Staff Report.SB 9
PREPARED BY: Ryan Safty
Associate Planner
Reviewed by: Planning Manager, Community Development Director, and Town Attorney
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● (408) 354-6872
www.losgatosca.gov
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING COMMISSION
REPORT
MEETING DATE: 05/14/2025
ITEM NO: 4
DATE: May 9, 2025
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Consider Making a Recommendation to the Town Council on an Ordinance
Amending Chapter 29 (Zoning Regulations) of the Town Code for Senate Bill 9
(SB 9) in Response to the Provisions of Senate Bill 450 (SB 450). The Proposed
Amendments to the Town Code Are Not Considered a Project Under Section
15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act, and in Accordance with
Government Code Section 66411.7(n) and 66452.21(g), Senate Bill 9
Ordinances Are Not a Project Subject to the California Environmental Quality
Act. Town Code Amendment Application A-25-002. Project Location: Town
Wide. Applicant: Town of Los Gatos.
RECOMMENDATION:
Forward a recommendation to the Town Council for approval of amendments to Chapter 29
(Zoning Regulations) of the Town Code for Senate Bill 9 (SB 9) in response to the provisions of
Senate Bill 450 (SB 450).
CEQA:
In accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15378,
these proposed ordinance amendments are not a project subject to CEQA because the
proposed amendments affect processing of applications only and will not impact the physical
environment. Additionally, in accordance with Government Code Section 66411.7(n) and
66452.21(g), SB 9 ordinances are not a project subject to CEQA.
PAGE 2 of 9
SUBJECT: SB 9 Ordinance Amendments
DATE: May 9, 2025
FINDINGS:
▪ In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15378, these proposed ordinance amendments
are not a project subject to CEQA because the proposed amendments affect processing of
applications only and will not impact the physical environment. Additionally, in accordance
with Government Code Section 66411.7(n) and 66452.21(g), Senate Bill 9 ordinances are
not a project subject to CEQA; and
▪ The amendments to Chapter 29 of the Town Code are consistent with the General Plan.
BACKGROUND:
In September 2021, Governor Newsom signed new State law, SB 9, which went into effect on
January 1, 2022. SB 9 requires ministerial approval of certain housing development projects and
lot splits on a single-family zoned parcel, with the intent to increase residential densities within
single-family neighborhoods across the State.
The law allowed for two new types of development activities that must be reviewed
ministerially without any discretionary action or public input:
• Two-unit housing development – Two homes on an eligible single-family residential
parcel (whether the proposal adds up to two new housing units or adds one new unit on
a parcel with an existing single-family residence).
• Urban lot split – A one-time subdivision of an existing single-family residential parcel
into two parcels. This would allow up to four units (two units on each new parcel).
On December 21, 2021, Town Council adopted an Urgency Ordinance to implement local
objective standards for SB 9 applications. On November 15, 2022, Town Council approved
Ordinance 2334, which established the permanent SB 9 Ordinance within Chapter 29 (Zoning
Regulations) of the Town Code. On May 21, 2024, Town Council approved Ordinance 2359
(Exhibit 2), which included modifications to the previous ordinance to modify design review
standards and make clarifying revisions. Ordinance 2359 is the Town’s current SB 9 Ordinance.
In September of 2024, Governor Newsom signed new State law, Senate Bill 450 (SB 450), which
went into effect on January 1, 2025 (Exhibit 3). SB 450 updates and expands the required
provisions of SB 9. The SB 450 updates are summarized as follows, and additional details are
provided in the Discussion Section of this report below.
1. Limitation on the imposition of standards on SB 9 projects unless they apply uniformly to
development within the underlying zone;
2. Clarification on the amount of demolition allowed to an existing residence that had
previously been rented;
3. Specification on timelines for local agency processing of SB 9 applications; and
4. Modification to the SB 9 denial finding for “specific adverse impact.”
PAGE 3 of 9
SUBJECT: SB 9 Ordinance Amendments
DATE: May 9, 2025
DISCUSSION:
Staff has prepared draft amendments to the Town’s SB 9 regulations in Exhibit 4, which
includes a track-changes version (with removed text shown in strike-through text and new text
shown underlined) of the current SB 9 Ordinance. The proposed amendments are either in
direct response to SB 450, or are considered clean-up amendments that staff has identified
since the last time the SB 9 Ordinance was amended in May of 2024.
A. Senate Bill 450 Changes
The most impactful change from SB 450 is that local jurisdictions can no longer adopt
specific zoning, subdivision, or design standards for SB 9 projects that are not uniformly
applicable to development in the underlying (single-family) zoning district. SB 450 also
introduced other revisions to the original SB 9 law, including: clarified standards on the
amount of demolition allowed to an existing residence that had previously been rented;
new processing timelines; and modified denial findings. Each of these four categories
(design standards; demolition; processing timelines; denial findings) are detailed below,
with an explanation on staff’s proposed changes.
1. Design Standards: Previous SB 9 law allowed jurisdictions to adopt objective zoning,
subdivision, and design standards for two-unit development and urban lot split
applications so long as they would not preclude the construction of two, 800-square
foot units with four-foot reduced side and rear setbacks. The Town’s current SB 9
Ordinance includes a Design Review Standards section applicable for two-unit
development applications [Exhibit 2, Town Code Section 29.10.630(2)]. Since SB 9
applications require ministerial review and allow for reduced side and rear setbacks, the
standards were created with the intent of protecting neighbor privacy and enforcing
some of the Town’s residential guidelines to encourage orderly development.
The most significant change from SB 450 is that it now prohibits the Town from adopting
specific zoning, subdivision, or design standards for SB 9 projects that are not uniformly
applicable to development in the underlying (single-family) zoning district. However, the
Town may adopt objective zoning, subdivision, and design standards on SB 9
applications if those standards are more permissive than applicable standards within the
underlying zone.
Staff’s proposed edits in Exhibit 4 would remove the majority of the design standards
applicable to two-unit housing developments as they are not uniformly applicable to
development in the underlying zone. For example, the Town’s current SB 9 Ordinance
prohibits roof top decks, but this standard is not uniformly applied to all development in
the underlying residential zones (i.e. an Architecture and Site Application in the R-1:8
zone can propose a roof top deck; Town Code does not prohibit a roof top deck for all
residential properties). Although the Town’s Residential Design Guidelines contain
PAGE 4 of 9
SUBJECT: SB 9 Ordinance Amendments
DATE: May 9, 2025
standards and guidelines related to second-story decks and balconies, these are not
objective standards that are uniformly applicable in the underlying zone, and exceptions
to the Town’s Residential Design Guidelines can be requested. The following design
standards would be removed: 16-foot building height limitation when within a required
side or rear setback of the underlining zoning district; five-foot retaining wall height
limitation; rooftop and second-floor terrace and deck prohibition and balcony limitation;
requirement that the front entryway match the adjacent eave height; front porch depth
and width limitations; nine-foot second story setbacks along the side and rear property
lines; garage door size limitations; plate height restrictions; prohibited exterior
materials; and screening of mechanical equipment.
Additionally, the previous requirement that the first residential unit built with an SB 9
two-unit housing development application be limited to 1,200 square feet is no longer
applicable based on SB 450. Town Council had previously included this requirement in
the Town’s SB 9 Ordinance to encourage one of the units to be affordable by limiting the
size.
Staff also reviewed Town Code and applicable policy documents and added additional
objective standards in the draft Ordinance (Exhibit 4) that meet the requirements of SB
450. In order to maintain some of the hillside protection standards, staff proposes
adding a “Hillside Area” definition to the draft amendments applicable to all properties
within Hillside Area Map per the Town’s Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
(HDS&G) and incorporate relevant objective standards from this document. The existing
SB 9 standards derived from the HDS&G that were applicable to all properties would
now only be applicable to properties in the Hillside Area. Standards related to driveway
back-up space, size of detached garages, parking space dimensions, through lots with a
“front” setback on both street frontages, setbacks when adjacent to a protected
waterway, glare limitations, sidewalk requirements, etc. are also proposed, each of
which was derived from existing Town Code or applicable Town policy documents.
2. Demolition: Previous SB 9 law restricted the amount of demolition allowed to an
existing residential unit when proposing a new SB 9 application, whether the application
was for a two-unit housing development or an urban lot split. Previously, SB 9 law had
two separate provisions: one stating that no demolition or alteration to an existing
residence is allowed with either an urban lot split or two-unit housing development if
the housing is subject to a recorded covenant or law restricting levels of affordability,
housing subject to any form of rent or price control, or housing that has been occupied
by a tenant in the last three years [Government Code Sections 65852.21.(a)(3) and
66411.7.(a)(3)(D)]; and the second stating that a two-unit housing development cannot
result in the demolition of more than 25 percent of the existing exterior structural walls
unless either the local ordinance allows, or the site has not been occupied by a tenant in
the past three years. The two provisions were previously combined in the Town’s SB 9
Ordinance in Town Code Sections 29.10.630(3)(e) and 29.10.650(2)(h) (Exhibit 2).
PAGE 5 of 9
SUBJECT: SB 9 Ordinance Amendments
DATE: May 9, 2025
SB 450 clarified the demolition provisions so that no form of demolition or alteration to
an existing residence is allowed if it had been subject to a recorded covenant or law
restricting levels of affordability, housing subject to any form of rent or price control, or
housing that has been occupied by a tenant in the last three years. Additionally, there is
no longer a 25 percent limitation on the amount of demolition of exterior walls of an
existing residence associated with a new two-unit housing development as long as it has
not been rented in the last three years.
The draft amendments in Exhibit 4 would simply remove reference to the “25 percent of
exterior walls” limitation so that the Town’s Ordinance matches SB 9 law as updated by
SB 450. Additionally, staff recommends adding a new, stricter definition of “demolition”
for SB 9 applications as the Town Code’s demolition definition allows up to 50 percent
removal of exterior framing, and the intent of SB 9 is to not allow any alteration or
demolition to an existing residence subject to a recorded covenant or law restricting
levels of affordability, housing subject to any form of rent or price control, or housing
that has been occupied by a tenant in the last three years.
3. Processing Timelines: SB 450 creates new, strict timelines for local agency processing of
SB 9 applications. The Town must now render a decision on an SB 9 project within 60
days of receiving a complete application, and if the Town fails to act within this
timeframe, the application is deemed approved. Additionally, if the Town were to deny
an SB 9 application, the Town must provide a full set of comments to the applicant with
a list of items that are defective or deficient and a description of how the applicant can
remedy the application.
The draft amendments in Exhibit 4 would add these new processing timelines within the
SB 9 Ordinance.
4. Denial Findings: Previous SB 9 law allowed denial of an SB 9 application if the Building
Official made a written finding that the project would have a specific, adverse impact
upon public health and safety or the physical environment and for which there is no
feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact. SB 450
modified this language, removing review of a project’s impact on the physical
environment for the permissible denial findings.
The draft amendments in Exhibit 4 would remove “the physical environment” from the
denial findings sections within the SB 9 Ordinance.
PAGE 6 of 9
SUBJECT: SB 9 Ordinance Amendments
DATE: May 9, 2025
B. Ordinance Clean-Ups
The following is a summary of the other substantive draft amendments to the SB 9
Ordinance, either for consistency with State law or items identified by staff as needing
clarification. The following items are listed in the order that they appear in Exhibit 4:
• Purpose and Applicability [Section 29.10.600]. For compliance with State law, the
following line would be removed as it is no longer valid: “Any provision of this Division
which is inconsistent with SB 9 shall be interpreted in a manner which is the most
limiting on the ability to create a two-unit housing development or urban lot split, but
which is consistent with State law.”
• Definitions [Section 29.10.610]. In addition to the items discussed above, the definition
of “entry feature” would be deleted as the relevant design standard for entry features is
no longer applicable per SB 450. Staff also recommends including the Town Code
definition of “street” within the SB 9 ordinance for clarity purposes.
• Building Height [Section 29.10.630(1)(a)]. Per SB 450, the previous requirement that a
building be limited to 16 feet in height if it is located in the Hillside Residential Zone or
within the required side or rear setbacks of the applicable zoning district is not allowed.
Instead, additional height limitations for buildings in the Hillside Area were added,
which are objective standards within the HDS&G.
• New Driveways [Section 29.10.630(1)(a)]. Per SB 450, the previous requirements
regarding the number of driveways, maximum width of driveways, number of curb cuts,
and maximum slope are not enforceable.
• Dwelling Unit Type [Section 29.10.630(1)(c)]. Clarification to the two-unit development
dwelling unit type was added, specifying that proposed attached units shall meet all
applicable building code standards and be designed sufficient to allow separate
conveyance. This amendment would not change the way SB 9 applications are currently
being processed.
• Floor Area Ratio and Lot Coverage [Section 29.10.630(1)(e)]. Clarification to the ten
percent floor area ratio increase was added to specify that the ten percent increase only
applies to situations where a second unit is proposed. The ten percent increase would
not apply if SB 9 is used to develop a single residential unit on a vacant property.
Additionally, two new sections are proposed for clarification purposes based on how the
Town currently processes SB 9 applications. First, specification that below-grade square
footage is allowed in accordance with Town Code Sections 29.10.020 and 29.40.072 was
added. Second, a limitation on the size of detached garages was added in accordance
with Town Code Section 29.20.015.
PAGE 7 of 9
SUBJECT: SB 9 Ordinance Amendments
DATE: May 9, 2025
• Grading [Section 29.10.630(1)(f)]. Modifications to the grading limitation and process
was added to help clarify how the existing process works. First, grading with an SB 9
application is limited to 50 cubic yards (cut plus fill) except for grading within the
building footprint, light wells, vehicular access (driveway), and fire access (fire truck
turnaround). Second, clarification was added to specify that although a ministerial
Grading Permit at building permit stage is required, the associated discretionary
Architecture and Site Application process will not be triggered for review of the grading
work.
Additionally, a standard from the HDS&G limiting grading to just the footprint of the
house, access, guest parking, and turnaround areas was added for properties within the
Hillside Area.
• Parking [Section 29.10.630(1)(o)]. Clarification to the parking section was added to
specify that required parking must be met on-site, and that parking dimensions shall
comply with Town Code Section 29.10.155(d).
• Setbacks [Section 29.10.630(1)(p)]. Modification to the setback allowances is proposed
to allow both an attached and detached garage to use the reduced setback provisions,
instead of just attached garages included in the current SB 9 Ordinance. Detached
garages under 450 square feet are allowed by Town Code to have a five-foot side and
rear setback requirement; this modification would allow four-foot side and rear
setbacks instead.
Clarification to the garage entry setback is also proposed within Table 1-2 – Setback
Requirements, as this standard has caused confusion with the public in the past. The 18-
foot garage entry setback is only applicable when the required zoning district setback is
less than 18 feet (i.e. an R-1D property has a 15-foot front setback requirement, but
Town Code requires garages and parking spaces have a minimum 18-foot backup
distance).
Additionally, two new setback exceptions are proposed in Table 1-2 – Setback
Requirements for clarification purposes based on how the Town currently processes SB
9 applications. First, in certain instances such as property slope and neighboring building
locations, the required front yard setback may be reduced per Town Code. Second,
through lots with frontage along two streets shall meet the front setback requirement
along both street frontages so that a four-foot rear setback for a primary dwelling unit is
not allowed along a street.
Lastly, as noted above, required setbacks from the Santa Clara County Valley Water
Resources Protection Collaborative Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams
shall be complied with when building adjacent to protected waterways.
• Design Review Standards [Section 29.10.630(2)]. See Discussion Section A, Part 1
(Design Standards) above.
PAGE 8 of 9
SUBJECT: SB 9 Ordinance Amendments
DATE: May 9, 2025
• Eliss Act Eligibility. For consistency with SB 9 law, the following provision is added to
both the two-unit housing development and urban lot split sections of SB 9: “Parcels on
which an owner of residential real property has exercised the owner’s rights under state
law (Government Code Section 7060) to withdraw accommodations from rent or lease
within fifteen (15) years preceding the development application are not eligible for a
two-unit housing development.”
• Applicability [Section 29.10.640]. A new applicability section is proposed, clarifying that
when an application includes full site redevelopment, only the work integral to the
construction of the new dwelling units and required access would be processed with the
SB 9 application, and that other work (i.e. backyard grading of a sports court) would
need a separate application.
• Expiration [Section 29.10.640 and 29.10.660]. A new expiration section is proposed,
referencing Town Code expiration and vesting requirements for both a two-unit housing
development and urban lot split.
• Parking [Section 29.10.650(1)]. A new parking section is proposed for urban lot splits in
accordance with SB 9, requiring that each dwelling unit within an urban lot split contain
adequate area to meet the parking requirements for two-unit housing developments.
• Sidewalks [Section 29.10.650(1)]. A new sidewalk section is proposed for urban lot
splits in accordance with Town Code Section 29.10.06712, specifying when new
sidewalks are required with an urban lot split application.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Public comments received by 11:00 a.m., Friday, May 9, 2025, are provided in Exhibit 5.
CEQA DETERMINATION:
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15378, these proposed ordinance amendments are
not a project subject to CEQA because the proposed amendments affect processing of
applications only and will not impact the physical environment. Additionally, in accordance with
Government Code Section 66411.7(n) and 66452.21(g), SB 9 ordinances are not a project
subject to CEQA.
CONCLUSION:
A. Summary
The draft amendments in Exhibit 4 would amend Chapter 29 (Zoning Regulations) of the
Town Code for SB 9 in response to the provisions of SB 450, as well as other clarifying
revisions.
PAGE 9 of 9
SUBJECT: SB 9 Ordinance Amendments
DATE: May 9, 2025
B. Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the information included in the
staff report and forward a recommendation to the Town Council for approval of the
amendments to Chapter 29 of the Town Code in the draft ordinance (Exhibit 4). The
Planning Commission should also include any comments or recommended changes to the
proposed amendments in taking the following actions:
1. Make the required finding that in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15378,
these proposed ordinance amendments are not a project subject to CEQA because the
proposed amendments affect processing of applications only and will not impact the
physical environment. Additionally, in accordance with Government Code Section
66411.7(n) and 66452.21(g), SB 9 ordinances are not a project subject to CEQA (Exhibit
1);
2. Make the required finding that the amendments to Chapter 29 of the Town Code in the
draft ordinance are consistent with the General Plan (Exhibit 1); and
3. Forward a recommendation to the Town Council for approval of the proposed
amendments to Chapter 29 of the Town Code in the draft ordinance (Exhibit 4).
C. Alternatives
Alternatively, the Commission can:
1. Forward a recommendation to the Town Council for approval of the draft amendments
with modifications; or
2. Continue the matter to a date certain with specific direction.
EXHIBITS:
1. Required Findings
2. Current Senate Bill 9 Ordinance 2359
3. Senate Bill 450 State Law
4. Draft Senate Bill 9 Ordinance
5. Public comments received by 11:00 a.m., Friday, May 9, 2025
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank