County of Santa Clara

Environmental Resources Agency
Planning Office
County Government Center, East Wing,7* Floor

70 W. HeddingSt

San Jose, CA 95110-1705

May 4,2004
To:

Morgan Hill Urban Limit Line/Greenbelt Advisory Committee, May 10,2004

From: Bill Shoe,Planner
RE:

Follow-Up to April 12,2004 Presentation/Discussion of County
Viewshed/Open Space Work Plan Item

Introduction

This is a follow-up report to the presentation and report given to the Morgan Hill Urban
Limit Line/Greenbelt Committee on April 12,2004. At that meeting,staff presented a
mapping analysis and information on the subject of viewshed and scenic resource
protection. Staff and committee began a discussion of the subject, within the time
allotted for it on the agenda,and continued the subject to the May 10,2004 agenda.
Summary of Discussion on 4/12/04

Committee members had several suggestions, among other comments and questions:

•
•
•

Possibility of making expanded use of the City's "Transfer of Development
Credits" program,or TDCs,which is part of the City's Residential Development
Control System,or Measure C;
Exploring possible use of incentives, such as reduced permit costs or process
requirements, to favor the selection of less visible development sites or other
measures to reduce visual impacts;
Evaluating the expanded use of clustering incentives and requirements for
undeveloped lots with subdivision potential (or reconfiguration of existing lots).

These suggestions deserve further consideration. In some cases, they reflect existing
policy and ordinances. For example,in areas with a "Rural Residential" or "Hillside"

County General Plan designation, clustering of lots and development are already an

existing option for subdivision proposals, if not mandated by policy. In Hillside areas,

for example, a subdivision of three or more lots requires clustering and mandatory
dedication of open space no less than 90% of gross land area involved. In Rural

Residential areas, clustering is also an option. In hillside areas, it is the preferred option.

Key Findings of Report

The key findings of the report and presentation for the unincorporated areas were as

follows:

•

Limited subdivision potential remains in the study area, although there are some

remaining large parcels.

•

Development of individual lots with new homes and additions will be the most
likely kind of future development in the viewshed areas.
Approximately 50-65% of existing lots depicted in each subarea already contain

•

Some parcels may contain underlying lots of record that are assessed and mapped

•

•

•

•

residential development.

for property taxation purposes as one lot.
The viewshed area contains a significant amount of incorporated land with

moderate densities of residential use. Some of these areas, such as the Jackson

Oaks area in the hills east of the city, are highly visible.

Few if any non-residential uses exist in the viewshed study area.
The number of existing substandard lots is high.

Of all these points, the sheer number of existing substandard lots presents the most
significant challenge to any efforts on the part of the County to enact policies or
regulations that will significantly reduce the visual impacts of future development.
However,given the fact that subdivision potential is low,if the County were to propose
new means of controlling visual impacts from hillside development,it would most

likely involve the use of incentives or controls imposed on the development of
individual lots.

Factors Potentially Affecting Visual Impacts of Individual Lot Development
Staff identified a number of factors or aspects of single site development that might be
addressed to reduce visual impacts of development:

•
•

Placement of a primary residence, as well as site improvements like water tanks;
Amount of grading and terrain alteration to create a building site and access;

•

Color and light reflectivity values(LRV);

•
•

•
•

Size and massing of a structure;
Stories, height of a structure;

Landscaping; and,
Use of Design Review as a discretionary review process.

These development factors can be the subject of land use regulations,standards, or

guidelines, with varying restrictiveness. Whether such factors should be the subject of

additional regulation depends on the criteria or principles discussed previously:
•

•

Whether a control will be effective and fit with the circumstances;

Consistency with General Plan and other ordinances,including Zoning Ordinance,

and the Subdivision and Land Development regulations of the County Ordinance
Code;

MH ULL Vushed 5/10/04

2

•

•

Whether the creation of additional regulations significantly contributes to the

potential over-proliferation of differing standards;
Cost versus benefit, or "pain-to-gain" ratio of enactment and implementation.

The latter criteria reflects not only the amount of effort and complexity that may be
involved in creating a new regulahon or standard, but also the potential for
controversy, and the cost of implementation, development review,inspections, and
enforcement.

Evaluation of Regulatory Mechanisms

Staff has considered and evaluated various means of regulating each aspect or

development factor identified. For each factor, there are a number of ways to approach
the issues, and varying degrees of restrictiveness and control.

1.

Placement/grading/terrain alteration.

Staff groups these three factors together because they are integrally related
aspects of single site development. Mechanisms to address or regulate
placement and grading can range from simple case-by-case review of
applications, taking each proposal as it is made at the time of submittal, to
policies and ordinances which prohibit outright certain placement options, such
as prohibitions on ridgeline placement.
For example,in the County's "-d2. Design Review" Zoning District, structures
proposed along the perceived ridgeline of the east Milpitas hills may not
protrude above the perceived Crestline. Structures may be near a ridgeline in the
"-d2" but carmot protrude above it, as seen from specified vantage points on the
valley floor. Other options include discouraging or prohibiting development on
lands above a certain percentage slope or specified elevations. All have pluses
and minuses. The extreme variety of topography in the rural hillsides always
presents a challenge. Many parcels that are not visible from the valley and have
no impact on the viewshed are distant from developed roads,and to obtain site
approval, a driveway or private road of significant length may be required.
Some degree of flexibility is always appropriate. An overly rigid approach to all
hillside areas may inadvertently create problems.
Effectiveness:
a.

On the whole,staff believes that for many viewshed parcels
addressing the potential visual and environmental impacts of
development through site design may be preferable to the alternative
of only addressing them through building design,such as through
Design Review. Design Review affects only certain aspects of the
development of a lot.

b.

Modifications to the single site development process can and should be
viewed as a natural evolution of policies, ordinances, and standards.
Over time, a County or City should evaluate how well its standards.

MH ULL Vushed 5/10/04

3

procedures, and practices are working and whether outcomes are
being achieved consistent with County goals and policies. The County
currently addresses the various aspects of individual site development
through three primary types of review.Single Building Site Approval,
Grading Permits,and Design Review. Geologic Report requirements

may accompany any application. Within the Building Site Approval
process, there are two tracks, one for development on slopes less than

30%,and one for development on slopes 30% and over. The latter is a
more rigorous process,

c.

There is potential for improved coordination between review agencies
from evaluating the general approach to single site development,
which could benefit the public,individual property owners,and the
agencies.

General Plan/Ordinance Consistency:
a.

Placement and grading are factors directly related to existing General
Plan policies on Scenic Resources,

b.

c.

Addressing these factors also directly relates to fundament health and
safety issues addressed in the General Plan,such as fire hazards,
emergency response times, and natural hazard avoidance.
Care will be needed to address areas where different ordinances

overlap and to ensure adequate flexibility in a discretionary review
process.

Proliferation of Standards

a.

b.

Modifying the County's approach to regulating placement, grading,

and terrain alteration would be based on existing universally
applicable ordinances,

Standards and procedures would not vary from area to area,but could
be specifically tailored to address viewshed development issues.

Cost/Benefit
a.

All such evaluations take time and effort, but like periodic reviews and

updates of the General Plan, they are necessary and valuable for
keeping regulatory approaches relevant and effective.

b.

Costs of not further evaluating current practices include the time and

c.

Over time, most of the more easily developable areas of hillside lands

effort presently spent in dealing with more difficult, constrained sites.

have already been developed. The undeveloped lots and areas that

remain pose significantly greater difficulties and constraints.
MH ULL Vushed 5/10/04

4

2.

Size/massing/story and height limits

Only one hillside area in the County has floor area limits for dwellings, the "-d2"
design review district for Milpitas' hills. However, the limits are fairly generous,
up to 6,000 s.f. for lots under 10 acres, and 8,000 s.f. for lots 10 acres or larger.
The County proposed to regulate house size in the west hillsides above Los
Gatos and Saratoga through the enactment of the "-dl" ordinance, but did not do
so.

In the "-dl" design review district, maximum building height is 30 ft., rather

than the standard 35 ft. This limit allows two story homes,but typically lower

ceiling heights and roof pitch. In the "-d2" district, maximum height is 27 feet

and two stories. In the "-d" districts, standard height limits apply, but may be

reduced through the process and permit. These varying standards are sinailar to
those of the applicable cities.

Effectiveness:
a.

b.

c.

Marginal reductions in maximum allowed height tend to have
marginal effect on reduced visibility. Story limits may reduce the
number of stories facing the valley floor.
Severe height limits of one story can result in much larger building
pads and significantly more grading and retaining walls than designs
that use multiple stories and are tailored to a hillside's slope.
Most hillside homes are custom designs, and even non-custom designs

typically have sufficient detail, articulation, and features to conform to
County Design Review guidelines in that regard, without
modification.

General Plan/Ordinance Consistency/Proliferation ofStandards
a.

b.

The General Plan does not directly address home size. Policies of the
General Plan discourage construchon that would create a significant
adverse visual impact.

A significant issue is the potential for many slightly differing
standards for height, number of stories, and size limits. Such
complexity for different areas of the County can be confusing for the
public, designers, builders, and for staff reviewing development.

Cost/Benefit
a.

More so than for color and landscaping, proposals for regulating size,
floor area, or height elicits strong opposition from designers, owners,
and developers.

MH ULL Vushed 5/10/04

5

b.

With the potential for controversy so high, and the need for a more
generally consistent set of standards within viewshed areas visible
from the valley floor, staff would recommend no further new
standards at this time regulating height,stories, or house size.

3.

Color/Light Reflectivity Value(LRV)and Landscaping

Limiting the use of bright and highly reflective house colors is one of the most
common means of minimizing visual impact. County standards for "-dl" and
d2" zoning districts impose a 60 LRV linait or lower,depending on
circumstances. Landscaping plans are required for single building site approval
applications on slopes of 30% or more. Landscaping is an option for most Design
Review permits,but is often required as a condition of approval,and can be
useful for screening a building from valley views or from a neighboring home.
Effectiveness
a.

b.

Regulation of light reflectivity, or color brightness, is a fairly simple
and straightforward means of mitigating visual impact,
The most significant drawback of LRV/color regulation is that

repainting a house does not require any kind of building permit.

Enforcement tends to depend on the County receiving complaints

from other neighbors about violations of such standards, which is
unreliable. And enforcing such standards through the courts, if

necessary,is costly and time consuming for a violation of the law that

is termed an "infraction," which is a lesser offense than a
misdemeanor.
c.

Current County standards of 60 LRV permit a level of brightness
which can, at times, still significantly contrast with natural landscapes.
Determining what is an appropriate limit is important if a standard is
to be imposed,

d.

Many areas of the hillsides have weather,soil, and other limitahons

that do not favor reliance on landscaping to reduce visual impacts.
Growth of landscaping takes many years and proper maintenance.
Even once it matures and achieves the desired effect, it can be quickly

and easily removed, defeating the purpose. Fines and penalties for
unlawful removal of such plantings are established by existing
ordinance, but are not necessarily a deterrent.

General Plan/Ordinance Consistency/Proliferation of Standards

a.

In addition to placement regulations, color limits can be an important

part of a strategy for mitigating visual impacts, when landscaping and

natural land features cannot be relied on to reduce visibility.

MH ULL Vushed 5/10/04

6

b.

Use of a single LRV standard for all viewshed areas would counter the
tendency for proliferation of varying standards. Whether it is possible
to re-open a discussion of having a uniform standard in areas that
already have such a standard is uncertain.

Cost/Benefit
a.

Although color controls are most commonly imposed as a condition of
development through design review or some other discretionary
permit,LRV linaits could be enforced through a different ordinance

and effected through a building permit or other means.
b.

c.

Reviews of development prior to final issuance of building permits
may require more site visits by staff.
Any limit on homeowner preferences can be controversial, but less so
if the requirement does not include the imposition of application fees,
process time, public hearings, and appeal processes such as with
Design Review.

d.

Landscaping ordinances without use of a discretionary review and
approval process pose much more significant challenges than LRV and

color standards. Staff does not recommend them at this time.
4.

Design Review Permit Requirements

Design Review in County Zoning Regulations is a form of discretionary permit.
An application is required,such as for a new house or addition, with an
application fee of $1,040.00. It involves referrals to other affected agencies, plan
review and comment,site visits, counseling of applicants, interaction with
neighbors noticed for a public hearing, agenda preparation, noticing,conducting
public hearings,follow-up paperwork for files, and the possibility of appeals
from anyone dissatisfied with an outcome. With an appeal, the hearing process
is repeated at the Plarming Commission and possibly at the Board of Supervisors.
Many consider the imposition placed on the developer as the most significant
impact of Design Review processes, but there is a considerable impact on staff
resources as well.

Furthermore,Design Review processes are like any application process, with the
potential for multiple resubmittals, and other factors that can make it a
prolonged process for all involved. [Note: Design Review(DR)and Architecture
& Site Approval,or ASA,are similar County procedures, but DR is used almost
exclusively for residential development,and ASA tends to be focused on other
forms of development].
Effectiveness:
a.

Design Review involves both application of zoning standards and
guidelines, interpreted through the judgement of the hearing

MH ULL Vushed 5/10/04

7

authority. In some instances, an application may conform well
enough to all the standards and guidelines that the review process has
no effect on the proposed development. In others, conditions are
imposed to address various issues. Rarely does Design Review result
in a denial.

b.

Design Review is typically imposed through enactment of "-d" Zoning
Districts. With the standards and limits that may be included in such
rezonings, the potential for controversy is extremely high,

c.

Design Review's scope is broad,but it is least influential in altering
home placement and access location, unless the Zoning District is
highly restrictive in that regard. DR addresses potential visual impacts
primarily resulting from structural design. It is not a panacea for
reducing visual impacts, although in the last 15 years since DR was
created in 1988,it has been the centerpiece of the County's general

approach to viewshed protection, because, at minimum,it provides for
discretionary review.

General Plan/Ordinance Consistency/Proliferation of Standards

a.

The General Plan's implementation recommendations include a

b.

Design Review Zoning Districts now have three versions,"-d," "-dl,"

proposal to impose Design Review where studies indicate there is a
need for further protection and Design Review would be effective,

and "-d2". The "-dl" district resulted from planning studies with the
four major west valley cities (Cupertino,Saratoga, Los Gatos, Monte
Sereno), while "-d2" resulted from joint planning with Milpitas. The

standards and approach for each reflects certain goals and issues of

concern to those cities. For each new area proposed for Design Review

zoning,there is the potential for more iterations, each with its
particular approach and standards. However, this pattern contributes
to the proliferation of varying standards.
Cost/Benefit
a.

b.

The amount off controversy, staff effort, and time typically required to
enact a new "-d" zoning district is high.
In an area such as the viewshed of Morgan Hill, where more than half
to two thirds of unincorporated parcels are already developed,the

more likely type of development to be regulated through DR are

additions and alterations to existing homes and their accessory
structures, over time,compared with new homes.
c.

The benefits of regulating home additions are not as great compared
with regulating the appearance of new buildings in a mostly

MH ULL Vushed 5/10/04

8

undeveloped area. Additions need to be designed for consistency with
the existing home, more so than any other factor.
d.

There are staff resource implications of adding new areas of Design

Review Zoning Districts. It is uncertain whether the prevailing
reliance on Design Review as presently conceived to address visual
impacts is more effective than other potential review processes.
Conclusions

Staff's analysis at this time is intended to help guide the Committee and other
participants and provide information on which to base Committee recommendations.

Staff is not endorsing any particular approach or recommendation. Some types of
development regulation are more involved than others,and may need further

evaluation time to determine the most feasible means of enacting and implementing
them. Most of all. Planning Office staff must ensure that adequate coordination occurs

with other County agencies, the Fire Marshal's Office, and the affected city before
making significant changes in the way single site development is regulated.

MH ULL Vushed 5/10/04

9