Agenda packet — Los Gatos City Council, May 7, 2024 (part 4 of 4)

ITEM NO. 20.

Created: 2023-12-19 13:00:26 [EST]
(Supp. No. 93)

Page 7 of 12 ends

(2) Design Review Standards. The following objective design review standards apply to construction of new primary dwelling units and to any addition and/or alteration to existing primary dwelling units as part of a two-unit housing development, except as provided by subsection (4) below, "Exceptions:" a. Balconies/Decks. Rooftop and second floor terraces and decks are prohibited. Balconies shall only be permitted on the front- and street-side elevations of a primary dwelling unit fronting a public street. Such balconies shall be without any projections beyond the building footprint; b. Finished Floor. The finished floor of the first story shall not exceed three feet in height as measured from finished grade;
c. Front Entryway. A front entryway framing a front door shall have a roof eave that matches or connects at the level of the adjacent eave line;
d. Front Porch. If proposed, porches shall have a minimum depth of six feet and a minimum width equal to 25 percent of the linear width of the front elevation; e. Step-back. The interior side and rear elevations of the second story of a two-story primary dwelling unit shall be recessed by five feet from the first story, as measured wall to wall; f. Garages. Street-facing attached garages shall not exceed 50 percent of the linear width of the front-yard or street-side yard elevation;
g. Plate Height. The plate height of each story shall be limited to a maximum of 10 feet as measured from finished floor, and when above the first floor the plate height shall be limited to a maximum of eight feet; and
h. Windows. All second story windows less than 10 feet from rear and interior side property lines shall be clerestory with the bottom of the glass at least six feet above the finished floor except as necessary for egress purposes as required by the Building Code. (3) General Requirements and Restrictions. The following requirements and restrictions apply to all twounit housing developments, inclusive of existing and new primary dwelling units, except as provided by subsection (4) below, "Exceptions:"
a. Number of Units. A maximum of four units, with a maximum of two primary dwelling units, on lots that have not undergone an urban lot split.
b. Accessory Dwelling Units. In addition to the two residential units allowed under this section, consistent with Chapter 29, Article 1, Division 7, "Accessory Dwelling Units," of the Town Code, one accessory dwelling unit and one junior accessory dwelling unit shall be allowed on lots that have not undergone an urban lot split.
c. Building and Fire Codes. The International Building Code ("Building Code"), and the California Fire Code and International Fire Code (together, "Fire Code"), as adopted by Chapter 6 of the Town Code, respectively, apply to all two-unit housing developments. d. Encroachment Permits. Separate encroachment permits, issued by the Parks and Public Works Department, shall be required for the installation of utilities to serve two-unit housing developments. Applicants shall apply for and pay all necessary fees for utility permits for sanitary sewer, gas, water, electric, and all other utility work. e. Restrictions on Demolition. The two-unit housing development shall not require either demolition of more than 25 percent of the exterior walls or alteration of any of the following types of housing:

Page 442 ends

ITEM NO. 20.

Created: 2023-12-19 13:00:26 [EST]
(Supp. No. 93)

Page 8 of 12 ends

1. Housing that is subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and families of moderate, low, or very low income. This shall be evidenced by an attestation from the property owner;

2. Housing that is subject to any form of rent or price control through a public entity's valid exercise of its police power. This shall be evidenced by an attestation from the property owner; or

3. Housing that has been occupied by a tenant in the last three years. This shall be evidenced by an attestation from the property owner.

If any existing housing is proposed to be altered or demolished, the owner of the property proposed for a two-unit housing development shall sign an affidavit, stating that none of the conditions listed above exist and shall provide a comprehensive history of the occupancy of the units to be altered or demolished for the past three years on a form prescribed by the Town.

If any existing dwelling unit is proposed to be demolished, the applicant shall comply with the replacement housing provisions of Government Code Section 66300(d). f. Recorded Covenant. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall record a restrictive covenant in the form prescribed by the Town, which shall run with the land and provide for the following:

1. A limitation restricting the property to residential uses only; and

2. A requirement that any dwelling units on the property may only be rented for a period longer than thirty (30) days.
(4) Exceptions. If any of the provided zoning standards or design review standards would have the effect of physically precluding construction of up to two (2) primary dwelling units or physically preclude either of the two (2) primary dwelling units from being at least eight hundred (800) square feet in floor area, the Community Development Director shall grant an exception to the applicable standard(s) to the minimum extent necessary as specified by this section. An exception request shall be explicitly made on the application for a two-unit housing development.
a. Determination. In order to retain adequate open space to allow for recreational enjoyment, protection of the urban forest, preservation of the community character, reduction of the ambient air temperature, and to allow for the percolation of rainfall into the groundwater system, when considering an exception request, the Community Development Director shall first determine that a reduction in any other zoning and/or design review standard(s) will not allow the construction of the two-unit housing development as specified by this section prior to allowing an exception(s) to the landscaping requirement, front-yard setback, or street-side setbacks standards.
( Ord. No. 2334 , § 2, 11-15-22)
Sec. 29.10.640. Application process for two-unit housing development. (a) Applications for two-unit housing developments shall be submitted and processed in compliance with the following requirements:
(1) Application Type. Two-unit housing developments shall be reviewed ministerially by the Community Development Director for compliance with the applicable regulations. The permitting provisions of Town Code Sections 29.20.135 through 29.20.160, "Architecture and Site Approval," shall not be applied;

Page 443 ends

ITEM NO. 20.

Created: 2023-12-19 13:00:26 [EST]
(Supp. No. 93)

Page 9 of 12 ends

(2) Application Filing. An application for a two-unit housing development, including the required application materials and fees, shall be filed with the Community Development Department; (3) Neighbor Notification. In addition to the standard application materials, the applicant will be required to submit one (1) set of stamped, addressed envelopes to neighboring residents and property owners.

The Planning Department will assist the applicant in determining the neighboring properties to be notified (which will consist of all properties abutting the applicant's parcel, properties directly across the street and the two (2) parcels on each side of the applicant's parcel). (4) Building Permits. Approval of a two-unit housing development application shall be required prior to acceptance of an application for building permit(s) for the new and/or modified primary dwelling unit(s) comprising the two-unit housing development;
(5) Denial. The Community Development Director may deny a two-unit housing development project only if the Building Official makes a written finding, based upon a preponderance of the evidence, that the two-unit housing development would have a specific, adverse impact, as defined and determined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Government Code Section 65589.5, upon public health and safety or the physical environment and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact; and
(6) Appeals. Two-unit housing application decisions are ministerial and are not subject to an appeal. ( Ord. No. 2334 , § 2, 11-15-22)
Sec. 29.10.650. Subdivision standards.

Urban lot splits shall comply with the following objective subdivision standards, and general requirements and restrictions:
(1) Subdivision Standards. The following objective subdivision standards supersede any other standards to the contrary that may be provided in the Zoning Code or Subdivision Code, as they pertain to creation of an urban lot split under Government Code Section 66411.7:
a. Flag/Corridor Lots. The access corridor of a flag/corridor lot (Town Code Section 29.10.085) shall be either in fee as part of the parcel or as an easement, and shall be a minimum width of 12 feet; b. Minimum Lot Size. Each new parcel shall be approximately equal in lot area provided that one (1) parcel shall not be smaller than forty (40) percent of the lot area of the original parcel proposed for subdivision. In no event shall a new parcel be less than 1,200 square feet in lot area. If one (1) of the proposed lots is a flag/corridor lot, the area of the access corridor shall count toward the lot area as follows:

1. When an easement is used to provide access, the access corridor is included in the gross lot size for the lot granting the easement; and

2. When the access corridor is owned in-fee and is part of the rear lot, the access corridor is included in the gross lot size for the rear lot.
c. Minimum Lot Width. Each new parcel shall maintain a minimum lot width of twenty (20) feet; d. Minimum Public Frontage. Each new parcel shall have frontage upon a street with a minimum frontage dimension of twenty (20) feet, except as allowed above for flag/corridor lots; e. Number of Lots. The parcel map to subdivide an existing parcel shall result in no more than two (2) parcels; and

Page 444 ends

ITEM NO. 20.

Created: 2023-12-19 13:00:26 [EST]
(Supp. No. 93)

Page 10 of 12 ends

f. Lot Merger. Lots resulting from an urban lot split shall not be merged unless that lot merger can be done without loss of housing units and without causing a non-conforming building, lot, or use. (2) General Requirements and Restrictions. The following requirements and restrictions apply to all proposed urban lot splits:
a. Adjacent Parcels. Neither the owner of the parcel being subdivided nor any person acting in concert with the owner has previously conducted an urban lot split to create an adjacent parcel as provided for in this Division;
b. Dedication and Easements. The Town Engineer shall not require dedications of rights-of-way nor the construction of offsite improvements but may, however, require recording of easements necessary for the provision of private services, facilities, and future public improvements or future public services, facilities, and future public improvements; c. Existing Structures. Existing structures located on a parcel subject to an urban lot split shall not be subject to a setback requirement. However, any such existing structures shall not be located across the shared property line resulting from an urban lot split, unless the structure is converted to an attached unit as provided for in Table 1-2 (Setback Requirements, Exception Number 3). All other existing structures shall be modified, demolished, or relocated prior to recordation of a parcel map;
d. Intent to Occupy. The applicant shall submit a signed affidavit to the Community Development Director attesting that the applicant intends to occupy one (1) of the housing units on the newly created parcels as their principal residence for a minimum of three (3) years from either:

1. The date of the approval of the urban lot split when the intent is to live in an existing residence; or

2. Certificate of occupancy when the intent is to occupy a newly constructed residential unit.

This requirement shall not apply to an applicant that is a "community land trust," as defined in clause (ii) of subparagraph (C) of paragraph (11) of subdivision (a) of Section 402.1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, or a "qualified nonprofit corporation" as described in Section 214.15 of the Revenue and Taxation Code;
e. Non-Conforming Conditions. The Town shall not require, as a condition of approval, the correction of nonconforming zoning conditions. However, no new nonconforming conditions may result from the urban lot split other than interior side and rear setbacks as specified by Table 1-2 (Setback Requirements, Exception Number 2);
f. Number of Units. No more than two (2) dwelling units may be located on any lot created through an urban lot split, including primary dwelling units, accessory dwelling units, junior accessory dwelling units, density bonus units, and units created as two-unit developments. Any excess dwelling units that do not meet these requirements shall be relocated, demolished, or otherwise removed prior to approval of a parcel map;
g. Prior Subdivision. A parcel created through a prior urban lot split may not be further subdivided.

The subdivider shall submit a signed deed restriction to the Community Development Director documenting this restriction. The deed restriction shall be recorded on the title of each parcel concurrent with recordation of the parcel map;
h. Restrictions on Demolition. The proposed urban lot split shall not require either the demolition of more than twenty-five (25) percent of the exterior walls or alteration of any of the following types of housing:

Page 445 ends

ITEM NO. 20.

Created: 2023-12-19 13:00:26 [EST]
(Supp. No. 93)

Page 11 of 12 ends

2. Housing that is subject to any form of rent or price control through a public entity's valid exercise of its police power. This shall be evidenced by an attestation from the property owner; or

3. Housing that has been occupied by a tenant in the last three (3) years. This shall be evidenced by an attestation from the property owner;
If any existing housing is proposed to be altered or demolished, the owner of the property proposed for an urban lot split shall sign an affidavit, stating that none of the conditions listed above exist and shall provide a comprehensive history of the occupancy of the units to be altered or demolished for the past three (3) years on a form prescribed by the Town. The owner and applicant shall also sign an affidavit stating that neither the owner nor applicant, nor any person acting in concert with the owner or applicant, has previously subdivided an adjacent parcel using and urban lot split;
i. Replacement Units. If any existing dwelling unit is proposed to be demolished, the applicant will comply with the replacement housing provisions of Government Code Section 66300(d); j. Recorded Covenant. Prior to approval and recordation of the parcel map, the applicant shall record a restrictive covenant and agreement in the form prescribed by the Town, which shall run with the land and provide for the following:

1. A prohibition against further subdivision of the parcel using the urban lot split procedures as provided for in this section;

2. A limitation restricting the properties to residential uses only; and

3. A requirement that any dwelling units on the property may only be rented for a period longer than thirty (30) days.
j. Stormwater Management. The subdivision shall comply with the requirements of the Town's National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit as implemented by Chapter 22 of the Town Code, and as demonstrated by a grading and drainage plan prepared by a registered civil engineer;
k. Utility Providers. The requirements of the parcel's utility providers shall be satisfied prior to recordation of a parcel map; and
l. Compliance with Subdivision Map Act. The urban lot split shall conform to all applicable objective requirements of the Subdivision Map Act (commencing with Government Code Section 66410), except as otherwise expressly provided in Government Code Section 66411.7. ( Ord. No. 2334 , § 2, 11-15-22)
Sec. 29.10.660. Application process for urban lot splits. (a) Applications for urban lot splits shall be submitted and processed in compliance with the following requirements:
(1) Application Type. Urban lot splits shall be reviewed ministerially by the Community Development Director for compliance with the applicable regulations. A tentative parcel map shall not be required;

Page 446 ends

ITEM NO. 20.

Created: 2023-12-19 13:00:26 [EST]
(Supp. No. 93)

Page 12 of 12 ends

(2) Application Filing. An urban lot split application, including the required application materials and fees, shall be filed with the Community Development Department; (3) Neighbor Notification. In addition to the standard application materials, the applicant will be required to submit one (1) set of stamped, addressed envelopes to neighboring residents and property owners.

The Planning Department will assist the applicant in determining the neighboring properties to be notified (which will consist of all properties abutting the applicant's parcel, properties directly across the street and the two (2) parcels on each side of the applicant's parcel). (4) Parcel Map. Approval of an urban lot split permit shall be required prior to acceptance of an application for a parcel map for an urban lot split. Applicants shall apply for an Urban Lot Split Parcel Map and pay all fees;
(5) Development. Development on the resulting parcels is limited to a project approved by the two-unit housing development process or through the Town's standard discretionary process; (6) Denial. The Community Development Director may deny an urban lot split only if the Building Official makes a written finding, based upon a preponderance of the evidence, that an urban lot split or twounit housing development located on the proposed new parcels would have a specific, adverse impact, as defined and determined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 65589.5, upon public health and safety or the physical environment and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact; and
(7) Appeals. Urban lot split application decisions are ministerial and are not subject to an appeal. ( Ord. No. 2334 , § 2, 11-15-22)
Sec. 29.10.670. Sunset clause.

If SB 9 is repealed or otherwise rescinded by the California State Legislature or by the People of the State of California, this Division shall be repealed."
( Ord. No. 2334 , § 2, 11-15-22)

Page 447 ends

ITEM NO. 20.

Page 448 ends

ITEM NO. 20.

Page 449 ends

ITEM NO. 20.

Page 450 ends

ITEM NO. 20.

This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank

Page 451 ends

ITEM NO. 20.

Page | 1
DIVISION 10. TWO‐UNIT HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS AND URBAN LOT SPLITS Sec. 29.10.600. Purpose and applicability.

The Town Council finds and determines that this Division is applicable only to voluntary applications for two‐ unit housing developments and urban lot splits consistent with Senate Bill 9 (SB 9). Owners of real property or their representatives may continue to exercise rights for property development in conformance with the Zoning Code and Subdivision Code. Development applications that do not satisfy the definitions for a two‐unit housing development or an urban lot split provided in Section III 29.10.610 (Definitions) shall not be subject to this Ordinance. Any provision of this Division which is inconsistent with SB 9 shall be interpreted in a manner which is the most limiting on the ability to create a two‐unit housing development or urban lot split, but which is consistent with State law. The provisions of this Division shall supersede and take precedence over any inconsistent provision of the Town Code to the extent necessary to effect the provisions of this Division.

Sec. 29.10.610. Definitions.

In addition to definitions contained in Chapter 24 (Subdivision Regulations) and Chapter 29 (Zoning Regulations), the following definitions apply for purposes of this Division. Where a conflict may exist, the definitions in this Division shall apply.

Acting in concert means persons, as defined by Government Code Section 82047, as that section existed on January 1, 2022, acting jointly to pursue development of real property whether or not pursuant to a written agreement and irrespective of individual financial interest.

Addition means any construction which increases the size of a building or facility in terms of site coverage, height, length, width, or gross floor area.

Adjacent parcel means any parcel of land that is: touching the parcel at any point; separated from the parcel at any point only by a public right‐of‐way, private street or way, or public or private utility, service, or access easement; or separate from another parcel only by other real property which is in common ownership or control of the applicant.

Alteration means any construction or physical change in the arrangement of rooms or the supporting members of a building or structure or change in the relative position of buildings or structures on a site, or substantial change in appearances of any building or structure.

Car‐share vehicle means a motor vehicle that is operated as part of a regional fleet by a public or private car sharing company or organization and provides hourly or daily service.

Common ownership or control means property owned or controlled by the same person, persons, or entity, or by separate entities in which any shareholder, partner, member, or family member of an investor of the entity owns ten percent or more of the interest in the property.

Entry feature means a structural element, which leads to an entry door.

Existing structure means a lawfully constructed building that has received final building permit clearance prior to January 1, 2022, and which has not been expanded on or after January 1, 2022.

First residential unit means one of two primary dwelling units developed under a two‐unit housing development and can be an existing primary dwelling unit if it meets or is modified to meet the 1,200‐square foot floor area limitation on first residential units.

Flag lot means "lot, corridor" as defined in Section 29.10.020 of Town Code.

Nonconforming zoning condition means a physical improvement on a property that does not conform with current zoning standards.

EXHIBIT 4

Page 452 ends

ITEM NO. 20.

Page | 2
Two‐unit housing development means an application proposing no more than two primary dwelling units on a single parcel located within a single‐family residential zone as authorized by Government Code Section 65852.21.

A two‐unit housing development shall consist of either the construction of no more than two new primary dwelling units, one new primary dwelling unit and retention of one existing primary dwelling unit, or retention of two existing legal non‐conforming primary dwelling units where one or both units are subject to a proposed addition or alteration.

Public transportation means a high‐quality transit corridor, as defined in subdivision (b) of Public Resources Code Section 21155, or a major transit stop, as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21064.3.

Single‐family residential zone means a "R‐1 or Single‐Family residential Zone", "R‐1D or Single‐Family Residential Downtown Zone", or "HR or Hillside Residential Zone" as specified in Article IV, "Residential Zones," of the Zoning Code.

Subdivision Code means Chapter 24 of the Los Gatos Town Code.

Sufficient for separate conveyance means that each attached or adjacent dwelling unit is constructed in a manner adequate to allow for the separate sale of each unit in a common interest development as defined in Civil Code Section 1351 (including a residential condominium, planned development, stock cooperative, or community apartment project), or into any other ownership type in which the dwelling units may be sold individually.

Urban lot split means a ministerial application for a parcel map to subdivide an existing parcel located within a single‐family residential zone into two parcels, as authorized by Government Code Section 66411.7.

Zoning Code means Chapter 29 of the Los Gatos Town Code.

Sec. 29.10.620. Eligibility.

An urban lot split or a two‐unit housing development may only be created on parcels satisfying all of the following general requirements:
(1) Zoning District. A parcel that is located within a single‐family residential zone. (2) Legal Parcel. A parcel which has been legally created in compliance with the Subdivision Map Act (Government Code Section 66410 et seq.) and the Town's Subdivision Regulations in effect at the time the parcel was created. Applications for an urban lot split or two‐unit housing development will only be accepted on proposed parcels with either a recorded parcel map or certificate of compliance. When both an urban lot split and two‐unit housing development applications are submitted simultaneously, no construction or building permits for new construction or grading activities may be issued until the new parcel map for the urban lot split approval has been recorded. (3) Excluding Historic Property. A parcel that is not located within a historic district or property included on the State Historic Resources Inventory, as defined in Section 5020.1 of the Public Resources Code, or a parcel that does not contain a Historic Structure, as defined in Town Code Section 29.10.020, or is not listed on the Town of Los Gatos Historic Resource Inventory, as defined by Town Code Chapter 29, Article VII, Division 3, "Historic Preservation and LHP or Landmark and Historic Preservation Overlay Zone."
(4) Excluding Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. A parcel that is not within a very high fire hazard severity zone, as determined by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to Government Code Section 51178, or within a state responsibility area, as defined in Section 4102 of the Public Resources Code. high or very high fire hazard severity zone as indicated on maps adopted by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 4202. This subparagraph does not apply to sites that have adopted fire hazard mitigation measures pursuant to existing building standards or state fire mitigation measures applicable to the development, including, but not limited to, standards established under all of the following or their successor provisions: (i) Section 4291 of the Public Resources Code or Section 51182, as applicable; (ii) Section 4290 of the Public Resources Code; and (iii) Section 7A of the California Building Code (Title 24 of the California

Page 453 ends

ITEM NO. 20.

Page | 3
Code of Regulations). excluded from the specified hazard zones by a local agency, pursuant to subdivision (b) of Government Code Section 51179, or sites that have adopted fire hazard mitigation measures pursuant to existing building standards or State fire mitigation measures applicable to the development.
(5) Excluding Hazardous Waste Sites. A parcel that is not identified as a hazardous waste site pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 or a hazardous waste site designated by the Department of Toxic Substances Control pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 25356, unless the State Department of Public Health, State Water Resources Control Board, or Department of Toxic Substances Control has cleared the site for residential use.
(6) Excluding Earthquake Fault Zone. A parcel that is not located within a delineated earthquake fault zone as determined by the State Geologist on any official maps published by the State Geologist, unless the two‐unit housing development complies with applicable seismic protection building code standards adopted by the California Building Standards Commission under the California Building Standards Law (Part 2.5 (commencing with Section 18901) of Health and Safety Code Division 13), and by any local building department under Chapter 12.2 (commencing with Section 8875) of Division 1 of Title 2. (7) Excluding Flood Zone. A parcel that is not located within a special flood hazard area subject to inundation by the 1 percent annual chance flood (100‐year flood) on the official maps published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency unless a Letter of Map Revision prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency has been issued or if the proposed two‐unit housing development is constructed in compliance with the provisions of Town Code Chapter 29, Article XI, "Floodplain Management," as determined by the floodplain administrator. (8) Excluding Natural Habitat. A parcel that is not recognized by the Town as a habitat for protected species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or species of special status by State or Federal agencies, fully protected species, or species protected by the Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C.

Sec. 1531 et seq.), the California Endangered Species Act (Chapter 1.5 (commencing with Section 2050) of Division 3 of the Fish and Game Code), or the Native Plant Protection Act (Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 1900) of Division 2 of the Fish and Game Code). (9) Excluding Prime Farmland and Wetlands. A parcel that contains either prime farmland or farmland of statewide importance, as defined pursuant to the United States Department of Agriculture land inventory and monitoring criteria, as modified for California, and designated on the maps prepared by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the Department of Conservation, or land zoned or designated for agricultural protection or preservation by a local ballot measure that was approved by the voters of that jurisdiction; or wetlands, as defined in the United States Fish and Wildlife Service Manual, Part 660 FW 2 (June 21, 1993).
(10) Excluding Conservation Easements. A parcel subject to a recorded conservation easement.

Sec. 29.10.630. Requirements.

Two‐unit housing developments must comply with the following objective zoning standards, design review standards, and general requirements and restrictions:
(1) Zoning Standards. The following objective zoning standards supersede any other standards to the contrary that may be provided elsewhere in the Zoning Code, as they pertain to a two‐unit housing development under Government Code Section 65852.21. Two‐unit housing developments shall be constructed only in accordance with the following objective zoning standards, except as provided by subsection (4), "Exceptions:"
a. Building Height. Maximum building height shall be as specified by the applicable zoning district for the main structure. Buildings located within the required side or rear setbacks of the applicable zoning district, and those located in the Hillside Residential (HR) zones, shall not exceed 16 feet in height;

Page 454 ends

ITEM NO. 20.

Page | 4
b. New Driveways. Each parcel shall include no more than a single driveway unless the parcel has more than 100 feet of contiguous street frontage or more than one existing driveway. A, and any new driveway shall satisfy the following requirements:

1. A minimum width of 10 feet up to a maximum width of 18 feet. Driveways in the Hillside Residential (HR) zones shall have a minimum width of 12 feet;

2. A minimum depth of 18 feet measured from the front or street side property line;

3. Surfacing shall comply with Town Code Section 29.10.155(e);

4. Only a single driveway curb‐cut shall be permitted per parcel unless the parcel has more than 100 feet of contiguous street frontage, designed in accordance with the Town's Standard Specifications and Plans for Parks and Public Works Construction; and

5. A maximum slope of 15 percent.
c. Dwelling Unit Type. The primary dwelling units comprising a two‐unit housing development may take the form of detached single‐family dwellings, attached units, and/or duplexes. A duplex may consist of two dwelling units in a side‐by‐side or front‐to‐back configuration within the same structure or one dwelling unit located atop another dwelling unit within the same structure; d. Fencing. All new fencing shall comply with the requirements of Sections 29.40.030 through

29.40.0325 of the Zoning Code;
e. Floor Area Ratio and Lot Coverage.

1. The maximum floor area ratio and lot coverage shall be as specified by the applicable zoning regulations.

2. For flag/corridor lots, the gross lot size includes the access corridor for the purposes of determining maximum floor area ratio and lot coverage as follows:
i. When an easement is used to provide access, the access corridor is included in the gross lot size for the lot granting the easement; and ii. When the access corridor is owned in‐fee and is part of the rear lot, the access corridor is included in the gross lot size for the rear lot.

3. The maximum size of the first new residential unit shall not exceed 1,200 square feet.

4. When a two‐unit housing development is proposed and the existing structures are at or below the maximum allowed floor area, a 10 percent increase in the floor area ratio standards for residential structures is allowed, excluding garages, and this increase in floor area cannot be combined with a separate increase for an Accessory Dwelling Unit allowed by Town Code Section 29.10.320. The additional floor area allowed by this subsection shall not exceed 1,200 square feet.

5. Notwithstanding the floor area ratio and lot coverage standards in this subsection, a new two‐unit housing development with unit sizes of 800 square feet or less shall be permitted. f. Grading.

1. To the extent required by Chapter 12, Article II and Section 29.10.09045(b) of the Town Code, the grading activities set forth in subsection 2. below may require a Grading Permit, but will not require discretionary review of an Architecture and Site Application;

2. Grading activity associated with a two‐unit housing development shall not exceed 50 cubic yards, cut plus fill, except:
i. Light wells that do not exceed the minimum required per Building Code shall not count as grading activity for the purpose of this section;

Page 455 ends

ITEM NO. 20.

Page | 5
ii. Grading activities required to provide the minimum driveway and fire access as required by the Santa Clara County Fire Department shall not count as grading activity for the purpose of this section; and
iii. Excavation within the footprint of a primary dwelling unit or garage shall not count as grading activity for the purpose of this section. g. Cut and Fill. Two‐unit housing developments shall be subject to the cut and fill requirements specified by Table 1‐1 (Cut and Fill Requirements) below:

Table 1‐1 ‐ Cut and Fill Requirements
Site Element Cut * Fill *
House and attached garage 8' ** 3'
Detached accessory building * 4' 3'
Driveways *** 4' 3'
Other (decks, yards) * 4' 3'
* Combined depths of cut plus fill for development other than the main residence shall be limited to 6 feet.
** Excludes below grade square footage pursuant to Section 29.40.072 of the Town Code and light‐ wells that do not exceed the minimum required per Building Code. *** Excludes cut and fill for the minimum driveway and fire access standards as required by the Santa Clara County Fire Department.
h. Building Sites. The footprint of the proposed residential unit(s) and garage(s) shall not be located on lands with an average slopeslopes exceeding 30 percent. This provision applies only to the building site, not the property as a whole;
i. Retaining Walls. Retaining walls shall not exceed five feet in height and shall not run in a straight continuous direction for more than 50 feet without a break, offset, or planting pocket. Retaining walls shall have a five‐foot landscaped buffer when adjacent to the street; j. Light Reflectivity Value. Exterior material colors for primary dwelling units and garages in the Hillside Residential (HR) zones shall comply with requirements in Chapter V, Section I, of the Town's Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines;
k. Landscaping Requirement. All landscaping shall comply with the California Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO);
l. Lighting. New exterior lighting fixtures shall be downward directed and utilize shields so that no bulb is visible to ensure that the light is directed to the ground surface and does not spill light onto neighboring parcels consistent with Section 29.10.09015 of the Zoning Code; m. Trees. Any proposed work shall comply with the protection, removal, and replacement requirements for protected trees in Chapter 29, Article 1, Division 2, "Tree Protection," of Town Code;
n. Minimum Living Area. The minimum living area of a primary dwelling unit shall be 150 square feet, subject to the restrictions specified by Health and Safety Code Section 17958.1; o. Parking.

1. One parking stall per primary dwelling unit shall be required, except for two‐unit housing developments located on parcels within one‐half mile walking distance of public transportation; or where there is a designated parking area for one or more car‐share vehicles within one block of the parcel.

Page 456 ends

ITEM NO. 20.

Page | 6

2. Parking stalls may either be uncovered or covered (garage or carport) in compliance with applicable developments standards of the Zoning Code, including Chapter 29, Article I, Division 4, "Parking," except that uncovered parking spaces may be provided in a front or side setback abutting a street on a driveway (provided that it is feasible based on specific site or fire and life safety conditions) or through tandem parking. p. Setbacks. Two‐unit housing developments and attached garages shall be subject to the setback and building separation requirements specified by Table 1‐2 (Setback Requirements), below.

Detached garages and detached accessory structures shall meet the setback requirements specified in Town Code Section 29.40.015 (Accessory Buildings).:

Table 1‐2 ‐ Setback Requirements
Setback Requirement(2)
Property Line Setbacks(1) Front Per the applicable zoning district.(5)
Garage Entry 18 feet
Interior Sides 4 feet(3)
Rear
Street Side Per the applicable zoning
district.

Separation Between
Detached Structures(34) (4)
5 feet
Exceptions:
(1) Cornices, eaves, belt courses, sills, canopies, bay windows, chimneys, or other similar architectural features may extend into required setbacks as specified Section 29.40.070(b) of the Zoning Code. (2) No setback shall be required for an existing structure, or a structure constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as an existing structure. (3) For parcels created through an urban lot split where the parcels are under the same ownership, Nno interior side setback shall be required for two‐unit housing development units constructed as attached units on separate lots, provided that the structures meet building code safety standards and are sufficient to allow separate conveyance as a separate fee parcel. Similarly, no rear setback (for the front property) or front setback (for the rear property) shall be required for two‐unit housing development units constructed as attached units in a flag‐lot configuration where the parcels are under the same ownership.
(4) Except for primary dwellings constructed as a duplex or attached single‐family residences. (5) Flag/corridor lots shall use the interior side setback requirements for all property lines other than the rear.
q. Stormwater Management. The development shall comply with the requirements of the Town's National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit as implemented by Chapter 22 of the Town Code, and as demonstrated by a grading and drainage plan prepared by a registered civil engineer; and
r. New units shall be designed as individual units, with separate gas, electric, and water utility connections directly between each dwelling unit and the utility. (2) Design Review Standards. The following objective design review standards apply to construction of new primary dwelling units and to any addition and/or alteration to existing primary dwelling units as part of a two‐unit housing development, except as provided by subsection (4) below, "Exceptions:"

Page 457 ends

ITEM NO. 20.

Page | 7
a. Balconies/Decks. Rooftop and second floor terraces and decks are prohibited. Balconies shall only be permitted on the front‐ and street‐side elevations of a primary dwelling unit fronting a public street. Such balconies shall be without any projections beyond the building footprint; b. Finished Floor. The finished floor of the first story shall not exceed three feet in height as measured from finished grade;
c. Front Entryway. A front entryway framing a front door shall have a roof eave that matches or connects at the level of the adjacent eave line;
d. Front Porch. If proposed, porches shall have a minimum depth of six feet and a minimum width equal to 25 percent of the linear width of the front elevation; e. Step‐back. The interior side and rear elevations of the second story of a two‐story primary dwelling unit shall be recessed by five feet from the first story, as measured wall to wall. In the case of a covered porch on the first floor below, the step‐back is measured from the structural post of the covered porch to the wall above;
f. Garages. Street‐facing attached garages shall not exceed 50 percent of the linear width of the front‐yard or street‐side yard elevation;
g. Plate Height. The plate height of each story shall be limited to a maximum of 10 feet as measured from finished floor, and when above the first floor the plate height shall be limited to a maximum of eight feet; and
h. Windows. All second story windows less than 10 feet from rear and interior side property lines shall be clerestory with the bottom of the glass at least six feet above the finished floor except as necessary for egress purposes as required by the Building Code. (3) General Requirements and Restrictions. The following requirements and restrictions apply to all two‐ unit housing developments, inclusive of existing and new primary dwelling units, except as provided by subsection (4) below, "Exceptions:"
a. Number of Units. A maximum of four units, with a maximum of two primary dwelling units, on lots that have not undergone an urban lot split.
b. Accessory Dwelling Units. In addition to the two residential units allowed under this section, consistent with Chapter 29, Article 1, Division 7, "Accessory Dwelling Units," of the Town Code, one accessory dwelling unit and one junior accessory dwelling unit shall be allowed on lots that have not undergone an urban lot split.
c. Building and Fire Codes. The International Building Code ("Building Code"), and the California Fire Code and International Fire Code (together, "Fire Code"), as adopted by Chapter 6 of the Town Code, respectively, apply to all two‐unit housing developments. d. Encroachment Permits. Separate encroachment permits, issued by the Parks and Public Works Department, shall be required for the installation of utilities to serve two‐unit housing developments. Applicants shall apply for and pay all necessary fees for utility permits for sanitary sewer, gas, water, electric, and all other utility work. e. Restrictions on Demolition. The two‐unit housing development shall not require either demolition of more than 25 percent of the exterior walls or alteration of any of the following types of housing:

Page 458 ends

ITEM NO. 20.

Page | 8

2. Housing that is subject to any form of rent or price control through a public entity's valid exercise of its police power. This shall be evidenced by an attestation from the property owner; or

3. Housing that has been occupied by a tenant in the last three years. This shall be evidenced by an attestation from the property owner.

If any existing housing is proposed to be altered or demolished, the owner of the property proposed for a two‐unit housing development shall sign an affidavit, stating that none of the conditions listed above exist and shall provide a comprehensive history of the occupancy of the units to be altered or demolished for the past three years on a form prescribed by the Town.

1. A limitation restricting the property to residential uses only; and

2. A requirement that any dwelling units on the property may only be rented for a period longer than thirty (30) days.
(4) Exceptions. If any of the provided zoning standards or design review standards would have the effect of physically precluding construction of up to two (2) primary dwelling units or physically preclude either of the two (2) primary dwelling units from being at least eight hundred (800) square feet in floor area, the Community Development Director shall grant an exception to the applicable standard(s) to the minimum extent necessary as specified by this section. An exception request shall be explicitly made on the application for a two‐unit housing development.
a. Determination. In order to retain adequate open space to allow for recreational enjoyment, protection of the urban forest, preservation of the community character, reduction of the ambient air temperature, and to allow for the percolation of rainfall into the groundwater system, when considering an exception request, the Community Development Director shall first determine that a reduction in any other zoning and/or design review standard(s) will not allow the construction of the two‐unit housing development as specified by this section prior to allowing an exception(s) to the landscaping requirement, front‐yard setback, or street‐side setbacks standards.

Sec. 29.10.640. Application process for two‐unit housing development. (a) Applications for two‐unit housing developments shall be submitted and processed in compliance with the following requirements:
(1) Application Type. Two‐unit housing developments shall be reviewed ministerially by the Community Development Director for compliance with the applicable regulations. The permitting provisions of Town Code Sections 29.20.135 through 29.20.160, "Architecture and Site Approval," shall not be applied;
(2) Application Filing. An application for a two‐unit housing development, including the required application materials and fees, shall be filed with the Community Development Department; (3) Neighbor Notification. In addition to the standard application materials, the applicant will be required to submit one (1) set of stamped, addressed envelopes to neighboring residents and property owners.

Page 459 ends

ITEM NO. 20.

Page | 9
(4) Building Permits. Approval of a two‐unit housing development application shall be required prior to acceptance of an application for building permit(s) for the new and/or modified primary dwelling unit(s) comprising the two‐unit housing development;
(5) Denial. The Community Development Director may deny a two‐unit housing development project only if the Building Official makes a written finding, based upon a preponderance of the evidence, that the two‐unit housing development would have a specific, adverse impact, as defined and determined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Government Code Section 65589.5, upon public health and safety or the physical environment and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact; and
(6) Appeals. Two‐unit housing application decisions are ministerial and are not subject to an appeal.

Sec. 29.10.650. Subdivision standards.

1. When an easement is used to provide access, the access corridor is included in the gross lot size for the lot granting the easement; and

2. When the access corridor is owned in‐fee and is part of the rear lot, the access corridor is included in the gross lot size for the rear lot.
c. Minimum Lot Width. Each new parcel shall maintain a minimum lot width of twenty (20) feet; d. Minimum Public Frontage. Each new parcel shall have frontage upon a street with a minimum frontage dimension of twenty (20) feet, except as allowed above for flag/corridor lots; e. Number of Lots. The parcel map to subdivide an existing parcel shall result in no more than two (2) parcels; and
f. Lot Merger. Lots resulting from an urban lot split shall not be merged unless that lot merger can be done without loss of housing units and without causing a non‐conforming building, lot, or use. (2) General Requirements and Restrictions. The following requirements and restrictions apply to all proposed urban lot splits:
a. Adjacent Parcels. Neither the owner of the parcel being subdivided nor any person acting in concert with the owner has previously conducted an urban lot split to create an adjacent parcel as provided for in this Division;
b. Dedication and Easements. The Town Engineer shall not require dedications of rights‐of‐way nor the construction of offsite improvements but may, however, require recording of easements necessary for the provision of private services, facilities, and future public improvements or future public services, facilities, and future public improvements;

Page 460 ends

ITEM NO. 20.

Page | 10
c. Existing Structures. Existing structures located on a parcel subject to an urban lot split shall not be subject to a setback requirement. However, any such existing structures shall not be located across the shared property line resulting from an urban lot split, unless the structure is converted to an attached unit as provided for in Table 1‐2 (Setback Requirements, Exception Number 3). All other existing structures shall be modified, demolished, or relocated prior to recordation of a parcel map;
d. Intent to Occupy. The applicant shall submit a signed affidavit to the Community Development Director attesting that the applicant intends to occupy one (1) of the housing units on the newly created parcels as their principal residence for a minimum of three (3) years from either:

1. The date of the approval of the urban lot split when the intent is to live in an existing residence; or

2. Certificate of occupancy when the intent is to occupy a newly constructed residential unit.

This requirement shall not apply to an applicant that is a "community land trust," as defined in clause (ii) of subparagraph (C) of paragraph (11) of subdivision (a) of Section 402.1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, or a "qualified nonprofit corporation" as described in Section 214.15 of the Revenue and Taxation Code;
e. Non‐Conforming Conditions. The Town shall not require, as a condition of approval, the correction of nonconforming zoning conditions. However, no new nonconforming conditions may result from the urban lot split other than interior side and rear setbacks as specified by Table 1‐2 (Setback Requirements, Exception Number 2), maximum allowed lot coverage, and maximum allowed floor area ratio;
f. Number of Units. No more than two (2) dwelling units may be located on any lot created through an urban lot split, including primary dwelling units, accessory dwelling units, junior accessory dwelling units, density bonus units, and units created as two‐unit developments. Any excess dwelling units that do not meet these requirements shall be relocated, demolished, or otherwise removed prior to approval of a parcel map;
g. Prior Subdivision. A parcel created through a prior urban lot split may not be further subdivided.

The subdivider shall submit a signed deed restriction to the Community Development Director documenting this restriction. The deed restriction shall be recorded on the title of each parcel concurrent with recordation of the parcel map;
h. Restrictions on Demolition. The proposed urban lot split shall not require either the demolition of more than twenty‐five (25) percent of the exterior walls or alteration of any of the following types of housing:

2. Housing that is subject to any form of rent or price control through a public entity's valid exercise of its police power. This shall be evidenced by an attestation from the property owner; or

Page 461 ends

ITEM NO. 20.

Page | 11
acting in concert with the owner or applicant, has previously subdivided an adjacent parcel using and urban lot split;
i. Replacement Units. If any existing dwelling unit is proposed to be demolished, the applicant will comply with the replacement housing provisions of Government Code Section 66300(d); j. Recorded Covenant. Prior to approval and recordation of the parcel map, the applicant shall record a restrictive covenant and agreement in the form prescribed by the Town, which shall run with the land and provide for the following:

1. A prohibition against further subdivision of the parcel using the urban lot split procedures as provided for in this section;

2. A limitation restricting the properties to residential uses only; and

Sec. 29.10.660. Application process for urban lot splits. (1a) Applications for urban lot splits shall be submitted and processed in compliance with the following requirements:
a.(1) Application Type. Urban lot splits shall be reviewed ministerially by the Community Development Director for compliance with the applicable regulations. A tentative parcel map shall not be required; b.(2) Application Filing. An urban lot split application, including the required application materials and fees, shall be filed with the Community Development Department; c.(3) Neighbor Notification. In addition to the standard application materials, the applicant will be required to submit one (1) set of stamped, addressed envelopes to neighboring residents and property owners.

The Planning Department will assist the applicant in determining the neighboring properties to be notified (which will consist of all properties abutting the applicant's parcel, properties directly across the street and the two (2) parcels on each side of the properties directly across the street). d.(4) Parcel Map. Approval of an urban lot split permit shall be required prior to acceptance of an application for a parcel map for an urban lot split. Applicants shall apply for an Urban Lot Split Parcel Map and pay all fees;
e.(5) Development. Development on the resulting parcels is limited to a project approved by the two‐unit housing development process, the Town’s Accessory Dwelling Unit process, or through the Town's standard discretionary process;
f.(6) Denial. The Community Development Director may deny an urban lot split only if the Building Official makes a written finding, based upon a preponderance of the evidence, that an urban lot split or two‐ unit housing development located on the proposed new parcels would have a specific, adverse impact, as defined and determined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 65589.5, upon public health

Page 462 ends

ITEM NO. 20.

Page | 12
and safety or the physical environment and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact; and
g.(7) Appeals. Urban lot split application decisions are ministerial and are not subject to an appeal.

Sec. 29.10.670. Sunset clause.

If SB 9 is repealed or otherwise rescinded by the California State Legislature or by the People of the State of California, this Division shall be repealed.

Page 463 ends

ITEM NO. 20.

PREPARED BY: Ryan Safty
Associate Planner
Reviewed by: Planning Manager and Community Development Director 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● 406-354-6832
www.losgatosca.gov

TOWN OF LOS GATOS

PLANNING COMMISSION
REPORT
MEETING DATE: 4/10/2024
ITEM NO: 2

DESK ITEM
DATE: April 10, 2024
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Forward a Recommendation to the Town Council on Amendments to Chapter 29 (Zoning Regulations) of the Town Code for Senate Bill 9 Regarding a Change to Required Second-Story Step-Backs and Other Clarifying Revisions.

The Proposed Amendments to the Town Code Are Not Considered a Project Under Section 15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act, and in Accordance with Government Code Section 66411.7(n) and 66452.21(g), Senate Bill 9 Ordinances Are Not a Project Subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. Town Code Amendment Application A-24-003.

Project Location: Town Wide. Applicant: Town of Los Gatos.

REMARKS:

Exhibit 5 includes additional information provided by a Commissioner.

EXHIBITS:

Previously received with the April 10, 2024, Staff Report:

1. Required Findings

2. Current Senate Bill 9 Ordinance 2334

3. Covered Porch Step-Back Diagram

4. Draft Senate Bill 9 Ordinance Amendments
Received with this Desk Item Report:

5. Commissioner Comment
ATTACHMENT 4

Page 464 ends

ITEM NO. 20.

This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank

Page 465 ends

ITEM NO. 20.

From:

To: Ryan Safty
Subject: Objective Design Standards for SB 9 Units
Date: Tuesday, April 9, 2024 3:00:31 PM
Attachments: Interim Objective Design Standards Two Unit Overlay District.pdf [EXTERNAL SENDER]
Dear Ryan.

Thank you so much for your prompt and detailed responses to my questions.

I would be very grateful if you would submit a desk item for tomorrow's PC meeting, at a Commissioner's request, for consideration of additional objective design standards similar to those of the County of San Mateo Interim Building and Design Guidelines, attached below.

With thanks in advance.

Jeffrey
EXHIBIT 5

Page 466 ends

ITEM NO. 20.
· Main Line (650) 522-7200 ·

Two – Unit Development Overlay District
Interim Objective Building and Design Standards
Purpose. The purpose of this document is to establish interim objective building and design standards for ministerial single-family and two-unit SB 9 development planning applications. These standards are intended to provide for high-quality building designs that fit contextually and respect the scale and design of existing singlefamily neighborhoods and district where new residential development is proposed.

Applicability. The interim standards set forth herein shall be applicable to all ministerial single-family and two- unit SB 9 development projects and shall apply in addition to the development standards in Chapter 27.21. In the event of a conflict between these standards and the standards of Chapter 27.21, the more restrictive standards shall apply except that no standard shall preclude the development of at least two dwelling units that are at least 800 square feet each as permitted by Sections 65852.21 and 66411.7, of the California Government Code, as amended.

Definitions. The following definitions shall apply. Terms not defined herein shall defer to the definitions contained in Chapters 26 and 27 of the San Mateo Municipal Code. Where definitions conflict, the definitions below shall prevail.
(a) “Architectural Features” shall include but are not limited to bay windows, box windows, projections of at least 18 inches, balconies, balconettes, insets of at least 18 inches, and dormers. (b) “Attic” means a non-habitable space within the roof of a building as defined by the California Building Code.
(c) “Dormer” means a roofed projecting window structure, set upright in a sloping roof, that projects vertically beyond the plane of the pitched roof. The face of a dormer shall be setback at least 1 foot from the wall below, with a roof pitch no less than half the main roof and a ridge below the main roof ridge. (d) “Utilities and Mechanical Equipment” means, but is not limited to, air conditioners; heaters; utility meters; cable and similar telecommunications equipment; backflow preventions; irrigation control valves; electrical transformers; pull boxes; all ducting for air conditioning, heating, and blower systems; fire protection equipment; and all roof-mounted equipment.

Objective Building and Design Standards. All development shall conform with the following:
(a) Architectural Style
(1) Attached units shall be of the same architectural style including:
(A) Roof form
(B) Windows
(C) Entrances
(D) Massing/scale/proportions
(E) Colors/Materials
(F) Architectural detailing/fenestration.

CITY OF SAN MATEO

COMMUITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org
(650) 522-7200

Page 467 ends

ITEM NO. 20.
· Main Line (650) 522-7200 ·
(b) Massing and Scale
(1) Structures shall provide a plane offset of a minimum of two feet per each 30 feet of horizontal length along the primary frontage and a street side yard Structures shall provide a minimum 2-foot stepback for second story elements on side elevations and on a rear elevation when it is within 15 feet of the rear lot line. (c) Entries and Entry Ways
(1) Individual entries shall be provided to each dwelling unit. (2) All primary entries to a dwelling unit shall incorporate at least one of the following elements at front entrances:
(A) Front porches
(B) Stoops
(C) Recessed entry with a depth of at least 3 feet
(3) At least one principal entryway shall face the primary street frontage, primary right-of-way, or access corridor.
(4) When an exterior staircase is proposed for an upper-level primary dwelling unit, it shall have a setback of at least 5 feet from nearest lot line and shall have a landing limited to the minimum area required to allow ingress and egress as specified by the California Building Code. (d) Windows
(1) Window type, style, recess depth, and mullions shall be consistent across elevations. (2) Location and Privacy
(A) Second story windows and balconies shall be offset from the window locations and balconies of neighboring residences to maximize privacy. (B) When located within 5 feet of a lot line of an abutting residential lot, second story windows up to 5 feet from the finished floor shall provide and maintain obscured glazing.
(e) Materials and Colors
(1) A building shall carry the same theme on all elevations. A theme includes primary (nonaccent) material(s) and color(s). (2) The following materials are prohibited on building exteriors:
(A) Exterior Foam Molding
(B) Corrugated Metal
(C) Vinyl Siding
(D) Plywood
(E) Exterior Insulation Finishing System (EIFS)
(F) Any material with a light reflection value of <45.
(f) Lightwells. Lightwells shall not be located along the primary front façade of a structure. All light wells shall be screened from public view
(g) Lighting. All exterior lighting shall be downward directed (excluding landscaping uplighting), have a shielded light source, and be designed so that light is not directed-off site. (h) Utilities and Mechanical Equipment
Ground-mounted utilities, mechanical equipment, generators, and AC units that directly serve the development shall be screened from view from adjacent properties and the public right-of-way by either an enclosure designed as part of the building and/or fencing.

Page 468 ends

ITEM NO. 20.

This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank

Page 469 ends

ITEM NO. 20.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/10/2024, Item #2,
Amendments to Town Code re: Senate Bill 9
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:

Steve Raspe, Chair
Emily Thomas, Vice Chair
Jeffrey Barnett
Susan Burnett
Adam Mayer
Town Manager: Laurel Prevetti
Community Development
Director:

Joel Paulson
Town Attorney: Gabrielle Whelan
Transcribed by: Vicki L. Blandin
(619) 541-3405
ATTACHMENT 5

Page 470 ends

ITEM NO. 20.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/10/2024, Item #2,
Amendments to Town Code re: Senate Bill 9
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:

CHAIR RASPE: That takes us to the public portion
of the hearing in which we have one item this evening, Item

2. It is forwarding a recommendation to the Town Council on Amendments to Chapter 29, the Zoning Regulations, of the Town Code for Senate Bill 9, also known as SB 9, regarding a change to required second story step-backs and other
clarifying revisions. The proposed amendments to the Town Code are not considered a project under Section 15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act, and in accordance with Government Code Section 66411.7(n) and 66452.21(g), Senate Bill 9 Ordinances are not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. This is Town Code Amendment Application A-24-003.

Commissioners, are there any disclosures on this
item? Seeing none, Mr. Safty, I believe you’re preparing our staff report for this?
RYAN SAFTY: Certainly, and thank you. Good
evening, Commissioners.

Before you is an amendment to the SB 9 Ordinance
within Chapter 29 of Town Code. Earlier this year the Town Council heard from a local architect requesting revisions

Page 471 ends

ITEM NO. 20.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/10/2024, Item #2,
Amendments to Town Code re: Senate Bill 9
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
regarding the second story step-back rule for SB 9 two-unit developments. Town Council voted to include this request within the strategic priorities for the coming years and listed the change as the first priority for ordinance
amendments. So here we are.

Current Town Code for SB 9 requires that the
interior, side, and rear elevations of the second story of a two-story primary dwelling unit be recessed by 5’ from the first story, and that’s measured from wall-to-wall.

The standard was included originally in an
attempt to limit potential second story privacy impacts associated with an SB 9 development project since SB 9
units can be placed as close as 4’ from the side and rear property lines.

Additionally, the 5’ step-back decreases the mass
of a two-story SB 9 in accordance with the Town’s
Residential Design Guidelines since only objective
standards can be used to review these SB 9 applications.

Based on the diagram from the architect, and
that’s provided in Exhibit 3 of your report, measuring the 5’ step-back from the structural post of a covered porch would meet the same intent and allow the design community more flexibility.

Page 472 ends

ITEM NO. 20.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/10/2024, Item #2,
Amendments to Town Code re: Senate Bill 9
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
The interior, side, and rear elevations of the
second story would still have the increased 9’ minimum side and rear setback, and the covered porch step-back would still help decrease the second floor massing.

In addition to the step-back modifications
provided in Exhibit 4, Staff also recommends a handful of other minor clean up items. These are either to better
align the Town’s standards with State law or to clarify existing standards as identified by Staff over the past few years as we’ve been using the ordinance and reviewing
applications.

The recommended ordinance modifications in
Exhibit 4 would not be considered a project under CEQA and would be very minor changes to the existing process, hardly noticeable.

A Desk Item was provided today on Commissioner
request to provide the City of San Mateo’s Interim Building and Design Guidelines for consideration in adding
additional objective standards within the Town’s ordinance.

It is worth noting that the Town’s existing SB 9
Ordinance has actually been very effective, and the
direction from Town Council was to make a single
modification to an existing design standard. To date we have approved three two-unit housing development

Page 473 ends

ITEM NO. 20.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/10/2024, Item #2,
Amendments to Town Code re: Senate Bill 9
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
applications and 17 urban lot splits, and Staff on several occasions has received verbal praise from HCD regarding our SB 9 Ordinance.

Based on the discussion provided in the Staff
Report Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the information included within the report and forward a recommendation to the Town Council for approval of the
amendments to Chapter 29 of the Town Code in Exhibit 4, and also make the required findings in Exhibit 1.

This concludes Staff’s presentation and we are
happy to answer any questions.

CHAIR RASPE: Thank you very much, Mr. Safty.

Commissioners, any questions for Staff with respect to
either the report they provided or the Desk Item that has been attached? Commissioner Barnett.

COMMISSIONER BARNETT: I’m going to ask an
obvious question to which there is an obvious answer. The Town Attorney has reviewed each of these changes and
approves them?
RYAN SAFTY: That is correct.

CHAIR RASPE: Thank you so much. Good question I
was hoping someone would ask.

We now invite comments from members of the
public. If you’ve not already turned in a speaker card to

Page 474 ends

ITEM NO. 20.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/10/2024, Item #2,
Amendments to Town Code re: Senate Bill 9
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
Staff, please do so at this time, or if you’re on Zoom use the Raised Hand feature. When you are called to speak,
please state your name and address for the record, adjust the microphone so that you may speak directly into it, and you will have three minutes.

I have a single card so far. Mr. Tony Jeans, if
you’d like you can step forward if you wish to speak on the matter before the Commission, Agenda Item #2, and you have three minutes, sir. If you could begin by stating your name and address for the record.

TONY JEANS: Tony Jeans, PO Box 1518, Los Gatos.

Thank you for this opportunity.

I think the Town of Los Gatos SB 9 Ordinance is
working very well. I’m comparing it with other ordinances, such as Saratoga and Monte Sereno, for example.

This is not really an ordinance issue, but it’s
more an issue and I’d like your help to make this happen: I would like the process to run more smoothly.

For example, I’m in the middle of one SB 9 lot
split on Marchmont Avenue. Planning approved it, so we’ve done the lot split. The owner of the property who recently purchased it wants to move into the house that is going to be remodeled on the property, and then they’re going to

Page 475 ends

ITEM NO. 20.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/10/2024, Item #2,
Amendments to Town Code re: Senate Bill 9
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
build another house that they’ll sell, which will enable them to basically afford to move into Los Gatos.

The problem I’m having is in submitting the plans
to the Town to remodel the existing house I got plan check comments back from Planning. Building is taking forever, but the plan check comments that I got back from
Engineering was we can’t give you any comments at this
stage because you haven’t recorded the Parcel Map.

Now, the Parcel Map is part of the process of
doing a lot split, but why can’t they look at what we’re trying to do with an existing house? Why throw back
something saying we can’t even review it? The reason it’s taken so long to get the Parcel Map done is it has gone through three iterations with Engineering at four weeks per time to try to get the Parcel Map fine tuned.

I think if this can all be made a little more
efficient it would really help. This is meant to be an
efficient process.

As to words in the actual change, I want you to
distinguish between a conservation easement, which is being added, and open space easement, which should not be
restrictive. If there is an open space easement that is not a conservation easement, that should not restrict someone

Page 476 ends

ITEM NO. 20.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/10/2024, Item #2,
Amendments to Town Code re: Senate Bill 9
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
from doing an SB 9 lot split, and there is a distinction in the law. Thank you.

CHAIR RASPE: Thank you. Before you step away,
Commissioners, any questions for Mr. Jeans? Vice Chair
Thomas.

VICE CHAIR THOMAS: Thank you for your input. I
know we always appreciate the public comments.

I just want to clarify about the conservation
easement versus open space easement. You’re requesting that it clarify that conservation easement does not include open space easement?
TONY JEANS: Right. A conservation easement
typically is something that you have to get a land trust involved. There’s a tax break, it bestows certain benefits on the owner of the land, and an open space easement is different. Sometimes you might put an open space easement so that you can’t build on a certain portion of the
property, but it is nothing to do with a conservation
easement. An open space easement might be placed along the edge of a creek, for example.

VICE CHAIR THOMAS: Are you asking that we would
include a definition of conservation easement in the list of definitions?

Page 477 ends

ITEM NO. 20.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/10/2024, Item #2,
Amendments to Town Code re: Senate Bill 9
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
TONY JEANS: I am saying that there is a
distinction between the two. Thank you.

VICE CHAIR THOMAS: Yes, perfect. Thank you.

CHAIR RASPE: Thank you. Any other questions for
this speaker? No. Thank you again for your comments. I have no further yellow cards for any members of the public
present. Mr. Paulson, do we have any members of the public on Zoom?
JOEL PAULSON: We do not.

CHAIR RASPE: Very good. We have no more public
comment. I will close the public hearing portion of this matter. Commissioners, I invite you to ask questions, ask questions of Staff, or of each other.

I think the most efficient way to do it is we’ve
been provided Exhibit 4, which is a redline document making changes to our existing policy with new changes. My hope and my desire is to go through this on a page-by-page
basis, and if any Commissioners have any comments we’ll do that as we go through, keeping in mind we also have
Commissioner Barnett’s additional comments and if we can introduce them as part of this discussion that would be great.

Without further ado let’s begin then with page 1
of Exhibit 4. Again, minor definitional comments.

Page 478 ends

ITEM NO. 20.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/10/2024, Item #2,
Amendments to Town Code re: Senate Bill 9
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
COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Can I ask one question of
Staff before we move forward?
CHAIR RASPE: Please.

COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Does Staff have a response
to Mr. Jeans’ comments regarding the timing of the Parcel Map?
RYAN SAFTY: We do, thank you. This is actually
something that we recommended an amendment to on page 2 of Exhibit 4, under 29.10.620, Item 2, on what constitutes a legal parcel. Previously we would say that you had to get your Parcel Map recorded before we’re going to even accept the two-unit development application. Now we say when both urban lot split and two-unit housing development
applications are submitted simultaneously no construction or building permits for new construction or grading
activities may be issued until the new Parcel Map for the urban lot split has been approved and recorded. So we will take in the application, we will review a Building Permit; we’re just not going to issue Construction Permits until the parcel is legal.

COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Thank you for that.

CHAIR RASPE: Commissioner Mayer.

COMMISSIONER MAYER: I have a follow up question
to that actually. The public comment was in regard to the

Page 479 ends

ITEM NO. 20.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/10/2024, Item #2,
Amendments to Town Code re: Senate Bill 9
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
renovation of an existing structure on the property to be split. Is that covered here in that section? I’m only
seeing it refer to a two-unit housing development
application and not necessarily like a remodel application.

RYAN SAFTY: Thank you for the question. I would
say I would need to know a little bit more about the
individual case being referenced. I don't know why the
Parks and Public Works Department cannot review an internal remodel.

There is one minor point to clarify that if an
urban lot split is going to modify or demolish a structure that has been used, say, as affordable housing or has been rented by somebody in the last three years, then you can’t do anything on it. That’s the only example I could think of why Engineering would not allow that permit to be issued.

JENNIFER ARMER: I’ll just add that that language
is directly from State law, so that is something that needs to be maintained. I think at this point we can follow up with the member of the public who commented and figure out which project it is and see if we can find out what the situation was there.

COMMISSIONER MAYER: If you could follow up with
the Planning Commission after you guys have that
conversation, because I’m curious. With more SB 9 projects

Page 480 ends

ITEM NO. 20.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/10/2024, Item #2,
Amendments to Town Code re: Senate Bill 9
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
coming down the pipeline, there are going to be instances where a property owner is going to want to keep one of the existing structures on the site, perhaps to do a remodel or do an addition to it, and then add two units to the other parcel they split off.

SB 9 is still relatively new, so I think we’re
all learning as we go along and see more applications
coming through, but in these sort of instances I’d like to see the process be more streamlined. Thanks.

CHAIR RASPE: Thank you. Any other questions for
Staff? All right, then Exhibit 4, and we’ll take this one page at a time.

Any Commissioners have any questions or comments
with respect to page 1?
Okay, page 2. This includes the language we were
just discussing. Mr. Safty just pointed to some other
changes, including the historic property exclusion, and the very high fire hazard severity zone exclusion as well. Any comments?
My only thought here is perhaps based upon Mr.

Jeans’ comments of in the definition portions should we include now an open space easement definition?
RYAN SAFTY: I would like to jump in if I can on
that one.

Page 481 ends

ITEM NO. 20.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/10/2024, Item #2,
Amendments to Town Code re: Senate Bill 9
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
CHAIR RASPE: Please.

RYAN SAFTY: The specific conservation easement
situation is something that is directly out of State law, and so in speaking with the Town Attorney previously the direction is that we keep it identical to State law. Our SB 9 Ordinance does not say the words “open space easement,” however, there is a civil code that our Town Attorney has pointed in our direction that does say that an open space easement is a part of a conservation easement, and so we wanted to leave it that way so if the civil code changes our ordinance does not have to change; our ordinance is directly pulled from State law.

CHAIR RASPE: Thank you. I appreciate those
comments. Given that explanation, Commissioners, any
further suggested changes or ideas on page 2? Seeing none.

Let’s proceed to page 3. It might be a minor
change on page 3. Any changes there? Seeing none.

Page 4 ends

Page 5 ends

stylistic and/or grammatical changes. Vice Chair Thomas.

VICE CHAIR THOMAS: I did just notice that for G
for cut and fill it wasn’t in italics and all the other ones are.

Page 482 ends

ITEM NO. 20.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/10/2024, Item #2,
Amendments to Town Code re: Senate Bill 9
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
CHAIR RASPE: With that one change then, page 6.

Vice Chair Thomas.

VICE CHAIR THOMAS: For R I noticed that it just
starts with New Units, but all the others start with like, say, storm water management, period, and then the
description. This one doesn’t have a title that’s in
italics.

CHAIR RASPE: Thank you for those comments. Any
other Commissioner comments on page 6?

Page 7 ends

the change which started the process of the revision of the section, that is, the second story step-back. Staff has included new language there on how that is to be measured when there is a covered porch. Commissioners, any changes or comments? Yes, Commissioner Mayer.

COMMISSIONER MAYER: I just want to say I support
the changes that were proposed by Jay Plett.

CHAIR RASPE: Thank you. Any other comments?
Seeing none.

Page 7 ends

comments.

Page 8 ends

Page 9 ends

Page 483 ends

ITEM NO. 20.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/10/2024, Item #2,
Amendments to Town Code re: Senate Bill 9
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

Page 10 ends

no comments.

Page 11 ends

lettering changes, and again, a couple of minor clarifying comments. Any changes or comments? Seeing none.

Then, again, only minor changes on the final
page.

So it sounds like our changes are only stylistic
as to the language proposed by Staff.

I’d like to direct my Commissioners then to the
item provided by Commissioner Barnett, which is San Mateo’s Interim Objective Building and Design Standards for TwoUnit Development Overlay Districts. I invite discussion among our Commissioners—we haven’t had much time to look at it—and your thoughts as to how you would like to take a look at these.

It could be the case that some or all of this is
applicable to this discussion, or it may be the case that we simply wish to append this to our motion to Town Council and ask them if they wish to consider any of these
additional thoughts or changes which are not currently
incorporated into our changes. I’m open to ideas and
discussions from my Commissioners.

Yes, Commissioner Barnett.

Page 484 ends

ITEM NO. 20.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/10/2024, Item #2,
Amendments to Town Code re: Senate Bill 9
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
COMMISSIONER BARNETT: I’d like to ask a
preliminary question of Staff. Although the time has been short, do you have a feeling about whether architectural standards of this nature would be consistent with the SB 9 law?
RYAN SAFTY: Thank you. Actually I did have a
chance to go through San Mateo’s documents, I kind of went line-by-line, if you wanted to go that route, or I can also alternatively just let you know which ones I do not think are objective and would not stand up in court, and then there are some also I wanted to point out that we have
standards that say this already.

So why don’t I start with just letting you know
which items I do not think are objective? This is based on my extensive work on the objective standards document and M-Group consultants, so I’ve got a pretty good idea.

Item (a), Architectural Style, is not defined.

We’ve been directed previously from M-Group that that’s not going to stand up. That’s saying that you have to have the same architectural style.

Item (c)(2) Entrances and Entryways, “All primary
entries to a dwelling unit,” they don’t define primary
entries. It would be a simple fix, but they would have to define it.

Page 485 ends

ITEM NO. 20.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/10/2024, Item #2,
Amendments to Town Code re: Senate Bill 9
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
Item (d)(1), Windows, it says windows type and
style. Those two would not be enforceable. Recess depth and mullions would be enforceable, since we could definitively say that that’s consistent on all sides.

Then the last one, (e) (1), Materials and Colors,
“A building shall carry the same theme on all elevations.” That one gives me the biggest pause.

COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Thank you very much.

That’s very helpful.

CHAIR RASPE: Commissioners, then what I propose
is since we’re going through this for the first time as a group, why don’t we go through it as a group and let’s
address quickly those that are on here that we think would be considered objective standards and could be considered by the Town, and those we wish to pass along to Town
Council.

Commissioner Mayer.

COMMISSIONER MAYER: I have a question first
before we dive into that.

CHAIR RASPE: Please.

COMMISSIONER MAYER: Probably for Staff. Does the
SB 9 State Ordinance require that the Town create objective standards for a two-unit development?

Page 486 ends

ITEM NO. 20.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/10/2024, Item #2,
Amendments to Town Code re: Senate Bill 9
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
RYAN SAFTY: It requires that all standards in
our SB 9 Ordinance are objective. It’s worth noting that the terms we’re using right now are easy to get confused.

These are objective design standards. We have objective standards. It’s also worth noting we also have objective design standards in our ordinance.

COMMISSIONER MAYER: That’s what I’m referring
to, the objective design standards.

Second question follow up. The Town already has
Residential Design Guidelines. That would not apply to a two-unit development?
RYAN SAFTY: That is correct. It’s worth noting
that when we were going through the SB 9 process we did go through the Residential Design Guidelines and tried to
figure out which of those items, for example, the 5’ stepback, we wanted to implement in the SB 9 Ordinance.

CHAIR RASPE: Yes, Commissioner Burnett.

COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Question for Staff, thank
you. Which ones do we have presently that would be already addressed?
RYAN SAFTY: The items that are already
addressed? Item (b)(1), Massing and Scale. There are two different ways of doing this. They’re talking about a
daylight plane. We have a 5’ step-back, and we also have

Page 487 ends

ITEM NO. 20.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/10/2024, Item #2,
Amendments to Town Code re: Senate Bill 9
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
reduced plate heights on the second story, so that helps with both the massing and the scale.

CHAIR RASPE: Vice Chair Thomas.

VICE CHAIR THOMAS: I just would like to
interrupt with a question. The language that we currently have to address that is most similar to what is in our
Residential Design Guidelines versus this language? They both address massing, but we probably want to be as
consistent as possible with how we address massing across those two areas?
RYAN SAFTY: That is correct that what we have in
our current SB 9 Ordinance is much closer to the wording in the Residential Design Guidelines.

VICE CHAIR THOMAS: Okay, thank you.

CHAIR RASPE: Mr. Safty, you were going down a
list of those items that we have addressed at least in some form or manner.

RYAN SAFTY: Thank you. Moving on, (c)(1),
Entries and Entryways, “Individual entries shall be
provided to each dwelling unit.” That’s a Building Code requirement; there is no need to put that in our SB 9
Ordinance.
(d)(2), Windows, “Location and Privacy,” we have
that. We’ve got the requirement that any window closer than

Page 488 ends

ITEM NO. 20.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/10/2024, Item #2,
Amendments to Town Code re: Senate Bill 9
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
10’ of a side or rear property line has to be Clerestory, and additionally, we also have balcony requirements where we say you cannot have any balconies on the second story of that project, and if you are going to have them I think we say they have to be within the footprint of the side and rear elevations.
(e) Materials and Colors, (F), we’ve got light
reflection values (LRV) requirements. We say if you’re in the hillside you’re subject to 30 LRV, which is, again, kind of repeating what’s in our Hillside Design Guidelines.

Then (g), Lighting, we have that almost identical
in our ordinance.

CHAIR RASPE: Thank you so much. If I could
recap, and please correct me if I’m wrong.

So those matters which remain, they are either
neither subjective or we haven’t already addressed them elsewhere. That would include (c)(3) and (4), is that
correct?
RYAN SAFTY: Yes.

CHAIR RASPE: I think (e)(2), but excluding (F).

RYAN SAFTY: Yes.

CHAIR RASPE: (e)(2), that’s sub (A) through sub
(E), correct?
RYAN SAFTY: Correct.

Page 489 ends

ITEM NO. 20.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/10/2024, Item #2,
Amendments to Town Code re: Senate Bill 9
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
CHAIR RASPE: And then all of sub (g) and sub
(h)?
RYAN SAFTY: Correct.

CHAIR RASPE: So those are the ones,
Commissioners, that we currently don’t have addressed in our guidelines and could be permissible to be added to our guidelines. So if we were going to add any, those would be the ones I would proffer we should discuss this evening.

Does that sound fair?
COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Yes.

CHAIR RASPE: Vice Chair Thomas.

VICE CHAIR THOMAS: I do have a question about
(h) Utilities and Mechanical Equipment. What is in our
Residential Design Guidelines related to that?
RYAN SAFTY: We say we don’t want to see them,
and so normally Staff asks for them to be behind a fence.

VICE CHAIR THOMAS: So it’s kind of like a
request? I guess people probably don’t want to see them in general either, so this is kind of a self-enforcing
situation.

RYAN SAFTY: There’s not generally much pushback
on that, and I would argue the same thing with (c)(3),
Entries and Entryways. Most people are going to put their

Page 490 ends

ITEM NO. 20.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/10/2024, Item #2,
Amendments to Town Code re: Senate Bill 9
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
entrance facing one of these streets, so it just happens naturally.

VICE CHAIR THOMAS: Okay, thank you.

CHAIR RASPE: Very good. Again, as a Commission
if we want to proffer ideas or suggestions to include some of these comments. Let’s just go through these one at a time then.

So (c)(3), “At least one principal entryway shall
face the primary street frontage, primary right-of-way, or access corridor.” As Mr. Safty has indicated, generally this happens as a matter of practicality, but do we want to as a Commission include this within our objective standards for SB 9 properties?
Commissioner Mayer.

COMMISSIONER MAYER: I don't know.

CHAIR RASPE: Anyone have any strong feelings?
COMMISSIONER BARNETT: I’ll speak up on that one.

Even though it might be common practice, I think that it makes logical sense to have it as an objective; it’s not going to hurt, and it could help.

COMMISSIONER BURNETT: I agree.

VICE CHAIR THOMAS: I am wondering if
Commissioner Mayer could expand on, maybe from an
architectural point of view, why this would be problematic?

Page 491 ends

ITEM NO. 20.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/10/2024, Item #2,
Amendments to Town Code re: Senate Bill 9
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
COMMISSIONER MAYER: Sure. What SB 9 is doing is
it’s legalizing what is essentially like a four-plex unit on one property before it’s split, and I just don’t want to limit architecturally the entry sequence to the units.

Now, obviously for a single-family home it’s
pretty standard 99.9% of the time to have the entry facing the front right-of-way. I just don’t want to limit
necessarily future projects like four-plex projects.

It depends on the property itself, and I think it
should be a case-by-case basis. For instance, if someone proposes an SB 9 project and they don’t have the entry on the front and it looks totally out of place in the
neighborhood, I think that’s something that can be brought up either by the Commission or Staff or something, but I just think it’s a bit restrictive to put that into
objective standards at this point.

CHAIR RASPE: Yes, Commissioner Burnett.

COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Just a comment. Can we say
“preferably”?
JENNIFER ARMER: I’ll jump in on that. Yes, it
would need to be objective, and one cautionary thought on this is with Accessory Dwelling Units we did get direction from HCD that one of the regulations we had in place for them that the entry door for the ADU can’t be visible from

Page 492 ends

ITEM NO. 20.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/10/2024, Item #2,
Amendments to Town Code re: Senate Bill 9
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
the street, that was something that we were not allowed to prohibit.

This is a different character. I don’t remember
whether it was broader than that in terms of rules about the entryways, but it’s the kind of thing that could
potentially be a little risky.

CHAIR RASPE: Yes, Commissioner Barnett.

COMMISSIONER BARNETT: I just note that the
requirement is for at least one door, and I was thinking about Commissioner Mayer’s comment about perhaps there
would be a U-shaped configuration, and in that case you would think that at least one unit at the bottom of the U would be able to have a front door so that there is not an appearance of it being a jail and enclosed complex.

CHAIR RASPE: Commissioner Mayer.

COMMISSIONER MAYER: I understand Commissioner
Barnett’s concern for sure. I think the fear is having this blank wall facing the public right-of-way, and I think
that’s understandable. I don't know if there’s a way we can put language and like objective design standards to say that you’re not allowed to have a blank wall, like maybe it needs to have some sort of façade articulation and some fenestration like some windows or something.

Page 493 ends

ITEM NO. 20.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/10/2024, Item #2,
Amendments to Town Code re: Senate Bill 9
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
I’m still not convinced though that it needs to
be like the front door, but I do understand that there is concern about how the front façade appears on the street and I’m willing to maybe explore that.

I just imagine like, for instance, you have four
units. They could be off of one linear road or corridor along the side of the property rather than directly on the front. It depends again on a case-by-case basis on the
individual site. I just don’t want to put this restriction in.

CHAIR RASPE: Yes, Commissioner Burnett.

COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Further conversation on
this. The problem with objective guidelines here, you take so much away from any kind of subjective architectural
design, so that if we were left with a frontage that has no door, no personality, I mean what we’re trying to do is have some personality into the building and everything is objective, nothing is subjective, so I would think it’s important to have something to break up a wall that if we leave that in place you’re not having… I mean, there’s
really no personality, so I think this is a way we could have some kind of personality into the building without being subjective.

CHAIR RASPE: Thank you. Vice Chair Thomas.

Page 494 ends

ITEM NO. 20.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/10/2024, Item #2,
Amendments to Town Code re: Senate Bill 9
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
VICE CHAIR THOMAS: I agree with Commissioner
Mayer for two reasons. One, I think that 99.9% of the time people are going to not want to just build a wall that
faces the frontage street, because people inherently like things that look… If they’re going to put money and energy and time, and money in Los Gatos, into building a unit it’s probably going to look decent, because many family members I have are real estate agents, and what something looks like from the street makes a big difference, so that being said I think that, again, this is like a self-enforcing thing and I think that it only restricts. I’m not concerned that this is going to be happening all over town, so I
agree with Commissioner Mayer.

I do have a question for Staff. In our
Residential Design Guidelines do we require anything about having a window or a front door or anything that has to face the street? Because if we don’t, then there’s no
reason that we should include it in here, I don’t think.

RYAN SAFTY: I could confirm. I would be shocked
if there wasn’t at least something that talks about
discouraging blank walls facing a street, but if you don’t mind, let me get back to you on that.

CHAIR RASPE: Thank you so much, and while he’s
looking that up this is what I propose, Commissioners. We

Page 495 ends

ITEM NO. 20.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/10/2024, Item #2,
Amendments to Town Code re: Senate Bill 9
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
have, I think, five individual matters on this from San Mateo that we are considering applying to ours, and my
sense is we are not unanimous necessarily with respect to this first item.

I will put each item up to a vote among the
Commissioners, and those that garner a majority of votes will be included then with our recommendation to Town
Council with respect to the redline Exhibit 4, which was attached previously. Does that sound acceptable to all? Okay, very good.

Yes, Mr. Safty.

RYAN SAFTY: Thank you. Coming back to that last
topic, we do have a design guideline that says, “The front of the house should be oriented towards the street and the front entry clearly identified.”
VICE CHAIR THOMAS: Okay, thank you.

CHAIR RASPE: Any other questions for Staff with
respect to Item (c)(3), Entries and Entryways? If not, then let me ask for by a show of hands those Commissioners that wish to include (c)(3) as one of our recommendations to Town Council with respect to the SB 9 Ordinance. I see two.

Those against? I see three, so the Commission will not
recommend (c)(3) be included within our recommendations to Town Council.

Page 496 ends

ITEM NO. 20.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/10/2024, Item #2,
Amendments to Town Code re: Senate Bill 9
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
Going to (c)(4), “When an exterior staircase is
proposed for an upper-level primary dwelling unit it shall have a setback of at least 5’ from the nearest lot line and shall have a landing limited to the minimum area required to allow ingress and egress as specified by the California Building Code.” Commissioners, any comments or thoughts with respect to (c)(4) of Entries and Entryways?
Commissioner Barnett.

COMMISSIONER BARNETT: A comment was made at the
outset of our discussion tonight about that issue being possibly addressed in the existing regulations or code? RYAN SAFTY: Thank you. I’m not sure if I was
referring to this one specifically, but I’m glad you
brought it up because we do require a 4’ setback, so one foot less, and that’s for any part of the structure, and that would include the staircase. And then the Building Code has landing requirements, so I would assume that would be covered by standard Building Code.

CHAIR RASPE: Yes, Commissioner Mayer.

COMMISSIONER MAYER: I’m okay with clarifying
that exterior stairways need to be within this and follow the setback. It sounds like that’s already addressed.

Page 497 ends

ITEM NO. 20.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/10/2024, Item #2,
Amendments to Town Code re: Senate Bill 9
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
CHAIR RASPE: Mr. Safty, including this language,
would it be duplicative then of what we already have? Would it be a confusion?
RYAN SAFTY: It would allow one additional foot
for the staircase. Honestly, it would create confusion, most likely. I apologize; it would require one additional foot. Sorry.

COMMISSIONER BARNETT: So if that were reduced to
4’ and was consistent with the existing standards, would you be agreeable with that?
RYAN SAFTY: With our current SB 9 Ordinance we
are looking at staircases as a part of the structure, and so it’s required to meet a 4’ side yard setback, period, with no amendment to the ordinance.

COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Thank you for that.

CHAIR RASPE: Vice Chair Thomas.

VICE CHAIR THOMAS: I just want to confirm that
any staircase, any permanent deck or porch type thing, any posts associated with a covering or anything like that, all of that is considered a part of the structure, so it would be required to comply with the setbacks?
RYAN SAFTY: Correct.

VICE CHAIR THOMAS: Okay, thank you.

Page 498 ends

ITEM NO. 20.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/10/2024, Item #2,
Amendments to Town Code re: Senate Bill 9
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
CHAIR RASPE: Thank you. All right,
Commissioners, given those explanations what are your
feelings on adding (c)(4), Entries and Entryways, as part of a recommendation to Town Council with SB 9? It seems to me that it probably doesn’t add much since we are currently covered with our existing language. Any difference of
opinion? Okay, thank you. So we will not include (c)(4).

Commissioner Burnett.

COMMISSIONER BURNETT: For Staff. I would like to
go back to (c)(3) of Entries and Entryways. On (3), which would take precedence, what is already in our guidelines or this recommendation that would be coming from the Town
Council by a 3-2 vote?
RYAN SAFTY: The recommendation failed 2-3, so we
will not bringing that recommendation forward to Town
Council.

COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Oh, I thought…
CHAIR RASPE: No. We won’t recommend…
COMMISSIONER BURNETT: (Inaudible).

CHAIR RASPE: No, no. Just to confirm, yes, we’re
not recommending…
JOEL PAULSON: Through the Chair, just to
Commissioner Burnett, we will be doing verbatim minutes, so

Page 499 ends

ITEM NO. 20.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/10/2024, Item #2,
Amendments to Town Code re: Senate Bill 9
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
the Council will have the ability to read it as well as it will be on video.

CHAIR RASPE: Thank you. Then moving on I will
treat these as a group. (e)(2), Materials and Colors, and we’ll go (A) through (E); apparently, again, (F) has
already been dealt with elsewhere in our guidelines, so, “The following materials are prohibited on building
exteriors: (A) Exterior Foam Molding, (B) Corrugated Metal, (C) Vinyl Siding, (D) Plywood, and (E) Exterior Insulation Finishing System (EIFS). Commissioners, any questions or thoughts, or questions for Staff, on these items?
Commissioner Barnett.

COMMISSIONER BARNETT: I would submit that (B)
and (C) and (D) are self-evident as being important.

That would leave (A), and I would open that to
discussion by my fellow commissioners. The criticism I’ve heard of (A), foam moldings, is that one, they break down; and two, they look artificial; let me put it that way. They don’t look like natural building materials.

And I’m not clear what (E), the exterior
insulation finishing system, is. Thank you.

CHAIR RASPE: Thank you. Vice Chair Thomas.

VICE CHAIR THOMAS: I have a question for Staff
about if any of these materials would be approved through

Page 500 ends

ITEM NO. 20.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/10/2024, Item #2,
Amendments to Town Code re: Senate Bill 9
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
the Building Code? Are there building codes that exist that wouldn’t allow some of these materials already to be used? JENNIFER ARMER: Not that I’m aware of.

VICE CHAIR THOMAS: Okay, so it’s just more of
like, you know with fire code and things like that you have to have the fire barrier, that’s all internal, not any
external?
RYAN SAFTY: That’s correct. It’s also worth
noting that we discourage foam molding in our Residential Design Guidelines.

CHAIR RASPE: Thank you. Commissioner Mayer.

COMMISSIONER MAYER: Regarding the comments about
the foam molding, I would agree that it’s not the best
material to use for exterior applications. It doesn’t look great, as Commissioner Barnett said; it breaks down easily and wears over time. There are also issues with fire with that material. They make foam that’s sprayed with fire
retardant, but generally I don’t think it performs as well as other materials. I would be willing to maybe incorporate some of the language from the Residential Design Guidelines for this regarding that particular material.

The other materials, (E) Exterior Finishing
system (EIFS), I see that more common on commercial
projects and multi-family projects, not so much on singlePage 501 ITEM NO. 20.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/10/2024, Item #2,
Amendments to Town Code re: Senate Bill 9
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
family or like SB 9 small multi-family projects. Also,
there are some concerns about fire with that too; it’s also kind of a foam product.
(C) Vinyl Siding, and (D) Plywood, those are
generally just kind of the cheaper options for siding, so they don’t look as high-quality.

I don't know if it’s within our authority to make
a value judgment about aesthetics on that, but I would say that if the Commissioners and Staff want to promote nice looking exteriors they should discourage the use of those materials.

I think (B) Corrugated Metal, although it is
often associated with more industrial type of buildings, I’ve seen it used in ways, especially in Europe, that look nice for residential buildings, so I wouldn’t want to say no corrugated metal, but the other ones I’d have no problem saying that we want to discourage using those.

CHAIR RASPE: Thank you so much. Vice Chair
Thomas.

VICE CHAIR THOMAS: I agree that (A) and (E) seem
problematic for multiple reasons, like in addition to what was stated they are made with materials that are toxic and have forever chemicals, which the EPA literally released new guidelines on that yesterday, so I would say that those

Page 502 ends

ITEM NO. 20.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/10/2024, Item #2,
Amendments to Town Code re: Senate Bill 9
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
ones, especially if that’s not going to be eliminating
anything architecturally, should be included in something that can be prohibited.

However, the others I am concerned just because I
know that there are some opportunities and options for
these ready-made ADUs that get dropped in your backyard kind of thing, and I wouldn’t want any of those to be
restricted because they have some of these materials on the outside. They look nice and they might not even be
necessarily viewable from the street in many of these
situations. I’m not sure really what materials those types of things are made of, so that would be my only concern moving forward, and if Staff could comment on that and/or just maybe if this does move forward, taking it to Town Council, if that could be looked into before the final
decision is made.

CHAIR RASPE: Great. Thank you. Commissioners,
any other questions? Commissioner Burnett.

COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Again, going back to
objective standards here, I would tend to agree that these building materials, I would not want to see any of them on any of our structures if we’re trying to keep some kind of subjectivity, even though we’re really not, and these
materials to me lack a lot of personality, and they have a

Page 503 ends

ITEM NO. 20.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/10/2024, Item #2,
Amendments to Town Code re: Senate Bill 9
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
lot of issues with them as far as from my experience and how I view them, so I wouldn’t be for any of these.

CHAIR RASPE: Thank you for those comments.

Commissioners, any others? All right, I tried to group
these as a group, but again, I sense as a group we’ve made some distinctions among them, so what I will do is ask for (A) through (E) a show of hands, and the ask is those items that should be excluded, that is, they will be prohibited on building exteriors. If you believe that the materials should not be part of our acceptable building on SB 9
buildings, then that’s what will be the ask here.

So, sub (A), Exterior Foam Molding, by show of
hands, those that believe that exterior foam molding should not be part of our building exteriors, please, raise your hands. Okay.

Same question with respect to sub (B), Corrugated
Metal. I show that’s two in favor.

COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Two in favor?
CHAIR RASPE: One, two. You and Commissioner
Barnett.

COMMISSIONER BURNETT: I’m not in favor.

JENNIFER ARMER: To clarify, two in favor of
prohibiting that item.

CHAIR RASPE: Prohibiting.

Page 504 ends

ITEM NO. 20.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/10/2024, Item #2,
Amendments to Town Code re: Senate Bill 9
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
COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Okay, good. I need that
word prohibited.

CHAIR RASPE: I’m sorry.

COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Okay, thank you.

CHAIR RASPE: Thanks for the clarification. So,
again, corrugated metal, three are in favor of allowing it as a building material.

Sub (C), Vinyl Siding, those in favor of
prohibiting it as a building material on SB 9 projects? Five to nothing.

Sub (D), Plywood, those in favor of having it as
a prohibited material on the exteriors of… Again, five to nothing.

Sub (E), Exterior Insulation Finishing System
(EIFS), those in favor? Five to nothing.

So to recap and to confirm, subs (A), (C), (D)
and (E) will constitute the list of prohibited building exterior items for SB 9 projects. Thank you.

Vice Chair Thomas.

VICE CHAIR THOMAS: I’m sorry, I know that I’m
asking us to backtrack, but I do want to say that these are things that we’re trying to not change the ordinance in the future, and I do just have a question for my fellow

Page 505 ends

ITEM NO. 20.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/10/2024, Item #2,
Amendments to Town Code re: Senate Bill 9
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
commissioners about vinyl siding, like mainly for
Commissioner Mayer.

I know that vinyl flooring has changed
dramatically over even just the past decade. Are there any possible materials… Do you think that that one could be limiting in a way, or do you really see that there is no movement in that direction for possible outside materials? COMMISSIONER MAYER: Sure, I can answer that
question, and you’re correct that more recently the vinyl flooring products have gotten much better.

I honestly don’t see vinyl that often being used
as an exterior siding material, and I haven’t really seen examples. Vinyl windows are one thing, but as far as the siding, I haven’t really seen it that much used.

I know you brought up prefabricated ADUs before,
and on those I haven’t seen vinyl. Usually it’s like a
wood, like a lap siding, or some sort of fiber cement board is pretty popular these days, so I image a lot of SB 9
projects are going to be using fiber cement board, which is not on the list of excluded materials.

CHAIR RASPE: Thank you. Does that answer your
question?
VICE CHAIR THOMAS: Yes.

CHAIR RASPE: Mr. Safty, a follow up?

Page 506 ends

ITEM NO. 20.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/10/2024, Item #2,
Amendments to Town Code re: Senate Bill 9
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
RYAN SAFTY: Thank you. I just wanted to clarify
one thing. When we’re talking about vinyl siding, do we also want to prohibit vinyl windows? Okay, no.

COMMISSIONER MAYER: Sorry, when I voted for
prohibiting it I was assuming that it only referred to the cladding on…
VICE CHAIR THOMAS: (Inaudible).

COMMISSIONER MAYER: Yes, the cladding, not the
windows.

JENNIFER ARMER: Thank you for that
clarification.

CHAIR RASPE: Thank you, and I’ll actually ask
all my Commissioners by a show of hands, those that agree that the vinyl siding includes siding, but not windows? By a show of hands that you’re understanding?
COMMISSIONER BURNETT: (Inaudible).

VICE CHAIR THOMAS: So then should we make the
recommendation that the following materials are prohibited with the exceptions to windows, not including windows?
CHAIR RASPE: Oh, yes, I see what it says here.

VICE CHAIR THOMAS: Yes, because it says,
“Materials are prohibited on building exteriors.”
CHAIR RASPE: Correct.

VICE CHAIR THOMAS: So now we’re getting into it.

Page 507 ends

ITEM NO. 20.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/10/2024, Item #2,
Amendments to Town Code re: Senate Bill 9
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
RYAN SAFTY: Staff can take this recommendation
and we can draft the ordinance to Town Council.

CHAIR RASPE: But you understand?
RYAN SAFTY: We understand the direction.

VICE CHAIR THOMAS: We don’t want to be
pigeonholing that.

JOEL PAULSON: Through the Chair, from Staff’s
perspective, and maybe I’ll just speak for myself, siding and windows are two distinctly different components of a building.

CHAIR RASPE: Agreed.

VICE CHAIR THOMAS: It does say (inaudible).

CHAIR RASPE: Thank you, then let’s move to sub
(f), Lightwells. “Lightwells shall not be located along the primary front facade of a structure. All light wells shall be screened from public view.” Commissioners, any comments or thoughts on this standard? Commissioner Mayer.

COMMISSIONER MAYER: This one is confusing to me.

I don’t understand. “Lightwells shall not be located…” Yes, I’m having a hard time visualizing what exactly this
objective standard is trying to get at.

CHAIR RASPE: Staff, do you have any insight?
RYAN SAFTY: It’s a good question. I had the same
thought the first time I read it. I think what they’re

Page 508 ends

ITEM NO. 20.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/10/2024, Item #2,
Amendments to Town Code re: Senate Bill 9
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
implying is the railing, everything you see above grade of these lightwells is what they’re not going to want to see, and more importantly, I don’t think they want the lightwell on the front elevation; I think the lightwells would be on the side and rear elevations based on the intent of this.

JENNIFER ARMER: And what could become
complicated is if you do have a basement and you have a lightwell for required access along one side or the other; what constitutes screening from view is going to
potentially be a question.

But we have seen some houses where they have a
lightwell for access to the below-grade square footage, and that is along the front façade right in front of the front porch, so that is something we have seen before in just a regular house that’s been proposed.

CHAIR RASPE: And that’s currently permitted
under our Town Code?
JENNIFER ARMER: Correct.

CHAIR RASPE: All right, thank you.

Commissioners, any other questions or thoughts on sub (F)? Commissioner Barnett.

COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Just for clarification,
you have a concern about what screening would mean, and it sounds like in the instance where you did allow a primary

Page 509 ends

ITEM NO. 20.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/10/2024, Item #2,
Amendments to Town Code re: Senate Bill 9
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
front façade to have a lightwell, I guess you didn’t
comment on whether that was something that was approved or approved with reservations. Thank you.

JOEL PAULSON: Thank you. Through the Chair, I’ll
jump in. I think from a screening perspective they’re
allowing these if they’re screened. You could put a hedge around the front of the railing that the lightwell has, so I don’t think it’s an onerous requirement, so I think it’s pretty easy for an applicant. If the Commission is
interested in forwarding that, it is something that could be recommended to Town Council.

CHAIR RASPE: Thank you, and just to clarify, of
these two, the first sentence, “Lightwells shall not be located along the primary front façade,” that would be a change from our current design guidelines. The second would be a more minor but probably acceptable change, is that fair? Okay.

Commissioners, with that in mind, that would be
my recommended change with respect to sub (F). Strike the first sentence, because lightwells are currently allowed along our primary façade, but we require that all
lightwells shall be screened from public view. Vice Chair Thomas.

Page 510 ends

ITEM NO. 20.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/10/2024, Item #2,
Amendments to Town Code re: Senate Bill 9
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
VICE CHAIR THOMAS: I’m sorry; do we currently
require all lightwells to be screened from public view? Okay, so that’s not part of our standard Residential Design Guidelines? I personally also struggled to understand what this said, and considering we have an architect and a
planner here that also struggled first hand, I feel like I’m not really in favor of including it at this point.

CHAIR RASPE: Commissioner Mayer.

COMMISSIONER MAYER: Now I’m trying to visualize
what Ms. Armer referred to, like a subterranean basement with the lightwell in front. You’re not really going to see the lightwell anyway. There might be a railing around the perimeter of it, which already is sort of a screen, so I still don’t quite understand what the intent of this is, so I don’t want to recommend anything because it doesn’t make any sense to me.

CHAIR RASPE: Very good. Other Commissioners?
Commissioner Barnett.

COMMISSIONER BARNETT: I think there’s an obvious
answer to this one as well, but are any lightwells used as part of secondary access, or is that not allowed by code? RYAN SAFTY: They are used for ingress and egress
all the time. It’s also worth noting that we have received direction from HCD in the past that making rules that are

Page 511 ends

ITEM NO. 20.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/10/2024, Item #2,
Amendments to Town Code re: Senate Bill 9
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
more restrictive than our current guidelines and code can be problematic.

CHAIR RASPE: Thank you, that’s a helpful
comment. Commissioners, any other questions on this one? Given Mr. Safty’s final comments there and following up on Commissioner Mayer’s, I think, learned comments, my
proposal has modified. I would suggest not including sub (f), Lightwells, as part of our recommendation to Town
Council.

By a show of hands may I see those who are not
inclined to include sub (f) as part of our recommendation? And it’s unanimous it shall not be included.

Finally, sub (h), Utilities and Mechanical
Equipment. I think Mr. Safty already commented on this
earlier. “Ground-mounted utilities, mechanical equipment, generators, and AC units that directly serve the
development shall be screened from view from adjacent
properties and the public right-of-way by either an
enclosure designed as part of the building and/or fencing.” Vice Chair Thomas.

VICE CHAIR THOMAS: With that being said, just
about how our Residential Design Guidelines don’t require this but we prefer it, I don't know if we should require this in this space, but perhaps our Residential Design

Page 512 ends

ITEM NO. 20.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/10/2024, Item #2,
Amendments to Town Code re: Senate Bill 9
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
Guidelines should be updated if people feel strongly. Maybe that’s not really a recommendation, not to make more work for everyone, but again, I don't know if that would be
considered more restrictive.

CHAIR RASPE: Yes, Commissioner Mayer.

COMMISSIONER MAYER: This is an interesting one.

I agree with the intent of it. Especially with SB 9 if
you’re going to end up with four units on a property, or two properties after the lot split, I think it makes sense aesthetically to try to minimize the visual impact of
mechanical equipment. How to go about doing that without being too overly restrictive, I think, is a challenge.

There are also requirements for HVAC equipment:
that it can breath, that it can get fresh air around it, and we’re moving a lot more toward mini-split heat pump systems, especially with these types of projects and ADU SB 9 projects. The good news is that the equipment tends to be smaller, but you can still see it.

I wouldn’t necessarily be opposed to having some
sort of screening, but I think we need to be careful about what we require. For instance, if there is some sort of screening you would want to have like open louvers around it so that it can still breath in air rather than enclose it like in a plywood fence or something like that.

Page 513 ends

ITEM NO. 20.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/10/2024, Item #2,
Amendments to Town Code re: Senate Bill 9
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
I agree with the intent of trying to minimize the
visual impact of this, but I don’t want to be overly
prescriptive either, again, to either lessen the
functionality of the equipment itself or take up too much space on a property.

CHAIR RASPE: Thank you for those comments. I’m
going to lean into your expertise as an architect. I
understand ground-mounted utilities, mechanical equipment, and generators, but AC units, as you note, the split
systems, window units, all the rest of them, it seems to me that that’s a different animal and could be much more
difficult to screen. Would you agree with that?
COMMISSIONER MAYER: Yes, I think so. I don’t
think it’s necessary. Again, not all these projects are going to use the heat pump system; they might have bigger equipment. I guess maybe we can talk piece-by-piece.

Obviously a generator is going to be bigger than a heat pump. There might already be guidelines about screening generators. Mechanical equipment, that’s kind of vague. I think you bring up a good point that not all mechanical equipment is created equally.

CHAIR RASPE: Thank you. First Commissioner
Barnett and then Vice Chair Thomas.

Page 514 ends

ITEM NO. 20.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/10/2024, Item #2,
Amendments to Town Code re: Senate Bill 9
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
COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Of Staff. If I recall
correctly, the Commercial Design Guidelines require
screening of mechanical equipment, is that correct?
RYAN SAFTY: That is correct in residential
design.

CHAIR RASPE: Vice Chair Thomas.

VICE CHAIR THOMAS: I have a question for Staff
about an AC unit. If this were implemented could a possible workaround be that you would just add an AC unit after you get your final Occupancy Permit? You could really drop in an AC unit and add that anywhere; there is no requirement right now. If I want to change my HVAC system at my house and put an AC unit in, I don’t have to get a permit for that, correct?
RYAN SAFTY: I believe you do need a Building
Permit.

VICE CHAIR THOMAS: Oh, I do? Well, I don’t. I
don’t have the money to do that, because I’m a teacher, so my husband from England is just really grateful we’re
living in a one-story house, but there will be signs if we win the lottery; we will be getting an AC unit.

But you can build a structure with the HVAC and
then literally just drop the AC in afterwards? Okay, thank you.

Page 515 ends

ITEM NO. 20.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/10/2024, Item #2,
Amendments to Town Code re: Senate Bill 9
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
JENNIFER ARMER: It would require a Building
Permit, but because it wasn’t part of development of the two-unit development itself, it very well could be reviewed separately based on the regular code at that point.

VICE CHAIR THOMAS: And which wouldn’t require it
to be screened currently. I must say that as a person that did used to live in a place with air conditioning, my AC unit was right by my front door at my condo and it was
really ugly and it drove me crazy and I wanted it screened myself. You want to hide those things, so I am hesitant still to include this, just because it seems like some of it could be more restrictive than our current Residential Design Guidelines, and I do think it’s a self-enforcing situation, but I am interested to hear what my other
Commissioners have to say.

CHAIR RASPE: Before I forget, just one follow up
question. You mentioned the Commercial Design Guidelines require shielding of these things. Commissioner Mayer
mentioned some cause for concern that it could create
issues with respect to overheating and causing maybe
dangers. Do the Commercial Design Guidelines specify how those shieldings work? Are they (inaudible)?
JOEL PAULSON: I’ll jump in through the Chair.

Typically we’re talking about roof-mounted equipment for

Page 516 ends

ITEM NO. 20.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/10/2024, Item #2,
Amendments to Town Code re: Senate Bill 9
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
commercial, so it’s screening from the public right-of-way, and so that’s generally the issue. I’m not sure if Ms.

Armer or Mr. Safty have anything to add.

JENNIFER ARMER: No, thank you, that is exactly
what I was going to say as well, that in general we’re
talking about roof-mounted units that would be screened, and so the screen often is not anywhere near the unit
itself, just making sure that it won’t be visible from the street.

CHAIR RASPE: Very good. Thanks.

Commissioner Mayer.

COMMISSIONER MAYER: I have a comment about that,
but I’ll say my first comment first. I would be okay with saying that mechanical equipment shouldn’t be visible from the public right-of-way. That’s doesn’t necessarily mean you need to screen it, it just means it needs to be behind the buildings or behind a fence so you don’t see it from the public right-of-way.

Also, from adjacent properties, generally there
is a fence between properties, so that already takes care of itself, so I think that might be okay.

There might be instances where in SB 9
developments an owner or builder chooses to put HVAC

Page 517 ends

ITEM NO. 20.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/10/2024, Item #2,
Amendments to Town Code re: Senate Bill 9
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
equipment on a roof. I would be okay with saying that that needs to be screens if that ever happens.

CHAIR RASPE: Thank you. Vice Chair Thomas.

VICE CHAIR THOMAS: I agree with Commissioner
Mayer’s comments. Is there a definition of mechanical
equipment? Now looking at this, obviously when it’s
combined with utilities I can image these things, but what if there is like a wheelchair ramp or something like that? I feel like that is not what we mean. I feel like
mechanical equipment is not objective enough to be
included, but I understand ground-mounted utilities,
generators, and AC units. Does Staff agree that mechanical equipment is too vague?
RYAN SAFTY: That is a great point. That’s what
my note said as well; we’d have to define what visible is and what the mechanical equipment is.

VICE CHAIR THOMAS: I think that, yes, mechanical
equipment, even defining that seems like a big ask, so
perhaps dropping that language, but I do agree that the most important thing is that it’s not viewable from a
public right-of-way.

The adjacent properties also kind of concerned
me, because if we are doing a lot split—and this might be covered in the definition—would those now be considered

Page 518 ends

ITEM NO. 20.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/10/2024, Item #2,
Amendments to Town Code re: Senate Bill 9
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
adjacent property? You might not be putting a fence down the middle, so I don’t think that needs to be screened in that sense, but it should be perhaps not viewable from the public right-of-way.

CHAIR RASPE: Thank you for those comments.

Commissioner Barnett.

COMMISSIONER BARNETT: To Staff, like there is an
electrical code is there a mechanical code?
RYAN SAFTY: Yes, there is.

COMMISSIONER BARNETT: And there might be
definitions in that code of what the equipment is that’s covered?
JOEL PAULSON: There probably is. Generally HVAC
is what covers all of that.

COMMISSIONER BARNETT: I’m not strongly invested
in this, although I think Commissioner Mayer has made some excellent suggestions, but perhaps we could propose to the Town Council that they consider a definition in the
Mechanical Code of mechanical equipment or some other
objective definition.

CHAIR RASPE: Very good. Allow we to summarize
what I think we are headed towards. I think generally we are in favor of some form of screening or protection from ground-mounted utilities, generators, and AC units at least

Page 519 ends

ITEM NO. 20.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/10/2024, Item #2,
Amendments to Town Code re: Senate Bill 9
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
from the public right-of-way, and perhaps if mechanical equipment were properly defined that could also be included in the grouping. Is that my sense of where this discussion has led? Yes, Vice Chair Thomas.

VICE CHAIR THOMAS: Yes, I agree. Maybe it’s not
specific enough, so this is where I would defer to Staff, but I think that screened from view or just not viewable from the public right-of-way, and maybe our Town Attorney needs to be the one to word this. I don’t feel like we
should require it to be enclosed. I am personally
comfortable with having landscaping. I feel like that in some ways might be less weird looking in some cases, so defining how it has to be screened by building or fencing is important, but just whatever would be the most
straightforward with regard to being objective and being able to interpret is what I would be in favor of.

CHAIR RASPE: Thank you. Again, to modify my
earlier comments then, Commissioners, the ask seems to be that those ground-mounted utilities, generators, and AC units that directly serve the utility shall be screened from view, either by structure or landscaping, from the public right-of-way. Yes, Commissioner Mayer.

COMMISSIONER MAYER: I think that’s confusing,
because let’s say you have an AC unit and it’s in the

Page 520 ends

ITEM NO. 20.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/10/2024, Item #2,
Amendments to Town Code re: Senate Bill 9
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
backyard. It’s already not visible from the public rightof-way, so is that considered “screened,” or are people going to interpret that as they have to add an additional screen around it?
CHAIR RASPE: How about we just say shall not be
visible from the public right-of-way?
COMMISSIONER MAYER: Yes, that works. That
implies that if it is visible from the public right-of-way it requires a screen.

CHAIR RASPE: I would agree. I think that’s
implied in that discussion. Yes, Vice Chair Thomas.

VICE CHAIR THOMAS: I agree that it does and
that’s the spirit of what we mean, so however Staff feels most comfortable about wording that and checking with the Town Attorney on the interpretation of that I think is what we should propose to Town Council.

CHAIR RASPE: So if that’s clear enough to the
Commissioners sitting here, by a show of hands those who wish to include that as a recommendation to Town Council? Okay, four to one, so that carries.

Than according to my notes our recommendation
will be the redline changes that were included within the Staff Report, and additionally from the San Mateo

Page 521 ends

ITEM NO. 20.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/10/2024, Item #2,
Amendments to Town Code re: Senate Bill 9
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
guidelines sub (e), (2), (A)(C)(D) and (E), and sub (h) as modified per this discussion. Yes, Ms. Armer.

JENNIFER ARMER: Through the Chair, I wanted to
check to see whether the two changes identified by the Vice Chair, page 5, putting cut and fill in italics for G, and page 6, giving a title to R, shall be included?
CHAIR RASPE: Yes, sorry, I should have put that
in. Commissioners, are those changes that the Vice Chair has previously noted acceptable? I’m sorry; I think the Vice Chair is going to add one more?
VICE CHAIR THOMAS: No, those two are the only
ones.

CHAIR RASPE: Very good. Commissioners, by a show
of hands those are acceptable changes then. The changes are acceptable.

To Staff, do you need a motion, or are these
recommendations adequate in their current form?
RYAN SAFTY: We need a motion. You’ve got to make
the finding.

JENNIFER ARMER: And a recommendation of the
ordinance to Town Council.

CHAIR RASPE: Very good. Commissioner Barnett.

COMMISSIONER BARNETT: I’m prepared to make the
motion.

Page 522 ends

ITEM NO. 20.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/10/2024, Item #2,
Amendments to Town Code re: Senate Bill 9
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
CHAIR RASPE: Please.

COMMISSIONER BARNETT: I’m going to try to
simplify this, and then I’ll ask Staff if it is sufficient.

I move to forward a recommendation to the Town
Council for the amendments that are specified in the
subject line of the Town Planning Commission report of
April 5, 2024. I can make the findings in accordance with CEQA. I can make the finding that the amendments are
consistent with the General Plan, and I’m open to any
suggestions for further changes.

CHAIR RASPE: Thank you. Ms. Armer.

JENNIFER ARMER: Through the Chair, I was going
to suggest specific reference to the exhibits that were prepared. Exhibit 4 shows the draft changes, that that be also part of the motion.

COMMISSIONER BARNETT: I’m sorry; I meant to
include that. The items upon which the majority of the
Commission has voted tonight be included as part of the recommendations to the Town Council. Thank you.

CHAIR RASPE: And including Exhibit 4 with the
Vice Chair’s changes, correct?
COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Yes, let’s make sure
that’s in it. Thank you.

Page 523 ends

ITEM NO. 20.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/10/2024, Item #2,
Amendments to Town Code re: Senate Bill 9
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
CHAIR RASPE: Thank you so much. Commissioners, a
second on the motion? I’d be happy to. I’ll second the
motion. Comments, questions, Commissioners?
Then by a show of hands, can I see all those in
favor of the motion? Motion carries unanimously. Thank you so much, Commissioners. That was an interesting a spirited discussion; I’m glad we went through it.

COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Question for the Chair. Do
we have to find the required findings for SB 9?
CHAIR RASPE: I think the required findings were
made in the motion.

COMMISSIONER BURNETT: That was in the motion?
CHAIR RASPE: Yes.

COMMISSIONER BARNETT: I made the findings that
were specified as necessary in the Commission report.

CHAIR RASPE: Thank you so much. And I assume
there are no appeal rights given that this is a
recommendation.

JENNIFER ARMER: Correct, it’s a recommendation.

CHAIR RASPE: Great, thank you.
(END)

Page 524 ends

ITEM NO. 20.

This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank

Page 525 ends

ITEM NO. 20.
1 Ryan Safty
From: Terence J. Szewczyk
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2024 3:28 PM
To: Jennifer Armer
Cc: Ryan Safty
Subject: Desk Item for SB9 modifications
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Jennifer, Thank you for your capable management of the SB9 applications to date. I think we have collaborated on six approvals to date. I have just one concern:

SB9 is a ministerial application, and the Town planning staff struggles with that definition, having been indoctrinated with broad and unchecked discretion in the review of applications. The CA Legislature dealt with these issues and intentionally removed the neighborhood opposition by removing noticing requirements. Why does the Town persist in the unlawful notification of neighbors? Should we elevate this to mail fraud since staff sends notices that conflict with California law? This noticing requirement was added as a great notion by one council member without advice from silent senior staff.

DEFINITION OF MINISTERIAL
ATTACHMENT 6

Page 526 ends

ITEM NO. 20.
2 Best regards, Terry
Terence J. Szewczyk. P.E.

Page 527 ends

ITEM NO. 20.

Los Gatos City CouncilMay 7, 2024

Los Gatos City Council
May 7, 2024