Item 27 Staff Report Zoning Code Amendment A-03-2MEETING DATE: 6/16/03
ITEM NO.
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DATE: June 11, 2003
TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
FROM: DEBRA J. FIGONE, TOWN MANAGER
SUBJECT: ZONING CODE AMENDMENT A-03-2
CONSIDER AMENDING THE TOWN CODE TO UPDATE THE SECOND
DWELLING UNIT ORDINANCE. IT HAS BEEN DETERMINED THAT
THIS PROJECT COULD NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE
ENVIRONMENT THEREFORE, THE PROJECT IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. (SECTION 15061
(B)(3)).APPLICANT: TOWN OF LOS GATOS
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Open and hold the public hearing and receive public testimony;
2. Close the public hearing;
3. Make the required findings that the Zoning Code Amendment is consistent with the General
Plan;
4. Move to waive the reading of the ordinance;
5. Direct the Clerk to read the title of the ordinance;
6. Introduce the Ordinance (Attachment 2) to effectuate Zoning Code Amendment A-03-2
BACKGROUND:
The state legislature first expressed its interest in second dwelling units as a means to meet
California's unmet need for affordable housing in 1982. The first State legislation authorized local
agencies to review new second unit applications through a conditional use permit (CUP) process
which requires a public hearing.
(Continued on Page 2)
PREPARED BY: BUD N. LOR
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Reviewed by:
Assistant Town Manager jv Attorney Clerk Finance
Community Development Revised: 6/11/03 2:36 pm
Reformatted: 5/23/02
1
PAGE 2
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: SECOND DWELLING UNIT ZONING CODE AMENDMENT
June 11, 2003
State law authorizes local municipalities to regulate second units. The state law specifically requires
that local jurisdictions allow second units in single family or multi -family residential zones under
Government Code Section 65852.2. The statute does not entirely limit local control because it
allows local jurisdictions to designate areas where second units may be permitted and allows for
development of standards on second units related to setbacks, height, unit size, floor area, lot
coverage, and architectural compatibility. The Town's existing second unit ordinance established
standards and the CUP process in 1987. The Town has approved approximately 200 second dwelling
units since 1987.
On September 29, 2002, the Governor signed into law AB 1866 (Wright). This new law requires
local governments, to use a ministerial process after July 1, 2003 when taking action on second unit
requests. This legislation also prohibits the holding of public hearings on these applications. A
ministerial act is defined as one performed without the exercise of discretion. Discretion requires
the exercise of judgement and careful balancing of conflicting interests which AB 1866 now prohibits
in the review of second dwelling units. The impact for the Town and all California municipalities
is that they can no longer hold a public hearing where discretion is exercised by the Planning
Commission or Town Council in the approval of second dwelling units. Assembly Bill 1866, Section
65852.2 is included as Exhibit D of Attachment 3.
According to the sponsors of the new law, California's second unit law has not lived up to its
potential for helping meet the State's overwhelming housing needs because too many local
governments have undercut these laws by layering second unit projects with unnecessary conditions
and procedural obstacles.
DISCUSSION:
General Plan Committee and Planning Commission Recommendation:
As indicated to the General Plan Committee and Planning Commission, in order for the Town to
comply with the new State law, The Town must expedite the adoption of a new second unit
ordinance or we will have to follow the process that was signed into law by the Governor.
Consequently, the Planning Commission was directed to focus their comments on the proposed
design and development standards of section 29.10.320 (New Second Units). Sections 29.10.315
(Existing Unlawful Second Units) and Section 29.10.340 (Nonconforming Units) were only slightly
modified by moving all definitions to one section, to improve the format and for parallel code
construction. These two sections were adopted in 1987 to address numerous existing unlawful
second units and second units that are introduced to the Town through annexations. The draft Second
Dwelling Ordinance is included as Attachment 1. The second unit standards that are included in the
draft ordinance provide clear regulations for the review of new second units.
Both the General Plan Committee and the Planning Commission discussed variations of the Below
Market Price (BMP) portion of the draft ordinance including applicability, administration and
compliance. Staff confirmed that the Town would receive credit for meeting its regional fair share
PAGE 3
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: SECOND DWELLING UNIT ZONING CODE AMENDMENT
June 11, 2003
housing need if the second units are rent restricted in accordance with Santa Clara County
affordability requirements as established by the Federal Department of Urban Development. The
second units need not be income restricted in order to receive credit.
As drafted, the proposed ordinance requires that the property owner record a deed restriction
indicating that if the second unit is for rental purposes, it shall be rented pursuant to adopted BMP
guidelines. The Town's current BMP guidelines establish income limits, screens potential tenants
to assure eligibility, provides for a review of rental agreements for conformity to BMP rules, and for
an annual compliance review. The recommended second unit rental provisions will make second
units affordable to very low income persons and households. It should be noted that the Ordinance
modifies how a BMP unit is defined.
At their meeting of May 28, 2003, the Planning Commission approved the draft ordinance on a 6-1
vote. Please refer to Attachment 4 for the Planning Commission meeting minutes. The General Plan
Committee also discussed the second unit ordinance and the meeting minutes can be found in
Exhibit I of Attachment 3. The Planning Commission recommendations are consistent with the
General Plan Committee recommendations. Both the Planning Commission and the General Plan
Committee recommended that the Town Council adopt the draft ordinance and revise the BMP
Guidelines to reflect the following:
1. Allow the property owner to determine who they will rent the unit to so long as the rent is
restricted in accordance with very low income rental requirements.
2. If the property owner wishes to use the BMP program to obtain assistance in finding a
renter, then the unit must be rented in compliance with the BMP guidelines in terms of
income eligibility.
If Council agrees with the above recommendations, Staff will modify the BMP guidelines
accordingly and return to Council in August with revised BMP guidelines for consideration.
Fee Schedule:
When the Town revised its fee schedule on May 5 of this year, the preparation of the revised
ordinance was anticipated and an appropriate fee was included. The application fee to review
a proposed new second unit is $734.00. This fee becomes effective on July 7, 2003.
CONCLUSION:
The draft ordinance reflects the direction received by the General Plan Committee and the
Planning Commission. In order to comply with the requirements of AB 1866, Staff
recommends that Council introduce the draft ordinance and determine if the Planning
Commission's recommendations should be implemented.
PAGE 4
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: SECOND DWELLING UNIT ZONING CODE AMENDMENT
June 11, 2003
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
It has been determined that this project is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15308 of
the State Environmental Guidelines as adopted by the Town. Individual applications will be
required to satisfy the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
Attachments:
1. Draft Second Dwelling Unit Ordinance
2. Planning Commission Report (previously submitted on May 28, 2003).
3. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 28, 2003.
BNL:JC
N:\DEWennifer\TC\Second Dwelling Ordinance.wpd
ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS AMENDING THE
TOWN CODE DIVISION 7, SECTIONS 29.10.305 THROUGH 29.10.320,
SECTION 29.10.320, AND SECTION 29.20.185(8)a
THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I
Town Code Division 7, Section 29.10.305 through 29.10.320 are repealed and replaced with the
following:
Division 7
Second Dwelling Units
Section 29.10.305. Intent and Authority
This division is adopted to comply with amendments to State Law §65852.2 which mandates that
applications for secondary dwelling units be considered ministerially without a public hearing.
It provides for the Town to set standards for the development of second dwelling units to
increase the supply of affordable housing in a manner that is compatible with existing
neighborhoods.
Section 29.10.310. Definitions
Existing Unlawful Second Units. An existing unlawful second dwelling unit is defined as a
second dwelling that existed in the Town or the County on June 1, 1983, and has existed and
been used continuously from that date to the date on which application to Town is made for a
second dwelling unit permit. Existing unlawful secondary dwelling units are eligible for a second
dwelling unit permit regardless of the zone in which the property is located.
New Second Dwelling Unit. A second dwelling unit is defined as an attached (with an interior
or exterior entrance) or a detached residential dwelling unit, created after June 1, 1983. It shall
include permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation on the same
parcel as the single-family dwelling is situated. A second dwelling unit also includes efficiency
units and manufactured homes.
Efficiency Unit. As defined by the Uniform Building Code.
Manufactured Home. As defined by the Uniform Building Code.
Nonconforming units. A nonconforming second dwelling unit is defined as a second dwelling
unit that exists under the following circumstances:
Page 1 of 7
ATTACHMENT 1
(1) A unit is created or converted lawfully but due to a zone change or an amendment
to the zoning ordinance the unit has become nonconforming.
(2) The unit was lawfully created while in the County and upon annexation the unit
becomes nonconforming.
Section 29.10.315. Existing Unlawful Second Units
(a) Permits. The owner of a nonconforming second dwelling unit must obtain a second
dwelling unit permit. Any application received after December 31, 1987, shall be subject
to an application fee and may be subject to a civil penalty pursuant to section
29.20.960(4).
(b) Number. A maximum of two (2) existing second dwelling units are allowed on a single
lot. All other second dwelling units on the property must be abated.
(c) Units Existing in Town on June 1, 1983. An existing unlawful second dwelling unit in
Town, as defined in this chapter, for which an application for a second dwelling unit
permit was not filed by December 31, 1987, shall be treated as a new second dwelling
unit. If the unit does not qualify as a new second dwelling unit pursuant to section
29.10.320, the unit shall be deemed to be unlawful and will be abated.
(d) Units Existing in County. The owner of an existing unlawful second dwelling unit in the
County shall have 90 days following the date of annexation into the Town to apply for
a second dwelling unit permit. If such a timely application is made, the standards of this
section shall be applied to the application. If no application is made within the 90-day
period, the unit shall be treated as a new second dwelling unit. If the unit does not qualify
as a new second dwelling pursuant to section 29.10.310, the unit shall be deemed to be
unlawful and must be abated.
(e) Housing Code. Any unit receiving a second unit permit pursuant to subsection (d) shall
be required to comply with the Town housing code, and all improvements shall be
completed within one (1) year from the date of application. Where a timely application
under subsection (c) has been filed, and approved, an extension from the compliance date
may be granted for good cause shown. An extension of more than six (6) months may be
granted by the Planning Commission upon finding that a hardship exists.
(f)
(g)
Development Standards. Existing unlawful second dwelling units need not comply with
the development standards required by the zone in which the property is located nor the
development standards required by section 29.10. 320 for new second dwelling units.
Parking. Existing second dwelling units shall not be required to add parking in order
to comply with the parking requirements for second dwelling units; however, if parking
exists at the time the secondary dwelling unit permit is issued, such parking shall not be
reduced below the number of spaces that would be required for the second dwelling
unit(s).
Page 2 of 7
(h) Remodeling, Reconstruction, Demolition, Conversion, or Removal. Remodeling,
reconstruction, demolition, conversion, or removal of second dwelling units shall be as
follows:
(1) Where a timely application under subsection (c) has been filed and approved, a
second dwelling unit may be remodeled providing the building height, floor area
do not exceed that which is allowed for a new second unit.
(2) Community Development Director approval is required for the remodeling or
reconstruction of an existing second dwelling unit in the case of destruction. The
proposed construction shall be designed so as to architecturally harmonize with
the surrounding structures so long as the construction does not increase the height
or size of the unit. The factors to be considered when reviewing the design of
such proposed construction include:
(a) Building height.
(b) Building materials and compatibility
(c) Colors.
(d) Setback conformity.
(e) Floor Area
Section 29.10.320 New Second Dwelling Units
(a) Affordability. Any second dwelling units that will be rented shall be made available to
eligible applicants who have a household income under 50% of Santa Clara County's
median income as defined by the Federal Department of Urban Development. The
affordability restriction shall be governed by the rules adopted by Town Council pursuant
to Division 6 or any regulations adopted under the authority of Division 6 of the Town
Code.
(b) Deed Restriction. A deed restriction shall be recorded for all new second dwelling units
indicating that if the unit is for rental purposes, it shall comply with the affordability rent
level for Santa Clara County for very low income as established by the Federal
Department of Urban Development.
(c) Design and Development Standards.
(1) Number. Only one (1) new second dwelling unit may be permitted on a lot. No
second dwelling unit is allowed upon a lot with an existing second dwelling unit..
(2) Permitted Zones. Second dwelling units are allowed on conforming lots in the
R-1, R-M and R-1D zones.
(3) Setbacks. Second dwelling units shall comply with the setbacks of the zone.
(4) Height. Detached second dwelling units shall not exceed one (1) story in height.
Page 3 of 7
and shall not exceed 15 feet in height.
(5) Maximum unit size and maximum number of bedrooms.
Attached
Detached
Maximum Unit Size Maximum # Bedrooms
750 Sq. Ft.
900 Sq. Ft.
1
2
(6) Floor Area. All Second dwelling units (attached or detached) must comply with
the floor area ratio for primary structures.
(7) Lot Coverage. Second dwelling units must comply with lot coverage maximums
for the zone except with regard to the addition of a single efficiency unit.
(8) Parking. In addition to parking otherwise required for second units as set forth
in section 29.10.150 of the Town Code, the number of off-street parking spaces
required by this chapter for the primary unit shall be provided prior to the
issuance of a certificate of use and occupancy and/or building permit, for the new
second dwelling unit. In addition to the number of spaces as set forth in this
section, additional spaces may be required if the following findings are made:
(9)
(a) additional parking is directly related to the use of the second unit
(b) additional parking is consistent with existing neighborhood standards
applicable to existing dwellings.
Design, Form, Materials and Color. The design, form, materials and color of a
new second dwelling unit shall be compatible with the primary dwelling unit and
the neighborhood. Second dwelling units shall retain the single-family
appearance of the property.
(10) Town Codes and Ordinances. All new second dwelling units shall comply with
all the provisions of this chapter and other applicable Town codes.
(11) Building Codes. The second unit shall comply with applicable building, health
and fire codes.
(12) Expansion of Unit. Requests for expansion of a second dwelling unit shall be
subject to the same requirements as a new second dwelling unit. Expansion of
a second dwelling unit is defined as increasing the number of bedrooms or
adding floor area in excess of thirty (30) square feet.
(13) Denial. An application may be denied if it does not meet the design and
development standards. An application may also be denied if the following
Page 4 of 7
findings are made:
(a) Acknowlegement of limiting the housing opportunities in the region
(b) Adverse impacts on health, safety and/or welfare of the public
Section 29.10.325 Nonconforming units.
(a) Permits. The owner of a nonconforming secondary dwelling unit must obtain a
secondary dwelling unit permit. Any application received after December 31,1987, shall
be subject to an application fee and may be subject to a civil penalty pursuant to section
29.20.960(4).
Where an application has been submitted for a nonconforming second dwelling unit
permit and Town records do not establish the nonconforming status of the second unit,
the property owner will have sixty (60) days from the date of notice the owner is
informed of the Town's findings to submit data to support their claim that the unit is
nonconforming.
If at the end of sixty (60) days data has not been submitted by the property owner to
establish the secondary dwelling unit is nonconforming to the satisfaction of the
Community Development Director, the unit shall be determined to be an existing
unlawful second dwelling unit pursuant to section 29.10.315 and subject to its
regulations.
(b) Units Existing at Time of Annexation. Upon annexation a lawful second dwelling unit
shall become nonconforming and the owner must either apply for a second dwelling unit
permit within one (1) year of the date of annexation, or the units shall be determined to
be unlawful second dwelling units pursuant to section 29.10.315.
(c) Number. A maximum of two (2) nonconforming second dwelling units are allowed on
a single lot. All other second dwelling units on the property must be abated.
(d) Housing Code. Nonconforming second dwelling units shall comply with the Town's
housing code as follows:
(1) Any nonconforming second dwelling unit receiving a secondary dwelling unit
permit pursuant to subsection (b) shall be required to comply with the Town
housing code.
(2) Any nonconforming secondary dwelling unit receiving a second dwelling unit
permit pursuant to subsection (c) shall be required to comply with the Town
housing code and all improvements shall be completed within one (1) year from
the date of application.
(3) Where a timely application under subsection (b) or subsection (c) has been filed,
Page 5 of 7
and approved, an extension from the compliance date of up to six (6) months
may be granted by the Community Development Department for good cause
shown. Any extension request for longer than six (6) months may be granted by
the Planning Commission upon finding that a hardship exists.
(4) Remodeling and reconstruction: Remodeling and reconstruction of
nonconforming second dwelling units shall be as follows:
(a) Where a timely application under subsection (a) or subsection (b) has
been filed and approved, a secondary dwelling unit may be remodeled
providing the building height, floor do not exceed that which is allowed
for a new second unit.
(b) Community Development Director approval is required for the
remodeling or reconstruction of a second dwelling unit in the case of
destruction. The proposed construction shall be designed so as to
architecturally harmonize with the surrounding structures so long as the
construction does not increase the height or size of the unit. The factors
to be considered when reviewing the design of such proposed
construction include:
(1) Building height
(2) Building materials
(3) Colors and material
(4) Setback conformity
(5) Floor Area Ratio
Section 29.10.330 Elimination or Demolition of Existing Second Units
In order to eliminate an approved second unit the Planning Commission make the finding that
the proposed removal is consistent with the Town's Housing Element of the General Plan. In
order to demolish an existing second unit, the Planning Commission must make the demolition
findings pursuant to section 29.10.09030.
SECTION II
Section 29.10.3020 is amended to read as follows:
Section 29.10.3020 Definitions
BMP Dwelling. Means any residential dwelling unit designated for very low, low, and moderate
income under the rules of this section.
SECTION III
Section 29.20.185(8)a is repealed.
Page 6 of 7
SECTION IV
This ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Los
Gatos on , 2003 and adopted by the following vote as an ordinance of the Town of Los
Gatos at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos on , 2003. This
ordinance takes effect 30 days after it is adopted.
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
SIGNED:
ATTEST:
CLERK OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
N:1ATY12 n d D we l I.O R D. wp d
Page 7 of 7
Date: May 22. 2003
For Agenda Of: May 28, 2003
Agenda Item: 4
REPORT TO: The Planning Commission
FROM: Director of Community Development
SUBJECT: Zoning Code Amendment A-03-2
Consider amending the Town Code to update the Second Dwelling Unit
Ordinance. It has been determined that this project could not have a
significant impact on the environment, therefore, the project is not
subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (Section 15061
(b)(3))•
APPLICANT: Town of Los Gatos
ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT: It has been determined that this project could not possibly have a
significant effect on the environment therefore, the project is not subject
to the California Environmental Quality Act (Section 15061(b)(3)).
EXHIBITS:
A. Draft Second Unit Ordinance
B. Existing Second Unit Ordinance
C. Existing Inventory of Second Unit Locations
D Assembly Bill 1866 Section 65852.2
E. Comparison Matrix of Exiting and Proposed Section 29.10 .320
F. Below Market Price(BMP) Ordinance
G. Resolution 2000-131(BMP)
H. Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Income Limits for Santa
Clara County
I. Summary Minutes of the May 14, 2003 General Plan Committee
(3 pages)
J. Ordinance Division 7, Section 29.10.305 through 29.10.320
RECOMMENDATION
SUMMARY: Forward the Draft Second Unit Ordinance to the Town Council with a
recommendation for approval of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment.
A. BACKGROUND:
On September 29, 2002, the Governor signed into law AB 1866 (Wright). This new law requires
local governments, to use a ministerial process after July 1, 2003 when taking action on second
unit requests. This legislation also prohibits the holding of public hearings on these applications.
Please refer to Exhibit D. The law specifically states:
When a local agency receives its first application on or after July 1, 2003, for a permit
pursuant to this subdivision {for a secondary residential unit}, the application shall be
considered ministerially without discretionary review or a hearing...
Attachment 2
The Planning Commission - Page 2
Zoning Code Amendment A-03-2
May 28, 2003
The state legislature first expressed its interest in second dwelling units as a means to meet
California's unmet need for affordable housing in 1982. The first State legislation authorization to
create second units in single-family and multi -family residential zones allowed for review by
conditional use permit if a municipality adopted its own ordinance. If the city did not adopt its own
ordinance, it had to comply with the state statutory standards. The latest revision to the Town's
existing second unit ordinance was codified in 1998 (Exhibit B). The Town has approved
approximately 201second dwelling units since 1987. Please refer to Exhibit C for a distribution of
second dwelling units throughout the Town.
Currently, state law authorizes local municipalities to regulate second units. The law specifically
requires that local jurisdictions allow second units in single family or multi -family residential zones
under Government Code Section 65852.2. The statute does not entirely limit local control because
it allows local jurisdictions to designate areas where second units may be permitted and allows for
development of standards on second units related to setbacks, height, unit size, floor area, lot
coverage, and architectural compatibility. Up until the most recent amendments made to Section
65852.2 by AB 1866 (Wright), the law as enacted in 1982 has remained essentially unchanged.
According to the sponsors of the new law, California's second unit law has not lived up to its
potential for helping meet the State's overwhelming housing needs because too many local
governments have undercut these laws by layering second unit projects with unnecessary conditions
and procedural obstacles. Wright asserts that second units provide homes to older persons and those
with disabilities. Additionally, second units have the potential to allow homeowners to maintain their
independence by providing additional income to offset property taxes ad the cost of home
maintenance and repair.
B. DISCUSSION:
Assembly Bill 1866 (Wright)
As now required by AB 1866, a ministerial act is defined as one performed without the exercise of
discretion. Discretion requires the exercise of judgement and careful balancing of conflicting interests
which AB 1866 now prohibits in the review of second dwelling units. The impact for the Town and
all California municipalities is that they can no longer hold a public hearing where discretion is
exercised by the Planning Commission or Town Council in the approval of second dwelling units.
AB 1866 takes effect July 1, of this year. There are two options under which a local jurisdiction can
comply. One, is to adopt a local ordinance by July 1 or the second, is to simply allow second units
under the provisions of the State as found in Section 65852.2 of AB 1866. The subject legislation
requires any local ordinance to remove any references to discretionary actions such as references to
conditional use permits or Planning Commission hearings. The sections related to the architecture and
site approval requirement and the transfer of develop rights must also be deleted to comply with the
new law. However, the design standards of the Town can be, and have been, incorporated into the
new ordinance providing more detailed development criteria than simply allowing the criteria found
The Planning Commission - Page 3
Zoning Code Amendment A-03-2
May 28, 2003
in AB 1866. The courts have deteu ined that when an ordinance clearly defines specific duties or a
course of conduct, that course of conduct becomes mandatory and eliminates any element of
discretion. The draft ordinance complies with this determination.
AB 1866, as did the legislation it amended, specifically requires a municipality to allow the
development of second units in single-family and multi -family zones, however, it allows the Town
to designate areas where second units may be permitted. These designations are to be based upon the
adequacy of water and sewer services and the impact of second units on traffic flow. In addition, the
Town may impose standards that include parking, height, setback, lot coverage, architectural review,
maximum size of a units and standards that prevent adverse impacts on any real property that is listed
in the California Register of Historic Places. To comply with AB 1866, the existing second unit
ordinance of the Town is proposed with some minor modifications. These modifications include
elimination of the public hearing process and discretionary review. This is replaced with a ministerial
review and action as prescribed by AB 1866.
Existing Ordinance vs. Proposed Ordinance
As indicated to the General Plan Committee, due to the strict time -line in order for the Town to
comply with the new law, the Planning Commission should focus their comments on the proposed
design and development standards of section 29.10.320.(New Second Units). Please refer to Exhibit
A, section 29.10.320. It should be noted that sections 29.10.315 (Existing Unlawful Second Units)
and Section 29.10.340 (Nonconforming Units) have been only slightly modified, e.g., all definitions
were moved to one section, and revised for parallel code construction. These two sections were
adopted in 1987 to address numerous existing unlawful second units that are introduced to the Town
through annexations. Staff, and as directed by the General Plan Committee, are comfortable that
these provisions are to adequate for administering existing unlawful and nonconfouiung units. Staff
has administered this section of the zoning ordinance for over 14 years and does not recommend
changes.
Below Market Price Restriction
The proposed ordinance requires that the property owner record a deed restriction indicating that if
the second unit is for rental purposes, it shall be rented pursuant to adopted BMP guidelines. The
Town's current BMP program establishes income limits, screens potential tenants to assure eligibility,
provides for a review of rental agreements for conformity to BMP rules, and for an annual compliance
review. The rental provisions recommended are restricted to the very low income category.
General Plan Committee Recommendation
The General Plan Committee (GPC) reached consensus that the design and development standards
and concurred that the BMP component was adequate. Please refer to Exhibit I. The GPC had some
concerns about how staff intends to revise the BMP regulations to address the affordability
implementation issue of second dwelling nits if the Council adopts the draft second dwelling unit
ordinance.
The Planning Commission - Page 4
Zoning Code Amendment A-03-2
May 28, 2003
General Plan Consistency
The proposed ordinance change is consistent with the Goals, Policies and Implementation
Strategies of the General Plan as follows:
Housing Goal 1.1
To improve the choice of housing opportunities for senior citizens, families and singles and
for all income groups through a variety of housing types and sizes, including a mixture of
ownership and rental housing.
Housing Policy 1.5
Higher density, affordable housing shall be encouraged throughout the Town.
Housing Policy 1.6
Smaller, moderate cost, quality housing units shall be encouraged throughout the Town.
Housing Policy 1.7
Secondary units shall be allowed subject to restrictions on lot size, floor area, density and
occupancy.
Housing Policy 1.9
New and existing dwelling units for ownership and rental by very low, low and moderate
Income households shall be dispersed through the Town.
Housing Implementation Strategy 1.9
The Town shall continue to administer the BMP program and shall implement the
following revisions to the program:
The Town will consider revising the Income Eligibility so that future BMP units are
affordable only to households with incomes at or below 80% of the median income.
The Town will continue to monitor the existing inventory of BMP units and will
revise their procedures to ensure that there are sufficient staff resources to review the
compliance records of the rental units, in particular. The owners of the BMP rental
units will be monitored on a regular basis and compliance with BMP regulations will
be enforced.
The Planning Commission - Page 5
Zoning Code Amendment A-03-2
May 28, 2003
Housing Policy 3.1
The Town shall continue its participation in regional and county -wide housing efforts
in cooperation with the federal and state governments to develop realistic programs
to provide housing for very low and low income families.
Ramifications of Not Adopting a Local Ordinance
Should the Town fail to adopt its own ordinance, the review authority would be limited to the less
restrictive standards set forth in AB 1866. Amending the Town's existing second dwelling ordinance
will allow the Town to comply with AB 1866, but enables the Town the to craft an ordinance with
language in a manner that addresses issues important to Los Gatos residents but also produce much
needed affordable housing.
C. RECOMMENDATION:
The General Plan Committee recommended approval of the draft ordinance at their meeting of
May 14, 2003. It should be noted that the proposed ordinance should be adopted by July 1, 2003.
In order to meet that deadline, it is critical that the Commission make a recommendation to the
Council so they may hear the item on June 16, 2003.
�Ifector
Development
of y
Co nit
Prepared by: Jennifer Castillo, Assistant Planner
BNL:JC
N:1DEWennifer'PC\Long ranee planningthew end units.wpd
DIVISION 7.
SECOND DWELLING UNITS
Sec. 29.10.305. Intent and Authority:
This division is adopted to comply with amendments to State Law §65852.2 which mandates
that applications for secondary dwelling units be considered ministerially without a public
hearing. It provides for the Town to set standards for the development of second dwelling
units to increase the supply of affordable housing in a mariner that is compatible with
existing neighborhoods.
Sec. 29.10.310. Definitions:
Existing Unlawful Second Units: An existing unlawful second dwelling unit is defined as a
second dwelling that existed in the Town or the County on June 1, 1983, and has existed and
been used continuously from that date to the date on which application to Town is made for
a second dwelling unit permit. Existing unlawful secondary dwelling units are eligible for a
second dwelling unit permit regardless of the zone in which the property is located.
New Second Dwelling Unit: A second dwelling unit is defined as an attached (with an interior
or exterior entrance) or a detached residential dwelling unit, created after June 1, 1983. It shall
include permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation on the same
parcel as the single-family dwelling is situated. A second dwelling unit also includes
efficiency units and manufactured homes.
Efficiency Unit: A separate living space with a minimum floor area of 150 square feet
Intended for occupancy by no more that two persons which contains partial kitchen and
bathroom facilities.
Manufactured home: A transportable structure which in the traveling mode is 8 feet or more
in width and 40 feet or more in length and is a minimum of 320 square feet and which is built
on a permanent chassis and is designed to be used as a dwelling with or without a permanent
foundation.
Nonconforming units: A nonconforming second dwelling unit is defined as a second dwelling
unit that exists under the following circumstances:
(1) A unit is created or converted lawfully but due to a zone change or an amendment to
the zoning ordinance the unit has become nonconforming.
(2) The unit was lawfully created while in the County and upon annexation the unit
becomes nonconforming.
Exhibit A
Sec. 29.10.315 Existing Unlawful Second Units:
(a) Permits: The owner of a nonconforming second dwelling unit must obtain a second dwelling
unit permit. Any application received after December 31, 1987, shall be subject to an
application fee and may be subject to a civil penalty pursuant to section 29.20.960(4).
(b) Number: A maximum of two (2) existing second dwelling units are allowed on a single lot.
All other second dwelling units on the property must be abated.
(c) Units existing in Town on June 1, 1983: An existing unlawful second dwelling unit in Town,
as defined in this chapter, for which an application for a second dwelling unit permit was not
filed by December 31, 1987, shall be treated as a new second dwelling unit. If the unit does
not qualify as a new second dwelling unit pursuant to section 29.10.xxx, the unit shall be
deemed to be unlawful and will be abated.
(d) Units existing in County: The owner of an existing unlawful second dwelling unit in the
County shall have 90 days following the date of annexation into the Town to apply for a
second dwelling unit permit. If such a timely application is made, the standards of this section
shall be applied to the application. If no application is made within the 90-day period, the unit
shall be treated as a new second dwelling unit. If the unit does not qualify as a new second
dwelling pursuant to section 29.10.310, the unit shall be deemed to be unlawful and must be
abated.
(e)
Housing code: Any unit receiving a second unit permit pursuant to subsection (d) shall be
required to comply with the Town housing code, and all improvements shall be completed
within one (1) year from the date of application. Where a timely application under subsection
(c) has been filed, and approved, an extension from the compliance date may be granted for
good cause shown. An extension of more than six (6) months may be granted by the Planning
Commission upon finding that a hardship exists.
(f) Development standards: Existing unlawful second dwelling units need not comply with the
development standards required by the zone in which the property is located nor the
development standards required by section 29.10. 320 for new second dwelling units.
(g)
Parking: Existing second dwelling units shall not be required to add parking in order to
comply with the parking requirements for second dwelling units; however, if parking exists
at the time the secondary dwelling unit permit is issued, such parking shall not be reduced
below the number of spaces that would be required for the second dwelling unit(s).
(h) Remodeling, reconstruction, demolition, conversion, or removal. Remodeling, reconstruction,
demolition, conversion, or removal of second dwelling units shall be as follows:
(1)Where a timely application under subsection (c) has been filed and approved, a second
dwelling unit may be remodeled providing the building height, floor area do not exceed that
which is allowed for a new second unit.
(2)Community Development Director approval is required for the remodeling or
reconstruction of an existing second dwelling unit in the case of destruction. The proposed
construction shall be designed so as to architecturally harmonize with the surrounding
structures so long as the construction does not increase the height or size of the unit. The
factors to be considered when reviewing the design of such proposed construction include:
a. Building height.
b. Building materials and compatibility
c. Colors.
d. Setback conformity.
e. Floor Area
Sec.29.10.320 New Second Dwelling Units
(a) Affordability: Any second dwelling units that will be rented shall be made available
to eligible applicants who have a household income under 50% of Santa Clara
County's median income as defined by the Federal Depailnient of Urban
Development. The affordability restriction shall be governed by the rules adopted by
Town Council pursuant to Division 6 or any regulations adopted under the authority
of Division 6 of the Town Code.
(b) Deed Restriction: A deed restriction shall be recorded for all new second dwelling
units indicating that if the unit is for rental purposes, it shall comply with the
affordability level for Santa Clara County for very low income as established
by the Federal Department of Urban Development.
(c) Design and Development Standards:
(1) Number: Only one (1) new second dwelling unit may be permitted on a lot. No
second dwelling unit is allowed upon a lot with an existing second dwelling unit.
(2) Permitted Zones: Second dwelling units are allowed on conforming lots in the R-1,
R-M and R-1D zones.
(3) Setbacks: Second dwelling units shall comply with the setbacks of the zone.
(4) Height: Detached second dwelling units shall not exceed one (1) story in height.
and shall not exceed 15 feet in height.
(5) Maximum unit size and maximum number of bedrooms:
Maximum Unit Size
Maximum # Bedrooms
Attached
750 sq. ft.
1
Detached
900 sq. ft.
2
(6) Floor Area: All Second dwelling units (attached or detached) must comply with the
floor area ratio for primary structures.
(7)
Lot Coverage: Second dwelling units must comply with lot coverage maximums
for the zone except with regard to the addition of a single efficiency unit.
(8) Parking: In addition to parking otherwise required for second units as set forth in
section 29.10.150 of the Town Code, the number of off-street parking spaces required
by this chapter for the primary unit shall be provided prior to the issuance of a
certificate of use and occupancy and/or building permit, for the new second dwelling
unit. In addition to the number of spaces as set forth in this section, additional spaces
may be required if the following findings are made:
(9)
1) additional parking is directly related to the use of the second unit
2) additional parking is consistent with existing neighborhood standards
applicable to existing dwellings.
Design, form, materials and color: The design, form, materials and color of a new
second dwelling unit shall be compatible with the primary dwelling unit and the
neighborhood. Second dwelling units shall retain the single-family appearance of the
property.
(10) Town codes and ordinances: All new second dwelling units shall comply with all the
provisions of this chapter and other applicable Town codes
(11) Building Codes: The second unit shall comply with applicable building, health and
fire codes.
(12) Expansion of unit: Requests for expansion of a second dwelling unit shall be
subject to the same requirements as a new second dwelling unit. Expansion of
a second dwelling unit is defined as increasing the number of bedrooms or
adding floor area in excess of thirty (30) square feet.
(d) Denial: An application maybe denied if it does not meet the design and development
standards. An application may also be denied if the following findings are made:
1) Acknowlegement of limiting the housing opportunities in the region
2) Adverse impacts on health, safety and/or welfare of the public
Sec. 29.10.325 Nonconforming units.
(a) Permits: The owner of a nonconforming secondary dwelling unit must obtain a
secondary dwelling unit permit. Any application received after December 31, 1987,
shall be subject to an application fee and may be subject to a civil penalty pursuant to
section 29.20.960(4).
Where an application has been submitted for a nonconforming second dwelling unit
permit and Town records do not establish the nonconforming status of the second unit,
the property owner will have sixty (60) days from the date of notice the owner is
informed of the Town's findings to submit data to support their claim that the unit is
nonconforming.
If at the end of sixty (60) days data has not been submitted by the property owner to
establish the secondary dwelling unit is nonconforming to the satisfaction of the
Community Development Director, the unit shall be determined to be an existing
unlawful second dwelling unit pursuant to section 29.10.315 and subject to its
regulations.
(b) Units existing at time of annexation: Upon annexation a lawful second dwelling unit
shall become nonconforming and the owner must either apply for a second dwelling
unit permit within one (1) year of the date of annexation, or the units shall be
determined to be unlawful second dwelling units pursuant to section 29.10.315.
(c) Number: A maximum of two (2) nonconforming second dwelling units are allowed
on a single lot. All other second dwelling units on the property must be abated.
(d) Housing code: Nonconforming second dwelling units shall comply with the Town's
housing code as follows:
(e) Any nonconforming second dwelling unit receiving a secondary dwelling unit permit
pursuant to subsection (b) shall be required to comply with the Town housing code.
(1) Any nonconforming secondary dwelling unit receiving a second dwelling unit permit
pursuant to subsection (c) shall be required to comply with the Town housing code and
all improvements shall be completed within one (1) year from the date of application.
(2) Where a timely application under subsection (b) or subsection (c) has been filed, and
approved, an extension from the compliance date of up to six (6) months may be
granted by the Community Development Department for good cause shown. Any
extension request for longer than six (6) months may be granted by the Planning
Commission upon finding that a hardship exists.
Remodeling and reconstruction: Remodeling and reconstruction of
nonconforming second dwelling units shall be as follows:
Where a timely application under subsection (a) or subsection (b) has been filed and
approved, a secondary dwelling unit may be remodeled providing the building height,
floor do not exceed that which is allowed for a new second unit and footprint are not
expanded.
(2) Community Development Director approval is required for the remodeling or
reconstruction of a second dwelling unit in the case of destruction. The proposed
construction shall be designed so as to architecturally harmonize with the surrounding
structures so long as the construction does not increase the height or size of the unit.
The factors to be considered when reviewing the design of such proposed construction
include:
a. Building height.
b. Building materials.
c. Colors and material
d. Setback conformity.
e. Floor Area Ratio
Sec. 29.10.330 Elimination or demolition of existing second units
In order to eliminate an approved second unit the Planning Commission make the
finding that the proposed removal is consistent with the Town's Housing Element of
the General Plan. In order to demolish an existing second unit, the Planning
Commission must make the demolition findings pursuant to section 29.10.09030.
ZONING REGULATIONS
DIVISION 7. SECONDARY DWELLING UNITS
Sec. 29.10.305. Intent.
§ 29.10.310
This division is adopted to fulfill the requirements of the housing element for regulating
secondary dwelling units.
(Ord. No. 1316, § 3.95.010, 6-7-76; Ord. No. 1654, 4-22-85; Ord. No. 1716, 4-20-87; Ord. No.
2043, § I, 5-4-98)
Sec. 29.10.310. Existing units.
(a) Definition' For purposes of this chapter, an existing unlawful secondary dwelling unit is
defined as a secondary dwelling that existed in the Town or the County on June 1, 1983, and
has existed and been used continuously frorii that date to the date on which application to Town
is made for a secondary dwelling unit permit. Existing unlawful secondary dwelling units are
eligible for a secondary dwelling unit permit regardless of the zone in which the property is
located..
(b) Number. A maximum of two (2) existing secondary dwelling units are allowed on a single
lot if no other accessory living quarters exists on the property. All other secondary dwelling
units or accessory living quarters on the property must be abated. Only one (1) secondary
dwelling unit is permitted on a lot with an existing approved accessory living quarters. All
other secondary dwelling units on the property must be abated.
(c) Units existing in Town on June 1, 1983. An existing unlawful secondary dwelling unit in
Town for which an application for a secondary dwelling unit permit was not filed by December
31, 1987, shall be treated as a new secondary dwelling unit. If the unit does not qualify as a
new secondary dwelling unit pursuant to section 29.10.315, the unit shall be deemed to be
unlawful and will be abated.
(d) Units existing in County. The owner of an existing unlawful secondary dwelling unit in
the County shall have 90 days following the date of annexation into the Town to apply for a
secondary dwelling unit permit. If such a timely application is made, the standards of this
section shall be applied to the application. If no application is made within the 90-day period,
the unit shall be treated as a new secondary dwelling unit. If the unit does not qualify as a new
secondary dwelling pursuant to section 29.10.315, the unit shall be deemed to be unlawful and
will be abated.
(e) Housing code. Any unit receiving a secondary unit permit pursuant to subsection (d)
shall be required to comply with the Town housing code, and all improvements shall be
completed within one (1) year from the date of application. Where a timely application under
subsection (c) has been filed, and approved, an extension from the compliance date may be
granted for good cause shown. An extension of more than six (6) months may be granted by the
Planning Commission upon finding that a hardship exists.
Supp. No. 23 2033
Exhibit B
§ 29.10.310 LOS GATOS TOWN CODE
(f) Development standards. Existing secondary dwelling units need not comply with the
development standards required by the zone in which the property is located nor the
development standards required by section 29.10.315 for new secondary dwelling units.
(g) Parking. Existing secondary dwelling units shall not be required to add parking in order
to comply with the parking requirements for secondary dwelling units; however, if parking
exists at the time the secondary dwelling unit permit is issued, such parking shall not be
reduced below the number of spaces that would be required for secondary dwelling units.
(h) Remodeling, reconstruction, demolition, conversion, or removal. Remodeling, reconstruc-
tion, demolition, conversion, or removal of secondary dwelling units shall be as follows:
(1) Where a timely application under subsection (c) has been filed and approved, a
secondary dwelling unit may be remodeled providing the building height, area and
footprint are not expanded.
(2) Planning Director approval is required for the remodeling or reconstruction of an
existing secondary dwelling unit in the case of destruction. The proposed construction
shall be designed so as to architecturally harmonize with the surrounding structures
so long as the construction does not increase the height or size of the unit. The factors
to be considered when reviewing the design of such proposed construction include:
a. Building height.
b. Building materials.
c. Colors.
d. Setback conformity.
(3) Planning Commission approval is required to demolish without reconstruction, re-
move, or convert the use of an approved secondary dwelling unit. In order to approve
the demolition, removal, or conversion of an approved secondary dwelling unit the
following findings must be made:
a. The proposed demolition, removal, or conversion is compatible with the architec-
tural and/ or historic character of the existing residence and its surroundings.
b. The proposed conversion is compatible with the permitted uses of the zoning
district.
If the Planning Commission approves the demolition, removal, or conversion in use of
a secondary dwelling unit, the development rights for that unit shall transfer the Town
of Los Gatos at the time of demolition, removal or conversion.
The Planning Director shall maintain a record of these development transfer credits
and make them available for use by the public for new secondary unit applications on
a first come first serve basis.
(Ord. No. 1316, §§ 3.96.010-3.96.080, 6-7-76; Ord. No. 1654, 4-22-85; Ord. No. 1716, 4-20-87;
Ord. No. 1959, § I, 11-1-93; Ord. No. 2043, § I, 5-4-98)
Supp. No. 23
2034
ZONING REGULATIONS § 29.10.315
Sec. 29.10.315. New units.
(a) Definition. A new secondary dwelling unit is defined as a unit which was created after
June 1, 1983, a unit which is not eligible for a secondary dwelling permit, or a unit for which
an application for a secondary dwelling unit permit has been denied.
(b) Number. Only one (1) new secondary dwelling unit may be permitted on a lot. None will
be permitted upon a lot with an existing secondary dwelling unit and/or an accessory living
quarters.
(c) Town codes and ordinances. All new secondary dwelling units shall comply with all the
provisions of this chapter and other Town codes.
(d) Scope. New secondary dwelling units are allowed as follows:
(1) As an accessory use to a primary dwelling in those zones as shown in the table of
conditional uses (section 29.20.185). Secondary dwelling units permitted in any PD
(planned development overlay) zone are subject to being part of the planned develop-
ment ordinance; or
(2) In conjunction with the transfer of an available secondary dwelling unit development
credit and a conditional use permit approved by the Planning Commission, as an
accessory use to a primary dwelling in any residentially zoned property (except in
Hillside Residential and Resource Conservation Zones). Only conforming lots with a
minimum lot size of ten thousand (10,000) square feet or larger are eligible to receive
a transfer of a development credits.
(e) Minimum lot size, maximum unit size and maximum number of bedrooms.
Minimum Maximum Maximum
Lot -Size Unit Size # Bedrooms
Interior 10,000 sq. ft. 750 sq. ft. 1
Attached 12,000 sq. ft. 750 sq. ft. 1
Detached 15,000 sq. ft. 900 sq. ft. 2
Exception: New secondary units that are created by transfer of development rights are limited
to the same number of bedrooms of the original unit and may only be constructed on
conforming lots as listed above. This exception does not exempt the secondary dwelling unit
from complying with other development regulations such as floor area ratio limitations, yard
setbacks, and required parking.
(f) Height. Interior and attached secondary dwelling units shall be located only on the first
floor of the primary dwelling units. Detached secondary dwelling units shall not exceed one (1)
story in height. Secondary dwelling units shall not be permitted on the second floor of a
detached accessory building.
(g) Detached units. New detached secondary dwelling units are subject to the provisions of
section 29.40.015 regardless of the zone in which the property is located.
Supp. No. 23 2035
§ 29.10.315 LOS GATOS TOWN CODE
(h) Architecture and site approval. Architecture and site approval is required for all new
secondary dwelling units.
(i) Parking. In addition to parking otherwise required for secondary units as set forth in
section 29.10.150 of the Town Code, the number of off-street parking spaces required by this
chapter for the primary unit shall be provided prior to the issuance of a certificate of use and
occupancy for the new secondary dwelling unit.
(j) Accessory living quarters. A secondary dwelling unit is not allowed on the same lot with
an existing approved accessory living quarters. In order to convert an accessory living quarters
to a secondary dwelling unit, the owner must apply for a conditional use permit for a new
secondary dwelling unit.
(k) Expansion of unit. Requests for expansion of a secondary dwelling unit shall be
processed in the same manner and subject to the same requirements as a new secondary
dwelling unit. Expansion of a secondary dwelling unit is defined as increasing the number of
bedrooms or adding floor area in excess of thirty (30) square feet.
(1) Design, form, materials and color. The design, .form, materials and; color of a .new
secondary dwelling unit shall be compatible with the primary dwelling unit and the
neighborhood. Secondary dwelling units shall retain the single-family appearance of the
property as much as possible.
(m) Grading. The siting of a secondary dwelling unit shall not require excessive grading or
result in a grading scar which is visible from a public space or adjoining property.
(n) Transfer of development rights. Upon demolition, removal, or conversion in use of a
secondary dwelling unit, the development rights for that unit shall transfer to the Town of Los
Gatos. The Planning Director shall maintain a record of these available development transfer
credits and shall make them available for use by the public for new secondary unit applications
strictly on a "first -come, first -serve" basis. The Planning Director shall also establish a
corresponding waiting list for any persons interested in obtaining a development transfer
credit.
In order for the transfer of development rights to be final, the Planning Department must
receive verification that the property owner of the new secondary unit has obtained a
conditional use permit for the new unit from the Planning Commission and vested the approval
as specified in Town Code section 29.20.335.
(Ord. No. 1316, §§ 3.97.010-3.97.150, 6-7-76; Ord. No. 1654, 4-22-85; Ord. No. 1716, 4-20-87;
Ord. No. 1835, §§ I, II, 7-16-90; Ord. No. 2043, § I, 5-4-98)
Sec. 29.10.320. Nonconforming units.
(a) Definition. A nonconforming secondary dwelling unit is defined as a secondary dwelling
unit that exists under the following circumstances:
(1) A unit is created or converted lawfully but due to a zone change or an amendment to
the zoning ordinance the unit has become nonconforming.
Supp. No. 23
2036
ZONING REGULATIONS § 29.10.320
(2) The unit was lawfully created while in the County and upon annexation the unit
becomes nonconforming.
(b) Permits. The owner of a nonconforming secondary dwelling unit must obtain a
secondary dwelling unit permit. Any application received after December 31, 1987, shall be
subject to an application fee and may be subject to a civil penalty pursuant to section
29.20.960(4).
Where an application has been submitted for a nonconforming secondary dwelling unit permit
and Town records do not establish the nonconforming status of the secondary unit, the property
owner will have sixty (60) days from the date of notice the owner is informed of the Town's
findings to submit data to support their claim that the unit is nonconforming.
If at the end of sixty (60) days data has not been submitted by the property owner to establish
the secondary dwelling unit is nonconforming to the satisfaction of the Planning Director, the
unit shall be determined to be an existing unlawful secondary dwelling unit pursuant to
section 29.10.310(c) and subject to its regulations.
(c) Units existing at time of annexation. Upon annexation a lawful secondary dwelling unit
shall become nonconforming and the owner must either apply for a secondary dwelling unit
permit within one (1) year of the date of annexation, or abate the unit.
(d) Number Amaximum of two (2) nonconforming secondary dwelling units are allowed on
a single lot if no other accessory living quarters exist on the property. All other secondary
dwelling units or accessory living quarters on the property must be abated. Only one (1)
nonconforming secondary dwelling is permitted on a lot with an existing approved accessory
living quarters. AlI other secondary dwelling units on the property must be abated.
(e) Housing code. Nonconforming secondary dwelling units shall comply with the Town's
housing code as follows:
(1) Any nonconforming secondary dwelling unit receiving a secondary dwelling unit
permit pursuant to subsection (b) shall be required to comply with the Town housing
code.
(2) Any nonconforming secondary dwelling unit receiving a secondary dwelling unit
permit pursuant to subsection (c) shall be required to comply with the Town housing
code and all improvements shall be completed within one (1) year from the date of
application.
(3) Where a timely application under subsection (b) or subsection (c) has been filed, and
approved, an extension from the compliance date may be granted for good cause shown.
Any extension request for longer than six (6) months may be granted by the Planning
Commission upon finding that a hardship exists.
(f) Remodeling and reconstruction. Remodeling and reconstruction of nonconforming sec-
ondary dwelling units shall be as follows:
(1) Where a timely application under subsection (b) or subsection (c) has been filed and
approved, a secondary dwelling unit may be remodeled providing the building height,
area and footprint are not expanded.
Supp. No. 23 2036.1
§ 29.10.320 LOS GATOS TOWN CODE
(2) Planning Director approval is required for the remodeling or reconstruction of a
secondary dwelling unit in the case of destruction. The proposed construction shall be
designed so as to architecturally harmonize with the surrounding structures so long as
the construction does not increase the height or size of the unit. The factors to be
considered when reviewing the design of such proposed construction include:
a. Building height.
b. Building materials.
c. Colors.
d. Setback conformity.
(Ord. No. 1316, §§ 3.98.010-3.98.060, 6-7-76; Ord. No. 1716, 4-20-87)
Supp. No. 23 2036.2
:C,'
Legend
- Legal Secondary Dwelling Units
Q Zoning Boundary Lines
AyTown Boundary Line
LW 0
(V)
Ali 1600 Assemrn bill - L t' 1 t tW, J
cage o of 12
65852.2 (a) (1) Any local agency may, by ordinance, provide for
the creation of second units in single-family and multifamily
residential zones. The ordinance may do any of the following:
(A) Designate areas within the jurisdiction of the local agency
where second units may be permitted. The designation of areas may be
based on criteria, that may include, but are not limited to, the
adequacy of water and sewer services and the impact of second units
on traffic flow.
(B) Impose standards on second units that include, but are not
limited to, parking, height, setback, lot coverage, architectural
review, maximum size of a unit, and standards that prevent adverse
impacts on any real property that is listed in the California
Register of Historic Places.
(C) Provide that second units do not exceed the allowable density
for the lot upon which the second unit is located, and that second
units are a residential use that is consistent with the existing
general plan and zoning designation for the lot.
(2) The ordinance shall not be considered in the application of
any local ordinance, policy, or program to limit residential growth.
(3) When a local agency receives its first application on or after
July 1, 2003, for a permit pursuant to this subdivision, the
application shall be considered ministerially without discretionary
review or a hearing, notwithstanding Section 65901 or 65906 or any
local ordinance regulating the issuance of variances -or special use
permits. Nothing in this paragraph may be construed to require a
localgovernment to adopt or amend an ordinance_ for the ..creation of
second units. A local agency may charge a fee to reimburse it for
costs that it incurs as a result of amendments to this paragraph
enacted during the 2001-02 Regular Session of the Legislature,
including the costs of adopting or amending any ordinance that
provides for the creation of second units.
(b) (1) When a local agency which has not adopted an ordinance
governing second units in accordance with subdivision (a) or (c)
receives its first application on or after July 1, 1983, for a permit
pursuant to this subdivision, the local agency shall accept the
application and approve or disapprove the application ministerially
without discretionary review pursuant to this subdivision unless it
adopts an ordinance in accordance with subdivision (a) or (c) within
120 days after receiving the application. Notwithstanding Section
65901 or 65906, every local agency shall grant a variance or special
use permit for the creation of a second unit if the second unit
complies with all of the following:
(A) The unit is not intended for sale and may be rented.
(B) The lot iszoned for single-family or multifamily use.
(C) The lot contains an existing single-family dwelling.
(D) The second unit is either attached to the existing dwelling
and located within the living area of the existing dwelling or
detached from the existing dwelling and located on the same lot as
the existing dwelling.
(E) The increased floor area of an attached second unit shall not
exceed 30 percent of the existing living area.
(F) The total area of floorspace for a detached second unit shall
not exceed 1,200 square feet.
(G) Requirements relating to height, setback, lot coverage,
architectural review, site plan review, fees, charges, and other
zoning requirements generally applicable to residential construction
in the zone in which the property is located.
(H) Local building code requirements which apply to detached
dwellings, as appropriate.
Exhibit D
htip://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub,/01-02/bill/asm/ab_1851-1900/ab_l 866_bill_20020929_ch... 05/21 /2003
Ati 1600 Assembly Bill - U1iAY1..C.tt_bll rage / or 1L
(I) Approval by the local health officer where a private sewage
disposal system is being used, if required.
(2) No other local ordinance, policy, or regulation shall be the
basis for the denial of a building permit or a use permit under this
subdivision.
(3) This subdivision establishes the maximum standards that local
agencies shall use to evaluate proposed second units on lots zoned
for residential use which contain an existing single-family dwelling.
No additional standards, other than those provided in this
subdivision or subdivision (a), shall be utilized or imposed, except
that a local agency may require an applicant for a permit issued
pursuant to this subdivision to be an owner -occupant.
(4) No changes in zoning ordinances or other ordinances or any
changes in the general plan shall be required to implement this
subdivision. Any local agency may amend its zoning ordinance or
general plan to incorporate the policies, procedures, or other
provisions applicable to the creation of second units if these
provisions are consistent with the limitations of this subdivision.
(5) A second unit which conforms to the requirements of this
subdivision shall not be considered to exceed the allowable density
for the lot upon which it is located, and shall be deemed to be a
residential use which is consistentwith the existing general plan
and zoning designations for the lot. The second units shall not be
considered in the application of any local ordinance, policy, or
program to limit residential growth. ,:..,.
(c) No local agency shall adopt an ordinance which totally
precludes second units within single-family or multifamily zoned
areas unless the ordinance "contains 'findings 'acknowledging that the
ordinance may limit housing opportunities of the region and further
contains findings that specific adverse impacts on the public health,
safety, and welfare that would result from allowing second units
within single-family and multifamily zoned areas justify adopting the
ordinance.
(d) A local agency may establish minimum and maximum unit size
requirements for both attached and detached second units. No minimum
or maximum size for a second unit, or size based upon a percentage
of the existing dwelling, shall be established by ordinance for
either attached or detached dwellings which does not permit at least
an efficiency unit to be constructed in compliance with local
development standards.
(e) Parking requirements for second units shall not exceed one
parking space per unit or per bedroom. Additional parking may be
required provided that a finding is made that the additional parking
requirements are directly related to the use of the second unit and
are consistent with existing neighborhood standards applicable to
existing dwellings. Off-street parking shall be permitted in setback
areas in locations determined by the local agency or through tandem
parking, unless specific findings are made that parking in setback
areas or tandem parking is not feasible based upon specific site or
regional topographical or fire and life safety conditions, or that it
is not permitted anywhere else in the jurisdiction.
(f) Fees charged for the construction of second units shall be
determined in accordance with Chapter 5 (commencing with Section
66000).
(g) This section does not limit the authority of local agencies to
adopt less restrictive requirements for the creation of second
units.
(h) Local agencies shall submit a copy of the ordinances adopted
pursuant to subdivision (a) or (c) to the Department of Housing and
Community Development within 60 days after adoption.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/01-02/bill/asm/ab_l 851-1900/ab_1866_bill_20020929_ch... 05/21/2003
AB 1 666 Assembly Bill - CHAPTERED
(i) As used in this section, the following terms mean:
(1) "Living area," means the interior habitable area of a dwelling
unit including basements and attics but does not include a garage or
any accessory structure.
(2) "Local agency" means a city, county, or city and county,
whether general law or chartered.
(3) For purposes of this section, "neighborhood" has the same
meaning as set forth in Section 65589.5.
(4) "Second unit" means an attached or a detached residential
dwelling unit which provides complete independent living facilities
for one or more persons. It shall include permanent provisions for
living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation on the same parcel
as the single-family dwelling is situated. A second unit also
includes the following:
(A) An efficiency unit, as defined in Section 17958.1 of Health
and Safety Code.
(B) A manufactured home, as defined in Section 18007 of the Health
and Safety Code.
(j) Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede or in
any way alter or lessen the effect or application of the California
Coastal Act (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the
Public Resources Code), except that the local government shall not be
required to hold public hearings for coastal development permit
applications for second units.
' SEC'3. Section 65915 of the Government Code is amended to read:
65915. (a) When an applicant proposes a housing -development
within the jurisdiction of a city, county, or city and county, that
local government shall provide the applicant incentives or
concessions for the production of housing units as prescribed in this
chapter. All cities, counties, or cities and counties shall adopt
-an ordinance that specifies how compliance with this section will be
implemented.
(b) A city, county, or city and county shall either grant a
density bonus and at least one of the concessions or incentives
identified in subdivision (j), or provide otherincentives or
concessions of equivalent financial value based upon the land cost
per dwelling unit, when the applicant for the housing development
agrees or proposes to construct at least any one of the following:
(1) Twenty percent of the total units of a housing development for
lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health
and Safety Code.
(2) Ten percent of the total units of a housing development for
very low income households, as defined in Section 50105 of the Health
and Safety Code.
(3) Fifty percent of the total dwelling units of a housing
development for qualifying residents, as defined in Section 51.3 of
the Civil Code.
(4) Twenty percent of the total dwelling units in a condominium
project as defined in subdivision (f) of Section 1351 of the Civil
Code, for persons and families of moderate income, as defined in
Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code.
The city, county, or city and county shall grant the additional
concession or incentive required by this subdivision unless the city,
county, or city and county makes a written finding, based upon
substantial evidence, that the additional concession or incentive is
not required in order to provide for affordable housing costs, as
defined in Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code, or for
rents for the targeted units to be set as specified in subdivision
(c) .
(c) (1) An applicant shall agree to, and the city, county, or city
Page 8 of 12
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/01-02/bill/asm/ab_l851-1900/ab_1866 bill 20020929 ch... 05/21/2003
AB 1866 Assembly Bill - UHAY•l•EKEL Page 9 of 12
and county shall ensure, continued affordability of all lower income
density bonus units for 30 years or a longer period of time if
required by the construction or mortgage financing assistance
program, mortgage insurance program, or rental subsidy program.
Those units targeted for lower income households, as defined in
Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, shall be affordable at
a rent that does not exceed 30 percent of 60 percent of area median
income. Those units targeted for very low income households, as
defined in Section 50105 of the Health and Safety Code, shall be
affordable at a rent that does not exceed 30 percent of 50 percent of
area median income.
(2) An applicant shall agree to, and the city, county, or city and
county shall ensure, continued affordability of the moderate -income
units that are directly related to the receipt of the density bonus
for 10 years if the housing is in a condominium project as defined in
subdivision (f) of Section 1351 of the Civil Code.
(d) An applicant may submit to a city, county, or city and county
a proposal for the specific incentives or concessions that the
applicant requests pursuant to this section, and may request a
meeting with the city, county, or city and county. The city, county,
or city and county shall grant the concession or incentive requested
by the applicant unless the city, county, or city and county makes a
written finding, based upon substantial evidence, of either of the
following:
(1).:-The concession or incentive is not required in= ordelr' 20
provide for affordable housing costs, as defined in Section 50052.5
of the Health and Safety Code, or for rents for the targeted units to
be set as specified in subdivision (c):
(2) The concession or incentive would have.a specific adverse
impact, as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section
65589.5, upon public health and safety or the physical environment or.
on any real property that is listed in the California Register of
Historical Resources and for which there is no feasible method to
satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact without
rendering the development unaffordable -to low- and moderate -income
households.
The applicant may initiate judicial proceedings if the city,
county, or city and county refuses to grant a requested density
bonus,incentive, or concession. If a court finds that therefusal
to grant a requested density bonus, incentive, or concession is in
violation of this section, the court shall award the plaintiff
reasonable attorney's fees and costs of suit. Nothing in this
subdivision shall be interpreted to require a local government to
grant an incentive or concession that has a specific, adverse impact,
as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 65589.5,
upon health, safety, or the physical environment, and for which there
is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the
specific adverse impact. Nothing in this subdivision shall be
interpreted to require a local government to grant an incentive or
concession that would have
an adverse impact on any real property that is listed in the
California Register of Historical Resources. The city, county, or
city and county shall establish procedures for carrying out this
section, that shall include legislative body approval of the means of
compliance with this section. The city, county, or city and county
shall also establish procedures for waiving or modifying development
and zoning standards that would otherwise inhibit the utilization of
the density bonus on specific sites. These procedures shall include,
but not be limited to, such items as minimum lot size, side yard
setbacks, and placement of public works improvements.
http://www.leginfo. ca. gov/pub/01-02/billasm/ab_1851-1900/ab_1866_bill_20020929_ch... 05/21 /20 03
A13 18bb Assembly 13111- CHAPTERED Page 10 of 12
r
fl
(e) In no case may a city, county, or city and county apply any
development standard that will have the effect of precluding the
,r-. construction of a development meeting the criteria of subdivision (b)
( at the densities or with the concessions or incentives permitted by
this section. An applicant may submit to a city, county, or city and
county a proposal for the waiver or reduction of development
standards and may request a meeting with the city, county, or city
and county. If a court finds that the refusal to grant a waiver or
reduction of development standards is in violation of this section,
the court shall award the plaintiff reasonable attorney's fees and
costs of suit. Nothing in this subdivision shall be interpreted to
require a local government to waive or reduce development standards
if the waiver or reduction would have a specific, adverse impact, as
defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 65589.5, upon
health, safety, or the physical environment, and for which there is
no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific
adverse impact. Nothing in this subdivision shall be interpreted to
require a local government to waive or reduce development standards
that would have an adverse impact on any real property that is listed
in the California Register of Historical Resources.
(f) The applicant shall show that the waiver or modification is
necessary to make the housing units economically feasible.
(g) (1) For the purposes of this chapter, except as provided in
paragraph (2), "density bonus" means a density increase of at least
25 percent, unless a lesser percentage `is elected by the applicant,
over the otherwise maximum allowable residential density under the.
applicable zoning ordinance and land use element of the general plan.
as of the date of application by the applicant to the city, county,
or city and county. All density calculations resulting in fractional
units shall be rounded up to the next whole number. The granting of
) a density bonus shall not be interpreted, in and of itself, to
require a general plan amendment, local coastal plan amendment,
zoning change, or other discretionary approval. The density bonus
shall not be included when determining the number of housing units
which is equal to 10, 20, or 50 percent of the total. The density
bonus shall apply to housing developments consisting of five or more
dwelling units.
(2) For the purposes of this chapter, if a development does not
meet the requirements of paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of subdivision
(b), but the applicant agrees or proposes to construct a condominium
project as defined in subdivision (f) of Section 1351 of the Civil
Code, in which at least 20 percent of the total dwelling units are
reserved for persons and families of moderate income, as defined in
Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code, a "density bonus" of at
least 10 percent shall be granted, unless a lesser percentage is
elected by the applicant, over the otherwise maximum allowable
residential density under the applicable zoning ordinance and land
use element of the general plan as of the date of application by the
applicant to the city, county, or city and county. All density
calculations resulting in fractional units shall be rounded up to the
next whole number. The granting of a density bonus shall not be
interpreted, in and of itself, to require a general plan amendment,
local coastal plan amendment, zoning change, or other discretionary
approval. The density bonus shall not be included when determining
the number of housing units which is equal to 20 percent of the
total. The density bonus shall apply to housing developments
consisting of five or more dwelling units.
(h) "Housing development," as used in this section, means one or
more groups of projects for residential units constructed in the
planned development of a city, county, or city and county. For the
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/01-02/bill/asm/ab_l 851-1900/ab_1866_bill_20020929 ch... 05/21/2003
AB 1866 Assembly Bill - CHAY 1 EKhll Yage 1 1 01 12
purposes of this section, "housing development" also includes either
(1) a project to substantially rehabilitate and convert an existing
commercial building to residential use, or (2) the substantial
rehabilitation of an existing multifamily dwelling, as defined in
subdivision (d) of Section 65863.4, where the result of the
rehabilitation would be a net increase in available residential
units. For the purpose of calculating a density bonus, the
residential units do not have to be based upon individual subdivision
maps or parcels. The density bonus shall be permitted in geographic
areas of the housing development other than the areas where the
units for the lower income households are located.
(i) The granting of a concession or incentive shall not be
interpreted, in and of itself, to require a general plan amendment,
local coastal plan amendment, zoning change, or other discretionary
approval. This provision is declaratory of existing law.
(j) For the purposes of this chapter, concession or incentive
means any of the following:
(1) A reduction in site development standards or a modification of
zoning code requirements or architectural design requirements that
exceed the minimum building standards approved by the California
Building Standards Commission as provided in Part 2.5 (commencing
with Section 18901) of Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code,
including, but not limited to, a reduction in setback and square
footage requirements and in the ratio of vehicular parking spaces
that would otherwise be required.
(2) Approval of mixed use zoning in conjunction with the housing
project if commercial, office, industrial, or other land uses will
reduce the cost of the housing development and if the commercial,
office, industrial, or other land uses are compatible with the
housing project and the existing or planned development in the area
where the proposed housing project will be located.
(3) other regulatory incentives or concessions proposed by the
developer or the city, county, or city and county that result in
identifiable and actual cost reductions.
This subdivision does not limit or require the provision of direct
financial incentives for the housing development, including the
provision of publicly owned land, by the city, county, or city and
county, or the waiver of fees or dedication requirements.
(k) If an applicant agrees to construct both 20 percent of the
total units for lower income households and 10 percent of the total
units for very low income households, the developer is entitled to
only one density bonus and at least one additional concession or
inceptive identified in Section 65913.4 under this section although
the city, city and county, or county may, at its discretion, grant
more than one density bonus.
(1) Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede or in
any way alter or lessen the effect or application of the California
Coastal Act (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the
Public Resources Code).
(m) A local agency may charge a fee to reimburse it for costs it
incurs as a result of amendments to this section enacted during the
2001-02 Regular Session of the Legislature.
(n) For purposes of this section, the following definitions shall
apply:
(1) "Development standard" means any ordinance, general plan
element, specific plan, charter amendment, or other local condition,
law, policy, resolution, or regulation.
(2) "Maximum allowable residential density" means the density
allowed under the zoning ordinance, or if a range of density is
permitted, means the maximum allowable density for the specific
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/01-02/bill/asm/ab_1851-1900/ab_1866_bill_20020929_ch... 05/21/2003
Ali 18bb Assembly bill - CHAP i J RED Page 12 of 12
zoning range applicable to the project.
SEC. 4. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to
Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because a
local agency or school district has the authority to levy service
charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or
level of service mandated by this act, within the meaning of Section
17556 of the Government Code.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/01-02/bill/asm/ab_1851-1900/ab_1866_bill_20020929_ch... 05/21/2003
.-7...': ..'.. :..!:; ,..1'...: ". Pi ::::t7 ;',' :- i 1 '`.. ?'!-4F '..".. . '._ !. : 7 . '::: 7..'..':.- r:ft 2 1
Comparison of Existing Second Unit Ordinance and Proposed New Ordinance for new units:
Current Ordinance
Proposed Ordinance
Conditional Use Permit
Required
Yes
No
Architecture and Site
Approval Required
Yes
No
Public Hearing Required
Yes
No
Public Notice Required
Yes
No
Appeal Rights
Yes
No
Number of Units
1
1
Height/Story Limitation
15 feet and 1 story
15 feet and 1 story
Max Number of Bedrooms
2
2
Parking requirement
1 space per bduuu
1 space per bdnn
Floor Area Max
Yes
Yes (except efficiency unit)
Detached/Attached Allowed
Yes
Yes
Below Market Rate for
Rental
No
Yes
Owner -Occupancy
Requirement
No
No
Deed Restriction
Requirement
No
Yes - for rentals to be BMP
Exhibit E
I
1
§ 29.10.265 LOS GATOS TOWN CODE
(2) If the lot is in other than a residential zone, it may be used for any purpose allowed in
the zone.
(3) Any rule of the zone including front, side and rear yard requirements may be modified
by the terms of the architecture and site approval so that the building and its use will
be compatible with the neighborhood.
(Ord. No. 1316, § 3.50.140, 6-7-76; Ord. No. 1344, 1-17-77; Ord. No. 1756, 8-1-88; Ord. No.
2024, § II, 12-2-96)
DIVISION 6. HOUSING ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Sec. 29.10.3000. Intent.
This division is adopted to meet housing needs shown in the housing element of the general
plan.
(Ord. No. 1316, § 3.90.010, 6-7-76; Ord. No. 1430, 6-4-79)
Sec. 29.10.3005. Below market price program —Established.
This division establishes the below market price program (BMP).
(Ord. No. 1316, § 3.90.100, 6-7-76; Ord. No. 1430, 6-4-79)
Sec. 29.10.3010. Same —Intent.
The below market price (BMP) program requires construction of dwellings that persons and
families of moderate income can afford to buy or rent, and assures to the extent possible that
the resale prices of those dwellings, and rents if they are rented, will be within the means of
persons and families of moderate income.
(Ord. No. 1316, § 3.90.105, 6-7-76; Ord. No. 1430, 6-4-79; Ord. No. 1685, 6-2-86)
Sec. 29.10.3015. Application.
This division shall apply to all multiple -family dwelling projects, residential condominium
projects and to all residential planned development projects (division 2 of article VIII of this
chapter) either approved after July 4, 1979, or whose approval includes a condition requiring
construction of BMP dwellings. Projects in the R-1 and HR zones are excepted from BMP
Supp. No. 19 2030.2
Exhibit F
ZONING REGULATIONS § 29.10.3025
participation. The exception does not apply if the project is built under the rules of an overlay
zone unless the rules of the overlay zone provide otherwise.
(Ord. No. 1316, § 3.90.110, 6-7-76; Ord. No. 1430, 6-4-79; Ord. No. 1685, 6.2-86)
Sec. 29.10.3020. Definitions.
For the purposes of this division the following definitions shall apply:
B141P dwelling means a residential condominium unit, a planned development dwelling
unit or a multiple -family dwelling unit which is built for occupancy by persons of moderate
income under the rules of this section.
Person of moderate income means one whose income falls within the range specified by the
Town Council in the resolution authorized by section 29.10.3040.
(Ord. No. 1316, § 3.90.115, 6-7-76; Ord. No. 1430, 6-4-79; Ord. No. 1685, 6-2-86)
Sec. 29.10.3025. Scope.
Every multifamily rental dwelling project at the time of building permit, every residential
condominium or planned development residential subdivision at the time of subdivision, and
every community apartment project and every residential stock cooperative apartment or unit
project at the time of subdivision if the transaction involves subdivision, or at the time of sale,
if it does not, shall contain one (1) or more BMP dwellings according to the rules listed below
with the exception that any planned development with an underlying zone of HR shall only be
required to pay an in -lieu fee as established by a separate resolution:
(1) Projects containing five (5) or more but less than twenty (20) units must provide a
number of BMP units equal to ten (10) percent of the number of market rate units.
(2) Projects with five (5) or more but less than ten (10) units may pay a fee in -lieu of
building a BMP unit in order to comply with this requirement.
(3) Projects with from twenty (20) to one hundred (100) units must provide BMP units as
determined by the following formula:
Number of BMP units = .225 (total M of units) — 2.5
(4) All projects in excess of one hundred (100) units must provide a number of BMP units
equal to twenty (20) percent of the market rate units.
(5) Whenever the calculations of BMP units result in a fraction of one-half or more the
number of units to be reserved is increased to the next whole number.
(Ord. No. 1316, § 3.90.120, 6-7-76; Ord. No. 1430, 6-4-79; Ord. No. 1685, 6-2-86; Ord. No. 1687,
8-4-86; Ord. No. 1838, § I, 11.5-90)
2031
RESOLUTION 2000 - 131
RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL
OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS ADOPTING REVISED
BELOW MARKET PRICE HOUSING PROGRAM GUIDELINES
WHEREAS, the Town of Los Gatos Zoning Ordinance Sections 29.10.3000
through 29.10.3040 establishes a Below Market Price (BMP) Housing program to
assist low and moderate income Los Gatos citizens purchase homes at prices
below market value; and,
WHEREAS, the Program requires construction of dwellings that persons
and families of moderate income can afford to buy or rent, and assures to the
extent possible that the resale prices of those dwellings and rents, if they are
rented, will be within the means of persons and families of low and moderate
income; and,
WHEREAS, the program helps the Town meet State mandated housing
goals; and,
WHEREAS, this resolution revises the Town of Los Gatos Below Market
Price Guidelines.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Council of the Town
of Los Gatos (1) repeals Resolution 1992-88; and, (2) adopts the Revised Below
Market Price Guidelines attached as Exhibit A.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the
Town of Los Gatos held on the 6th day of November, 2000 by the following vote:
Exhibit G
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
AYES: Randy Attaway, Jan Hutchins, Linda Lubeck, Joe Pirzynski.
Mayor Steven Blanton
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
SIGNED:
A i 'EST:
CLERK OF THE TOWN OF L ' GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
csd08a:\resos\cs101600.R00
Exhibit A
TOWN'S BELOW MARKET PRICE HOUSING PROGRAM GUIDELINES
GENERAL PROVISIONS
A. Every multifamily rental dwelling project at the time of building permit,
every residential condominium or planned development residential
subdivision at the time of subdivision, and every community apartment
project and every residential stock cooperative apartment or unit project
at the time of subdivision if the transaction involves subdivision, or at
the time of sale, if it does not, shall contain one or more BMP dwellings
according to the rules listed below with the following exception: Any
planned development with an underlying zone of HR, shall only be
required to pay an in -lieu fee as established by this resolution.
1. Projects containing five or more but fewer than twenty market
rate units must provide a number of BMP units equal to 10
percent of the number of market rate units.
2. Projects which include 20 to 100 market rates units must provide
BMP units as determined by the following formula:
Number of BMP units = .225 (total # of market rate units)-2.5
3. All projects in excess of 100 market rate units must provide a
number of BMP units equal to 20 percent of the market rate
units.
4. Whenever the calculations of below market price units result in
a fraction of one-half or more, the number of units to be reserved
is increased to the next whole number.
B. Confidentiality
Client information is confidential and not considered public information
except for statistical information on the BMP units and general
csdO8A:\resos\cs101600.R01
demographic information on the buyers and renters of BMP housing
units. Through BMP program implementation the Town is attempting
to provide a supply of low -moderate income housing. The Town does
not wish to set the occupants of such housing apart from the general
community, attaching a stigma to the occupants. Furthermore, no
public interest is served by disclosure of this information. The address
of the projects containing BMP units may be provided as well as a range
of sales prices.
II. OWNER OCCUPIED UNITS
A. Applicant Eligibility
1 Household Income:
Income limits are set according to household size using the
Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development
statistics regarding median income.
2. Buyer Qualification:
a. A buyer's qualification is determined by the family's ability
to make the monthly payments for the unit. The monthly
housing cost shall include the following factors:
Unit Price
Current Lending Rates
Estimated Taxes
Estimated Insurance Costs
Homeowner's Fees
Other expenses as determined necessary by the
lender.
b. All persons must qualify for their own mortgage without
assistance from the Town. Qualifications must include the
C5005:a:\RE5O
-2-
ability to pay taxes, insurance, closing costs and any
homeowner association fees in addition to the mortgage.
B. Buyer Selection
1. A point system is used to establish applicant rating and ranking.
Applicants will be ranked according to total points and must have
at least one point to be eligible for consideration. Points are
awarded as follows:
Six points:
(a) Senior citizens who reside in the Town at the time of
application and have lived in the Town for at least the prior
two years. A senior citizen is defined as any person 62
years of age or older at time of application or married
couples living together when at least one spouse is 62 years
of age or older at time of application.
(b)' Senior Citizens who have lived in the Town for at least two
years and have moved out of the Town within the last five
years prior to the time of application.
(c) Handicapped persons who reside in the Town at the time
of application and who have lived in the Town for at least
the prior two years.
(d) Households required to relocate their residence as a result
of Council action or mobile home park closure.
(e) Salaried Town employees as defined in the Town's Person-
nel Rules, who have been employed by the Town for a
period of no less than 12 months prior to the time of
application.
C5DO .1\RE50
-3-
CSD0E:a:1 PESO
Five points:
Single heads of household with dependent children who reside in
the Town at the time of application and have lived in the Town
for at least the prior two years.
Four points:
Persons who live in the Town of Los Gatos at time of application
and who have lived in the Town at least the prior two years.
Three points:
Persons who work in the Town of Los Gatos at time of applica-
tion and have worked in the Town for at least the prior two years.
Two points:
a. Households who have lived in the Town for at least 10 years
and have moved out within the last ten years prior to the time of
application.
b. Household size is worth two points per person.
One point:
Households who live or work within Santa Clara County at the
time of application.
2. A lottery will be used to rank each qualified applicant in the case
ofatie.
3. An applicant has two opportunities to refuse a unit before being
removed from the current applicant pool.
4. Applicants who do not qualify for a particular project shall retain
their eligibility.
5. The highest ranked applicant must obtain pre -approval for a loan
within one week after notification of its eligibility to purchase the
unit. The applicant must submit documentation of loan approval
within four weeks of notification of its eligibility to purchase the
-4-
unit.
C. Determination of Initial Selling Price
1. The initial sales price of the unit will be determined by consulta-
tion between the Town Manager, or delegate, and the developer
within the price ranges calculated as defined herein. The
Manager is authorized to approve changes in specifications to
lower the price of the BMP units which do not violate any Town
code or ordinance requirements, such as changes in carpeting,
lighting fixtures, etc. The initial price will be set by a BMP price
agreement, which must be signed by the Town Manager and the
developer prior to the Planning Commission review of the
project.
2. The initial price of a unit may include direct construction costs
and may include a proportionate share of the costs of providing
utility services, required on -site improvement, financing and
premium points, loan standby fees, landscaping and parking,
provided that the price shall not exceed an amount which will
allow a range of qualified buyers (as defined above) to purchase
a unit.
3. The initial price shall not include cost of land, builder's profit,
marketing costs, planning, promotional or advocacy expenses,
options preliminary drawings, preparing working drawings and
specifications, off -site improvements, public agency fees, bonds,
insurance, recreational facilities and engineering and architectural
fees related to construction.
4. The range in which the initial selling price shall be set will be
determined through completion of the following calculation on a
regular basis:
CS009.. 1RZSO
-5-
a. Calculation of the Housing Multiplier
i. Determination of Total Housing Cost
Sales Price - 10 percent down payment = mortgage
+ Annual Debt Service
+ Taxes
+ Homeowners Fees
+ Private Mortgage Insurance (PMI)
= Total Housing Cost
ii. Determination of Minimum Household Income
Assume 30 percent of household income to go
towards housing:
Total Housing Cost/.30 = Minimum household
income
iii. Determination of Multiplier
Sales Price/Minimum Household Income= Multiplier
b. Initial Sales Price Ranges
Minimum and maximum sales prices are established by
completing the following formula for a range of family
sizes:
Income (80, 100, and 120 percent of median income as
defined by the Federal Department of Housing and Urban
Development)
(H.U.D.) x multiplier = sales price.
D. Deed Restrictions
Council approved Deed Restrictions are recorded with each Below
Market Price dwelling units.
E. Resale of Units
1. If the owner elects to sell his/her unit, the Town must be notified.
CSDOB:.:\RESO
-6-
2. When a Below Market Price dwelling unit becomes available for
resale, the owner must allow the Town to set the resale price and
make the unit available to other program applicants.
3. The Town determines the resale price in accordance with the
deed restriction recorded on the property.
4. Town markets the unit and ranks applications, to identify the top
qualified applicants.
F. In -Lieu Fees
1. Establishment of Fee:
Projects with five or more but less than ten units may pay a fee
in -lieu of building a BMP unit in order to comply with BMP
Program requirements. Approval of Hillside Planned Develop-
ments with five or more residential building sites shall require the
payment of an in -lieu fee. The fee shall be equal to the amount
of six percent of the building permit valuation for the project.
The total building permit valuation is determined by the chief
building official.
2. Fees shall be paid prior to or at time of final occupancy as follows:
a. Multi -Family Owner Occupied Developments. At approxi-
mately 40% occupancy of entire development as deter-
mined during the Planning approval process.
b. Multi -Family Renter Occupied Developments. At approxi-
mately 75% occupancy of entire development as deter-
mined during the Planning approval process.
c. Hillside Planned Developments. At time of final occu-
pancy for each unit.
3. In -lieu fees will be deposited into the Town's Affordable Housing
Fund. Funds will be used, in part, for administration of the
CSD09:1:1RESC
-7-
program. Applications/recommendations for use of remaining
funds will be reviewed as received. Possible use of the funds
include, but is not limited to, the following:
landbanking
writing down the cost of owner occupied units to make
them affordable to low/moderate income households
purchasing rental units for renting to eligible tenants.
III. RENTAL UNITS
A. Administration
.The program shall be administered by the Town or its designee.
B. Applicant Eligibility
1. Household Income:
In order to be eligible, applicants must have a household income
under 80 percent of the County's median income as defined by
the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development.
2. Ability to Pay Rent
A tenant's ability to pay monthly rent will also be considered in
determining tenant eligibility.
C. Tenant Selection
Applications from tenants selected by property owner or manager will
be forwarded to Town for verification of income eligibility.
D. Management
1. BMP rental units shall be managed in the same manner as other
units in the development.
2. Tenants are eligible to receive conciliation and mediation services
provided through the Town's Rental Mediation Program except
as they regard rent increases.
CSD08:e:\AESO
-B-
E. Unit Rents
Tenants will be limited to persons whose annual income is less than 80
percent of the County's Median Income as defined by the Federal
Department of Housing and Urban Development. Priority will be given
to those households whose income is less than 50 percent of the median
income as defined by H.U.D. Rents will be restricted to 80% of Fair
Market Rents as determined by the Santa Clara County Housing
Authority.
F. Annual Review
If a tenant's income increases so that it falls between 80 and 100 percent
of the County's Median income, then the rent may be increased in
accordance with the Town's Rental Dispute Ordinance; and the unit
shall still be considered a BMP Rental Unit. However, if a tenant's
income exceeds 100 percent of the median, the rent may be increased
to the average rent of similar units in the complex; in this latter case, the
unit will no longer be a BMP unit and the next available unit must be
rented to an eligible household so that the number of subsidized units
remains the same.
CSDOS:e:\.ESO
-9-
HUD Income Limits
Santa Clara County Jurisdictions
Effective February 20, 2003
% OF MEDIAN 30% 50% 80% 100%
Persons in Household
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Extremely Low Very Low
Income Income Low Income* Median Income
$ 22,150 $ 36,950 $ 57,450 $ 73,900
$ 25,300 $ 42,200 $ 65,650 $ 84,400
$ 28,500 $ 47,500 $ 73,850 S 95,000
$ 31,650 $ 52,750 $ 82,100 $ 105,500
$ 34,200 $ 56,950 $ 88,650 $ 113,900
$ 36,700 $ 61,200 $ 95,200 $ 122,400
$ 39,250 $ 65,400 $ 101,800 $ 130,800
$ 41,800 $ 69,650 $ 108,350 S 139,300
*The "Low Income" limit is less than the actual 80 percent of median because a national maximum
or cap is applied. The cap is the national median family income, and no Low Income limit may
exceed HUD's estimate of the national median income except by HUD waiver.
2003incomelimits.xls, rev, 3/6/2003
Exhibit H
DRAFT
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
110 East Main Street, Los Gatos, CA 95030 (408) 354-6872
SUMMARY MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE GENERAL PLAN
COMMITTEE OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS, MAY 14, 2003 HELD IN THE TOWN
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CIVIC CENTER, 110 EAST MAIN STREET, LOS GATOS,
CALIFORNIA.
The meeting was called to order at 5:30 pm by Chair Mike Burke.
ATTENDANCE
Members Present: Mike Burke, Josh Bacigalupi, Sandy Decker, Phil Micciche, Joe
Pirzynski, Lee Quintana, Mark Sgarlato, Jo Zientek
Members Absent: Mark Weiner
Staff Present:
Bud Lortz, Director of Community Development; Tom Williams,
Assistant Director of Community Development; Jennifer Castillo, Planner;
Orry Korb, Town Attorney.
Others Present: Ray Davis
Verbal Communications:
None
ITEM 1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mike Burke moved to approve the minutes of April 16, 2003. The motion was seconded by and
was approved unanimously.
ITEM 2: SECOND UNIT ORDINANCE
Bud Lortz provided the legislation overview and described the ministerial process that AB1866
would require. He went on to describe the Town's proposed ordinance is more stringent than the
states' regulations which would be to the Town's benefit. Bud also described the proposed
changes and the need to keep portions of the existing code in tact in order to accommodate the
existing second units that need to be legalized. Second units that existing prior to 1987 had an
opportunity to receive amnesty and become legal If someone now applies for legalizatio they
must show must show that they have had unit rented continuously and pay a few to legalize. In
addition, if a parcel is annexed and the property owner can show that the second units were legal
under the county, they would be legal in the Town'
Exhibit I
Jennifer Castillo provided background on the draft ordinance and asked for input related to the
design and development standards and concurrence that the affordability restriction for rental
units was appropriate.
All members agreed that the development standards were appropriate. Lee Quintana asked about
cleaning up the language related the second unit
Bud Lortz explained the affordability component and the timeline. Specific criteria for has been
included for affordability because it was needed to comply with statutory regulations to make
sure that they are affordable. Producing unit as affordable to achieve housing element goals.
People may be discouraged because of the affordability requirements but we cannot impose
regulations that make it impossible very low income requirements. Also we have a tight time
frame — must have im place by July 1, 2003.
Phil Micciche asked how the new units relate to a caretakers unit. Bud Lortz responded that they
are completely separate and the second units would not be allowed in the HR zone. Phil also
asked about converting an unlawful use and Bud responded that the owner would need to apply
for a new permit.
Jo Zientek asked how the transfer "pool" would be effected and Bud responded the pool has been
eliminated.
Lee Quintana thought that the language related to the dates between 1893 and 1987 was
redundant and the language about prior to 1983 was unnecessary.
Deed restriction
Josh Baccagulupi suggested that we establish tonight what we need to comply with the law and
revisit the other language at another phases
Lee Quintana raised the issue that we currently have accessory living quarters and was
concerned about illegal construction. She also felt that there would be an inequity automatically
no limits on the poolhouse for example. Bud countered that Council had removed the language
related to accessory living quarters and they did not want staff to chase illegal construction.
Also, poolhouses are different than second units and the property owner files a deed restriction
stating they will not be rented. Lee stated that there is n o problem with well regulated 2nd units.
Keep the rent so that it is affordable. Most people build them not to rent them out but for a
family member. She suggested it be written into the deed that they must meet the BMP
requirement for 5 years.
Sandy Decker- was concerned that there was not enough teeth in the current law and that AB
1160(Steinberg) was created but has been defeated by a grassroots movement saying we cannot
impose landuse without a public hearing. Secondary Units have value for family members but
there is a problem with this legislation is the paradigm sustainable or social engineering? Los
Gatos is a job exporters not importers. We do have the ability to sprinkle 2nd units throughout
Town, but need to watch were the state is going.
Josh Bacigalupi was concerned about the BMP restriction becoming too nerous on the individual
property owner. He absolutely agrees that they should be imposed upon developers.
Mike Burke stated that 2nd units may be rented to mother in law and wanted to have the ability to
rent to family members without them having to meet income requirements. Staff will implement
a two -prong approach so that the property owner has the option to first rent to a family member
but would enter the BMP program if they rented to someone other than family. Mike would like
to see the rent capped rather than basing the requirement of income levels
Josh Bacigalupi doesn't want to micromanage the process. The nature of the mandate is that we
want to encourage communities to have affordable units. The Town wants more affordable
housing opportunities and they should be distributed throughout the Town. The intention is
appropriate, the State wants to hold our feet to the fire. We need to reach concensus before we
get into the details. Josh has a problem in general allowing second units to happen is in and of
itself using affordability to second unit stock
Mike Burke would like to reach consensus and wondered if a sunset clause was needed.
General questions arose about how would be done. An agreement entered into and administered
through a contract service if incomes change BMP
Jo Zientek -Woman you can pick who ever you want to live in your apartment -income eligibility
could be a waiting list. Rent limits vs. then they don't qualfiy as affordable units
Josh Bacigalupi did not think second units were like building an apartment —people that feel that
there is a need for affordable housing and the Town is providing the framework in which this can
happen. It will not get the Town a large stock, but fulfills the mandate of the law. We should
have more His concern is the demolition of a remodel won't support construction costs of a new
unit.
Mike Burke wants to ensure we get the credit for producing the units
Final Vote: Agree with draft language?
Mike Burke -Yes, Mark Sgarlato-Yes, Jo Zientek-Yes, Phil Maccihe-Yes, Lee Quintana -Yes
Josh-Bacigalupi- Yes, in general but feels its being used to discourage second units,
Sandy Decker says she will watch the process closely
Ray Davis says it's the beginning of a trend from the state to regulate local land use issues.
The meeting was adjourned at 6:35pm by Chair Mike Burke.
Prepared By:
Jennifer Castillo, Planner
GPC•5.14-O3.wpd
ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS AMENDING TOWN CODE
DIVISION 7, SECTION 29.10.305 THROUGH 29.10.320
THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS DOES ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I
Town Code Division 7, Section 29.10.305 through 29.10.320 shall be amended as
follows.
SECTION Ii
This ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the Town Council of
the Town of Los Gatos on June 16, 2003 and adopted by the following vote as an
ordinance of the Town of Los Gatos at a regular meeting of the Town Council of
the Town of Los Gatos on , 2003. This ordinance takes effect 30 days
after it is adopted.
SECTION III
Section 29.20.185 8a is deleted in its entirety.
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
SIGNED:
MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
Exhibit J
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
ATTEST:
CLERK OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
BSA
PUBLIC HEARING - WEDNESDAY, MAY 28, 2003
XMAX(27/27)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
•(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)
(21)
(22)
(23)
(24)
(25)
Page 1 r
move to deny Architecture and nice Application
S-03-41.
COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: I'll secon
CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Okay. It's been •ved
and see • nded to deny Site and Architect al
Applicatio S-3 dash - S-03-41. All in f. or of
the motion 'gnify by saying aye.
(Ayes.)
CHAIRMAN IUBOIS: Opposed? Okay. Motion
carries six one, •mmissioner rke dissenting.
MR. LORTZ: ' is is a fin action of the
Planning Commissi• , but e action can be appealed
to the Town Council. er are forms available for
that appeal that are ava •ble from the Clerk's
Office. You have ten d• to appeal, and there is a
fee.
CHAIRMAN DU: •IS: O ay. Next item on the
agenda is 300 C_ a Mar.uerit- Subdivision
Application M-0 12, requesting : •proval for a nine
lotsubdivisio on •ro•e zoned 'M:5 12:PD.The
applicant c. e forward, please. Oh, 'm - I'm
sorry? We ave nothing on consent.
MR. Lv'RTZ: It's not shown as a consent
item.
C IRMAN DUBOIS: I'm sorry. Would you
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)
(21)
(22)
(23)
(24)
(25)
Page 106
mind - I also have a housekeeping thing. Do you
mind if we take a - we're going to take a short
break, okay. I'm sorry, my Commissioners are
sitting here jumping up and down. We'll take a
ten- inute break.
(R cess.)
CHRMAN DUBOIS: Okay. We're ck in
session. e're going to call the appiic fit on 300
Calle Mar. erita.
JITKA CY SAL; Good evening My name is
Jitka Cymbal. am from Westfall JEngineers. We are
the engineers fo the project. Slri Hwu is the owner
from Versatile Con truction. She is also present.
The application befo - you is for
subdivision of a proje ..which has been approved I
believe last year. It divid- . the property into
eight townhomes ands co ' mon area. The townhomes,
the lots themselves g6ntain t'e building, private
yard and the porches, which a attached to the
buildings.
And other than/hat, the project is e
same as it has been about a year agb It has gone
through th`architectural peer review. There were
some very minor changes done based on that. And the
project before you is the result of it. So -
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)
(21)
(22)
(23)
(24)
(25)
Page 107
CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Okay, thank you. Are
the
anyti
this? S
speak, th
e any questions? Seeing no questions, i
dy from the public that would like to
Bing no one from the public who
re's nothing to rebut, I'll clos
public heaiNg, bring the item back t
Commission`
comments. I'll
I move to - I am
the findings under
Subdivision Map. I, t
approve Tentative Ma
to the conditions in Ex
COMMISSIONER ORE
CHAIRMAN DU�OIS: A
(Ayes.)
here
peak to
ants to
the
he
or questions of Staff, = motion,
ake a motion. /
nable to mad any of
ection 66474 of the State
erefol , make a motion to
placation M-02-12, subject
it B.
L: I'll second.
those in favor?
CHAIRMANpUBOIS: Oppo ed? Motion carries
unanimously/
MR. KORB: For the record, this a
decision that may be appealed to the •wn Council.
The appeal must be filed within ten days. It must
be filed in the Clerk's Office upstairs, and there
is a fee for filing an appeal.
CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Okay. Moving on to our
next agenda item will be Zoning Code Amendment dash
DRAFT
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
(t9)
(20)
(21)
(22)
(23)
(24)
(25)
Page 108
A-03-2, considering amending the Town Code to update
a second dwelling unit ordinance. Staff.
MR. LORTZ: This item is before you
tonight, and in the infinite wisdom of the State,
they've passed a similar Bill, 1866, it's been
signed into law by the Governor. It takes effect on
July 1st. What it essentially does is it tells
local agencies that no longer can you require a
discretionary review and approval process for a
second unit.
Under the Town's current code, we require
a conditional use permit. In the entire time since
I've been with the Town, and I wrote the second unit
ordinance, no one has applied for a second unit.
There have been people that have eliminated second
units, and we revised the code to create a pool
whereby somebody could use that second unit that's
in the pool as part of the application process.
But essentially what the State did is back
in 1982 passed the granny unit law. Cities did a
pretty good job of working around that law, and in
the State's view made it pretty difficult for people
to create second units, and so what Assemblyman
Wright prepared was AB 1866, which took some of the
ability of local agencies to provide restrictions
Attachment 3
ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC
(408) 920-0222 Page 105 to Page 108
TARO
BSA
PUBLIC HEARING - WEDNESDAY, MAY 28, 2003
XMAX(28/28)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)
(21)
(22)
(23)
(24)
(25)
Page 109
against second units, created this requirement that
the process be ministerial, which means that it does
not go through a public hearing process. It does
not go through a discretionary review process. You
can establish standards for those new units, and the
State has established a certain criteria for cities
to use, unless we - each local agency adopts its
own second unit ordinance.
Since we tend to want to have local
control, we have established an ordinance or
prepared an ordinance for your consideration. I do
urge the Planning Commission to look at the
ordinance and provide input and - but then forward
the item to the Council so that the Council would be
free to act at the July - or at the June 16th
meeting so that the Town will be in a position to
have a second unit ordinance that does lend itself
to as much as possible to our local culture, but
still follow the statutory requirements.
The thing that complicates this a little
bit is the Town's current second unit ordinance
contains three criteria. There's new second units
that require a second - a conditional use permit.
There's units that existed prior to 1987 -
actually, prior to 1982, that the Town recognized in
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)
(21)
(22)
(23)
(24)
(25)
Page 110
the early eighties that were - there were literally
hundreds of illegal second units scattered primarily
through the downtown area. And so in order to
eliminate the necessity of actually kicking people
out of those illegal units, the Town created an
amnesty program where people, as long as they met
the basic housing codes, could apply for free to the
Town to get the Town to recognize the second units
that existed.
About 275 people did that. We approved
those applications. We still get people from time
to time coming forward saying boy, I didn't know
that I needed to get a second unit permit under this
amnesty program and under the - that program used
to be free, now there is a fee. But as long as you
meet the criteria that's established in the zoning
ordinance, a permit would be granted.
So that's the second part of the three
part ordinance that we have.
And then the third part is dealing with
second units that exist in the county unincorporated
areas when a building - a single family home is
annexed to the Town, and it has a second unit, we
require them to go through a process.
We are asking that you not change anything
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)
(21)
(22)
(23)
(24)
(25)
Page 111
on either the exis«n1g amnesty type program or the
annexation program, but to merely look at the new
second unit language as a focus. One of the things
that we've included in the criteria is an
affordability component. And the reason that we
included that is because the State, in passing the
legislation, said that they were intending for these
units, these new second units to be affordable. And
given that and the General Plan language that we
have is to - of having to create as much as we can
new affordable housing, Staff felt it was
appropriate and prudent to go ahead and include an
affordability component.
We are saying that the units should be
affordable at very low income rents. What does that
translate to? Depends on the family size. It can
be anywhere from 800 to, you know, 11, $1,200, just
depends on their income and the family size. But we
feel that that's an important part of this. I think
it wouldn't necessarily discourage people totally
from having them, but it also might be a little
damper on some people's perspective that there might
be a proliferation of these throughout single family
neighborhoods.
One of the reasons that the Town has been
DRAFT
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(77)
(18)
(19)
(20)
(21)
(22)
(23)
(24)
(25)
Page 112
so restrictive about new second units is that the
community has spoken loud and clear that the feeling
is that essentially we're doubling the density by
allowing second units, so it causes, you know,
traffic, parking, all kinds of issues to a
neighborhood. And so if everybody had a second unit
essentially in a single family neighborhood, we
would be doubling the density.
So having affordability criteria in there
was not intended to dampen the spirits of those
people that might want a second unit, but more to
really create affordable housing, which is really
the goal of this, and that's why that criteria was
included.
We're here to answer any questions you
might have,
CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Commissioner Drexel.
COMMISSIONER DREXEL: If the BMP unit
restriction was not in place in this new ordinance,
how many secondary units would you expect to be
developed?
MR. LORTZ: You know, it's hard to say.
And I - you know, I have to say that at this
juncture there's been some discussion about allowing
the owner first right to rent to who they choose.
Page 109 to Page 112
(408) 920-0222 ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC
TIARa
BSA PUBLIC HEARING WEDNESDAY, MAY 28, 2003
XMAX(29/29)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)
(21)
(22)
(23)
(24)
(25)
Page 1
And so the ordinance doesn't ebiablish the rent
rates under our BMP program. The BMP program
doesn't even have the rent rates in the ordinance.
It's established by resolution. So this is another
one of those situations like the telecommunications
ordinance where there's a basic ordinance that tells
us about the parameters that are established, and
then the details are dealt with in the resolution.
But the - certainly the Planning
Commission could offer a comment that yes, the owner
should have the first right of refusal to rent to
who they choose in this particular instance, as
opposed to normal BMP units, because this is in
their backyard so to speak, or whatever. And we
would be happy to honor that and respect that in
revising the BMP regulations to implement that
concept.
COMMISSIONER DREXEL: So is the ordinance
substantially more permissive so that you are
concerned that there'll be a surge in the number
of - of B - of secondary units?
MR. LORTZ: Oh, yes, definitely. There
are a lot of people in the community that are
interested in putting a second unit in their
backyard, either - well, probably more often than
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(t5)
(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)
(21)
(22)
(23)
(24)
(25)
Page 114
not, for the money. There may be those that are
interested in having their son or daughter or
in-laws live in the back unit, but I think the
majority of the people are actually interested in
having them for monetary gain.
COMMISSIONER DREXEL: Okay. And the
second -
(End of Side A -II.)
(Beginning of Side B-II.)
MR. LORTZ: - from the BMP program the
rent rate would probably be the same, the only - so
the rents would be low, but the priority in terms
of - the - when a unit is rented out or purchased
through the BMP program, it's based on a point
system.
COMMISSIONER DREXEL: Right.
MR. LORTZ: And so if a person is a Los
Gatos resident -
COMMISSIONER DREXEL: Right.
MR. LORTZ: - you know, this, that and
the other thing, then they rate higher in terms of
being able to qualify. What we would probably be
looking at, if the Commission and the Council
decided to allow the property owner kind of the
first tier ability to rent to who they choose, then
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(i2)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)
(21)
(22)
(23)
(24)
(25)
Page 115
what we wouiu do is probably assign a very high
point scoring for someone that the owner prefers as
opposed to going to the list.
And then if they say oh, I don't care who
I rent to, then we'd go through the regular BMP
program and go through the regular scoring process.
COMMISSIONER DREXEL: So when you say -
so granny has, you know, ten million dollars, but
I'd like her to live with me, would she be able to
rent one of these units?
MR. LORTZ: If the Commission and the
Council decide to make that part of the program, we
can do that.
COMMISSIONER DREXEL: I mean, that's what
I find - I find appalling, that I wouldn't be able
to
MR. LORTZ: Under the current -
COMMISSIONER DREXEL: Yeah.
MR. LORTZ: - BMP program, that's not the
way it works, but if the Commission and Council
wanted that to occur, then we'd include that in the
modifications that are necessary to implement this
through the BMP program.
COMMISSIONER DREXEL: Can we leave the BMP
part of this out of it until that modification has
DRAFT
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)
(21)
(22)
(23)
(24)
(25)
Page 116
occurred so that we don't end up approving something
that is so onerous to a person who may want to rent
to a family member?
MR. LORTZ: Well, what you would do is
you'd make a recommendation to the Council. If the
Council concurred with you, then they would direct
Staff to immediately modify - make modifications as
necessary to the BMP regs and bring them back to the
Council for approval to implement whatever it is
that your preference is.
If it is to allow even first right of
refusal to - to the property owner to rent to who
they choose, and they can be outside the income
qualifications, but they're rented at that low rate,
then we're still accomplishing the affordable
housing goal.
COMMISSIONER DREXEL: Okay. And so the
language couldn't be created within this ordinance
before you send it up to Council that would - would
allow this.
MR. LORTZ: Essentially what you'd do is
just do that as a side recommendation to the Council
that in implementing - and it's - if you'd like to
say second unit section - and Orry, if you wanted
to offer some comments here, you're welcome to, as I
ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC
(408) 920-0222 Page 113 to Page 116
*RAM Ei
BSA
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)
(21)
(22)
(23)
(24)
(25)
PUBLIC HEARING -
Page 117
find that section.
The - it's 29.10.320(a), and it's
actually the third page in of the ordinance. That
section just talks about the 50 percent of the
median income, and what you'd be saying to the
Council is in implementing that section you'd like
the BMP regulations to be modified to A, allow first
right of refusal by the property owner to rent to
who they choose, and that if they go through that
process of - of renting to who they choose, then
there's no income qualifying criteria. It's merely
that the rent rates have to be at very low income.
COMMISSIONER DREXEL: Okay.
MR. KORB: If I may, let me just add one
additional comment. We may ultimately, as part of
the - to facilitate the language currently in the
draft that you're looking at, add an additional
amend - code amendment to this ordinance, and that
additional code amendment would probably modify the
language - it would take a very slight modification
of the existing provisions of the code defining what
constitutes a BMP unit.
Council can say we're not interested in
doing that, and then we could - right. So they -
that would essentially be taking out that component
WEDNESDAY, MAY 28, 2003
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)
(21)
(22)
(23)
(24)
(25)
Page 118
of the program as recommended by Staff. But 1 just
wanted to make sure I mentioned that to you so that
you know that that would be something that would be
contemplated as part of that ordinance, and that
way, in the event that Council wants to see that
included, it's not a change - or it's not something
that you haven't contemplated so that Council would
not otherwise be required to send it back to you.
Bud and I and Staff ought to discuss
whether that works or not as part of the
recommendation, but remember the BMP program
operates on two levels from the rule making
standpoint. You have an ordinance, which has a
definition in it, and that definition currently does
not include the type of unit we would be talking
about, a secondary unit.
And then we have a set of regulations,
which are adopted and can be modified by resolution.
So they're much simpler to deal with. So the - as
far as this law making process goes, you may need to
suggest that to fully facilitate it as a BMP program
component that we just make that additional
modification to the code and then deal with the
regulations thereafter.
CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Okay. Commissioner
XMAX(30/30)
Page 119
(1) Talesfore.
(2) COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Could that be
(3) then offered as an option? I mean, could the word
(4) option be somehow incorporated into the - the
(5) amendment?
(6) MR. LORTZ: Well, meaning that would be
(7) the.option of the property owner to rent to who they
(a) choose -
(9) COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Uh-huh, right,
(10) yes.
(11) MR. LORTZ: - or to the -
(12) COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Right -
(13) MR, LORTZ: - BMP?
(14) COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: - or to be in
(15) the BMP program?
(1s) MR. LORTZ: Yeah. The only thing - yes,
(17) of course. The only thing that Staff is intending
(la) to do is to make sure that they're rented at - the
(1s) primary goal here is - first priority is to make
(2o) sure that they're rented at affordable levels.
(21) COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Right. Well,
(22) that would be included -
(23) MR. LORTZ: And so that's -
(24) COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: - with this.
(25) MR. LORTZ: - the first, you know,
DRAFT
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(5)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)
(21)
(22)
(23)
(24)
(25)
Page 120
goal -
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Right.
MR. LORTZ: - and then we'd structure the
ordinance accordingly. And then - then the owner
of the property gets the right to rent to who they
choose.
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Right. Okay,
because -
MR. KORB: Maybe just as, again, another
point of clarification, if the ordinance said
nothing about BMP and did nothing to BMP, then all
it would do is create the requirement of the unit be
affordable, but it wouldn't provide any method of
enforcing that -
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Right,
MR. KORB: - of administering that
requirement. So if -
MR. LORTZ: Yes.
MR. KORB: - if - and I'll literally
take Joanne's comment literally and say if we were
to write the ordinance in a manner that would allow
the landlord to essentially opt to make the unit a
BMP unit or not, then essentially what they're doing
is opting to have us administer it or not, and the
problem with our not administering it is then we're
Page 117 to Page 120
(408) 920-0222 ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC
T'uAa
BSA
PUBLIC HEARING - WEDNESDAY, MAY 28, 2003
XMAX(31/31)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(8)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)
(21)
(22)
(23)
(24)
(25)
Page 1'
not enforce - we're not enforcii ij, either. So
that's probably the problem, and what Bud is
suggesting, as I understand it, is that it's defined
as a BMP unit for all purposes. The only difference
would be that we would modify the BMP regulations so
that the - the - so that the first choice of
selecting a tenant can be the landlord's so long as
the tenant qualifies.
CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Commissioner Micciche.
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: I had one other
question.
CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Could you hold it and
let Commissioner Micciche go first?
COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: (Inaudible)
humorous one. I just wanted to know if we could
eliminate mother -in-laws in that first.
MR. LORTZ: For you, we can.
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Not for you
(inaudible).
CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Okay. Commissioner
Trevithick.
MR. LORTZ: We'II ask Patty.
COMMISSIONER TREVITHICK: I just have a
question about this. Does this mean that the pool
of BMPs could dry up if we left it entirely in the
Page 122
(1) hands of the property owner? There'd be some
(2) administrative cross over or a cap or something? I
(3) don't want to use the word cap, but you know what
(4) I' m —
(5) MR. LORTZ: Yeah. Essentially all we're
(6) dealing with here is where the owner has the
(7) latitude is only on second units.
(a) COMMISSIONER TREVITHICK: Okay.
(s) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Commissioner Burke.
(10) COMMISSIONER BURKE: I've talked to Bud
(11) briefly about this, and we talked about it at the
(12) General Plan Committee, and I just want to verify
(13) it, 'cause 1 want to make sure if I make the - the
(14) word the recommendation. Would we be allowed to, as
(15) we talk about giving the owner the right of first
(1s) refusal, to rent it to somebody who didn't qualify
(17) for a BMP program, but rented it at or below the BMP
(18) rental rate? Could we as an incentive to get it to
(1s) put in the program say if you're not renting it
(20) through the program, you have to actually rent it at
(21) a lower rate than the BMP rate? Or does that get us
(22) in trouble?
(23) A VOICE: Well -
(24) COMMISSIONER BURKE: I know we wouldn't
(25) get BMP credit for it, 'cause we were renting it to
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(1a)
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)
(21)
(22)
(23)
(24)
(25)
Page 123
our mother-iu iaw with ten million dollars in the
bank, but if we - if the BMP rate was $1,000 per
unit like that, and we rented it to her for 800 type
thing.
MR. KORB: I think the simple answer to
your question is we can do anything we want in
modifying the regulations to apply to the specific
type of housing.
COMMISSIONER BURKE: Okay.
MR. KORB: The question then becomes how
much are we going to try to modify it, and how are
we going to enforce it and just how complicated do
we want to get with this program.
COMMISSIONER BURKE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Commissioner Quintana.
COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: I'm back to being
confused. Are we saying that - it sounds like
we're talking about recommending that they be part
of the BMP program, but that the owner has the right
to choose who they want so long as they meet the
income requirements.
COMMISSIONER DREXEL: No.
CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Just the rental.
COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Just the rental.
MR. KORB: I'm going to make a suggestion
DRAFT
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)
(27)
(22)
(23)
(24)
(25)
Page 124
to you just to make your decision process a little
easier. I'm going to suggest that before you
address the - the remainder of the ordinance, that
you first make - decide what your recommendation
will be concerning this question of BMPs. And as I
understand, the options are as follows.
One, you eliminate the affordability
requirement all together, which eliminates the
discussion.
Two, you - in other words, you make that
recommendation.
Two, you leave it in, but you say nothing
about BMPs. In other words, you say we don't think
it should be part of the BMP program;
in other words, there should be no method of
administration or enforcement.
The third option would be to include it in
the BMP program with - as the program is currently
administered, with just a slight modification to
ensure that the definition would include secondary
units.
And I think my - and the fourth option
now would be to modify the regulations to allow
whatever. And the only one that has been
consistently discussed is a right of first refusal
ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC
(408) 920-0222 Page 121 to Page 124
TIARC
BSA PUBLIC HEARING - WEDNESDAY, MAY 28, 2003 XMAX(32/32)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)
(21)
(22)
(23)
(24)
(25)
Page125
regarding a tenant so long as a tenu, it is qualified.
And if you want to do some variations on that I
guess that would be some form of fifth option.
CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Go ahead. Commissioner
Quintana.
COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Yeah. I didn't
hear an option that 1 thought we had been
discussing, and that's - let me rephrase this.
MR. LORTZ: You can rent to whoever you
want, and - and - and they qualify, or you rent to
whoever you want, and they don't haveto qualify,
but the rents are going to beat - at -
COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: What about- I
think the concern that was first brought up was what
if you want to rent to a relative. I think in my
mind, if we say it's in the BMP program, the rent is
controlled, but you can rent it to whoever you want
whether they qualify or not defeats the purpose of
providing more affordable housing for people who -
MR. LORTZ: So you want them to qualify -
COMMISSIONER QUINTANA; - can't afford it
otherwise. On the other hand - I'm trying to get
some reasonableness here - on the other hand, I do
think that if it's a relative, you should have the
ability to rent to them, and I'm -
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)
(21)
(22)
(23)
(24)
(25)
Page 126
MR. LORTZ: Well -
COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:
- what I'm asking
is if there's some way that we can still keep the
affordability qualification and the amount of rent
as a general requirement, but if it's a relative,
that -
MR. LORTZ: Don't go to the relative,
because the relative becomes family, and there's all
kinds of court cases about family. It's just
preference who you rent to, your preference, whether
it be an in-law, you know, blood relationship or
friend. So you have to go back to preference, not
family. I would strongly recommend that you not
talk about the relative or a family member.
COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Okay. Okay. Then
I - then I have to ask what is the Town's intent in
passing this ordinance?
MR. LORTZ: Well, the intent is to -
couple different things. One is create our own set
of criteria. The only thing that we've been hearing
the Commission talk about tonight is the
affordability.
COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Well, I haven't
raised some other questions yet.
MR. LORTZ: Okay. And we're hamstrung to
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)
(21)
(22)
(23)
(24)
(25)
Page 127
a significant dey,,:e on how far we go with
additional standards. The State basically told us
what standards to use, and we followed those with,
the exception of the affordability clause. We don't
have much other latitude. We don't have the ability
to impose some additional criteria that may - you
may consider, but I'd certainly be willing to listen
to what you suggest, and Orry and I can provide a
response as to whether or not that's going to be a
problem. But if we want to focus on the
affordability side of things, the goal of Staff was
twofold.
One is to create affordable housing. That
was the primary goal. The other was essentially a
way of possibly limiting a flood of these
applications from coming through the process. I
don't want to say that it was our intent to
discourage them by any means, but it is our intent
to look at that issue of doubling density.
CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Okay. Commissioner
Talesfore. We'll come back to you. Commissioner
Talesfore.
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Thank you. I
wanted to go back to the - what we were talking
about with affordability with - I just have a
DRAFT
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(8)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)
(21)
(22)
(23)
(24)
(25)
Page 128
question. Does the Town already have programs, or
do we have other programs that might have another
way of putting these affordability options, or do we
have -
MR. LORTZ: The only thing we have is the
BMP program.
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Is the BMP,
that's it. Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Commissioner Burke,
COMMISSIONER BURKE: Okay. I want to just
make sure I'm on the right page here. One is we
have numbers we have to meet with the State in
regard to affordability, and those will only be
counted towards those if we have income limits on
those units; is that correct'?
MR. LORTZ: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER BURKE: We seem - and I know
it's my preference that for somebody of a secondary
unit to have a preference to rent it who he wishes
as long as he is renting it at a reason - at a rate
that is equivalent or below what a BMP rate would
be. Now, the question I'll ask you, we would not
get credit for units in that case, that's -
MR. LORTZ: If there wasn't an income
qualification. I think the State would look at it
Page 125 to Page 128
(408) 920-0222 ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC
4,-/••• 01 01 ipp4i ;7=r-
i% 4 0" A 4.1r 7:27.7r-
BSA PUBLIC HEARING - WEDNESDAY, MAY 28, 2003 xMAx(33/33)
Page 131
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(a)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)
(21)
(22)
(23)
(24)
(25)
Page
both you've got to income quality and then the
reduced rent.
COMMISSIONER BURKE: Okay. And thirdly,
if we did give the owner options of this, he'd
either have to opt in or opt out of the BMP - of
the - of the State - of the Town managed BMP
program I guess probably when he first built the
unit, and how would we - or how would this Town
administer units that were outside of their BMP
organization to make sure that they weren't being
charged too much rent and/or other services were
being provided?
MR. LORTZ: I think it would be - I
can't - I can't design the ordinance to answer your
question right now. What I need to understand is
what's the Commission's goal, and we'll chase it.
COMMISSIONER BURKE: Okay. I wasn't so
much asking for the design of the ordinance, I just ,
didn't want to send something with a recommendation
that would be impossible -
MR. LORTZ: Well, you tell us what you
want to do, and we'll tell you whether it's
impossible.
COMMISSIONER BURKE: Sounds good to me.
CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Commissioner Quintana.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(1 1)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)
(21)
(22)
(23)
(24)
(25)
Page 130
COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: My goal is to
provide affordable units for people who need
affordable units, but at the same time not make the
requirements so onerous that we're going to
discourage anybody by - from providing these
affordable units, but at the same time not have
every house on the block have an affordable unit.
And how do you reach that balance, because as this
is written now, I think we're not going to get any.
MR. LORTZ: We don't know until we try it.
I appreciate what you're saying. I've got at least
three people that have come to us over the last
three months that have asked about this program and
want to build units.
COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Is one way to
control it to make the maximum size smaller?
MR. LORTZ: There's a provision in here
that allows them to be smaller. They can be an
efficiency unit of, what is it, 180 square feet.
COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Yeah, that was my
other question. The - the way I read it, the law
says that you have to allow any -
MR. LORTZ: 150.
COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: - any property to
have at least an efficiency unit even if they're at
FAR -
MR. LORTZ: Correct.
COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:
coverage?
MR. KORB: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:
MR. KORB: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER QUINTANA:
- or lot
Is that correct?
The way I read
this is it doesn't - it only refers to lot
coverage, doesn't cover the FAR.
MR. KORB: It covers both.
COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Okay. It's not
clear, to me, anyway. My question on the efficiency
units is we say a minimum of, we don't put a maximum
on it. So if you have a property that's at FAR,
they want to put in an efficiency unit, it has to be
a minimum of 150 square feet, but we haven't put a
cap on it in terms of this is a property that's
already at what we would consider its maximum
intensity, and efficiency unit is defined by what it
is, not its square footage.
In other words, I could build a 600 square
foot efficiency unit if it didn't have a full
kitchen in it.
MR. LORTZ: I'm not- I'm really not
DRAFT
Page 132
clear what you're trying to do, but if somebody came
to the Town under this ordinance the way I would
interpret it, and they were at FAR, they could only
have 150 square foot efficiency unit.
COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: I wouldn't
interpret it that way, 'cause it says minimum.
Doesn't give it a maximum.
MR. LORTZ: Then - if it's a motion of
the Commission to establish that as a maximum, all
you need to do is just say that. We'll run with the
language.
COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Okay. My - my
basic comment is that I think this ordinance is very
confusing, hard to understand. Seems when I read
it, and I've read it 15 times, I - there seem to be
discrepancies between what's allowed for unlawful
units, which is more generous than what's allowed
for lawful units, and -
MR. LORTZ: May I suggest -
COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Yes.
MR. LORTZ: - that the - if the
consensus of the Commission is to say that it's
confusing and it should be completely rewritten, but
it should be adopted if the Council thinks that it
should be implemented immediately, then that's what
ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC
(408) 920-0222 Page 129 to Page 132
TiAHG
BSA
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
(1 9)
(20)
(21)
(22)
(23)
(24)
(25)
PUBLIC HEARING
Page133
we should do. So this - we're hamstrung here in
terms of time.
COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: Right. So we have
to get in before a certain date, or the State's
going to say screw you, it's this way.
MR. LORTZ: Well, no. We - we use the
State's regulations.
COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: That's what I
meant, yeah. Well, that's another way of saying
that.
MR. LORTZ: And you may - and you may not
like the way the State wrote their regulations, but
we're going to use them.
COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: So - so I'm in
favor of getting something through here that meets
our requirements.
CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Okay. Commissioner
Drexel.
COMMISSIONER DREXEL: All right. I could
make a motion here, and we could move this along. I
would move to recommend that the Council adopt this
ordinance with the following exception.
I can't support a rule that - that
disallows a private owner of a piece of property not
to have a family member or friend live in their
- WEDNESDAY, MAY 28, 2003
Page 135
(1) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Commissioner Burke.
(2) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: A recommendation.
(3) COMMISSIONER BURKE: Just a quick comment.
(4) I - I think it's a very well written ordinance
(5) considering the constraints everybody was put in,
(6) and I think, you know, mandated by the State is
(7) probably the four scariest words anybody working for
(8) the Town can hear.
(s) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Commissioner Trevithick.
(10) COMMISSIONER TREVITHICK: (Inaudible.)
(11) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Commissioner Micciche,
(12) you have something to say?
(13) COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: I just had a
(14) question to ask, but it is a comment I'd just like
(1s) to get resolved in my mind. If you have an existing
(16) second dwelling that's - that was there legal and
(17) doesn't meet, and you have to demolish it, are you
(1s) allowed then the same conditions under this
(1s) ordinance, or how does that work if they rebuild the
(20) same?
(21) MR. LORTZ: I'm not exactly clear what you
(22) mean. If you have an existing second unit that's
(23) illegal?
(24) COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: Effectively.
(25) MR. LORTZ: Okay. So you don't have a
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
(79)
(20)
(21)
(22)
(23)
(24)
(25)
Page 134 .
secondary unit. And so I would like - is it
regulation 29.10.320(a), was it, regulation?
MR. LORTZ: Yes.
COMMISSIONER DREXEL: To be modified so
that it allows the first right of refusal by the
homeowner to rent to whoever they choose without an
income qualification, and that the rent of that
secondary unit wouid be at the BMP rate or lower.
COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Okay. Any other
comments or discussion to the motion? Commissioner
Quintana.
COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: I understand the
need to get an ordinance passed. However, I'm not
sure 1 can support the motion, because I do think
it's so confusing. I think it can be very easily,
with minimum amount of time and effort, rewritten
and approved within the deadline, and I don't think
we have the time here to discuss each section in
detail, so I am just going to say that I will submit
my comments to the Council and - but as written, I
can't approve it.
CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: I can't support
it.
XMAX(34/34)
DRAFT
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)
(21)
(22)
(23)
(24)
(25)
Page 136
second unit permit.
COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: No, no, I'm
saying you have a second unit permit -
MR. LORTZ: Oh, okay.
COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: - but if you were
to try to get it today you couldn't get it.
MR. LORTZ: Yeah. It's possible that -
COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: If you demolished
it, could you build the same one again?
MR. LORTZ: Well, you could do -
COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: And you have your
own rents and so forth again?
MR. LORTZ: You - if you - if you came
in - if you had a second unit, or whatever it was,
and you ended up demoing it, and then you wanted to
come in under this ordinance and apply for a new
permit, you could.
COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: But it'd be under
the new rule.
MR. LORTZ: Correct.
COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: That's
(inaudible).
CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Commissioner Drexel, you
had your hand up first.
COMMISSIONER DREXEL: I just have a - I
Page 133 to Page 136
(408) 920-0222 ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC
Tuna
BSA
PUBLIC HEARING - WEDNESDAY, MAY 28, 2003
XMAX(35/35)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)
(21)
(22)
(23)
(24)
(25)
Page '
just have a quick question for bud. The existing
secondary units will be covered by this ordinance as
well?
MR. LORTZ: No. We're not going to be -
this won't be retroactive. This will -
COMMISSIONER DREXEL: Okay.
MR. LORTZ: Anybody that's got a second
unit will not be affected by this rule -
COMMISSIONER DREXEL: Okay. I just wanted
to make -
MR. LORTZ: - except for someone that has
a second unit and wants to do some modifications to
it, they would be allowed to do some expansions.
Under - under the current law, if you have a second
unit, you're extremely restricted. We thought that
was unfair because essentially someone would be able
to have a new unit be bigger than your existing
unit. So what we tried to do is make a parallel
construction there so that somebody could
essentially expand an existing second unit to match
what a new unit would be allowed under this current
code - this proposed code.
COMMISSIONER DREXEL: All right. And I
did have one more thing I wanted to make clear in my
motion, and that was that this modification to the
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)
(21)
(22)
(23)
(24)
(25)
Page 138
regulation would occur immediately or simultaneously
with the passing of this.
MR. LORTZ: Yes. Essentially the process
would be if the Council approves the second unit
amendment at - and we're going to take this to them
for their June 16th meeting, then what we would do
is immediately commence work on the BMP regulations
and bring them back to the Council for adoption at
the August 4th meeting.
In the meantime, during the month of July,
we would be working with applicants in terms of
getting an application through, understanding
basically the parameters of the structure, all those
kinds of things, but we would have the BMP
component, the rent component to the Council for the
August 4th meeting.
CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Commissioner Talesfore.
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Bud, I had a
question, and it was - it's about a concern I've
always had, especially in like neighborhoods that I
live in. And the point is about parking. So even
with an ordinance like this, you know, what is the
risk to creating the second unit, you know, housing
in our historical areas where parking really is at a
premium, and there's not - you know, there's a lack
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)
(21)
(22)
(23)
(24)
(25)
Page 139
of open space? Can you answer that before - I
mean, 'cause I -
MR. LORTZ: Well, there is a requirement
that there be a provision for on -site parking
provided for on a new unit. So they'd have to
provide - in order to be able to get the unit,
they'd have to be able to show that they can
provide - comply with the parking component of it.
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Okay. Well, I
read - I kept reading. I mean, I was reading
different areas, and I guess in one area it said - •
said that, but then I didn't find it in another
area, but maybe - okay. So then I shouldn't worry.
I should be clear about that, they do have to
provide parking.
MR. KORB: Yes, they do. The 1866 did
have some provisions related directly to parking
requirements, and allowing some leeway to - to meet
the parking requirements. I believe that those
requirements - 'cause that was one of my comments
of the original draft, were just lifted and added to
the -
COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Okay.
MR. KORB: - the draft. What they -
what they basically say is, as I'm looking at the
DRAFT
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(77)
(18)
(19)
(20)
(21)
(22)
(23)
(24)
(25)
Page 140
language of 1866, you can - the basic requirement
is that second units not be required to have any
more than one parking space per bedroom. But that
we could require additional parking spaces if we
make a certain finding that the additional parking
requirements are directly related to the use of the
unit and are consistent with existing neighborhood
standards applicable to existing dwellings.
But then it also says that off-street
parking shall be permitted in setback areas in
locations determined by the agency or through tandem
parking unless specific findings are made that to do
so would be a problem essentially.
So that does liberalize our parking
requirements at least with regard to second units,
but it would allow for requiring more parking than
one space per bedroom if there was a need to do so.
CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Okay. We have a motion
on the floor to forward draft second ordinance -
second unit ordinance to the Town Council with a
recommendation of approval with the modification to
29.10.320(a). I'm going to call the question. All
those in favor?
(Ayes.)
CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Opposed?
ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC
(408) 920-0222 • Page 137 to Page 140
T4ARCI
BSA PUBLIC HEARING - WEDNESDAY, MAY 28, 2003 XMAX(36/36)
Page141
COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: No.
CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Okay. Motion carries
six one, with Commissioner Quintana dissenting.
MR. KORB: Again, this is a recommendation
for approval to the Council. A hearing will be
scheduled before the Town Council soon enough.
CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Okay. We have no other
continued business. Subcommittee reports. Do we
have subcommittee reports to make? None?
COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: The
architectural - Hillside and Architectural
Standards Committee did meet, and started work on
the hill - carryi • out the direction of the
Commission on _ e Hillside and D Velopment Standards
and Guidelines re ision that will me back.
CHAIRMAN DUB IS: Ex (lent, okay. Next
item is consider can•-lin• 'e Planning Commission
meeting of July 23rd. missioner Drexel.
COMMISSIONER D:: EL: Although, it would
be lovely, I will be h= a an• would be able to
attend that meetin•, althou. I will not be at the
next one. It wold be much n er to have lighter
schedules and have that meeti .. So is there
anything onvthat night that could - we could hear
that would make life easier for the next couple
Page 142
meetings?
MR. LORTZ: At this point we don't have a
lot of items scheduled out that far. That's why you
didn't get some draft agendas is that, yo now,
right now ere - the state of applicatio are
questionabl in terms of that date. I think we can
adjust items ' her before or after so that we don't
overload a pa 'cular agenda. That's my goal to
you. Promise is o far to go because It depends on
how long we spend on a particular item.
The reason this is 6efore you is because
the Council is taking he entire month of July off.
If I did not give you an ption, you'd look at me
and say Bud, how com the Council gets the month
off, and we get nothing. I thought as a
compromise maybe one m eting, and the reason that
I'm using the month of July i because there are a
whole lot of - a plethora of iss es going on with
Town Staff about the fact that th Council is taking
July off where everybody's trying o migrate towards
that month, and so July 23rd work he best for
Staff.
We're also trying to form a retreat of the
development team to start to build better
relationships between the engineering side of things
Page 143
and the planning side of things, fire, police an
at have you, and that was the week that were
goi to kind of focus on attempting to ha - that
retre
CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Commissio.er Quintana.
COM ISSIONER QUINTANA: 1' all in favor
of not hav g a meeting on the 23r.. My concern is,
though, that 'n your memo you indicated that if
things came •, we might hay = to have a meeting on
July 30th, whic defeats the ility to plan for a
vacation.
MR. LORTZ: N• . At thfis point it would be
our plan to not have eeting other than July 9th.
COMMISSIONER • ► NTANA: Then I'm all in
favor. It gives us a long ti ' e off, because that's
a month with a fifth week.
MR. LORTZ: /That was t - concept.
CHAIRMAN/DUBOIS: OkaLet me take a -
I assume the`Commission is favo of it.
(Ayes.)
CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Okay. So sounds like
it. Report from the director of community
development.
MR. LORTZ: No report this evening, thank
you.
DRAFT
Page 14
CHAIRMAN DIS: G••d. I'll adjourn the
meeting. Have a ni week'folks.
(End of Hearing.)
(End of Side B-II.)
Page 141 to Page 144
(408) 920-0222 ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC
TIAna