Attachment 4 - September 27, 2017 Planning Commission Verbatim MinutesLOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/27/2017
Item #3, Town Code Amendment A-17-003
Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units
1
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
A P P E A R A N C E S:
Los Gatos Planning
Commissioners:
D. Michael Kane, Vice Chair
Mary Badame
Melanie Hanssen
Matthew Hudes
Kathryn Janoff
Town Manager: Laurel Prevetti
Community Development
Director:
Joel Paulson
Town Attorney: Robert Schultz
Transcribed by: Vicki L. Blandin
(510) 337-1558
ATTACHMENT 4
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/27/2017
Item #3, Town Code Amendment A-17-003
Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units
2
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
P R O C E E D I N G S:
VICE CHAIR KANE: We’ll now move into the public
hearings portion of our agenda and consider Item 3, which
asks that we consider an amendment to Chapter 29, the
Zoning Regulations, of the Town Code regarding Accessory
Dwelling Units, ADUs. This is Town Code Amendment
Application A-17-003. The project location is town wide,
and the Applicant is the Town of Los Gatos. We have an
addendum and a Desk Item on this item. Have all
Commissioners had a chance to review these? Ms. Zarnowitz,
I understand you’ll be giving the Staff Report this
evening.
SALLY ZARNOWITZ: Thank you, Chair. Good evening,
Commission.
These amendments are before you this evening to
begin consideration of them. They’re based on a recent
state law that has come forth allowing more flexibility
with the regulations for Accessory Dwelling Units. In order
to provide more affordable housing and more housing
opportunities, that’s the intent of the state law, so those
are before you this evening to begin consideration.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/27/2017
Item #3, Town Code Amendment A-17-003
Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units
3
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
The modifications are related primarily to
parking and to development regulations for Accessory
Dwelling Units. There are specific questions in the Staff
Report that we would like the Commission to begin to
address. Then also there are certain exceptions for
specific kinds of Accessory Dwelling Units, particularly
those that are proposed to be built within the existing
floor area of homes of accessory structures.
With that, we’re here to answer any questions.
Thank you.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Thank you, Ms. Zarnowitz. Are
there questions for Staff? Commissioner Hanssen.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I was curious, I’m sure
you saw it, because it came to us through Staff, the letter
that came from the architect with some specific
recommendations, and it looked like a lot of her
suggestions were already incorporated in your language, but
I just wondered, had you gone through the process of
reading her, and did you have any comments on her comments?
SALLY ZARNOWITZ: We have her comments. We
provided them for you this evening. We don’t have any
specific comments at this time, but they’re definitely part
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/27/2017
Item #3, Town Code Amendment A-17-003
Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units
4
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
of the consideration, and if there is one specifically that
you had a question about.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: The one that wasn’t in
there was about going above the FAR, and you didn’t have
that as a discussion question, or at least I don’t remember
that it was.
SALLY ZARNOWITZ: That is a question I thought we
were asking, whether or not you wanted to do that for
Accessory Dwelling Units, yeah.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Then I had a second
question. Since this is a state mandate, do we have a sense
for where other similar jurisdictions—just in the same way
that we looked at the Fence Ordinance—might be coming on
out this? Because there is definitely some flexibility
within the state guidelines, that we couldn’t be stricter
than the state guidelines to make the stuff be more
possible to be built, but there was some flexibility about
what we could do, and so I just wondered if we had looked
at what other towns are doing, or where are we in the
process? Are we like in the middle of the pack finishing
this, because everyone has to do it?
JOEL PAULSON: I’d offer that you see across the
board the interpretations from other jurisdictions’
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/27/2017
Item #3, Town Code Amendment A-17-003
Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units
5
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
attorneys. Some of them have taken it very literally and
believe that they didn’t have any flexibility, whereas
others who did want to be flexible have built that in. So
that’s kind of why we frame these questions, to see in
general where the Planning Commission, and the public are,
so that they can hear that discussion on some of these
topics.
I know Ms. Zarnowitz looked at a number of
different jurisdictions, and we’ve heard from a number of
our colleagues at various meetings on how they’ve chosen in
many different ways to interpret the state law, and it’s
also revolving. There’s another bill, AB-229, that’s going
through the process right now. I think it’s either sitting
on the governor’s desk or was signed recently within the
last couple of days. So we’ll look at that, because there
are maybe some other additional things we’ll have to bring
forward. One that specifically comes to mind is parking. I
think they’re going to make the requirement similar to what
the attorney said, that you could only require one space
regardless of how many bedrooms a unit is.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Okay, that makes sense. So
basically what you’re saying is that it’s a moving target,
and people are interpreting it differently, levels of
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/27/2017
Item #3, Town Code Amendment A-17-003
Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units
6
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
strictness. But we certainly have to take action, so is
that why we’re only discussing it tonight, because we’re
going to do more research, and then it’s going to come back
for a recommendation?
SALLY ZARNOWITZ: I think we’re just discussing
it tonight partly as part of public outreach, so we’re not
necessarily asking for the recommendation tonight, but we
want to include the public and include stakeholders in the
discussion.
We have done a lot of research on the law,
although as Mr. Paulson pointed out, there is recent law
that’s got a few more provisions that would be required.
Again, the state law requires some of these provisions, and
others give the Town, the jurisdiction, some discretion, so
that’s kind of what we’re looking at too. The things that
have to be required, are required. The things that where
you have discretion, we’re asking you what kind of
discretion would you want to have?
I think, again, the initial discussion is just to
begin it and include public outreach.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Okay, thank you.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Other questions for Staff?
Commissioner Hudes.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/27/2017
Item #3, Town Code Amendment A-17-003
Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units
7
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
COMMISSIONER HUDES: I really had some questions
along the lines of Commissioner Hanssen’s questions, and
the reason that I think it’s important to look at other
communities is that this can impact significantly people’s
property rights and the property values, and so I think
it’s important to have some data, particularly about nearby
communities, so that we don’t inadvertently or
unintentionally do something to the property rights and the
property values in town. So in moving forward, I don’t want
to get ahead of myself, but I do think that that’s a
question that I’m going to continue to have, and I think
that it would be valuable to provide even more data about
that, even though it’s evolving, but finding out what’s
happening in adjacent communities.
JOEL PAULSON: We’ll provide you the updated
ordinances for those jurisdictions in the surrounding area
that have more updates so far.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Okay, thank you.
ROBERT SCHULTZ: The big issue for it is to make
sure we’re in compliance with state law and the
requirements of it, as was said, so SB-1069 is the bill
that requires this, and it’s main reason is, again, to take
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/27/2017
Item #3, Town Code Amendment A-17-003
Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units
8
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
away some of our local control on when we can approve these
and make them ministerial.
As Joel just pointed out, SB-1069 has only been
in effect for a year, so sometimes I do kind of like to
wait and see what happens, because there’s usually always a
trailer bill for new law, and certainly there is, and
that’s the AB-229, which we’ll look at, and that had to do
with after it’s already been passed, what a lot of towns
and cities have done is said okay, we’ll make this
ministerial. But guess what? You’re going to need extra
sewer and water connections and all of the other fees. The
bill that I’m just reading says you’re not allowed to
charge any other new water or sewer connection fees for
this, because some cities have been charging up to $75,000
for the Secondary Dwelling Unit, to find another way to
deny it.
So the state continually strives to erode at our
local control, but we certainly can bring back, and we’ve
been looking at all the other jurisdictions on how they can
interpret these, and I will look at AB-229 to make certain.
It made more definitions on the tandem parking requirement,
I’m reading right now, so it’s brand new, amendments were
just made, and we’ll see what we need to do. But I think
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/27/2017
Item #3, Town Code Amendment A-17-003
Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units
9
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
the main reason is to get the outreach and see where the
community is, and maybe we need to do even more outreach
before we make a decision, because it certainly can affect
property rights.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Other questions for Staff?
Commissioner Janoff.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I had a question regarding
existing Accessory Dwelling Units that the town may or may
not be aware of. How do the changes to the ordinance,
either retroactively or grandfathered, what impact goes to
those units?
SALLY ZARNOWITZ: There was a provision in the
eighties that you might have seen in the ordinance for
grandfathering in, if you will, older units prior to…
Basically that ended in 1987, so these units before 1983
and then up to 1987 could be legalized, and several of them
were, and we have those on the books. After that point the
ordinance says any application at that point is seen as a
new Accessory Dwelling Unit application. Mr. Paulson has
something to add.
JOEL PAULSON: But if it’s an existing structure,
this new state law requires us to approve it, so we will
look at it from a health and safety perspective, but the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/27/2017
Item #3, Town Code Amendment A-17-003
Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units
10
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
new state law looks at existing structures and said you
must approve it.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Follow up. How do you find
out about these structures if the homeowner isn’t
forthcoming and coming to the Town to disclose them, and if
there were a deed restriction that can be viewed as a
penalty, then would you anticipate people coming forward to
have these ADUs newly reviewed and approved?
JOEL PAULSON: Yes, we do anticipate that, and
not all of the ADUs are going to require deed restrictions;
those are specific instances. If you are interested in
complying with the deed restriction so that it would make
sure it is a truly affordable unit, then we will, for
instance, cover your fees of what would otherwise have been
charged for the second unit, and so that’s a benefit if you
are interested in doing that. We have the strategy of an
enhanced below market price from a Secondary Dwelling Unit—
which is what we used to call them—perspective, and so we
have even the other tools with the lots that are 10,000
square feet or more that are nonconforming, or Hillside
currently, five acres or more, has opportunities for those
additional units.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/27/2017
Item #3, Town Code Amendment A-17-003
Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units
11
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
We anticipate some will come in. It really is
going to be a case-by-case basis, and we’re really
reactive. We have a very involved community. People contact
our code compliance officer on a regular basis and let him
know about structures that may have people inhabiting that
may not be approved.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Thank you.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Other questions for Staff?
Commissioner Hanssen.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I just had one more
question, because I wanted to hear the public testimony,
but back when we worked on the Housing Element, a few of us
sat on the Housing Element Board or were on the General
Plan Committee, and we identified second dwelling units as
it wasn’t a big number in terms of our total RHNA, but it
was an important source of affordable housing. I was just
curious as to there was a comment made in the letter about
how San Jose was worried about putting a limit on it, and
because they thought they’d get too many, and they didn’t
get that many, so I was curious as to what our production
has been like since our Housing Element, it’s been two
years, if you knew that.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/27/2017
Item #3, Town Code Amendment A-17-003
Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units
12
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
JOEL PAULSON: I don't know that off the top of
my head, but we can get that data for you when we come
back. It’s not a large number.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: If I recall, the total
number was like 28 or something.
JOEL PAULSON: The total was 28, yeah.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: And so I would imagine
this law would help that along, but we’d have to understand
the particulars.
JOEL PAULSON: True.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Commissioner Hudes.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Just a question for the
Chair. After we take public testimony, will we have the
opportunity to ask questions of Staff again?
JOEL PAULSON: Yes.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Because I have some more
technical ones. I don’t want to hold up public testimony
for that. I do have one bigger picture question though.
VICE CHAIR KANE: The answer to your question is
yes.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Thank you.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/27/2017
Item #3, Town Code Amendment A-17-003
Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units
13
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
VICE CHAIR KANE: Because we’re going to be
dealing with their questions, and we may need to seek
clarification.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: I do have one bigger picture
question, and that’s about the number of units. It seems
we’re doing a mass word change from “secondary” to
“accessory,” and in my mind you have primary and you have
second, and that allows only one, because the next one is
third, right? And in the state law of accessory, you can
have multiple accessories. I’m trying to understand Section
29.10.305 as it’s currently written. Are we replacing
secondary with accessory there in that document? The word
we see, accessory, is that replacing secondary?
SALLY ZARNOWITZ: Per state law we would replace
it throughout the document.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: So my question is from a
state law perspective and from the Town’s perspective
historically, how many additional units are we allowing to
a primary residence?
SALLY ZARNOWITZ: Per our code, it would be only
one per lot.
JOEL PAULSON: And from past practice, when we
went through the period where we legalized a bunch of them,
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/27/2017
Item #3, Town Code Amendment A-17-003
Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units
14
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
you could have up to two. With the new units, you can only
have one, and so we’ll look into the language to see if
that’s clear, because apparently it’s not.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Right. I’m looking at
Section 29.10.315, which says, “under existing lawful.”
There it says, “a maximum of two are allowed. But other
places it’s just not clear, and I think that it’s a little
bit ambiguous when we use the term “accessory” in that it
could be more than one accessory if we don’t specify
otherwise.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Other questions for Staff? I
have one. It’s a lot to digest, and it’s a lot to project
what the consequence of some of the language is, but yet we
have a specific question from a citizen who says, “We have
a detached two-car garage on an alley with sideline
setbacks. Staff has determined that a second story
residential addition to a secondary structure did not
comply with local zoning codes for privacy reasons,
notwithstanding that two of my three adjacent neighbors
have them,” which can be very frustrating. So my question
is, if we understand this gentleman’s letter, would the
language we’re dealing with now alleviate his concerns and
allow him a second story on that unit?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/27/2017
Item #3, Town Code Amendment A-17-003
Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units
15
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
JOEL PAULSON: It would not.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Notwithstanding that seemingly
maybe other people have them?
JOEL PAULSON: So again, that get’s back to the
grandfathering. When there was an amnesty period there were
a number of multi-story accessory structures, and during
that time period the Town decided to allow those units.
VICE CHAIR KANE: That was back in the eighties?
JOEL PAULSON: That was in the eighties. We
currently only allow accessory structures to be one story;
I’m sure it’s fairly clear from an impact perspective for
privacy, what that can look like, since we allow accessory
structures to be as close as 3’ from a property line.
VICE CHAIR KANE: All right, thank you. Other
questions for Staff? Seeing none. In this instance the Town
is the Applicant, and we’ve more or less just heard the
Applicant’s presentation, for which reason I’m going to
open the public portion of the public hearing.
So we invite comments from members of the public.
If you’ve not already turned in a speaker card, please do
so to the Staff on my right. When you are called to speak,
remember that you have three minutes, state your name and
address for the record, and speak directly into the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/27/2017
Item #3, Town Code Amendment A-17-003
Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units
16
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
microphone. You will have three minutes total. When the
yellow warning light comes on; it doesn’t mean you’re done,
it means you have 30 seconds. When the red light comes on,
it means you’re done. Our first speaker will be Ms. Cathy
Weiner.
CATHY WEINER: I live on Massol, and I have a
legal secondary accessory building. I actually got it legal
in January 2017, because I’ve been following the law and I
was short a parking place, so that helped me.
But in really understanding the law and really
reading it and listening a lot, I just feel like in the
spirit of the law, since you’re allowed to give comments
now, if you could consider allowing somebody with a
detached secondary accessory dwelling, I guess it’s called
now, to also be able to use part of their home as an
additional accessory dwelling, because it still meets FAR,
it still meets setbacks, it’s the spirit of the California
law, and the parking requirements would have to be met for
each unit. I think in that law there were junior size
units, so it just seems like if you want your mother-in-law
to come live with you and she needs a little kitchenette,
you can’t even do that now. Somebody in my position would
be a lot of people in town, so that was my comment.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/27/2017
Item #3, Town Code Amendment A-17-003
Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units
17
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
VICE CHAIR KANE: I want to understand what you
said. Did you say you already have a secondary unit?
CATHY WEINER: Detached, yes. I’m not looking to
build one now, but a neighbor was, and I was thinking about
it and I just thought you’re only allowed one accessory
dwelling, and even if it’s in your main house, it’s still
considered accessory dwelling if you want to put a
kitchenette in and like have a separate room with a
separate entrance. Even though you’re not changing anything
of the outside of your house.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Thank you. Questions for the
speaker? Commissioner Badame.
CHAIR BADAME: This is probably more for Staff.
Wouldn’t that constitute being a duplex; it’s no longer a
single-family dwelling? No?
JOEL PAULSON: No. You can convert existing
space. I think what Ms. Weiner was asking about is if you
already have the existing detached, shouldn’t you allow the
homeowner to have one in their existing structure, and so
it would be more than one, which was the question earlier,
and certainly if the Commission believes that’s
appropriate, that’s something we would look at.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/27/2017
Item #3, Town Code Amendment A-17-003
Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units
18
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
In addition, I think she was mentioning the
junior Accessory Dwelling Units. That’s an optional
component and we didn’t bring that forward, but we can
definitely bring additional information to you on that at
the next hearing.
CHAIR BADAME: Thank you.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Thank you. Linda Swenberg.
LINDA SWENBERG: Hi, I’m Linda Swenberg. This is
my mother-in-law, Mei Lee Swenberg. We live at 128 Mary Way
on the eastern side of Los Gatos.
I bought my home in 2004. It came with a brand
new what they called “habitable pool house.” Fully
permitted, permitted for habitation, has a certificate of
occupancy, even has fire sprinklers in it. It has a
beautiful space for a kitchen, but it does not have a
kitchen installed because of the Town’s requirements.
My mother-in-law had to come live with us. Well,
we extended her the opportunity to come live with us when
she lost her home due to some financial stuff in about
2011, and it’s been wonderful having her, but she cannot be
made as comfortable as possible in this beautiful, pretty
big home—it’s just under 900 square feet—because we can’t
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/27/2017
Item #3, Town Code Amendment A-17-003
Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units
19
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
put a kitchen in. She has to wash her pots in the bathroom
sink and stuff when she wants to use her microwave.
This all seemed very weird to me. I mean I didn’t
understand the spirit of the law, or the codes, to begin
with. I didn’t understand why you would want to prevent
citizens from using structures in this way, in this manner,
when they are built to code and done properly and legally
with permits. It doesn’t make any sense to me. We have a
large lot, it’s a 13,000 square foot lot, but it is narrow,
because it was originally two parcels back to back, and so
there was not a possibility of including other parking not
in the setback, they’re really just minimal side yards, and
that was the only thing preventing putting a kitchen into
this home.
So I really beseech you to look at the spirit of
the law that was passed and try to abide by that spirit.
Take down any obstacles and help us to get the best use of
our properties in the Town. Thank you.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Questions for the speaker? I
have one. Are you saying the reason you couldn’t get a
kitchenette was because of the parking requirements?
LINDA SWENBERG: Yes, that’s what we were told.
And in fact Staff verbally told me, “Probably there was a
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/27/2017
Item #3, Town Code Amendment A-17-003
Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units
20
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
deed restriction required on your property when they got
these permits,” but I have to tell you, when we bought the
home and title search was done, this was never brought up,
and I just went back and looked in the title search
documents tonight, and I couldn’t find anything about a
deed restriction related to that.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Thank you.
MEI LEE SWENBERG: There is plenty of room for a
small kitchen.
LINDA SWENBERG: Yeah, she’d love to have it.
Thank you.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Question for Staff. The
language we have before us, is it here, or does it have the
potential to provide a parking provision such that a
kitchenette would be allowed?
SALLY ZARNOWITZ: I would say yes, because we
would… Absent an application we wouldn’t ever definitively
ever answer that, but it’s a ministerial application, and
if it’s, again, an ADU proposed within floor area, that’s
really the language of the state, so that’s one of the
exceptions to parking; it’s already in the law.
VICE CHAIR KANE: So is that language before us,
or do we have the option to add it?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/27/2017
Item #3, Town Code Amendment A-17-003
Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units
21
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
SALLY ZARNOWITZ: That’s before you, and state
law requires that.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Thank you.
SALLY ZARNOWITZ: Okay, thank you.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Jennifer Kretschmer.
JENNIFER KRETSCHMER: Good evening,
Commissioners. I’m Jennifer Kretschmer, AIA. I am a local
resident on Old Blossom Hill Road. I’m also a local
architect.
As an architect and a resident, I’m really in
support of making these restrictions, these current
regulations, less intrusive to homeowners. For one big
reason, we’ve seen that we have an affordable housing issue
here in the Town of Los Gatos. In compliance with state law
one of the things that we have done is to put high-density,
affordable housing in one location in town for the most
part. That creates a separate and not equal kind of
location where people who have to live in affordable
housing are not part of and integrated into the community.
I feel that ADUs would help in integrating the
general populace, and people with low incomes would also
help in providing more residents these affordable homes.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/27/2017
Item #3, Town Code Amendment A-17-003
Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units
22
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
I went through the Planning Staff Report, and I
had a few recommendations that were in my letter. Most of
them were just answering the questions that were in the
Staff Report.
The thing that I really want to bring up in my
time here is that I do believe that second story attached
or detached ADUs should be allowed, so long as the main
house is maybe a two-story, or that it still goes through
any other Planning hearing, giving you, the Planning
Commission, the opportunity to reject any inappropriate
applications. One of the reasons is that would be in
compliance with neighboring municipalities. For example,
Santa Clara County is allowing detached Accessory Dwelling
Units as a second story on detached garages, as well as
over a garage if it’s attached to the house.
Most importantly though, I think that we need to
look at the exemptions to the FAR. One of the things is
aligning with other local municipalities, because we have
very low FARs here in the Town of Los Gatos, and maybe
giving some sort of advantage just for the purpose of ADUs
where we come into alignment with other municipalities,
it’s something like a .45 FAR. And still it has to comply
with other regulations, such as the max lot coverage.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/27/2017
Item #3, Town Code Amendment A-17-003
Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units
23
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
The other thing, too, is I feel it’s important
that we give homeowners the ability to have flexibility
with their properties. We know that it’s expensive to live
in Los Gatos, as well we have financial and cultural
reasons why ADUs would be a good thing to have, and I have
clients who are making the decision to build an ADU and
move into that ADU and then rent out the main house, so
that they can afford…
VICE CHAIR KANE: Thank you. Questions for the
speaker? Commissioner Hudes.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: I had two questions, and
thank you for the letter. I raised the question before
about other municipalities, and you’ve said, I believe,
that other municipalities are using a .45 FAR. Could you
provide some examples?
JENNIFER KRETSCHMER: San Jose. San Jose
specifically is a .45 FAR. Other municipalities have a
maximum on the square footage. For example, Redwood City is
800 square feet, and County, I believe, is 1,100. So we
could either do a maximum square footage for the ADUs, or
we could do the floor area ratio. My personal belief is
that increasing the floor area ratio would be the best way
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/27/2017
Item #3, Town Code Amendment A-17-003
Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units
24
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
to create something that is more in a similar size as the
main home, rather than just giving a flat home floor area.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Yeah, but San Jose is quite
large and in some ways not all that similar to Los Gatos.
JENNIFER KRETSCHMER: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: What about Campbell,
Saratoga, Los Altos, Cupertino, and Mountain View? Do you
have information on some of those communities?
JENNIFER KRETSCHMER: Mostly I’ve been
concentrating on Santa Clara County, because I do homes
within the Town of Los Gatos that are actually County, and
so County has a specific floor area.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Well, there are quite a few
differences in zoning and building requirements in County
versus (inaudible).
JENNIFER KRETSCHMER: Correct, but previously,
before the regulation change, they reduced the lot size
minimums for ADUs in order to become more compliant with
state law. So now you can have a much smaller lot size in
County and still be able to have an ADU.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: I have another question, but
I’ll wait to see if there are others.
VICE CHAIR KANE: All right. Commissioner Janoff.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/27/2017
Item #3, Town Code Amendment A-17-003
Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units
25
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
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: A question about your Point
6 regarding a property owner is given the flexibility to
live either in the main house or the ADU as a primary
residence, I believe the language in the revised ordinance
provides for that.
JENNIFER KRETSCHMER: As we’re trying to pass it,
yes.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Right. However, I just
wanted to clarify your next statement, which is property
owners should be allowed to rent both units. Do you mean
either unit, or just not being present and renting both?
JENNIFER KRETSCHMER: Not being present. I know
there is something in the state law that says that, for
example, if someone gets a job relocation and they don’t
know how long it’s going to be, they should be allowed to
rent both the main house and the ADU when they’re on this
job relocation, but that seemed very vague.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Okay. I just wanted to
clarify if it was both or either.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Commissioner Hanssen.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I was just curious, since
you have a lot of experience building these units, what the
typical practice is. There is (inaudible) in the law about
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/27/2017
Item #3, Town Code Amendment A-17-003
Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units
26
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
it, but what is the typical practice that you’ve seen about
the utility connections and what have you? Because I see
one kind of level where you have the ADU inside the house,
and then there’s another level where it’s attached to the
house, another one maybe where it’s above the garage,
another one where it’s completely detached, and if you’re
renting that unit to someone that’s not your family, then
they might like leave the water running for three days. So
I’m just curious how you’ve seen that work in practice
without regard to this new law.
JENNIFER KRETSCHMER: For the most part, what
we’ve done is water and sewer usually are still part of the
main home, and electricity is put on its own service, so
that it’s calculated. And of course telephone would be on
its own as well, if it needs to have a land line. But for
the most part, water and sewer still remains as part of one
bill for the property.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: And do the landlords pass
those charges along, or they observe them?
JENNIFER KRETSCHMER: Most of my clients are
actually building the homes for family members.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: So it’s not an issue.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/27/2017
Item #3, Town Code Amendment A-17-003
Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units
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
JENNIFER KRETSCHMER: But the ones that I do know
that rent it, they’ve just split it up. They’ve just taken
the floor area in account, and then split the bill
accordingly, and included it as part of their rent.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Okay, thank you.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Commissioner Hudes.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: I was wondering if you had
an opinion about the number of ADUs, and in moving from the
terminology secondary to accessory, are we saying in the
way it’s been drafted that multiple ADUs should be
permitted, and if that’s the case, then are there any
limits? And is it one per 10,000 square feet? Is it some
other way of managing the number of accessory units?
JENNIFER KRETSCHMER: That was a long question;
so let me try to break that down. Actually, could you
repeat your first part of that question?
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Do you have an opinion about
whether it should be one or multiple ADUs permitted in
addition to the primary?
JENNIFER KRETSCHMER: I don’t particularly have
an opinion as to one or two, but what I would say is it
makes sense as to floor area and lot coverage. If you can
provide smaller units for family members, and you don’t
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/27/2017
Item #3, Town Code Amendment A-17-003
Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units
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
exceed more than two, then it doesn’t seem that it should
be denied. But if you’re trying to go with something like
the full maximum, if we’re allowing that, a full 1,200
square feet detached ADU with two bedrooms, and then try to
do an attached unit, that does seem, for our town, maybe a
little bit excessive.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: And do you have any
information on other municipalities in terms of number of
ADUs?
JENNIFER KRETSCHMER: Most municipalities state
one ADU.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Okay, thank you.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Other questions? Thank you very
much.
JENNIFER KRETSCHMER: I’m sorry, there was
another part to your question that I didn’t answer, and it
had to do with the Town of Los Gatos changing the
definition. May I answer that?
As you may remember, this is a little bit
confusing, because in the past we’ve had two words, one an
accessory unit, which could be a pool house, cabana, hobby
shop, studio, that does not have a full kitchen, can have
two or more plumbing fixtures based on the approval of the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/27/2017
Item #3, Town Code Amendment A-17-003
Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units
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
Staff or Community Development Director, and we used to
call that accessory units.
Then we have the second dwelling unit, which is
what we are now going to be calling Accessory Dwelling
Units. So I think one thing is we need to also address what
we’re going to do with that previous nomenclature of
accessory unit, because that’s not the same as what we’ve
been calling Secondary Dwelling Unit?
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Thank you. That’s very
helpful.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Commissioner Hanssen.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I just had one more
question. It was on your Comment 6, “Property owners should
be allowed to rent both units, so long as doing so does not
violate any law or regulation.” What use model do you see…
So you’re saying the owner of the property wouldn’t live
there, and they would rent out both units to whom? I mean
to anyone?
JENNIFER KRETSCHMER: To anyone. I don’t see any
problem with that. We have people all over town who own
houses and rent them out, so why should that be a
restriction as well just because you have an ADU? As long
as they’re not violating other regulations, it seems
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/27/2017
Item #3, Town Code Amendment A-17-003
Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units
30
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
reasonable to me to allow it to be a rental property. And
as long as they’re not a nuisance to the neighbors. Of
course neighbors can always complain if anything is a
nuisance.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: They could put that in the
lease.
JENNIFER KRETSCHMER: Correct, correct.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Thank you very much.
JENNIFER KRETSCHMER: You’re welcome.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Angelia Doerner.
ANGELIA DOERNER: Hello, Angelia Doerner, proud
resident of the Almond Grove, still. I want to first thank
Joel for getting the verbatim minutes of the General Plan
Committee and Planning Commission minutes having to do with
the Specific Plan put online. That’s going to be very
helpful to have a little bit of a head start.
As it relates to this, I really have questions
and opinions more than specific changes to what is being
provided here.
First off, I’d like to have a confirmation of
what is conforming versus nonconforming when you’re talking
about residential properties. If you have a residential
property regardless of zone, and the housing that you have
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/27/2017
Item #3, Town Code Amendment A-17-003
Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units
31
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
and the existing structures that you have have all gone
through approval, et cetera, doesn’t it conform? I’m
confused a little bit about this 10,000 square foot lot
nonconforming. Hopefully there’s no restriction on
conforming. Anyway, I’d like to have a confirmation on
that.
I really don’t see how we can require 80% AMI on
the rental amount, if it is going to be used for a rental
amount. I went through SB1069. The only kind of limitations
that I see even relating to the Housing Element is a
requirement where the Town provides actually committed
assistance to people who are providing the lower income
housing, and I don’t think that’s being done here. I don’t
know where the money would come from, so I really don’t
understand that provision or where it came from, why we
think that’s allowed.
The definition of member of household. Let’s go
back to talk about what a household was according to the
North 40, and make sure that we use the same definition of
household. It could be anybody, is my understanding.
The FAR limitation, again, if you’re using
existing… If you go to page 6 of the Staff Report, it
discusses floor area ratio, but then it says, “Conversion
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/27/2017
Item #3, Town Code Amendment A-17-003
Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units
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
of existing space shall be permitted.” We all learned the
word shall means must. So if you’re just converting an
existing garage and you’re not doing anything else, I don’t
see why the floor area ratio should come into effect here.
The other small thing is on page 3 of the Staff
Report it talks about a garage being demolished in
conjunction with the construction of any Accessory Dwelling
Unit. Most people would convert their garage, not demolish
it and build a brand new accessory unit, so I think there
needs to be some clarification on that as well.
And some scenarios of existing lots and
conditions in town would be extremely helpful to the
public.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Thank you. Questions for the
speaker? Thank you very much. Marie Rector.
MARIE RECTOR: Hello, I’m a 43-year resident of
Los Gatos; I live at 236 Harding Avenue. We purchased our
home in 1986, and it was an existing 3,200 square foot
house with a garage as part of the house. At that time we
took out permits and built a shop for my husband and our
son, who did racing. We met all the criteria of the Town’s
rules, and so that shop is now available.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/27/2017
Item #3, Town Code Amendment A-17-003
Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units
33
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
At this point in our lives we would like to
convert it to an ADU and use that as a second income so
that I can someday maybe retire. We have already gone
through the process of getting it all drawn up by a
professional designer, using all the criteria laid out by
Jerry Brown. We’re very excited about this possibility of
using this existing freestanding shop.
At this point it’s in, it’s been submitted, it
meets all the criteria that were drawn up, and we just want
to take this open space, it’s an open two-car garage, and
add a bathroom and a kitchenette, and it’s all been turned
into Planning and we’re ready to go. I have a contractor
who is very frustrated, because he keeps trying to figure
out how he can get the timing done. I mean he’s waiting for
us to proceed, and as far as we know everything is
completely legitimate with our plan, so that’s why I’m
here.
VICE CHAIR KANE: What then specifically is
holding you up?
MARIE RECTOR: The Town.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Is there an obstacle?
MARIE RECTOR: Not that I’m aware of, no.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/27/2017
Item #3, Town Code Amendment A-17-003
Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units
34
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
VICE CHAIR KANE: So they’re backlogged with
work.
MARIE RECTOR: Well, we just have been told that
you have not proceeded to adopt the rules that Jerry Brown
laid out on the ADU, and so therefore we can’t get…we’re
waiting to pull our permits.
VICE CHAIR KANE: So something in there somewhere
is an obstacle that we haven’t smoothed out.
MARIE RECTOR: Their obstacle is the Planning
Department hasn’t been able to come through with permitting
us to go forward.
VICE CHAIR KANE: All right. Commissioner Hudes.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Have you been told that
you’re waiting for a new ordinance?
MARIE RECTOR: No, we have not. We’ve been told
nothing.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Okay, thank you.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Thank you very much. Jeff
Loughridge.
JEFF LOUGHRIDGE: Jeff Loughridge, 101 Paseo
Laura. Tonight I’m speaking as a recovering Affordable
Housing Element Advisory Board member.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/27/2017
Item #3, Town Code Amendment A-17-003
Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units
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
It’s well known that there’s a housing shortage
in California, as well as Silicon Valley. Los Gatos has its
own portion of that shortage in the form of our required
619 RHNA housing units specified during the current Housing
Element.
Secondary housing, or Accessory Dwelling Units,
ADUs, are a different form of housing that can help Los
Gatos meet our housing needs. The preliminary suggested lot
size required is 10,000 square feet or larger nonconforming
lots. Many more Los Gatos residents have lot sizes closer
to 8,000 square feet, so requiring large minimum lot sizes,
and not allowing smaller lot sizes for ADUs can severely
restrict their potential development.
Santa Cruz, for example, confronted their housing
shortage by promoting ADUs as a critical infill housing
opportunity. The City set the minimum lot size at 4,500
square feet. As long as the ADUs meet, for example, the
maximum square footage, FAR, setbacks, and maximum lot
coverage, a smaller lot size like 7,000-8,000 square feet,
or even smaller, could be appropriate.
ADUs are a powerful type of housing unit, because
they allow for different uses and serve different
populations ranging from students and young professionals
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/27/2017
Item #3, Town Code Amendment A-17-003
Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units
36
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
to young families, people with disabilities, and senior
citizens. By design, ADUs are more affordable. Los Gatos
can encourage the development of ADUs and improve access to
jobs, education, and services for many.
A UC Berkeley study noted that one unit of
affordable housing in the Bay Area costs about $5,000 to
develop, whereas an ADU can range anywhere up to $200,000
on the expensive end in high housing cost areas.
ADUs give homeowners the flexibility to share
independent living areas with family members and others,
allowing seniors to age in place as they require more care,
and helping extended families to be near one another while
maintaining privacy.
I was disappointed when the Move Down portion of
the North 40 plan was eliminated. I understood this to be
at least one of Los Gatos’ unmet needs. I would urge the
Planning Commission to consider a smaller minimum lot size,
like 7,000-8,000 square feet for ADUs, and I support
secondary units placed on second stories. I’d like to see
us be flexible at this stage and create rules that cannot
be reinterpreted later. I should encourage and facilitate
this process. Thank you.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/27/2017
Item #3, Town Code Amendment A-17-003
Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units
37
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
VICE CHAIR KANE: Thank you. Questions for the
speaker? Commissioner Hudes.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Thank you, and I remember
some of those Housing Element discussions and affordable
housing discussions fondly.
With regard to the proposal, you suggested 7,000-
8,000 square feet, I think, is where you came down, is that
correct?
JEFF LOUGHRIDGE: That’s right.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: And do you think that there
should be sort of a sliding scale on the size of the ADU
structure? Because there’s a proposal to make that 1,200
square feet. Do you think that that number should apply
regardless of the lot size?
JEFF LOUGHRIDGE: I agree with a modified sliding
schedule, but I think that the Town should have rules and
regulations that when they’re in place, they can’t be
reinterpreted, so we don’t make exceptions to all of our
rules once we set them up. So for a smaller lot size, it
would require a maximum smaller unit, whatever that might
be. It might be a 600, 900, 1,200, whatever that range is,
but set it to a range of square footage.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/27/2017
Item #3, Town Code Amendment A-17-003
Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units
38
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
COMMISSIONER HUDES: So perhaps there’s some
formula relating to the lot size?
JEFF LOUGHRIDGE: I’m suggesting as long as it
isn’t interpretable; two people have two different
interpretations of it.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Sure. Okay, thank you.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Thank you. Commissioner Badame.
CHAIR BADAME: So along with that formula, you
had indicated that you are in favor of second story
accessory dwelling units, but on these smaller lots, let’s
say that you have a one-story home. Are you saying
encourage a second story accessory dwelling, or maybe there
should be a formula that if it’s already a one-story for
the main dwelling that the Accessory Dwelling Unit should
also be a one-story?
JEFF LOUGHRIDGE: I’m not confused with the
Accessory Dwelling Unit versus the Secondary Dwelling Unit,
so I’m not thinking that there’s more than one accessory
unit. So either you put it on the second story… I would
suggest that we could even allow people to add a second
story as accessory unit. I don't know other than that what
your question is. If you can include it in the second
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/27/2017
Item #3, Town Code Amendment A-17-003
Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units
39
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
story, that’s possible too, but that would have to be an
existing second story.
CHAIR BADAME: Thank you.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Thank you. Commissioner
Hanssen.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I too remember fondly our
discussion on the Housing Element.
I was curious, since you looked through the
document, you did flag a couple of things that you thought
needed to be different than what was written. Did you see
anything else in the proposal that caught your attention
that maybe was too restrictive or not restrictive enough?
JEFF LOUGHRIDGE: Most of it has to do with the
flexibility in crafting a rule or a regulation, an
ordinance, that we can stick to and we don’t waste time in
any of our Town processes, so that when an applicant comes
in it’s clear what the guidelines are, we don’t have a
bunch of questions that can’t be answered, and that it
doesn’t come back as denied or an appeal process. It just
seems that we do that a lot right now, and I would like to
see our shalls be put in there, and not a maybe or not a
should. I would like to see it be really firm on whatever
you decide after discussing.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/27/2017
Item #3, Town Code Amendment A-17-003
Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units
40
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
My plan was to go through the document word for
word, because you have to compare it against the new
legislation that’s just come out, and so it’s really
complicated and it was too much to read in a couple of
days, so I intend on putting forth some emails about this,
because from what I understand, this is the first
conversation about it, and it will be then re-presented to
you at a later date.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: That’s right. Thank you.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Thank you very much. Justin
Draa.
JUSTIN DRAA: Thanks to the Commission for having
us. It’s Justin Draa; I live on Arroyo Grande in Los Gatos.
First of all, thank you, Ms. Zarnowitz, for
including me on your mailing circular, so I knew to be here
tonight.
My wife and I are going to be living in the hills
in the HR-5 zone in the near future, and of particular
interest to us is the impact these potential revisions
would have and how HR guidelines would play into it. So I
hope to submit some meaningful emails to you with my
specific opinions on that, but I wanted to find out whether
the Commission, or Ms. Zarnowitz, had any thoughts on where
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/27/2017
Item #3, Town Code Amendment A-17-003
Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units
41
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
things are headed in that regard. Is a four-acre hillside
property with sufficient flat land to build on going to be
prohibited from building an ADU, or do you have to have
five-plus? Those are the kinds of considerations I’m
currently interested in. Thank you.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Questions for the speaker?
Thank you very much. Lee Quintana.
LEE QUINTANA: Lee Quintana, 5 Palm Avenue.
I have not extensively read the new laws, so I
may make some errors here, but mainly I would like some
clarification of several things, and would suggest that
when this comes back to the Planning Commission that the
Staff Report does a good job of explaining all of the
various things so that the public understands.
I’ll start with expanding the permitted zone. I
would be much in favor of that, but I am somewhat confused
whether I understood it correctly or not. It says, “All R-1
properties on conforming lots, and nonconforming lots with
more than 10,000 square feet.” So I understand that to mean
that in the R-1 zone most of the properties are 8,000
square foot minimum, and the 10,000 applies to anything
over the 8,000, and other R-1 zones. But is an R-1D an R-1
zone? An RM is not an R-1 zone, so what actually is
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/27/2017
Item #3, Town Code Amendment A-17-003
Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units
42
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
permitted there? I think I understood finally that in the
RM zone if you have an existing primary unit, you could add
an ADU, but that wasn’t clear in the Staff Report.
The process isn’t clear to me. It seems like
there are things in the Staff Report and in the ordinance
that suggest that there are discretionary points, but there
are also indications that the laws now require mandatory or
ministerial approvals, which doesn’t allow for discretion,
so are we only able to do those thing that are objective,
and subjective doesn’t apply? Then how do we apply
architectural standards, which are always subjective?
Parking. I think one spot per bedroom, or none,
but minimum of one spot, and all the exceptions that were
listed. Tandem parking. We have it all over town, even if
it’s not in the PD; single-family homes have tandem.
Parking in the front setback on an existing garage
driveway, that’s done all the time with existing homes;
even tandem parking on existing driveway pads in addition
to garages are done.
I would suggest on… I have so many more things
that need to be explained.
VICE CHAIR KANE: We are going to continue this
matter to a date certain, and if you have time, put them
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/27/2017
Item #3, Town Code Amendment A-17-003
Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units
43
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
into a letter that we get before the night of the hearing.
I’d appreciate knowing the rest of your thoughts. Questions
for the speaker? Commissioner Badame.
CHAIR BADAME: Ms. Quintana, can you provide us
with your thoughts on a FAR formula, or just a strict
limitation of 1,200 square feet?
LEE QUINTANA: I’m still thinking about that, but
I do believe that… I agree with Jeff that maybe we should
look at allowing these ADUs on lots smaller than 8,000
square feet, and in that case I certainly think there
should be some relationship between size of the permitted
structure and the size of the lot.
I also think that corollary to that in the sense
is whether you can allow a second floor on detached garages
or as independent units, because my thought is that 15’ is
the maximum that you can now have, but that could be 15’
straight across, or it could be maybe 18’ with an average
of 12’ that would allow you to have enough of a second
story to allow a bedroom alcove or a sleeping loft, and if
that peak of the ridge was parallel to the side yards, that
would alleviate the question of privacy, because your
windows would be front and back.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/27/2017
Item #3, Town Code Amendment A-17-003
Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units
44
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
So there are all kinds of things that I don’t
think have been adequately covered or explained, in
particular hillsides are so different than then flatlands
that I keep going back and forth and thinking they need to
be separate things for the hillside.
And again, more of an explanation of what is
required to have a deed restriction and what isn’t; I
really don’t understand that.
CHAIR BADAME: Thank you.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Thank you. Questions for the
speaker? Commissioner Hanssen.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I wanted to go back to the
hillsides. I know it needs more thought, but when we were
discussing the Housing Element the general thinking was
that the properties had to be more than five acres, and I
think that’s what’s proposed at the moment. Without having
done a thorough study of it, what are your general thoughts
about allowing it on smaller acre properties? I don't know
where the magic number of five comes from. If you have a
three-acre lot, and the lot is appropriate from a slope or
whatever perspective, and FAR, what are your thoughts about
going lower than that?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/27/2017
Item #3, Town Code Amendment A-17-003
Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units
45
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
LEE QUINTANA: I think there are situations where
definitely you could go lower. That’s part of my problem
with thinking about the hillsides, because no two hillside
lots are the same, all the slopes are different, the amount
of the area within the LRDA is different, and all of those
somehow should be factored into what would be allowed,
because five acres is a lot of land, but if it’s like this,
you’re going to have problems with well is it a cellar, or
is it a basement, or is this story? It’s back to that
little loop. But if it’s flat, why couldn’t you?
But the other question I had is on site coverage.
The proposed ordinance says 15% of the back yard,
excluding—I forget how it says—the setbacks, or 40% or 50%
of the entire lot. Gee, could we have a diagram of that,
because I don’t really understand it. And is that to be
applied to RM lots, and R-1D lots, and hillside lots, or…
Just make sure there are no inconsistencies.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Thank you. Other questions?
Thank you very much. My last card is for Mr. Thomas Pratt.
If anyone else would like to speak, they would need to turn
in a card now.
THOMAS PRATT: Good evening, my name is Thomas
Pratt; I live on Cypress Way in Los Gatos.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/27/2017
Item #3, Town Code Amendment A-17-003
Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units
46
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
My family and I have been considering the best
use of some auxiliary space that had to be part of the way
the house was built; it is a hillside property, and we
moved in there eight or nine years ago.
I was really happy to see the topic posted on the
Next Door application. I’m not on the Town’s distribution,
so when I saw it there I was pretty happy, because I said,
“Oh, cool. This is a topic I’m interested in.” I read
through the bulk of the documents that were linked there,
and I think I understand the gist of it.
In general I’m supportive of the amendment to
Chapter 29 and all that. Moreover, I’m very pleased of
course to hear that it may consider Accessory Dwelling
Units on hillside lots.
I’m curious as to what factors might or are
expected to apply to granting approval for lots that are
less than five acres? And I heard the previous speakers,
including one just before me, saying how every lot is
different, and so on.
I’m also curious as to what restrictions may be
there regarding affordability. I know the nature of the
whole thing is with respect to affordability from the
statewide standpoint, but it would seem to me that certain
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/27/2017
Item #3, Town Code Amendment A-17-003
Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units
47
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
market factors would also apply, given the location. Thank
you.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Thank you very much. Questions
for the speaker? Thank you, sir. I’m going to close the
public portion of the public hearing, and ask if
Commissioners have questions of Staff?
Let me say first that as I see it, the task
before us to begin review of the proposed draft to the Town
Code, these amendments regarding ADUs, and to discuss
topics outlined in Staff’s report, including their
questions. Following that, we need a motion to continue the
item to a date certain, so that Staff can work on our
comments and get back to us with further detail. So who
would like to begin? Commissioner Hanssen.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I probably have more than
one question, but I’ll start with this one that caught my
attention. On the 65852-2, I’m looking at the proposed
language change; it’s Exhibit 3 on the first page, and this
gets to the question that was asked earlier about how do
you decide how big it can be? Right now the proposed
language says, “An increased floor area of the attached
Accessory Dwelling Unit shall not exceed 50% of the
existing living area, with a maximum increase in floor area
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/27/2017
Item #3, Town Code Amendment A-17-003
Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units
48
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
of 1,200 square feet.” And then the next point is the total
area of floor space for a detached Accessory Dwelling Unit
shall not exceed 1,200 square feet.”
So there’s the question of whether this should be
FAR or the square footage, but then just a more immediate
question is if you have a detached Accessory Dwelling Unit
and you have a house that’s 1,000 square feet, you would
let them build an accessory unit that was 1,200 square
feet? Did I read that right?
SALLY ZARNOWITZ: Yeah, and what you’re reading
are the state laws; that’s what the state has passed.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: So that’s what they would
recommend?
SALLY ZARNOWITZ: They would allow that. It says
kind of earlier on that the jurisdictions can set certain
criteria that would be applicable to those ministerial
permits, and those include the development regulations that
you’re looking at, and that jurisdictions may put size
limits on the units, so that is essentially up to the
jurisdiction if they want to do that.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: So it isn’t within our
discretion, although they’re recommending to let units be
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/27/2017
Item #3, Town Code Amendment A-17-003
Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units
49
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
up to 1,200 square feet, we can have in our rules that it
can’t be bigger than the primary house?
JOEL PAULSON: You can, and the AB-229, actually
that’s one of the cleanups, because right now the language
only talks about attached, and so they’ve broadened it to
new attached, detached, it’s 50% or 1,200 square feet,
whatever is greater. (Inaudible) that issue.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: So they obviously thought
that wasn’t clear as well, and that’s why they’re fixing it
with AB-229, because it does need to relate to whatever the
property is now and what the dwelling unit is in place now.
SALLY ZARNOWITZ: Yeah, but it would include lot
coverage, so that FAR would affect that as well.
JOEL PAULSON: And I’ll just say, you heard a lot
of good comments this evening, and there are a number of
items that we generally have discretion around, and so it’s
really deciding where you all individually, and then
ultimately collectively, think we should be going in
relation to some of these questions, many of which were
brought up multiple times this evening. That is going to be
helpful information for Staff to walk through some of those
things, again, and whether it’s existing or proposed, there
are a number of ways, whether it’s a hillside lot, or an R-
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/27/2017
Item #3, Town Code Amendment A-17-003
Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units
50
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
1 lot, or an R-1D, or an RM, there are variables across the
board.
We are not going to draft a perfect ordinance
that‘s going to work in every single instance. That’s the
one thing I can guarantee we’re not going to do. So what we
want to do is look at parameters, whether that’s…in here we
have that’s increasing FAR, as one person brought up, or
looking at some other options to provide that flexibility.
The flip side is the challenges that that brings,
or will bring, for some folks in certain neighborhoods, and
the typical challenges it brings are privacy impacts and
parking impacts. The ones that aren’t deed restricted will
still be $2,500 a month to rent, so they’re not really
affordable.
So those are the types of the other side of the
coin, but given the state law we still need to go through
this exercise and modify our ordinance to be as flexible as
we think is reasonable and within the parameters of those
laws.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Just one more question on
the intent of the state laws. This seemed to me a lot like
the general housing affordability, that whole RHNA thing,
where things are zoned for twenty dwelling units per acre.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/27/2017
Item #3, Town Code Amendment A-17-003
Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units
51
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
This seems very similar, that they’re just putting this
arbitrary square footage number and saying if it’s small
enough, then it probably will be affordable enough.
JOEL PAULSON: And so it’s the practical
affordability you guys hear about all the time with
smaller, even if it’s a house. So the smaller units are
“practically affordable,” whether it’s condo or townhouse,
because they’re just smaller in square footage. They’re not
going to be affordable in a truly affordable housing form
of affordability, that’s clear, but they’re cheaper than a
standard single-family home, even in an R-1:8 zone here in
town. So that’s the opportunity they’re looking to provide.
It’s important to take into account you have
other folks who talked about maybe people use these for
family members, so it’s not that these are all income
generating, or as you look towards the next phase, it does
become an income opportunity, and that’s a great
opportunity for those folks.
There are a whole lot of challenges and
opportunities that revolves around this, so that’s really
important for you guys to take all of that into
consideration as you’re moving through this.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: All right, thanks.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/27/2017
Item #3, Town Code Amendment A-17-003
Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units
52
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
VICE CHAIR KANE: A couple of points before I
forget them, because a lot of good comments have been made.
As I go over the text of the proposals, they’re a
little put-offish, like clearly they are in legalese. These
are laws coming to us from the state. To the degree
possible, that the resulting document be more like the
Hillside Standards and Guidelines, more like the
Residential Design Guidelines, with examples, and pictures,
and colors.
JOEL PAULSON: No.
VICE CHAIR KANE: No?
JOEL PAULSON: The Hillside Guidelines and
Residential Design Guidelines are just that. The code is
the law, so that’s why we don’t have examples and pictures
in there, and there’s the legalese, so that’s not something
that we would be looking to do in a zoning code.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Well, that’s a suggestion that
one of us is making. Also, the comments on directive and
specific; that would really be helpful to us in the future.
We get hammered by vagaries and opinions, and to the extent
possible make them definitive so that we can defend them.
Commissioner Badame.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/27/2017
Item #3, Town Code Amendment A-17-003
Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units
53
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
CHAIR BADAME: We have a series of questions that
Staff was so kind to put together in the Staff Report for
us to consider.
The first one having to do with parking, I just
want some clarification so that I understand our
parameters. But it says, “Should parking requirements for
Accessory Dwelling Units be reduced to one space per
Accessory Dwelling Unit, or eliminated?” Does that mean
just a limit, and have the discretion, or the parameter to
say eliminate it altogether, so therefore we don’t even
have to worry about allowing parking in the front setbacks
and areas of tandem spaces as a requirement, just no
parking requirements, period?
SALLY ZARNOWITZ: That’s correct. The state law
appears to allow you to do that.
CHAIR BADAME: Thank you.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Commissioner Janoff, you had
your hand up.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: It’s sort of a process
question. The code sections that are with the (inaudible)
changes I assume have been provided to us as this is what
the law tells us we need to have as part of our code, but
the previous set of questions in the Staff Report are the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/27/2017
Item #3, Town Code Amendment A-17-003
Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units
54
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
discretionary areas that you want us to discuss tonight, so
to focus on the questions as opposed to picking through
Section 29? Is that where you want us to be?
SALLY ZARNOWITZ: That would be great.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Yeah.
JOEL PAULSON: I think if you focus on the nine
questions, those are the ones where we really do want to
get some input. There are placeholders in there on these
questions, so there is language in the ordinance revisions
that we provided, however, those are things that we think
can be modified, and so we’re looking for your input on
that.
VICE CHAIR KANE: A path and an agenda are always
very helpful. I see the first question starting in Parking,
on page 4 of the Staff Report, would we like to start
there? Commissioner Badame.
CHAIR BADAME: That was the one that I just had
at Staff about, so I’ll add my comments on that. I’m all
for this meeting our housing needs, and especially our
affordable housing needs; we have a problem. And I also,
too, like the idea of meeting our unmet needs for step-down
seniors and move back home Millennials, so I’m considering
just eliminating parking requirements altogether, and I’d
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/27/2017
Item #3, Town Code Amendment A-17-003
Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units
55
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
be interested to hear what my fellow Commissioners feel
about that.
VICE CHAIR KANE: I envisioned many houses where
we eliminated the parking requirement, and they can’t park
on the street to begin with, so it might be helpful to have
a requirement to park on the property. Am I missing the
point?
CHAIR BADAME: They could get a parking permit
from the Town. What do you mean they can’t park on the
street?
VICE CHAIR KANE: Some streets are very narrow,
and adding more cars to those streets creates more
problems. Just my thought. Commissioner Janoff.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I would be in favor of
assessing the parcel to determine whether there would be
adequate space to park onsite, and then require the one
parking; and if not, then I guess can’t require and not
require, but it seems reasonable to provide for it if there
is space so it doesn’t put the parking burden onto the
public streets.
I would be in favor of reducing it to none when
there doesn’t seem to be a need. If you’ve got an elderly
relative in your Accessory Dwelling Unit who isn’t driving
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/27/2017
Item #3, Town Code Amendment A-17-003
Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units
56
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
any longer, you don’t need a parking space for that person,
as a example.
SALLY ZARNOWITZ: If I could just tag onto that,
that does relate to the question about tandem or parking in
a front setback.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Absolutely, yes.
VICE CHAIR KANE: As in whether or not we’d be in
favor of it? Yes, I would. Anyone else? Commissioner
Hanssen.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I think it’s fine. I
actually appreciated your comments, Commissioner Janoff. I
do think I feel both sides of it, but I think that we
really need to encourage these Accessory Dwelling Units. I
think it makes a lot of sense; it’s a great way to address
a lot of housing needs in our town.
But I think there are probably some scenarios out
there where there might be a need to do a parking space, so
I’m not sure of the right way to do it, maybe have it be a
part of the checklist, and if it’s possible, not make it
required. I don't know if you can do that or not.
And as far as parking in tandem on the driveway
and that kind of thing, that seems to make sense. The only
thing that I wanted to ask about those, there was some
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/27/2017
Item #3, Town Code Amendment A-17-003
Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units
57
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
comment, I think it was in the state law, about mechanical
parking lifts, not enclosed, on a driveway?
JOEL PAULSON: We haven’t seen any of those in
town yet, but they’re just giving you options.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: But if you let it happen,
it could be…
JOEL PAULSON: They’re providing you options, and
we’ll bring back… We actually have existing code language
that deals with adding bedrooms or second stories and
looking at the site to see if there is adequate space to
put another site, because we have a lot of nonconforming
houses that want to do an addition, but they can’t do two
parking spaces. So we’ll bring that language back so you
can look at it. That may be a way to do the one or none
scenario.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Like the example we had in
our testimony tonight. They have this pool house; they have
everything ready to go. That’s clearly a thing where they
shouldn’t have to have a parking spot.
JOEL PAULSON: I think the reality is if you
ultimately, and the Council ultimately, allows the tandem
in the front setback, then that’s going to be a non-issue
in those instances anyhow.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/27/2017
Item #3, Town Code Amendment A-17-003
Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units
58
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
SALLY ZARNOWITZ: And also the conversion of
existing floor area doesn’t require a parking space; that’s
one of the exceptions.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Commissioner Hudes.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: With regard to parking, I
think that the proposed amendments make some sense, and I
think it will help to accelerate the creation of affordable
Accessory Dwelling Units, and particularly allowing in the
front setback and the tandem parking I think are very
positive and will help to facilitate that.
When we get to eliminate parking completely, I
think that that can be challenging, so I think that it’s
important, and I’ve seen some other municipalities where
they really look at the location relative to other
transportation alternatives, and to do that in an objective
manner. Not to be loose about it, but to be clear that
parking could be eliminated if there is good public transit
that’s accessible somewhere.
JOEL PAULSON: I don't know if you want to define
“good” public transit, but there is an exception for
transit within a half mile, specifically.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Right, and so to define the
fact that it’s not just transit, but it’s an actual bus
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/27/2017
Item #3, Town Code Amendment A-17-003
Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units
59
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
stop, not that the bus drives by. I’ve seen in some other
municipalities where they’ve done that, where they
eliminate parking requirements based on some objective
standards relative to public transit, and I also think that
then turns around the other way and sort of elevates the
demand side in the town to put pressure on achieving better
public transit as well.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Commissioner Badame, you had
your hand up.
CHAIR BADAME: No. No longer.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Okay. I think that covers
parking. Do we need definitive positions at this time, or
wait till Staff comes back to us?
JOEL PAULSON: I think what we heard, just to
recap, that everyone seemed generally okay with the parking
in the front setback area, and there’s tandem. I think most
of you were comfortable with this kind of zero-one
scenario, with the exception of Commissioner Hudes who
wants maybe some more specificity in there as far as what
may lead to those opportunities, and so we’ll come back
with some of that.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/27/2017
Item #3, Town Code Amendment A-17-003
Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units
60
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
VICE CHAIR KANE: Thank you. Permitted zones. The
first question: Should the allowable areas be expanded?
Comment? Commissioner Janoff.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I think in many ways this
restriction on the lot size is similar to what we talked
about at the last meeting regarding the Fence Policy. There
are a lot of different configurations to lots in any number
of zoning areas that would make an Accessory Dwelling Unit
a good idea, and there are others that make it a poor idea
just based on what the lot is. This may be radical, but I
would be in favor of no particular lot restrictions, but
having criteria that talks about in the hillside area the
flatness, or percent flatness of the area, I would
definitely expand it to any size hillside lot just based on
the configuration of the lot. I’ve got neighbors who are on
a very flat parcel and it’s one acre; it could easily
accommodate a small ADU.
I think you’ve got a lot of lots in town that are
nonconforming that could also support an ADU, and they may
be bigger lot sizes than a conventional 6,000 or 7,000
square foot lot, so it doesn’t seem to me to make sense to
limit the ADU permit to a lot size, but take a look at the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/27/2017
Item #3, Town Code Amendment A-17-003
Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units
61
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
lot specifics and see if we can get to some criteria that
would give you some go/no go.
JOEL PAULSON: I think flexibility in the
hillsides is relatively simple. You can put requirements
around must be in the LRDA, it has to be outside of the
setbacks, so some of those things will cover any of those
items. Right now our current minimum lot in a hillside zone
is 40,000 square feet, which is just under an acre, so if
you have 40,000 square feet in an HR zone, you have a
conforming lot, but we do have the different designations
of the one, the two-and-a-half, five, and so on.
And on the non-hillside lots, just for everyone’s
reference, the smallest zone in town, not including Planned
Developments, allows for a 5,000 square foot lot. So you
could have a conforming 5,000 square foot R-1:D lot, which
would still allow an ADU. So the question there is does
that become the floor, the 5,000 or more on a nonconforming
lot? So just something for you guys to think about.
VICE CHAIR KANE: I would underscore your comment
about clarification on hillside, that either there is a
subsection and/or a separate section definitively
explaining the restrictions or the variations to provide
for the hillside.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/27/2017
Item #3, Town Code Amendment A-17-003
Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units
62
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
JOEL PAULSON: Yeah, I think that’s going to be
added.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Thank you. Commissioner
Hanssen.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: We heard the testimony on
the lots downtown and whatnot, that it seems to make sense
to bring the lot size down, but it probably shouldn’t be a
zero. Someone said Santa Cruz was like 4,500 maybe. There
should be some floor, but it should be less than 10,000. If
it were much less than 5,000, wouldn’t you run into other
issues with FAR, with already having an existing volume? I
would think you would.
And then on the other side, as far the hillsides,
I live in a primarily one-acre lot hillside neighborhood. I
have space in my yard in our property to put an ADU if we
could. I don't know if we would, but I’m just saying. And
so I can look around my own neighborhood even and say I can
see some lots where you could never do it, and there are
lots where you could, and I would definitely think getting
it below the 5,000 thing. I mean it’s not going to be
affordable, but then you’re going to have grandparents and
college students coming back. As I was thinking through
this from my own family’s perspective, I was like I have
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/27/2017
Item #3, Town Code Amendment A-17-003
Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units
63
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
two college age kids. When they get out of college they may
not be able to afford a place. Maybe an ADU would be a good
thing.
So it seems to me to be way too restrictive to
keep it to five acres when there’s a lot of valid
properties, as long as we do a good job with our Hillside
Design Guidelines to make sure that we’re not doing the
wrong thing in the hills.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Other comments? Commissioner
Hudes.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: I think we should seriously
look at the ability to put some ADUs on some smaller lots.
I do think that it’s important to tie that to what adjacent
municipalities are doing as well, because I think that it
could have a significant impact on an individual’s property
rights, and on property values. So I think it’s important
that we understand at least how this fits into adjacent,
and in some ways competitive, communities so that we don’t
do something inadvertently that puts Los Gatos into a very
unique position, unless we intend to do that because of,
for instance, a hillside or something like that. So that’s
where I think it’s very important to look at other
municipalities.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/27/2017
Item #3, Town Code Amendment A-17-003
Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units
64
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
In terms of deed restriction, my reaction to that
is that it’s been difficult for that. There have been
examples where people… I don't know whether there are
better mechanisms, but it seems like deed restriction is
sort of last effort to do that.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Commissioner, for some of us,
could you explain deed restriction?
COMMISSIONER HUDES: I’m talking about the second
question where there’s a proposal to put language into the
deed to enforce some of the standards and some of the
requirements. I don't know if that’s the best way to do
that (inaudible).
VICE CHAIR KANE: You would have concern with
that why?
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Because sometimes it isn’t
clear to a subsequent owner that there is a restriction.
There are lots of examples, not just tonight, but in other
places, where sometimes it just doesn’t come up on a title
search (inaudible) later on.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Commissioner Hanssen, you had
your hand up?
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I did. I was thinking when
we did the Housing Element that we, at least for the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/27/2017
Item #3, Town Code Amendment A-17-003
Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units
65
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
purposes of the 28 units we planned for (inaudible),
require a deed restriction as part of getting compliance
for HCD. Is that correct or not?
JOEL PAULSON: I think the goal of this comes
right out of the Housing Element, which was if we get some
of the AMI, then that’s really a low unit. We were
providing the state that any of the 100% units, which would
be moderate, that those wouldn’t require deed restriction,
but if someone went to the extra effort to get to the low
level, that’s where we would pay for their application
fees, and there are fees available that are our BMP in lieu
fees; that’s what is contemplated to be used for those.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Having said that, I agree
with Commissioner Hudes. Maybe I didn’t totally understand
what he said, but it seems to me like a deed restriction is
the opposite of what we want to do to encourage the
production of affordable units, because if you end up
selling your house, that could be a liability to the person
that’s buying it and all that kind of stuff, and it might
prevent people from wanting to do it.
I think if you keep the sizes of them small
enough, because as you said earlier, it’s going to be
relatively more affordable, but you can’t completely force
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/27/2017
Item #3, Town Code Amendment A-17-003
Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units
66
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
the economics of the stuff, so that seems like a roadblock
that we wouldn’t want to have to encourage production of
ADUs.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Commissioner Janoff.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Yes, I would concur with
Commissioner Hanssen and Commissioner Hudes on the deed
restriction recommendation.
I’d like to go back to the prior point. When we
say we will provide that ADUs may be permitted on smaller
lots, there was some discussion about a sliding scale and
the size of the ADU, and I think that’s an important
criteria to incorporate, however that may be, but a 1,200
square foot maximum potential wouldn’t make sense on one of
those small lots, so I just wanted to make sure that that
gets incorporated into the expansion of the lot size.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Commissioner Badame.
CHAIR BADAME: I had concerns with how you could
even enforce that deed restriction. How do you know that
somebody is offering the rent at a reduced rent that’s
affordable to a lower income renter? How would you even
control that?
JOEL PAULSON: The same way we control all of the
rest of our rental affordable housing that we have in town.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/27/2017
Item #3, Town Code Amendment A-17-003
Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units
67
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
They have to do a yearly compliance, so we have an outside
company that they have to provide proof to every year that
they are meeting our BMP requirements for the rentals. We
don’t have any BMPs in that arena yet, but it would be
handled in the same way.
CHAIR BADAME: Okay, thank you.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Anything else on permitted
zones? It’s the prerogative of the Chair sometimes to give
final note, and even though it’s late, or maybe because
it’s late, I just get anxious when I think of elective
development in the hillsides. I think the housing crisis,
et cetera, we should take a look at our town to do our
part, but I think there are alternative views of building
in the hillsides anything that could possibly be built, and
so having tried to hold the bridge for ten years, my battle
wounds are showing and I don’t want to open up any
floodgates for the hills. I’m sorry.
CHAIR BADAME: I’m not.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Commissioner Janoff.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Just a clarification.
Permitable ADUs, is the restriction that prohibits them, or
under the five acre whatever it is, is that only for
detached new Accessory Dwelling Units, or does it also
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/27/2017
Item #3, Town Code Amendment A-17-003
Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units
68
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
restrict an ADU to be built or exist within an existing
structure? Was that clear?
SALLY ZARNOWITZ: Yeah, it’s for all Accessory
Dwelling Units. It’s a criterion for the lots where they
would be allowed.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: So you’re saying that with
respect to Vice Chair Kane’s concern, currently there would
be no ADUs permitted either within the existing envelope or
as a new detached on any of those hillside lots?
SALLY ZARNOWITZ: That’s the case right now in
the hillside, or in this case it would be five acres.
JOEL PAULSON: And again, I think there’s going
to be some additional cleanups that might limit our ability
to do that in AB-229.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I’d just like to follow up
by saying in concert with Vice Chair Kane that I think
further sprawl on the hillsides is not a great idea, but
those hillside homes are often quite large, and providing
an Accessory Dwelling Unit within that envelope that exists
I think is a reasonable permit.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Commissioner Hanssen.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I just want to argue the
other side of that. We see these all the time, people
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/27/2017
Item #3, Town Code Amendment A-17-003
Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units
69
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
building pool houses and all that other stuff. Just devil’s
advocate on this is that people are building all these
accessory structures not for ADU, but they’re having
everything but a kitchen in them, so I don’t necessarily
see the difference in terms of what you’re talking about,
excess building in the hillside, because we’re seeing
people with these large lots trying to put all these
accessory structures on their lots anyway, so I don’t see
that this would change it that much, and I don’t think that
many people are going to do it. I think we’ll have the same
experience as San Jose, and it will be a small number.
VICE CHAIR KANE: May we move on to height?
“Should new secondary story attached accessory dwellings be
allowed? Commissioner Badame.
CHAIR BADAME: I have some concerns with that,
because you’re asking for trouble with bulk and mass
issues, and that leads to privacy concerns, so I have some
issues with that. I’d love to hear comments from my fellow
commissioners.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Commissioner Janoff.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Just a clarification. Does
the 15’ height restriction apply to existing structures, or
only to newly built?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/27/2017
Item #3, Town Code Amendment A-17-003
Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units
70
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
SALLY ZARNOWITZ: That would apply to new ADUs.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: So if, for instance, you
had a detached garage that has a big peaked roof already,
under the current code would you be able to add an
Accessory Dwelling Unit over the garage and within the
structure that exists?
SALLY ZARNOWITZ: No, it’s one floor or 15’. So
within the structure that exists, if it’s over 15’, say the
ridge is 16’, we believe you could convert that to an ADU
under state law basically.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I wasn’t talking about
converting a garage per se, but let’s say it’s a garage
with a high peaked roof, and you’ve got a second story
effectively. So you’re saying the answer is currently as
written that would not be permitted?
SALLY ZARNOWITZ: That’s correct.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: So I would think if you
find an existing structure that’s been approved as built
and you could accommodate an Accessory Dwelling Unit within
that structure that already has been approved and built, I
would be in favor of that if it were a second story. That’s
not going to have any impact on neighborhood compatibility,
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/27/2017
Item #3, Town Code Amendment A-17-003
Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units
71
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
or probably anything at all, so I would be in favor of that
as second story permit.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Commissioner Hanssen.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I think I agree with
Commissioner Janoff. We’ve heard so many times about a
house that’s currently a one-story, them adding on a second
story for the purposes of enabling a Secondary Dwelling
Unit, or are we talking about them adding onto their garage
and making it a two-story, or is it both?
SALLY ZARNOWITZ: Theoretically it could be both,
if you’re in favor of second stories for new ADUs.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: So if it’s their garage
and they already have a two-story, that doesn’t seem as
problematic—unless their neighbor next door is a one-story—
as it would be to add on that second story in terms of
neighborhood compatibility. I think you’d have to look at
it on a case-by-case basis. But to unilaterally say that
anyone could add a second story I think could cause real
problems with neighborhood compatibility. I mean I think it
could be looked at, but not a blanket okay.
JOEL PAULSON: We’ve taken a conservative
approach on this one; we’re not sure it’s going to stand
up. But I would just offer that even the existing condition
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/27/2017
Item #3, Town Code Amendment A-17-003
Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units
72
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
of a detached structure or existing roof mass, if it wasn’t
habitable before, typically in those instances you don’t
have egress windows and other windows, doors, separate
entrances, things that will have to be required, and so it
will potentially impact… There are many cases where it
doesn’t, but it will potentially impact adjacent neighbors.
SALLY ZARNOWITZ: It might be a good time to just
point out again that these are ministerial permits, so
they’re not discretionary, they don’t come before the
Development Review Committee or the Planning Commission.
They’re approved at the Staff level within 120 days.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Regarding what has been said on
construction, I’d underscore neighborhood compatibility,
and I’d underscore privacy issues.
JOEL PAULSON: Neither of which we can take into
account, depending on which way you decide this question.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Further comments? Yes,
Commissioner Badame.
CHAIR BADAME: With that being said, could a
neighbor appeal it? No, it’s just a done deal.
JOEL PAULSON: It is. It’s basically a building
permit.
CHAIR BADAME: Okay, thank you.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/27/2017
Item #3, Town Code Amendment A-17-003
Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units
73
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
VICE CHAIR KANE: Size. “Should the allowable
floor area of an attached Accessory Dwelling Unit be
limited to 50% of the existing floor area of the primary
dwelling unit?” It’s certainly specific. I don’t know
what’s magic about 50% versus 30% versus 70%, but thoughts,
please. Commissioner Hanssen.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I think a couple of people
had mentioned earlier about some kind of sliding scale. We
see this all the time. You have a 4,000 or 4,500 square
foot house, potentially including their cellar and whatnot.
You let them do 50% of the existing far, and then you’re
going to have another 2,500 square foot house. I don't know
if they could do that with the FAR and their lot size, but
if they could, that would be a problem.
But as a general rule, in a classic situation I
think the goal would be to make sure that the Accessory
Dwelling Unit is much smaller than the primary house, so I
don't know if 50% is the right number, but I think that’s a
place that ought to be in the guidelines somewhere.
VICE CHAIR KANE: The state law allows up to 50%,
so that’s at least the source of the number. It may not be
the one we need to adopt, or it is?
SALLY ZARNOWITZ: Yeah.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/27/2017
Item #3, Town Code Amendment A-17-003
Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units
74
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
JOEL PAULSON: It’s an or.
SALLY ZARNOWITZ: Yeah, it’s an or. Or 1,200
square feet or whatever.
JOEL PAULSON: So 1,200 is the max, so your 2,500
square feet scenario isn’t viable.
VICE CHAIR KANE: And where are we now versus the
1,200?
JOEL PAULSON: Right now our maximum for a
detached accessory structure is 900, and our maximum for an
attached is 750.
VICE CHAIR KANE: I kind of like those numbers.
Commissioner Hudes.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: I was interested in Staff’s
opinion about what options we have here, because I think
50% is a bit large, particularly when you get to the
(inaudible). I think that we’re going to the under 1,200
square foot where that applies, but I think in some of
those it’s quite large. What range do you think we have to
work in here and still be in compliance with the law?
SALLY ZARNOWITZ: I think you could go up to
1,200 square feet. The 50%, again, as Mr. Paulson noted, is
an or. If you look on page 3, Exhibit 6, this is the actual
language. You can see that chart for the maximum size, and
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/27/2017
Item #3, Town Code Amendment A-17-003
Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units
75
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
that talks about 50% of the living area up to, which is the
same as or, so it would not exceed your maximum size. At
the same time it would limit, so if the house were 900
square feet, you’d be down to 450 square feet for the ADU.
JOEL PAULSON: As the Town Attorney is offering,
you could change your primary and build a 1,200 square foot
primary, and keep your 900 square foot ADU. Those nuances
will come up, but not very often. I think, frankly, the
50%, we could probably modify that, but I think the sliding
scale option probably does that better. We probably get
into a sliding scale of 50% or whatever that looks like
going down the path. I believe Campbell used a sliding
scale, as the closest jurisdiction to us, so we’ll look at
that as kind of a starting point for discussion for the
Commission.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: And that’s where my
sentiment is on this is, that I think the sliding scale
makes sense and I think it ties to some of the testimony
that we had tonight.
VICE CHAIR KANE: A sliding scale up to a limit?
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Yes.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/27/2017
Item #3, Town Code Amendment A-17-003
Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units
76
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
VICE CHAIR KANE: And that limit, I like the
language we have, I think that’s in the spirit of the ADU,
but that’s my opinion.
JOEL PAULSON: And that’s kind of the second
question, which is do we want attached and detached to both
be up to 1,200 square feet? We’re talking about a sliding
scale. I think we understand where Vice Chair Kane is on
that.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Other thoughts.
CHAIR BADAME: I agree with Vice Chair Kane. I
like the language we have as well. It seems that the larger
the unit, the higher the rent, and it kind of defeats the
purpose of making it affordable anyway.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Commissioner Janoff.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: If the current language
will fly, I’d say keep it as small as possible, practical.
JOEL PAULSON: We can definitely put that in the
recommendation.
VICE CHAIR KANE: “Should exceptions to floor
area ratio and/or lot coverage maximum be allowed for
ADUs?” No. Sorry, other opinions? Commissioner Hanssen.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I thought of this as
potentially a hillside versus not hillside issue in one
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/27/2017
Item #3, Town Code Amendment A-17-003
Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units
77
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
dimension, because you definitely wouldn’t want to go there
in the hillsides, but if you had like one of these 7,000 or
8,000 square foot lots, I can imagine a scenario where it
might make sense, but it might be on a case-by-case basis,
but if it’s going to be ministerial, then to make a blank
decision. Right now they have to comply with FAR, even with
the ministerial, right?
JOEL PAULSON: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Unless we up it for the
ADUs.
JOEL PAULSON: Correct. We can build an exception
in for ADUs, and we’ll look at some of the other
jurisdictions to see what they’ve done. I think as was
stated this evening, there are other jurisdictions that
their starting point is higher than ours, and so that gives
them a little bit of flexibility, but I don't know that
those were changed specifically for the ADU Ordinance.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: If we went that route I
would say you’d definitely want to limit it to lot sizes
below a certain level versus just saying any lot could go
over the FAR. I think it makes more sense for the scenarios
that were described in our testimony.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/27/2017
Item #3, Town Code Amendment A-17-003
Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units
78
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
VICE CHAIR KANE: Other comments? Commissioner
Hudes.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: I’m not particularly in
favor of exceptions to FAR and lot coverage as a starting
point. I think that it might be better to start with some
of these other measures and see whether we actually get an
uptake in building affordable housing this way, and then if
that’s working, then maybe this is the next step to take it
and get even more, because I think there could be
significant neighbor objections and others, and I think
we’re kind of throwing out our zoning code pretty radically
by allowing exceptions to FAR and lot coverage. So I would
say that would be something I would reserve for later,
rather than for the first pass at this.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Commissioner Janoff.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I agree. I think this
should not be changed. I’m concerned about, as you keep
reminding us, this is a ministerial decision. That concerns
me, so whatever changes we make to the basic language that
we currently have, we probably should think twice about
that, or at least have a panel discussion that talks about
some unintended consequences, what could go wrong, before
we make those changes.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/27/2017
Item #3, Town Code Amendment A-17-003
Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units
79
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
VICE CHAIR KANE: One sits up here long enough
and words like “exceptions,” and even well intended words
like “case-by-case” make my skin crawl, because I just know
where they’re going to go, and we’re going to get beat over
the head with it when we try to do the right thing with
slippage and flexibility. Bang, we get another castle in
the sky. But like I said, it’s late, so I can get away with
that, right?
Moving on to the final question, “Should the
Development Review Committee be designated as the decision
making body for applications for elimination and/or
demolition of accessory dwelling units?” Commission?
Commissioner Hudes.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: I would just be interested
in Staff’s discussion about this, because this is into what
are the other alternatives, or are there other similar
considerations the DRC is making today?
JOEL PAULSON: There are many reasons why we ask
this question. Currently the Town Code requires the
Planning Commission to be the deciding body when we’re
loosing units. As the past few have come through, I can’t
think of one that has been denied, and the reason for that
is we generally are getting more new second units than
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/27/2017
Item #3, Town Code Amendment A-17-003
Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units
80
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
we’re eliminating, so we’re not reducing our overall
housing stock.
So does that decision still need to go to the
Planning Commission? That’s obviously a much larger expense
for an Applicant to go to the Planning Commission than it
is to go to the DRC. The DRC is still a public hearing, so
we wanted to throw that option out. Now, if we get a rush
of elimination and zero units in, that section of the code
also allows the Community Development Director to refer
whatever we want to the Planning Commission, but it’s just
something for that type of process. If we are in fact
getting more units than we’re demolishing, and we don’t see
very many people demolishing them nowadays, then is that
something that needs to rise all the way to the Commission?
That was the main reason why we brought this forward.
VICE CHAIR KANE: I hate fees, and I especially
hate prohibitive fees. I wish there was a way we could
ameliorate some of that, but I know that we have procedures
where it’s on a cost basis; what it costs us is what it
should cost the applicant. Remind us and the many folks
back home watching tonight, who is on the DRC.
JOEL PAULSON: The DRC is comprised of a
representative from Building, Planning, Fire, and Parks and
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/27/2017
Item #3, Town Code Amendment A-17-003
Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units
81
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 Works. Those are the ones that would be involved in
this type of application.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Okay, so it’s essentially Town
Staff.
JOEL PAULSON: Correct.
VICE CHAIR KANE: No Commissioners, no Town
Council members.
JOEL PAULSON: Correct.
VICE CHAIR KANE: All right, thank you. Comment?
Commissioner Badame.
CHAIR BADAME: My input to that question is yes,
let’s have the Development Review Committee be the decision
making body for these types of applications. I’m
comfortable with that.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Could you explain?
CHAIR BADAME: Well, just what Community
Development Director Paulson said, when it’s come before us
as the Planning Commission in the past I can’t think of one
in four years where we denied it, so I would trust them in
making this particular decision. It’s demolishing them,
it’s not something where we have to go through a process
where we evaluate compatibility with a new structure, and I
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/27/2017
Item #3, Town Code Amendment A-17-003
Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units
82
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
think that there’s enough that’s going to be built that we
wouldn’t have to worry about it.
VICE CHAIR KANE: All right. Commissioner
Hanssen, you had your hand up.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I’m thinking as long as we
don’t allow too much flexibility in other things like, for
example the second floor units, depending on what we decide
about that. I think that if you want to encourage
production of the ADUs, that the decision making body
should be the Development Review Committee, and that the
only time it went elsewhere is if they had exceptions. So
as long as we’re comfortable with the rules for when they
can do it, and where they can do it, and what size it can
be, then it should be ministerial; that’s what the law says
anyway, right?
JOEL PAULSON: This piece specifically is talking
about the elimination or demolition, because this is a
discretionary review. Even going to the DRC is a
discretionary review.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Oh, so this isn’t for…
This is only for…
JOEL PAULSON: This is only for demo and
elimination.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/27/2017
Item #3, Town Code Amendment A-17-003
Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units
83
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
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: This is only for
(inaudible).
JOEL PAULSON: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I’m sorry; I
misunderstood. But I don’t think we’ve ever seen anything
where we have said no, usually because they needed to do it
and rebuild it, so to me that would be ministerial as well.
JOEL PAULSON: Yup.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Commissioner Hudes.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: I think for the reasons
stated it’s a good starting point to go to DRC, and if it
appears to be an issue and we’re getting a rash of
demolitions that are causing problems with meeting our
numbers and all of that, then it would be the time to bring
it to Planning Commission. I don’t think we’re at that
point now. I think there’s a more reasonable starting
point.
VICE CHAIR KANE: I was just thinking that
Commissioner Janoff and I used to serve together on the
Historic Preservation Committee. So that would be carved
out, anything to be demolished in a Historic Preservation
district would be carved out of this provision and would
still go to Historic Preservation?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/27/2017
Item #3, Town Code Amendment A-17-003
Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units
84
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
JOEL PAULSON: It depends on the situation. Many
of those, even though they might be in the Historic
District they may not have been constructed in a timeframe
that complies with our Historic zones, so we’ll have to
look at that and see whether or not there’s any
flexibility. That’s a great extra item to take a look at.
VICE CHAIR KANE: I would just give some merit to
my paranoia that when it comes to Historic districts or
hillsides we need to have very tight, specific language as
to the decision making body. Commissioner Hudes.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: I would just underscore
that, because I think there are some carriage houses in
some of the alleys that are in this category, and so if
they would otherwise to the Historic Preservation
Committee, I think they should continue to.
JOEL PAULSON: We’ll take a look at that in
compliance with state law and make sure that opportunity is
still there, because we have other items to go to DRC that
HPC has purview over that would continue.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Commissioner Janoff.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I just wanted to suggest
that regarding the DRC, I’m in favor of the DRC being the
decision making body on demolitions of ADUs until such
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/27/2017
Item #3, Town Code Amendment A-17-003
Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units
85
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
time, should it ever come to pass, that the balance of
what’s being requested to be demolished begin to look like
it exceeds those ADUs being constructed, and then we can
take a look at a different decision making process.
VICE CHAIR KANE: You’ve got me walking up and
down the streets of the Historic District like we used to
do. I see all possibilities for potential abuse, not
intentional, but potential abuse, and I’d like some strong
language to preserve those historic structures.
Anyone else? All right. Well, Staff, I think
you’ve got… A hand up. Commissioner Hudes.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: I mentioned I had several
points that I would consider technical things.
VICE CHAIR KANE: This would be a good time.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: If I could do that? Thank
you.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: And actually I don't know if
these are important or not, so maybe Staff could just kind
of react to this and say these are things that we should
consider, or no, don’t worry about it.
But just in reading this, under Section 29.10.310
there’s language about continuous use, and it seemed to me
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/27/2017
Item #3, Town Code Amendment A-17-003
Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units
86
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
that that may be an issue, so is that an issue or not? It
says, “has existed and been used continuously from that
date for an accessory.” I could see some structures that
might fall in and out of use as an ADU.
SALLY ZARNOWITZ: This is that section that
grandfathered units in between 1983 and 1987. It’s left in
here essentially to mark that that’s a period where that
happened, but it has closed.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Okay, so don’t worry about
that one.
On page 3, a question was, “How to handle a
situation where an Accessory Dwelling Unit is rented to a
third party, and then subsequently to a household member,
and then to a third party again?” Is that something that
needs to be addressed? I’m talking specifically about the
reduced rent where it says if the unit is occupied by
someone other than a member of the household.
SALLY ZARNOWITZ: Again, this is language
directly out of the Housing Element.
JOEL PAULSON: Given your discussion this evening
on not wanting to do the deed restrictions for the lower,
that gets modified ultimately, so we will pull that out and
we’ll make it more of an offering. And I know you don’t
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/27/2017
Item #3, Town Code Amendment A-17-003
Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units
87
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
like may or should, but if someone should choose to do
that, then we’ll have that in there.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Okay. And then just two more
quickly.
On page 4, the exceptions that are listed there,
I think I mentioned this before, one half mile of public
transit, I think we want to make sure that it’s a public
transit stop or access point.
And then number 5, carshare vehicle. Is that well
defined elsewhere as to what a carshare vehicle is, and
that being located within one block?
SALLY ZARNOWITZ: So again, this is language
straight out of the state legislation. The carshare, I’ll
look to the director to see if he has an answer on the
definition in Los Gatos.
JOEL PAULSON: The Town does not have a
definition, but we will look at other jurisdictions and see
if they have placed any definitions on that. The challenge
gets to be we try to steer away from naming specific
companies, because those change over time. We generally
understand what carshare means, but we will see if there’s
a definition out there that might be helpful.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/27/2017
Item #3, Town Code Amendment A-17-003
Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units
88
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
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Okay. So that exhausts my
technical questions.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Commissioner Hanssen.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I just had two really
quick things.
I just wanted to ask another quick question on
this public transit thing, having spent a lot of time on
the VTA, VPAC and what not. I don't know what the state’s
intent was on the public transit, but to me that wouldn’t
even really be a bus stop, because we only have one bus in
town, and being a half a mile is a good ten minute walk,
and for older people, I’m just not sure.
As it pertains to the parking requirement, I
think people in town are going to need a place to put their
car. I just wondered what their intent was, because to me
public transit would be like a VTA light rail station, not
a bus stop, but I don't know what they intended.
JOEL PAULSON: I didn’t read the legislative
intent and go through all that background. I’m not sure if
Ms. Zarnowitz did.
SALLY ZARNOWITZ: Not to that detail on this
particular question.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/27/2017
Item #3, Town Code Amendment A-17-003
Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units
89
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
ROBERT SCHULTZ: There’s a difference between a
transit station and transit stop, and they wanted a transit
stop for this legislation, not a transit station.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Okay, so that was their
intent.
ROBERT SCHULTZ: That’s what I understood it was.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Okay.
ROBERT SCHULTZ: We can make certain that is
confirmed. There’s so much I’ve done with the Housing
Accountability Act, and I’m assuming the definitions are
the same, but we can look to see exactly what they meant by
that half a mile.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Well, they’ve obviously
done a lot of research on this, so if their intent was a
stop, then they’ve probably already determined through
their research that being within a ten-minute walk of a bus
stop would be acceptable to not need a car.
Then the only other thing that I noticed, I know
you brought it up earlier, but on page 2, the thing about a
maximum of two dwelling units, that’s getting changed to
one, right? Or the recommendation is?
SALLY ZARNOWITZ: So again, this is only for
those units that existed pre-1983, and then basically this
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/27/2017
Item #3, Town Code Amendment A-17-003
Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units
90
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
section is there, I guess in my mind, to explain why those
units got grandfathered in. It just explains a process
that’s now ended, and I think the attorney is saying it may
not have to remain in there. But that’s what this section
is, it was a grace period, it’s a carryover. People wonder
why do you have a unit that was legalized and it’s two
stories, or you have two ADUs that were legalized, and then
we can look at our records and say that happened in 1985.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Oh, I see. And on page 3,
under B, it says only one, and you scratch out, “New
Accessory Dwelling Unit may be permitted on the lot. No
additional Accessory Dwelling Unit is allowed on the lot
with the existing Accessory Dwelling Unit.”
SALLY ZARNOWITZ: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: So that’s clear. Okay.
SALLY ZARNOWITZ: Yeah, that’s the ordinance as
it stands.
VICE CHAIR KANE: I’m going to make a motion that
the Planning Commission, having considered amendments to
Chapter 29 presented to Staff, that we move further
discussion to a date certain, and not only to a date
certain, but to include a request that we have the issue
come up on the agenda as early as possible. It’s very
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/27/2017
Item #3, Town Code Amendment A-17-003
Regarding Accessory Dwelling Units
91
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
complicated, very complex, it has a broad scope, and the
ramifications and consequences could be significant. I’d
like to chew on this at 7:30 instead of 10:30. That’s my
motion. Do I have a second?
CHAIR BADAME: Second.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Discussion? All right, all
those in favor, say aye. Opposed? Passes unanimously. Thank
you very much.
JOEL PAULSON: That date certain that we would
recommend would be November 8th. We’re just confirming
that’s okay with the rest of the Commission. November 8th is
when we’ll bring it back.
VICE CHAIR KANE: That’s a regular date, right?
JOEL PAULSON: Correct.
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank