Attachment 3 - Public CommentATTACHMENT 3
From: Terence J. Szewczyk
Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2021 9:04 PM
To: Rob Rennie; Maria Ristow; Mary Badame; Matthew Hudes; Marico Sayoc
Cc: Laurel Prevetti; Jennifer Armer
Subject: SB9- Urgency Ordinance
Dear Mayor & Town Council.
Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the hearing on this matter. There are answers to
many of your questions and concerns that were readily available:
1) The 3 years is currently noted "from the date of approval of the Urban Lot Split" in the CA
law.
2) The restriction for affordability was not intended by the law.
3) SB9 is for R1 only -- not applicable to high-density zoning.
4) There is no loss of tax revenue with a lot split. The original owner may retain the property tax
basis based on their age at that house. The new lot would be taxed at market rate as a new lot
and assessed for the new house if it is built.
5) This is ministerial.
Thanks again.
Best regards, Terry
Terence J. Szewczyk. P.E.
TS/Civil Engineering, Inc
From: Phil Koen
Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2021 11:42 AM
To: Joel Paulson; Laurel Prevetti
Cc: jvannada; Rick Van Hoesen; David Weissman
Subject: SB 9 subdivision object standards
Hello Joel,
Happy Holidays to you.
I was able to watch the Council meeting regarding the SB 9 urgency ordinance. I was curious about your
comment that there was language in SB 9 which precluded local governments from adopting objective
zoning standards or subdivision standards which would “render a project economically unfeasible”
(reference about 1:15:30 in the video).
I have searched SB 9 and am unable to find any such language. What I did find under 66411.7 (b) (3) (c)
(2) was language which stated objective standards that had the “effect of physically precluding the
construction” of additional units were prohibited. The word “physically” as a qualifier to construction
seemingly does not prevent the adoption of objective standards which would have economic or financial
impacts, especially if these standards furthered access to affordable housing. Requiring affordable
housing to be built on a lot split under SB 9 does not preclude the “physical” construction of the new
unit. Rather it helps ensure the development of affordable housing. It does have an economic/financial
impact for sure on the subdivision decision (as opposed to the physical construction). Presumably if the
State wanted to include financial or economic effects on SB 9 construction, they would have added
language which specifically included financial or economic effects which would preclude construction.
SB 9 is focused on “ensuring access to affordable housing”, not market rate housing. It is hard to imagine
anyone being successful in a legal challenge to an objective zoning and/or subdivision standard which
ensured access to affordable housing on a subdivision under SB 9. That is why a deed restriction on a lot
created by a SB 9 subdivision which would require the development of affordable housing makes sense.
To allow lot splits under SB 9 simply so more market rate housing can be built, makes no sense and is
inconsistent with SB 9. The ability to split a lot and build market rate housing already exists under the
current zoning laws. But to do that, you must comply with those zoning rules which are more stringent
than SB 9.
Can you point me to the language in SB 9 that supports your statement? What am I missing? The Council
needs to be fully informed on this matter.
All the best,
Phil Koen
From: Joel Paulson
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 3:44 PM
To: Phil Koen; Laurel Prevetti
Cc: jvannada; Rick Van Hoesen; David Weissman; Robert Schultz
Subject: RE: SB 9 subdivision object standards
Phil – Thank you for your email. I am aware of Los Altos Hills language. Town staff’s understanding of
State law remains that an objective standard requiring deed restricted affordable housing would not be
a valid objective standard. Hopefully, the State will provide further guidance on this matter soon.
I understand your concern with the minimum unit square footage requirement of 150 square feet. The
Town is considering whether to remove this requirement as it is probably not necessary for our local
ordinance.
As previously mentioned, I encourage you to provide comments, on these items and any other topics
you have, on the Urgency Ordinance for Council consideration at the February 1, 2022 meeting when
the Council will discuss this matter again.
Thanks.
Joel Paulson ● Community Development Director
Community Development Department ● 110 E. Main Street, Los Gatos CA 95030
Ph: 408.354.6879 ● jpaulson@losgatosca.gov
www.losgatosca.gov ● https://www.facebook.com/losgatosca
General Plan update, learn more at www.losgatos2040.com
Housing Element update, learn more at https://engagelosgatoshousing.com
CONFIDENTIALITY DISCLAIMER
This e-mail is intended only for the use of the individual(s) named in this e-mail. If you receive this e-mail and are not a named recipient, any use,
dissemination, distribution or copying of the e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately
notify us at the above e-mail address.
From: Phil Koen
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2022 5:41 PM
To: Joel Paulson; Laurel Prevetti
Cc: jvannada; Rick Van Hoesen; David Weissman
Subject: RE: SB 9 subdivision object standards
Joel,
Thank you for your reply. I greatly appreciate you taking the time to do so.
I am obviously not a land use attorney, so these are my opinions based on my reading of SB 9. SB 9 does
not address the implementation of rules or restrictions including covenants, conditions, or deed
restrictions. SB 9 is totally silent on this. To this point, I have attached a draft urgency ordinance from
Los Altos Hills, which included the following requirement on lots subdivided under SB 9:
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.
Based on this, there is evidence to support that a deed restriction on new units developed from a lot
split might be legal. The City Attorney for Los Altos Hills certainly believes that these deed restrictions
are legal. Simply because SB 9 does not state that deed restrictions which require affordability are
permissible, does not mean that such restrictions are prohibited. Here is the language from SB 9 that
controls what a local agency can and can not do:
2) A local agency shall not impose objective zoning standards, objective
subdivision standards, and objective design review standards that would
have the effect of physically precluding the construction of two units on
either of the resulting parcels or that would result in a unit size of less than
800 square feet.
A deed restriction requiring affordability does not physically prevent the construction of such units. They
can be physically constructed. And it is certainly an objective standard since the affordable income levels
are defined and published annually by the State.
SB 9 never mentions the words “economically infeasible” or remotely even suggests that there is some
type of “economic” test in determining the construction of units or subdivision of lots. The reason is that
these are subject terms. Based on this, I would suggest that the Town seek the advice from HCD and/or
consult an independent land use attorney so the Staff can become further informed regarding SB 9. I am
reminded of our conversation regarding building in high fire hazard areas and how the Staff thinking
evolved over time.
Regarding the minimum square footage requirement of 150 feet, I fail to understand why this was
included. SB 9 already precludes units from being less than 800 sq. ft. So why establish a minimum of
150 sq ft when such minimum would be illegal under SB 9? Perhaps I am missing the point and welcome
your input on this.
One last point – I am unclear as to your distinction between a lower and upper “a” case “affordable
housing law”. Section 4 of SB 9 states:
The Legislature finds and declares that ensuring access to
affordable housing is a matter of statewide concern and not a municipal
affair as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California
Constitution. Therefore, Sections 1 and 2 of this act adding Sections
65852.21 and 66411.7 to the Government Code and Section 3 of this act
amending Section 66452.6 of the Government Code apply to all cities,
including charter cities.
One can only conclude that the Legislature believes affordable housing is a major issue and as such has
taken a major step in approving SB 9. I can see how this is a lower case “a” law.
Thank you.
Phil Koen
January 12, 2022
Mayor Rob Rennie & Town Council
Town of Los Gatos
110 E. Main St.
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Subject: CA Senate Bill 9
Town of Los Gatos Ordinance
Honorable Mayor & Town Council:
I am a 43 year South Bay resident with 2 years living in Town at Kennedy Road (cross
street Gem). My wife (Cindy) and I have our kids enrolled in the excellent Los Gatos Schools
and I have my business office in downtown. We have a deteriorating house that has been cleared
for demolition by the Town Historical Commission. It is our goal to replace the house with 2
new houses initially for my mother (Sui) and our immediate family, then ultimately one house
for each child.
Our lot is 16,800 SF and readily divides into 2-8,000 SF lots. The preferred subdivision
application is that allowed by SB9. It is simple and cost effective without complications that
might result from a standard subdivision application.
We are concerned that the 1200 SF building size will destroy our estate planning goals. The
allowable floor area under Town FAR code is approximately 2750 SF per lot or a total of
5500SF. If we are limited to 2 @ 1200 = 2400 SF, then we are deprived of 3100 SF of building
area and the associated real estate value.
We respectfully request that you reconsider the 1200 SF building size limit as it has the
unintended consequence of jeopardizing our project. We look forward to you deliberations on
February 1, 2022.
Sincerely,
Patrick, Cindy & Sui Mock
Kennedy Rd, Los Gatos
Mayor Rob Rennie January 20, 2022
-2- 4872-3705-0633v3 ALF\29999001
the Ordinance, and second the limitation on all new houses to 1200 square feet. We will discuss
each of these provisions in turn.
1. The HR Zone should be included in the Ordinance. SB 9 applies to any “single family residential zone.” See Govt. Code §§ 65852.21(a), 66411.7(a)(3)(A). The Ordinance as adopted applies only to R-1 and R-1D zones. However, the HR zone is as much a single-family residential zone as are the R-1 and R-1D zones. This is made very clear in the Town Zoning
Code.
Here are the uses allowed as a matter of right in the R-1 zone:
(1)Single-family dwelling, provided that there is not more than one (1) principal residential structure on a lot.(2)Raising of trees, vegetables and horticultural specialties, but not including commercial greenhouses, retail
nurseries, or storage of landscaping equipment, products or supplies for
commercial uses.(3)Family daycare home.(4)Residential care facility, small family
home. (Zoning Code § 29.40.385, emphasis added).
Here are the uses allowed as a matter of right in the R-1D zone:
(1)Single-family dwelling, provided that there is not more than one (1)
principal residential structure on a lot.(2)Two-family dwelling, provided that there
is not more than one (1) principal residential structure on a lot.(3)Family daycare
home.(4)Residential care facility, small family home. (Zoning Code § 29.40.725, emphasis added).
And here are the uses allowed as a matter of right in the HR zone:
(1)Single-family dwelling, provided that there is not more than one (1)
principal residential structure on a lot.(2)Agriculture, except dairying.(3)Family
daycare home.(4)Residential care facility, small family home. (Zoning Code § 29.40.235, emphasis added).
The words used to describe the single-family residential use in the R-1, R-1D and HR
zone are absolutely identical. This use is unequivocally for single-family residences. As far as
uses allowed, the only difference in the Zoning Code for the three zones relates to the second use described (agriculture for HR and R-1, duplexes for R-1D). But as to single-family residential use they are the same. The obvious conclusion is that the R-1, R-1D, and HR districts are single-family residential zones.
It is thus absolutely clear that the HR zone is a single-family residential zone. Excluding
it from the Ordinance is an arbitrary and capricious decision that violates both the intent and the letter of SB 9.
2. The 1200 square foot limitation on all new residential structures is invalid. As proposed by Staff, the Ordinance contained no size limitation on SB 9 houses, nor any
Mayor Rob Rennie January 20, 2022
-3- 4872-3705-0633v3 ALF\29999001
affordability constraints. During the hearing, both Staff and Council members correctly noted
that SB 9 is not aimed particularly at affordable housing, and, unlike some other recent
legislation, contains no affordability restrictions on owners seeking to take advantage of its provisions.
Staff correctly advised the Council that the Town’s existing BMP ordinance applies only to projects of five units or more, and that it could not be modified without (a) preparing a nexus
study to show that a property owner’s use of SB 9 would create a need for more affordable
housing, and (b) showing that applying affordability constraints to SB 9 projects would not make them infeasible for the applicant.
Notwithstanding this advice, however, the Council decided at the hearing to add an arbitrary “affordability by design” criterion to the Ordinance by limiting all structures on SB 9
lots to no more than 1200 square feet in size. After discussion, the Council adopted this limit for
all such structures, not just for secondary structures incidental to a primary housing use. Thus, if someone had a bare lot and tried to use SB 9, all resulting residential structures would be limited to 1200 square feet in size.
In effect, the Ordinance imposes a 100% affordability requirement on all residential
structures to be built pursuant to SB 9 (in contrast to the existing BMP ordinance that imposes
only a 10% to 20% requirement, depending on the number of units). And this affordability requirement was imposed by the Council at the hearing without the benefit of a nexus study nor any analysis of the feasibility of such an arbitrary limitation. We believe this is an invalid attempt to restrict the application of SB 9 in violation of the statute itself. The restriction is
arbitrary and capricious and could result in a taking of private property without compensation in
violation of both Federal and State constitutional and statutory law.
The Wimberlys respectfully request that the temporary Ordinance be modified to add the HR zone, and remove the 1200 square foot limitation on the use of SB 9. We ask that this letter be entered into the administrative record of this action. Please contact me if you have any
questions or need additional information.
Very truly yours,
BERLINER COHEN, LLP
ANDREW L. FABER
E-Mail: andrew faber@berliner.com
ALF:jl
cc: Donald C. & Cheryl G. Wimberly
Laurel Prevetti, Town Manager Robert Schultz, Town Attorney Joel Paulson, Community Development Director Jennifer Armer, Planning Manager
Kennedy Road, Los Gatos, CA95032 Town of Los Gatos 110 East Main St Los Gatos CA 95030 Attn: Town Council January 24th, 2022 Dear Councilmembers I listened with interest to the hearing in December when you discussed the new California SB-9 law. I agreed with the original Ordinance proposed by staff for the hearing and was surprised when it was radically amended after the public hearing was closed. The change to make all SB-9 units “affordable-by-design” by restricting them to 1,200 sq ft maximum is clearly not the intent of SB-9 and will not work for most people, including myself and would appear to be an attempt to stop people from taking advantage of the law. I suspect that this is not a legal amendment and should be reconsidered at your upcoming meeting next week. Real estate prices are determined by supply and demand. And we have seen the extreme case of this during the pandemic. SB-9 will lead to a large increase in new homes being built and hence increase affordability. Limiting the square footage will hurt the affordability as there will still be a large number of buyers for the mid-sized homes without sufficient supply to meet that demand. From my own standpoint I live on a property, which in all other respects, would comply with your ordinance. There is plenty of room for a lot split and the creation of a small (2,500-3,000 sq ft) house, which I would like to build for my family and then sell the existing home. That way I can afford to stay in Los Gatos. Building 2 rental units does not make any logical or financial sense. I am sure that I am not the only person in this position. I would ask that you reconsider this aspect of the ordinance to make SB-9 work the way in which it is intended. Thank you Fevzi Karavelioglu Kennedy Rd.
From: Phil Koen Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2022 6:23 PM
To: Joel Paulson Cc: Laurel Prevetti; jvannada; Rick Van Hoesen; David Weissman; Jennifer Armer Subject: Re: SB 9 subdivision object standards Joel,
Thanks for the reply. Regarding deed restrictions on the enhanced second unit program on residential non-confirming lots, the 2015-2023 Housing Element says (reference page 6-8 in technical
appendix) “as a pre-requisite for obtaining approvals in the second unit program,
participating homeowners would be required to record a deed restriction on the title record of properties specifying that the second unit shall be offered at a reduced rent that is affordable…….”
There is no mention of this being voluntary. Is the HE wrong?
Regarding deed restrictions on lots split under SB 9, I would request that you make it clear that this area is on clear at this time and you are waiting on more detail from the State.
Thanks Phil
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 25, 2022, at 5:29 PM, Joel Paulson wrote:
Phil – Thank you for your email. Deed restrictions for ADUs are not required. The Town has a provision in the Town Code that includes an Incentive Program [Town Code
Section 29.10.320 (a)], but this is voluntary not required. Currently, the Town will cover
the ADU Planning Application fee ($1,527.60) if an applicant is willing to voluntarily deed restrict their unit as a “low” income unit. Hopefully, the State will provide further guidance on this matter soon, but it is not likely to occur prior to the Town Council’s consideration of this matter on February 1, 2022.
You are welcome to suggest that the Town obtain a third-party legal opinion. If the Council agrees, we will pursue that during the consideration of the permanent Ordinance amendment process for the implementation of SB 9 which will likely begin in the next couple months.
Thanks.
Joel Paulson ● Community Development Director
Community Development Department ● 110 E. Main Street, Los Gatos CA 95030
Ph: 408.354.6879 ● jpaulson@losgatosca.gov
www.losgatosca.gov ● https://www facebook.com/losgatosca
General Plan update, learn more at www.losgatos2040.com
Housing Element update, learn more at https://engagelosgatoshousing.com
CONFIDENTIALITY DISCLAIMER
This e-mail is intended only for the use of the individual(s) named in this e-mail. If you receive this e-mail and are not a named recipient, any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of the e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us at the above e-mail address. From: Phil Koen Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2022 12:15 PM
To: Joel Paulson; Laurel Prevetti Cc: jvannada; Rick Van Hoesen; David Weissman Subject: RE: SB 9 subdivision object standards Joel,
I am sure you are aware of this, but the Town currently requires deed restrictions on certain affordable housing. This was done for ADU’s on non-conforming lots over 10,000 sq. ft and in the Hillside Residential Zone. Please see the attached documents. What the Town has adopted regarding the construction of ADU’s in the Hillside, appears
to have the same economic considerations as to what I am proposing for a lot split under
SB 9. How is it legal in the case of an ADU constructed on a lot in the Hillside, but illegal for affordable housing constructed on a SB 9 lot split? That leaves open the “economic” test question. Again, there is no language in SB 9 that
remotely suggests such a test is required.
Given this is such an important issue, obtaining a third party legal opinion or ruling from HCD before the Council revisits the urgency ordinance would be very constructive.
Thank you.
Phil
From: Joel Paulson Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2022 9:44 AM
To: Phil Koen; Laurel Prevetti Cc: jvannada; Rick Van Hoesen; David Weissman Subject: RE: SB 9 subdivision object standards Phil – Thank you for your email and I hope you enjoyed the holidays. Staff’s current
understanding is that if the Town includes an objective standard requiring deed restricted
affordable housing and that requirement renders the construction of additional units economically infeasible, then it would not be a valid objective standard. SB 9 is a lowercase “a” affordable housing law not an upper case “A” affordable housing
law where deed restrictions are required for below market price housing. If the
Legislature’s intent was to create deed restricted affordable housing then they would have included that allowance in the law, but they did not. Additionally, I understand you had concerns with the minimum unit square footage
requirement of 150 square feet. This was in the City of Campbell’s Ordinance and was
included in the Town’s Urgency Ordinance. If you believe this should not be included, you can provide that comment or any other additional comments you have on the Urgency Ordinance for Council consideration at the February 1, 2022 meeting when the Council will discuss this matter again.
Thanks.
Joel Paulson ● Community Development Director
Community Development Department ● 110 E. Main Street, Los Gatos CA 95030
Ph: 408.354.6879 ● jpaulson@losgatosca.gov
www.losgatosca.gov ● https://www facebook.com/losgatosca
General Plan update, learn more at www.losgatos2040.com
Housing Element update, learn more at https://engagelosgatoshousing.com
CONFIDENTIALITY DISCLAIMER
This e-mail is intended only for the use of the individual(s) named in this e-mail. If you receive this e-mail and are not a named recipient, any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of the e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us at the above e-mail address.
From: Phil Koen Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2021 11:42 AM
To: Joel Paulson; Laurel Prevetti Cc: jvannada; Rick Van Hoesen; David Weissman Subject: SB 9 subdivision object standards Hello Joel,
Happy Holidays to you. I was able to watch the Council meeting regarding the SB 9 urgency ordinance. I was curious about your comment that there was language in SB 9 which precluded local
governments from adopting objective zoning standards or subdivision standards which
would “render a project economically unfeasible” (reference about 1:15:30 in the video). I have searched SB 9 and am unable to find any such language. What I did find under 66411.7 (b) (3) (c) (2) was language which stated objective standards that had the “effect
of physically precluding the construction” of additional units were prohibited. The word
“physically” as a qualifier to construction seemingly does not prevent the adoption of objective standards which would have economic or financial impacts, especially if these standards furthered access to affordable housing. Requiring affordable housing to be built on a lot split under SB 9 does not preclude the “physical” construction of the new unit.
Rather it helps ensure the development of affordable housing. It does have an
economic/financial impact for sure on the subdivision decision (as opposed to the physical construction). Presumably if the State wanted to include financial or economic effects on SB 9 construction, they would have added language which specifically included financial or economic effects which would preclude construction.
SB 9 is focused on “ensuring access to affordable housing”, not market rate housing. It is hard to imagine anyone being successful in a legal challenge to an objective zoning and/or subdivision standard which ensured access to affordable housing on a subdivision under SB 9. That is why a deed restriction on a lot created by a SB 9 subdivision which
would require the development of affordable housing makes sense. To allow lot splits
under SB 9 simply so more market rate housing can be built, makes no sense and is inconsistent with SB 9. The ability to split a lot and build market rate housing already exists under the current zoning laws. But to do that, you must comply with those zoning rules which are more stringent than SB 9.
Can you point me to the language in SB 9 that supports your statement? What am I missing? The Council needs to be fully informed on this matter. All the best,
Phil Koen
T.H.I.S. DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT P.O.Box 1518, Los Gatos, CA 95031
Tel: 408.354.1863 Fax: 408.354.1823
Memorandum: SB-9 Questions and Comments
To: Mayor Renne & Los Gatos Town Council Members
From: Tony Jeans
Date: January 27th, 2022
The following provisions appear to be in direct contravention of the Law
or a direct attempt to frustrate it and invite litigation. They can be
fixed simply as shown below.
1. HR zoning districts have not been classified as “Single Family”.
Comment: In fact this is the only residential use on a HR parcel. The Town
Code identifies the residential Permitted Use – “Single-Family dwelling,
provided that there is not more than one (1) principal residential structure
on a lot.” This is IDENTICAL to the wording for R1 and RD zoning districts.
Resolution: This can be resolved by adding HR to “Ordinance Definitions”
2. 20 ft of “Street Frontage” is required for a “Flag Lot” situation.
Comment: SB-9 says a jurisdiction may require a new parcel “adjoin, have
access to or provide access to” a Right of Way. This includes the provision
for an “easement”, which should satisfy Fire Code Access provisions.
Resolution: This can be resolved by replacing the ‘20 ft frontage’ call-out
with “an Access Corridor in ‘Fee Title’ or as an ‘Ingress/Egress Easement’
that satisfies the provisions of SCCFD”.
3. Grading: No more than 50 yards of grading is permitted.
Comment: The Town requires a ’Grading Permit’ for more than 50 yards
[except at the house pad] of combined cut/fill and a Grading Permit is not
ministerial.
Resolution: For SB-9 projects the limit can be left at 50 yards, but the
‘exception’ made for the ‘house pad and driveway’. Thus restricting
gratuitous grading, while still permitting a house and access.
4. The explicit restriction to max. 1,200 sq ft homes for SB-9 units under the
pretext of “affordability” is arbitrary and not based on any rational analysis.
Comment: This afterthought was added by Council against the
recommendations of staff and was not in the original draft ordinance. It
makes use of SB-9 urban lot splits unviable for most/all homeowners.
Resolution: For Discussion – see below.
Discussion of the 1,200 Sq Ft Home Size Limitation Issue:
As the concept the limitation of 1,200 sq ft was not in the original ordinance
and came up only after Public Comment had been closed, it is difficult to
determine what the intent was. Discussion revolved around two distinct
premises.
1. Create the most restrictive Ordinance possible (to thwart SB-9 use).
2. Make SB-9 units “affordable by design” to create more affordable
housing.
If the former: then the council has succeeded and there is no point in
continuing a dialogue. The loss of the option to use SB-9 as intended in a
reasonable manner might be considered ‘a taking’ of private property and
should be of concern.
If the latter: then the idea might be good, but the result will not be
successful. It is also debatable whether “affordability” was at the root of
SB-9.
I see two options at this point in time [in extending the Urgency Ordinance].
1. Revert to the original draft ordinance proposed by staff [as to this
point].
This would allow time to consider what you want for the final
ordinance.
2. Revert to the original draft ordinance, but require: “At least one of
the permitted units on any urban lot created ministerially shall have a
maximum size of 1,200 sq ft”. This will encourage ‘affordable-by-
design’ and permit owners to build reasonable homes as well. It might
also pass legal muster.
Additionally: There is no provision in the wording of the ordinance for a
homeowner to use the A&S process after a ministerial urban lot split to
build a home, with neighbor input and DRC and PC approval. This, as a
minimum, must be allowed – so that the Town Design Guidelines can continue
to play a part in the development of properties in the Town.
What are the Housing Implications of an Urban Lot Split in the Town?
Public Comment was ‘Closed’ on December 22nd before the Council made a
radical change [1,200 sq ft max] to the Urgency Ordinance. This did not give
enough time to ‘think through’ what staff originally proposed in its draft.
If we take a ‘real world example’, in the original draft an Urban Lot Split on
a 20,000 sq ft lot in the R1:20 zone would create 2 x 10,000 sq ft lots +/-
with the following consequences [new lot sizes and house sizes shown in red]:
Lot Size Max FAR Main Home ADU/#2
Existing : 20,000 sq ft 4,600 3,750 1,200
Urban Lot 1: 11,000 sq ft * 3,322 3,750 800 *
Urban Lot 2: 9,000 sq ft * 2,862 1,662 * 1,200
*Indicates Ministerial Review of Project.
• An 800 sq ft limit [per SB-9] because the FAR is exceeded.
• A 1,662 limit for the main house so as not to exceed the FAR
The reduction in lot size resulting from an Urban Lot Split would have the
effect of reducing the allowable house sizes to an ‘intermediate house size’,
which is what SB-9 is trying to achieve. Why did the Council try to ‘fix this’?!
I would further propose that one further change be made to the Ordinance:
After an Urban Lot Split- that the subsequent house application be allowed,
either as Ministerial [SB-9 with its restrictions and Objective Design
Guidelines] or Conventional [A&S with neighbor input, story poles and Design
Review]. In this instance the Conventional FAR rules would apply and the FAR
would be allowed at 2,862 + 900 = 3,762. With a well designed house.
Lot Size Max FAR Main Home ADU/#2
Urban Lot 2: 9,000 sq ft * 2,862 1,662 * 1,200
Urban Lot 2: 9,000 sq ft * 3,762 2,562 A&S 1,200
A homeowner might choose to use this law to add housing for their
children or family, or to sell of a portion of their property so that they
can afford to stay in Los Gatos or to give them some money for
retirement. As such, the consequences for those individuals are huge.
From: Phil Koen
Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2022 4:22 PM
To: Joel Paulson
Cc: Laurel Prevetti; Rick Van Hoesen; David Weissman; Jennifer Armer;
Subject: Re: SB 9 subdivision object standards
EXTERNAL SENDER
Joel,
Can you point me to information on the “incentive program” you mentioned. I’ve read the TC and it does
mention Incentive Program established by Resolution. Where can I read about this?
On the surface, it appears to me what was stated in the 2015-2023 HE under action HOU 1.2 is not what was
done.
Let’s discuss when you have some time.
Phil
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank