The URL can be used to link to this page

Attachment 3 - Public CommentsFrom: Ivy Chang Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 3:32 PM To: Rob Rennie <RRennie@losgatosca.gov>; Maria Ristow <MRistow@losgatosca.gov>; Mary Badame <MBadame@losgatosca.gov>; Matthew Hudes <MHudes@losgatosca.gov>; Marico Sayoc <MSayoc@losgatosca.gov> Cc: Gabrielle Whelan <GWhelan@losgatosca.gov>; Ryan Safty <RSafty@losgatosca.gov>; Jennifer Armer <JArmer@losgatosca.gov> Subject: SB9 Ordinance EXTERNAL SENDER Dear Town Mayor and Town Councils, This is Ivy Chang, a homeowner and resident of hillside Los Gatos. I’ve reached out to the Attorney General regarding a SB9 violation. Rob Bonta’s office encouraged me to continue to work with local government towards a resolution. Therefore, I’m writing you this email directly. 1.30% slope restriction in SB9 Ordinance. It is not only violating State law, but also inviting violations! If a residence has a 30% slope building footprint, will they give up SB9 ministerial approval and go for 2+ years A&S application? Or they will ask topographic surveyor to adjust to 29.9%? How about if it’s 31%, 33% or even 35% slope development? What will they do? What will you do? SB9 law authorize cities to adopt SB9 ordinance locally. BUT the Code states that the ordinance needs to be “uniformly verifiable”. If you measure the slope from different angle, the result will be slightly different. How can Town Inspector uniformly verify the slope? The Town Council of 2004 controls the hillside development in a smart way and does not invite violations. The spirit of Town Code is Measurable, Verifiable and Non-debatable, including sections such as: HSD&G Chapter 2 - “LRDA - least restrictive development area, Topography, with emphasis on slopes over 30%, Chapter 3 - A cuts and fills table. There are designed to be “uniformly verifiable” by the Town Inspector. Even you didn’t mean to invite the violation on slope, it will happen in the real world, when an ordinance of 30% slope cannot be uniformly verifiable. I follow the rules and regulations, and that is why I speak out, because ordinance which is not uniformly verifiable may invite violations. In Summary regarding the addition of the 30% slope restriction in the Town’s SB9 ordinance: It violates 66300 - it lessens the intensity of land use. It violates 65852.21 and 66411.7 - it’s not uniformly verifiable. And even worse…. It’s inviting violation of 30%, 31% or even 35%+ development. And with ministerial approval at Staff Level, it puts hillside development at the risk. Town staff did a great job to include HSD&G cuts and fill table in SB9 ordinance, as well as 15% slope driveway requirement to align fire dept regulation. Steep slope can’t be developed by 8’ cut restriction and 15% slope driveway requirement, which can well control the hillside development. Please remove to 30% slope restriction on the building site to avoid inviting violations. If you haven’t thought of the 30% slope restriction will invite the violation as it’s not uniformly verifiable by Town Inspector, please revisit and remove the restriction. ATTACHMENT 3 If you have thought of it, but still want to keep the 30% slope restriction. Please explain how can you prevent the violation of 30%, 31% or even 35%+ development? How can you address Town’s violation of SB9 code 65852.21 and 66411.7? The code says the ordinance needs to be uniformly verifiable: No personal or subjective judgment. 29.9% slope vs. 30% slope, 0.1% slope gap will be inviting personal judgement, inviting violation. 2. 1,200 sqft max of 1st SB9 unit I’m a landlord and familiar with real estate market. Most newer homes are 1,800 sqft anf above. Only older homes are less than 1,500 sqft in Los Gatos. When rental pricing increased, renter will downsize the house to save rent. However, these smaller homes are old and ugly. When people build a new house today, they normally build 1,800 sqft or more for better return on investment. Or build a less than 1,200 sqft ADU. With that, there will be limited new house in between 1,200 sqft – 1,700 sqft in coming years. With this SB9 first units, you have the power to fulfill the portfolio of affordable homes. An additional 100-200 sqft can add in a small office or bedroom. 10 years from now, you can be proud of yourself, because you enable the options for the affordable house market for your residence. If you haven’t thought of the portfolio of affordable homes, please approve to increase the first SB9 unit limitation to 1,400 sqft. If you have thought of it, but still keep 1,200 sqft max, please explain why you don’t give those people option between 1,300 sqft to 1,400 sqft house, when you can enable it? In Summary I sincerely ask your review: 1. Remove the 30% slope restriction, to make SB9 Ordinance Measurable, Verifiable and Non- debatable. It can be “uniformly verifiable” by Town Inspector, in the spirit of Town Code for hillside development. 2. Increase first SB9 unit to 1,400 sqft – give your residents some options in affordable house market. If you need more time to make right decision for your residences, please postpone Consent Agenda - Item 5 of Nov 15 Town Council meeting. I’ve also attached my email to Town Attorney regarding the violation of State Law in details. I look forward to hearing from you. Best regards, Ivy Chang From:Ivy Chang Subject:Re: SB9 Ord nance - 30% S ope Restr ct on Date:November 14, 2022 at 3:26 PM To:Gabr e e Whe an GWhe an@ osgatosca.gov Cc:Ryan Safty RSafty@ osgatosca.gov Dear Ms Whe an Thank you for your response I understand peop e interpret aws different y even among attorneys I ve consu ted with a Land Use Attorney Unfortunate y both of your interpretation of Gov Code is different So I am writing this emai again to see if we can c ose the gap In Summary regarding the addition of the 30% slope restriction in the Town’s SB9 ordinance: It violates 66300 - it lessens the intensity of land use. It violates 65852.21 and 66411.7 - it’s not uniformly veriﬁable. And even worse…. It’s inviting violation of 30%, 31% or even 35%+ development. And with ministerial approval at Staff Level, it puts hillside development at the risk. I respectfully request Town Attorney to remove the 30% slope restriction and help Town Council to adopt the SB9 Ordinance with Measurable, Veriﬁable and Non-debatable ordinances, in line with the the spirit of exisiting Town Code. I will also write an email to the Town Council members and copy you to highlight my concerns. 65852.21 and 66411.7 (SB9) There is no doubt that code authorize towns to adopt SB9 ordinance oca y But the Code states that the ordinance needs to be “uniform y veriﬁab e” If you measure the s ope from different ang e the resu t wi be s ight y different (1) P ease consu t with Town Staff how do they uniform y verify the 29% 30% or 31% before approving the permit? (2) P ease consu t with Town Inspector how do they uniform y verify the s ope of 29% 30% or 31% On-Site? I be ieve the Town Attorney was we invo ved when HDS&G was adopted in 2004 because the Town Code is Measurab e Veriﬁab e and Non-debatab e It s “uniform y veriﬁab e” by Town Inspector which is in the spirit of Town Code As a Town Attorney today p ease he p the Town Counci to make a “uniform y veriﬁab e” SB9 ordinance Adding a 30% restriction not on y vio ates state aw but a so invites vio ation of 30% 31% or even 35% deve opment 66300, subd. (b)(1)(A) Housing Crisis Act Perhaps you are mixing the Housing Crisis Act vs Housing Accountabi ity Act The state aw I was referring is under Housing Crisis Act not Housing Accountabi ity Act as in your emai Code 66300 says effect on January 1 2018 the town can t make more restrictive ordinances to essen the intensity of and use SB9 become aw in 2021 which is app ied under Code 66300 However you interpreted SB9 aw is not app ied under Code 66300 because SB9 is after 2018 If that is the case why the Code 66300 is cited in SB9 factsheet?! SB9 factsheet page 7 it c ear y states: “Any proposed modiﬁcation to an “existing deve opment standard” app icab e in the sing e- fami y residentia zone must demonstrate that it wou d not resu t in a reduction in the intensity of the use ” Either the “existing deve opment standard” refers to Town Code or SB9 800 sqft aw but neither of these have a 30% s ope restriction Therefore adding a 30% s ope restriction to essen intensity of and use wi vio ate Code 66300 subd (b)(1)(A) House Crisis Act Here is the Code I referred: I ook forward to hearing from you Best Regards Ivy Chang On Nov 11 2022 at 8:55 AM Gabrie e Whe an <GWhe an@ osgatosca gov> wrote: Hello, Ms. Chang. <image003.jpg Government Code Sections 65852.21 and 66411.7 (SB 9) authorize cities to adopt objective zoning, subdivision, and design standards that are applicable to SB 9 projects. The state Housing Accountability Act does prohibit cities from reducing the intensity of land use below what was in effect on January 1, 2018. Since the Town’s zoning ordinance did not authorize SB 9 projects until SB 9 became law, the Town is not reducing the intensity of this land use. In addition, “intensity of land use” is deﬁned to mean “residential development capacity.” Since the Town’s proposed ordinance authorizes “by right” units of 800 square feet or less, the ordinance does not limit “residential development capacity.” Gabrielle Whelan ! Town Attorney Town Attorney’s Ofﬁce ! 110 E Main Street, Los Gatos, CA 95030 Desk: 408.354.6818 ! gwhelan@losgatosca.gov www.losgatosca.gov ! https://www.facebook.com/losgatosca From: Ivy Chang Sent: Monday, November 7, 2022 9:39 AM To: Attorney <Attorney@losgatosca.gov>; Gabrielle Whelan <GWhelan@losgatosca.gov> Cc: Scott Watson Subject: SB9 Ordinance - 30% Slope Restriction EXTERNAL SENDER To: Town Attorney Ms. Whelan, Congratulations on your appointment to Town Attorney in April. Since your service in the Town of Los Gatos is less than one year, I would like to provide some history regarding slope restriction in the Hillside Development Standards and Guideline, as well as Town Code. The Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines was adopted by Council in January 2004. In Chapter 2, Site Selection, page 12 - It says “LRDA - least restrictive development area. Topography, with emphasis on slopes over 30%. In Chapter 6, Site Elements, page 53 - it says Swimming Pools and Sport Courts are prohibited on slope greater than 30 percent. It only restricts 30% slope for swimming pool and sport courts, NOT for the development of a house. However, the Town added 30% slope restriction in the SB9 Ordinance to lessen the intensity of housing. I’ve reached out to the Attorney General regarding this violation of the Housing Crisis Act of 2019. Rob Bonta’s ofﬁce encouraged me to continue to work with local government towards a resolution. I also reached out to Compliant Review @HCD. HCD told me that they do not have enforcement authority over SB9, however they will review the potential violation of the HCA. Per my conversation with a land use attorney, adding 30% slope restriction on SB9 will reduce the intensity of use, which is clearly a violation of HCA state law. I’ve attached SB9 factsheet regarding HCA at page 7. (Gov. Code, § 66300, subd. (b)(1)(A).)”: In the Nov 1, 2022 Town Council meeting, there were 4 hillside residents who expressed concerns on the SB9 30% slope restriction during the public hearing. However, there was zero feedback to address the 30% slope restriction by the Town Mayor, Town Council or Town Attorney. Town of Los Gatos has used both Hillside Development Standards and Guideline and Town Code since 2004. For each development, the LRDA is reviewed by planning commission. For at least one development in 2017, the Town approved a building site with 55% slope – far greater than the 30% guidance. I provide more details below. I’m writing my email to try again to get resolution as suggested by Attorney General Rob Bonta. Please investigate: 1. Why there is no 30% slope restriction for house development in the Town Code? Town Code deﬁne 8’ cut restriction, which is measurable by Town’s inspector. The geotechnical, and geological reports are required for building permit. If the investigation and engineers conﬁrmed the site is buildable, even it is 31% slope on average house site, it is still buildable. I believe it is the reason there is no 30% slope restriction language in Town Code. 2. Why Town Council approved a 55% slope development site, while restricting SB9 development by code to 30% slope? Town Staff suggested to approve the application of 55% slope development (26 Alpine Ave) in July 2017. Town Council granted approval in Dec 2017. The house is under construction today at 55% average slope of house footprint. During the Town Council meeting, Both Town Mayer Rob Rennie and Town Attorney Robert Schultz repeated Geotechnical’s comment regarding it is buildable lot. The 55% slope did not stop the project in standard development per Town Code. There is no state law to allow the Town to add 30% slope restriction ONLY on SB9 development. 3. Town Staff told me that all of the restriction will be exempted for a minimum 800 sqft SB9 development. This statement might be correct under SB9 state law, however, adding 30% slope restriction ONLY on SB9 development still violates HCA state law by reducing the intensity of land use. I expect the Town Attorney to educate Town Staff. I respectfully request the Town REMOVES the “30% slope restriction” in SB9 Ordinance, because it is not in Town’s standard development code, and hence violates HCA state law. The SB9 ordinance page 7 Cut and Fill table can well control hillside development as deﬁned by Town Code and Hillside Development Standards and Guideline. Please advise if you conclude that the Town can legally add a 30% slope restriction to reduce the intensity of land use by SB9 ordinance. If so, please provide the code. I have also attached two public comments which we sent regarding slope restriction to staff before Nov 1 Town Council Meeting. Below is more detailed information regarding 55% slope development I referred: Address: 26 Alpine Avenue Footprint of house average slope: 55% Average slope of lot: 41%. Planning commission hearing on July 26, 2017, time 40:49 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CC7f48FsP5M&t=12s. Town staff explain the chapter 2 - “LRDA including many things beyond just slopes”, time 2:46:21: Town Council hearing on Dec 19, 2017, time 1:45:55 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLCLgb4VlEM&t=6696s Town Attorney Robert Schultz commented “both the Geotech and it was peer- reviewed say it is a buildable lot”, time 2:42:00 Town Mayor Rob Rennie commented “geotechnical consultants that it is doable and safe, so I’m more on the side of accepting the project (55% slope project)”, time 2:50:48 Item 04 - 26 Alpine Ave - Laserﬁche WebLink (losgatosca.gov) - Planning Commission July 26, 2017 Item 19 - 26 Alpine Ave - Architecture and Site Application S-16-052 and Mitigated Negative Declaration ND-17-001 - Laserﬁche WebLink (losgatosca.gov) - Town Council, December 19, 2017 Item 2 - 26 Alpine Ave - Time Extension - Laserﬁche WebLink (losgatosca.gov) – Planning Commission, November 13, 2019 for Time Extension I look forward to hearing from you. From: Ivy Chang Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2022 9:37 AM To: Rob Rennie <RRennie@losgatosca.gov>; Maria Ristow <MRistow@losgatosca.gov>; Mary Badame <MBadame@losgatosca.gov>; Matthew Hudes <MHudes@losgatosca.gov>; Marico Sayoc <MSayoc@losgatosca.gov> Cc: Gabrielle Whelan <GWhelan@losgatosca.gov>; Ryan Safty <RSafty@losgatosca.gov>; Jennifer Armer <JArmer@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Re: SB9 Ordinance EXTERNAL SENDER Dear Town Attorney, Town Mayor and Town Councils, I recommend the following resolution to eliminate the concerns of hillside development, as well as meet the state law as "uniformly verifiable”: 1. Remove the **below grade square footage as attached. Only allow 8’ cut, instead of no limitation cut for below grade square footage. Along with the driveway requirement in current SB9 ordinance. It can well prevent the steep slope development as below: - House: allow 8’ cut only. - Driveway: allow 4’ cut 3’fill, minimum 12 feet width, and maximum 15% slope. 2. Remove (8) Building Site - 30% slope restriction, to avoid violation of state law or inviting violation. I look forward the SB9 Ordinance to be Measurable, Verifiable and Non-debatable. Uniformly verifiable per State Law. NOT inviting the violation! Also, please find the link of Planning Commission meeting on July 26, 2017. During slope discussion of the 26 Alpine project, one of the Commissioner asked if Town verified the Applicant's slope. Staff commented that “We don’t allow to do our own survey and do our own topo at every site”. Please check out the time 55:03. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CC7f48FsP5M&t=13s The conversation of the slope verification from 52:38-55:21 Best Regards, Ivy Chang -----Original Message----- From: quintana Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2022 9:59 AM To: Laurel Prevetti <LPrevetti@losgatosca.gov> Subject: SB 9 Ordinance EXTERNAL SENDER Hi Laurel, A follow up to our recent discussion: Please refer to Sec. 29.10.660(a)(5) I had started comments for a desk item on the tonight's Consent Agenda Item #5 (Draft SB 9 Ordinance) Item #5. It started with a discussion of at least two ways that Sec. 29.10.660 might be interpreted: . 1)Once a choice is made to use the ministerial review and approval process under the SB 9 Ordinance then any subsequent development resulting from that approval would is required to use the ministerial review and approval process establed by The Ordinance (my interpretation) or 2)An applicant may choose to use the SB 9 Ordinance ministrial process for an initial approval subject to SB 9 but may then choose to Town's discretionary A&S process for subsequent development on the site. (Tony Gene's interpretation, as stated in the first paragraph of Attachment 2' letter from Tony Gene) This came to an abrupt halt when I reach the following on page 14 of the 15 page text: Sec. 29.10.660 Application Process for an Urban Lot Split (a)(5) Development. Development on the resulting parcel is limited to a project approval by the two-unit housing development process or through the Town's standard discretionary process. My immediate reaction was Really! You Have To Be Joking! Is this really the intent of the Ordinance! and then: 1) This relates more to the to the Two-Unit Development Process than to the application process for an Urban Lot Split. 2)Why is it burried at on the 14th page Ordinance that has 15 pages of text? - 3)Was this intentional? 3)Is this really the intention of the Town and Town Council? I will toss my all od draft comments and instead only wish to speak to this at the meeting tonight. Do I ask to speak under Public Communication or under the Concent Calendar? Please acknowledge receipt of this e-mail. And please forward to others, if appropriate. Thanks, Lee