Item 4 - Desk Item with Exhibit 7.SB 9
PREPARED BY: Ryan Safty
Associate Planner
Reviewed by: Town Attorney, Planning Manger, and Community Development Director
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 DESK ITEM
DATE: May 14, 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.
REMARKS:
Exhibit 7 includes public comments received between 11:01 a.m., Tuesday, May 13, 2025, and
11:00 a.m., Wednesday, May 14, 2025.
Following publication of the May 9, 2025, Staff Report, a Commissioner reached out with
questions on the following: the procedure to adopt new Senate Bill 9 (SB 9) standards; why
detached garages are proposed to be limited to 450 square feet; and details on which of the
points raised in the public comment in Exhibit 5 have been addressed in the Draft Ordinance in
Exhibit 4. The questions, as well as staff’s responses in italic font, are provided below.
• What is the procedure to adopt new standards applicable to the entire zone?
o Staff Response: Senate Bill 450 (SB 450) amended SB 9 so 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.
In order to adopt new objective design standards applicable to SB 9 applications, the
Town Code would need to be amended so that standard is applicable for any
development type in the underlining zone. For example, to add an SB 9 standard
prohibiting second-story decks, second-story decks would need to also be prohibited in
the underlining zone.
PAGE 2 OF 4 SUBJECT: SB 9 Ordinance Amendments DATE: May 14, 2025
• Why limit garages to 450 square feet?
o Staff Response: As a part of this ordinance update, staff reviewed Town Code and
applicable policy documents and added additional objective standards that are already
applicable to development in the underlying single-family zone. One of these standards
is that detached garages exceeding 450 square feet must go through a discretionary
Minor Residential Application process for approval. This restriction does not apply to
attached garages, only detached. If the Planning Commission does not see merit in this
standard, they can include that in their recommendation to the Town Council.
• Which of the points in the public comment provided in Exhibit 5 have been addressed?
o Staff Response: Staff reviewed the public comment provided in Exhibit 5 in detail. A
majority of the items included in Exhibit 5 have already been addressed in the Draft
Ordinance in Exhibit 4 through the process of complying with SB 450. The items that
were not addressed are provided below, followed by staff’s responses in italic font.
Grading (Section 29.10.630(1)(f) of Exhibit 4): The public comment alleges that this
restriction is unlawful.
• Staff Response: Town Code Chapter 12, Article II (Grading Permit) and Town Code
Section 29.10.09045(b) limits grading throughout the Town to no more than 50
cubic yards without first receiving discretionary approval for a Grading Permit.
The Town’s SB 9 Ordinance reflects this restriction, while also carving out
exceptions so that excavation for the building footprint, lightwells, driveways,
and fire access do not count towards this limitation. Essentially, the Town’s SB 9
Grading section states that site-work outside of the building footprint and
vehicular access cannot exceed 50 cubic yards (i.e. SB 9 allows the construction of
dwelling units, not the creation of flat yard areas in the hillsides). Clarification
has been added to the Draft Ordinance in Exhibit 4.
Streetside Setback (Section 29.10.630, Table 1-2 of Exhibit 4): The public comment
alleges that the required street-side setback should be four feet instead of what the
underlining zone requires.
• Staff Response: SB 9 states, “a local agency may require a setback of up to four
feet from the side and rear lot lines.” Staff does not interpret this to also require
a four-foot street-side setback on corner lots. A street-side setback is essentially a
second front setback requirement as the property has two frontages along a
street.
Neighborhood Notification (Section 29.10.640(5) and 29.10.660(4) of Exhibit 4): The
public comment alleges that this requirement is unlawful and defeats the purpose of
a ministerial review.
• Staff Response: Although neighborhood notification is not required in SB 9 or SB
450, the Town Council asked for this process to be included so that neighbors are
notified of this administrative process. The following clarification was added to
the Draft Ordinance in Exhibit 4, “This noticing is for informational purposes only
and is not intended to create a discretionary review process.”
PAGE 3 OF 4 SUBJECT: SB 9 Ordinance Amendments DATE: May 14, 2025
Lot Merger (Section 29.10.650(1)(h) of Exhibit 4): The public comment questions the
origin of this restriction.
• Staff Response: SB 9 allows the division of parcels into substandard sizes. If a
property is existing non-conforming as to minimum lot size and the property
owner decides to use SB 9 for an Urban Lot Split, the merger of these two parcels
would not comply with the Town’s minimum lot size. SB 9 allows land division;
there is no process for lot merger within SB 9. Therefore, any future lot merger
needs to follow the Town’s standard process.
Dedication and Easements (Section 29.10.650(2)(b) of Exhibit 4): The public
comment alleges that this requirement undermines the limitation on street
dedications.
• Staff Response: SB 9 states the following, “a local agency may require any of the
following conditions when considering an application for a parcel map for an
urban lot split: (1) Easements required for the provision of public services and
facilities […].” The Town’s SB 9 Ordinance states the following, “The Town
Engineer shall not require dedications of rights-of-way nor the construction of
offsite improvements but may, however, require recording of easements
necessary for the provision of private services, facilities, and future public
improvements or future public services, facilities, and future public
improvements.” Staff believes this is compliant with SB 9 law.
Intent to Occupy (Section 29.10.650(2)(d) of Exhibit 4): The public comment alleges
that this requirement violates SB 9.
• Staff Response: SB 9 states the following, “A local agency shall require an
applicant for an urban lot split to sign an affidavit stating that the applicant
intends to occupy one of the housing units as their principal residence for a
minimum of three years from the date of the approval of the urban lot split.”
State law is not clear on how to address situations where the lot split is on a
vacant parcel or creates a vacant parcel. As someone can not “occupy” a vacant
parcel as their “principal residence,” the Town’s SB 9 Ordinance provides
clarification that if the intent is to occupy a vacant parcel, the three years starts
from the date occupancy for a residence on that parcel is obtained.
Stormwater Management (Section 29.10.650(2)(k) of Exhibit 4): The public comment
alleges that this requirement is out of place and enforced by operating law already.
• Staff Response: Staff does not see an issue with listing this in the Town’s SB 9
Ordinance.
Utility Providers (Section 29.10.650(2)(l) of Exhibit 4): The public comment alleges
that this requirement is too broad and should be removed.
• Staff Response: The Town’s current SB 9 Ordinance states the following: “The
requirements of the parcel’s utility providers shall be satisfied prior to
recordation of a parcel map.” As Town staff does not reach out to the utility
providers for review of the SB 9 application, this was included in the Town’s SB 9
Ordinance to alert applicants to reach out to their utility providers. No changes
are proposed in the Draft Ordinance in Exhibit 4. If the Planning Commission feels
that this requirement is too broad, they can recommend removal.
PAGE 4 OF 4 SUBJECT: SB 9 Ordinance Amendments DATE: May 14, 2025
Development (Section 29.10.660(7) of Exhibit 4): The public comment questions this
restriction.
• Staff Response: The Town’s current SB 9 Ordinance states the following:
“Development of the resulting parcels is limited to a project approved by the
Two-Unit Housing Development process, the Town’s Accessory Dwelling Unit
process, or through the Town’s standard discretionary process.” This section was
included to help inform applicants of their options to develop following an Urban
Lot Split approval. There was confusion shortly after the original Urgency
Ordinance was adopted on how you can develop a new parcel, with many people
thinking that development could only be done through the SB 9 Two-Unit
Housing Development process. No changes are proposed in the Draft Ordinance
in Exhibit 4.
Appeals (Section 29.10.660(9) of Exhibit 4): The public comment questions the
legality of this section.
• Staff Response: SB 9 applications are ministerial pursuant to State law and
therefore do not have an appeal process.
EXHIBITS:
Previously Received with the May 9, 2025, Staff Report:
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
Received with the May 13, 2025, Addendum Report:
6. Public Comments between 11:01 a.m., Friday, May 9, 2025, and 11:00 a.m., Tuesday, May
13, 2025
Received with this Desk Item Report:
7. Public Comments between 11:01 a.m., Tuesday, May 13, 2025, and 11:00 a.m., Wednesday,
May 14, 2025
From: Terence J. Szewczyk <t >
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 3:25 PM
To: Joel Paulson <jpaulson@losgatosca.gov>; Ryan Safty <RSafty@losgatosca.gov>
Cc:
Subject: SB450 Changes to SB9
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Joel & Ryan, This is great. The problem is that you must hold the line when councilmembers
start freelancing. More serious is the deceitful close of the public hearing, followed by
destructive and menacing manipulation of the law.
Thanks for this. I hope that the council respects your good work.
Best regards, Terry
Terence J. Szewczyk. P.E.
TS/Civil Engineering, Inc
San Jose, CA 95110
EXHIBIT 7
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank