Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Adu Sb9 Updates topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission directs ad hoc committees to draft technical ADU and SB 9 updates; calls for checklists and agency coordination
Summary
Commissioners asked staff and the ADU and SB 9 ad hoc committees to separate short‑term technical changes required by state guidance (completeness checklists, shot‑clock language, fee alignment) from longer policy work (height, MDA/MFA inside setbacks). The commission also emphasized streamlining for ADUs and better coordination with fire, utilities and county agencies.
The Los Altos Hills Planning Commission spent much of its Feb. 5 meeting discussing staff’s proposed updates to local ADU and SB 9 rules in light of recent state guidance (HCD’s ADU handbook and SB 450/SB 9 clarifications). Staff asked the commission to direct ad hoc committees to prepare draft language: short technical changes that align local code with state requirements and longer policy adjustments to preserve the town’s semi‑rural character.
Staff recommended several technical items that can be implemented quickly: an objective completeness checklist with clear initial submittal requirements and timelines (the 'shot clock'); minor ordinance language edits (for example extending streamlined legalization eligibility for pre‑2020 units); and explicit references that ADU impact fees remain minimized to avoid disincentivizing ADUs. Staff said these technical changes could be drafted and returned for a March planning commission hearing.
Commissioners diverged about larger policy issues. Some commissioners argued that the town should use objective design standards and a single, unified set of rules for ADUs and SB 9 units to avoid creating loopholes; others urged caution and time to craft incentives and disincentives (e.g., limiting size or height of structures built inside setbacks, or offering extra MFA/MDA credit when construction is placed outside setback areas) so state ministerial allowances do not erode local character.
County‑level and interagency constraints were a recurring theme. Multiple public commenters told the commission that fire department review timelines, PG&E meter/service constraints and county environmental‑health requirements (sewer connections) are often the practical bottlenecks after a plan is submitted. Commissioners and staff discussed options to mitigate those delays: more robust pre‑application checklists, periodic 'counter' office hours with partner agencies (if the agencies agree), targeted outreach meetings, and a possible town ombudsman or case manager role to help applicants coordinate with external agencies.
Legal staff clarified that, under SB 450/SB 9 rules, municipalities may not impose standards that apply only to SB 9 units; they must apply standards uniformly or allow less‑restrictive treatments for SB 9 where state law requires. The practical implication is that Los Altos Hills can define objective, parcel‑wide design envelopes and create targeted limits within setbacks, but must take care not to draft standards that single out SB 9 units unfairly.
Next steps: the commission directed staff to (1) identify the short list of statutory/technical edits that must be made quickly and prepare draft ordinance language, (2) reconvene ADU and SB 9 ad hoc committees to develop objective design options and incentives/disincentive packages, and (3) return to the commission with a split deliverable — technical amendments ready for March and policy options for later review.
