Attachment 04PREPARED BY: ERIN WALTERS LEVI HILL
Associate Planner Associate Planner
Reviewed by: Planning Manager and Community Development Director
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● 408-354-6874
www.losgatosca.gov
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING COMMISSION
REPORT
MEETING DATE: 06/28/2017
ITEM NO: 3
DATE: JUNE 23, 2017
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: JOEL PAULSON, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 29 (ZONING REGULATIONS) OF
THE TOWN CODE REGARDING CELLARS. TOWN CODE AMENDMENT
APPLICATION A-17-001. PROJECT LOCATION: TOWN WIDE. APPLICANT:
TOWN OF LOS GATOS.
REMARKS:
The Planning Commission considered amendments to Chapter 29 (Zoning Regulations) of the
Town Code regarding cellars on May 24, 2017.
The consideration was continued to the June 28, 2017 Planning Commission meeting. Planning
Commission gave specific direction for staff to reach out to architecture and real estate
professionals to request input and specific recommendations on how to achieve the Town’s
goal of reducing the bulk and mass of residential buildings and the proposed draft Code
amendments.
The Commission encouraged written comments be provided before the staff report comment
deadline, Friday June 23, 2017 at 11:00 a.m. The public was also encouraged to attend the June
28, 2017 Planning Commission meeting to provide comments and specific recommendations.
A. Public Outreach
Staff reached out to the following organizations and requested input to be provided on the
proposed Town Code amendments regarding cellars:
Santa Clara Valley Chapter of the American Institute of Architects (AIASCV)
Santa Clara County Association of Realtors (SCCAR)
Silicon Valley Association of Realtors (SILVAR)
ATTACHMENT 4
PAGE 2 OF 4
SUBJECT: CONSIDER AMENDMENTS THE TOWN CODE REGARDING CELLARS. TOWN
CODE AMENDMENT/A-17-001
JUNE 23, 2017
N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2017\Cellar Amendments 06-28-17.docx 6/23/2017 11:11 AM
Planning staff was invited to present the proposed Town code amendments regarding
cellars at the June 14, 2017 Silicon Valley Association of Realtors Los Gatos/Saratoga District
Tour meeting. Staff presented the proposed changes to approximately thirty real estate
professionals. During the question and answer period approximately five different
individuals provided feedback or had questions. The following comments and questions
were provided at the meeting:
1.Has the Town already approved the changes to the cellar policy?
2.Why is the Town changing the cellar policy when it is currently working?
3.The proposed changes will not reduce bulk and mass of residential buildings.
4.Property owners do not want to ask permission (discretionary review) to exceed the
maximum allowable floor area for their property that is allowed currently by right.
5.Will the proposed cellar changes affect projects currently under construction or projects
that are currently in the planning process?
6.Will non-habitable basement space count towards countable FAR?
7.Please make sure that in case of a natural disaster or a fire that the property owner can
rebuild their existing FAR and square footage.
In addition to reaching out to professional organizations staff requested public input
through the following media and social media resources:
A half page public notice in the newspaper;
A poster posted at the planning counter at Town Hall;
On the Town’s website home page, What’s New?;
On the Town’s Facebook page;
On the Town’s Twitter account;
On the Town’s Instagram account; and
On the Town’s NextDoor page.
Staff also reached out to approximately twenty different local architects, developers, and
interested parties for public input and specific recommendations.
Staff has discussed the proposed cellar modification with approximately ten different
members of the public and design community.
CEQA Determination
The project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the adopted Guidelines for the Implementation
of the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15061(b)(3), in that it can be seen with
certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed amendments to the Town Code would
have a significant effect on the environment.
PAGE 3 OF 4
SUBJECT: CONSIDER AMENDMENTS THE TOWN CODE REGARDING CELLARS. TOWN
CODE AMENDMENT/A-17-001
JUNE 23, 2017
N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2017\Cellar Amendments 06-28-17.docx 6/23/2017 11:11 AM
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Written comments have been received regarding the proposed project (Exhibit 16).
CONCLUSION
A. Summary
Based on their consistency with the General Plan, staff recommends that the Planning
Commission forward a recommendation to the Town Council for approval of the proposed
Town Code Amendments to the Town Council, as outlined below.
B. Recommendation
Based on the analysis above, staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward the
draft Town Code amendments to the Town Council with a recommendation for adoption
and to rescind the Cellar Policy (2002-167). The Commission should also include any
comments or recommended changes to the draft Town Code amendments in taking the
following actions:
1.Make the finding that there is no possibility that this project will have a significant
impact on the environment; therefore the project is not subject to the California
Environmental Quality Act [Section 15061 (b) (3).] (Exhibit 1);
2.Make the required finding that the Town Code (Zoning Regulations) amendments are
consistent with the General Plan (Exhibit 1);
3.Forward a recommendation to the Town Council for approval of the amendments of the
Town Code (Exhibit 10); and
4.Forward a recommendation to the Town Council to rescind Cellar Policy (Resolution
2002-167) (Exhibit 9).
C. Alternatives
Alternatively, the Commission can:
1.Forward a recommendation to the Town Council for approval of the Town Code
amendments with modifications; or
2.Forward a recommendation to the Town Council for denial of the Town Code
amendments; or
3.Continue the matter to a date certain with specific direction.
PAGE 4 OF 4
SUBJECT: CONSIDER AMENDMENTS THE TOWN CODE REGARDING CELLARS. TOWN
CODE AMENDMENT/A-17-001
JUNE 23, 2017
N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2017\Cellar Amendments 06-28-17.docx 6/23/2017 11:11 AM
EXHIBITS:
Previously received with May 24, 2017 Staff Report:
1.Required Findings
2.June 23, 2016 Town Council Policy Meeting Minutes
3.July 14, 2016 Town Council Policy Committee Staff Report (includes Attachments 1-2)
4.July 14, 2016 Town Council Policy Meeting Minutes
5.December 15, 2016 Town Council Policy Committee Staff Report
6.December 15, 2016 Town Council Policy Committee Meeting Minutes
7.January 19, 2017 Town Council Policy Committee Staff Report (includes Attachment 1)
8.January 19, 2017 Town Council Policy Meeting Minutes
9.Cellar Policy
10.Draft Amendments to Chapter 29 of Town Code (two pages)
11.Additional Town Documents to be Modified (four pages)
12.Neighboring Jurisdictions Basement Regulations (one page)
13.Public Comments received by 11:00 a.m., Friday, May 19, 2017
Previously received with May 24, 2017 Addendum:
14.January 19, 2017 Town Council Policy Meeting Minutes (three pages)
15.Public Comments received between 11:01 a.m. Friday May 19, 2017 and 11:00 a.m. Tuesday
May 23, 2017
Received with this Staff Report:
16.Public comments received 11:01 a.m. on Tuesday, May 23, 2017 to 11:00 a.m. on Friday
June 23, 2017
From: J DRIEDGER [mailto ;jddriedger@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2017 10:37 AM
To: Joel Paulson
Subject: Basements as part of the FAR
Dear Mr. Paulson
RECEIVED
A-11-00 1
JUN 21 2017
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNlNG DIVISION
It has come to my attention that you will be part of the June 28th planning commission meeting
regarding the basement square footage as part of the FAR for new construction . Please include
my support for the passage of this requirement.
Basements do add to the value of a house and ought to be included in the square footage.
Enjoy your vacation!
Thank you for representing the neighbors of new construction permits.
Sincerely,
Jeanne Driedger
~JQ(HIBIT 1 6
Town of Lo s G atos
11 O E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Attn: Planning Commission
Re: Cellar Policy
Dear Commissioners:
Anthony J . Badame, MD
73 Mariposa Court
Los Gatos, CA 95030 RECEIVED
JUN 2 1 2017
t:~! ,M
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANN ING DIVISION
1. The first direction which seeks to eliminate the current, separate definitions of cellar and
basement is welcome. While these definitions were meant to clarify below grade space, they
regrettably generate confusion since in everyday terminology they are used interchangeably.
But replacing these terms with the appellation "below grade square footage" is questionable as
this phrase is wordy, grade non-specific, and i nconsistent with the nomenclature of surrounding
communities. It is best to utilize the regional and universally recognized tenn "basement" and
define this term appropriately.
2. The second d irection : "Add language to the FAR section in the Town Code and the Hillside
Development Standards and Guidelines related to areas below grade" is necessary as a result
of the above.
3 . The last direction: "Add language to the FAR section in the Town Code and Hillside
Development Standards and Guidelines stating that if a home has any elevation that is more
than four feet above grade that the entire area of that level will be counted as FAR" is extreme.
The underlying premise is tenable. Reducing bulk,· mass, and scale by providing hidden square
footage in lieu of visible mass is to be encouraged. Unfortunately, the proposed language does
not address the heterogeneity inherent in hillside properties and other residential properties but
rather uses a broad brush to address the challenges in respectfully developing these properties.
Jay Plett observantly points out that the Town of Los Gatos is comprised of diverse properties,
many which are non-conforming, and these properties are better served with a more adaptable
code. Gary Kohlsaat and Tony Jeans schematically and cogently dissect the ramifications and
pitfalls of the proposed amendment in their letters. One of the most glaring ramifications of the
proposed amendment is the reverse effect: providing hidden sq~are footage in lieu of visible
mass will be discouraged for many properties resulting in more square footage placed above
ground and fully visible. A major pitfall in the language of the proposed amendment is the
practical prohibition of a cellar behind a daylight basement A well-intentioned homeowner living
on the hillside who builds a one story home with a walkout basement that approaches allowable
FAR essentially will be prohibited from building a fully buried cellar which would add no visible
mass even though non-hillside homeowners will be allowed to build the same cellar.
4. Permitting FAR-exempt, below-grade square footage only once on a property appears to be
a gratuitous amendment serving no benefit to the desired intent of providing hidden square
footage in lieu of visible mass. In real-world practice, this issue comes up rarely and when it
does, there is no doubt a viable rationale. Allowing only one daylight basement is reasonable
and understandable but disallowing an additional, fully enclosed cellar which contributes no
visible mass is unwarranted.
Given the aforementioned, the following amendment is suggested:
Basements shall not be counted in the floor area. Basement is defined as any habitable space
contained within the structure where the floor above does not exceed 48 inches above the .
adjacent finished grade at any point along the perimeter of the building footprint. Adjacent
finished grade is defined as the finished grade immediately adjacent to the exterior walls of the
structure.
Daylight basement areas where the floor above exceeds 48 inches above the adjacent finished
grade along the perimeter of the building shall be considered a story and counted in the floor
area.
Daylight basement areas shall not be counted for the portion of the floor area where the floor
area above does not exceed 48 inches above the adjacent finished grade along the perimeter of
the building and does not increase the perceived bulk, mass and scale or result in a three story
elevation from any orthographic projection, unless permitted upon Planning Commission
approval.
The language draws from the code of Los Gatos' nearest neighboring communities which
closely share the same terrain, Saratoga and Monte Sereno. The core intent to reduce bulk.
mass, and scale and prohibit three story elevations on the hillside is kept intact. The term
basement is used for regional consistency and is clearly defined. Countable and non-countable
basement FAR is explicitly explained. Prohibition of three story elevations on the hillside will not
be compromised with specious interpretation of the basement code: basements simply cannot
produce a three story visual. A homeowner on the hillside will have the sa_me rights as a
non-hillside homeowner since there is no EIR impact. Architects will be able to better design
homes into the contour of the hillside. The incentive to provide hidden square footage in lieu of
visible mass will be upheld with no reverse effect. An opportunity for applicants to prove an
exception exists g i ven the diverse properties of Los Gatos. This is a win-win for everyone.
Sincerely,
/f Jdb7-13~, ;nz:;
Anthony Badame, MD
June ·21, 2017
The Planning Commission and Planning Department
Town of Los Gatos
Community Development Department
110 East Main Street
Los Gatos
California 95031
Dear Commissioners and Staff of the Planning Department,
Re. Town Code Amendment A-17-001, Regarding' Cellars
148 Maggi Court
Los Gatos
California 95032
Thank you for looking into this. We support the proposed amendments to clarify the Town's
existing codes and policies as contained in the Planning Commission Report of May 19, 2017,
We will give a brief summary of our thoughts and then a more detailed explanation on the
following pages.
Summary and recommendations
1. We believe the To""n's intent is clear and uncontested.
2 . We recommend the Tmvn adopts the proposed amendments. We believe the proposed
amendments achieve a clear and direct definition and rule for assessing below grade floor
area which \\'ill reduce complexity, the opportunity for misinterpretation and abuse.
3. We recommend that the Town move the demarcation line for above and below grade area
from four feet above the grade on any elevation to three feet.
4 . We believe the proposed amendments will enhance the meaning and significance of the
maximum allowable floor area or FAR which will have a positive impact on the planning
process.
5. We believe the proposed amendments achieve the Town's intent and are reasonable to
homeowners and developers by allowing below grade floors to extend partly above grade
rather than be fullv buried.
6. We do not share the concern that the proposed amendments will mean more bulky and
more massive houses in the hillsides: Hillside homes must minimize bulk, mass and
volume, and must not be prominently visible (reference Hillside Development Standards
and Guidelines).
Page 1of4
Please do not hesitate to contact us directly if anything is not clear or you would like to discuss.
Yours sincerely,
Nick and Laura Williamson
408 6019284 (Nick) williamsonnick@aol.com
THOUGHTS ON THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
What do we want to achieve?
We believe the Town wants to achieve more compatible buildings. Its intent is clear and
uncontested: in the case of below grade area it is to provide hidden square footage in lieu of
visible mass, and in the case of development in the hillsides it is to minimize bulk, mass,
volume and visibility, to ensure sensitivity to the environment, and to ensure compatibility.
We believe home owners want definitions and rules which are dear and provide them with
dear direction. The lawyer in us wants this too.
We believe that Staff and the Planning Commission want a clear and simple code to apply
without confusing and conflicting interpretations, complicated calculations and multiple
exception routines which bog down the planning process. The engineer in us wants this too.
What then are the objectives?
1. To create a clear and direct rule.
2. To help simplify the planning process.
3. To help achieve the Town's intent.
We will discuss each of these in order.
Do the proposed amendments achieve a dear and direct rule?
We believe the proposed new definition and rule for floor area clearly demarcates floors which
are visible versus mostly hidden, and floors ~which should be counted in the maximum
allowable floor area and those which need not be.
Looking more closely we have a couple of questions. Firstly is there a material difference
between above and below grade floor area or should there be? Secondly is the demarcation line
set in the most appropriate place? Thirdly should hillside homes be able to count part of an
above grade floor as below grade and therefore exclude part of the square footage from floor
area?
Page2of4
Quality and intended use of space
We believe floor area needs to be a measure of livable living space and that the line dividing
above and below grade floors should be a line separating lfrable living space from space which
is not considered habitable. Below grade square footage which is not habitable or not readily
considered liYing space should be excluded from the floor area.
Borrowing from the Piedmont City Code livable living space in a structure is space which is
actually used for living, sleeping, eating, bathing, washing, or cooking, or could be used for
these things because it has for example adequate windm.\· size, ventilation, access, ceiling
height, heating, or electrical service, or could easily be developed to have these things.
We believe looking at space in this way is intuitive; people tend to think and talk in terms of
total livable space (number of bedrooms, number of bathrooms etc). Defining space this way
also makes more sense of the maximum allowable floor area, or FAR, and adds more
significance to it. For example if the maximum FAR is 2500 sq. ft then we l\"Ould be able to say
the expectation for the maximum living space in the building is 2500 sq. ft. Compare this to the
situation we have today where we see in the public testimony statements like, "''How do I
design for a client a 4000 sq. ft. house on a sloping lot ,,,.ith a 3250 sq. ft. FAR allowed."
Consider that the maximum FAR for a hillside home has almost certainly been reduced on
account of the slope of the hill and we start to see that the FAR is a numbers game rather than a
measure of the intended size and compatibility related to its intended use.
Height of the line
Is the demarcation line set in the most appropriate place? Right now it is set at a level of four
feet above the grade on an ele\1 ation which we believ e is generous and the Town should
consider setting it at three feet abo\'e the grade for new properties. At three feet there is still
plenty of light penetrating the floor and therefore plenty of li\•able space.
Hillside homes
If an elevation on a floor on a hillside home extends more than four feet above the grade it is by
definition v isible and not hidden square footage. Furthermore it makes no sense to try to apply
some formula to claim that a portion of the floor is less livable than the rest of it simply because
the floor backs into a slope. Arguably the floor would be more livable than a below grade floor
on a flat lot house because the hillside house now has part of its perimeter, where light comes
in, extending more than four feet aboye the grade (something that would disqualify a floor on a
flat lot house from being below grade).
\'\~e admire the simplicity of the proposed amendments and we believe the Town is best served
by a simple rule and must minimize exceptions to it.
Page 3of 4
Do the proposed amendments help simplify the planning process?
The proposed new amendments appear eminently programmable, which is good, so, yes:
"If the floor extends more than (three] feet above the proposed grade at any point on any
elevation, then
It is livable living space and should be counted in the floor area
Else
It is below grade space and should be excluded from the floor area but subject to further
review with respect to other standards and guidelines."
"If the total floor area < the maximum allowable floor area
Continue with the rest of the approval process e.g. check for bulk and mass issues, check
for compatibility issues, check compliance with the Hillside Development Standards and
Guidelines, etc
Else
If the home is a hillside home and the criteria for meeting or exceeding the FAR on p29
of the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines are met, then
Continue with the rest of the approval process
Else
Deny the project."
Do the proposed amendments help. achieve the intent?
The Town's intent for below grade floors is to allow hidden square footage in lieu of visible
mass. A floor which is fully below grade and properly buried would have no visible mass and
its square footage would be fully hidden so this would clearly satisfy the intent. The proposed
amendments are more lenient however provided the line separating above and below grade is
set at a reasonable level, one that differentiates between mostly hidden and visible and between
uninhabitable and livable living space, the intent is still satisfied.
Regarding the intent surrounding hillside homes. We do not share the concern that the
proposed amendments will result in bulkier and more massive houses in the hillsides. The
Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines have an absolute rule that designs InYfil
minimize bulk, mass and volume and buildings must not be prominently visible.
Page4of 4
An Open Letter
From Local Architects, Designers, & Related Professionals
to
Los Gatos Town Staff, Planning Commission, & Town Council
Regarcling Basement & Cellar Policy
June 22, 2017
Los Gatos Pla nning Department
1 1 0 E Main Street
Los Gatos, C:11~ 95030
Dear Town Staff, Planning Commission, and Town Council,
RECEIVED
A-\-:-?-a::> I
JUN Z.2 2017
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING DIVISION
As local architecture, design, and construction professionals, we appreciate the opportunity
to have meaningful input en policy decisions that will affect all Los Gatos residents. Over a
dozen of us have met in person to discuss potential improvements to the policy regarding
basements and cell ars. Other participants have provided input via phone and email. As a
group, we have given the Town's concerns a great deal cf thought.
From presentations by Town staff and residents, the collective goals seem clear: to reduce
the perceived mass, bulk, and scale of hillside homes, to encourage use of basements in lieu
of above ground visible mass, and to close unintended loopholes in current rules. We
recognize the challenges cf day-lit basements. We understand the community concerns
regarding massing of hills ide homes and the desire to ensurf:! the quality of both natural
and built environments within Los Gatos. It is difficult, however, to understand how simply
changing the current basement policy regarding floor area will achieve the stated
objectives.
It was not surprising that, during a three hour meeting and multiple email exchanges, the
policy suggestions our group agreed upon are not exact. Due to variations in the way we
implement current Town regulations, we all had valuable insights. It was clear that all of us
remain concerned about our Town's overall community architectural aesthetics and our
dients' property rights as Town citizens.
Group Consensus
It is important to note that, despite various opinions and proposed approaches, we were all
in strong and impassioned agreement on the following: ·
1. Basements that are truly hidden from view should never be counted as floor area. As
the res.olution adopting the current policy clearly states, the Town
should encourage use of basements to provide hidden square footage in lieu of above
•ground visible mass. We are not aware of any other jurisdiction that counts truly
hidden below grade square footage against all"owable floor area.
Group Consensus (Continued)
2. Counting every square foot of a partially day-lit basement would discourage basements
and encourage above ground massing, which is the opposite of the Town's stated goal.
3. The te~ cellar is confusing and should be replaced with the term basement, whether
counted as floor area or not
4. The proposed policy change would instantly create a large number of.non-conforming
buildings and properties. Almost every home that currently has a day-lit basement
would most likely become non-conforming due to excess floor area. Nothing has been
presented to show how these non-conforming situations will be handled or resolved.
5. The proposed policy change would instantly create a large disparity between property
values and property rights of neighboring parcels -those with existing basements that
are not counted as floor area and those for which a future basement would be counted.
This would be the case even among homes and properties of similar size and quality.
This impact would almost certainly cause legal issues and should be avoided.
6. The current basement and cellar policy would serve our community better than the
proposal being considered. Monte Sereno, for example, recently validated the current
Los Gatos policy by changing their p_olicy to match ours.
7. A revised basement policy would serve our community better than the proposal being
considered. Any revisions should address specific concerns of the· community. In order
to address the stated concerns, it may be necessary to treat hillside basements
differently from basements on relatively flat lots.
8. lfthe Town's goal is to reduce above ground visible mass, basement policy alone should
not be viewed as a viable means of achieving this. Revisions to other sections of Town
Code should be considered holistically. Examples include:
• establishing a separate allowable FAR for basements
(similar to the separate allowable area for garages)
• increased upper story setbacks above the day-lit portion of basements
• reduced height limits above the day-lit portion of basements
• length limit for day-lit basement walls by feet or by percentage of perimeter
• length Jimit for two-story wall planes
• incentives for single-story buildings and/or reducing above grade massing
(such as additional floor area, development area, or basement only area)
We recommend that, rather than proceeding with haste to elimina~e the current policy, the
Town should take the time needed to revise the policy in ways that will help meet specific
objectives of the town and its residents. This should include a study session to which local
residents, architects, designers, contractors, and real estate professionals are all specifically
invited. The primary goal here should be to revise this policy appJ'.opriately, not to
complete this process quickly.
Page 2of5
Preserving Elements of Existing Code
If Town government deems it necessary change the current policy without a study session
and without seeking additional consensus from residents and the design community, we
request that a few aspects of current code be preserved:
• the concept that below grade square footage does not count toward gross floor area
when it meets the criteria established by the Town.
• the concept that below grade square footage will count toward gross floor area when it
does not meet the criteria (i.e. day-lit basement).
• the current method of determining which part of a below grade level counts as floor area
so that similar diagrams can be used to explain Town policy.
Proposed Revisions to Code
We recommend revising Town Code to count more area of a day-lit basement rather than
counting the entire basement. One of the following two alternatives would directly reduce
above grade floor area, while avoiding a disproportionate penalty for the basement area:
1. Reduce the height of wall allowed to be above proposed grade from four feet to three
feet, while still counting only the area that does not meet criteria.
For example, Section 29.10.020 -Definitions could be revised to state:
"If at any point on any elevation there is more than three feet above proposed grade,
then the area with such exposed wall area shall be counted as gross floor area."
The advantage of this proposal would be simplicity. Historical homes, however, would
need to }?e addressed differently. Our understanding is that the current four foot "cellar"
policy was adopted based upon older existing homes. One solution would be to apply
the lower value to properties subject to Hillside Standards & Guidelines.
OR
2. Increase the amount of day-lit basement floor area counted by introducing a multiplier.
For example, Section 29.10.020 -Definitions could be revised to state:
"If at any point on any elevation there is more than four feet above proposed grade,
then the area with such eXlJosed wall area shall be counted as gross floor area at a rate
of x times the actual area in plan view. n
During our group discussions, values proposed for X ranged widely. We feel that a fair
value selected for this multiplier would be a more proportional approach to counting
below grade area toward the allowable floor area.
This multiplier adds another benefit to the Town Code: the value of X could be revised
to change the way below grade area is counted without a drastic change to the concepts
and methods used by applicants and staff:
Page 3 of 5
The revisions presented are only two of many possibilities. Other proposals were
considered, each of which had potential drawbacks. As you can see from the length of our
comments, this issue is more complex than the proposed amendment may indicate.
We would like to stress the importance of working this out as a group of applicants, staff,
and residents, while giving this important matter the proper time and consideration to
anticipa_te and avoid as many unintended consequences as possible. We remain
unconvinced that the current policy has created an emergency that needs to be solved as
quickly as possible, and will continue to push for a measured approach to making this
revision.
During the last Planning Commission meeting, erroneous statements were made that were
left uncorrected. A few individuals stated that this policy change was needed to prevent the
possibility of homes with many levels stepped with the terrain, leaving the misimpression
that homes are currently allowed to cascade down hillside indefinitely. There is currently a
height limit of 25 feet and an overall maximum height from lowest to highest point of 35
feet, therefore, current policy already prevents the unlimited height scenario described
during the meeting.
We would like to thank the Planning Commission and Town Staff for this opportunity to
make recommendations. We urge the Town to take additional time to gather additional
input from the community, particularly due to the significant impacts to all homeowners,
residents, applicants, and property values. We are eager to participate in study sessions
and future discussions regarding Town policy.
Sincerely,
~c~
Bradford A. Mccurdy, AIA, Architect, TMA Architects
David Britt, Principal, Britt-Rowe Design
Cindy Brozicevic, Principal, Inner House Design
Noel F. Cross, AIA, Principal, Noel Cross Architects
Michael Davis, Principal, D&Z Design Associates, Inc.
Frank Garcia, Principal, Frank Garcia Design & Planning
Jaclyn Greenmyer, Kohlsaat & Associates
Tony Jeans, Principal, THIS Design & Development
Gary Kohlsaat, Architect, Principal, Kohlsaat & Associates
Page4of 5
Jennifer Kretschmer, AIA, Principal, J. Kretschmer, Architect
Louie Leu, AIA, Principal, Louie Leu Architect, Inc.
Terry J. Martin, AIA, Principal, TMA Architects
Ann Maria Manzo, Designer, Studio 3 Design
Allen Nikitin, Architect, Principal Allen Nikitin Architect, Inc.
Sandra Paim, AJA, MGBP, Principal, Sandra Paim Architect
Jay Plett, Architect, Pricipal, Jay Plett Architect
Kurt Ross, Designer, Studio 3 Design
Michael Rowe, Designer, Britt-Rowe Design
Tony Rowe, Principal, Britt-Rowe Design
Thomas J. Sloan, AIA, Architect, Principal, Metro Design Group
Chris Spaulding, Architect, Principal, Chris Spaulding, Architects & Associates
Mike Vierhus, Architect, Principal, Mike Vierhus Architect
Bess Wiersema, Assoc. AIA, Principal, Studio 3 Design
David Zicovich, Licensed Contractor, Zicovich Builders
Page 5 of 5
June 23, 2017
RECEIVED
111N 2 s zn1i
10:1Lofl...M
TOWN OF LOS GA l O~
PLANN!NG DIVISION
Dear Town Staff, Planning CommlS91on, and Town Council,
As you are no doubt aware, there Js a passionate group of local architects who regularly do
work in Los Gatos, and have been very vocal In their opposition to the proposal to eliminate
the current basement policy. As a licensed architect of 30 years, and one who has designed
scores of homes In the Los Gatos hills, I am a passionate supporter of this cause to stop this
proposed ordinance change. I was one of several architects that were called In for a series of
meetings when the 2002 Hiiiside Design Guidelines ordinance was created and eventually
passed. The good news at that time was that the Town was open to our Input,. they recognized
that as practklng architects there were no bett« qualified group of talented and experienced
design professionals to help craft an ordinance that effectively would achieve the stated goals
of reducing abt>ve ground vlslble mass. That doesnt seem to be happen ing this time around,
and one has to ask the questtort: Why?
For the record I am In complete agreement with Town staff and residents and their collective
goals: to reduce the perceived mass, bulk, and scale of hillside homes, to encoura~ use of
basements In lleu of above ground visible mass, and to close unintended loopholes In current
rules. Having designed numerous projects In hlllsldes In Los Gatos, Saratoga, Los Altos Hiiis,
Portola Valley, Palo Alto, and Woodside, I recognize the challenges 9f designing day-llt
basements. I understand the community concerns regarding massing of hillside homes and the
desire to ensure the quality of both the natural and built environments within Los Gatos. It is
difficult, however, to understand how simply changing the cu1Tent basement policy to count all
basen:ient area as floor area will achieve the stated objectives.
The following llst of points and comments have been included In the local architect's group
letter. I have edited them to more aca.1rately reflect my own opinions:
1. Basements that are truly hidden from view should never be counted as floor area. If you
can't see It, why should It matter? As the resolution adopting the a.1rrent pbllcy
dearly states, the Town should encour~ use of basements to provide hidden square
footage In lieu of above ground visible mass. No other jurisdiction has ever counted hidden
(below grade) area against floor area. Many have lnlt1allv tried (Los Altos Hiiis), but •
ultimately It they have been resclnd@d bttause they are draconian and difficult to enrorce.
2. Counting every square foot of a partially day-lit basement including fully underground
portions would discourage basements and encourage above ground massing, just the
opposite of the Town's goal . The list of unintended consequences would continue on long
Into the future. The people behind th Is •Repeat• measure h~ no Idea how Injurious this
will be to development In Los Gatos; again It will have the opposite of the Intended effect.
3. The proposed policy change would Instantly create a large number of non-conforming
buildings and properties. Almost every home that currently has a basement would most
likely be non-conforming because of excess floor area . Nothing has been presented to show
how these non-conformln~ situations wlll be handled or resolved.
l
(continued)
148 E Virgi ni a Street #l San Jose. CA 951 12-5 881 408.216.0222 www.nfcarch1tect.com
Letter to Town of Los Gatos
June 23, 20•1
Page2of3
4. The proposed policy change would Instantly create a large disparity between property
values and property rights of neighboring parcels -those that currently have basements
that are not counted as floor area and those who eventually want to have a basement, but
whose area wlll be counted towards floor area. This would be the case even among those
of similar Jot size and quality. This impact would certainly cause legal issues and should be
avoided. This will permanently segregate the Town into the "Haves• and "Have Nots•. Is
that what the Town really wants?
s. The current basement and cellar policy seems to be working fine and would serve the
community much better than the proposal currently being considered. When all the
ordinance provlsjons of the Hiiiside Guidelines are considered in total, they are quite
effective In achieving the reduction of bulk and v;sfble mass. The sloping 25 foot height
limit, the overall 35 foot max., and the 6,ooo s.f. max FAR have been doing their job.
7, A revised/slightly tweaked basement policy would serve the com{n unity better than the
proposal currently being considered. Any revisions should address specific concerns of the
community, and should be dlscusse4 and addressed in community meetings and working
sessions with all factions represented, and arriving at a consensus between residents and
the design community.
8. In order to address the stated concerns, it may be necessary to treat hlllslde basements
differently from basements on relatively flat. lots. For any arch ltect who has designed both,
It is abundantly clear that they should be treated differently.
9-If the town's goal Is to reduce above ground visible mass, It should look at and review other
sectlqns of the zoning regu latiQns as a means to achieve this as well. The basement
ordinance should not be viewed as the only or main mearts to achieve this. Such regulations
may already exist within the Town's ordinance, but so~ examples might mclude ...
oodaylightf lanes (Palo Altos, Los Altos) · . ·
-increase second story setbacks {Saratoga, Monte Sereno, Los Altos)
-percentage of upper floor area to lower floor (Menlo Parl<)
-setting maximum heights for single story volumes, where taller volumes count twice
(Saratoga, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills) ·
-limiting the length of contirruous two-story wall pranes:(Palo Alto)
-Incentives for single story, allowing more floor area for single story (Monte Sereno)
I agree with the group's recommendation that, rather than proceeding with haste to eliminate
the current basement policy, the To~n should take the· time needed to revise the policy in ways
that will help meet specific objectives of the town and its residents. This should includ~ a study
session to which local. residents, architects, designersrcontractors, and real estate professionals
are all specifically invited. The primary goal here should be to revise this policy this
appropriately, not to complete this process quickly.
I differ from the opinion in the group letter that we should provide ideas and options for
tweaks to the ordinance, as this would mean that I agree that the existing ordinance has a
problem. I don't agree that the ordinance does have any significant problms. Having said that,
I have revised a few of the recommendations on the following page. I do not agree with the
idea of a multiplier penalty, as It Is too complex, and somewhat arbitrary.
(continued)
Letter to Town of Los Gatos
June 23, 2017
Page3 of3
A
8.
c.
Maintain the concept that below grade square footage does not count toward gross floor
area when it meets the criteria established by the Town.
Maintain the concept that below grade square footage will count toward gross floor area
when It does not meet the criteria (I .e. day-lit basement).
Maintain the current m~hod of determining which part of a below grade level counts as
floor area so that similar diagrams c.an ·be used to explain Town policy.
I would like to thank the Planning Commission and Town Staff for this opportunity to make
recommendations. We urge the town to consider taking wham/er time is needed to gather
proper input from the community before making any drastic decisions, particularly when this
polky will have significant Impact on all homeowners, residents, and design professionals, and
property values. We are very much open to the Idea of participation In study sessions or
committees, and look forward to participating In future discussions n!gardlng this Town policy.
Architect AIA
FROM: Eleanor Le ishm a n
332 Bella Vi sta Ave.
Los Gatos , CA 95032
June 23 , 2017
TO: The Pl a nnin g Commi ssio n and Planning Departme nt
Town of Los Gatos
Co mmunity Deve lopment De partment
110 East Ma in Street
Los Gatos , CA 95031
RE. Town Code Amendment A-17-001 , R egarding Cellars
Dear Commi ss ione rs and Staff of the Planning Department ,
RECEIVED
JU N 2 3 Z017
1o:soi AM
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING DIVIS ION
I 'm writing in s upport of the proposed amemdments to the current Cell a r Poli cy.
In my opinion that the Pl a nnin g Commi ssio n should recommend th ese amendments for approval
by the Town Coun c il for th e following re asons:
l ) They will provide improved guidelines and tool s fo r de terminining what areas of a building
may o r may not be cons ide red li vea bl e space
2) The current Cellar Po licy is be ing misu sed to gain additional "free" li v ing space . The Ame nd-
ment Re gardin g Cellars and re lated revisions to the Town Code will help close thi s loophol e
3 ) A s a result of a clarifie d a nd revis ed Cell a r Policy, me mbe rs of the Planning Commiss ion a nd
Town Coun cil will save time currently spent adjudicating argum e nts a bo ut the current policy
4 ) The proposed amendments will be more fair and transparent to the public, and will be an e ffec -
ti ve move towa rds achieving the overall Town 's inte nti o ns, guidelines and standards for buildin gs
I urge yo u to approve the se a me ne ments !
Yours trul y,
Eleano r Le i shm a n