular concern. 31 Page 41 i TOWN of Los GATos HnAsIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES Do this Don't do this 1. Materials and colors. Standards: 1. The contrast between manmade buildings and the environment shall be minimized. A buildings color and materials shall complement and blend with the predominant colors and values of the surrounding natural environment. 2. Exterior material colors shall met exceed a refleetiyty Yalue e for homes, with the exception of homes with any elevation that is more than 25 percent visible from the viewing platforms may use color averaging of all exterior materials to meet the maximum light reflectivity value of 30 and shall blend with the natural vegetation. 3. Roofs shall be a dark earth tone color with a variety of shades of that color that blend with the environment. 4. Exposed metal surfaces shall be painted to compliment adjacent materials, be anodized a dark color, or have the ability to develop a patina (e.g., copper). 5. Mirror-like window tinting is prohibited. 6. Contrasting color accents shall be kept to a minimum. Guidelines: 1. A variety of materials, textures, and architectural details compatible with the design theme of the house should be used to add interest and to mitigate the visual impact of large wall areas. Natural materials such as wood and stone will help soften the 282 Page 41 TOW7V OF LOS GATOS HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES appearance of stucco and blend it with the natural setting. (Revised 2/22/05 by Council Resolution 2005-11) 33 Page 42 To: Planning Commission, for meeting of September 23, 2015 5t►' I , iull From: Dave Weissman, September 15, 2015 TOWN OF LOS GATOS Re: Proposed draft for visibility calculation methodologies PLANNING DIVISION I offer this draft as being more consistent with the goals and intent and spirit of the HDS&G than the draft submitted by staff. Because many of these issues have nuances and several perspectives, brevity is difficult, so I apologize from the outset for the length here. I believe and hope that this draft provides a balance between objective and subjective opinions, and gives staff and applicants the information and direction they need. The following discussions and suggestions are based upon transcripts and tapes from the following Town meetings. In this document, I do not separate these discussions by individual meeting, unless specifically noted. 1. Planning Commission, 4/23/2003. Review of draft HDS&G, minutes of meeting. 2. Planning Commission, 8/27/2003. Review of draft HDS&G, minutes of meeting. 3. Town Council, 1/5/2004. Review of draft NDS&G, minutes of meeting. 4. Town Council, 6/15/2009, starting at clock 00:39:38. 20105 Foster Rd. 5. Town Council, 5/19/2015, starting at clock 04:03:50. Lot 7, Highland's project. 6. Planning Commission, 8/12/2015, starting at clock 01:47:10. 16350 Blackberry ■ 7. Planning Commission, 8/26/2015, starting at clock 00:9:03. Lot 8, Highland's project. Background: The HDS&G were passed in 2004 after some 2 years of efforts by several committees and various PC and TC hearings. Yet it was not until the 9/23/15 PC Staff 284 McCarthy appeal of 2009 that an application required further discussion as to meaning, interpretation, goals, and intent of the hillside visibility standards. The TC decided on 6/15/2009, that healthy, native, on site and neighboring property trees and vegetation that were not harmed or removed by construction, could count as screening for the proposed hillside house. The liberal use of alternative viewing platforms, as provided for by the HDS&G, was also employed by both the 2009 PC and TC. But it is the present Town Attorney and Town Manager's opinion that policy passed at the TC meeting of 6/15/2009, did not apply to future hillside projects because those TC decisions were not embedded in Town Code. And while I disagree with staffs interpretation atter listening to the tape (my opinion is also confirmed from talking with at least one 2009 councilman), I do understand their position. So we now have all of these issues before you tonight, this time to be made part of official Town policy as it applies to the remaining Highland projects and for going forward. Before discussing specific topics, I want to present, verbatim, a large portion of staffs report, from the 2009 hearing, since it crystalizes, far better than I am able to express, many of the issues at stake here. I he Hillside Development Standards & Guidelines (HDS&G) define a t isible home as a residence where more than 259, of an elevation can he seen from anp of the loon. established viewing platforms As stated to its forward, "The goal of the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines (HDS&G) is to achieve design excellence, foster sustainable development and preserve the natural environment consistent with the Town's vision for its hillsides." (HDS&G. Forward, p. 5). The objectives of the HDS&G include: "maintain the natural appearance of the hillsides from all t antagc points including the valley floor". "ensure that development does not dominate. but rather visually blends and achieves harmony between the ratuml and built emlronmeni': and 'incorporate the abo%e objectives to a development's overall site plan." 1 HDS&G. chap I, sec E. p 9, emphasis added). The HDS&G includes the follouing standard- "Reduce v tsual impact. 1 he visual impact of buildings ur portions of buildings that can be seen from the vteuxng platforms shall be mitigated to the greatest extent reasonable by reducing the height of the building or moving the structure to another location on the site. Providing landscape screening is not an alternauvc to reducing building height or selecting a Iess visible site." (HDS&G. chap. 11, sec. C4, p. 15). A "visible home" a delined to the FIDS&G as: "Dal single family residence where 259. or more of an elevation can be seen from an} of the To% ri s established viewing platforms." (HDS&G. Ghnsary. p. 71 ). "Vieumg platform." are defined as "specific locauons on the valley floor or surrounding hillsides selected as _d5 vantage points from which field observations are made to assess the visual impact of development within the Tours hillside areas." (HDS&G. Glossary. p. 711. A view analysis is conducted under the HDS&G as follows: "Each development project with the potential for being visible ... from any established viewing platform shall be subject to a view analysis. i "Potential" is defined as capable of being seen from a viewing platform if trees or large shrubs are removed. significantly pruned. or impacted by construction) The view analysis shall be conducted in compliance with established l own procedures using stop poles that identify the building envelope. After installing the story poles. the applicant shall take photographs of the project from appropriate established t tew ing platforms that clearly show the story poles and -or house and subject properry. Visual aids such as photo simulations or three dimensional illustrations and: or a scale model may be required when it is deemed necessan- to fully understand the impacts of a proposed project." (HDS&G. chap. 11, sec. Bl. p. 13. emphasis added). The established viewing platforms are identified as four specific locations and a fifth identified as: "Other location(s) as deemed appropriate by the deciding body." (HDS&G, chap. 11, sec. B 1, p. 13). As viewed from the Los Gatos Boulevard•Blossom Hill Road platform, the story poles (for the McCarthy project) are partially visible under current conditions. The applicant is relying entirely on trees located off the project site to screen the home when they assert that the house will not be visible. Since the trees are not located on his property. the applicant does not have any control over their maintenance or longevity Over 25"-i, of the [McCarthyl home would be potentially visible from the Los Gatos BouleyardBlossom Hit] Road platform if the existing trees and vegetation were removed or discounted, as per the HDS&G section previously cited. Further, staff identified and the Planning Commission utilized additional v-iew mg platforms as allowed under the HDS&G that showed potential visibility of 25% or more of the home elsewhere in Los Gatos without vegetation removal, and certainly so with vegetation removal. 1 will also give justification and an explanation for my various proposals, since this is impossible during the 3 minutes I am allotted to speak before the PC. will start off by discussing those issues highlighted by the TC in June, 2009, where only those trees and vegetation that were healthy, native, and unharmed and not removed by construction can be counted as providing screening. Then I will follow by discussing those new issues that have been in the forefront of the recent Highland's applications before the TC and PC. Because of my familiarity with the project, most of my examples will be from the Highland's project. I suspect that such issues also apply to many hillside developments in Los Gatos. U316 I also urge the PC to keep in mind the bigger picture and the cumulative impact of all of these proposed projects. Should the houses on Highland's Lot 7 and 8 be approved as proposed, then our hillsides would have these 2 structures joining the already built, and very visible Lot 6 house thus forming a "wall of houses" for all to see from along the busiest thorough fare in our Town - Los Gatos Blvd. Sometimes the whole is truly bigger than the sum of its parts. And while the Town can't regulate whether or not residents use shutters on their windows at night, I can guarantee Davidon that residents who have views of the valley floor, will probably opt to have their shutters and blinds open at night to view the valley floor lights, creating a significant source of light pollution. Topic 1: Visibility Platforms: The HDS&G provide for the use of alternative platforms, which were used under a "common sense" rationale by the 2009 TC. Likewise, using the designated viewing platform near the corner of Blossom Hill and Los Gatos Blvd to view the Highlands, makes no common sense since these views are blocked by the Chevron gas station sign and various landscape trees in King's Court. Thus the applicant should not be saying that only 2% of Lot 8's house would be visible from viewing platform #1 since the HDS&G expressly say that landscape plantings (in this case in King's Court) can't provide screening. Moving 150 feet along Los Gatos Blvd. makes common sense. Similarly, from that same corner, Lot 6 has 0% visibility since it is completely screened by the Chevron Station. But move 150 feet to the south and the completed house is easily seen with the naked eye. The 5/19/2015 TC was interested in the percentage visibility of the Lot 6 house but Davidon has yet to provide that estimate. Staff recommends that after story pole installation, photographs be taken with a 50 mm lens and a 300 mm lens. The former to represent what is seen with the visible eye and the latter to represent an up -close perspective. Both of these suggestions make no sense. First off, from 1.3 miles away, I can't really see the story poles on Lot 7 or 8 with my naked eye. And what is shown in a photograph taken with the 50 mm lens depends on how big the actual image is made. But all of this is irrelevant as demonstrated by the built house on Lot 6, which is easily visible along _d7 Los Gatos Blvd. with the naked eye. Yet the Lot 6 story poles would have been barely visible, if at all. And if one was dealing with the 2009 McCarthy proposal, where the story poles are some 3.3 miles from the viewing platform, they will always be invisible to the naked eye. And why specify a 300 mm lens? The more powerful the lens, the better will be the image since one is trying to determine which trees are providing screening. A long lens will require a tripod and such a resulting image can be "opened" in Photoshop and enlarged to increase resolution. This is one situation where more magnification is better. just look at the visibility -analysis photos supplied by Davidon for Lots 7, 8, and 10 and not only do they appear to be copies of copies, but the resolution is so poor and the photos so dark, that few objects are discernable. Which may be what Davidon desires - you can't see anything so take our word for it. And, yes, any image can be modified in Photoshop, whether it is taken with a 50 or 1500 mm lens. MY PROPOSAL: Reaffirm the usefulness of alternative viewing platforms and empower staff to make such selections without having to come before a deciding body. Specify that whatever telephoto lens is used to capture the story poles, the final, submitted story pole image fills an 8" by 11" piece of paper. This can be achieved with either a more powerful lens or enlargement in Photoshop, or both if necessary. The image must be well lit and of sharp resolution such that individual trees are recognizable. If determined necessary, three-dimensional illustrations or photo simulations or a scale model of the structure may be required, as provided for in the HDS&G (I1, B. 1). Topic 2: What is a "healthy" tree? The consulting arborist assigns one of five "preservation suitability ratings" to a tree, which can also be likened to grades of A, B, C, D, and F. Trees with A (excellent) and B (good) ratings should count as providing screening. Trees with C (fair) ratings might also be counted but only if they will have low or no impact from construction. Moderate or greater impact from construction should eliminate such fair (or lower) rated trees from visibility calculations. Trees with D (poor) or F (dead) grades will not be counted. Trees with mixed ratings of fair/poor (C/D) grades also should not count. Thus tree #626 on N-1.3 Lot 7, for example, given a fair/poor rating by the consulting arborist because its lower trunk mechanical wound has sapwood fungal decay conks, should not be counted since this tree has a very uncertain, and probably negative future. Reading further in the consulting arborist's report shows that trees with a "fair" grade "...will require more intensive management and monitoring, and may also have shorter life spans than trees in the "Good" category." Trees rated as "poor" "...have significant structural defects or poor health that cannot be reasonably improved with treatment. These trees can be expected to decline regardless of management." Any tree that the consulting arborist recommends for removal because of "overall condition" and/or anticipated impact from construction should also not be counted unless the developer can make significant construction modifications that then changes the consulting arborist's recommendation. Without this construction change, there is the liability game that the developer now successfully plays: The consulting arborist recommends removal. The developer says that all efforts will be made to retain the tree and now it can count as providing screening. After approval, the developer seeks a tree removal permit. The Town arborist finds himself _ between a rock and a hard place: deny the permit, which the consulting arborist said should be granted, and when the tree drops a branch and hurts someone, the Town gets sued. Or grant the permit and protect the Town while providing the homeowner a better view. If these trees don't immediately die, their condition will probably continue to deteriorate such that the Town's arborist will eventually feel legally compelled to issue a tree removal permit, citing the recommendation in the consulting arborist's report. But at the time of application, these trees will be counted as providing screening. To show how common this game is, I refer to the consulting arborist's August monthly tree inspection report, wherein she documents that some 16 protected trees, all on lots with either completed or in -progress construction, will have tree removal permits applied for. MY PROPOSAL Excellent and good rated trees can count as screening. Fair rated trees can be counted but only if they have low or no impact from construction. Fair/poor or lower rated trees cannot he counted. Any tree that the consulting arborist recommends for removal, based solely on condition cannot he counted. If _d9 6 recommended removal is based on a combination of condition and impact from construction, and the impact from construction can be significantly decreased such that the consulting arborist will upgrade the tree's preservation suitability to excellent or good, then such a tree can be counted as screening. Topic 3: What does it meon to "harm"a tree? Trees harmed before or during construction, whether intentional or not, should not be counted as providing screening. Developers apparently need incentives to care for trees on their property. The consulting arborist has documented, since 2012, that many trees on many Highland lots have fresh, large, mechanical -associated wounds on their trunks. Such wounds, she continues (e.g. tree #723 on Lot 13), can predispose that tree to developing a wood decay fungus that can cause tree failure. Another example of a harmed tree is tree #607 on Lot 7 with its 3 mechanical trunk wounds, the largest of which is 3 feet by 1 foot. While the Town's tree protection ordinance has no specific section to address remediation of such injuries, the tree protection ordinance does define "remove" as "taking any action foreseeably leading to the death of a tree or permanent damage to its health". It seems only appropriate that trees with developer -caused, potentially life threatening injuries should not be counted as providing screening of any degree since they can be considered as "removed" from the site. MY PROPOSAL: Trees that are "harmed" or will be harmed during construction include the following: (1) trees that will be removed for construction, even if transplanted (since most transplanted trees do not survive), (2) trees with recent physical trauma, say within the last 2-3 years, to the trunk or major limbs, (3) trees where more than 1S% of the canopy needs to be pruned or removed for construction (for example, tree #606 on Lot 7 that will require close to 25% of its canopy removed for the house construction); and (4) trees that will sustain moderate or greater impacts from construction as determined by the consulting arborist. Such harmed trees should not be counted in visibility calculations because their survivorship is unpredictable and in doubt 290 Topic 4: What constitutes screening? Should there be partial screening? The 2009 TC made several decisions here, which I shall discuss individually. The TC unanimously agreed that native, healthy, unharmed trees on the applicant's property should be counted in screening calculations. Interestingly, staff and Councilwoman Spector argued that native, healthy trees on neighboring, adjoining properties should not count because the applicant had no control over their condition and fate: (from the staff report) "Since the trees are not located on his property, the applicant does not have any control over their maintenance or longevity." Is there a threshold cutoff? For instance tree #626 on Lot 7 is so sparse of vegetation, because of its poor health, that one can clearly see the distant hillsides through it. By extension, a house would not be screened from the valley floor by this tree. Also, the applicant, when deciding what part of the tree provides screening, has used the total outline of the tree, even if this outline is provided by a dead branch or twig. Plus screening is counted as 100%. It seems to me that any tree whose foliage is so thin as to be almost "transparent," provides little or no effective screening. MY PROPOSAL: Healthy, native, unharmed, non -landscaping trees on the applicant's property count as screening. The PC should discuss whether healthy, native, unharmed, non -landscaping trees on neighboring properties should count as screening. The HDS&G already state that landscape vegetation can't be used as screening. Trees should be rated as to how much screening they provide: as an example, deciduous blue oak tree X, if it were a solid block, would screen a surface area of, say, 300 square feet if its entire outline were used (this is what Davidon has done in their visibility calculations). But, to continue our example, after removing dead branches and twigs (as required by fire prevention strategies) and evaluating during full summer leaf -out, the leaves on tree X would only screen about 50% of the built house, then the developer gets "credit' for screening 150 square feet of the elevation, not the entire 300 square feet. In contrast, when screening is provided by live oak Y, should such screening exceed, say 85%, then maybe count the screening as 100% because the built house will essentially be hidden (it would be nice to see some sample mock ups to see if 85%, or some other number, is a reliable cut off). Topic S: When deciduous oak trees provide screening, what time of}year is best to calculate visibility? Probably in June since, according to the consulting arborist, that is when such oaks are in full leaf -out and one can assess which trees are alive, which branches are dead, and overall general health. But before percent screening is determined, dead branches should be removed from these oaks as per the HDS&f, 2., page 25; Fire Safety Public Resources Code 4291-4299, (5); and the applicant's own commissioned "Wildland Fire Protection Plan", page 42. In those situations where screening is provided by evergreen oaks, screening calculations can be performed at any time of the year after dead branches and twigs have been removed. MY PROPOSAL: Screening calculations that involve deciduous oaks will be conducted during June full -leaf out after removal of all dead branches and twigs. Topic 6: Should visibility calculations also consider the square footage of the elevation that is visible? In other words, a 5,000 square foot house might have 20% of its elevation, or 1,000 square feet, visible to the valley floor. Such a house would be permitted under the present code. But a 500 square foot house, situated in the middle of a hillside clearing, might have 100% of its elevation visible to the valley floor and not be permitted, despite being less of an eyesore in the hillsides. In fact, it is the smaller house that is more sustainable and should be encouraged. The present system favors the bigger house. MY PROPOSAL: That the PC discuss this topic and modify the code to be more reflective of the goals and themes of the HDS&G. Consider the "big picture." Topic 7: The architect's visibility calculations should be peer reviewed, not because I don't trust them but because people make honest mistakes and they do have a potential conflict of interest in being hired by Davidon. The Town chose the consulting arborist for the Highland's project and staff requires peer review of submitted documents and studies all of the time. These important visibility documents should be no different. 292 MY PROPOSAL Require peer review of any critical document, such as a visibility study, especially where the initial evaluation was done by a company chosen by the developer. Topic 8: It can be difficult to assess which trees are which in a grove type situation since many trees have intertwined branches and leaves (and roots, according to the consulting arborist). Many techniques can facilitate such analysis, including the use of drones (which are a lot cheaper than the techniques employed by the applicant), Google Earth, and placing ribbons of different colors in the trees. And placement of the latter ribbons does not require an expensive boom truck, as claimed by Davidon, but a simple how and arrow to shoot such ribbons over the appropriate branches. In many cases, such ribbons can simply be thrown into place for lower branches. What is important is that the public, and staff, have confidence in whatever technique is used to determine which trees are which from a distance. Davidon's architectural firm has not instilled such confidence in their analysis since their supposed methods, which have been continually evolving during the course of these various hearings, still make little common sense. And Davidon's claim at the PC meeting of 8/26/2015, that using Google Earth, "one can zoom in and out and up and down" is deceiving. Yes, trees can be identified well from above. But, even using Google Earth Pro (which is now offered for free), one can still not get the same angle, perspective or resolution that can be achieved by a drone hovering in front of Lot 7 and 8, at the same angle as if standing on Los Gatos Blvd. Which makes sense since 3D reconstruction, using a satellite image from space, can only do so much. Additionally, while one can stand on Santella Court and see fairly well over the tops of Lot 7's trees to the viewing platform on Los Gatos Blvd., this perspective is simply not possible on Lots 8 or 10. In the case of Lot 10, the dirt road is at the same elevation as the Lot 10 building site. MY PROPOSAL Peer review of critical methodologies is required. Different applications will require different techniques for an adequate analysis. 10 _33