Addendum.Item #11 - SB 9 Permanent Ordinance
PREPARED BY: Ryan Safty
Associate Planner
Reviewed by: Town Manager, Assistant Town Manager, Town Attorney, and Finance Director
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● (408) 354-6832
www.losgatosca.gov
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: 11/01/2022 ITEM NO: 11 ADDENDUM
DATE: October 31, 2022
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: Laurel Prevetti, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Introduce an Ordinance, by Title Only, Amending Chapter 29 (Zoning
Regulations) of the Town Code to Regulate Urban Lot Splits and Two-Unit
Housing Developments in Compliance with Senate Bill 9. Town Code
Amendment Application A-22-002. Location: Town-wide. Applicant: Town of
Los Gatos.
REMARKS:
Attachment 7 includes public comment received between 11:01 a.m., October 27, 2022, and
11:00 a.m., October 31, 2022.
Attachment previously received with the November 1, 2022 Staff Report:
1. Required Findings
2. Draft Ordinance
3. September 28, 2022 Planning Commission Staff Report with Exhibits 1-7
4. September 28, 2022 Planning Commission Desk Item Report with Exhibit 8
5. September 28, 2022 Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes
6. Public Comment received between 11:01 a.m., Wednesday, September 23, 2022, and 11:00
a.m., Thursday, October 27, 2022
Received with this Addendum Report:
7. Public Comment received between 11:01 a.m., October 27, 2022, and 11:00 a.m., October
31, 2022.
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2022 10:45 AM
To: planning@losgatosca.gov
Subject: Intent to Occupy Clause of the SB 9 Ordinance
The purpose of this note is to express concern about enforcement of the Intent to Occupy (page 12)
clause, clause (4) of the proposed ordinance. Without a meaningful enforcement process the goal of
benefitting homeowners instead of institutional investors could be easily violated.
My concern is founded on a live case in my neighborhood where an absentee owner has rented out the
principal residence but is claiming via a simple email to the Town to reside in it while dividing the
property into two parcels. Occupancy or intent to occupy an SB 9 property should require more rigorous
documentation than an email. This specific application should be frozen until the Town is able to
independently verify owner occupancy of the property.
For purposes of this ordinance, absentee owners should be considered institutional investors and
disqualified from dividing a property. I strongly believe the Town should require stronger evidence of
occupancy or intent of occupancy than a simple email. Moreover, the Town should also spell out
explicitly in this ordinance the penalty that would be imposed if a homeowner were to violate the
aforementioned clause.
I raised this matter with the planner for this project as well as at the most recent Town Council meeting.
The matter was referred to the Town Attorney for action. I see no evidence of such action in the latest
draft of the ordinance.
I recommend the ordinance be strengthened to prevent its abuse by institutional investors.
Christopher Bajorek
Los Gatos
Sent from my iPad
ATTACHMENT 7
EXTERNAL SENDER
Council Members and Planning:
I have just completed a review of the new Proposed Draft Ordinance, which on the whole looks good
and is now substantially in compliance with the SB-9 State Law. I have only a few comments to make
[see attached].
2 comments are of significance and the rest are minor - but should be fixed/clarified.
The 2 that I would ask you all to give serious consideration to are:
1. Front Setbacks on a Flag Lot.
The standard concept of a Front Setback on a Flag Lot does not make sense.
2. Objective Design Standards.
Designing a house by ‘regulation’ is inherently dangerous and way too restrictive.
Please consider eliminating all ‘Design Standards’ that are not ‘Privacy’ related.
In my 3 minutes I will only have time to talk to one of these items, so please consider this email/memo
in its entirety so that these issues can be addressed at your Council Meeting.
Thank you
Tony Jeans
T.H.I.S. DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT P.O.Box 1518, Los Gatos, CA 95031
Tel: 408.354.1863 Fax: 408.350.1823
Memo: Minor SB-9 Ordinance Corrections
From: Tony Jeans
To: Town Council and Planning Dept
Date: October 29th, 2022
The Proposed Draft Ordinance proposed by staff, incorporating Planning Commission
recommendations is good and has come a long way from its [Emergency] inception.
I have only a few small suggestions:
1. Objective Zoning Standards: 29.10.630 (a) (1).
The 16 ft height limit proposed in regular zoning districts works, but in HR zones
will be too difficult [and unnecessary] to comply with. HS&DG has 2 max height
limits for such homes: (1) 25 ft [down from 30 ft] and (2) 18 ft when visible from
key vantage points.
I think that the 18 ft height limit should be applied here.
2. Objective Zoning Standards: 29.10.630 (a) (2) b.
The minimum driveway length of 25 ft from the Property Line is inconsistent with
Table 1-2 – Setback Requirements for a Garage Entry of 18 ft.
These should be reconciled.
3. Flag Lots will become more common as SB-9 properties are developed. The
“Front Setback” for a Flag Lot should not be “Per the Applicable Zoning District”
as is called out in Table 1-2. A front setback is trying to regulate how far a home
is from the street to give some sense of uniformity to a neighborhood.
A separate “Front – Flag Lot” should be added to Table 1-2 and be the same as
“Interior Sides”. Otherwise some Flag Lots will be unbuildable. [SEE ATTACHMENT]
Other jurisdictions have addressed this and Los Gatos should too.
4. Design Review Standards that are not impacting privacy are over-reach and will
‘dull’ Architectural Creativity. Houses will become boring. A house designed by a
committee is not the way Los Gatos should be moving towards.
Specifically (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7) should be eliminated.
Assuming you disagree, then at least modify (5) to require the ‘5 ft 2nd floor step-
back’ to only be at the interior sides & rear and in any event not when the Zoning
District setbacks are complied with.
5. Section 29.10.050 (a)(3).
. . . . Minimum lot width of 20 ft except access corridors to Flag Lots.
The rest looks pretty good.
FRONT SETBACKS ON FLAG LOTS
[EXAMPLE R1:8 - 8,000 SF LOT]
25 FT FRONT SETBACK
40 FT
60 FT
25 FT FRONT SETBACK
15 FT 80 FT
ACCESS
CORRIDOR
A STANDARD FRONT SETBACK MAKES SENSE ON
THE FRONT PARCEL 1 - BUT NOT ON A FLAG LOT.
PARCEL 2
PARCEL 1
An additional point:
As alternative to some of the above, remove the restriction on 2nd floor step-back, windows if the
underlying/regular R-1/HR zoning setback standards are followed on that specific side(for eg: 8ft side
setback)
Thanks
Sandeep
On Sun, Oct 30, 2022 at 8:31 PM sandeep venishetti wrote:
Dear Planning commission, respected officials,
I am Sandeep, a resident of Los Gatos Town.
Thanks for allowing public comments on SB-9 Draft ordinance:
Here are my comments, Please consider.
(1) 1st unit maximum 1200 sqft issue: I request you to remove the Maximum of "1200 Sq Ft" restriction
on the 1st unit built. I believe this is not in compliance with the SB9 State law that does not have any
maximum number of square footage on any of the units as long as the FAR ratio is maintained. I believe
the "Objective Standards" that SB9 law is a objective standards for entire single family Residential zones
and does not allow City to define "SB9 specific Objective standards"
(2) Building Height: Will it be 30 ft for R-1 8? Regarding "Maximum building height shall be as
specified by the applicable zoning district for the main structure." In a two-unit/duplex
construction, please clarify the height of the "main structure"
(3) FAR Ratio: please clarify that the FAR ratio is based on gross area of the lot size.
(4) FAR bonus ratio: Please clarify that the 10% bonus is 10% of the lot size which is the same
as ADU law.
"When a two-unit housing development is proposed, a 10 percent increase in the floor area
ratio standards for residential structures is allowed,"
(5) Front Set back for - Flag Lot: Please clarify. 25 Sq Ft front setback for a Flag lot may be
within the corridor area, which does not make sense. If it is in the lot excluding the access
corridor, the 25 Sqft set back is too limiting and it should be similar to those of Side setbacks.
(6) Design Review Standards: Step-Back: Please remove the step back requirement. The
second story 5 feet recession from the first floor is too limiting and the home looks super
weird with box over the box looks, something that I have never seen in Los Gatos or elsewhere.
(7) Design Review Standards: Plate Height: Please remove. There is already a total building
height restriction. This plate height is too restrictive in modern open space architectures which
could typically have a 12 foot floor to room designs.
(8) 2nd story Clerestory Windows: Please make the Clerestory window requirement for 8ft or
9ft from side/rear setbacks. The 10ft is inconsistent with side/rear(setback + step back) which is
9 ft. This essentially forces it to a 10 ft side setback for 2nd floor.
(9) Application process and Appeals: Please allow staff level appeal. If not, please allow the
homeowner for corrective action for any noncompliance before denial of the application.
(10) Flag lot access corridor minimum width: Thanks for making it 12 ft. Other
towns(Mountainview, San Jose e.t.c) have similar width.
(11) Flag lot minimum width: Please clarify exclusion of access corridor width in this 20ft
minimum width
"Each new parcel shall maintain a minimum lot width of 20 feet;"
(12) Please provide an example application guidelines and example lot split and design
suggestions.
Thanks
Sandeep