Attachment 6 - November 8, 2017 Addendum and Exhibits 16A-18TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING COMMISSION
REPORT
MEETING DATE: 11/08/2017
ITEM NO: 2
ADDENDUM
DATE: NOVEMBER 7, 2017
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: JOEL PAULSON, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 29 (ZONING REQULATIONS) OF
THE TOWN CODE REGARDING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS. TOWN
CODE AMENDMENT APPLICATION A-17-003. PROJECT LOCATION: TOWN
WIDE. APPLICANT: TOWN OF LOS GATOS.
REMARKS:
Exhibit 16 includes a public comment that was received by 11:00 a.m., Friday, November 3,
2017, but was not included with the Staff Report.
In September, the Planning Commission requested information on junior accessory dwelling
units (ADUs). Assembly Bill 2406 allows a local jurisdiction to adopt a junior ADU ordinance,
however, a Local jurisdiction is not required to do so. Junior ADUs are no more than 500 square
feet in size, and are typically bedrooms within a primary dwelling unit that have an entrance
from within the primary dwelling unit, a separate entrance from outside, and cooking facilities.
They are not required to have a private bathroom. Exhibit 17 includes the State law as
amended in 2016.
Exhibit 18 includes additional public comments received between 11:01 a.m., Friday, November
3, 2017, and 11:00 a.m., Tuesday, November 7, 2017.
EXHIBITS:
Previously received with September 27, 2017 Staff Report:
1. Senate Bill 1069
2. Assembly Bill 2299
PREPARED BY: SALLY ZARNOWITZ, AIA, LEED AP
Planning Manager
Reviewed by: Community Development Director
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030.408-354-6874
www.losgatosca.gov ATTACHMENT 6
PAGE 20F2
SUBJECT: CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO TOWN CODE REGARDING ACCESSORY DWELLING
UNITS/A-17-003
NOVEMBER 7, 2017
3. Chaptered changes in Government Code Section 65852.2
4. ARTICLE I. DIVISION 1. Sec. 29.10.020 Definitions
5. ARTICLE I. DIVISION 4. Sec. 19.10.150(c)(2) Parking
6. ARTICLE I. DIVISION 7. Sec. 29.10.305-335 Accessory Dwelling Units
7. ARTICLE IV. DIVISION 1. Sec. 29.40.015 Accessory Buildings
8. Public Comments received by 11:00 a.m., Friday, September 22, 2017
Previously received with September 27, 2017 Addendum Report:
9. Public Comments received between 11:01 a.m., Friday, September 22, 2017 and 11:00
a.m., Tuesday, September 26, 2017
Previously received with September 27, 2017 Desk Item:
10. Public Comments received between 11:01 a.m., Tuesday, September 26, 2017 and 11:00
a.m., Wednesday, September 27, 2017
Previously received with November 8, 2017 Staff Report
9A. Findings
10A. Senate Bill 229 and Assembly Bill 494
11. Neighboring jurisdictions' zoning regulations regarding accessory dwelling units
12. ARTICLE I. DIVISION 1. Sec. 29.10.020 Definitions, November 8, 2017 Draft
13. ARTICLE 1. DIVISION 4. Sec. 19.10.150(c)(2) Parking, November 8, 2017 Draft
14. ARTICLE I. DIVISION 7. Sec. 29.10.305-335 Accessory Dwelling Units, November 8, 2017 Draft
15. ARTICLE IV. DIVISION 1. Sec. 29.40.015 Accessory Buildings, November 8, 2017 Draft
Received with this Addendum Report:
16. Public Comments received between 11:01 a.m., Wednesday, September 27, 2017 and
11:00 Friday, November 3, 2017
17. Assembly Bill 2406
18. Public Comments received between 11:01 a.m., Friday, November 3, 2017 and 11:00 a.m.,
Tuesday, November 7, 2017
N:\DEV\PC REPDRT5\20171ADU Amendments 11-08-17 ADD.docx 11/7/2017 12:51PM
Sally Zarnowitz
From: Bill Walsh <coachbwalsh@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2017 10:03 AM
To: Sally Zarnowitz
Subject: ADU
Dear Ms. Zarnowitz:
Our home represents many in the town which have separate, alley -accessible garages. These garage units offer
off-street parking as well as service accessibility for refuse and recycle collection. As such, there is an existing
trade-off, privacy and peace for serviceability. Many detached garage units have existing second story living
units or studios above, built legally prior to prohibitive zoning changes. Considering this classification of
properties for legal inclusion to a zoning change consistent with State SB 1069 would not significantly
compromise privacy, but would potentially add tens if not hundreds of much needed ADU's to our town.
Sincerely,
Bill & Sue Walsh
121 Johnson Avenue
Los Gatos, CA 95030
EXHIBIT 1fi A
1
,p
Y
'.�: .
Y/%
.5'
Today's Law As Amended Page 1 of 2
(a
attfruff-
LEGI LATIVE INFORMATION
Home
Bill Information
California Law Publications Other Resources My Subscriptions My Favorites
AB-2406 Housing: junior accessory dwelling units. (2015-2016)
SECTION 1. Section 65852.22 is added to the Government Code, immediately following Section 65852,2, to
read:
65852.22. (a) Notwithstanding Section 65852.2, a local agency may, by ordinance, provide for the creation of
junior accessory dwelling units in single-family residential zones. The ordinance may require a permit to be
obtained for the creation of a junior accessory dwelling unit, and shall do all of the following:
(1) Limit the number of junior accessory dwelling units to one per residential lot zoned for single-family
residences with a single-family residence already built on the lot.
(2) Require owner -occupancy in the single-family residence in which the junior accessory dwelling unit will be
permitted. The owner may reside in either the remaining portion of the structure or the newly created junior
accessory dwelling unit. Owner -occupancy shall not be required if the owner is another governmental agency,
land trust, or housing organization.
(3) Require the recordation of a deed restriction, which shall run with the land, shall be filed with the permitting
agency, and shall include both of the following:
(A) A prohibition on the sale of the junior accessory dwelling unit separate from the sale of the single-family
residence, including a statement that the deed restriction may be enforced against future purchasers.
(8) A restriction on the size and attributes of the junior accessory dwelling unit that conforms with this section.
(4) Require a permitted junior accessory dwe/Ang unit to be constructed within the existing walls of the structure,
and require the inclusion of an existing bedroom.
(5) Require a permitted junior accessory dwelling to include a separate entrance from the main entrance to the
structure, with an interior entry to the main living area. A permitted junior accessory dwelling may include a
second interior doorway for sound attenuation.
(6) Require the permitted junior accessory dwelling unit to include an efficiency kitchen, which shall include all of
the following:
(A) A sink with a maximum waste line diameter of 1.5 inches.
(8) A cooking facility with appliances that do not require electrical service greater than 120 volts, or natural or
propane gas.
(C) A food preparation counter and storage cabinets that are of reasonable size in relation to the size of the junior
accessory dwelling unit.
(b) (1) An ordinance shall not require additional parking as a condition to grant a permit.
(2) This subdivision shall not be interpreted to prohibit the requirement of an inspection, including the imposition
of a fee for that inspection, to determine whether the junior accessory dwelling unit is in compliance with
applicable building standards.
(c) An application for a permit pursuant to this section shall, notwithstanding Section 65901 or 65906 or any local
ordinance regulating the issuance of variances or special use permits, be considered ministerially, without
discretionary review or a hearing. A permit shall be issued within 120 days of submission of an application for a
permit pursuant to this section. A local agency may charge a fee to reimburse the local agency for costs incurred
in connection with the issuance of a permit pursuant to this section.
(d) For the purposes of any fire or life protection ordinance or regulation, a junior accessory dwelling unit shall
not be considered a separate or new dwelling unit. This section shall not be construed to prohibit a city, county,
Exum1T I
https:llleginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billCompareClient.xhtml?bill jd=201520160AB2406 11/6/2017
Today's Law As Amended Page 2 of 2
city and county, or other local public entity from adopting an ordinance or regulation relating to fire and life
protection requirements within a single-family residence that contains a junior accessory dwelling unit so long as
the ordinance or regulation applies uniformly to all single-family residences within the zone regardless of whether
the single-family residence includes a junior accessory dwelling unit or not.
(e) For the purposes of providing service for water, sewer, or power, including a connection fee, a junior
accessory dwelling unit shall not be considered a separate or new dwelling unit.
(f) This section shall not be construed to prohibit a local agency from adopting an ordinance or regulation, related
to parking or a service or a connection fee for water, sewer, or power, that applies to a single-family residence
that contains a junior accessory dwelling unit, so long as that ordinance or regulation applies uniformly to all
single-family residences regardless of whether the single-family residence includes a junior accessory dwelling
unit.
(g) For purposes of this section, the following terms have the following meanings:
(1) "Junior accessory dwelling unit" means a unit that is no more than 500 square feet in size and contained
entirely within an existing single-family structure. A junior accessory dwelling unit may include separate
sanitation facilities, or may share sanitation facilities with the existing structure.
(2) 'Local agency" means a city, county, or city and county, whether general law or chartered.
SEC. 2. This act is an urgency statute necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or
safety within the meaning of Article IV of the Constitution and shall go into immediate effect. The facts
constituting the necessity are:
In order to allow local jurisdictions the ability to promulgate ordinances that create secure income for
homeowners and secure housing for renters, at the earliest possible time, it is necessary for this act to take effect
immediately.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.govlfaces/billCompareClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB2406 11/6/2017
Sally Zarnowitz
From: Michael Rowe <peloncito@me.com>
Sent: Monday, November 06, 2017 2:45 PM
To: Sally Zarnowitz
Subject: ADU Ordinance
Attachments: Transmittal.pdf
Sally,
Good afternoon,
I have attached a brief summary of a group discussion I had with several of my former and current residential clients regarding the
upcoming decisions to be made regarding the future ADU ordinance to be adopted. Simple observations and opinions for your
depai anent and the commissioners to consider when evaluating the variety of aspects in relation to the future ordinance. Hope they
help to communicate the current opinions of some of the local residents. They may or may not be helpful as public input.
Best,
M. Rowe
Britt -Rowe
peloncito(ame.com
(408) 656-4732 (cell)
EXHmrr 1 8
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
BR
Britt - Rowe
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Monday, November 6, 2017
RE: ADU Ordinance Discussion
Town of Los Gatos Town Council
Town of Los Gatos Planning Commission
Town of Los Gatos Planning Staff, Mr. Joel Paulson & Ms. Sally Zarnowitz
As an architectural design professional and myself a resident of Los Gatos for the last
twenty five years, I wanted to thank you all for your efforts assisting to further the
dialogue in adopting a correct and practical use of the Accessory Dwelling !unit
ordinances set forth by California Senate Bill 1069 and all subsequent addendum(s) to
follow. I was very interested by the first Planning Commission discussion not only
because I have many clients interested in constructing ADU's on their properties, but I
also have an opportunity to convert my personal existing accessory building into a legal
accessory dwelling unit. I wanted to take this opportunity to provide some comments
from a design professional paint of view as well as those from the perspective as a
Town of Los Gatos property owner. I interviewed both past and present clients of mine
and almost unanimously, the following comments are the opinions from our small focus
group regarding the various aspects of the future ordinance for your consideration.
A. Quantity:
(1) This issue was brought up several times during the Commission's discussion not
only by commission members but also noted by several public speakers. Our
group's feeling is that only QM legal accessory dwelling unit (ADU) should be
allowed on any given residentially zoned property. This does not mean that
additional smaller accessory support buildings should not be allowed such as
sheds, carports, pool equipment buildings, arbors, etc.... But by limiting an ADU to
one additional dwelling unit per lot, the Town would be keeping within the "Spirit" of
the Town of Los Gatos Residential Zoning Ordinances. l believe the intention of
defining and classifying these residential zones was to provide residential habitation
in the form of Single Family Residences as also defined in the California Building
Code defined as Occupancy Types (R-3). However, with California's current
housing issue, this Senate Bill provides the opportunity of including a smaller,
108 N. E nta Cruz Ave. Los Gatts, CA9 030 • P: 4C:,-656-4732 E: poloncito@me.com
secondary dwelling to house parents, in-laws, and other family members or friends
in need of immediate housing. By allowing more than one ADU on a site, I think we,
as the Town, run the risk of transforming single family residential neighborhoods to
an actual multi -family arrangement.
(2) One of the most important decisions to be made when considering adopting a
comprehensive ADU policy will be the inclusion of adaptability for all residentially
zoned properties to conform to the state senate bill by means of one or more
design options depending on circumstance. Providing several alternate methods to
achieve a legal ADU based on each property's situation and physical restrictions
and/or current zoning constraints is truly the best approach in complying with the
state's bill. For some properties it might be not being able to provide parking due to
lot shape and a designated setback as one speaker mentioned and experienced
personally. For others, it may be a non -conforming lot that falls under a "gray area"
when considering a potential ADU. The adopted policy/ordinance for future and
existing accessory dwelling units needs to be clear, consistent, and applicable to all
residential zones. Having potential adaptability and multiple design approaches and
options to provide a single additional dwelling unit is far more important than
allowing multiple ADU's on a single property in my opinion.
B. Size/FAR:
(1) Our group's opinion regarding the size of an accessory unit should be based on lot
size or by zone designation. This "Sliding Scale" should include ALL residential
zones to avoid discrimination and promote consistency. As one planning
commissioner stated, hillside zones are already allowed to construct "Pool Houses"
and/or other structures which can easily be converted or adapted to a legal ADU.
Why prohibit an ADU in the hillside zone which only encourages illegal alteration of
a "Pool House" by simply adding a kitchenette? The only necessary provisions
required to install a kitchen in a non-ADU type approved accessory building is hot
and cold running water, a sanitary drain and electricity. Most, if not all, non-ADU
accessory buildings are equipped with these provisions in the form of a functioning
bathroom, thus making the future conversion quite simple irrespective of its official
building type classification.
(2) Legal accessory dwelling units should be permitted on smaller Tots as well as those
properties over 10,000 SF with the allowable FAR for the ADU adjusted accordingly
as mentioned above. Property owners of smaller Tots are still able to provide the
needed housing the State of California is encouraging and by participating, they
also can enjoy the benefits of having an accessory dwelling unit on their property.
(3) It is also our opinion that if the Town of Los Gatos decides to place a fixed FAR
allowance for an ADU based on lot size, it should be separate from that of the main
dwelling and garage FAR's. In my experience, almost all of my clients request the
maximum allowed FAR for their main residence for the sole purpose of maintaining
current and future property values and will forego construction of an ADU if forced
to decide between a larger house and an ADU. If the added FAR was forced to
count against their "big picture", 9a% of our group stated they would opt for a larger
t08 N. Santa Cruz n,«g. Lo3 Gatos. CA 95030 • p; 408-656-4732 E- peloncito@me.com
main residence rather than provide an additional housing unit which seems to be
contrary to the intention of the Senate Bill.
D. Height:
(1) Height will probably be the most difficult design elements to address and adopt.
This being said, many of the "Historic" homes currently providing detached
accessory building that also have "Granny Units", have these units above the
garage. I have been told numerous time by the Town's Planning Department when
designing additions and remodels to such homes, "Make sure you do not exceed
demolition restrictions in order to retain these two story detached accessory
dwelling units". If they were designed that way from day one which we try so hard to
preserve, why should we deviate from replicating Los Gatos historic home designs
in our present day?
(2) They are not massive and bulky as we would all expect. And when designed
correctly, they can be very complimentary to main dwellings while helping to solve
the housing problem simultaneously. Perhaps only allowing windows/dormers to
meet natural Tight & ventilation and egress by the means of front, rear and interior
lot facing openings is a possible consideration? Environmentally, a 1-5 story design
as one planning commissioner noted, also helps reduce lot coverage and hence
limits impervious coverage which is another design element imposed on us by the
State of California, specifically the CalGreen Building Codes.
D. Lot Coverage:
(1) Current lot coverage percentages may be fine with minor exceptions granted in the
case of non -conforming or sub standard lots. But what happens when lot coverage
prevents property owners from building a legal ADU completely? If the lot coverage
does not allow any increase in footprint due to lot coverage restrictions, then
effectively, the Town of Los Gatos Planning Department is stating the new CA State
Senate Bill does not apply to these lots. Revisiting the height question(s), allowing
an ADU over an existing accessory garage (with limitations) or within an existing.
dwelling, may alleviate this issue completely when it comes to smaller lots where
maximum allowable lot coverage come into play? While adding area over an
existing structure increases FAR, it does not necessarily increase lot coverage.
E. Parking;
(1) We agree with most commissioners and public speakers that parking should not be
the determining factor of whether a unit can be provided and approved or not. In the
case where existing accessory garages are converted, driveways tend to long and
accessible to the garage so tandem parking will almost surely be available. In
cases where houses are provided with attached two car garages, typical driveways
are also capable of providing additional parking on site as long as it allowed to be
considered for compliance if located outside the building's setback requirements.
108 N. SF..ta Cruz Ave. Los (auto',. GA 95030 • P: 408-C 6•4%2 E; peloncito&me.com
(2) In downtown neighborhoods such as the Almond Grove, many houses are provided
with "parking permits" even though those houses have alley access and accessory
garages supplementary to the homes. They do not have driveways per say so
maybe "0" additional parking requirements may be appropriate in those areas?
F. Incentive:
(1) Obviously, the spirit of this new CA Senate Bill is to encourage property owners to
assist in providing additional housing. But as one commissioner stated, a "Deed
Restriction" does exactly the opposite. Selling a home with an unexplained deed
restriction showing up on a title report is often a difficult deal brokering element. In
some cases, this ends up being the cause for the uninformed buyer to pull out.
(2) Whatever codes are adopted to comply with the state directive, they need to be
easily understood, easily navigated and even more so allowed with fairness to all
property owners. The ideology here is to promote and encourage the further
development of accessory dwelling units to meet our state's housing crisis.
Above are only our opinions and suggestions regarding the situation at hand. I am sure
your decisions to be made are in the best interest of the Town's citizens and we look
forward to future discussions on the topic.
Best,
Mike Rowe
Britt -Rowe
108 N. w:ante Cruz A Los Gems, CA 95€i30 • P: 408-656-4732 E: pelanc:itoC me corn