Attachment 4 - Public CommentT.H.I.S. DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT P.O.Box 1518, Los Gatos, CA 95031
Tel: 408.354.1863 Fax: 408.354.1823
Town of Los Gatos
110 E Main St
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Attn: Town Council
December 18th, 2021
SB-9 Rule Changes for Consideration.
[REVISED AFTER READING THE DRAFT ORDINANCE]
Council Members: [Please ignore my previous thoughts on the subject]
I have read the SB-9 Law, together with the associated Code Sections that it refers
to. I have also read the draft Ordinance that you will be deliberating on December 21st
and am impressed with the thoroughness of the analysis by staff and the Town
Attorney in putting this together (compared with other jurisdictions). As such I will
limit my comments to the Ordinance where I see some (minor) areas that I think
could/should be addressed. I have referenced the Ordinance Sections Directly:
1.Section III: Definitions: “Single-family residential zone” should consider
including HR (Hillside Residential) – as this zone is clearly “single-family.
2.Section IV: Exclusions: “Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone” should permit a
project which adopts “65913.4(a)(6)(D) - fire hazard mitigation measures
pursuant to existing building standards” and can hence satisfy SCCFD approval
for the project. The failure to satisfy SCCFD requirements (including access,
turnouts, turnarounds, fire sprinklers and other measures), as well as Building
Code construction techniques and building materials should disqualify a project.
3.Section V.A.5: Floor Area Ratio and Lot Coverage: This should clarify FAR
With or Without the ADU sq ft allowance. [I suggest “Without” for some
restriction on the FAR for “2 homes” if SB-9 ministerial approval is requested].
Additionally it must allow one 800 sq ft additional residence to be built, even if
the Existing home is already at the allowable FAR.
4.Section V.A.11 Table 1-1: Setback Requirements: A distinction should be
made for Front Setback for the “rear parcel” of a Flag Lot. Assuming SB-9 does
allow the creation of some flag lots a reduction of the rear parcel front setback
might give more room at the rear of the property – which would be better.
Perhaps “front and rear setbacks combined must not exceed front setback for
the zoning district with neither being less than 4 ft” [or something similar].
5.Section V.C.4c: Tenant Occupancy: A ‘Homeowner Exemption’ identifies only
a ‘Primary Residence’, which might be too limiting. Perhaps evidence by utility
statements or something similar could be used as a second option?
6.Section V.D.4: Denial: Strike the word “only if the Building Official . . . .”, as
they can also be denied if an applicant fails to abide by “Objective Standards”.
ATTACHMENT 4
7.Section VI.A.1: Flag/Corridor Lots: SB-9 - 66411.7(e)(2) allows a jurisdiction
to require a parcel to “have access to, provide access to, or adjoin the Public
RoW”. It is not clear that this eliminates the use of an easement to access the
“rear” parcel in a flag lot. As required by the proposed 20 ft fee title corridor,
this would require a distance of 20 ft + side setback adjacent to a building,
which might provoke litigation. An alternative such as “an access corridor or
easement necessary to satisfy SCCFD fire standards shall be provided to the
rear parcel of any flag lot”.
8.Section VI.A.2. Lot Lines: “. . . . or Parallel to Existing Lot Lines”. Not all lots
are regular in shape and even this will not satisfy all situations, but it helps and
will give the Community Development Director some more flexibility.
9.Section VI.A.3. Min Lot Size: “ . . . . .exclusive of any access corridor <30 ft in
width.” [at what point does an “access corridor” become part of the size calc?]
10.Section VI.A.5. Min Frontage: You might not require a Min Frontage if you
allow an easement to access the rear parcel of a flag lot.
11.Section VI.B. Intent to Occupy: There is a problem in SB-9. The 3-year
limitation should commence from the Recordation of the Lot “OR Certificate of
Occupancy” in case a construction project is proposed.
12.Section VI.C.5. Denial: Strike the word “only if the Building Official . . . .”, as
they can also be denied if an applicant fails to abide by “Objective Standards”.
My original concern was that the Town should:
1.Make ministerial approval reasonably restrictive so as to encourage owners to
elect to use the existing A&S process where possible but allow some flexibility
for smaller projects. The draft Ordinance does this in some measure if the FAR
rule does not include the ADU allowance for ministerial projects.
The (modified) matrix shows what I believe you would be approving with this draft
Ordinance. I think that it is fair, but would encourage you to look carefully at the
minor amendments that I have suggested. I believe that these would clarify a couple
of issues and remove (some) areas of potential future litigation from the picture.
I hope that my comments are clear enough for you to grasp the gist of what I am
suggesting. SB-9 is tantamount to ‘spot zoning’ and needs to be addressed carefully so
as to not cause the Town to change too radically. Can ministerial approval allow
reasonable projects to proceed, with objective standards as the measure? I suspect
that it can.
The Ordinance you approve on December 21st will be interesting to discuss. I would like
to commend staff for their work on this matter. There was a lot of thought put into it.
Thank you
Tony Jeans
TABLE OF OPTIONS FOR MINISTERIAL APPROVAL - SB-9 BASIS FOR DISCUSSION
What is There Now?Main House ADU JADU House #2 Total Units
Single Lot Now
Vacant [Zoning Std] [ADU Limit] [JADU Limit] O 3
House O [ADU Limit] [JADU Limit] O 3
House + ADU O O [JADU Limit] O 3
House + ADU + JADU O O O O 3
Single Lot post SB-9
Vacant TBD 10% - 1200 500 TBD 4
House O 10% - 1200 500 TBD 4
House + ADU O O 500 TBD 4
House + ADU + JADU O O O TBD 4
Urban Lot Split -The 2 Smaller Lots will fall into the next zoning district standard below.
Urban Split - Parcel 1
Vacant TBD O O TBD 2
House O O O TBD 2
House + ADU O O O O 2
House + ADU + JADU O O TBD O 3-Feb
Urban Split - Parcel 2
Vacant TBD O O TBD 2
ADU O O O TBD 2
ADU + JADU O O O O 2
Comments: This is all Subject to Legal Commentary
Rules for the items shown as TBD [to be defined] need to be set for Ministerial Projects
The following Table suggests what is proposed in the draft Ordinance.
TABLE OF OPTIONS FOR MINISTERIAL APPROVAL - LOS GATOS ORDINANCE
What is There Now?Main House ADU JADU House #2 Total Units
Single Lot Now
Vacant [Zoning Std] [ADU Limit] [JADU Limit] O 3
House O [ADU Limit] [JADU Limit] O 3
House + ADU O O [JADU Limit] O 3
House + ADU + JADU O O O O 3
Single Lot post SB-9
Vacant FAR Split w/ #2 10% - 1200 500 FAR Split w/ Main 4
House O 10% - 1200 500 FAR - Main or 800 4
House + ADU O O 500 FAR - Main or 800 4
House + ADU + JADU O O O FAR - Main or 800 4
Urban Lot Split -The 2 Smaller Lots will fall into the next zoning district standard below.
Urban Split - Parcel 1
Vacant FAR Split w/ #2 O O FAR Split w/ Main 2
House O O O FAR - Main or 800 2
House + ADU O O O O 2
House + ADU + JADU O O Demolish O 2
Urban Split - Parcel 2
Vacant FAR Split w/ #2 O O FAR Split w/ Main 2
ADU O O O FAR - Main or 800 2
ADU + JADU O O O O 2
Comments: This is all Subject to Legal Commentary
The Ministerial Option would split the FAR between 2 homes on a Vacant Lot
The Second Unit would be restricted to 800 ft if the existing Main Residence is at FAR or greater.
From: Phil Koen
Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2021 6:09 PM
To: Rob Rennie; Matthew Hudes; Mary Badame; Maria Ristow; Marico Sayoc
Cc: Laurel Prevetti; Shelley Neis; jvannada; Rick Van Hoesen
Subject: Agenda Item #20
Dear Council Members,
We would suggest the following requirements be included in the SB 9 urgency ordinance being
considered by the Town Council. These provisions have been included in other cities SB 9 urgency
ordinances. They further the purpose of SB 9 which is to promote the development of affordable
housing in a thoughtful manner.
Thank you.
Los Gatos Community Alliance
Objective standards and requirements for new dwelling units on a parcel that is not being subdivided.
1) The maximum floor area of an SB 9 unit shall be 800 square feet. Basements and bunkers are not
permitted.
Intermedia
100 Mathilda Place Suite 600, Sunnyvale, California 94086
www.intermedia.com | LinkedIn | Twitter | Facebook | Blog
J.D. Power certifies Intermedia for providing an "Outstanding Customer
Service Experience" in Assisted Technical Support 5 years running - a first
among cloud communications providers
This message is intended only for the person(s) to which it is addressed and may contain Intermedia.net. Inc. privileged, confidential and/or
proprietary information. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and
deleting it from your computer. Any disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this message
and any attachment(s) by anyone other than the named recipient(s) is strictly prohibited.
1)The subdivision is subject to all impact or development fees related to the creation of a new parcel.
2)Upon receipt of a subdivision application using the provisions of this article, the Town shall notify all
owners and occupants within a 500-foot radius from the subject parcel that a parcel map has been filed with
the Town
3)A note on the parcel map and a recorded deed restriction in a form approved by the Town’s Attorney’s Office
shall be applied to all newly created parcels indicating that the parcel was split using the provision of this
article and that no further subdivision of the parcels is permitted. In addition, the deed restriction shall
stipulate that all new units developed on the new parcels shall be income restricted to low and very low-
income households based on the most recent Santa Clara County Area Median Income (AMI) levels.
4)Prior to the recordation of the parcel map, the applicant shall sign and record an affidavit stating that the
applicant intends to reside in one of the proposed or existing primary dwelling units or SB 9 units for three
years from the date of the approval of the subdivision. This requirement shall not apply if the applicant is a
community land trust or a qualified nonprofit corporation as provided in Sections 402.1 and 214.15 of the
Revenue and Taxation Code.
Objective standards and requirements for new dwelling units on a parcel that is not being subdivided.