Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

a lot of people came up in rapid, they're planning on giving $20,000 to rapid response network. You know, this is the last thing. So that, I don't know, it's a good idea or not, because even though I'm a protester and stuff like that, you know, it's, and I've always.

This is an opportunity for people to talk on items that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the planning commission.

Can you stop the clock, please? Okay, well, she interrupts me all the time, and that's one of the things with the Brown Act. With the DEI, I did a supplemental, and I just want you to have that also maybe on the agenda and do it with other, like DEI and planning for something, because if there's... some sort of problem, we need planning, DEI, people to talk about it. And council, you know, they're kind of, you know, wanting to help, but they can't because their hands are tied. And I think everybody knows what that thing is. I'm trying to keep a peaceful situation, but there's a lot of stuff that you guys don't know about that, you know, the people in the ground or underground know about. So just keep an open mind. and hopefully people can come together and talk about it and settle some scores because it's starting to get out of hand. My worry is now, because they're saying that people, the ICE, I mean, they opened up a detention center and stuff like that and it's on the news and people are from out of town and out of the country are coming into the Bay Area and I know some of them and they've, I played soccer and stuff like that. So it's one of those things. Okay, thank you. Thank you.

Are there any other speakers on Zoom?

I don't see any hands raised, Chair. All right, thank you.

Tonight we have one item on the consent calendar. That's the approval of the draft minutes of the May 27th, 2026 Planning Commission meeting. Before the Planning Commission acts on the consent calendar, do any members of the commission or public request that this item be removed? Is there any discussion? Or do we have a motion to approve? Commissioner Sordy?

I make a motion to approve the minutes.

All right. Second. Vice Chair seconded. Is there any further discussion? Then I will call the question. All in favor? Passes unanimously. Thank you. We will now move on to the public hearing portion, starting with item number two. Consider a request for approval to construct a new second story addition to an existing single family residence on a non-conforming property zoned R18, located at 193 Howes Drive, APN 527-43-021, architecture and site application S-26-007. Categorically exempt pursuant to the Catholic person Birch looks like the previous speaker may want to comment on the minutes Okay If we've already Moved past that what do I do here?

Just I would accept the public comment on the minutes, okay Please come to the podium

I just want to make a quick comment. I disapprove on the minutes. I think that it should be, but I put it in the record and so that's all I want to say is, you know, trying to be a little bit more transparent on my side and on the public side. And I just want to put that in the record. Thank you.

Thank you going to pick up where I left off that we are categorically exempt pursuant to the California environmental quality act. Section 1530. I typed this wrong existing facilities. The property owners are neurological. I think I said that right? The applicant is Laura Kuda and the project planner is Sir Nathan before the staff report may have a show of hands from the commissioners who have visited the property. Are there any disclosures? ALL RIGHT. MR. NATHAN, WILL YOU BE PRESENTING THE STAFF REPORT THIS EVENING?

YES, I WILL. THANK YOU, CHAIR. GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. BEFORE USE AN ARCHITECTURE ON THE SIDE APPLICATION, THE PROJECT IS LOCATED AT 193 HOUSE DRIVE, ZONED R18. THE APPLICANT PROPOSED TO CONSTRUCT A 364 SQUARE FOOT FIRST STORY EDITION AND AN 876 SQUARE FOOT SECOND STORY EDITION TO AN EXISTING 1,088 SQUARE FOOT SINGLE STORY RESIDENCE ON AN UNCONFIRMING LOT. The lot is non-conforming as the 6,970 square foot lot does not meet the zone's 8,000 square foot minimum lot size standard. The proposed project meets all zoning standards, including height, setback, flow area, lot coverage, and parking. During the minor residential application review process, staff encouraged the applicant to reduce the flow area to avoid being the largest residence in the immediate neighborhood, and meet all the consultant architect's recommendations. THE APPLICANT ATTRIBUTES THE HOME'S RELATIVE SIZE TO THE SMALL LOT SIZE AND LACK OF PRIOR ADDITION TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. IF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR DETERMINES THAT THE APPLICATION CANNOT BE APPROVED BECAUSE IT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE TOWN'S DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND THE APPLICANT IS UNWILLING TO REVISE THE PLANS, THE APPLICANT MAY FILE AN ARCHITECTURAL INSIGHT APPLICATION AND THE APPLICATION SHALL BE CONSIDERED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. THE PROJECT IS BEING REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION DUE TO CONCERNS THAT THE PROPOSED EDITION WOULD ESTABLISH THE FIRST TWO STORY HOME IN THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORHOOD. and it would be the largest resident in terms of flow area and FAR. Additionally, it has only met some of the consulting architect's recommendation as outlined in the staff's report. As for recommendation number four, staff defers to the Planning Commission to evaluate the proposal's stucco finish, if that meets the intent of the residential design guideline 3.8.2, which mandates the facade material should reflect the surrounding neighborhood. This concludes staff's presentation and staff will be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you, Mr. Nathan. Are there any questions of staff? Commissioner Mayer.

Sorry, I might have missed it in your presentation, but can you clarify after the consulting architects reviewed, did the project applicant reduce the square footage at all or was it the same?

The consulting architect didn't really ask them to reduce the square footage, but other aspects of the design, and they met some of it, but they didn't meet all of that.

I'm sorry, was there any reduction of square footage, whether or not the consulting architect mentioned it?

No, there was not.

Okay, thank you.

Are there any other questions of staff? All right. We will now open the public portion of the public hearing on item number two and give the applicant an opportunity to address the commission for up to five minutes. Who will be speaking tonight on half of the applicant? When you get a chance, when you're finished, could you just fill one of these out and give it to us for our records?

I'd be happy to. All right. Great. Good evening. I'm James Woodard with Segoe Designs. I'm the design principal and the designer of 193 Howe Drive. We did go through and took in all of the comments from the consulting architect, and we did address all of those concerns, especially the ones in regards to window location window sizing, especially with special attention given to the front facade of the home. And then, while in the immediate neighborhood, which the planning department and staff is referring to are several properties that are. Nearly adjacent to the home within. The neighborhood as a whole, we identified a number of 2 story homes, and that's on our sheet a 1.4, and we get visual reference to 7 different properties that are up to story and very similar configuration of what we've proposed. In regards to reduction of the overall size of the footprint, it conforms with all conforming standards, even with the site, the lot being substandard in size, we have still conformed to the FAR development standard requirements. And I'm open to any other questions that any questions the committee may have commissioner Burnett.

Oh, thank you. I do have a question. The architect, our town architect. With your 2nd story there, he sort of suggested the great room being set back and it looks like you didn't choose to do that. You chose just to extend the Eve line. That's correct. Break up the wall of the.

Yeah, yeah, so the request, the comment was made, and the suggestion was made of breaking up the massing and that is at the rear of the property, not at the front. Also, it did in order to structurally achieve what they're describing. It breaks having the great room, having a open, clear story area to the 2nd floor, because then that would completely encroach into that open space on the interior of the house.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you. Yeah, a couple of questions. I, I went to the site as everyone else did, I guess, and I noticed that. So, there's a number of trees on the site, and I know she put up story poles and the orange netting, but I actually had a little trouble seeing the netting because there are trees and I'm just curious to know to what extent will that vegetation remain.

Yeah, there is 1 tree that's currently at the front of the property that would be removed as part of the development of it. And then there would be a new tree planted as a replacement on the on the property. To replace that with 1 of the approved trees within Los gatos. I don't recall what we had specified at the time. It may have been an Elm or something like that.

Okay, so I also noticed that the property is adjacent to a small park. And it looked to me like the bulk and mass of the second story is pushed generally in the direction of the park. Obviously when you have a park, you don't necessarily have anyone there that's impacted by the view other than public users of the park. But it sounds like from what you're saying, those trees that are between the addition itself and the property line on the park side are gonna stay.

Correct.

Okay. I see those as screening the structure pretty well. I think that's all I have for the moment.

Commissioner Burnett?

Yes, another question, thank you. So in our residential design guideline 3.8.2, it's important that the houses sort of go along with the neighborhood. And in that neighborhood, most of it, it's siding, it isn't stucco. So our architect, our town architect suggested that you stay with the presiding, look of the neighborhood.

Yeah, so we actually do use siding on there. There's a portion of the addition that extends from the front of the house that actually is siding. And so we use a mixed media, both siding as well as stucco.

But looking at the design, it looks like most of the home is stucco though.

On the second story and at the garage and then at the right, but at the entry and left of the entry, that is siding.

Okay, but predominance, it's stuck up. Okay, thank you. Commissioner Shorty.

I just wanted to follow up on that question, because I was curious, I am noticing that in the staff report it did say under item four, it kind of called that issue out, and I wanted to have a chance to look at that. Is it possible to put that elevation up? It just says the applicant proposes a full-height stucco finish in an area dominated by wood-sided homes. I guess it's not just one elevation, is it the whole thing?

Is it possible to pull up A3.3?

It may be.

I appreciate the optimism. Do we have any other questions while we allow Mr. Paulson? Mr. Burnett.

So another question. So have you spoken with the neighbors? I didn't see a lot of comments coming through.

Yes. I haven't spoken directly. My understanding is the homeowners have spoken with all of their immediate neighbors in regards to this. And I believe there's been notification of all the neighbors as well.

Do you know what the prevailing feeling about it was?

My understanding is that there was no objection that was raised. That's what I've understood from the homeowners.

I have a quick question about the other two-story houses that you had on the plan. Which drawing was this one on?

That's on 1.4, A1.4.

Okay, thanks. So obviously this is a little bit of a unique situation. Normally the immediate neighborhood is the 2, 2, and 5. You're on a corner with a park next to you. For my own reminder, because I did go by there, but the homes that you're showing approximately how close and like distance and homes and stuff are most of those other two stories?

Yeah, so as you can see there were the properties on Howe Drive and five of our locations are on both Howe Drive and Howe Court. Okay. So within the same development.

Okay. Yeah, that's what I thought.

Thank you, Mr. Paulson.

Commissioner Sordy, did you have some questions regarding the elevation that you asked to have pulled up?

Maybe you could help us out there and just, if you wouldn't mind pointing out where it's wood siding versus the stucco is. It sounds like it's kind of a blend or a combo.

Yeah, absolutely.

If you would like, you can take the microphone with you and even go up there. That would make it easier.

So in terms of front facing, the actual front of the house ends here because this portion of the addition is behind the fence line. The second story is all intended to be stucco. This portion of the house is stucco. And then this portion here is siding. And then this portion is, I believe, existing stucco at this time and is a portion to remain on the house. So we are keeping a continuity of breaking up by using siding because this house already has some existing stucco here. Okay, thank you.

Vice Chair Barnett.

So Chair Burch asked you about compliance with the immediate neighborhood as it's defined in our residential design guidelines with the 2, 2, and 5. And there are no two-story homes within that immediate neighborhood as defined in the residential design guidelines. Is that correct?

That is correct.

Thank you.

Any other questions? Thank you.

Thank you very much.

I did have a speaker card, but he left. Is there anyone else that would like to speak on this item tonight? Is there anyone on Zoom?

There are no hands raised on Zoom.

All right. Typically, this is when we'd give you time to come back and add anything. If you have anything to add, obviously you have the opportunity. Are there any other questions for the applicant before I? All right, I will now close the public portion of the public hearing on item number 2 and I invite the commissioners to ask questions of staff or propose a motion.

I guess I have a clarifying question on 3.8.2. Item 4 just as consulting architect highlights a conflict with the residential design guides guidelines and it says it mandates facade materials that reflect the surrounding neighborhood. Um. And I guess I'm struggling with this notion that you can't do something that's just a little bit different and vary the siting. I mean, are we really in a situation where the, I guess the part of the answer would be the guidelines are guidelines. They're not an ordinance or requirement. They're simply guidelines. But I mean, I don't have much of an issue with varying. In fact, I kind of prefer varying siting materials. So I'll just say that.

Any other questions of staff or would anyone like to propose a motion? Vice Chair Barnett.

I'll get something on the table here in the way of a motion. My motion is to deny the application on the basis that it is not consistent with the residential design guidelines of the town, particularly in its mass and scale. I think that a lot could be done to improve its compatibility with the neighborhood, but as it is, looking at the story polls, I was impressed negatively. Thank you. That's my motion.

Is there a second? Commissioner Barnett, there's a second? I'll second that.

All right.

Is there discussion? Commissioner Mayer?

Sure, yeah, I mean, I agree more or less with what commissioner already said about the materiality. I don't think necessarily has to be all 1 material. It's I think it's okay to use, you know, maybe a limited palette, not 100 different materials, but maybe. 2 materials, I don't know in this case, I don't. Like, in theory, I don't have a problem with. the stucco and then the siding, but I think it could maybe be used a little more skillfully. But for me, the biggest issue here is the noncompliance with residential design guideline 3.3.3, which is the two-story wall on the back. I know, I think a two-story house is fine. I'm not opposed to the idea of a two-story house, but if you are going to do a two-story house, I think there needs to be some more care with the massing. So in this case, I think the design can get there, but I'm not ready to move it forward yet because I think it could use some massaging to break that up a bit.

Thank you for those comments. I agree. I have no problem with the two-story home in this area. We know a lot of these areas are transitioning a bit into two stories to allow room for growing families. I do think it comes down to a bit of the massing. With that, I guess I'm gonna ask the maker of a motion a question, if I can do that. Do we want to deny or continue

Well, maybe we could ask staff what kind of delay would be involved if we continued it.

Thanks for the question. So depending on the applicant's side on what they choose to revise and how long it takes them, the soonest that we could bring something back would be August since there's no planning commission meetings in July. And then procedurally, we have a motion and a second on the table. It is possible to make an alternative motion and the alternative motion would be voted on first rather than the motion that's pending being revised or pulled.

Okay, okay, thank you for the reminder. Commissioner Shorty?

Yeah, so now that we're dealing with Rosenberg's Rules of Order and in the interest of being provocative and interesting, I don't know about interesting. I would like to try to find a way to move this forward with an approval. So I'd like to make an alternative motion to approve the project. One of the reasons why I support it is that I do believe that there's adequate screening from public viewpoint. It doesn't have any immediate adjacent neighbor on the right side. Most of the massing is pushed in the direction of that side. We've got screening over there. I think that we need to take a look at the greater neighborhood. I went all the way down to the other end of Howe Drive and I noticed clear at the other end, at the other intersection, I might even have the name of it, Howe's Drive in Kensington, there's also kind of bracketing this on the other end of the block, another two-story house. So I just don't, I can't really find the rationale to deny this. I think that it's pretty close. I guess what I'd like to do is maybe make a motion to approve You know, I think I mentioned I don't have an issue with the siding. I do think they have the right to a second story. All these lots are substandard. They're all below 8,000 square feet. One thing I wanted to point out, too, is that the consulting architect did make it pretty clear this is a modest size house. Still, it's really nothing. It's not a monstrous house. I think it's, what, 2,000 plus square feet. So, 2328. So anyway, I'd like to make a motion to approve and I may not get a second, but to the extent we might be able to work with the applicant and entertain modifications to the motion or add-ons, if anyone's open to it.

I am, I'll second it. But I would like to ask a question to the maker of the motion. In the... To move it forward, I guess my question will be to staff. In this, could we then direct the applicant to work with staff to perhaps break up some of the massing in the back in a thoughtful way that would align with the residential guidelines? I don't know if that's too vague, so that's why I'm asking the question.

Thank you for the question. We've got some individuals on the commission that might have some other solutions, so we'd definitely be interested in that. I think the applicant indicated that their solution was to carry the EVE line to try to break that mass up, and that if they tried to step that mass back, that they run into issues from an interior perspective, that may or may not be of concern to the commission. If the Planning Commission is able to articulate some modification or some direction on modification that would suffice to the majority of the Commission, I think that's something we could look at. Otherwise, we heavily rely on the consulting architect and we understand what his comments were.

Can I directly ask one of my fellow commissioners to weigh in on this? Mr. Mayor?

Well, the truth is that you can do anything and it is possible to step the second story back on the backside. And you can do that structurally, but it does come at a cost. So it can be done. That's the answer to the question, I think. But for Residential Design Guide 3.3.3, I've looked at a lot of projects coming through both in the Planning Commission and when I was on the HPC, and I can't ever remember a project being approved that had this two-story wall like this. So I think this will be setting a new precedent. But there are the, you know, the considerations of the. The cost associated perhaps with modifying the structure.

Well, I know in the past we have had a massing like that broken up by like a belly band or like an Eve or something as was. Discussed, so I do know, at least in my past on the planning commission that has been an acceptable solution to breaking up a mass when moving things on the interior. Truly and if you look at this truly does become a actual. Issue, I don't know if that would be something. Other commissioners will be willing to discuss Commissioner Burnett. I think you had a thought.

Yeah, I can't support the second motion. I can support the first motion, then I did. In the residential design guidelines, we look at the whole entire property, all around the home, back, front, sides. So it's a whole project. So based on that and based on, it's very large. I think it's 2,800 square feet. Yeah 2328 and I know it's a very small lot too. It's not even 8,000 square feet So I think that even adds more to the size and then the small lot and a larger home and stucco I think there's too many things going on here, so I wouldn't be able to support a voting for it.

All right, so I probably then will, Commissioner Sordy.

I was just going to ask a question. The wall that Commissioner Mayer is referring to, is that the rear and or south elevation? I'm just looking at page 48 of the packet.

Are you looking at A3.5?

YES. I GUESS I'M JUST WONDERING IF THERE'S A WAY WE CAN QUERY THE DESIGNER RIGHT NOW TO GIVE HIM, WELL, AGREE ON SOME DIRECTION THAT WOULD PROVIDE ENOUGH FLEXIBILITY WHERE HE COULD WORK WITH THAT ELEVATION AND STAFF COULD CONFIRM IT. MAYBE IT'S TO THE SATISFACTION OF OUR COMMISSIONER WITH THE MOST ELIGIBILITY.

There is an interest in this conversation from other planning commissioners to try to come up with a plan and move it forward. I will. I can reopen the public portion of the public hearing, right? To ask him specific questions. All right. So, I think we know that there's 2 of us that would be interested. I'm going to be very specific vice chairman. Would you be interested in having that conversation to see if we could move it forward?

I guess my thought is rather than deferring to an agreement between staff and the applicant that we give the applicant time to reflect upon what has been said by the planning commissioners and to return if they want to or otherwise appeal.

Okay. I know that you've like you could not support that so i will ask commissioner mayor would you be interested in opening the public portion to ask some specific questions or a little bit more in line with vice chair and i don't know if that's deny or continue but we could get to that yeah right now i'm i'm more aligned with uh what the vice chair is suggesting okay all right well in that case right now there is then um IT SEEMS TO HAVE MORE SUPPORT WHICH IS A DENIAL. THAT'S THE MOTION WE'RE GOING TO MAINTAIN. I know, I'm just getting some feedback before I go to that, but if I need to do this differently, tell me, I'm a bit out of practice.

And just to review, I don't think I heard a second for the second motion. I did, I seconded it, yes. Okay, all right, so then the motion, the most recent motion needs to be voted on before you return to the first motion.

All right, so then we will vote on the second motion from Commissioner Sordy. All in favor?

All opposed?

Okay. not pass so then we will vote on the first motion by vice chair barnett all in favor can i ask a quick question so this is a motion to deny not a motion to continue to date certain yep okay i nobody made a motion to continue

I think I commented that both of those would be possibilities.

Do you wanna make it?

To deny or continue, I wanted to see if we could find out from the designer whether a month would be adequate.

Okay.

If there's a way to do that. Is that acceptable?

Yes, the public hearing can be open to ask the applicant if they're amenable to a continuance to work on the issues identified by the commission.

All right. I will now reopen the public portion of item number two to ask the applicant that specific question.

Thank you very much. Yes, we would be open to modifying our design to accommodate the comments that the planning commission has made.

All right, then. Are there further questions before we close this?

The question was the time on that requirement.

We can be prepared for the August Planning Commission meeting. Prepare to submit to staff prior to that with them given time to revise staff report.

I will say I think your client might have something to say. So essentially, there are two issues. Speak into the microphone, please.

Just for my understanding, so that I'm clear on what the fundamental issue is. One issue that was raised was for the size of the FAR. being more than the immediate neighborhood, correct? And second was for the back thing to be moved a little bit in. Again, my nomenclature may not be right. So essentially when we are saying we'll be working on something, which issue are we talking about? The second or the first? And I'll tell you why I'm asking this question because remember you asked the question that what is the minimum distance between a two-story home and our home? Answer is zero because both the homes.

Sir, I'm going to be really candid with you. When I reopen the public portion like this, it's for the specific questions. I do appreciate you clarifying the item. So let me, to make the motion, let me get that clarification. So his ask, so for his own clarification if they're going to do this, was... Is the issue the size or is it the vertical plane on the rear of the property?

I had in mind the massing of the building, its appearance from the street. Okay. Thank you.

So, and when you say massing from the appearance of the street, are you also talking about the front massing or is it most of the conversation around the massing has revolved around the rear of the property? So I just wanted some clarification on that to make sure we're addressing the issue appropriately.

Yeah, he's not wrong. So commissioner mayor did talk a bit about the rear. I'm going to look at you as the maker of the motion though. And then I will look at other people.

I have great respect for Mr. Mayor. I think his comment should be taken into consideration, and my original point was that I was surprised at the mass of the building based on the story polls, the vision from the street, as well as adopting Mr. Mayor's comment. Thank you for the clarification on that.

I'm going to ask the other two just to make sure before you sit down you're very clear.

Also, it would be a good idea to make a friendly amendment to the motion that's being considered so that it specifically spells out what aspects of the design should be worked on.

I absolutely agree. That's why I wanted to make sure I got consensus on what that was going to be before we make the modification. So to the seconder. apparently massing from the street and the concern about the rear elevation. Do you agree to that?

Yes. My concern is the overall massing.

Okay. And to.

Yeah, massing specifically residential design guideline 3.3.3. Okay. Regarding the rear wall, not the square footage or the fact that it's two stories.

Okay. Thank you very much. So I will let you modify your motion accordingly.

I thought I'd already done that, but.

Do we feel that that, or can we say that we would take into account the conversation that we have now had? I just want this to be clear.

I mean, to make it as clear as possible, I would recommend changing the motion to say this item is continued so that the applicant can revise their design to address Planning Commission concerns regarding And then if it's massing, massing the flat plane on the backside and any other issues.

I will close the public portion again of item number two. Thank you. While the maker of the motion ponders the modification.

Well, I think the town attorney articulated the items of concern, which is the overall massing, the plane, and the, this is a different issue than Commissioner Mayer mentioned, right? Right, so we have three issues.

Right, you had those two. Yep, they're related.

Right. So that is a modification to the motion and I will ask the seconder of the motion if that's acceptable.

I wanted to ask the maker of the motion, did we want to also address putting in additional siding to be more compatible with the rest of the neighborhood or to have more of a mix with stucco but more siding as well?

I did not include that and I do not want to include that.

Is there any further discussion? All right then I will call the vote for the first modified motion. All in favor? All right passes unanimously.

And then did you want to continue it to a specific date so that there's no requirement to re-notice it?

Yes I think that would be preferable but I'm not sure do we know what's on the

Well, thank you through the chair. So after having a conversation about another. Future item that you're going to discuss this evening and knowing what's on the calendar for the 12th, August 26th would probably be the best continuing state.

All right great. So continue to August 26th. Wonderful, thank you. And as this is a continuance, obviously, there are no appeal rights. Item number three, forward a recommendation to the town council on an ordinance amending, thank you. Chapter 29, zoning regulations of the Town Code regarding accessory dwelling units and definitions. The proposed amendments are not subject to CEQA, pursuant to CEQA Section 15061, Section B, Section 3, because it can be seen with certainty that they will not significantly affect the physical environment and that they make minor changes to the regulations applicable to accessory dwelling units and definitions. Additionally, the proposed amendments are statutorily exempt pursuant to public resource code section 21080.17, town code amendment application A-26-001, project location townwide, and the applicant is the town of Los Gatos. And will somebody from staff be providing a presentation?

Yes thank you and good evening. Before you tonight is consideration of a draft ADU ordinance responding to changes in state law. Next slide please. The town has updated the town code regarding ADUs several times in 2017, 2020 and most recently in 2023. New housing legislation continues to be signed into law impacting ADUs on an almost annual basis. The latest bills impacting ADUs shown on the slide made additional changes to ADU law necessitating an update to the town's code ordinance once again. Next slide please. The draft ordinance being considered tonight carries forward much of the current ordinance with some revisions and reorganization to align with state law as detailed in your staff report. The most substantive changes have to do with the maximum number of ADUs that the state requires the town to allow on a residential property and the two development options provided in the draft ordinance. Next slide please. So there's several different types of ADUs as shown here. There are detached ADUs which are those that are physically separated from the main dwelling. Attached ADUs are those constructed as an addition to an existing residence or as part of a new residence. Conversion ADUs are units created from existing space within a residence or accessory building. And then finally JADUs are smaller units maxing out at 500 square feet located within the main residence.

Next slide.

One of the most significant changes coming from state law is the creation of two categories of ADUs included in the draft ordinance as Town Standard ADUs and Buy Right ADUs. A Town Standard ADU is subject to the Town Standard ADU development requirements and benefits from the 10% FAR increase that's been on the books since 2017. Buy Right ADUs are something new to the code and are exempt from FAR but are limited to 800 square feet.

Next slide.

The draft ordinance is consistent with state law in allowing for multiple ADUs on a residential property. Single family properties would be allowed, and under state law currently, are allowed one standard ADU and three buy-write ADUs in combination of those three different product types, the detached conversion and JADU as shown in that table. Existing multifamily properties are allowed at least one conversion ADU or up to 25% of the existing units and up to eight detached ADUs and a new multifamily development would be allowed two detached ADUs. And then for our last slide, in conclusion, staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the draft ordinance and forward a recommendation to the Town Council to adopt the ordinance. And this concludes staff's presentation and we're available to answer any questions.

Thank you, Mr. Mullin. Is there any questions of staff at this time? Commissioner Mayer?

Yeah, would you mind going back to the previous slide? Just for clarification, so in the single family dwelling, four total number of ADUs allowed per lot, one town standard and three by right. Does that mean you could technically have two detached ADUs, one that's up to 1,200 square feet and one that's 800 square feet or under?

Correct.

Okay. Is that new or is that?

It'd be new to our code. The state has allowed it for some time, not a long time. I can't remember if it was January 1st of this year, but these by-right units are also referred to as 66323 units or state exempt units. We've chosen a little bit less of a mouthful to call them by-right ADUs.

I appreciate that.

Got it. Thanks.

Any further questions of staff? Commissioner Sordy.

Can you articulate the difference between by right and standard? I always figured that by right was not discretionary, but I don't think any of these ADUs are discretionary, right?

That's correct. That doesn't change. All of this is ministerial approval through the building permit process. It doesn't go through planning. By right... means they're not subject to the real big differences. They're not subject to floor area. They're not subject to any objective design standards that are specific to the town. So our town standard development requirements do include some objective design standards. The ways that we've structured this code was to pull some of the ones that used to be specific to an ADU product type and made them apply to all, mainly the ones that protect privacy, like prohibition of second story decks and balconies. That would apply to both products. The kind of out there is that under the state law, development requirement can be used to preclude the development of a by-right adu so if there's something in our code and someone makes the case that it's preventing them from creating the number of adus at the size limitations that are allowed we would have to allow them but we were pretty careful in organizing the code so that the things that we're applying to both Town Standard and Buy-Rite ADUs were not the types of things that would preclude the development of an ADU, of a Buy-Rite ADU and then have some specifics for the Town Standard ADUs.

Great, thank you for that explanation.

FOR ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF AT THIS TIME? COMMISSIONER MAYER?

MAYBE I'M GETTING TOO DEEP IN THE WEEDS HERE BUT I'M CURIOUS NOW WITH THE TOWN STANDARD ADU AND BY RIGHT ADU, I'M GOING TO ASK YOU MR. MULLEN SOME HYPOTHETICALS. SO LET'S SAY A HOMEOWNER WANTS TO BUILD ONE TOWN STANDARD ADU AND THEY ALSO WANT TO DO ONE BY RIGHT DETACHED ADU. DO THOSE HAVE TO BE TWO SEPARATE STRUCTURES IN THE BACKYARD OR COULD THE TOWN STANDARD ADU AND BY RIGHT ADU BE ATTACHED TO EACH OTHER EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE DETACHED FROM THE MAIN PRIMARY DWELLING?

I WOULD HAVE TO GET PRETTY DEEP INTO THE CODE. I BELIEVE THEY HAVE TO BE SEPARATE. I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK CAREFULLY AND IF GIVEN A MINUTE I CAN TAKE A LOOK.

We can come back to that. Yeah, we can come back to it. Yeah, we can come back to that.

I guess a follow-up question to that would be if they do need to be separate, what is the setback between the two structures, minimum?

The town requires a five-foot separation measured wall-to-wall, or if there's a porch with a post supporting it, we would measure it to that post, anything that touches the ground. So eaves could get into that five feet, but... All right.

And do the by-right ADU, like the detached by-right ADU, does that have to conform to the side yard and the same side yard and rear yard setbacks?

So if you look, yeah, both of the product types benefit from a four-foot side and rear setback requirement. The front setback requirement would apply to the town standard ADU and to the by-right ADU as long as it didn't preclude the development of the by-right ADU. So if you have a tight lot that doesn't have any room physically to put a by-right ADU, it could be put in the front setback.

Follow-up question. Was there a reason that the town of Los Gatos, how did the town of Los Gatos arrive at the four-foot setback? Because some jurisdictions, such as San Jose, now allow you to go right up to the property line.

So the minimum that the town, or the maximum, I should say, that the town can require by state law is four feet. So that has always been on the books. I know there's other jurisdictions that go down to a zero or two foot, but the town's always used four feet, consistent with state law. Thanks.

Any other questions? All right. I will now open the public portion of item number three. And I currently have two cards. If there's anybody else that wants to speak and has not yet turned in a card, please do so.

And through the chair, those two cards that I handed you are for the item number four. Oh, four.

I'm so sorry.

Thank you.

Oh, that was for number two.

You're really trying to confuse me, aren't you? I just got back, you guys, be nice. So then I have no speaker cards at the moment for this particular item. Okay. All right, well, I don't think we have any speaker cards. Is there anybody on Zoom that wants to discuss this topic?

I don't see any hands raised. All right then.

Um, okay, then we will close the public portion of this item and I will ask the commissioners if anyone wants to make a motion or ask continued questions of staff. Mr sort of raised your hand.

Yeah, I'll make a motion. Um, I'll make the motion to forward a recommendation of approval to the town council for ordinance. Amending chapter 29 of zoning regulations of the town code regarding accessory dwelling units and definitions. subject to the findings under CEQA section 15061 and subject to the required findings under the general plan relating to chapter 29 of the town code for the general plan.

Is there a second? Commissioner Mayer?

Second.

All right. Is there any further discussions? I'm sorry, Commissioner Mayer?

Sorry, yes, I do have a question. If the council approves this, when would these amendments go into effect?

So thank you for that question. Once approved, if they decide to adopt the ordinance, they'll introduce it at the next meeting when this is scheduled. There needs to be a second reading. Following that second reading, it would go into effect 30 days following. That said, the town has been and needs to continue to default to state law where our ADU ordinance conflicts with state law, which we've been doing.

And to clarify, I understand that to mean basically this is already in effect. That's what I understood.

Yeah, de facto, yeah. Okay, all right, thank you.

Is there any further discussion? Is there a second motion that anyone wants to? No, we got a second to the motion. I just wanted to see if there was an additional motion that anyone wanted to make. All right, seeing none, then I will call the question. All in favor?

Passes unanimously.

Are there appeal rights on this item, Mr. Paulson?

No. Since this is a recommendation, there are no appeal rights.

Okay. I often forget to ask that question, so I just ask at the end of every one of them now, so. So this, to clarify, this is the end of the public portion of the public meeting and we are now moving into other business, correct?

Correct. All right, great.

So we are now moving on to item number four. This is to discuss the Town Council's direction on the work plan for the Historic Preservation Committee and the evaluation process used to determine the significance of pre-1941 residences. The Planning Commission's discussion is not considered a project under the adopted guidelines for the implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act. I think that was it. Yeah, Commissioner Burnett.

Can I make a motion to move this item number four to a date certain, August 26th?

Definitely. It looks like there might be public comment on this item. And so it would be worth asking the potential commenters if they're available for the future date.

To clarify, there has been a request from someone outside and we are missing two planning commissioners who feel quite passionately about this particular item. And that is why we have asked to move this to a date certain. So I guess, do I just look into the audience and ask them if they would be available?

I first would ask planning staff what day would be reasonable to return. We were given the date of August 26th.

Is that still accurate, Mr. Polson? Correct. 26th. Yeah, how exactly we do like me to procedurally go. Excuse me hold on. Procedurally, obviously we don't. So there's two choices.

The commission could continue the item to August 26th or the commission could hear the staff report and then also hear public comment tonight.

And then at the end of that, could we still continue it so that our other planning commissioners can be involved in this conversation?

Yes, and after hearing the public comment, you'd be able to continue it. That's what I would like to do. Okay.

Does that sound okay? All right. All right. So then I will... Uh, Mr Mullen, are you going to give the staff report on this?

Yes. And thank you once again on December 2nd, 2025, the town council provided direction to staff on a future historic work plan items. The council asked staff to return after the objective standards update was substantially completed. Um, the objective standards project is still in progress and staff's not. begun to evaluate the Town Council's requests regarding historic preservation. On February 25th of this year, the Planning Commission Chair requested that an item be added to an agenda for discussion of the Town Council's direction and the evaluation process used to determine the historic significance of pre-1941 residences. For the benefit of the public, I'll remind folks that this is a discussion item only and no action will be taken this evening nor direction provided to staff. Staff is available to support your discussion.

Wonderful. Are there any questions of staff at this time? Commissioner Burnett?

Yes, question for staff. You're speaking specifically about pre-1941 residents of homes, right?

The direction of the chair to bring back the item was to discuss the evaluation process used with regards to pre-1941 homes.

because there were a lot of things covered that the town council wanted the planning commission to look at. It included more things than just the pre-1941 homes. So is that the only part that we're to look at?

I would say that the HPC process and the town council's direction is part of what was brought back. Your staff report includes the five or six items that the council has asked staff to look into. To clarify, we've not received direction to do any work on those items. The next step in the process is for staff to return to the council with an estimate of cost and staff time on the different items and then receive direction to start the process of working on improvements, which would then proceed possibly through the policy committee, HPC planning commission, and then council. The item tonight was merely a discussion item. And again, no action will be taken or direction received.

So just to be, okay. And then, so just to be clear, it entails more than just pre-1941. Yeah. Okay, thank you.

All right. And so to my fellow commissioners, as we are going to continue this, we have heard the staff report. I'm going to recommend that we take the public testimony so that that gets put onto the record. And then we're going to continue this to a date certain for the greater discussion to include our other planning commissioners. Is that acceptable? All right. I'm going to open the public portion of item number four and call. Oh, that's where's when you're going to speak for Gary. So if she's gonna come representing Gary Colestat, she would also like to speak as her own independent?

Each speaker gets three minutes and they can use those minutes however they want. There's no trading of time or allocating of time to other people. So Mr. Colestat can either submit his comments in writing or someone else can read Mr. Colestat's comments into the record.

and or Mr. Colstock could also attend the next meeting and speak. So if you would like to use your full three minutes for yourself, please come on forward and let's do that.

Bess Worsima from Studio 3. I think I would just like to say that all the architects are happy to have another conversation about this in August, but we also like being able to just start having the conversation. We do encourage the commission to develop a more clear and usable set of local evaluation standards that reflect our town's unique history while remaining consistent with the National Park Service guidance. These standards should identify the historical themes, development patterns, architectural styles, and community values that are important to our town, and establish objective criteria for determining significance and integrity. Such guidance would provide property owners, applicants, committee members, and commissioners with a common framework for evaluating resources and would reduce uncertainty, inconsistency, and subjective decision-making. I respectfully ask the Planning Commission to direct the Historic Preservation Committee and the Town to apply nationally recognized preservation standards, including the guidance contained in the National Register Bulletin Number 15, especially when evaluating historic resources. The National Park Service makes clear that age alone does not establish historic significance or integrity. Rather, a property must retain sufficient integrity through aspects such as location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association to convey a significance. A locally adopted set of standards should clearly define what constitutes a historic resource in our community, distinguish between buildings that are merely old and look good and those that are actually historically significant, establishing expectations for the level of integrity required by designation. By creating these standards through a public process and grounding them in recorded preservation practices, the town can ensure that future evaluations are consistent, predictable, and defensible. Any locally developed standards should remain grounded in well-established, nationally recognized evaluation practices. Local guidelines should supplement, not replace, objective standards for significance and integrity already recognized at the national level. By combining National Park Service criteria with local architecture expertise, the Town can create a clear, consistent, and defensible framework that reflects our community's unique character while maintaining credibility and alignment with accepted preservation practices. I encourage the Planning Commission to direct the Town to seek input from local architects, preservation professionals, contractors and other qualified experts in developing practical local guidelines. We bring valuable and free expertise regarding building materials, construction methods, architectural styles, rehabilitation practices and the realities of maintaining and adapting historic structures. Our participation can help ensure that local guidelines are both technically sound and practical to implement.

Do we have questions of the speaker? I do. Two, one, you had quite a few things in there referencing where perhaps some good information would be found. Can I ask you to put that in writing and also send an email in? That would be part of the record. And then you also talked about, you were going pretty fast, something Bulletin 15. What is that?

NPS, National Park Service, Department of Interior. Bulletin 15 specifically addresses the definition and how to establish and define that a structure maintains integrity historically. Must meet seven specific requirements.

Okay. My next question is, I do know you work in a number of different Jurisdictions, um, if I was going to be trying to look up 1 that you think perhaps has got this defined. Well, that has allowed designers contractors to reference. Do you do you have 1 or 2 that I could look up and reference?

I think Carmel actually is very interesting. Um. and very strangely Santa Clara. I know, weird, but actually the old downtown part of Santa Clara is similar in terms of housing fabric to Los Gatos. I think notably both rely on professionals being part of the decision-making process. Yes, I agree.

Any other questions for the speaker?

No, thank you very much.

The next one is David Zykovich. Did I say that correctly, I hope? Close enough, thank you.

Since the evaluation process isn't complete, there's really not much. I have Coalsat's letter here, but basically Coalsat's letter says, if a building is older, but it is completely substandard, like it has no moisture barrier, what can we do about that? A lot of the historic creates a problem for that. I've done probably a dozen or 20 houses in the downtown area, and I run into this all the time. We end up having to go into the building department and do alternative maintenance. Sometimes great, sometimes not so great. But I'm here if you have any questions for somebody who's done a whole bunch of the historics in town and sat at this table repeatedly at HPC because all the architects will call me and ask me, hey, will you come in and help us get this through here? Because clearly this project is, this house is beyond the end of its service life.

Yeah, I'm gonna ask you some of the same questions. Have you done work in some communities where you felt like the guidelines that were put out there helped you in your planning on how you were gonna construct?

No, this is the only community that we work in that historic has such a strong authority over what we can and cannot do.

Interesting. I don't work in Carmel. You don't work in Carmel. That's too much of a commute. So you're looking at it a lot of times in a constructability manner. Knowing what we currently have, are there any key, like the water barrier is a great one, foundations. Are there other key things that you think we should talk about?

How do you meet, will we, with an all-wood house that has ventilation? Good example, something we run into a problem on constantly. I've done five houses in the downtown area for my family. Some remodels, some from scratch. Okay.

Is there anything else that you would like to address with this commission today with the opportunity that you think we should be thinking about?

No, I was coming in to hear what it was that the new guidelines were gonna be so that I could respond, but since we don't know what they are, I can't really respond.

All right. Well, thank you for your time. Are there any other questions? Commissioner Burnett?

Are you working on a home now on Walnut?

I am.

Now, that was a home that was an older home, and I think it's a perfect example of what we're after, unlike the Historic Preservation Committee and probably the Planning Commission, is that you did a total remodel on an older home.

We tore the old house down completely. built a new house front to look exactly like the old house.

Yes. And I think that's what we're trying to strive for is to maintain the look and feel of that neighborhood. And I just want to compliment you because you're doing exactly sort of what we would want you to do.

I can give you a list of the ones that we've done that we're particularly proud of. And if you look at them, one example, 69 Broadway is my old house. When we built that house, we had a Christmas party and one of the local contractors came in and looked around and said, you did a great job. And we built it from scratch. So yeah, you can do that.

I think that's all we're really after.

Thank you. Any other questions? All right, thank you very much. I will then close the public portion of this item for tonight. Do we need to make a motion to, does someone want to make a motion to move this? I so move to move item number four to a date certain of August 26th. Did you already make it?

The motion was made prior to public hearing.

Thank you.

So we need another motion.

But we did not get a second, if I recall. Okay, I will second that. Is there any discussion or an additional motion? I'm really jet lagged. Okay, then I will call the question. All in favor? It's unanimously.

Thank you.

All right, and we will now go to item number five. Consider a request to determine that the disposition of land is in conformance with the town of Los Gatos 2040 general plan for property zone R-1D LHP single family residential downtown with a landmark and historic preservation overlay. located at 4 Tate Avenue, APN 510-44-054. The determination is not subject to CEQA review pursuant to CEQA Section 15061, Section B, Section 3, because it can be seen with certainty that the determination will not have significant effect on the environment. The property owner applicant is the town of Los Gatos. And project planner again is Sean Mullins. Mr. Mullins, will you be giving us a report or presentation about this today?

Yes, and thank you again. The property at Fort Tate has been long owned by the town. The council took action recently to facilitate the sale of the property to a private party and the property is now in contract. California Government Code Section 65402 provides that the town's acquisition or disposal of real property shall be submitted and reported upon by the planning agency, in this case the Planning Commission, with respect to conformity with the adopted general plan. Sale of the Tate property allows for residential use of the existing building and potential development of additional housing units within the town consistent with the adjacent pattern of development. Applicable goals within the housing element supportive of the consistency finding that you're required to make this evening include the following goal HE-1, policy HE 1.7, and policy HE 4.5. Staff recommends that the Commission adopt the draft resolution making the findings required by Government Code Section 65402. And this concludes my report and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Are there any questions of staff? Commissioner Sordy?

This is a little unrelated, but is there an established date on the close of escrow for the property?

On next Tuesday the council will be asked to approve the purchase and sale agreement and then I believe the close of escrow and this is a guesstimate but it would be you know approximately 30 days after that.

Okay because I thought that I picked up on in the budget hearings the council for some reason took the windfall coming from this out of the next fiscal year's budget and I wasn't sure whether that meant it was going to close before July 1st or

I THINK ORIGINALLY STAFF WAS PROPOSING TO HAVE THE SALE CONSUMMATED PRIOR TO THE END OF THIS FISCAL YEAR, BUT WE WEREN'T ABLE TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN AND SO IT'S CONTEMPLATED FOR THIS COMING FISCAL YEAR.

OKAY. SO IT ACTUALLY WOULD BE IN THE BUDGET AS A POSITIVE FOR THE BUDGET THAT THEY'RE HAVE EITHER APPROVED OR ARE APPROVING FOR FISCAL YEAR?

26, 27. OKAY. THANK YOU.

Are there any other questions to staff? There are no speakers or speaker cards. Is there anybody on Zoom?

There are no hands raised. All right then.

So I will ask my fellow commissioners if there's further questions of staff or if anyone would like to pose a motion. Vice Chair Barnett.

Concerning item five on tonight's agenda, I move to approve the recommendation of staff concerning the disposition of the real property. I can make the findings pursuant to CEQA and make the findings as required by Government Code 65402 that the disposition is in accordance with Town of Los Gatos 2040 General Plan, which is Exhibit 1. I think that covers it, but I'm open to suggestions.

Is there a second? Commissioner Burnett? I'll second that. Is there any discussion? All right, then I will call the question. All in favor? Passes unanimously. And again, I assume since this was a recommendation, there are no appeal rights? That's correct. All right. So we will now move on to the report from the Director of Community Development.

Thank you, Chair. This evening, I don't have any items.

All right. Do we have any subcommittee reports this evening? Vice Chair Barnett.

So CDAC met this afternoon concerning a proposal for a three-story building, ground floor retail, second floor office, third floor floor condominiums or housing units. It's at the corner of Bachman and South Santa Cruz. THE FEELING OF THE COMMISSION WAS THAT THERE ARE MAJOR PROBLEMS CONCERNING THE MASSING OF THE BUILDING AND PARKING, WHICH REQUIRES 56 SPACES ACCORDING TO THE TOWN REQUIREMENTS AND 11 ARE AVAILABLE. SO THE DESIGNER INDICATED THAT HE WOULD TAKE ALL THAT BACK TO THE OWNER AND THAT THEY WILL RETURN WITH SOMETHING THAT THEY THINK MIGHT BE MORE APPROPRIATE FOR THE TOWN.

Interesting, thank you. Are there any other reports to this? All right then. Are there any other commission matters that we want to discuss this evening?

All right. If not, the meeting is adjourned.

Thank you.