Attachment 4 - Public CommentsATTACHMENT 4
Matt Brennan
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Town of Los Gatos
110 East Main St
Los Gatos CA 95030
Attn: Town Council
January 24th, 2022
Subject: SB-9 Emergency Ordinance
Dear Council-members
We own a property in the R1-20 zoning district and would like to consider SB-9 to develop it
properly. But there are a couple of clauses in the Ordinance that you approved in December
that seem to go against the intent of the law that would make it impossible for us [and many
other homeowners] to do so.
The 1,200 sq ft limitation on all SB-9 homes will make it unviable for almost anyone to consider.
We would be OK if you choose to require a smaller unit as one of the two homes, but an owner
must be able to build the other based on the FAR.
The 20 ft frontage requirement is difficult in our instance also, and SB-9 seems not to allow this
restriction. We would like to use an easement.
Without these changes the town will lose the chance to add any housing at all, let alone the
affordable housing you say you want.
We hope that you will fix these next week.
Thank you for your consideration
Matt Brennan
From: Terence J. Szewczyk
Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2022 2:18 PM
To: Laurel Prevetti <LPrevetti@losgatosca.gov>; Matt Morley <MMorley@losgatosca.gov>
Cc: Jennifer Armer <JArmer@losgatosca.gov>; Jocelyn Shoopman <jshoopman@losgatosca.gov>; Mike
Weisz <MWeisz@losgatosca.gov>
Subject: Fwd: Request for Action on SB9 Ministerial Application
EXTERNAL SENDER
Dear Town Staff, Here is our response to the comments on our first SB9 Urban Lot Split. I would like to
get a revised letter or acknowledgment that I can trust you will make the requested revisions before the
Feb 1, 2022 Council Meeting. While I realize that the grading disqualific ation was created by staff (and is
in the current ordinance) please withdraw it completely. It makes no sense whatsoever. I don't want to
have to present this info as a "bad faith" attempt of the CA law to the Council.
Best regards, Terry
Terence J. Szewczyk. P.E.
TS/Civil Engineering, Inc
San Jose, CA 95110
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Terence J. Szewczyk
Date: Sat, Jan 29, 2022 at 12:42 PM
Subject: Fwd: Request for Action on SB9 Ministerial Application
To: <lprevetti@losgatosca.gov>, Matt Morley <MMorley@losgatosca.gov>
Laurel, Time to break these very bad habits of endless over-discretionary review. PPW just can't
help themselves with citing endless deficiencies when in fact their process is the problem.
I don't know how this Town will ever revert to Ministerial Review after decades of discretionary abuse in
the application of planning and zoning law and CEQA. Recall that a 10 lot subdivision has taken more
than 10 years and a 4 lot subdivision on flat land needed a full EIR.
Best regards, Terry
Terence J. Szewczyk. P.E.
TS/Civil Engineering, Inc
San Jose, CA 95110
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Terence J. Szewczyk
Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 5:14 PM
Subject: Fwd: Request for Action on SB9 Ministerial Application
To: Matt Morley <MMorley@losgatosca.gov>
Mr. Morley, We are all trying to navigate through the SB9 process and this Engineering check print is
frankly unwelcomed. The nature of a ministerial permit does not invite discretionary comments of this
nature. Besides, there should be no grading permit trigger.
I have just read the staff report for the SB9 Urgency Ordinance and it seems that the staff direction is
correct toward watering down the current foolishness. However, it should be fully eliminated. How can
anyone believe that the need for a grading permit preempts the ability to subdivide a lot? We'll see
what the Council does on Tuesday. However, we will resubmit and expect a Planning Approval on
Monday, Jan 31, 2022.
Best regards, Terry
Terence J. Szewczyk. P.E.
TS/Civil Engineering, Inc
San Jose, CA 95110
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Jocelyn Shoopman <jshoopman@losgatosca.gov>
Date: Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 3:58 PM
Subject: RE: Request for Action on SB9 Ministerial Application
To: Terence J. Szewczyk
Cc: Mike Weisz <MWeisz@losgatosca.gov>, Jennifer Armer <JArmer@losgatosca.gov>
Hi Terry,
Please find the comment letter for Urban Lot Split application ULS22-001 attached to this email for your
review. Two additional attachments, 1.) Owner Declaration and 2.) Engineering mark-ups have also been
attached to this email. The revised plans and supporting materials can be submitted to the Town’s
online permit portal under application number ULS22-001.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to reach out.
Thank you,
Jocelyn Shoopman ● Associate Planner
Community Development Department ● 110 E Main Street, Los Gatos CA 95030
Ph: 408.354.6875 ● JShoopman@losgatosca.gov
www.losgatosca.gov ● https://www.facebook.com/losgatosca
Community Development Department • Planning Division • 110 E. Main Street
408.354.6872 • www.losgatosca.gov • www.facebook.com/losgatosca
Page 1 of 2
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS
PLANNING DIVISION AND
ENGINEERING DIVISION
January 28, 2022
16880 Kennedy Road
Urban Lot Split Application ULS22-001
Requesting Approval for a Subdivision of One Lot into Two Lots on Property Zoned R-1:8.
APN 532-35-067.
PROPERTY OWNER: Terence J. Szewczyk
APPLICANT: Patrick Mock
NOTE: This Urban Lot Split (ULS) Application submittal is INCOMPLETE and requires resubmittal
of plans to address deficiencies noted.
PLANNING PROJECT DEFICIENCIES:
1) Per the Requirements for Submittal of an Urban Lot Split Application, please provide a
grading and drainage plan with grading quantities identified or provide verification that
the future housing will not require a Grading Permit or grading in excess of 50 cubic yards.
2) Has the existing single-family home been occupied by a tenant in the last three years? If
so, pursuant to the Urgency Ordinance, the proposed urban lot split shall not require the
demolition or alteration to the existing residence that has been occupied by a tenant
within the last three years. Review and submit the attached Owner Declaration form as
part of the resubmittal.
3) The applicant shall submit a signed Owner Declaration to the Community Development
Department Director attesting that the applicant intends to occupy one of the newly
created parcels as their principal residence for a minimum of three years from the date of
the approval of the Urban Lot Split or Certificate of Occupancy, whichever is later. See
attachment.
4) The applicant shall submit a signed Owner Declaration to the Community Development
Department Director attesting that that parcel has not previously been subdivided using
an Urban Lot Split application. See attachment.
PLANNING GENERAL COMMENTS:
5) A demolition permit shall be obtained from the Building Division for the existing building
crossing a new property line prior to the recordation of the parcel map.
Community Development Department • Planning Division • 110 E. Main Street
408.354.6872 • www.losgatosca.gov • www.facebook.com/losgatosca
Page 2 of 2
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS
6) Development on the resulting parcels is limited to the project approved by the Two-Unit
Housing Development Application process. Please refer to Section V of Ordinance 2326
for the objective zoning standards which pertain to a Two-Unit Housing Development
project. The Two-Unit Housing Development Application form can be found on the Town’s
website at: https://www.losgatosca.gov/2703/Senate-Bill-9.
7) The subdivider shall submit a signed deed restriction to the Community Development
Director documenting that the parcels resulting from the Urban Lot Split application may
not be further subdivided under the provisions of this Urgency Ordinance. The deed
restriction shall be recorded on the title of each parcel concurrent with the recordation of
the parcel map.
ENGINEERING PROJECT DEFICIENCIES:
8) Dedication of 10-foot Public Service Easement/Public Access Easement along the Kennedy
Road frontage of Parcel 1, with a 10-foot radius at the intersection of Kennedy Road and
Gem Avenue is required.
9) Relocate the joint trench facilities outside of the Town’s Gem Avenue right-of-way.
Dedication of a five-foot utility easement granted for Parcel 1 across Parcel 2 is required.
10) A curb and sidewalk in-lieu fee of $16,380.00 shall be paid prior to recordation of the
parcel map. This fee is based on 117 linear feet of curb at $68.00 per linear foot and
526.5 square feet of 4.5-foot-wide sidewalk at $16.00 per square foot in accordance with
Town policy and the Town’s Comprehensive Fee Schedule.
Please resubmit plans and supporting material and provide a compliance memorandum
showing how all of the deficiencies and general comments have been addressed to the online
permitting system (ULS22-001).
Jocelyn Shoopman
Associate Planner
JShoopman@losgatosca.gov
408-354-6875
Mike Weisz
Senior Civil Engineer
MWeisz@losgatosca.gov
408-354-5236
N:\DEV\JOCELYN\Projects\SB 9\Kennedy 16880\ULS22-001\Comment Letter\Planning Comment Letter.docx
OWNER DECLARATION – URBAN LOT SPLIT APPLICATION
Community Development Department
Planning Division – 110 East Main Street, CA 95030 – Phone 408-354-6872
Property Address: APN:
Applicant/Property Owner Information
Name:
Address:
Email: __________________________________
City: ___________________________________
State: ___________________ Zip:
Phone: _____________________________________
Declaration
I, [insert name] ______________________________________, declare and state:
1. I am the owner of record of the property described above.
2. The housing unit(s) proposed to be demolished or altered in connection with the above application for
an Urban Lot Split have not been occupied by a tenant at any time within the last three years [insert
date of application] ________________________.
3. I intend to occupy one of the proposed housing units as my principal residence for a minimum of three
years from the date of the approval of the Urban Lot Split or Certificate of Occupancy, whichever is
later.
4. I have not previously subdivided an adjacent parcel using an Urban Lot Split.
5. Neither I, nor any person acting as my agent or representative, have or has acted in concert with
another person to subdivide an adjacent parcel using an Urban Lot Split.
I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on (date): _______________________
Name (Print): __________________________________
Signature: _____________________________________
OFFICE USE ONLY
Application Number:
Accepted By Filing Date
By
For the Director of Community Development Date
Khosravi & Jahanshahi Page 1
Request for an urban lot split for a parcel of land at
15941 Quail Hill Rd, LG, CA 95032
Khosravi & Jahanshahi Page 5
Our Requests:
1- HR Zone to be included in the adaptation of SB9 by Town of LG. Section 66411.7 (a) (3) (A) of SB9 states that a local
agency shall ministerially approve map for an urban lot split if, amongst other requirements, the development is
“located within a single family residential zone”. Clearly, Hillside Residential Zone is a “single family residential zone”.
2- Allow the current parcel of land be split into 2 sub-lots.
a. Sub-lot 1 where the main building resides
b. Sub-lot 2 where a fully permitted 1200 sf ADU is located at
3- While every lot is unique in its terrain, conditions, accessibility and privacy faetures, we feel that our parcel of land
lends itself nicely to be split in two sub-lots due to the following conditions:
a. The two dwellings are on separate roads. Main house on Quail Hill Rd and the sub-lot on Shady Lane
b. The two dwellings have separate addresses: 15941 Quail Hill Rd and 15840 Shady Lane
c. The two dwellings are separated by more than 200 linear feet and are on very different elevations separated by
more than 67 vertical feet.
d. The above linear/vertical separations allow for full privacy of each dwelling.
e. There is enough land in around each dwelling that will not adversely affect the natural look, wildlife or
environmental conditions.
f. The two dwellings are on separate and independent utilities connection for sewer, water, electricity and gas.
g. Both dwellings are protected by fire sprinklers that have been approved and signed off by the SC Fire Department
h. There are separate fire hydrants within approved proximity of each dwelling
i. Both dwellings have automated gates with an approved Knox Box for fire department access
4- Allow the dwelling at 15840 Shady Lane on the sub-lot created by SB9 to be larger than the current 1,200sf limit.
THANK YOU
From: Don Wimberly
Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2022 10:00 PM
To: Jennifer Armer
Cc: 'Faber, Andrew L.'; Janette Judd; Joel Paulson
Subject: Urgency SB9 Ordinance - February 1, 2022 Town Council Meeting
Jennifer - Please submit a copy of this email to the Town Council as a desk
item for Item 5 of the 2/1/22 Town Council meeting.
Mayor Rene and Town Council
I am submitting this email as an a ddition to our letter after reading the Staff
Report for extension of the Urgency Ordinance; in particular, Section J.
Hillside Residential.
The following statement in Section J of the Staff Report confuses the issue
addressed by Mr. Faber, my wife and I, and other correspondents to the Town
Council.
“It (SB-9) does not require this process be permitted in all zones that allow single
family residential by right, which in the Town of Los Gatos would include
Resource Conservation, Hillside Residential, Single Family Residential,
Residential Duplex, Multiple Family Residential, Single Family Residential
Downtown, Residential Mobile Home, and Central Business District (when in
conjunction with other permitted use)”
Our contention is that the HR Zone is a single family residential zone and
therefor SB-9 applies within it. Urgency Ordinance 2326 should also include
the HR zone. Adequate roadway clearance for emergency access is and should
be required as the staff report states.
To emphasize - according to the Town Zoning Code, Hillside Residential IS a
single family residential zone, just as R-1 & R-1D are. HR IS NOT THE
SAME as those zoning districts that allow single family dwellings by right such
as R-D (Residential Duplex), R-M (Residential Multifamily) and C-2 (Central
Business District). As you and staff know, in those districts, single family
dwellings are, amongst other uses, permitted. These districts allow other
nonresidential uses, unlike R-1, R-1D and HR.
The following excerpts from the Town Zoning Code make it clear that the
PRIMARY PERMITTED USE IN THE HR ZONE IS SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL.
ARTICLE IV. RESIDENTIAL ZONES
DIVISION 1. - GENERALLY
• Sec. 29.40.010. - Residential zones established.
Residential zones of the Town are the RC, HR, R-1, RD, R-M, RMH and R-1D zones.
(Ord. No. 1316, § 4.05.010, 6-7-76; Ord. No. 1344, 1-17-77; Ord. No. 1493, 3-17-81; Ord.
No. 1571, 3-7-83; Ord. No. 2024, § III, 12-2-96)
DIVISION 3. - HR OR HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL ZONE
• Sec. 29.40.235. - Permitted uses.
The following uses are permitted in the HR zone in the Town:
(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.
(Ord. No. 1316, § 4.24.020, 6-7-76; Ord. No. 1363, 8-1-77; Ord. No. 2306 , § I, 4-21-20)
Don & Cheryl Wimberly
From: Tony Jeans
Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2022 3:15 PM
To: Jennifer Armer; Joel Paulson
Cc: Rob Rennie; Marico Sayoc; Maria Ristow; Matthew Hudes; Mary Badame
Subject: SB-9 Final Comments for the Hearing
Joel/Jennifer:
I read the Final Staff Report, thank-you for all the work you put into it.
Based on it I have put on one page my recommendations as to what I feel needs to happen, now that
you have decided to “Extend the Urgency Ordinance” to the maximum allowed by law. I have followed
your thoughts and limited the changes to “Only Minor Adjustments” to the ordinance so that these
points can be considered by council on Tuesday.
My goal was to limit them to the ones necessary to reduce the expectation for litigation in such a critical
area. As such I have retained the concept of “affordability” suggested by the Council in the original
ordinance and just addressed points that I feel necessary for now. Objective Design Standards are best
left to the Planning Commission to consider at a later date [but soon, if possible].
Please include this in an ‘addendum’ report to the Council. [Copied here for the sake of time].
Thanks
Tony
T.H.I.S. DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT P.O.Box 1518, Los Gatos, CA 95031
Tel: 408.354.1863 Fax: 408.354.1823
Memo: SR-9 Final Suggestions Following Review of the Staff Report
To: Mayor Rennie & Los Gatos Town Council-Members
From: Tony Jeans
Date: January 30th, 2022
[FLOOR AREA] OPTIONS FOR PARCEL DEVELOPMENT AFTER AN URBAN LOT SPLIT:
(I highly recommend a hybrid version of 2 suggestions made by staff).
1. MINISTERIAL REVIEW: Objective Standards would apply to both homes and the FAR
would be capped at the Standard FAR limit – exactly as proposed by the original draft
ordinance but requiring one house to be built at a max of 1,200 ft per Council’s
suggestion at the Dec 22nd hearing.
“Apply the 1,200 square ft limit to only the first dwelling unit of a 2-unit residential
development. The 2 units together may not exceed the Standard FAR for the lot.”
2. ARCHITECTURE AND SITE REVIEW: Design Review Standards and Guidelines would apply
for the first house at Standard FAR rules with the second house following existing ADU
rules [with an 800 sq ft minimum per SB-9].
“Maintain the A&S review process with FAR limitations based on Lot Size as an
option for the development of an Urban Lot. A second home would be limited by
the larger of the ADU size constraints for the lot or 800sq ft.”
If the Council so chooses, the ADU could also be required to be built.
The reason that I like this hybrid approach is that the “Second Story” Objective Design
Standards would create UGLY houses that do not belong in the town. So a homeowner
could go to A&S to get the home reviewed. The smaller ADU size limit would replace the
1,200 sq ft second home and retain more consistency within the town.
HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL
HR is ‘single family’. Resource Conservation, Residential Duplex, Multi-Family Residential,
Residential Mobil Home and Central Business District is not.
Staff’s proposed caveat is good and should be added, but it could be better – such as:
“ . . . . . subdivisions will only be considered if the roadway meets SCCFD access
standards as to width and vertical clearance.”
Note: that this is currently 20 ft width and 13 ft height, per the Staff Report; but this would
allow future flexibility if the Fire Requirements change.
GRADING LIMITATIONS
A ‘Grading Permit’ is not Ministerial. The Town already allows an exception of 50 Cubic
Yards plus any cut/fill under the house. This exception should be extended to the ‘Driveway’
as well as the house for Ministerial Review, so that a driveway to the house can be built.
FRONTAGE REQUIREMENT
The 20 ft frontage requirement, with any access corridor to the rear half of a flag lot being
held in ‘Fee Title’ is contrary to the law. The Town may only require that a Parcel: “Has
access to, provides access to or adjoins the public right-of-way”.
“An ingress/egress easement necessary to satisfy SCCFD” is all that is required and should
be an alternative to ‘Fee Title’. Please note that Saratoga’s ordinance is worded that way
and Monte Sereno modified their Final Ordinance to comply with SB-9 for legal reasons.
From: Terence J. Szewczyk
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2022 9:26 AM
To: Rob Rennie; Mary Badame; Matthew Hudes; Marico Sayoc; Maria Ristow Cc: Laurel Prevetti; Jennifer
Armer; Shelley Neis
Subject: Feb1- SB9. Please:1)delete 50CY, 2)delete 1200 SF
Honorable Mayor & Town Council:
Just 2 simple requests:
1) Delete the disqualification for exceeding grading over 50 CY. This is absurd and has nothing
to do with drawing a new lot line. If you had an 8,000 SF lot and covered it wi th mulch 2" deep
that would be 50 cubic yards (or a 5,000 SF lot 3"deep). That is an inconsequential amount of
grading and CEQA generally doesn't engage until 500 CY of grading.
2) I'd suggest that you can rely upon the Andrew Faber letter (in the public comments) on the
1200 SF and use the current FAR stds already in place under Town Zoning.
Best regards, Terry
Terence J. Szewczyk. P.E.
TS/Civil Engineering, Inc
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank