Staff Report.SB9 Permanent Ordinance with Attachments
PREPARED BY: Ryan Safty
Associate Planner
Reviewed by: Assistant Town Manager, Town Attorney, and Public Works Director
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● (408) 354-6832
www.losgatosca.gov
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: 11/1/2022 ITEM NO: 11
DATE: October 27, 2022
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: Laurel Prevetti, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Introduce 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.
RECOMMENDATION:
Introduce an ordinance, by tittle 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.
BACKGROUND:
In September 2021, Governor Newsom signed new State law, Senate Bill 9 (SB 9), which went
into effect on January 1, 2022 (Exhibit 2 of Attachment 3). 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 allows 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).
PAGE 2 OF 10 SUBJECT: Town Code Amendment Application A-22-002 - Senate Bill 9 DATE: October 27, 2022
BACKGROUND (continued):
In most circumstances, SB 9 will result in the potential creation of four dwelling units on an
existing single-family zoned parcel. Single-family zoned parcels are currently permitted three
units throughout the State: a primary single-family dwelling; an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU);
and a Junior ADU (JADU).
SB 9 also outlines how jurisdictions may regulate SB 9 projects. Jurisdictions may only apply
objective zoning, subdivision, and design standards to these projects, and these standards may
not preclude the construction of up to two units of at least 800 square feet each. Jurisdictions
can conduct objective design review, but may not have hearings for units that meet the State
rules (with limited exceptions).
On December 21, 2021, Town Council adopted an Urgency Ordinance (Exhibit 3 of Attachment
3) to implement local objective standards for SB 9 applications. This Urgency Ordinance was
valid for a period of 45 days. On February 1, 2022, Town Council adopted an extension of the
Urgency Ordinance (Exhibit 4 of Attachment 3), making it valid to the end of the calendar year.
The current Urgency Ordinance 2327 is set to expire on December 31, 2022.
On September 21, 2022, the Town hosted a Community Meeting to discuss the development of
a permanent SB 9 Ordinance and engage the public in the preparation of the Ordinance.
On September 28, 2022, the Planning Commission met to discuss the draft permanent SB 9
Ordinance and made a recommendation to the Town Council. The Planning Commission
received and considered public comments on the draft permanent Ordinance, reviewed the
proposed changes, and suggested edits in their recommendation of approval to Town Council
(Attachment 5).
DISCUSSION:
The Draft Ordinance presented to Planning Commission (Exhibit 1 of Attachment 3) was based
on the Urgency Ordinance adopted by Town Council in February 2022 and modified based on:
State and Regional Agency direction; clarification of initial standards; and reformatted to
integrate it within Chapter 29 of the Town Code (Zoning Regulations). On September 28, 2022,
the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing, listened to testimony, and reviewed and
discussed each of these proposed edits, as well as potential changes based on public input
received in the previous year. The Planning Commission discussion points are organized below
in three sections: modifications that Planning Commission did not recommend; items that
Planning Commission supported, but that do not require modifications; and modifications that
the Planning Commission recommended.
PAGE 3 OF 10 SUBJECT: Town Code Amendment Application A-22-002 - Senate Bill 9 DATE: October 27, 2022
DISCUSSION (continued):
A. No Modifications Recommended
The Planning Commission reviewed and discussed the following items and recommended
that no modifications be made to the Draft Ordinance. Each of these items were based on
comments received from the public, either in writing or made verbally during the hearing.
• Applicable Zoning Designations. In addition to the requested inclusion of Hillside
Residential Zones, which has been included based on State direction, members of
the public requested that SB 9 applications be allowed on additional zoning
designations, such as multi-family zones where single-family development is a
principally permitted use, and any zone where the existing use is single-family.
Planning Commission did not recommend expanding the allowed zones at this time,
but felt it may be worth discussion during future iterations and amendments to this
Ordinance.
• Window Size Limitations. Comments were received regarding the second-story
window design standards, requesting that the clerestory and egress minimums be
removed for two-story SB 9 units that meet the underlining zoning setback. Because
of a desire to ensure privacy impacts are minimized, the Planning Commission did
not recommend increasing allowed window sizes.
• Second-Story Step-Back. Similar to the topic above, comments were received
regarding the second-story step-back requirement, requesting that this be removed
for two-story SB 9 units that meet the underlining zoning setbacks. Planning
Commission did not recommend this change as the step-back requirement helps to
both ensure privacy impacts are minimized, and decrease the mass of a two-story
building in accordance with the Residential Design Guidelines.
• First Unit Size Limitation. Comments were received in opposition to the 1,200-
square foot size limitation for the first new SB 9 unit. During the Planning
Commission hearing, staff described for the Commission that the size limitation was
a specific recommendation of Town Council when adopting the Urgency Ordinance
as one method to make one of the units affordable by design. Planning Commission
did not recommend changes.
• Hillside Zoning Height Limitation. Comments were received regarding the 16-foot
height limitations of SB 9 units in the HR zones. This standard was included in the
Draft Ordinance following State direction to include HR zones. The Town’s Hillside
Development Standards and Guidelines (HDS&G) allows buildings to be a maximum
of 18 feet tall when “visible” from the established viewing areas or when located
along a significant ridgeline. To ensure that this standard is objective, and to avoid
confusion with the existing 16-foot height limitation when a non-hillside zoned SB 9
PAGE 4 OF 10 SUBJECT: Town Code Amendment Application A-22-002 - Senate Bill 9 DATE: October 27, 2022
DISCUSSION (continued):
building footprint is located within the required side or rear setbacks of the
applicable zoning district, the Draft Ordinance includes a 16-foot height limit for all
HR zoned properties. Planning Commission did not recommend changes.
• Three-Foot Finished Floor. Comments were received regarding the maximum
height that a finished floor can project above finished grade, with a request to
increase beyond what was already proposed in the Draft Ordinance. The current
Urgency Ordinance limits this area to 18-inches. As SB 9 must now include HR zones,
the Draft Ordinance was amended to limit this area to three feet instead of 18-
inches for consistency with the HDS&G. The Planning Commission did not
recommend any increase beyond what was already proposed in the Draft Ordinance
to ensure that buildings are designed to follow grades.
• 50 Cubic Yards Grading Restriction. Comments were received regarding the 50
cubic yard grading restriction. The Urgency Ordinance states that a SB 9 application
shall not exceed the summation of 50 cubic yards, cut plus fill, or require a Grading
Permit per Town Code Chapter 12, Article II. This was included for consistency with
the Town Code where grading in excess of 50 cubic yards that is not used for
building excavation requires a Grading Permit, and Grading Permits require an
Architecture and Site application, which is a discretionary permit with a public
hearing. As SB 9 requires ministerial review and approval of qualifying projects, the
grading restriction was included to ensure SB 9 projects are processed ministerially.
Although the Planning Commission did not remove this restriction, they did
recommend that certain grading exemptions be added, which are discussed below.
• Frontage Requirement. During Planning Commission’s discussion on flag/corridor
lot access requirements, there were questions on how projects can comply with the
Minimum Public Frontage requirement in Section 29.10.050(a)(4) of the Draft
Ordinance when easements are used for access instead of public streets. Planning
Commission requested clarification of this requirement. Per the definition of
“street” in Town Code Section 29.10.020 (Definitions), “Street means any
thoroughfare for the motor vehicle which affords the principal means of access to
abutting property, including public and private rights-of-way and easements.”
Therefore, no amendments to the Draft Ordinance were made.
B. Planning Commission Support for Certain Suggestions Without Incorporation into the Draft
Ordinance
The Planning Commission reviewed and discussed the following items and expressed
support and did not recommend modifications to the Draft Ordinance to incorporate them.
• Fire Department Review. Comments were received requesting that Santa Clara
County Fire Department be included in the review of SB 9 ministerial applications.
PAGE 5 OF 10 SUBJECT: Town Code Amendment Application A-22-002 - Senate Bill 9 DATE: October 27, 2022
DISCUSSION (continued):
Although this would not be included in the Ordinance, Planning Commission
recommended that this be implemented in the project review process, if possible.
• Affordability Incentives. During Planning Commission discussion on size limitations
and affordability, the Commission requested that consideration be given for
incentives and benefits if a unit is deed restricted for affordability. Similar to what is
included in Town Code Section 29.10.320 for Accessory Dwelling Units (provided
below), certain incentives such as reduced permit fees or no-interest construction
loans could be provided for SB 9 units that are made affordable via a deed
restriction.
o Town Code Section 29.10.320(a): “Incentive program. Any accessory dwelling
unit developed under an Incentive Program which may be established by
Resolution of the Town Council shall be made affordable to eligible applicants
pursuant to the requirements of the Incentive Program. A deed restriction
shall be recorded specifying that the accessory dwelling unit shall be offered
at a reduced rent that is affordable to a lower income renter (less than eighty
(80) percent AMI) provided that the unit is occupied by someone other than a
member of the household occupying the primary dwelling.”
C. Recommended Modifications
The Planning Commission reviewed and discussed the following items and recommended
modifications on the Draft Ordinance to Town Council. Each of these recommendations
have been included in the Draft Ordinance provided as Attachment 2.
• Flag-Lot Access Easement. Several comments were received from the public
regarding the access corridor requirement for flag/corridor lots. The Urgency
Ordinance requires that the access corridor for flag/corridor lots be “in fee” as part
of the parcel and not as an easement, for consistency with existing Town Code.
Planning Commission recommended that the access corridor be allowed as either
“in fee” or as an easement to allow maximum flexibility. This modification was
incorporated in Section 29.10.050(a)(1) of the Draft Ordinance.
• Flag-Lot Width Requirement. Similar to above, several comments were received
from the public regarding the access corridor width requirement for flag/corridor
lots. The Urgency Ordinance requires a minimum of 20 feet for the access corridor
width, which matches the minimum lot width and minimum street frontage
requirements. This standard is consistent with the minimum width required for the
“corridor” of corridor lots per Town Code Section 29.10.085. Planning Commission
recommended reducing this standard to the minimum required by the Santa Clara
County Fire Department, which is 12 feet. This modification was incorporated in
Sections 29.10.050(a)(1) and (4) of the Draft Ordinance
PAGE 6 OF 10 SUBJECT: Town Code Amendment Application A-22-002 - Senate Bill 9 DATE: October 27, 2022
DISCUSSION (continued):
• Minimum Lot Size. Comments were received from the public regarding the
minimum lot size calculation in relation to the access corridor for flag/corridor lots.
The Urgency Ordinance states that the minimum lot area for a flag/corridor lot shall
be exclusive of the access corridor. This standard was originally included for
consistency with Town Code Section 29.10.085, which states that the area of the
corridor may not be applied toward satisfying the minimum lot area requirement.
Planning Commission recommended that this standard be removed. If this standard
were removed, whichever property owner owned a “fee interest” (as opposed to
the “easement interest”) in the access corridor would count the access corridor
toward its lot area. This modification was incorporated in Section 29.10.050(a)(2) of
the Draft Ordinance. Staff recommends that the Town Council consider the previous
language in Exhibit 1 of Attachment 3, excluding the access corridor from the lot
area calculation when implemented “in fee,” for consistency with Town Code.
• Floor Area Ratio and Lot Coverage. Similar to the comment above, comments were
received from the public regarding floor area ratio and lot coverage calculations
based on lot size. The Urgency Ordinance does not specify, and the Town has not
included access corridor owned either “in fee” or as an easement toward the lot
area of the owner of the fee interest when calculating maximum allowed floor area
ratio and lot coverage. As stated above, Planning Commission expanded the access
corridor allowance for flag/corridor lots to include both “in fee” and easements
when calculating minimum lot size. In order to provide additional flexibility, the
Planning Commission recommended that access corridors owned in fee be counted
towards the lot size of the fee owner when measuring floor area and lot coverage.
This modification was incorporated in Section 29.10.630(a)(5) of the Draft
Ordinance. Staff recommends that the Town Council consider the previous language
in Exhibit 1 of Attachment 3, excluding the access corridor from the net lot area
calculation of the flag/corridor lot (whether owned in fee or as an easement) for
consistency with Town Code.
• New Side Property Lines. Comments were received from the public regarding the
new lot line requirement. The Urgency Ordinance requires that the new side lines of
all lots shall be at right-angles to streets or radial to the centerline of curved streets.
The Planning Commission recommended removing this requirement as not all
neighborhoods in the Town consist of standard rectangular lots. This modification
was implemented by removing this standard from Section 29.10.050(a) of the Draft
Ordinance reviewed by Planning Commission.
• Average Slope Restriction. Comments were received from the public regarding the
average slope restriction. In response to the State’s direction to include HR zones,
the Draft Ordinance was amended to capture relevant hillside requirements from
the HDS&G, including the building restriction on site slopes exceeding 30 percent.
PAGE 7 OF 10 SUBJECT: Town Code Amendment Application A-22-002 - Senate Bill 9 DATE: October 27, 2022
DISCUSSION (continued):
The Planning Commission supported this restriction, and asked that clarification be
included to specify that this restriction only applies to portions of the site where a
building is proposed, and not the entire site if other portions of the site have slopes
that exceed 30 percent. This clarification is provided in Section 29.10.630(a)(8) of
the Draft Ordinance.
• Grading Exemptions. As discussed in Section A (50 Cubic Yards Grading Restriction)
above, several comments were received from the public regarding the 50 cubic yard
grading restriction. With the inclusion of HR zones, and increased driveway and fire
truck access requirements from the Santa Clara County Fire Department, the 50
cubic yard limitation may be too restrictive. The Planning Commission
recommended that grading associated with minimum driveway and fire access
requirements be exempted from the 50 cubic yard limitation. Additionally, Planning
Commission recommended that clarification be added that excavation within the
footprint of the primary dwelling unit or garage, including light wells that do not
exceed the minimum required per Building Code, also be exempt. These
modifications were incorporated in Section 29.10.630(a)(5) and Table 1-1 of the
Draft Ordinance.
• Single Driveway Limitation. Comments were received from the public regarding the
single driveway requirement. The Urgency Ordinance requires that, “each parcel
shall include a single driveway […].” There was concern about the total number of
driveways and curb-cuts that could be built on a single parcel. Based on Planning
Commission discussion and direction, Section 29.10.630(a)(2) of the Draft Ordinance
was amended to state that each parcel shall include no more than a single driveway
and curb-cut unless the parcel has more than 100 feet of contiguous street frontage.
The 100-foot rule was derived from the 100-foot minimum frontage requirement in
the HR zones and is consistent with what Los Altos Hills uses in their SB 9 Urgency
Ordinance.
• Primary Structure Definition. During Planning Commission discussion, direction was
provided to clarify the “first residential unit” definition in terms of how it relates to
“primary dwelling units.” Per the definition of “primary dwelling unit” in Town Code
Section 29.10.020 (Definitions), “Primary dwelling unit means a single-family or two-
family dwelling unit located on a lot with no other dwellings on the lot except for
accessory dwelling units, whether attached or detached. It shall include permanent
provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation located on the same
parcel as the primary dwelling unit.” The definition of “first residential unit” in the
Definitions Section (29.10.610) of the Draft Ordinance was modified to replace the
term “housing unit” with “primary dwelling unit” for consistency throughout the
Draft Ordinance.
PAGE 8 OF 10 SUBJECT: Town Code Amendment Application A-22-002 - Senate Bill 9 DATE: October 27, 2022
DISCUSSION (continued):
D. Additional Topics
• “Intent to Occupy.” At its last meeting, the Town Council received public comment
regarding a SB 9 subdivided lot that may no longer be occupied by the subdivider.
SB 9 requires that SB 9 subdividers sign affidavits stating that they, “intend to
occupy” one of the subdivided lots for three years. SB 9 prohibits local agencies
from altering this requirement. As a result, the Town does not have the ability to
impose a stricter requirement. In this instance, the Town obtained an affidavit from
the subdivider stating that they “intended to occupy” one of the lots for three years.
SB 9’s legislative history provides that the remedy for falsely filling out an affidavit is
prosecution for perjury. If the Town were to pursue prosecution for perjury, the
Town would need to demonstrate that the property owner never intended to
occupy the lot for three years. The Town would also need to contact the District
Attorney to discuss prosecution or ask the County to delegate prosecutorial
authority to the Town.
• Application of Objective Standards. At its last meeting, the Town Council received
public comment questioning the applicability of the Town’s discretionary approvals
to parcels that have undergone a SB 9 urban lot split. Property owners have the
right to invoke SB 9 and seek application of the Town’s objective standards for SB 9
projects. Some property owners have expressed interest in having the ability to
undergo the Town’s discretionary approval process (Architecture and Site
application) for development of a new residence after the parcel has undergone a SB
9 urban lot split. The proposed ordinance states that applicants invoking SB 9 are
eligible for application of the Town’s objective standards. Staff recommends also
allowing applicants the ability to seek discretionary review if desired, instead of
using the SB 9 two-unit residential development process.
• Public Notice. At its last meeting, the Town Council discussed the topic of public
notice for SB 9 projects. SB 9 projects are “ministerial,” and therefore there is no
discretionary review (unless opted into) for applicants who invoke SB 9. Because
there is no opportunity for public comment or changes to SB 9 projects, staff does
not recommend sending public notices because doing so implies that changes can be
made to the project. This is consistent with the Town’s practice for building permits
and ADU’s. The Town does list pending SB 9 applications as “Pending Planning
Projects” on the Town’s website.
PAGE 9 OF 10 SUBJECT: Town Code Amendment Application A-22-002 - Senate Bill 9 DATE: October 27, 2022
PUBLIC OUTREACH:
Public input has been requested through the following media and social media resources:
• An eighth-page public notice in the newspaper;
• A poster at the Planning counter at Town Hall and the Los Gatos Library;
• Email to interested parties;
• Community Meeting;
• The Town’s website home page, What’s New;
• The Town’s Facebook page;
• The Town’s Twitter account;
• The Town’s Instagram account; and
• The Town’s NextDoor page.
Issues raised by the public are identified in the Discussion section of this report.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Attachment 6 includes additional public comment received between 11:01 a.m., Wednesday,
September 23, 2022, and 11:00 a.m., Thursday, October 27, 2022.
CONCLUSION:
Staff recommends that the Town Council introduce an Ordinance of the Town of Los Gatos, by
title only, effecting the amendments to Chapter 29 of the Town Code (Attachment 2) to
regulate SB 9 urban lot splits and two-unit housing developments, by title only, with any
specific changes identified and agreed upon by the majority of the Town Council and make the
findings set forth in Attachment 1.
ALTERNATIVES:
Alternatively, the Council may:
1. Continue this item to a date certain with specific direction to staff;
2. Refer the item back to the Planning Commission with specific direction; or
3. Take no action, allowing the Urgency Ordinance to expire without adopting permanent
regulations in Town Code.
PAGE 10 OF 10 SUBJECT: Town Code Amendment Application A-22-002 - Senate Bill 9 DATE: October 27, 2022
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
In accordance with Government Code Section 66411.7(n) and 66452.21(g), SB 9 ordinances are
not a project subject to CEQA.
Attachments:
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
TOWN COUNCIL – November 1, 2022 REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR:
Town Code Amendment Application A-22-002
Consider Amendments to Chapter 29 (Zoning Regulations) of the Town Code Regarding
Permanent Regulations to Comply with the Requirements of Senate Bill 9.
FINDINGS
Required Findings for CEQA:
• In accordance with Government Code Section 66411.7(n) and 66452.21(g), SB 9 ordinances
are not a project subject to CEQA.
Required Findings for General Plan:
• The amendments to Chapter 29 of the Town Code are consistent with the General Plan.
ATTACHMENT 1
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
PREPARED BY: RYAN SAFTY
Associate Planner
Reviewed by: Planning Manager and Community Development Director
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● 406-354-6832
www.losgatosca.gov
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING COMMISSION
REPORT
MEETING DATE: 09/28/2022 ITEM NO: 3
DATE: September 23, 2022
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Consider Amendments to Chapter 29 (Zoning Regulations) of the Town Code
Regarding Permanent Regulations to Comply with the Requirements of
Senate Bill 9. Town Code Amendment Application A-22-002. Location:
Townwide. Applicant: Town of Los Gatos.
RECOMMENDATION:
Consider amendments to Chapter 29 (Zoning Regulations) of the Town Code regarding
permanent regulations to comply with the requirements of Senate Bill 9 (Exhibit 1) and forward
a recommendation to the Town Council.
BACKGROUND:
In September 2021, Governor Newsom signed new State law, Senate Bill 9 (SB 9), which went
into effect on January 1, 2022 (Exhibit 2). 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 allows 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).
ATTACHMENT 3
PAGE 2 OF 9 SUBJECT: Senate Bill 9 DATE: September 23, 2022
BACKGROUND (continued):
In most circumstances, SB 9 will result in the potential creation of four dwelling units on an
existing single-family zoned parcel. Single-family zoned parcels are currently permitted three
units throughout the State: a primary single-family dwelling, an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU),
and a Junior ADU (JADU).
SB 9 also outlines how jurisdictions may regulate SB 9 projects. Jurisdictions may only apply
objective zoning, subdivision, and design standards to these projects, and these standards may
not preclude the construction of up to two units of at least 800 square feet each. Jurisdictions
can conduct objective design review, but may not have hearings for units that meet the State
rules (with limited exceptions).
On December 21, 2021, Town Council adopted an Urgency Ordinance (Exhibit 3) to implement
local objective standards for SB 9 applications. This Urgency Ordinance was valid for a period of
45 days. On February 1, 2022, Town Council adopted an extension of the Urgency Ordinance
(Exhibit 4), making it valid to the end of the calendar year. The current Urgency Ordinance
2327 is set to expire on December 31, 2022.
On September 21, 2022, the Town hosted a Community Meeting to discuss developing a
permanent SB 9 Ordinance and foster public participation. A summary of topics discussed is
available below.
DISCUSSION:
The Draft Ordinance (Exhibit 1) is based on the Urgency Ordinance adopted by Town Council in
February 2022, and modified based on: State and Regional Agency direction; clarification of
initial standards; and reformatted to integrate it within Chapter 29 of the Town Code (Zoning
Regulations).
A. Amendments per State and Regional Agency Direction
The following is a summary of draft amendments in response to State direction and the
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) SB 9 model ordinance:
• Amended Definitions. The definition of single-family residential zone in the Draft
Ordinance was amended to include Hillside Residential (HR) zones per the California
Department of Housing and Community Development SB 9 Fact Sheet (Exhibit 5).
PAGE 3 OF 9 SUBJECT: Senate Bill 9 DATE: September 23, 2022
DISCUSSION (continued):
• New Definitions. The following definitions were added to the Draft Ordinance to
comply with State law and per the direction of the of the ABAG SB 9 model
ordinance (Exhibit 6):
o Adjacent parcel;
o Car-share vehicle;
o Common ownership or control;
o First residential unit; and
o Sufficient for separate conveyance.
• Hillside Standards. Based on the amended definition (above) to include HR zoned
properties, the following additional standards were added to ensure consistency
with the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines (HDS&G). No hillside
standards were included in the Urgency Ordinance as the Town was not anticipating
SB 9 projects in these zones.
o Building height: A separate building height limitation of 16 feet has been
included for HR zoned properties. The HDS&G allows buildings to be a
maximum of 18 feet tall when “visible” from the viewing areas or located
along a significant ridgeline. To ensure that this standard is objective, and to
avoid confusion with the existing 16-foot height limitation when a non-
hillside zoned building footprint is located within the required side or rear
setbacks of the applicable zoning district, the Draft Ordinance includes a 16-
foot height limit for all HR zoned properties.
o Driveway width: Consistent with the HDS&G requirements, driveway width
must be a minimum of 12 feet. This standard would also help ensure that
the Santa Clara County Fire Department can approve of the driveway plans
when reviewed at building permit stage.
o Driveway slope: Consistent with the HDS&G requirements, driveways cannot
exceed 15 percent in slope. This standard would also help ensure that the
Santa Clara County Fire Department can approve of the driveway plans when
reviewed at building permit stage.
o Cut and fill depths: The maximum cut and fill table from Chapter III of the
HDS&G was added for applicable SB 9 site elements to ensure that new
construction retains the existing landform of the site and follows the natural
contours.
o Least Restrictive Development Area (LRDA): To ensure construction occurs in
the most appropriate areas on a hillside parcel, the 30 percent slope
restriction for LRDA was added from Chapter II of the HDS&G.
o Retaining walls: Consistent with HDS&G requirements, retaining wall
restrictions were added to ensure the use of retaining walls are limited and
appropriate.
PAGE 4 OF 9 SUBJECT: Senate Bill 9 DATE: September 23, 2022
DISCUSSION (continued):
o Light Reflectivity Value (LRV): Consistent with the HDS&G requirements, the
LRV of materials used on HR zoned parcels would be limited to 30 to ensure
the building colors blend with the natural vegetation of the hillsides.
o Finished floor height: The maximum height that a finished floor can project
above grade has been increased from 18-inches to three feet in all zones for
better consistency with Chapter V of the HDS&G.
• Exclusion Areas. Prime Farmland and Wetlands are included as an area that is
excluded from the SB 9 Ordinance per the ABAG SB 9 model ordinance.
• Utility Connections. Utility connection requirements were added per the ABAG SB 9
model ordinance.
• Replacement Housing. A reference to the replacement housing provisions of
Government Code Section 66300(d) was added, per the ABAG SB 9 model ordinance,
to ensure that existing housing units proposed to be demolished as a part of an SB 9
application will be replaced.
• ADUs. The existing Urgency Ordinance states that new ADUs are not allowed on
parcels that have used either SB 9 application type. Based on State direction, ADUs
must be allowed on parcels that have not undergone an urban lot split. The ADU
references were amended to update this section.
• Owner Attestation. Per the direction of the of the ABAG SB 9 model ordinance, the
owner attestation and recorded covenant requirements have been updated.
B. Draft Amendments to Clarify Existing Standards
The following is a summary of amendments recommended by staff to help clarify existing
standards. These amendments are included in the Draft Ordinance. The majority of these
changes are a result of questions asked by members of the public on the existing Urgency
Ordinance.
• Legal Parcel. The legal parcel requirement was amended to specify that applications
for any SB 9 application type will only be accepted on proposed parcels with either a
recorded parcel map or certificate of compliance. Applicants would no longer be
able to submit both a two-unit housing development and urban lot split application
concurrently, as the two-unit housing development cannot be approved until the
urban lot split is approved and the map is recorded.
PAGE 5 OF 9 SUBJECT: Senate Bill 9 DATE: September 23, 2022
DISCUSSION (continued):
• Floor Area Ratio (FAR). The existing Urgency Ordinance does not specify a cap on
the use of the 10 percent FAR increase and is not clear as to how the 10 percent FAR
increases are allowed for both two-unit housing developments and ADUs.
Clarification was added to specify that the maximum additional floor area allowed
from the 10 percent increase must be used for the first dwelling unit, and is
therefore no more than 1,200 square feet. This language is consistent with the use
of an FAR bonus for ADUs in current Town Code, and also states that the FAR
increase cannot be combined with the increase for an ADU in Town Code Section
29.10.320.
• Trees. Reference to Town Code Chapter 29, Article 1, Division 2 (Tree Protection)
was added to ensure that any proposed work complies with the Town’s existing
protection, removal, and replacement requirements.
• Windows. The existing Urgency Ordinance states that all second-story windows less
than eight feet from rear and interior side property lines shall be clerestory, and that
all other second-story windows shall be limited to the minimum size and number
required for egress. This effectively restricted all second-story windows to be no
more than the minimum needed for egress. The revision increases the distance
requirement from eight feet to 10 feet, and removes the “all other” statement so
that all second-stories within 10 feet from the side property line can have clerestory
windows and larger windows as needed for egress. The intent of this regulation is to
reduce potential privacy impacts from new second story windows, while increasing
flexibility when those windows have at least a 10-foot setback from the property
line.
• Number of Units. A sentence was added to both the two-unit housing development
and urban lot split sections of the Draft Ordinance to specify the maximum number
of units allowed to be built under these regulations as required by State law. Up to
four units (including two primary dwelling units, an ADU, and a JADU) can be built on
parcels that have not undergone an urban lot split; and two units (regardless of the
unit type) can be built on each of the parcels that result from an urban lot split.
• Intent to Occupy. Clarification to the Intent to Occupy requirement for urban lot
splits has been added to specify when the three-year occupancy requirement
begins, depending on whether an existing residence is retained.
• Lot Merger. A sentence was added to clarify that when an owner or applicant splits
their parcel and builds additional units with the allowed 10 percent FAR increase,
they will then be prohibited from merging the parcels back into a single parcel
unless existing Town Code requirements can be met and no new non-conformities
are created.
PAGE 6 OF 9 SUBJECT: Senate Bill 9 DATE: September 23, 2022
DISCUSSION (continued):
C. Potential Changes from Public Comment
In the public comment and feedback received by staff since the approval of the Urgency
Ordinance (Exhibit 7), there were seven comments that were repeated by several members
of the public, which are discussed below:
• Applicable Zones. Comments received requested that HR zones be included in the
permanent SB 9 Ordinance. As detailed above, per State direction, the Draft Ordinance
has been updated to include HR zones in the single-family residential zone definition. In
addition to inclusion of the HR zone, the Planning Commission could consider allowing
SB 9 permits within other zoning designations, possibilities could include multi-family
zones or in any zone where the existing use is a single-family use.
• Grading Limitation. Comments were received related to the grading limitation. Both
the existing Urgency Ordinance and drafted updates for the Draft Ordinance include the
grading restriction: grading activity shall not exceed the summation of 50 cubic yards,
cut plus fill, or require a Grading Permit per Town Code Chapter 12, Article II. The
reason for this limitation is for consistency with the Town Code where grading in excess
of 50 cubic yards that is not used for building excavation requires a Grading Permit, and
Grading Permits require an Architecture and Site application, which is a discretionary
permit with a public hearing. As SB 9 requires ministerial review and approval of
qualifying applications, the grading restriction was included to ensure SB 9 projects are
processed ministerially. Per the Urgency Ordinance and Draft Ordinance, if over 50
cubic yards of grading is needed to develop the site, excluding building excavation, the
applicant would need approval of a separate, discretionary Grading Permit. The
majority of comments received regarding the grading limitation requested that the
excavation exception be expanded to include any grading necessary for driveway and
Fire access and turnarounds. Additional clarification could be added to state that
lightwells that do not exceed the size required by building code would also be
considered excavation to ensure this requirement is implemented objectively.
• Fire Review. Comments were received requesting that Santa Clara County Fire
Department be included in the review SB 9 ministerial applications. This would not
need to be included in this Ordinance, but could be recommended as part of
implementation of the project review process.
• Windows. Comments were received regarding the second-story window design
standards, requesting that the clerestory and egress minimums be removed for two-
story SB 9 units that meet the underlining zoning setbacks. The standards were
originally included to minimize privacy impacts as State law limits setbacks to four feet
on internal side and rear property lines. As stated above, the Draft Ordinance amends
the window standards to decrease restrictions so that all second stories within 10 feet
from the side and rear property lines can have clerestory windows and larger windows
as needed for egress.
PAGE 7 OF 9 SUBJECT: Senate Bill 9 DATE: September 23, 2022
DISCUSSION (continued):
• Second-Story Step-Back. Similar to the comment above, comments were received
regarding the second-story step-back requirement, requesting that this be removed for
two-story SB 9 units that meet the underlining zoning setbacks. This standard provides
both a reduction in potential privacy impacts, as well as preventing construction of walls
that extend the full height of the new two-story residence. Modification of this
standard or replacement with alternative objective standards could be included in
Planning Commission’s recommendation to Town Council.
• Size Limit. Comments have been received in opposition to the 1,200-square foot size
limitation for the first new SB 9 unit. The original Urgency Ordinance included the
1,200-square foot size limitation for any SB 9 unit. When the Urgency Ordinance was
extended, the Town Council modified this section to only apply to the first new unit.
The 1,200-square foot size limitation is consistent with the maximum sizes of ADUs, and
the second unit is allowed to use the remainder of the floor area allocated based on the
lot’s FAR.
• Frontage Requirement. Comments were received regarding the minimum width
required for the access corridor of a flag/corridor lot, as well as the method of
recordation of this access area. The Urgency Ordinance and Draft Ordinance require a
minimum of 20 feet for the access corridor width, which matches the minimum lot
width requirement. This standard is consistent with the minimum width required for
the “corridor” of corridor lots per Town Code Section 29.10.085. The comments also
raise concerns with the requirement that the access corridor be “in fee” as a part of the
parcel and not as an easement; specifically, the feedback urges that the access corridor
should count towards the proposed lot sizes. The original Urgency Ordinance and Draft
Ordinance both state under the Minimum Lot Size requirement that the minimum lot
area for a flag/corridor lot shall be exclusive of the access corridor. This standard is also
consistent with Town Code Section 29.10.085, which states that the area of the corridor
may not be applied toward satisfying the minimum lot area requirement. The Planning
Commission could choose to modify these requirements in their recommendation to
Town Council.
D. Public Outreach
Public input has been requested through the following media and social media resources:
• A poster at the Planning counter at Town Hall and the Town Library;
• The Town’s website home page, What’s New;
• The Town’s Facebook page;
• The Town’s Twitter account;
• The Town’s Instagram account; and
• The Town’s Next Door page.
PAGE 8 OF 9 SUBJECT: Senate Bill 9 DATE: September 23, 2022
DISCUSSION (continued):
In addition to the outreach listed above, the Town held a Community Meeting on
September 21, 2022 to foster public participation. Comments received during the meeting
included: concerns regarding the grading limitation; the frontage requirement of
corridor/flag lots; the 16-foot height limitation for HR zones; the 30 percent slope
restriction for building footprints in the HR zones; the three-foot finished floor height
limitation; and the right-angle requirement for new side property lines in the HR zones.
Additionally, Town staff received questions regarding: what applicable zones are allowed to
use SB 9; how the 40/60 lot split requirement is applied; what the minimum and maximum
unit sizes are; whether SB 9 applications are ministerial or discretionary; why the Town was
adopting a SB 9 Ordinance; and how many units could be built on residentially zoned
parcels prior to SB 9.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Multiple public comments (Exhibit 7) have been received since Urgency Ordinance 2327 was
adopted at the beginning of 2022. These comments were discussed in the previous section.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
This Ordinance is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
pursuant to SB 9.
CONCLUSION:
A. Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission receive and consider public comments,
review the information included in the staff report, provide input on any additional
recommended modifications to the Draft Ordinance (Exhibit 1), and forward a
recommendation to the Town Council for approval of the amendments to Chapter 29 of the
Town Code in the Draft Ordinance.
B. Alternatives
Alternatively, the Commission can continue the matter to a date certain with specific
direction.
PAGE 9 OF 9 SUBJECT: Senate Bill 9 DATE: September 23, 2022
EXHIBITS:
1. Draft Permanent SB 9 Ordinance
2. SB 9 Legislation
3. SB 9 Urgency Ordinance 2326
4. SB 9 Urgency Ordinance Extension 2327
5. California Department of Housing and Community Development SB 9 Fact Sheet
6. Association of Bay Area Governments SB 9 Model Ordinance
7. Public Comment received prior to 11:00 a.m., Friday, September 23, 2022
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
1 of 15
Ordinance XXXX January 1, 2023
DRAFT ORDINANCE XXXX
AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
AMENDING CHAPTER 29 (ZONING REGULATIONS) REGARDING TWO-UNIT HOUSING
DEVELOPMENTS AND URBAN LOT SPLITS IN ALL
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES
WHEREAS, the Town of Los Gatos (Town) has adopted a General Plan to ensure a
well-planned and safe community; and
WHEREAS, protection of public health, safety, and welfare is fully articulated in the
General Plan; and
WHEREAS, State law requires that the Town's Zoning Code conform with the
General Plan's goals and policies; and
WHEREAS, in 2021, the California Legislature approved, and the Governor signed
into law Senate Bill 9 (SB 9), which among other things, adds Government Code Sections
65852.21 and 66411.7 to impose new limits on local authority to regulate two-unit
housing developments and urban lot splits; and
WHEREAS, SB 9 requires the Town to provide for the ministerial (or “by right”)
approval of a housing development containing no more than two residential units of at
least 800 square feet in floor area (two-unit housing development) and a parcel map
dividing one existing lot into two approximately equal parts (urban lot split) within a
single-family residential zone for residential use; and
WHEREAS, SB 9 eliminates discretionary review and public oversight of the
proposed subdivision of one lot into two parcels by removing public notice and hearings
by the Development Review Committee or Planning Commission, by requiring only
administrative review of the project, and by providing ministerial approval of an urban lot
split, and also authorizes local agencies to adopt an ordinance allowing for up to a 24-
month additional map extension, for the use of an approved or conditionally approved
Tentative Parcel Map; and
WHEREAS, SB 9 exempts SB 9 projects from environmental review as required by
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), by establishing a ministerial review
process without discretionary review or a public hearing, thereby undermining
community participation and appropriate environmental impact vetting by local decision
making bodies; and
WHEREAS, SB 9 allows the Town to adopt objective zoning and subdivision
standards for two-unit housing developments and urban lot splits; and
EXHIBIT 1
2 of 15
Ordinance XXXX January 1, 2023
WHEREAS, the Town desires to amend its local regulatory scheme to comply with
and implement Government Code Sections 65852.21 and 66411.7 and to appropriately
regulate projects under SB 9; and
WHEREAS, this matter was regularly noticed in conformance with State and Town
law and came before the Planning Commission for public hearing on September 28, 2022;
and
WHEREAS, this matter was regularly noticed in conformance with State and Town
law and came before the Town Council for public hearing on ______________, 2022; and
NOW, THEREFORE, THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS FINDS AND
ORDAINS:
Section 1. The Town Council finds and declares that this Ordinance establishes
regulations in the Zoning Code to allow two-unit housing developments and urban lot
splits as specified by California Government Code Sections 66452.6, 65852.21, and
66411.7, as adopted and amended by SB 9.
Section 2. A new Division 10, “Two-Unit Housing Developments and Urban Lot
Splits,” is added to Article I, “In General,” of Chapter 29, “Zoning Regulations,” to read
as follows:
“Section 29.10.600. Purpose and Applicability. The Town Council finds and
determines that this Ordinance is applicable only to voluntary applications for two-unit
housing developments and urban lot splits. Owners of real property or their
representatives may continue to exercise rights for property development in
conformance with the Zoning Code and Subdivision Code. Development applications
that do not satisfy the definitions for a two-unit housing development or an urban lot
split provided in Section III (Definitions) shall not be subject to this Ordinance. 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. The
provisions of this Division shall supersede and take precedence over any
inconsistent provision of the Town Code to the extent necessary to effect the
provisions of this Division.
Section 29.10.610. Definitions. In addition to definitions contained in Chapter 24
(Subdivision Regulations) and Chapter 29 (Zoning Regulations), the following definitions
apply for purposes of this Division. Where a conflict may exist, the definitions in this
Division shall apply.
Acting in concert means persons, as defined by Government Code Section 82047, as
that section existed on January 1, 2022, acting jointly to pursue development of real
3 of 15
Ordinance XXXX January 1, 2023
property whether or not pursuant to a written agreement and irrespective of individual
financial interest.
Addition means any construction which increases the size of a building or facility in
terms of site coverage, height, length, width, or gross floor area.
Adjacent parcel means any parcel of land that is: touching the parcel at any point;
separated from the parcel at any point only by a public right-of-way, private street or way,
or public or private utility, service, or access easement; or separate from another parcel
only by other real property which is in common ownership or control of the applicant.
Alteration means any construction or physical change in the arrangement of rooms
or the supporting members of a building or structure or change in the relative position of
buildings or structures on a site, or substantial change in appearances of any building or
structure.
Car-share vehicle means a motor vehicle that is operated as part of a regional fleet
by a public or private car sharing company or organization and provides hourly or daily
service.
Common ownership or control means property owned or controlled by the same
person, persons, or entity, or by separate entities in which any shareholder, partner,
member, or family member of an investor of the entity owns ten percent or more of the
interest in the property.
Entry feature means a structural element, which leads to an entry door;
Existing structure means a lawfully constructed building that received final building
permit clearance prior to January 1, 2022, and which has not been expanded on or after
January 1, 2022.
First residential unit means one of two housing units developed under a two-unit
housing development, and can be an existing housing unit if it meets or is modified to meet
the 1,200-square foot floor area limitation on first residential units.
Nonconforming zoning condition means a physical improvement on a property that
does not conform with current zoning standards.
Two-unit housing development means an application proposing no more than two
primary dwelling units on a single parcel located within a single-family residential zone as
authorized by Government Code Section 65852.21. A two-unit housing development shall
consist of either the construction of no more than two new primary dwelling units, one new
primary dwelling unit and retention of one existing primary dwelling unit, or retention of
two existing legal non-conforming primary dwelling units where one or both units are
subject to a proposed addition or alteration.
Public transportation means a high-quality transit corridor, as defined in subdivision
(b) of Public Resources Code Section 21155, or a major transit stop, as defined in Public
Resources Code Section 21064.3.
Single-family residential zone means a “R-1 or Single-Family residential Zone”, “R-1D
or Single-Family Residential Downtown Zone”, or “HR or Hillside Residential Zone” as
specified in Article IV, “Residential Zones,” of the Zoning Code.
Subdivision Code means Chapter 24 of the Los Gatos Town Code.
Sufficient for separate conveyance means that each attached or adjacent dwelling
unit is constructed in a manner adequate to allow for the separate sale of each unit in a
4 of 15
Ordinance XXXX January 1, 2023
common interest development as defined in Civil Code Section 1351 (including a residential
condominium, planned development, stock cooperative, or community apartment project),
or into any other ownership type in which the dwelling units may be sold individually.
Urban lot split means a ministerial application for a parcel map to subdivide an
existing parcel located within a single-family residential zone into two parcels, as authorized
by Government Code Section 66411.7.
Zoning code means Chapter 29 of the Los Gatos Town Code.
Section 29.10.620. Eligibility. An urban lot split or a two-unit housing
development may only be created on parcels satisfying all of the following general
requirements:
A. Zoning District. A parcel that is located within a single-family residential
zone.
B. Legal Parcel. A parcel which has been legally created in compliance with the
Subdivision Map Act (Government Code Section 66410 et seq.) and the Town’s
Subdivision Regulations in effect at the time the parcel was created. Applications for
an urban lot split or two-unit housing development will only be accepted on proposed
parcels with either a recorded parcel map or certificate of compliance.
C. Excluding Historic Property. A parcel that does not contain a Historic
Structure, as defined Town Code Section 29.10.020, or is not listed on the Town of Los
Gatos Historic Resource Inventory, as defined by Town Code Chapter 29, Article VII,
Division 3, “Historic Preservation and LHP or Landmark and Historic Preservation
Overlay Zone.”
D. Excluding Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. A parcel that is not within a
very high fire hazard severity zone, as determined by the Department of Forestry and
Fire Protection pursuant to Government Code Section 51178, or within a high or very
high fire hazard severity zone as indicated on maps adopted by the Department of
Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 4202. This
subparagraph does not apply to sites excluded from the specified hazard zones by a
local agency, pursuant to subdivision (b) of Government Code Section 51179, or sites
that have adopted fire hazard mitigation measures pursuant to existing building
standards or State fire mitigation measures applicable to the development.
E. Excluding Hazardous Waste Sites. A parcel that is not identified as a
hazardous waste site pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 or a hazardous
waste site designated by the Department of Toxic Substances Control pursuant to
Health and Safety Code Section 25356, unless the State Department of Public Health,
State Water Resources Control Board, or Department of Toxic Substances Control has
cleared the site for residential use.
F. Excluding Earthquake Fault Zone. A parcel that is not located within a
delineated earthquake fault zone as determined by the State Geologist on any official
maps published by the State Geologist, unless the two-unit housing development
complies with applicable seismic protection building code standards adopted by the
California Building Standards Commission under the California Building Standards Law
5 of 15
Ordinance XXXX January 1, 2023
(Part 2.5 (commencing with Section 18901) of Health and Safety Code Division 13), and
by any local building department under Chapter 12.2 (commencing with Section 8875)
of Division 1 of Title 2.
G. Excluding Flood Zone. A parcel that is not located within a special flood
hazard area subject to inundation by the 1 percent annual chance flood (100-year
flood) on the official maps published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency
unless a Letter of Map Revision prepared by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency has been issued or if the proposed two-unit housing development is
constructed in compliance with the provisions of Town Code Chapter 29, Article XI,
“Floodplain Management,” as determined by the floodplain administrator.
H. Excluding Natural Habitat. A parcel that is not recognized by the Town as a
habitat for protected species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or species of special
status by State or Federal agencies, fully protected species, or species protected by the
Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. Sec. 1531 et seq.), the California
Endangered Species Act (Chapter 1.5 (commencing with Section 2050) of Division 3 of
the Fish and Game Code), or the Native Plant Protection Act (Chapter 10 (commencing
with Section 1900) of Division 2 of the Fish and Game Code).
I. Excluding Prime Farmland and Wetlands. A parcel that contains either prime
farmland or farmland of statewide importance, as defined pursuant to the United
States Department of Agriculture land inventory and monitoring criteria, as modified
for California, and designated on the maps prepared by the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the Department of Conservation, or land zoned or designated
for agricultural protection or preservation by a local ballot measure that was approved
by the voters of that jurisdiction; or wetlands, as defined in the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service Manual, Part 660 FW 2 (June 21, 1993).
Section 29.10.630. Requirements. Two-unit housing developments must
comply with the following objective zoning standards, design review standards, and
general requirements and restrictions.
A. Zoning Standards.The following objective zoning standards supersede any
other standards to the contrary that may be provided elsewhere in the Zoning Code, as
they pertain to a two-unit housing development under Government Code Section
65852.21. Two-unit housing developments shall be constructed only in accordance
with the following objective zoning standards, except as provided by Section D,
“Exceptions:”
1. Building Height. Maximum building height shall be as specified by the
applicable zoning district for the main structure. Buildings located within the required
side or rear setbacks of the applicable zoning district, and those located in the Hillside
Residential (HR) zones, shall not exceed 16 feet in height;
2. Driveways. Each parcel shall include a single driveway, and any new
driveway shall satisfy the following requirements:
a. A minimum width of 10 feet up to a maximum width of 18 feet. Driveways in
the Hillside Residential (HR) zones shall have a minimum width of 12 feet;
6 of 15
Ordinance XXXX January 1, 2023
b. A minimum depth of 25 feet measured from the front property line;
c. Surfacing shall comply with Town Code Section 29.10.155(e);
d. Only a single driveway curb-cut shall be permitted per parcel designed in
accordance with the Town’s Standard Specifications and Plans for Parks and Public
Works Construction; and
e. A maximum slope of 15 percent.
3. Dwelling Unit Type. The primary dwelling units comprising a two-unit
housing development may take the form of detached single-family dwellings, attached
units, and/or duplexes. A duplex may consist of two dwelling units in a side-by-side or
front-to-back configuration within the same structure or one dwelling unit located atop
another dwelling unit within the same structure;
4. Fencing. All new fencing shall comply with the requirements of Section
29.40.030 of the Zoning Code;
5. Floor Area Ratio and Lot Coverage. The maximum floor area ratio and lot
coverage shall be as specified by the applicable zoning regulations. The maximum size
of the first new residential unit shall not exceed 1,200 square feet. When a two-unit
housing development is proposed, a 10 percent increase in the floor area ratio
standards for residential structures is allowed, excluding garages, and this increase in
floor area cannot be combined with a separate increase for an Accessory Dwelling Unit
allowed by Town Code Section 29.10.320. The additional floor area allowed by this
subsection shall not exceed 1,200 square feet. Notwithstanding the floor area ratio
standards in this subsection, a new two-unit housing development with unit sizes of
800 square feet or less shall be permitted;
6. Grading. Grading activity shall not exceed the summation of 50 cubic yards,
cut plus fill, or require a grading permit per Town Code Chapter 12, Article II;
7. Cut and Fill. Two-unit housing developments shall be subject to the cut and
fill requirements specified by Table 1-1 (Cut and Fill Requirements) below:
Table 1-1 – Cut and Fill Requirements
Site Element Cut * Fill *
House and attached garage 8’ ** 3’
Detached accessory building * 4’ 3’
Driveways * 4’ 3’
Other (decks, yards) * 4’ 3’
* Combined depths of cut plus fill for development other
than the main residence shall be limited to 6 feet.
** Excludes below grade square footage pursuant to Section
29.40.072 of the Town Code.
8. Building Sites. The footprint of the proposed residential unit(s) and garage(s)
shall not be located on lands with an average slope exceeding 30 percent;
9. Retaining Walls. Retaining walls shall not exceed five feet in height and shall
not run in a straight continuous direction for more than 50 feet without a break, offset,
7 of 15
Ordinance XXXX January 1, 2023
or planting pocket. Retaining walls shall have a five-foot landscaped buffer adjacent to
the street;
10. Light Reflectivity Value. Exterior material colors for primary buildings and
garages in the Hillside Residential (HR) zones shall comply with requirements in
Chapter V, Section I, of the Town’s Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines;
11. Landscaping Requirement. All landscaping shall comply with the California
Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO);
12. Lighting. New exterior lighting fixtures shall be downward directed and
utilize shields so that no bulb is visible to ensure that the light is directed to the ground
surface and does not spill light onto neighboring parcels consistent with Section
29.10.09015 of the Zoning Code;
13. Trees. Any proposed work shall comply with the protection, removal, and
replacement requirements for protected trees in Chapter 29, Article 1, Division 2, “Tree
Protection,” of Town Code;
14. Minimum Living Area. The minimum living area of a primary dwelling unit
shall be 150 square feet, subject to the restrictions specified by Health and Safety Code
Section 17958.1;
15. Parking. One parking stall per primary dwelling unit shall be required,
except for two-unit housing developments located on parcels within one-half mile
walking distance of public transportation; or where there is a designated parking area
for one or more car-share vehicles within one block of the parcel. Parking stalls may
either be uncovered or covered (garage or carport) in compliance with applicable
developments standards of the Zoning Code, including Chapter 29, Article I, Division 4,
“Parking,” except that uncovered parking spaces may be provided in a front or side
setback abutting a street on a driveway (provided that it is feasible based on specific
site or fire and life safety conditions) or through tandem parking;
16. Setbacks. Two-unit housing developments shall be subject to the setback
and building separation requirements specified by Table 1-2 (Setback Requirements),
below:
Table 1-2 – Setback Requirements
Setback Requirement (2)
Property Line Setbacks (1) Front Per the applicable
zoning district.
Garage Entry 18 feet
Interior Sides 4 feet (3)
Rear
Street Side Per the applicable
zoning district.
Separation Between
Detached Structures (4)
5 feet
Exceptions:
(1) Cornices, eaves, belt courses, sills, canopies, bay windows, chimneys,
or other similar architectural features may extend into required setbacks
8 of 15
Ordinance XXXX January 1, 2023
17. Stormwater Management. The development shall comply with the
requirements of the Town's National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit as
implemented by Chapter 22 of the Town Code, and as demonstrated by a grading and
drainage plan prepared by a registered civil engineer; and
18. New units shall be designed as individual units, with separate gas, electric
and water utility connections directly between each dwelling unit and the utility.
B. Design Review Standards
The following objective design review standards apply to construction of new
primary dwelling units and to any addition and/or alteration to existing primary
dwelling units as part of a two-unit housing development, except as provided by
Subsection D below, “Exceptions:”
1. Balconies/Decks. Rooftop and second floor terraces and decks are
prohibited. Balconies shall only be permitted on the front- and street-side elevations
of a primary dwelling unit fronting a public street. Such balconies shall be without any
projections beyond the building footprint;
2. Finished Floor. The finished floor of the firststory shall not exceed three feet
in height as measured from finished grade;
3. Front Entryway. A front entryway framing a front door shall have a roof eave
that matches or connects at the level of the adjacent eave line;
4. Front Porch. If proposed, porches shall have a minimum depth of six feet
and a minimum width equal to 25 percent of the linear width of the front elevation;
5. Step-back. All elevations of the secondstory of a two-story primary dwelling
unit shall be recessed by five feet from the first-story, as measured wall to wall;
6. Garages. Street-facing attached garages shall not exceed 50 percent of the
linear width of the front-yard or street-side yard elevation;
7. Plate Height. The plate height of each story shall be limited to a maximum of
10 feet as measured from finished floor, and when above the first floor the plate height
shall be limited to a maximum of eight feet; and
8. Windows. All second-story windows less than 10 feet from rear and interior
side property lines shall be clerestory with the bottom of the glass at least six feet
above the finished floor except as necessary for egress purposes as required by the
Building Code.
as specified Section 29.40.070(b) of the Zoning Code.
(2) No setback shall be required for an existing structure, or a structure
constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as an
existing structure.
(3) No interior side setback shall be required for two-unit housing
development units constructed as attached units on separate lots,
provided that the structures meet building code safety standards and
are sufficient to allow separate conveyance as a separate fee parcel.
(4) Except for primary dwellings constructed as a duplex or attached
single-family residences.
9 of 15
Ordinance XXXX January 1, 2023
C. General Requirements and Restrictions
The following requirements and restrictions apply to all two-unit housing
developments, inclusive of existing and new primary dwelling units, except as provided
by Subsection D below, “Exceptions:”
1. Number of Units. A maximum of four units, with a maximum of two primary
dwelling units, on lots that have not undergone an urban lot split.
2. Accessory Dwelling Units. In addition to the two residential units allowed
under this section, consistent with Chapter 29, Article 1, Division 7, “Accessory Dwelling
Units,” of the Town Code, one accessory dwelling unit and one junior accessory
dwelling unit shall be allowed on lots that have not undergone an urban lot split.
3. Building and Fire Codes. The International Building Code (“Building Code”),
and the California Fire Code and International Fire Code (together, “Fire Code”), as
adopted by Chapter 6 of the Town Code, respectively, apply to all two-unit housing
developments.
4. Encroachment Permits. Separate encroachment permits, issued by the Parks
and Public Works Department, shall be required for the installation of utilities to serve
two-unit housing developments. Applicants shall apply for and pay all necessary fees
for utility permits for sanitary sewer, gas, water, electric, and all other utility work.
5. Restrictions on Demolition. The two-unit housing development shall not
require either demolition of more than 25 percent of the exterior walls or alteration of
any of the following types of housing:
a. Housing that is subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that
restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and families of moderate, low, or very low
income. This shall be evidenced by an attestation from the property owner;
b. Housing that is subject to any form of rent or price control through a public
entity’s valid exercise of its police power. This shall be evidenced by an attestation
from the property owner; or
c. Housing that has been occupied by a tenant in the last three years. This shall
be evidenced by an attestation from the property owner.
If any existing housing is proposed to be altered or demolished, the owner of
the property proposed for a two-unit housing development shall sign an affidavit,
stating that none of the conditions listed above exist and shall provide a
comprehensive history of the occupancy of the units to be altered or demolished for
the past three years (five years if an existing unit is to be demolished) on a form
prescribed by the Town.
If any existing dwelling unit is proposed to be demolished, the applicant shall
comply with the replacement housing provisions of Government Code Section
66300(d).
6. Recorded Covenant. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall
record a restrictive covenant in the form prescribed by the Town, which shall run with
the land and provide for the following:
a. A limitation restricting the property to residential uses only; and
b. A requirement that any dwelling units on the property may only be
rented for a period longer than thirty (30) days.
10 of 15
Ordinance XXXX January 1, 2023
D. Exceptions
If any of the provided zoning standards or design review standards
would have the effect of physically precluding construction of up to two primary
dwelling units or physically preclude either of the two primary dwelling units from being
at least 800 square feet in floor area, the Community Development Director shall grant
an exception to the applicable standard(s) to the minimum extent necessary as specified
by this section. An exception request shall be explicitly made on the application for a
two-unit housing development.
1. Determination. In order to retain adequate open space to allow for
recreational enjoyment, protection of the urban forest, preservation of the community
character, reduction of the ambient air temperature, and to allow for the percolation of
rainfall into the groundwater system, when considering an exception request, the
Community Development Director shall first determine that a reduction in any other
zoning and/or design review standard(s) will not allow the construction of the two-unit
housing development as specified by this section prior to allowing an exception(s) to the
landscaping requirement, front-yard setback, or street-side setbacks standards.
Section 29.10.640. Application Process for Two-Unit Housing Development.
Applications for two-unit housing developments shall be submitted and
processed in compliance with the following requirements:
1. Application Type. Two-unit housing developments shall be reviewed
ministerially by the Community Development Director for compliance with the
applicable regulations. The permitting provisions of Town Code Sections 29.20.135
through 29.20.160, “Architecture and Site Approval,” shall not be applied;
2. Application Filing. An application for a two-unit housing development,
including the required application materials and fees, shall be filed with the Community
Development Department;
3. Building Permits. Approval of a two-unit housing development application
shall be required prior to acceptance of an application for building permit(s) for the
new and/or modified primary dwelling units comprising the two-unit housing
development;
4. Denial. The Community Development Director may deny a two-unit housing
development project only if the Building Official makes a written finding, based upon a
preponderance of the evidence, that the two-unit housing development would have a
specific, adverse impact, as defined and determined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d)
of Government Code Section 65589.5, 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; and
5. Appeals. Two-unit housing application decisions are ministerial and are not
subject to an appeal.
Section 29.10.050. Subdivision Standards. Urban lot splits shall comply with the
following objective subdivision standards, and general requirements and restrictions:
11 of 15
Ordinance XXXX January 1, 2023
A. Subdivision Standards
The following objective subdivision standards supersede any other standards to
the contrary that may be provided in the Zoning Code or Subdivision Code, as they
pertain to creation of an urban lot split under Government Code Section 66411.7:
1. Flag/Corridor Lots. The access corridor of a flag/corridor lot (Town Code
Section 29.10.085) shall be in fee as part of the parcel and not as an easement and shall
be a minimum width of 20 feet;
2. Lot Lines. The new side lines of all lots shall be at right angles to streets or
radial to the centerline of curved streets;
3. Minimum Lot Size. Each new parcel shall be approximately equal in lot area
provided that one parcel shall not be smaller than 40 percent of the lot area of the
original parcel proposed for subdivision. In no event shall a new parcel be less than
1,200 square feet in lot area. The minimum lot area for a flag/corridor lot shall be
exclusive of the access corridor;
4. Minimum Lot Width. Each new parcel shall maintain a minimum lot width of
20 feet;
5. Minimum Public Frontage. Each new parcel shall have frontage upon a street
with a minimum frontage dimension of 20 feet;
6. Number of Lots. The parcel map to subdivide an existing parcel shall result in
no more than two parcels; and
7. Lot Merger. Lots resulting from an urban lot split shall not be merged unless
that lot merger can be done without loss of housing units and without causing a non-
conforming building, lot, or use.
B. General Requirements and Restrictions
The following requirements and restrictions apply to all proposed urban lot
splits:
1. Adjacent Parcels. Neither the owner of the parcel being subdivided nor any
person acting in concert with the owner has previously conducted an urban lot split to
create an adjacent parcel as provided for in this Division;
2. Dedication and Easements. 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;
3. Existing Structures. Existing structures located on a parcel subject to an
urban lot split shall not be subject to a setback requirement. However, any such
existing structures shall not be located across the shared property line resulting from
an urban lot split, unless the structure is converted to an attached unit as provided for
in Table 1-2 (Setback Requirements, Exception No. 3). All other existing structures shall
be modified, demolished, or relocated prior to recordation of a parcel map;
4. Intent to Occupy. The applicant shall submit a signed affidavit to the
Community Development Director attesting that the applicant intends to occupy one of
12 of 15
Ordinance XXXX January 1, 2023
the housing units on the newly created parcels as their principal residence for a
minimum of three years from either:
a. The date of the approval of the urban lot split when the intent is to live
in an existing residence; or
b. Certificate of occupancy when the intent is to occupy a newly
constructed residential unit.
This requirement shall not apply to an applicant that is a "community land
trust," as defined in clause (ii) of subparagraph (C) of paragraph (11) of subdivision (a)
of Section 402.1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, or a "qualified nonprofit
corporation" as described in Section 214.15 of the Revenue and Taxation Code;
5. Non-Conforming Conditions. The Town shall not require, as a condition of
approval, the correction of nonconforming zoning conditions. However, no new
nonconforming conditions may result from the urban lot split other than interior side
and rear setbacks as specified by Table 1-2 (Setback Requirements, Exception No. 2);
6. Number of Units. No more than two dwelling units may be located on any
lot created through an urban lot split, including primary dwelling units, accessory
dwelling units, junior accessory dwelling units, density bonus units, and units created as
two-unit developments. Any excess dwelling units that do not meet these
requirements shall be relocated, demolished, or otherwise removed prior to approval
of a parcel map;
7. Prior Subdivision. A parcel created through a prior urban lot split may not be
further subdivided. The subdivider shall submit a signed deed restriction to the
Community Development Director documenting this restriction. The deed restriction
shall be recorded on the title of each parcel concurrent with recordation of the parcel
map;
8. Restrictions on Demolition. The proposed urban lot split shall not require
either the demolition of more than 25 percent of the exterior walls or alteration of any
of the following types of housing:
a. Housing that is subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that
restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and families of moderate, low, or
very low income. This shall be evidenced by an attestation from the property
owner;
b. Housing that is subject to any form of rent or price control through a
public entity’s valid exercise of its police power. This shall be evidenced by an
attestation from the property owner; or
c. Housing that has been occupied by a tenant in the last three years.
This shall be evidenced by an attestation from the property owner;
If any existing housing is proposed to be altered or demolished, the owner of
the property proposed for an urban lot split shall sign an affidavit, stating that none of
the conditions listed above exist and shall provide a comprehensive history of the
occupancy of the units to be altered or demolished for the past three years (five years
if an existing unit is to be demolished) on a form prescribed by the Town. The owner
and applicant shall also sign an affidavit stating that neither the owner nor applicant,
13 of 15
Ordinance XXXX January 1, 2023
nor any person acting in concert with the owner or applicant, has previously
subdivided an adjacent parcel using and urban lot split;
9. Replacement Units. If any existing dwelling unit is proposed to be
demolished, the applicant will comply with the replacement housing provisions of
Government Code Section 66300(d);
10. Recorded Covenant. Prior to approval and recordation of the parcel map,
the applicant shall record a restrictive covenant and agreement in the form prescribed
by the Town, which shall run with the land and provide for the following:
a. A prohibition against further subdivision of the parcel using the urban
lot split procedures as provided for in this section;
b. A limitation restricting the properties to residential uses only; and
c. A requirement that any dwelling units on the property may not be
rented for a period longer than thirty (30) days.
11. Stormwater Management. The subdivision shall comply with the
requirements of the Town's National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit as
implemented by Chapter 22 of the Town Code, and as demonstrated by a grading and
drainage plan prepared by a registered civil engineer;
12. Utility Providers. The requirements of the parcel’s utility providers shall be
satisfied prior to recordation of a parcel map; and
13. Compliance with Subdivision Map Act. The urban lot split shall conform to
all applicable objective requirements of the Subdivision Map Act (commencing with
Government Code Section 66410), except as otherwise expressly provided in
Government Code Section 66411.7.
Section 29.10.060. Application Process for Urban Lot Splits.
Applications for urban lot splits shall be submitted and processed in compliance
with the following requirements:
1. Application Type. Urban lot splits shall be reviewed ministerially by the
Community Development Director for compliance with the applicable regulations. A
tentative parcel map shall not be required;
2. Application Filing. An urban lot split application, including the required
application materials and fees, shall be filed with the Community Development
Department;
3. Parcel Map. Approval of an urban lot split permit shall be required prior to
acceptance of an application for a parcel map for an urban lot split. Applicants shall
apply for an Urban Lot Split Parcel Map and pay all fees;
4. Development. Development on the resulting parcels is limited to a project
approved by the two-unit housing development process or through the Town’s
standard discretionary process;
5. Denial. The Community Development Director may deny an urban lot split
only if the Building Official makes a written finding, based upon a preponderance of the
evidence, that an urban lot split or two-unit housing development located on the
proposed new parcels would have a specific, adverse impact, as defined and
determined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 65589.5, upon public health
14 of 15
Ordinance XXXX January 1, 2023
and safety or the physical environment and for which there is no feasible method to
satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact; and
6. Appeals. Urban lot split application decisions are ministerial and are not
subject to an appeal.”
Section 29.10.070. Sunset Clause. If SB 9 is repealed or otherwise rescinded by
the California State Legislature or by the People of the State of California, this Division
shall be repealed.”
Section 3. CEQA. The Council finds and declares that this Ordinance is not
subject to environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act
("CEQA"). SB 9 (Atkins) states that an ordinance adopted to implement the rules of SB
9 is not considered a project under Public Resources Code Division 13 (commencing
with Section 21000) (See Government Code Sections 65858.210 and 66411.7(n)).
Section 4. Severability Clause. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause,
phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional or
otherwise invalid by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision
shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The Town
Council hereby declares that it would have adopted the remainder of this Ordinance,
including each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion irrespective of the
invalidity of any other article, section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion.
Section 5. Publication. The Town Clerk is directed to publish this Ordinance in a
newspaper of general circulation as required by State law. In lieu of publication of the full text
of the ordinance within fifteen (15) days after its passage, a summary of the ordinance may be
published at lest five (5) days prior to and fifteen (15) days after adoption by the Town Council
and a certified copy shall be posted in the office of the Town Clerk, pursuant to GC 36933(c)(1).
Section 6. Effective Date. This ordinance takes effect 30 days after adoption.
15 of 15
Ordinance XXXX January 1, 2023
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
SIGNED:
MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
DATE: __________________
ATTEST:
TOWN CLERK OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
DATE: __________________
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
EXHIBIT 2
EXHIBIT 3
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
EXHIBIT 4
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
California Department of Housing and Community Development
SB 9 Fact Sheet
On the Implementation of Senate Bill 9 (Chapter 162, Statutes of 2021)
Housing Policy Development Division
March 2022
EXHIBIT 5
California Department of Housing and Community Development – SB 9 Fact Sheet
1
This Fact Sheet is for informational purposes only and is not intended to implement or
interpret SB 9. HCD does not have authority to enforce SB 9, although violations of SB 9 may concurrently violate other housing laws where HCD does have enforcement
authority, including but not limited to the laws addressed in this document. As local
jurisdictions implement SB 9, including adopting local ordinances, it is important to keep
these and other housing laws in mind. The Attorney General may also take independent
action to enforce SB 9. For a full list of statutes over which HCD has enforcement authority, visit HCD’s Accountability and Enforcement webpage.
Executive Summary of SB 9
Senate Bill (SB) 9 (Chapter 162, Statutes of 2021) requires ministerial approval of a
housing development with no more than two primary units in a single-family zone, the
subdivision of a parcel in a single-family zone into two parcels, or both. SB 9 facilitates
the creation of up to four housing units in the lot area typically used for one single-family
home. SB 9 contains eligibility criteria addressing environmental site constraints (e.g.,
wetlands, wildfire risk, etc.), anti-displacement measures for renters and low-income
households, and the protection of historic structures and districts. Key provisions of the
law require a local agency to modify or eliminate objective development standards on a
project-by-project basis if they would prevent an otherwise eligible lot from being split or
prevent the construction of up to two units at least 800 square feet in size. For the
purposes of this document, the terms “unit,” “housing unit,” “residential unit,” and “housing
development” mean primary unit(s) unless specifically identified as an accessory dwelling
unit (ADU) or junior ADU or otherwise defined.
Single-Family Residential Zones Only
(Reference: Gov. Code, §§ 65852.21, subd. (a); 66411.7 subd. (a)(3)(A))
The parcel that will contain the proposed housing development or that will be subject to
the lot split must be located in a single-family residential zone. Parcels located in multi-
family residential, commercial, agricultural, mixed-use zones, etc., are not subject to SB
9 mandates even if they allow single-family residential uses as a permitted use. While
some zones are readily identifiable as single-family residential zones (e.g., R-1 “Single-
Family Residential”), others may not be so obvious. Some local agencies have multiple
single-family zones with subtle distinctions between them relating to minimum lot sizes or
allowable uses. In communities where there may be more than one single-family
residential zone, the local agency should carefully review the zone district descriptions in
the zoning code and the land use designation descriptions in the Land Use Element of
the General Plan. This review will enable the local agency to identify zones whose primary
purpose is single-family residential uses and which are therefore subject to SB 9.
Considerations such as minimum lot sizes, natural features such as hillsides, or the
permissibility of keeping horses should not factor into the determination.
California Department of Housing and Community Development – SB 9 Fact Sheet
2
Residential Uses Only
(Reference: Gov. Code, §§ 65852.21, subd. (a))
SB 9 concerns only proposed housing developments containing no more than two
residential units (i.e., one or two). The law does not otherwise change the allowable land
uses in the local agency’s single-family residential zone(s). For example, if the local
agency’s single-family zone(s) does not currently allow commercial uses such as hotels
or restaurants, SB 9 would not allow such uses.
Ministerial Review
(Reference: Gov. Code, §§ 65852.21, subd. (a); 66411.7, subds. (a), (b)(1))
An application made under SB 9 must be considered ministerially, without discretionary
review or a hearing. Ministerial review means a process for development approval
involving no personal judgment by the public official as to the wisdom of carrying out the
project. The public official merely ensures that the proposed development meets all the
applicable objective standards for the proposed action but uses no special discretion or
judgment in reaching a decision. A ministerial review is nearly always a “staff-level
review.” This means that a staff person at the local agency reviews the application, often
using a checklist, and compares the application materials (e.g., site plan, project
description, etc.) with the objective development standards, objective subdivision
standards, and objective design standards.
Objective Standards
(Reference: Gov. Code, §§ 65852.21, subd. (b); 66411.7, subd. (c))
The local agency may apply objective development standards (e.g., front setbacks and
heights), objective subdivision standards (e.g., minimum lot depths), and objective design
standards (e.g., roof pitch, eave projections, façade materials, etc.) as long as they would
not physically preclude either of the following:
Up to Two Primary Units. The local agency must allow up to two primary units
(i.e., one or two) on the subject parcel or, in the case of a lot split, up to two primary
units on each of the resulting parcels.
Units at least 800 square feet in size. The local agency must allow each primary
unit to be at least 800 square feet in size.
The terms “objective zoning standards,” “objective subdivision standards,” and “objective
design review standards” mean standards that involve no personal or subjective judgment
by a public official and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform
benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or
proponent and the public official prior to submittal. Any objective standard that would
physically preclude either or both of the two objectives noted above must be modified or
California Department of Housing and Community Development – SB 9 Fact Sheet
3
waived by the local agency in order to facilitate the development of the project, with the
following two exceptions:
Setbacks for Existing Structures. The local agency may not require a setback
for an existing structure or for a structure constructed in the same location and to
the same dimensions as an existing structure (i.e., a building reconstructed on the
same footprint).
Four-Foot Side and Rear Setbacks. SB 9 establishes an across-the-board
maximum four-foot side and rear setbacks. The local agency may choose to apply
a lesser setback (e.g., 0-4 feet), but it cannot apply a setback greater than four
feet. The local agency cannot apply existing side and rear setbacks applicable in
the single-family residential zone(s). Additionally, the four-foot side and rear
setback standards are not subject to modification. (Gov. Code, §§ 65852.21, subd.
(b)(2)(B); 66411.7, subdivision (c)(3).)
One-Unit Development
(Reference: Gov. Code, §§ 65852.21, subd. (a); 65852.21, subd. (b)(2)(A))
SB 9 requires the ministerial approval of either one or two residential units. Government
Code section 65852.21 indicates that the development of just one single-family home was
indeed contemplated and expected. For example, the terms “no more than two residential
units” and “up to two units” appear in the first line of the housing development-related
portion of SB 9 (Gov. Code, § 65852.21, subd. (a)) and in the line obligating local agencies
to modify development standards to facilitate a housing development. (Gov. Code, §
65852.21, subd. (b)(2)(A).)
Findings of Denial
(Reference: Gov. Code, §§ 65852.21, subd. (d); 66411.7, subd. (d))
SB 9 establishes a high threshold for the denial of a proposed housing development or
lot split. Specifically, a local agency’s building official must make a written finding, based
upon a preponderance of the evidence, that the proposed housing development would
have a specific, adverse impact, as defined in Government Code section 65589.5,
subdivision (d)(2), 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. “Specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and
unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety
standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed
complete. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (d)(2).)
California Department of Housing and Community Development – SB 9 Fact Sheet
4
Environmental Site Constraints
(Reference: Gov. Code, §§ 65852.21, subd. (a)(2) and (a)(6); 66411.7, subd. (a)(3)(C) and (a)(3)(E))
A proposed housing development or lot split is not eligible under SB 9 if the parcel
contains any of the site conditions listed in Government Code section 65913.4,
subdivision (a)(6)(B-K). Examples of conditions that may disqualify a project from using
SB 9 include the presence of farmland, wetlands, fire hazard areas, earthquake hazard
areas, flood risk areas, conservation areas, wildlife habitat areas, or conservation
easements. SB 9 incorporates by reference these environmental site constraint
categories that were established with the passing of the Streamlined Ministerial Approval
Process (SB 35, Chapter 366, Statutes of 2017). Local agencies may consult HCD’s
Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process Guidelines for additional detail on how to
interpret these environmental site constraints.
Additionally, a project is not eligible under SB 9 if it is located in a historic district or
property included on the State Historic Resources Inventory or within a site that is
designated or listed as a city or county landmark or as a historic property or district
pursuant to a city or county ordinance.
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Reference: Gov. Code, §§ 65852.21, subd. (j); 66411.7, subd. (n))
Because the approval of a qualifying project under SB 9 is deemed a ministerial action,
CEQA does not apply to the decision to grant an application for a housing development
or a lot split, or both. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21080, subd. (b)(1) [CEQA does not apply
to ministerial actions]; CEQA Guidelines, § 15268.) For this reason, a local agency must
not require an applicant to perform environmental impact analysis under CEQA for
applications made under SB 9. Additionally, if a local agency chooses to adopt a local
ordinance to implement SB 9 (instead of implementing the law directly from statute), the
preparation and adoption of the ordinance is not considered a project under CEQA. In
other words, the preparation and adoption of the ordinance is statutorily exempt from
CEQA.
Anti-Displacement Measures
(Reference: Gov. Code, §§ 65852.21, subd. (a)(3); 66411.7, subd. (a)(3)(D))
A site is not eligible for a proposed housing development or lot split if the project would
require demolition or alteration of any of the following types of housing: (1) housing that
is subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to levels affordable
to persons and families of moderate, low, or very low income; (2) housing that is subject
to any form of rent or price control through a public entity’s valid exercise of its police
power; or (3) housing that has been occupied by a tenant in the last three years.
California Department of Housing and Community Development – SB 9 Fact Sheet
5
Lot Split Requirements
(Reference: Gov. Code, § 66411.7)
SB 9 does not require a local agency to approve a parcel map that would result in the
creation of more than two lots and more than two units on a lot resulting from a lot split
under Government Code section 66411.7. A local agency may choose to allow more than
two units, but it is not required to under the law. A parcel may only be subdivided once
under Government Code section 66411.7. This provision prevents an applicant from
pursuing multiple lot splits over time for the purpose of creating more than two lots. SB 9
also does not require a local agency to approve a lot split if an adjacent lot has been
subject to a lot split in the past by the same property owner or a person working in concert
with that same property owner.
Accessory Dwelling Units
(Reference: Gov. Code, §§ 65852.21, subd. (j); 66411.7, subd. (f))
SB 9 and ADU Law (Gov. Code, §§ 65852.2 and 65858.22) are complementary. The
requirements of each can be implemented in ways that result in developments with both
“SB 9 Units” and ADUs. However, specific provisions of SB 9 typically overlap with State
ADU Law only to a limited extent on a relatively small number of topics. Treating the
provisions of these two laws as identical or substantially similar may lead a local agency
to implement the laws in an overly restrictive or otherwise inaccurate way.
“Units” Defined. The three types of housing units that are described in SB 9 and related
ADU Law are presented below to clarify which development scenarios are (and are not)
made possible by SB 9. The definitions provided are intended to be read within the context
of this document and for the narrow purpose of implementing SB 9.
Primary Unit. A primary unit (also called a residential dwelling unit or residential
unit) is typically a single-family residence or a residential unit within a multi-family
residential development. A primary unit is distinct from an ADU or a Junior ADU.
Examples of primary units include a single-family residence (i.e., one primary unit),
a duplex (i.e., two primary units), a four-plex (i.e., four primary units), etc.
Accessory Dwelling Unit. An ADU is an attached or a detached residential dwelling
unit that provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons
and is located on a lot with a proposed or existing primary residence. It includes
permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation on the
same parcel on which the single-family or multifamily dwelling is or will be situated.
Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit. A Junior ADU is a unit that is no more than 500
square feet in size and contained entirely within a single-family residence. A Junior
ADU may include separate sanitation facilities or may share sanitation facilities
with the existing structure.
California Department of Housing and Community Development – SB 9 Fact Sheet
6
The terms “unit,” “housing unit,” “residential unit,” and “housing development” mean
primary unit(s) unless specifically identified as an ADU or Junior ADU or otherwise
defined. This distinction is critical to successfully implementing SB 9 because state law
applies different requirements (and provides certain benefits) to ADUs and Junior ADUs
that do not apply to primary units.
Number of ADUs Allowed. ADUs can be combined with primary units in a variety of
ways to achieve the maximum unit counts provided for under SB 9. SB 9 allows for up to
four units to be built in the same lot area typically used for a single-family home. The
calculation varies slightly depending on whether a lot split is involved, but the outcomes
regarding total maximum unit counts are identical.
Lot Split. When a lot split occurs, the local agency must allow up to two units on
each lot resulting from the lot split. In this situation, all three unit types (i.e., primary
unit, ADU, and Junior ADU) count toward this two-unit limit. For example, the limit
could be reached on each lot by creating two primary units, or a primary unit and
an ADU, or a primary unit and a Junior ADU. By building two units on each lot, the
overall maximum of four units required under SB 9 is achieved. (Gov. Code, §
66411.7, subd. (j).) Note that the local agency may choose to allow more than two
units per lot if desired.
No Lot Split. When a lot split has not occurred, the lot is eligible to receive ADUs
and/or Junior ADUs as it ordinarily would under ADU law. Unlike when a project is
proposed following a lot split, the local agency must allow, in addition to one or two
primary units under SB 9, ADUs and/or JADUs under ADU Law. It is beyond the
scope of this document to identify every combination of primary units, ADUs, and
Junior ADUs possible under SB 9 and ADU Law. However, in no case does SB 9
require a local agency to allow more than four units on a single lot, in any
combination of primary units, ADUs, and Junior ADUs.
See HCD’s ADU and JADU webpage for more information and resources.
Relationship to Other State Housing Laws
SB 9 is one housing law among many that have been adopted to encourage the
production of homes across California. The following represent some, but not necessarily
all, of the housing laws that intersect with SB 9 and that may be impacted as SB 9 is
implemented locally.
Housing Element Law. To utilize projections based on SB 9 toward a jurisdiction’s
regional housing need allocation, the housing element must: 1) include a site-specific
inventory of sites where SB 9 projections are being applied, 2) include a nonvacant sites
analysis demonstrating the likelihood of redevelopment and that the existing use will not
constitute an impediment for additional residential use, 3) identify any governmental
constraints to the use of SB 9 in the creation of units (including land use controls, fees,
California Department of Housing and Community Development – SB 9 Fact Sheet
7
and other exactions, as well as locally adopted ordinances that impact the cost and supply
of residential development), and 4) include programs and policies that establish zoning
and development standards early in the planning period and implement incentives to
encourage and facilitate development. The element should support this analysis with local
information such as local developer or owner interest to utilize zoning and incentives
established through SB 9. Learn more on HCD’s Housing Elements webpage.
Housing Crisis Act of 2019. An affected city or county is limited in its ability to amend
its general plan, specific plans, or zoning code in a way that would improperly reduce the
intensity of residential uses. (Gov. Code, § 66300, subd. (b)(1)(A).) This limitation applies
to residential uses in all zones, including single-family residential zones. “Reducing the
intensity of land use” includes, but is not limited to, reductions to height, density, or floor
area ratio, new or increased open space or lot size requirements, new or increased
setback requirements, minimum frontage requirements, or maximum lot coverage
limitations, or any other action that would individually or cumulatively reduce the site’s
residential development capacity. (Gov. Code, § 66300, subd. (b)(1)(A).)
A local agency should proceed with caution when adopting a local ordinance that would
impose unique development standards on units proposed under SB 9 (but that would not
apply to other developments). Any proposed modification to an existing development
standard applicable in the single-family residential zone must demonstrate that it would
not result in a reduction in the intensity of the use. HCD recommends that local agencies
rely on the existing objective development, subdivision, and design standards of its single-
family residential zone(s) to the extent possible. Learn more about Designated
Jurisdictions Prohibited from Certain Zoning-Related Actions on HCD’s website.
Housing Accountability Act. Protections contained in the Housing Accountability Act
(HAA) and the Permit Streaming Act (PSA) apply to housing developments pursued under
SB 9. (Gov. Code, §§ 65589.5; 65905.5; 65913.10; 65940 et seq.) The definition of
“housing development project” includes projects that involve no discretionary approvals
and projects that include a proposal to construct a single dwelling unit. (Gov. Code, §
65905.5, subd. (b)(3).) For additional information about the HAA and PSA, see HCD’s
Housing Accountability Act Technical Assistance Advisory.
Rental Inclusionary Housing. Government Code section 65850, subdivision (g),
authorizes local agencies to adopt an inclusionary housing ordinance that includes
residential rental units affordable to lower- and moderate-income households. In certain
circumstances, HCD may request the submittal of an economic feasibility study to ensure
the ordinance does not unduly constrain housing production. For additional information,
see HCD’s Rental Inclusionary Housing Memorandum.
SB 9 Model Ordinance
Note: Unless otherwise noted, provisions in this document reflect the provisions in SB 9.
“Recommended” Provisions are recommended to clarify ambiguities in the statute or assist in
enforcement. “Policy” Provisions are optional provisions for local agencies to consider.
ORDINANCE NO. XXXX1
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF _________ AMENDING SECTIONS ___ AND ADDING SECTIONS ___ TO THE CITY OF __________ MUNICIPAL CODE TO COMPLY WITH SENATE BILL 9
WHEREAS, on September 16, 2021, Senate Bill 9 (Chapter 162, Statutes of 2021) was
approved by the Governor of the State of California and filed with the Secretary of State,
amending Section 66452.6 of the California Government Code and adding to the Government
Code Sections 65852.21 and 66411.7, allowing additional housing units on properties within
single-family zones and providing for parcel map approval of an Urban Lot Split; and
WHEREAS, the changes made to the Government Code by Senate Bill 9 go into effect
on January 1, 2022; and
WHEREAS, state law allows a local agency to adopt an ordinance to implement the
provisions in Senate Bill 9; and
WHEREAS, the [City/County of _________ (the “City”/the “County”)] has implemented
land use policies based on the [City’s/County’s General Plan], which provide an overall vision
for the community and balance important community needs, and the [City/County] seeks to
ensure that Senate Bill 9 projects are consistent with those policies; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments to the [City of _______ Municipal Code/County
of ______ County Code] implement requirements of state law and add local policies that are
consistent with the state law and implement the [City’s/County’s General Plan]; and
1 Local agencies should consult with their legal counsel prior to the use or implementation of this model ordinance,
conformance with standard ordinance formats, and any provisions outlined herein. This ordinance is drafted as a
regular ordinance, not an urgency ordinance, includes only substantive provisions to be considered, and does not
include standard provisions such as a severability clause, publication, dates of introduction and adoption, and votes,
which vary from agency to agency,
EXHIBIT 6
SB 9 Model Ordinance
2
WHEREAS, the [City Council/Board of Supervisors] has found that the provisions of this
ordinance are consistent with the goals and policies of the [City’s/County’s General Plan]; and
WHEREAS, the proposed code amendments are intended to implement Senate Bill 9 and
are not considered a project under Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public
Resources Code, as provided in Government Code Sections 65852.21(j) and 66511.7(n).2
NOW, THEREFORE, THE [CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ________ /the
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF ________] DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Purpose.
The purpose of this chapter is to provide objective zoning standards for Two-Unit Developments
and Urban Lot Splits within single-family residential zones, to implement the provisions of state
law as reflected in Government Code Section 65852.21 et seq. and Section 66411.7 et seq., and
to facilitate the development of new residential housing units consistent with the
[City’s/County’s General Plan] and ensure sound standards of public health and safety.
Section 2. Authority.
The City Council enacts this ordinance under the authority granted to cities by Article XI,
Section 7 of the California Constitution and Government Code Sections 65852.21 et seq. and
66411.7 et seq. [If a city.]
Section 3. Definitions.
A. [Recommended provision] A person “acting in concert with the owner,” as
used in Section 4(B)(8) below, means a person that has common ownership or control of the
subject parcel with the owner of the adjacent parcel, a person acting on behalf of, acting for the
predominant benefit of, acting on the instructions of, or actively cooperating with, the owner of
the parcel being subdivided.
B. [Recommended provision] “Adjacent parcel” means any parcel of land
that is (1) touching the parcel at any point; (2) separated from the parcel at any point only by a
2 Note that these Government Code Sections are not effective until January 1, 2022. Cities and counties adopting
ordinances before that date should include additional exemptions. For instance, in urbanized areas, the proposed
code amendments may be found to be categorically exempt from CEQA under Guidelines Section 15303, New
Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, which provides an exemption for up to three single-family homes
and to duplexes and apartments containing no more than six units.
SB 9 Model Ordinance
3
public right-of-way, private street or way, or public or private utility, service, or access
easement; or (3) separated from another parcel only by other real property which is in common
ownership or control of the applicant.
C. [Recommended provision] “Car share vehicle” means a motor vehicle that
is operated as part of a regional fleet by a public or private care sharing company or organization
and provides hourly or daily service.
D. [Recommended provision] “Common ownership or control” means
property owned or controlled by the same person, persons, or entity, or by separate entities in
which any shareholder, partner, member, or family member of an investor of the entity owns
ten percent or more of the interest in the property.
E. [Recommended provision] “Lower income household” has the meaning
set forth in Health & Safety Code Section 50079.5.
F. [Recommended provision] “Moderate income household” has the meaning
set forth in Health & Safety Code Section 50093.
G. [Recommended provision] “Sufficient for separate conveyance,” as used
in Sections 4(B)(11) and 5(B)(8) below, means that each attached or adjacent dwelling unit is
constructed in a manner adequate to allow for the separate sale of each unit in a common interest
development as defined in Civil Code Section 1351 (including a residential condominium,
planned development, stock cooperative, or community apartment project), or into any other
ownership type in which the dwelling units may be sold individually.
H. “Two-Unit Development” means a development that proposes no more
than two new units or proposes to add one new unit to one existing unit.
I. “Urban Lot Split” means a subdivision of an existing parcel into no more
than two separate parcels that meets all the criteria and standards set forth in this chapter.
J. [Recommended provision] “Very low income household” has the meaning
set forth in Health & Safety Code Section 50105.
SB 9 Model Ordinance
4
Section 4. Urban Lot Split.3
A. The [--] Official4 shall ministerially review an application for a parcel map
that subdivides an existing parcel to create no more than two new parcels in an Urban Lot Split,
and shall approve the application if the criteria in Government Code Section 66411.7 and this
section are satisfied.
B. Qualifying Criteria. Within the time required by the Subdivision Map
Act, the [] shall determine if the parcel map for the Urban Lot Split meets all the following
requirements:
1. The parcel is located within one of the following single-family
residential zones: ______________.
2. The parcel being subdivided is not located on a site that is any of
the following:
i. Either prime farmland or farmland of statewide importance, as
defined pursuant to United States Department of Agriculture land
inventory and monitoring criteria, as modified for California, and
designated on the maps prepared by the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the Department of Conservation, or land
zoned or designated for agricultural protection or preservation by a
local ballot measure that was approved by the voters of that
jurisdiction.
ii. Wetlands, as defined in the United States Fish and Wildlife Service
Manual, Part 660 FW 2 (June 21, 1993).
iii. Within a very high fire hazard severity zone, as determined by the
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to Section
51178 of the Government Code, or within a high or very high fire
hazard severity zone as indicated on maps adopted by the
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to Section
4202 of the Public Resources Code. This subparagraph does not
3 Local agencies may wish to change their use provisions in addition to, or as an alternative to, listing the zoning
districts in the text.
4 Counties may also wish to designate the specific areas that are designated as urbanized areas or urban clusters, in
addition to designating the applicable zoning districts.
SB 9 Model Ordinance
5
apply to sites excluded from the specified hazard zones by the
[city/county], pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 51179 of the
Government Code, or sites that have adopted fire hazard mitigation
measures pursuant to existing building standards or state fire
mitigation measures applicable to the development.5
iv. A hazardous waste site that is listed pursuant to Section 65962.5 of
the Government Code or a hazardous waste site designated by the
Department of Toxic Substances Control pursuant to Section
25356 of the Health and Safety Code, unless the State Department
of Public Health, State Water Resources Control Board, or
Department of Toxic Substances Control has cleared the site for
residential use or residential mixed uses.
v. Within a delineated earthquake fault zone as determined by the
State Geologist in any official maps published by the State
Geologist, unless the development complies with applicable
seismic protection building code standards adopted by the
California Building Standards Commission under the California
Building Standards Law (Part 2.5 (commencing with Section
18901) of Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code), and by the
building department under Chapter 12.2 (commencing with
Section 8875) of Division 1 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
vi. Within a special flood hazard area subject to inundation by the 1
percent annual chance flood (100-year flood) as determined by the
Federal Emergency Management Agency in any official maps
published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. If a
development proponent is able to satisfy all applicable federal
qualifying criteria in order to provide that the site satisfies this
subparagraph, the [city/county] shall not deny the application on
the basis that the development proponent did not comply with any
additional permit requirement, standard, or action adopted by the
[city/county] that is applicable to that site. A development may be
located on a site described in this subparagraph if either of the
following are met (1) the site has been subject to a Letter of Map
Revision prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency
and issued to the [city/county]; or (2) the site meets Federal
5 The local agency may wish to specify the relevant standards for very high fire hazard areas, hazardous waste sites,
earthquake fault zones, flood hazard areas and floodways.
SB 9 Model Ordinance
6
Emergency Management Agency requirements necessary to meet
minimum flood plain management criteria of the National Flood
Insurance Program pursuant to Part 59 (commencing with Section
59.1) and Part 60 (commencing with Section 60.1) of Subchapter B
of Chapter I of Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
vii. Within a regulatory floodway as determined by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency in any official maps published by
the Federal Emergency Management Agency, unless the
development has received a no-rise certification in accordance with
Section 60.3(d)(3) of Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
If a development proponent is able to satisfy all applicable federal
qualifying criteria in order to provide that the site satisfies this
subparagraph and is otherwise eligible for streamlined approval
under this section, the [city/county] shall not deny the application
on the basis that the development proponent did not comply with
any additional permit requirement, standard, or action adopted by
the [city/county] that is applicable to that site.
viii. Lands identified for conservation in an adopted natural community
conservation plan pursuant to the Natural Community
Conservation Planning Act (Chapter 10 (commencing with Section
2800) of Division 3 of the Fish and Game Code), habitat
conservation plan pursuant to the federal Endangered Species Act
of 1973 (16 U.S.C. Sec. 1531 et seq.), or other adopted natural
resource protection plan.
ix. Habitat for protected species identified as candidate, sensitive, or
species of special status by state or federal agencies, fully
protected species, or species protected by the federal Endangered
Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. Sec. 1531 et seq.), the California
Endangered Species Act (Chapter 1.5 (commencing with Section
2050) of Division 3 of the Fish and Game Code), or the Native
Plant Protection Act (Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 1900)
of Division 2 of the Fish and Game Code).
x. Lands under conservation easement.
SB 9 Model Ordinance
7
3. Both resulting parcels are no smaller than 1,200 square feet.6
4. Neither resulting parcel shall be smaller than 40 percent of the lot
area of the parcel proposed for the subdivision.
5. The proposed lot split would not require demolition or alteration of
any of the following types of housing:
i. Housing that is subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law
that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and families of
moderate, low- or very low-income.
ii. Housing that is subject to any form of rent or price control through
a public entity’s valid exercise of its police power.
iii. A parcel or parcels on which an owner of residential real property
has exercised the owner’s rights under Chapter 12.75
(commencing with Section 7060) of Division 7 of Title 1 of the
Government Code to withdraw accommodations from rent or lease
within 15 years before the date that the development proponent
submits an application.
iv. Housing that has been occupied by a tenant in the last three years.
6. The parcel is not located within a historic district or property
included on the State Historic Resources Inventory, as defined in Public Resources Code Section
5020.1, or within a site that is designated or listed as a [city/county] landmark or historic
property or historic district pursuant to a [city/county] ordinance.7
7. The parcel being subdivided was not created by an Urban Lot Split
as provided in this section.
8. Neither the owner of the parcel being subdivided nor any person
acting in concert with the owner has previously subdivided an adjacent parcel using an Urban
Lot Split as provided in this section.
9. The development proposed on the parcels complies with all
objective zoning standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design review
6 Agencies may allow smaller lots if desired.
7 Local agencies may wish to specify which ordinance or code section designates historic properties.
SB 9 Model Ordinance
8
standards applicable to the parcel as provided in the zoning district in which the parcel is
located8; provided, however, that:
i. The [--] Official, or their designee, shall waive or modify any
standard if the standard would have the effect of physically
precluding the construction of two units on either of the resulting
parcels created pursuant to this chapter or would result in a unit
size of less than 800 square feet. Any modifications of
development standards shall be the minimum modification
necessary to avoid physically precluding two units of 800 square
feet each on each parcel.
ii. Notwithstanding subsection (9)(i) above, required rear and side
yard setbacks shall equal four feet,9 except that no setback shall be
required for an existing legally created structure or a structure
constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as an
existing legally created structure.
10. Each resulting parcel shall have access to, provide access to, or
adjoin the public right-of-way.10
11. Proposed adjacent or connected dwelling units shall be permitted if
they meet building code safety standards and are designed sufficient to allow separate
conveyance. [Recommended provision] The proposed dwelling units shall provide a separate
gas, electric and water utility connection directly between each dwelling unit and the utility.
12. Parking. One parking space11 shall be required per unit
constructed on a parcel created pursuant to the procedures in this section, except that no parking
may be required where:
i. The parcel is located within one-half mile walking distance of
either a stop located in a high-quality transit corridor, as defined in
Public Resources Code Section 21155(b), or a major transit stop,
as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21064.3; or
ii. There is a designated parking area for one or more car-share
vehicles within one block of the parcel.
8 Local agencies may wish to specify which ordinance(s) or code section(s) designate these objective standards.
9 Localities may allow a smaller setback if desired.
10 Local agencies may wish to impose frontage requirements or requirements for access to the public right of way,
such as the required width of a driveway.
11 Agencies may reduce parking standards if desired.
SB 9 Model Ordinance
9
13. Compliance with Subdivision Map Act. The Urban Lot Split
shall conform to all applicable objective requirements of the Subdivision Map Act (commencing
with Government Code Section 66410)), except as otherwise expressly provided in Government
Code Section 66411.7. Notwithstanding Government Code Section 66411.1, no dedications of
rights-of-way or the construction of offsite improvements may be required as a condition of
approval for an Urban Lot Split, although easements may be required for the provision of public
services and facilities.
14. The correction of nonconforming zoning conditions may not be
required as a condition of approval.
15. Parcels created by an Urban Lot Split may be used for residential
uses only and may not be used for rentals of less than 30 days.
16. [Recommended provision] If any existing dwelling unit is
proposed to be demolished, the applicant will comply with the replacement housing provisions of
Government Code Section 66300(d).
C. Owner-Occupancy Affidavit. The applicant for an Urban Lot Split shall
sign an affidavit, in the form approved by the [city attorney/county counsel], stating that the
applicant intends to occupy one of the housing units on the newly created lots as its principal
residence for a minimum of three years from the date of the approval of the Urban Lot Split. This
subsection shall not apply to an applicant that is a “community land trust,” as defined in clause
(ii) of subparagraph (C) of paragraph (11) of subdivision (a) of Section 402.1 of the Revenue and
Taxation Code or is a “qualified nonprofit corporation” as described in Section 214.15 of the
Revenue and Taxation Code.
D. [Recommended provision] Additional Affidavit12. If any existing housing
is proposed to be altered or demolished, the owner of the property proposed for an Urban Lot
Split shall sign an affidavit, in the form approved by the [city attorney/county counsel], stating
that none of the conditions listed in Section (4)(B)(5) above exist and shall provide a
comprehensive history of the occupancy of the units to be altered or demolished for the past
three years (five years if an existing unit is to be demolished) on a form prescribed by [ ]. The
owner and applicant shall also sign an affidavit stating that neither the owner nor applicant, nor
any person acting in concert with the owner or applicant, has previously subdivided an adjacent
parcel using an Urban Lot Split.
12 Local agencies may want to include a provision that indicates enforcement/legal remedies where there is evidence
of fraudulent intent. misrepresentation, etc.
SB 9 Model Ordinance
10
E. [Recommended provision] Recorded Covenant. Prior to the approval and
recordation of the parcel map, the applicant shall record a restrictive covenant and agreement in
the form prescribed by the [city attorney/county counsel], which shall run with the land and
provide for the following:
1. A prohibition against further subdivision of the parcel using the
Urban Lot Split procedures as provided for in this section;
2. A limitation restricting the property to residential uses only; and
3. A requirement that any dwelling units on the property may be
rented or leased only for a period longer than thirty (30) days.
The City Manager/County Administrator or designee is authorized to enter into the covenant and
agreement on behalf of the City/County and to deliver any approvals or consents required by the
covenant.
F. Specific Adverse Impacts. In addition to the criteria listed in this section,
a proposed Urban Lot Split may be denied if the building official makes a written finding, based
on a preponderance of the evidence, that the proposed housing development project would have
a specific, adverse impact upon public health and safety or the physical environment, for which
there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact. A
“specific adverse impact” is a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on
objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they
existed on the date the application was deemed complete. Inconsistency with the zoning
ordinance or general plan land use designation and eligibility to claim a welfare exemption are
not specific health or safety impacts.
G. Enforcement. The City Attorney/County Counsel shall be authorized to
abate violations of this chapter and to enforce the provisions of this chapter and all implementing
agreements and affidavits by civil action, injunctive relief, and any other proceeding or method
permitted by law. Remedies provided for in this chapter shall not preclude the City/County from
any other remedy or relief to which it otherwise would be entitled under law or equity.
[POLICY CONSIDERATIONS]
1. Number of units to be allowed on each parcel. If a parcel uses the Urban Lot
Split provision, a local agency does not need to allow more than two units on each
lot, including ADUs, JADUs, density bonus units, and two-unit developments. If
an agency desires to take advantage of this provision, it should adopt the
following:
SB 9 Model Ordinance
11
No more than two dwelling units may be located on any lot created
through an Urban Lot Split, including primary dwelling units, accessory
dwelling units, junior accessory dwelling units, density bonus units, and
units created as a two-unit development.
Jurisdictions do have the option of allowing additional units, likely ADUs or
JADUs, on these lots. Agencies may wish to consider this for large lots, or in
exchange for the applicant’s agreement to record a covenant restricting sale or
rental of the ADU to moderate- or lower-income households.
Another alternative is to consider allowing an ADU and JADU with a primary
dwelling unit on one lot, rather than two primary dwelling units.
2. Design standards, such as standards for building size, height, materials, roof
forms, etc. Standards considered by some agencies include limits on dwelling
unit size and height, distance between structures, and design requirements such as
roof slope and materials matching existing structures.
These standards cannot be imposed, however, if they would prevent the
construction of units totaling 800 sf each. In addition, the Housing Crisis Act of
2019 (Government Code Section 66300) does not permit reductions in height,
floor area ratio, lot coverage, or any other change that would reduce a site’s
residential development capacity below that existing on January 1, 2018.
Consequently, height, size, and similar restrictions on units created through Urban
Lot Splits should be limited to units that do not meet existing zoning standards.
Affordable units. There is nothing in SB 9 that expressly prohibits the
imposition of affordability requirements. One consideration prior to the
imposition of such requirements would be whether the Urban Lot Splits would
still be economically feasible if affordability were required. Ultimately, local
agencies should consult with their legal counsel prior to imposing such
requirements.
SB 9 Model Ordinance
12
Section 5. Two-Unit Development.
A. The [--] Official13 shall ministerially review without a hearing an
application for an application for a Two-Unit Development, and shall approve the application if
all the criteria in Government Code Section 65852.21 and this section are satisfied.
B. Qualifying Criteria. The [] shall determine if the Two-Unit Development
meets all the following requirements:
1. The Two-Unit Development is located within one of the following
single-family residential zones: ______________.[for counties: also must be located within the
boundaries of an urbanized area or urban cluster].
2. The Two-Unit Development is not located on a site that is any of
the following
i. Either prime farmland or farmland of statewide importance, as
defined pursuant to United States Department of Agriculture land
inventory and monitoring criteria, as modified for California, and
designated on the maps prepared by the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the Department of Conservation, or land
zoned or designated for agricultural protection or preservation by a
local ballot measure that was approved by the voters of that
jurisdiction.14
ii. Wetlands, as defined in the United States Fish and Wildlife Service
Manual, Part 660 FW 2 (June 21, 1993).
iii. Within a very high fire hazard severity zone, as determined by the
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to Section
51178 of the Government Code, or within a high or very high fire
hazard severity zone as indicated on maps adopted by the
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to Section
4202 of the Public Resources Code. This subparagraph does not
13 Local agencies may wish to change their use provisions in addition to, or as an alternative to, listing the zoning
districts in the text. Counties may also wish to designate the specific areas that are designated as urbanized areas or
urban clusters, or reference a website showing those areas, in addition to designating the applicable zoning districts.
14 Would be best to specify the local ballot measure.
SB 9 Model Ordinance
13
apply to sites excluded from the specified hazard zones by
the[city/county], pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 51179 of
the Government Code, or sites that have adopted fire hazard
mitigation measures pursuant to existing building standards or state
fire mitigation measures applicable to the development.15
iv. A hazardous waste site that is listed pursuant to Section 65962.5 of
the Government Code or a hazardous waste site designated by the
Department of Toxic Substances Control pursuant to Section
25356 of the Health and Safety Code, unless the State Department
of Public Health, State Water Resources Control Board, or
Department of Toxic Substances Control has cleared the site for
residential use or residential mixed uses.
v. Within a delineated earthquake fault zone as determined by the
State Geologist in any official maps published by the State
Geologist, unless the development complies with applicable
seismic protection building code standards adopted by the
California Building Standards Commission under the California
Building Standards Law (Part 2.5 (commencing with Section
18901) of Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code), and by any
local building department under Chapter 12.2 (commencing with
Section 8875) of Division 1 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
vi. Within a special flood hazard area subject to inundation by the 1
percent annual chance flood (100-year flood) as determined by the
Federal Emergency Management Agency in any official maps
published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. If a
development proponent is able to satisfy all applicable federal
qualifying criteria in order to provide that the site satisfies this
subparagraph, the [city/county] shall not deny the application on
the basis that the development proponent did not comply with any
additional permit requirement, standard, or action adopted by the
[city/county] that is applicable to that site. A development may be
located on a site described in this subparagraph if either of the
following are met (1) the site has been subject to a Letter of Map
Revision prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency
and issued to the [city/county]; or (2) the site meets Federal
15 The local agency may wish to specify the relevant standards for very high fire hazard areas, hazardous waste sites,
earthquake fault zones, flood hazard areas and floodways.
SB 9 Model Ordinance
14
Emergency Management Agency requirements necessary to meet
minimum flood plain management criteria of the National Flood
Insurance Program pursuant to Part 59 (commencing with Section
59.1) and Part 60 (commencing with Section 60.1) of Subchapter B
of Chapter I of Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
vii. Within a regulatory floodway as determined by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency in any official maps published by
the Federal Emergency Management Agency, unless the
development has received a no-rise certification in accordance with
Section 60.3(d)(3) of Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
If a development proponent is able to satisfy all applicable federal
qualifying criteria in order to provide that the site satisfies this
subparagraph and is otherwise eligible for streamlined approval
under this section, the [city/county] shall not deny the application
on the basis that the development proponent did not comply with
any additional permit requirement, standard, or action adopted by
the [city/county] that is applicable to that site.
viii. Lands identified for conservation in an adopted natural community
conservation plan pursuant to the Natural Community
Conservation Planning Act (Chapter 10 (commencing with Section
2800) of Division 3 of the Fish and Game Code), habitat
conservation plan pursuant to the federal Endangered Species Act
of 1973 (16 U.S.C. Sec. 1531 et seq.), or other adopted natural
resource protection plan.
ix. Habitat for protected species identified as candidate, sensitive, or
species of special status by state or federal agencies, fully
protected species, or species protected by the federal Endangered
Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. Sec. 1531 et seq.), the California
Endangered Species Act (Chapter 1.5 (commencing with Section
2050) of Division 3 of the Fish and Game Code), or the Native
Plant Protection Act (Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 1900)
of Division 2 of the Fish and Game Code).
x. Lands under conservation easement.
SB 9 Model Ordinance
15
3. Notwithstanding any provision of this section or any local law, the
proposed Two-Unit Development would not require the demolition or alteration of any of the
following types of housing:
i. Housing that is subject to recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that
restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and families of
moderate-, low-, or very low-income.
ii. Housing that is subject to any form of rent or price control through
a public entity’s valid exercise of its police power.
iii. Housing that has been occupied by a tenant in the last three years.
4. The parcel is not a parcel on which an owner of residential real
property has exercised the owner’s right under Chapter 12.75 (commencing with Section 7060)
of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code to withdraw accommodations from rent or lease
within the last 15 years before the date that the development proponent submits an application.
5. The proposed Two-Unit Development does not include the
demolition of more than 25 percent of the existing exterior structural walls unless the site has not
been occupied by a tenant in the last three years.
6. The proposed Two-Unit Development is not located within a
historic district or property included on the State Historic Resources Inventory, as defined in
Section 5020.1 of the Public Resources Code, or within a site that is designated or listed as a
[city/county] landmark or historic property or historic district pursuant to a [city/county]
ordinance.16
7. The proposed Two-Unit Development complies with all objective
zoning standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design review standards
applicable to the parcel as provided in the zoning district in which the parcel is located17;
provided, however, that:
i. The [--] Official, or their designee, shall modify or waive any
standard if the standard would have the effect of physically
precluding the construction of two units on either of the resulting
parcels created pursuant to this chapter or would result in a unit
size of less than 800 square feet. Any modifications of
16 Local agencies may wish to specify which ordinance or code section designates historic properties.
17 Local agencies may wish to specify which ordinance(s) or code section(s) designate these objective standards.
SB 9 Model Ordinance
16
development standards shall be the minimum modification
necessary to avoid physically precluding two units of 800 square
feet each on each parcel.
ii. Notwithstanding subsection (7)(i) above, required rear and side
yard setbacks shall equal four feet, except that no setback shall be
required for an existing legally created structure or a structure
constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as an
existing legally created structure.
iii. For a Two-Unit Development connected to an onsite wastewater
treatment system, the applicant must provide a percolation test
completed within the last 5 years, or if the percolation test has been
recertified, within the last 10 years.18
8. Proposed adjacent or connected dwelling units shall be permitted if
they meet building code safety standards and are designed sufficient to allow separate
conveyance. [Recommended provision] The proposed Two-Unit Development shall provide a
separate gas, electric and water utility connection directly between each dwelling unit and the
utility.
9. Parking. One parking space shall be required19 per unit
constructed via the procedures set forth in this section, except that the City shall not require any
parking where:
i. The parcel is located within one-half mile walking distance of
either a stop located in a high-quality transit corridor, as defined in
Public Resources Code Section 21155(b), or a major transit stop,
as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21064.3; or
ii. There is a designated parking area for one or more car-share
vehicles within one block of the parcel.
10. Dwelling units created by a Two-Unit Development may be used
for residential uses only and may not be used for rentals of less than 30 days.
18 A local agency may waive this requirement if desired.
19 Agencies may elect to require fewer parking spaces.
SB 9 Model Ordinance
17
11. [Recommended provision] If any existing dwelling unit is
proposed to be demolished, the applicant will comply with the replacement housing provisions of
Government Code Section 66300(d).
C. [Recommended provision] Declaration of Prior Tenancies. If any
existing housing is proposed to be altered or demolished, the owner of the property proposed for
an Urban Lot Split shall sign an affidavit, in the form approved by the [city attorney/county
counsel], stating that none of the conditions listed in Section (5)(B)(3) and (B)(4) above exist and
shall provide a comprehensive history of the occupancy of the units to be altered or demolished
for the past three years (five years if an existing unit is to be demolished) on a form approved by
[].
D. [Recommended provision] Recorded Covenant. Prior to the issuance of a
building permit, the applicant shall record a restrictive covenant and agreement in the form
prescribed by the [city attorney/county counsel], which shall run with the land and provide for
the following:
1. A limitation restricting the property to residential uses only; and
2. A requirement that any dwelling units on the property may be
rented or leased only for a period of longer than thirty (30) days.
The City Manager/County Administrator or designee is authorized to enter into the covenant and
agreement on behalf of the City/County and to deliver any approvals or consents required by the
covenant.
E. Specific Adverse Impacts. In addition to the criteria listed in this section,
a proposed Urban Lot Split may be denied if the building official makes a written finding, based
on a preponderance of the evidence, that the proposed housing development project would have
a specific, adverse impact upon public health and safety or the physical environment, for which
there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact. A
“specific adverse impact” is a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on
objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they
existed on the date the application was deemed complete. Inconsistency with the zoning
ordinance or general plan land use designation and eligibility to claim a welfare exemption are
not specific health or safety impacts.
F. Enforcement. The City Attorney/County Counsel shall be authorized to
abate violations of this chapter and to enforce the provisions of this chapter and all implementing
agreements and affidavits by civil action, injunctive relief, and any other proceeding or method
SB 9 Model Ordinance
18
permitted by law. Remedies provided for in this chapter shall not preclude the City/County from
any other remedy or relief to which it otherwise would be entitled under law or equity.
[POLICY CONSIDERATIONS]
1. Number of units to be allowed on each parcel. Local agencies are not required
to allow ADUs or JADUs on parcels that utilize both the Urban Lot Split
provision and the Two-Unit Development provision. If agencies desire to utilize
this provision, they should adopt the following:
Two primary dwelling units only may be located on any lot created
through an Urban Lot Split that utilized the Two-Unit Development
provision. Accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units
are not permitted on these lots.
Jurisdictions do have the option of allowing additional units, likely ADUs or
JADUs, on these lots. Agencies may wish to consider this for large lots, or in
exchange for the applicant’s agreement to record a covenant restricting sale or
rental of the ADU to moderate- or lower-income households.
Where a lot was not created through an Urban Lot Split, there is no limitation on
the construction of ADUs and JADUs except that provided by existing ADU law.
2. Owner-occupancy requirement. Where there is no Urban Lot Split, the
jurisdiction may adopt a provision requiring that one unit in a Two-Unit
Development be owner-occupied, including a requirement to record a covenant
notifying future owners of the owner-occupancy requirements.
3. Design standards, such as standards for building size, height, materials, roof
forms, etc. Standards considered by some agencies include limits on dwelling
unit size and height, distance between structures, and design requirements such as
roof slope and materials matching existing structures.
These standards cannot be imposed, however, if they would prevent the
construction of units totaling 800 sf each. In addition, the Housing Crisis Act of
2019 (Government Code Section 66300) does not permit reductions in height,
floor area ratio, lot coverage, or any other change that would reduce a site’s
residential development capacity below that existing on January 1, 2018.
SB 9 Model Ordinance
19
Consequently, height, size, and similar restrictions on units created as Two-Unit
Developments should be limited to units that do not meet existing zoning
standards.
4. Affordable units. There is nothing in SB 9 that expressly prohibits the imposition
of affordability requirements. One consideration prior to the imposition of such
requirements would be whether the Urban Lot Splits would still be economically
feasible if affordability were required. Ultimately, local agencies should consult
with their legal counsel prior to imposing such requirements.
5. Fire sprinklers. If not already required, agencies may wish to consider requiring
that units created through Two-Unit Developments be fire-sprinklered.
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
Joel/Jennifer:
Please find attached for your review and discussion:
1.A marked-up version of HCD’s recent SB-9 FactSheet with a couple of points noted. The key one in it
that I would like to bring to your attention is: HR. It Is Single Family. You have to fix that one.
2.Please also remove the 20 ft Street Frontage requirement. SB-9 specifically allows easements and a
20 ft width is ridiculous. I have attached San Jose’s way of dealing with it - although it could be
simplified. Monte Sereno, and Saratoga also allow easements. Los Gatos got this one wrong.
3.Please also remove the 50 yd grading limitation. Grading (> 50 yds) for an Urban Lot Split can be
reviewed by engineering simply from a safety/zoning regs standpoint. If you want to maintain it, then
simply allow the exemption for the building pad to also include the driveway. Then you can stop
gratuitous grading while still allowing a house to be built.
4.A marked-up version of Your Urban Lot Split Application checklist crossing out most of the items that
are not needed for an initial CDD review. I am preparing an application for an Urban Lot Split in the
R1:10 zoning district and when I reviewed what the “Simplified Planning Application” is asking for it is
Way Overkill and requires a homeowner to spend tens of thousands of dollars up front, before getting a
yes/no from CDD. Please look seriously at this. I do not want to instruct the Civil Engineer to do all this
unnecessary work.
If you approve an Urban Lot Split. And the Parcel Map is recorded. And a residential development unit is
proposed. Then you will need some of this for house construction. But don’t hit the homeowner up
front with all this. It is busy work and not useful in any decision being made.
For the Site Plan I will try to give you as much information as possible to let you know what we might
intend to do [eventually], but more often than not, this information is not known at such an early stage.
As to the project that I am preparing to submit, I only plan to have the Survey crew complete what is
needed for a realistic CDD evaluation. If I am missing something that is fundamental in the decision
process, then we will add it. I plan to put "N/A” on the line items that are not needed.
For example:
I do not plan to ask a Title company for the Record Info for the names of all the neighbors.
I do not plan to do a arborist report, but will identify all large trees.
I do not think that you need lot area coverage details at this stage in the application. It is not part of the
decision process.
Hope this helps let you know how I really feel.
Thanks
Tony
EXHIBIT 7
California Department of Housing and Community Development
SB 9 Fact Sheet
On the Implementation of Senate Bill 9 (Chapter 162, Statutes
of 2021)
Housing Policy Development Division
March 2022
California Department of Housing and Community Development – SB 9 Fact Sheet
1
This Fact Sheet is for informational purposes only and is not intended to implement or
interpret SB 9. HCD does not have authority to enforce SB 9, although violations of SB 9
may concurrently violate other housing laws where HCD does have enforcement
authority, including but not limited to the laws addressed in this document. As local
jurisdictions implement SB 9, including adopting local ordinances, it is important to keep
these and other housing laws in mind. The Attorney General may also take independent
action to enforce SB 9. For a full list of statutes over which HCD has enforcement
authority, visit HCD’s Accountability and Enforcement webpage.
Executive Summary of SB 9
Senate Bill (SB) 9 (Chapter 162, Statutes of 2021) requires ministerial approval of a
housing development with no more than two primary units in a single-family zone, the
subdivision of a parcel in a single-family zone into two parcels, or both. SB 9 facilitates
the creation of up to four housing units in the lot area typically used for one single-family
home. SB 9 contains eligibility criteria addressing environmental site constraints (e.g.,
wetlands, wildfire risk, etc.), anti-displacement measures for renters and low-income
households, and the protection of historic structures and districts. Key provisions of the
law require a local agency to modify or eliminate objective development standards on a
project-by-project basis if they would prevent an otherwise eligible lot from being split or
prevent the construction of up to two units at least 800 square feet in size. For the
purposes of this document, the terms “unit,” “housing unit,” “residential unit,” and “housing
development” mean primary unit(s) unless specifically identified as an accessory dwelling
unit (ADU) or junior ADU or otherwise defined.
Single-Family Residential Zones Only
(Reference: Gov. Code, §§ 65852.21, subd. (a); 66411.7 subd. (a)(3)(A))
The parcel that will contain the proposed housing development or that will be subject to
the lot split must be located in a single-family residential zone. Parcels located in multi-
family residential, commercial, agricultural, mixed-use zones, etc., are not subject to SB
9 mandates even if they allow single-family residential uses as a permitted use. While
some zones are readily identifiable as single-family residential zones (e.g., R-1 “Single-
Family Residential”), others may not be so obvious. Some local agencies have multiple
single-family zones with subtle distinctions between them relating to minimum lot sizes or
allowable uses. In communities where there may be more than one single-family
residential zone, the local agency should carefully review the zone district descriptions in
the zoning code and the land use designation descriptions in the Land Use Element of
the General Plan. This review will enable the local agency to identify zones whose primary
purpose is single-family residential uses and which are therefore subject to SB 9.
Considerations such as minimum lot sizes, natural features such as hillsides, or the
permissibility of keeping horses should not factor into the determination.
California Department of Housing and Community Development – SB 9 Fact Sheet
2
Residential Uses Only
(Reference: Gov. Code, §§ 65852.21, subd. (a))
SB 9 concerns only proposed housing developments containing no more than two
residential units (i.e., one or two). The law does not otherwise change the allowable land
uses in the local agency’s single-family residential zone(s). For example, if the local
agency’s single-family zone(s) does not currently allow commercial uses such as hotels
or restaurants, SB 9 would not allow such uses.
Ministerial Review
(Reference: Gov. Code, §§ 65852.21, subd. (a); 66411.7, subds. (a), (b)(1))
An application made under SB 9 must be considered ministerially, without discretionary
review or a hearing. Ministerial review means a process for development approval
involving no personal judgment by the public official as to the wisdom of carrying out the
project. The public official merely ensures that the proposed development meets all the
applicable objective standards for the proposed action but uses no special discretion or
judgment in reaching a decision. A ministerial review is nearly always a “staff-level
review.” This means that a staff person at the local agency reviews the application, often
using a checklist, and compares the application materials (e.g., site plan, project
description, etc.) with the objective development standards, objective subdivision
standards, and objective design standards.
Objective Standards
(Reference: Gov. Code, §§ 65852.21, subd. (b); 66411.7, subd. (c))
The local agency may apply objective development standards (e.g., front setbacks and
heights), objective subdivision standards (e.g., minimum lot depths), and objective design
standards (e.g., roof pitch, eave projections, façade materials, etc.) as long as they would
not physically preclude either of the following:
Up to Two Primary Units. The local agency must allow up to two primary units
(i.e., one or two) on the subject parcel or, in the case of a lot split, up to two primary
units on each of the resulting parcels.
Units at least 800 square feet in size. The local agency must allow each primary
unit to be at least 800 square feet in size.
The terms “objective zoning standards,” “objective subdivision standards,” and “objective
design review standards” mean standards that involve no personal or subjective judgment
by a public official and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform
benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or
proponent and the public official prior to submittal. Any objective standard that would
physically preclude either or both of the two objectives noted above must be modified or
California Department of Housing and Community Development – SB 9 Fact Sheet
3
waived by the local agency in order to facilitate the development of the project, with the
following two exceptions:
Setbacks for Existing Structures. The local agency may not require a setback
for an existing structure or for a structure constructed in the same location and to
the same dimensions as an existing structure (i.e., a building reconstructed on the
same footprint).
Four-Foot Side and Rear Setbacks. SB 9 establishes an across-the-board
maximum four-foot side and rear setbacks. The local agency may choose to apply
a lesser setback (e.g., 0-4 feet), but it cannot apply a setback greater than four
feet. The local agency cannot apply existing side and rear setbacks applicable in
the single-family residential zone(s). Additionally, the four-foot side and rear
setback standards are not subject to modification. (Gov. Code, §§ 65852.21, subd.
(b)(2)(B); 66411.7, subdivision (c)(3).)
One-Unit Development
(Reference: Gov. Code, §§ 65852.21, subd. (a); 65852.21, subd. (b)(2)(A))
SB 9 requires the ministerial approval of either one or two residential units. Government
Code section 65852.21 indicates that the development of just one single-family home was
indeed contemplated and expected. For example, the terms “no more than two residential
units” and “up to two units” appear in the first line of the housing development-related
portion of SB 9 (Gov. Code, § 65852.21, subd. (a)) and in the line obligating local agencies
to modify development standards to facilitate a housing development. (Gov. Code, §
65852.21, subd. (b)(2)(A).)
Findings of Denial
(Reference: Gov. Code, §§ 65852.21, subd. (d); 66411.7, subd. (d))
SB 9 establishes a high threshold for the denial of a proposed housing
development or lot split. Specifically, a local agency’s building official must make a
written finding, based upon a preponderance of the evidence, that the proposed housing
development would have a specific, adverse impact, as defined in Government Code
section 65589.5, subdivision (d)(2), 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. “Specific, adverse impact” means a significant,
quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public
health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the
application was deemed complete. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (d)(2).)
California Department of Housing and Community Development – SB 9 Fact Sheet
4
Environmental Site Constraints
(Reference: Gov. Code, §§ 65852.21, subd. (a)(2) and (a)(6); 66411.7, subd. (a)(3)(C) and (a)(3)(E))
A proposed housing development or lot split is not eligible under SB 9 if the parcel
contains any of the site conditions listed in Government Code section 65913.4,
subdivision (a)(6)(B-K). Examples of conditions that may disqualify a project from using
SB 9 include the presence of farmland, wetlands, fire hazard areas, earthquake hazard
areas, flood risk areas, conservation areas, wildlife habitat areas, or conservation
easements. SB 9 incorporates by reference these environmental site constraint
categories that were established with the passing of the Streamlined Ministerial Approval
Process (SB 35, Chapter 366, Statutes of 2017). Local agencies may consult HCD’s
Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process Guidelines for additional detail on how to
interpret these environmental site constraints.
Additionally, a project is not eligible under SB 9 if it is located in a historic district or
property included on the State Historic Resources Inventory or within a site that is
designated or listed as a city or county landmark or as a historic property or district
pursuant to a city or county ordinance.
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Reference: Gov. Code, §§ 65852.21, subd. (j); 66411.7, subd. (n))
Because the approval of a qualifying project under SB 9 is deemed a ministerial action,
CEQA does not apply to the decision to grant an application for a housing development
or a lot split, or both. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21080, subd. (b)(1) [CEQA does not apply
to ministerial actions]; CEQA Guidelines, § 15268.) For this reason, a local agency must
not require an applicant to perform environmental impact analysis under CEQA for
applications made under SB 9. Additionally, if a local agency chooses to adopt a local
ordinance to implement SB 9 (instead of implementing the law directly from statute), the
preparation and adoption of the ordinance is not considered a project under CEQA. In
other words, the preparation and adoption of the ordinance is statutorily exempt from
CEQA.
Anti-Displacement Measures
(Reference: Gov. Code, §§ 65852.21, subd. (a)(3); 66411.7, subd. (a)(3)(D))
A site is not eligible for a proposed housing development or lot split if the project would
require demolition or alteration of any of the following types of housing: (1) housing that
is subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to levels affordable
to persons and families of moderate, low, or very low income; (2) housing that is subject
to any form of rent or price control through a public entity’s valid exercise of its police
power; or (3) housing that has been occupied by a tenant in the last three years.
California Department of Housing and Community Development – SB 9 Fact Sheet
5
Lot Split Requirements
(Reference: Gov. Code, § 66411.7)
SB 9 does not require a local agency to approve a parcel map that would result in the
creation of more than two lots and more than two units on a lot resulting from a lot split
under Government Code section 66411.7. A local agency may choose to allow more than
two units, but it is not required to under the law. A parcel may only be subdivided once
under Government Code section 66411.7. This provision prevents an applicant from
pursuing multiple lot splits over time for the purpose of creating more than two lots. SB 9
also does not require a local agency to approve a lot split if an adjacent lot has been
subject to a lot split in the past by the same property owner or a person working in concert
with that same property owner.
Accessory Dwelling Units
(Reference: Gov. Code, §§ 65852.21, subd. (j); 66411.7, subd. (f))
SB 9 and ADU Law (Gov. Code, §§ 65852.2 and 65858.22) are complementary. The
requirements of each can be implemented in ways that result in developments with both
“SB 9 Units” and ADUs. However, specific provisions of SB 9 typically overlap with State
ADU Law only to a limited extent on a relatively small number of topics. Treating the
provisions of these two laws as identical or substantially similar may lead a local agency
to implement the laws in an overly restrictive or otherwise inaccurate way.
“Units” Defined. The three types of housing units that are described in SB 9 and related
ADU Law are presented below to clarify which development scenarios are (and are not)
made possible by SB 9. The definitions provided are intended to be read within the context
of this document and for the narrow purpose of implementing SB 9.
Primary Unit. A primary unit (also called a residential dwelling unit or residential
unit) is typically a single-family residence or a residential unit within a multi-family
residential development. A primary unit is distinct from an ADU or a Junior ADU.
Examples of primary units include a single-family residence (i.e., one primary unit),
a duplex (i.e., two primary units), a four-plex (i.e., four primary units), etc.
Accessory Dwelling Unit. An ADU is an attached or a detached residential dwelling
unit that provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons
and is located on a lot with a proposed or existing primary residence. It includes
permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation on the
same parcel on which the single-family or multifamily dwelling is or will be situated.
Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit. A Junior ADU is a unit that is no more than 500
square feet in size and contained entirely within a single-family residence. A Junior
ADU may include separate sanitation facilities or may share sanitation facilities
with the existing structure.
California Department of Housing and Community Development – SB 9 Fact Sheet
6
The terms “unit,” “housing unit,” “residential unit,” and “housing development” mean
primary unit(s) unless specifically identified as an ADU or Junior ADU or otherwise
defined. This distinction is critical to successfully implementing SB 9 because state law
applies different requirements (and provides certain benefits) to ADUs and Junior ADUs
that do not apply to primary units.
Number of ADUs Allowed. ADUs can be combined with primary units in a variety of
ways to achieve the maximum unit counts provided for under SB 9. SB 9 allows for up to
four units to be built in the same lot area typically used for a single-family home. The
calculation varies slightly depending on whether a lot split is involved, but the outcomes
regarding total maximum unit counts are identical.
Lot Split. When a lot split occurs, the local agency must allow up to two units on
each lot resulting from the lot split. In this situation, all three unit types (i.e., primary
unit, ADU, and Junior ADU) count toward this two-unit limit. For example, the limit
could be reached on each lot by creating two primary units, or a primary unit and
an ADU, or a primary unit and a Junior ADU. By building two units on each lot, the
overall maximum of four units required under SB 9 is achieved. (Gov. Code, §
66411.7, subd. (j).) Note that the local agency may choose to allow more than two
units per lot if desired.
No Lot Split. When a lot split has not occurred, the lot is eligible to receive ADUs
and/or Junior ADUs as it ordinarily would under ADU law. Unlike when a project is
proposed following a lot split, the local agency must allow, in addition to one or two
primary units under SB 9, ADUs and/or JADUs under ADU Law. It is beyond the
scope of this document to identify every combination of primary units, ADUs, and
Junior ADUs possible under SB 9 and ADU Law. However, in no case does SB 9
require a local agency to allow more than four units on a single lot, in any
combination of primary units, ADUs, and Junior ADUs.
See HCD’s ADU and JADU webpage for more information and resources.
Relationship to Other State Housing Laws
SB 9 is one housing law among many that have been adopted to encourage the
production of homes across California. The following represent some, but not necessarily
all, of the housing laws that intersect with SB 9 and that may be impacted as SB 9 is
implemented locally.
Housing Element Law. To utilize projections based on SB 9 toward a jurisdiction’s
regional housing need allocation, the housing element must: 1) include a site-specific
inventory of sites where SB 9 projections are being applied, 2) include a nonvacant sites
analysis demonstrating the likelihood of redevelopment and that the existing use will not
constitute an impediment for additional residential use, 3) identify any governmental
constraints to the use of SB 9 in the creation of units (including land use controls, fees,
California Department of Housing and Community Development – SB 9 Fact Sheet
7
and other exactions, as well as locally adopted ordinances that impact the cost and supply
of residential development), and 4) include programs and policies that establish zoning
and development standards early in the planning period and implement incentives to
encourage and facilitate development. The element should support this analysis with local
information such as local developer or owner interest to utilize zoning and incentives
established through SB 9. Learn more on HCD’s Housing Elements webpage.
Housing Crisis Act of 2019. An affected city or county is limited in its ability to amend
its general plan, specific plans, or zoning code in a way that would improperly reduce the
intensity of residential uses. (Gov. Code, § 66300, subd. (b)(1)(A).) This limitation applies
to residential uses in all zones, including single-family residential zones. “Reducing the
intensity of land use” includes, but is not limited to, reductions to height, density, or floor
area ratio, new or increased open space or lot size requirements, new or increased
setback requirements, minimum frontage requirements, or maximum lot coverage
limitations, or any other action that would individually or cumulatively reduce the site’s
residential development capacity. (Gov. Code, § 66300, subd. (b)(1)(A).)
A local agency should proceed with caution when adopting a local ordinance that would
impose unique development standards on units proposed under SB 9 (but that would not
apply to other developments). Any proposed modification to an existing development
standard applicable in the single-family residential zone must demonstrate that it would
not result in a reduction in the intensity of the use. HCD recommends that local agencies
rely on the existing objective development, subdivision, and design standards of its single-
family residential zone(s) to the extent possible. Learn more about Designated
Jurisdictions Prohibited from Certain Zoning-Related ActionsnoHCD’s website.
Housing Accountability Act. Protections contained in the Housing Accountability Act
(HAA) and the Permit Streaming Act (PSA) apply to housing developments pursued under
SB 9. (Gov. Code, §§ 65589.5; 65905.5; 65913.10; 65940 et seq.) The definition of
“housing development project” includes projects that involve no discretionary approvals
and projects that include a proposal to construct a single dwelling unit. (Gov. Code, §
65905.5, subd. (b)(3).) For additional information about the HAA and PSA, see HCD’s
Housing Accountability Act Technical Assistance Advisory.
Rental Inclusionary Housing. Government Code section 65850, subdivision (g),
authorizes local agencies to adopt an inclusionary housing ordinance that includes
residential rental units affordable to lower- and moderate-income households. In certain
circumstances, HCD may request the submittal of an economic feasibility study to ensure
the ordinance does not unduly constrain housing production. For additional information,
see HCD’s Rental Inclusionary Housing Memorandum.
SAN JOSE: ORD. NO. 30706
1
20.30.810 Urban Lot Split Standards
A. Lot design requirements:
1. Lot frontage:
a. Where 55 feet of frontage on a public right-of-way is not proposed
for both lots created by an Urban Lot Split, pursuant to
Government Code Section 66411.7, each lot shall have a minimum
of 30 feet of frontage on a public right-of-way and an average width
of 30 feet, or
b. Where 30 feet of frontage on a public right-of-way is not proposed
for both lots created by an Urban Lot Split, one of the lots shall be
provided with access by a corridor with at least 12 feet but no more
than 15 feet of frontage on a public street.
i. Said access corridor shall maintain a width of at least 12 feet
but no more than 15 feet for the entire length of the corridor.
ii. The length of said access corridor shall be at minimum the
required front setback of the zoning district in which the lot is
situated.
iii. The access corridor shall be kept free and clear of building
or structures of any kind except for lawful fences and
underground or overhead utilities.
c. Where one of the lots created by an Urban Lot Split does not
propose frontage on a public right-of-way, direct access to the
public right of way must be provided through an easement for
ingress and egress and emergency access.
SAN JOSE: ORD. NO. 30706
2
i. Said easement shall be a minimum 12 feet but no more than
15 feet in width for the entire length of the easement.
ii. The length of said easement shall be at minimum the length
of the required front setback of the zoning district in which
the lot is situated.
iii. Said easement shall be recorded as a Covenant of
Easement on the Parcel Map for the Urban Lot Split.
2. Maximum lot depth, as required by Section 19.36.230 of this Code, shall
be waived for lots created by an Urban Lot Split.
B. Property line and setbacks:
1. For lots accessed by a corridor of 12 feet to 15 feet in width:
a. Front property line is the property line that abuts the public street.
b. The front setback area is the is the entire length of the 12 foot to 15
foot wide access corridor.
c. The rear property line is any property line that is generally parallel
to the public right of way from which the lot gains access, and that
abuts properties that are not a part of the Urban Lot Split.
d. The remaining property lines shall be considered side property
lines.
2. For lots that do not abut a public street that are accessed by an easement:
a. There shall be no front property line.
b. The rear property line is any property line that is generally parallel
to the public right of way from which the lot gains access, and that
abuts properties that are not a part of the Urban Lot Split.
THIS SHOWS ONLY WHAT IS REALLY NEEDED
A. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS:
□ 1. Scale on each sheet.
□ 2. North arrow on each sheet as applicable.
□ 3. Sheet size not to exceed 24” x 36” size.
□ 4. Plans fully dimensioned.
□ 5. Address on each sheet.
□ 6. Zoning Designation on cover sheet.
B. PLAT OR SITE PLAN WITH THE FOLLOWING MINIMUM INFORMATION:
□ 1. All property lines (existing and proposed).
□ 2. All building setbacks (existing) and proposed).
□ 3. Use of all existing buildings.
□ 4. Table including the following:
a. Lot area (existing and proposed);
b. Gross floor area of existing buildings;
c. Lot area coverage (existing and proposed);
d. Lot width (existing and proposed);
e. Lot depth (existing and proposed); and
f. Lot frontage (existing and proposed).
□ 5. Conceptual Grading and drainage plan with grading quantities.
The 50 yard Limit is Bogus and should not stop a project. See
HCA for Grounds for Denial.
C. TENTATIVE MAP REQUIREMENTS:
□ 1. Tract name or designation and property address.
□ 2. Name and address of owner, subdivider, and registered civil engineer or
licensed surveyor.
□ 3. Locations, names, and widths of all adjoining highways, streets or ways,
the names of adjacent subdivisions, and the names of all owners of
properties adjacent to proposed tract.
□ 4. Widths and locations of all existing or
proposed easements, whether public or private.
□ 5. Radius of all street curves.
□ 6. Total size of property before and after street and right-of-way dedication
(gross and net land area calculation). No Dedication – See 4a.
□ 7. Lot layout, including the dimension of each lot line, and exact square footage
of each lot. Repeat of 4a.
□ 8. Location of all water courses and natural drainage channels, locations of
all areas covered by water or subject to inundation, and existing and
proposed storm drain facilities.
□ 9. Source of water supply, including conceptual design.
□ 10. Method of sewage disposal, including conceptual design.
□ 11. Location of all buildings in close proximity to the proposed tract.
□ 12. Contour lines (existing and proposed) showing one (1) foot contours for
ground slopes of less than five (5) percent, and five (5) feet horizontal
distance, and five foot contours for ground slopes in excess thereof.
(This information can typically be obtained from PPW in PDF form – and
the level of detail is sufficient for CDD to approve/deny based on this.)
□ 13. Location or vicinity map, date, north arrow, and scale. Requested A1,A2
□ 14. Number or letter identification for each lot.
□ 15. Location and outline of each existing building and an accompanying note as
to whether or not it is to be removed.
□ 16. Each street shown by its actual street name or by a temporary name or
symbol for the purpose of identification.
□ 17. L o c a t I o n o f all trees shall be accurately identified and plotted with base
grade data, dripline, and finished grades within the dripline.
□ 18. All fire hydrant locations.
□ 19. Required yards.
□ 20. Name of utility providers and location of closest existing services shown,
including water, gas, electricity, telephone, cable television, sewage
disposal and storm drain.
Roadways will not be required for SB-9
□ 21. If in the Hillside Area, show grading required for roadway construction,
including location of all cuts and fills, volumes, retaining walls or reinforced
earth slopes (with top and base elevations), and existing and proposed
contours.
You will be required to add HR to the allowable zones so this can stay.
□ 22. If hillside, show conceptual driveways, building sites, drainage, and
sanitary sewers.
□ 23. Interim erosion control measures.
□ 24. If it is impossible or impracticable to place upon the tentative map any
of the information required above, such information shall be furnished on a
separate document, which shall be submitted with the map.
Jennifer [Joel]:
I understand that you are working on a revision to the SB-9 Ordinance to be debated on September
21st. On the whole - with the February revision to the Ordinance I think you got it pretty much right. I
do, however, have a couple of questions/comments.
Question 1: The 20 ft Fee Title Corridor.
SB-9 does not really allow you to restrict a flag lot access corridor to being ‘Fee Title’. No other
Jurisdiction does so - all allow easements to a rear parcel. Additionally it should be in the 12-15 ft width
range so as to allow IEE for fire requirements to be met - but no more.
Please look carefully at the attached example. From the existing Ordinance [Section VI.3] the corridor
does not count in the 60/40 rule, but it diminishes the rear parcel in net lot size. So you can get some
really stupid lots [not intended by SB-9]. This is your chance to fix it.
Question 2: HR Zoning
I assume that this has been fixed - and that you now are accepting HR applications [subject to Fire
Access]. Can you confirm this?
Question 3: 50 Yards of Grading
Please tell me you have a better solution for this! Either up the quantities OR Allow the driveway and
turnaround area to be ‘exempted’ in the same way that the area under the house is now.
Question 4: Objective Deign Standards
These should be pared back so that Front Elevation and Side-abutting-street elevations are not
encumbered by the ‘Privacy’ window/deck/balcony restrictions. Additionally you should consider
eliminating/easing these restrictions where the house placement is compliant with the setbacks for the
zoning district. I do not want to design by ‘paint by numbers’ for Single Family Homes - in the same way
there was concern for Multi-Family developments.
Question 5: The Discretionary Process
Please make it much more clear that this can be used as an alternative to the administrative review
process for a lot that has been created by an ULS. I will use it to design a better home, because I do not
like the Objective Design Standards in the Ordinance. Please consider eliminating the ‘Tech Review’ step
in the discretionary process to allow me to ‘sell’ the discretionary process to my clients. This will shave
weeks, if not months, off the process. Ray Davis is not with us any more. Also - please clarify whether
the discretionary process can be used to bypass the ‘1,200 max sq ft first unit regulation’. This regulation
does not concern me personally, but clarification would be useful.
I will have other comments, I am sure, when I see the Proposed new ordinance.
Thanks
Tony
Gm Ryan,
Thanks for your time yesterday.
As discussed, please help to clarify with city attorney on the SB9 guideline - ''Intent to Occupy'
requirement for a SB9 lot split".
After the SB9 urban lot split, we will end up with an existing home on one lot and the second is a
vacant lot.
Can we sell the original residence and keep the newly split vacant lot for three years to meet the
SB9 requirement?
or do we have to build a new home on the vacant lot and keep it for three years?
Please help us clarify the 'Intent to Occupy' requirement for a SB9 lot split.
Thank you,
Satya
All:
Now that I have remained unscathed from my first SB-9/HPC dichotomy [16405 Kennedy - a pre-1941
house with no redeeming architectural or historic values], I would wonder whether there might be a
way to allow HPC to consider the impact of the reduction in property size of an older/historic home. Not
that it mattered here.
I guess it just depends on whether you need/want SB-9 projects to contribute to the housing element -
because you do have a 2 for 1 rule?
If they feel that the yard and landscaping are not instrumental to the historic nature of a property then
perhaps there might be a path to allowing a lot split while still retaining a home on the historic register?
When do you expect to go back for another bite at the SB-9 apple? [Hillside/50 yards/Easement
access/anything else]?
Tony
Jocelyn [Joel/Jennifer added]:
Fire will not talk with applicants other than through a routed application from the Town. [Per Rob
Campbell - see below]
Can we either route to fire or require them to talk to applicants once you feel an application is
reasonably complete? I sent them exactly the plans you have but below is the response I received.
I specifically do not want to go too far [on any project] and spend client’s money only to be turned down
later.
Saratoga - for example - has routed a similar submission of mine to various entities [including fire]. They
go too far - including routing to Caltrans and WVSD, plus requiring a geotechnical report - which should
come later, because - why waste everyone's time before a project is realistic. San Jose also routes to Fire
for comments - but they want the entire application complete [including the Parcel Map]. Planning just
checks it for the obvious [a pre-screen] and then it is a PPW project. But most of their lots are simpler
[and they allow 12-15 ft easements to a back lot, like most other jurisdictions so they screen for that
too]
Los Gatos’ staff has the knowledge and expertise to look at this and make a reasonable decision as to
the best sequencing. I understand Rob’s desire not to be inundated with scraps of paper with scribbles
on them, so he might be right from that standpoint - but if you can talk with him again to resolve this
disconnect, it would be helpful.
Tony
Tony,
I am not available today. I recommend discussing the SB-9 requirements with the
city/town planning departments before coming to us. As you know SB-9 is primarily
zoning focused legislation. My discussion with Los Gatos planning is that they will be
the lead in any such decisions. Where fire concerns arise (e.g. VHFHSZ parcels) they
will coordinate with us for requirements. If you have specific questions, please put those
in writing so we can be clear on the information you seek.
Thank you,
Rob.
Robert L. Campbell, PE
Sr. Fire Protection Engineer
Santa Clara County Fire Department
Ryan,
I had previously provided public comment / input toward the next draft of Ord 2327. I have two further
comments:
1)
a) Ord 2327 says that if SB9-reduced setbacks are used then windows must be clerestory. I think this is
fine as in usual suburban neighborhoods you don't want them looking into a neighbor's yard, however
clerestory window requirements should only apply to exterior walls that are closer to the property line
than the usual (non-SB9, base zoning) setbacks. For the rest of the 2nd story walls, they are no closer to
the property line as is already allowed today with the base zoning rules, so these walls should be
allowed to have whatever window size and arrangement the base zoning district allows today.
b) Where an applicant is not using reduced SB9 setbacks but just respecting the base zoning's setbacks,
Ord 2327 says that second story windows must be of the minimum number and size necessary for
egress. That means one small window per room. This does not make sense to apply since it is more
restrictive than most (or all?) base zoning districts. At least here in the hillside, without SB9 I could build
a second story and put larger windows than that, but if I attempt to use SB9 then my window size and
number are restricted -- even if I still respect the base zoning's setbacks. This doesn't make sense to me
and I would request we just remove this entirely from Ord 2327 and rely on the base zoning's window
requirements if the base zoning's setbacks are respected.
2) Ord 2327 says that if there's a roof over the entryway that its roofline must meet the adjacent
roofline. This doesn't make sense to me, since today in most (or all?) base zoning districts as far as I
know there is no restriction on how a roof over the entryway is supposed to look. Indeed, many high-
value homes have a beautiful entryway with a high arch and roof. This can take many forms but here are
two examples:
This tall entryway can be a beautiful architectural feature designed to bring value to the home and
neighborhood, and as far as I know this entryway is not restricted other than in Ord 2327 (assuming
other requirements like overall height are respected). Therefore I would request that we remove this
from Ord 2327 and just rely on the base zoning's rules regarding roofs over entryways.
David
Ryan,
Thanks for our discussion today. For two of my questions you said the first step at providing input into a
permanent ordinance was to email you.
1)
Ord. 2327 has two restrictions on architectural design: (a) No balconies/terraces on top of 1st floor.
(b) 2nd stories must be stepped back 5' from 1st stories.
The restrictions are presumably intended to protect neighbor's privacy when SB9's reduced (4-foot)
setbacks are used. Nobody wants a neighbor's 2nd story window or terrace/balcony looking over their
fence.
However it is my feeling that the restriction should be waived if the regular zoning setbacks on that side
of the house are respected.
To not do so violates state law and strongly limits architectural options. According to HCD's fact sheet on
the implementation of SB9, "HCD recommends that local agencies rely on the existing objective
development, subdivision, and design standards of its single-family residential zone(s) to the extent
possible." Accordingly, it is reasonable for the Town to require a 5' step-back from 1st story elevations if
the proposed house is utilizing reduced SB9 setbacks, but no such architectural design restriction should
be required if the proposed house utilizes the original zone's setbacks. This to me seems to resolve the
concern in a way that leans on existing zoning guidelines.
Leaning on existing zoning guidelines wherever possible is more desirable, since these zoning guidelines
are developed over decades of time and well-understood by everyone in the community.
2)
In Ord. 2327 Sec. V B 2, "The finished floor of the first-story shall not exceed 18 inches in height as
measured from the finished grade."
Inasmuch as SB9 is (or will) apply to hillside zones, and inasmuch as basements in the hillsides are to be
encouraged and incentivized (since they reduce massing), this restriction is overly restrictive and does
not incentivize basements in the hillside zone. (For comparison, non-inclusion of basement floor area in
FAR does correctly incentivize them.)
On flat land this restriction makes sense -- you don't want your first floor to be 4' out of the ground. On
sloping land, very quickly your 18" protruding basement becomes 0" and then your 1st floor becomes
below grade, and your original basement ends up buried very deep in the earth, which is expensive and
not incentivizing, and the basement becomes very small or very expensive or both.
I think it makes sense to modify this to 4' at least in the hillsides, consistent with the existing definition
of basement.
Ryan,
I understand Fire Dept doesn't review my ULS/TUD application until Building Permit phase.
I also understand that Fire will very likely reject my application based on 4290 since I'm in VHFSZ. Talking
to friends who are working through this right now, a rejection letter is expected and an important step,
as a starting point to petition for exemption from 4290 or discuss alternative methods and means.
So, if fire is going to reject my application I'd like to get to that phase before the Parcel is even split
(since at that point there is a permanent change and I can no longer back-pedal on my plans).
I asked SCCFD, and they said they won't review my plans until they come across their desk through the
regular procedure.
Can we (a) have Fire do a full review at the Planning stage, or (b) have Fire review at the Building Permit
stage as usual, but I start the Building permit phase (submit my Building plans to Town of Los Gatos)
even before the Parcel Map is fully recorded, with an at-risk letter saying the Building Permit won't be
considered final until the parcels are fully created?
I'd prefer to do (b).
If we did (a) then I lose the advantages of SB9 ministerial review (it turns into a non-ministerial review,
which I don't think is allowed).
If we do (b) then it follows the regular procedure, and allows us to finalize all other Planning details and
get Planning approval before taking the plan to Fire. But the down-side is that my plans will be further
along in time and money before getting the rejection letter -- but that's ok with me.
Thanks,
David
Hi Ryan,
Thanks for your time this afternoon. I'm summarizing below what we discussed along
with a follow up question:
What are we looking for?
• To build a 2000-2400 sq feet dwelling at the back of our property.
• We do not want to go with public hearing given the experience in the recent past
with our neighbors. Given this we have to go through SB9.
Options:
1. With Split (Not desired but solved our problem wrt building what we want)
a. In the new lot above we can build a new Primary unit up to 5000 sq feet and an
ADU on top (up to 1200 sq feet)
b. Lot once split cannot be merged back later as there cannot be two Primary units
in a Single-family Lot (@Ryan but with SB9 it is supported so that argument may not
be valid)
2. Without Split, the Emergency Ordinance on SB9 from the Town of Los Gatos only
supports the scenario of building up to 1200 sq feet ADU/Primary Unit. This is too restrictive
IMO.
While our ideal and preferred scenario is to go with Option 2 (without split) and build
a 2000-2400 sq feet dwelling, it is currently not supported by the Town of Los
Gatos. Ryan can you please confirm this again. Based on the FAR ratio that we looked
at this afternoon, my property (62000 sq feet with 17% grade) is allowed to have
6200 sq feet without a garage included (and not including 10% increase when you
have 2 units). Just based on this I should be allowed to build up to 2700 sq feet for
the 2nd unit (6200x1.1 = 6820, subtract existing unit 4120 which leaves 2700 sq
feet). Ideally if Planning department can support this scenario as part of SB9 then our
problem would be solved ☺
Thanks
Ani
Ryan, Our feedback is pretty simple:
1) Please remove the silly grading disqualification, and
2) The California Legislature did not intend the first unit size restriction to be under 1200 SF as adopted
by the Town.
Otherwise, Town Staff has done a good job implementing SB9.
Best regards, Terry
Terence J. Szewczyk. P.E.
Hi Ryan - For the single family residences, I am opposed to the 2nd story setback as written as well as
the window regs for the second story.
The regs as written will lead dreadful cookie cutter houses and dismal living spaces upstairs.
-Jay
Ryan,
Thanks for the email. I have to say that I agree with Terry, the grading requirement is in clear violation
of the State's intent on these projects, it is an arbitrary restriction. That is a clear no-no. And the Town
knows darn well that in even the mildest of sloped sites there will be more than 50 CY of dirt moved. If
this is brought to the state it will surely be slapped down. It is a rather clumsy attempt to knock down
the number of lots that would be eligible for a split.
It is a mystery to me why the town does not simply adopt the State standards and call it a day. Any
number of developers in the town and in the surrounding area are much better funded than the town is
and will surely bring provisions like this grading restriction to court or to the office of the State
architect. They are not going to be able to just sneak this in.
I get that this is simply another case of 'the Town being the Town' and at some point, it just gets
ridiculous. Anyway, thanks for the email and I will try to make the meeting. If nothing else it will be
entertaining...
Regards,
David
Ryan,
Our request is the following three aspects of the Ordinance that violate state law:
(1) The Ordinance’s exclusion of the Hillside Residential (HR) zoning district from the definition of a
“single-family residential zone”;
(2) Limitations on grading in connection with the development of residential units under SB 9; and (3) A
1,200 square foot size limitation on the first residential unit constructed on a lot pursuant to SB 9.
Thanks,
Arvin Khosravi
Subject: SB 9 comment from a long-time Los Gatos renter.
EXTERNAL SENDER
As someone who has been renting in Los Gatos for the last 7 years, I hope that SB9 will increase the
acceptable amount of "family" housing available to families like mine (a single parent household with
two children attending Los Gatos schools). We would love the option to live in a duplex or ADU and
have some access to a backyard, instead of being restricted to apartments and townhouses.
To that end, the 1200 sqft MAXIMUM on the size of the ADU is too small for small families. I can
understand not wanting to have a large ADU/Duplex on a lot that is too small, but there are many large
homes/lots in this area that can indeed accomodate a larger 1600 sqft unit. So the max size of a
detached ADU should be based on a percentage of the main house/lot size's area with a minimum of
1200sqft.
I hope that Los Gatos makes special outreach to the tenant/renter community with regard to this
proposal, as well as to the land owners who seem to dominate town government meetings (probably
because they have more time and are not working second jobs or caring for children during town
meeting hours).
--------------------
Sue Raisty
, Los Gatos, CA 95032
EXTERNAL SENDER
I have been a resident of Los Gatos for many years. I have watched the changes to the housing
landscape change & not for the better. Take The North 40 development as
an example. If that isn’t the ugliest over developed housing you ever seen, then I’m sorry for you. The
only reason The Town is pushing this is because it needs more funds to handle the mismanaged Town
budget that is in dire need of funds. Funds that would be gained from building permits, inspection fees
and additional taxes on the land & buildings involved.
I vote no on the SB9 Ordinance.
Melanie Allen
Los Gatos Resident
EXTERNAL SENDER
Hi Los Gatos planning
I’d Like to have the issue of VHFHSZ addressed tonight
I am the first house of the hillside zone at 15 Highland at Jackson at the base of the hill.
I have a fire hydrant in front of my house and I’m about a block up from Main Street.
Is there any way to ask for a variance regarding being removed from the hillside one and high fire zone
in order to do a sub division of my property?
If you could address the VHSHSZ tonight that would be very helpful.
Is it be possible to ask for a variance to be moved to a different zone and move out of the hillside high
fire zone?
Thank you so much,
Teresa Spalding
Sent from my iPhone
To whom it may concern:
In general most of my concerns with the draft revolve around rules that are more restrictive than the
base zone's rules.
• Page 4, V, A, 1, Building height … in HR zone <16’. This practically prohibits 2-story buildings in
HR. Two-story buildings are often required in hillside, to keep the house footprint small so as
not to spread across steep or difficult slopes. This is severely and unnecessarily limiting; there is
no reason to effectively prohibit 2-story buildings in HR zones, and this is not consistent with
State Law. (Limiting a building to 16' if it's located inside the setbacks of the base zone, however,
is reasonable.)
• Page 5, 5, Max size of first new res unit <1200 sf. This is unnecessarily limiting and not consistent
with State Law.
• Page 5, 5, Grading 50 c.y. Many members of the public are not happy with this since it is
extremely limiting in HR zones. It's my understanding that grading > 50 c.y. will not only trigger a
grading permit but also a full Architectural and Site Review and hearings. I understand that it's
meant to avoid someone skipping comprehensive grading review via TUD process. Surely there
can be a compromise wherein grading >50 c.y. only triggers a standalone grading permit and
not a full ASA.
• Page 5, 8, Building sites, not on lands with avg slope exceeding 30 percent. It is not clear
whether this applies to lots with average slope (over the whole lot) of 30%, or whether it means
that a particular house that has some portion of its footprint on a 30% slope, is prohibited. In
any case, this restriction is unnecessarily limiting and not consistent with State Law. If a
geologist has done the investigation and engineered plans have been prepared, then a site can
be buildable even if it is >30% slope in places or on average.
• Page 7, B, 2, Finished floor: 1st story FF can’t exceed 3’ in height. This is unnecessarily limiting in
HR zones. On sloping ground you need to bury one side and have the other side of the house
protrude, often by more than 3'. This also limits basement options since the basement will be
super deep on the former side, in order to have the latter side <3' out of the ground. May I
suggest to just remove this; this has already been given consideration in other Town Code, for
example in Town Code a story and a basement are adequately defined. As written, Page 7, B, 2,
Finished Floor, is unnecessarily limiting and not consistent with State Law or with the realities of
building a reasonably-sized house on even slightly sloped ground.
• Page 7, B, 3, Front Entryway…shall have a roof eave that matches or connects at the level of the
adjacent eave line. This unnecessarily limits architectural options. Often a raised roof over the
entryway can be an elegant detail, and raise the value of the neighborhood.
• Page 7, B, 4, Front Porch >=6’ and width >=25% of linear width of front elevation. This is
unnecessarily limiting. Please just apply the porch restrictions (if any) of the base zone.
• Page 7, B, 5, Step-back. ALL elevations of 2nd story must be stepped back 5'. In my opinion this is
the most architecturally limiting of any of the new TUD ordinance draft. This makes houses look
like wedding cakes -- larger on 1st floor, smaller on 2nd floor. Please modify this to make a step-
back only necessary on walls that are closer to the property line than the base zoning district will
allow. I believe this will resolve concerns of people building tall 2-story buildings right up near a
neighbor's fence. And it would not limit architectural options more than the base zone, if the
applicant did not attempt to use reduced SB9 setbacks.
• Page 7, B, 6, Garages. Street-facing attached garages not exceed 50% of linear width of front-
/side-yard elevation. This doesn't work well on all lots; I'm particularly thinking of irregular lots
such as in HR zone. Please do not limit the architectural options more than the base zone, unless
the applicant is proposing to take advantage of reduced SB9 setbacks.
• Page 10, A, 2, Lot Lines. New side lines of all lots shall be at right angles to streets. This doesn't
work on all lots; I'm particularly thinking of irregular lots such as in HR zone. Please do not
institute a rule that cannot be followed by everyone.
• Page 10, A, 5, Min Public Frontage, each new parcel shall have min frontage on street of 20’.
Again, this doesn't work on all lots, not only irregular lots, but lots that are on private streets.
Putting into effect new rules that not every lot can follow will just lead to more work for
Planning, as you will have to consider a number of exceptions, slowing down the permitting
process.
To repeat the most important two points:
1) Please, do not limit Los Gatans' options more than the base zone, unless that Los Gatan is taking
advantage of the reduced SB9 setbacks. Otherwise please just let us use the base zone's rules.
2) Please, do not institute laws that not every lot can follow (such as Page 10, A, 2)
David Hutchison
Ryan/Jennifer/Joel:
I am not exactly sure who is running ‘point’ on this, nor whether this meeting is a ‘planning fact-
finding’ meeting or something more significant - such as a ‘recommendation to the
Council’. Can you you please enlighten me?
I read the new proposed ‘draft SB-9 Ordinance’ and you have made some good improvements
which make sense - as well as a few that don’t. But if I ignore those, I do have a couple of questions
on items which are unclear. Could you please respond prior to the webinar so that I do not need to
wast my time on these.
1A. Section V.A.6. - Grading: This is ambiguous.
"Grading activity shall not exceed the summation of 50 cubic yards, cut plus fill, or [shall/shall
not] require a grading permit. . . .” Does this mean if you need more than 50 yds that you have to
get a grading permit OR that the project is not allowed a grading permit to exceed 50 yds?
This could be clarified by re-phrasing: Any Grading activity in excess of 50 yds, cut plus fill, shall
require a grading permit. Would this grading permit be administrative if you follow paragraphs 7,8,9?
1B. Section V.A.7/8/9 - Cut and Fill, etc
Now that you have added these paragraphs do clarify allowable grading activities, Section V.A.6 is
not longer needed.
2. Section VI.1/5. [and 3] - 20 ft frontage and 20 ft corridor.
I see that you have not modified this section. It is clearly in violation of the text of SB-9 which
allows an ULS parcel to either “adjoin” or “have access to” the public right of way.
The problem I have with the way it is written is that moderately long and narrow lots [where a flag-lot
would make sense] are pretty much eliminated [because so much of the rear lot is contained in the 20
ft wide flag-pole]. Just do the math on a 60 ft wide lot!
An IEE easement [as required by SCCFD of 12-15 ft would make more sense, in addition to being
legal [SB-9], and would make the 40/60 split more reasonable in terms of lot configurations. An
easement is probably going to be required by SCCFD anyway for EV access to the rear lot.
Why are you not addressing this issue?
3. Will it be possible to share a screen, or show a slide in some way at the webinar?
Thanks
Tony
T.H.I.S. DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT P.O.Box 1518, Los Gatos, CA 95031
Tel: 408.354.1863 Fax: 408.350.1823
Town of Los Gatos
110 E Main St
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Attn: Planning Commission
September 23rd, 2022
SB-9 DRAFT ORDINANCE
Commissioners:
I understand that you are reviewing the Draft [Permanent] SB-9 Ordinance which will
subsequently be recommended to the Town Council for Adoption. I have been
working with this Ordinance over the last year and have encountered several issues.
Luckily, staff has already proposed changes to the original Emergency Ordinance
and, for the most part, these changes would appear to be going in the right direction.
There are a few items that could be improved, but because the discretionary process
[DRC/Planning Commission, etc] is retained as an option for the design of any
house(s) on a resulting ULS parcel, I am less concerned about the objective design
standards for a ‘two residential housing unit’ development of SB-9.
I do, however, want to draw your attention to the one aspect of the Urban Lot Split
portion of SB-9, which I fear will result in very bad neighborhood design and which
can easily be avoided if it is considered seriously.
The 20 ft Fee Title Corridor for a Flag Lot.
SB-9 does not really allow a jurisdiction to restrict a flag lot access corridor to being
‘Fee Title’, which the current ordinance does, so there will always be a risk of a legal
challenge. All other local jurisdictions make provisions for an ingress/egress
easement alternate access the rear parcel. Just because there is a “20 FT Street
Frontage Rule” in the code now does not mean that is must stay for SB-9.
With the existing Ordinance you can get some really stupid lot configurations, not
intended by SB-9 and not desirable in the Town. This is your chance to correct it.
THE EXAMPLE shows what a homeowner could ask for “AS IS” and how you could
“FIX IT” – 2 vastly different approaches to the same lot.
Thanks
Tony Jeans
PREPARED BY: RYAN SAFTY
Associate Planner
Reviewed by: Planning Manager and Community Development Director
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● 406-354-6832
www.losgatosca.gov
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING COMMISSION
REPORT
MEETING DATE: 09/28/2022
ITEM NO: 3
DESK ITEM
DATE: September 28, 2022
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Consider Amendments to Chapter 29 (Zoning Regulations) of the Town Code
Regarding Permanent Regulations to Comply with the Requirements of
Senate Bill 9. Town Code Amendment Application A-22-002. Location:
Townwide. Applicant: Town of Los Gatos.
REMARKS:
Exhibit 8 includes public comment received between 11:01 a.m., September 23, 2022, and
11:00 a.m., September 28, 2022.
EXHIBITS:
Previously received with the September 28, 2022 Staff Report:
1.Draft Permanent SB 9 Ordinance
2.SB 9 Legislation
3.SB 9 Urgency Ordinance 2326
4.SB 9 Urgency Ordinance Extension 2327
5.California Department of Housing and Community Development SB 9 Fact Sheet
6.Association of Bay Area Governments SB 9 Model Ordinance
7.Public Comment received prior to 11:00 a.m., Friday, September 23, 2022
Received with this Desk Item Report:
8.Public Comment received between 11:01 a.m., September 23, 2022, and 11:00 a.m.,
September 28, 2022
ATTACHMENT 4
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
From: Adam Mayer
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2022 12:15 AM
To: Planning <Planning@losgatosca.gov>
Subject: Comments on Draft SB9 Ordinance (Driveways & Street Frontage)
EXTERNAL SENDER
Hello Planning Staff,
I just have a few comments on the SB9 Draft Ordinance.
The first comment is in regard to SECTION V - A (Zoning Standards) - 2 (Driveways) on page 4:
"Driveways. Each parcel shall include a single driveway, and any new
driveway shall satisfy the following requirements"
Can you please clarify if "each parcel" means each parcel after the lot split? In this case having two
separate, 10 foot wide driveways (1 that serves each parcel) would take up and waste a lot of space
(especially if the lot split is done in a way where one lot is at the rear of the site). I would strongly advise
against this. Part 2d goes onto to say that :
"Only a single driveway curb-cut shall be permitted per parcel designed in
accordance with the Town’s Standard Specifications and Plans for Parks and Public
Works Construction"
It would make more sense if only a single curb-cut were permitted for BOTH parcels. I understand
having a driveway shared by four units might not be an ideal arrangement for some, but limiting it to
one single curb cut total for both parcels after the split would go a long way in preserving the character
and walkability of single-family zoned neighborhoods.
To demonstrate both points, please see attached a conceptual proposal I designed for the City of Los
Angeles. In this case, a fourplex is proposed on a 7,500 ft² (50’ x 150’) single-family lot. The "Courtyard
Fourplex" consists of two buildings, each with one unit stacked upon another.
As you can see, the setbacks are respected but the four units share a single driveway to the parking
carport in the rear of the lot. If two driveways were required it would eat up more of the lot, require
another curb cut and probably make the project infeasible.
My second comment is in regard to SECTION V1 - A (Subdivision Standards) - 5 (Minimum Public
Frontage) on page 10:
"Each new parcel shall have frontage upon a street with a minimum frontage dimension of 20 feet"
Why do both lots after the lot split require public frontage? I understand the intent probably has to do
with access from the street, but what if one lot is in the rear of the site (as in my "Courtyard Fourplex"
example)?
EXHIBIT 8
I suppose you could consider the shared driveway as part of the "rear" lot in this case, giving it frontage
and access to the street. But then would this driveway be only able to be exclusively used by the rear
lot? Again this goes back to the question about sharing a driveway for both lots after a split.
These are both open-ended questions that I think require some discussion. Making accommodations for
split lots to share a driveway and street frontage is an important consideration. It is also going to lead to
less visual disruption on the front (public facing) part of properties that opt to use SB9 and do a better
job of preserving the aesthetic character of our single-family neighborhoods.
Regards,
Adam Mayer, Architect
Housing Element Board Member
--
Adam N. Mayer AIA, LEED AP BD+C, WELL AP
1
STUDIO-AMA
MULTI-GENERATIONAL COURTYARD FOURPLEX
No other city in the world matches the rich diversity of Los Angeles.
Both in terms of its stunning geographic setting and the multitude of communities that call the city
home, L.A. is not defined by a singular cultural marker. Instead, what unites Angelenos are often
unfortunate shared experiences, such as sitting in traffic on the freeway together or, more recently,
being unable to find an affordable place to live close to job centers.
Traffic & unaffordable housing are inextricably linked to the fundamental lack of variety in housing options.
While there are some beautiful apartment buildings and ‘Missing Middle’ housing built before WWII,
from the 1950s on Los Angeles came to be defined by the relentless sprawl of single-family home
development. This development pattern proliferated due to misguided (and often racist) zoning
regulations, government policy, and economic/cultural attitudes that placed the nuclear family
above multi-generational households.
Today, although single-family homes still dominate the Los Angeles cityscape, they are not the nuclear family containers as initially intended.
Generations of immigrants who moved to L.A. from Latin America, Asia, Africa, and the Middle East
have not had the luxury of each extended family member living in their own separate household.
Notwithstanding, there are advantages of having extended families living under one roof together
such as childcare, elder care, shared living costs, etc .
But if one challenge is associated with multiple extended family members in a single household, it is the potential for problems related to overcrowding.
Los Angeles has had to confront this reality over the past year with the COVID-19 pandemic,
which has disproportionally impacted working-class Black and Latino communities. According to a
recent Los Angeles Times article:
“Poor Latino neighborhoods are highly susceptible to COVID-19 spread because of dense housing,
crowded living conditions and the fact that many who live there are essential workers unable to
work from home. Officials believe people get sick on the job and then spread the virus among family
members at home.”
There are no words to describe how devastating COVID-19 has been for so many Angelenos.
The City of Los Angeles must invest in alternative housing models to preserve the advantages of
multi-generational households while avoiding the drawbacks of overcrowding. The ‘Multi-Generational
Courtyard Fourplex’ housing concept looks to address this problem by proposing a four-unit
development on a typical single-family lot.
The Multi-Generational Courtyard Fourplex consists of two buildings, united by a central courtyard that provides ample access to light and air.
The street-facing building consists of two 2 bed / 2 bath units, stacked upon one another, while the
rear building consists of a 3 bed / 2 bath unit stacked on top of a 1 bed / 1 bath ‘granny’ unit as
well as a carport with parking spaces for 3 vehicles (plus 2 additional vehicles if parked in tandem).
The courtyard, which opens toward the south to take advantage of the Southern California sun, is the project’s main social gathering space.
With a shared outdoor electric grill, it is imagined that this space also functions as an outdoor
dining room for family members or other residents to share a meal. The more ‘public’ functions of
each unit (living/kitchen/dining) face inward toward the courtyard while the more ‘private’ bedrooms
face outward. Aside from the bottom unit in the street-facing building, which is entered from the
street side, the other three units are accessed from the courtyard, further activating the space.
The architecture is inspired by the spirit of several of the great Southern California architects.
The communal living arrangements of Rudolph Schindler, the clean lines and health considerations of
Richard Neutra and the hints of Spanish Colonial architecture with the modern sensibilities of Irving Gill
all influence the design. Building upon this Southern California vernacular are the latest in sustainable
and energy efficiency strategies including all-electric appliances, EV charging stations at the carport,
bicycle storage, permeable pavers in the driveway, continuous insulation in all exterior walls and roofs,
smart metering, a drinking water bottle fill station in the courtyard, rooftop solar panels and a ‘solar
garden’ green roof on top of the rear building.
The front street-facing façade, set back 15 feet from the property line, is designed at ‘house-scale’, belying the fact that this property has four dwelling units.
This is a deliberate attempt to make the proposal more amenable to neighbors in historically
single-family neighborhoods who might be averse to the thought of higher density nearby. Drought-
tolerant plantings in the front yard complement the front façade and add beauty to the transition
between the public sidewalk and the building entry.
The simple material palette of smooth white stucco with clay tile accents over a typical wood-framed structure makes this an attractive yet affordable architectural language that can be replicated with slight modifications throughout Los Angeles.
Furthermore, the design is intended to be a flexible approach that can be applied to a variety of ownership
or rental models. The Multi-Generational Courtyard Fourplex offers a thoughtful yet straightforward
development and management opportunity for both small non-profit affordable housing developers
and local neighborhood-based community land trusts.
2
STUDIO-AMAMULTI-GENERATIONAL COURTYARD FOURPLEX
SITE PLANSTREET ELEVATION
PUBLIC STREETVEHICLE
ENTRY
DRIVEWAY W/
PERMEABLE PAVERS
COURTYARD
UNIT A
ENTRY
PEDESTRIAN
ENTRY
SOLAR GARDEN
10’-0”5’-0”15’-0”17’-6”21’-4”10’-2”N
3
STUDIO-AMAMULTI-GENERATIONAL COURTYARD FOURPLEX
LONGITUDINAL SECTION THROUGH COURTYARD
UNIT B
UNIT A UNIT C
UNIT D
COURTYARD
FRONT BACK
SOLAR GARDEN
4
STUDIO-AMAMULTI-GENERATIONAL COURTYARD FOURPLEX
GROUND FLOOR PLAN
SECOND FLOOR PLAN
DNDN
UP
OPEN
UNIT B
UNIT A
UNIT C
UNIT D
TRASH
SCALE: 3/32” = 1’-0”
SCALE: 3/32” = 1’-0”
DN
UP
UP
METERS
COURTYARD
UNIT TABULATION
UNIT A: 2 BED/2 BA, 1125 SF
UNIT B: 2 BED/2 BA, 1125 SF
UNIT C: 1 BED/1 BA, 500 SF
UNIT D: 3 BED/2 BA, 1250 SF
TOTAL RESIDENTIAL AREA:
4000 SF
N
5
STUDIO-AMAMULTI-GENERATIONAL COURTYARD FOURPLEX
OUTDOOR COURTYARD DINING
1. SAMSUNG HIGH-
EFFICIENCY
STACKED WASHER &
ELECTRIC DRYER
2. PANTRY
3. BOSCH BENCHMARK
INDUCTION RANGE
4. BOSCH 300 SERIES
DISHWASHER W/
LEAK PROTECTION
5. BOSCH 300 SERIES
ENERGY STAR RATED
REFRIGERATOR
6. DINING
7. OUTDOOR DINING
UNIT A
1 2
3
4 5
6
7COURTYARD
UNIT A/B KITCHEN & DINING
6
STUDIO-AMA
SUSTAINABILITY STRATEGIES
SOLAR GARDEN W/RAISED
PLANTERS FOR HERB &
VEGETABLE CULTIVATION
ROOFTOP PHOTOVOLTAIC ARRAY
GREEN ROOF FOR STORMWATER
MANAGEMENT
ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGERS (3)
SECURE BICYCLE STORAGE
GREEN WASTE & RECYCLING
PROGRAM
PERMEABLE PAVING FOR
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
CONTINUOUS INSULATION INSIDE
RESIDENTIAL UNIT WALL & LIGHT-
COLORED EXTERIOR FINISH
MULTI-GENERATIONAL COURTYARD FOURPLEX
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2022
Item #3, Amendment to Town Code re: SB 9
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A P P E A R A N C E S:
Los Gatos Planning
Commissioners:
Melanie Hanssen, Chair
Jeffrey Barnett, Vice Chair
Kathryn Janoff
Steve Raspe
Reza Tavana
Emily Thomas
Town Manager: Laurel Prevetti
Community Development
Director:
Joel Paulson
Town Attorney: Gabrielle Whelan
Transcribed by: Vicki L. Blandin
(619) 541-3405
ATTACHMENT 5
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2022
Item #3, Amendment to Town Code re: SB 9
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
P R O C E E D I N G S:
CHAIR HANSSEN: We will move on to the third item
on the agenda, and that is we are going to be reviewing the
proposed draft ordinance for SB 9, and the action requested
from the Commission is to make a recommendation to Town
Council who will ultimately make the deciding action on
this.
Item 3 is considering amendments to Chapter 29,
Zoning Regulations of the Town Code regarding regulations
to comply with the requirements of Senate Bill 9. Town Code
Amendment Application A-22-002. Location: Townwide, and our
Applicant is the Town of Los Gatos.
I will turn to Staff to give us a Staff Report on
behalf of the Town.
RYAN SAFTY: Thank you and good evening. Before
you tonight is the draft permanent ordinance to implement
the requirements of Senate Bill 9.
SB 9 went into effect on January 1, 2022 and
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
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2022
Item #3, Amendment to Town Code re: SB 9
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
State. The law allows for two new types of development
activities that must be reviewed ministerially without any
discretionary action or public input.
First is a two-unit housing development, which
includes two homes on an eligible Single-Family Residential
parcel; and two, an urban lot split, which is a one-time
subdivision of an existing Single-Family Residential parcel
into two lots.
When used, SB 9 will result in the potential
creation of four dwelling units on an existing Single-
Family zoned parcel. In contrast, Single-Family zoned
parcels are currently permitted three units throughout the
State, including a primary Single-Family dwelling, an
Accessory Dwelling Unit, and a Junior Accessory Dwelling
Unit.
SB 9 also outlines how jurisdictions may regulate
SB 9 projects. Jurisdictions may only apply objective
zoning, subdivision, and design standards to these
projects, and these standards may not preclude the
construction of up to two units of at least 800 square feet
each. Jurisdictions can conduct objective design review,
but may not have hearings for units that meet the State
rules.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2022
Item #3, Amendment to Town Code re: SB 9
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
On December 21st of last year Town Council adopted
an Urgency Ordinance to implement local Objective Standards
for SB 9 applications. This Urgency Ordinance was extended
and is valid until the end of the calendar year. The draft
ordinance, provided as Exhibit 1 with the Staff Report,
includes amendments to the Urgency Ordinance in response to
State feedback, such as inclusion of HR zones, additional
definitions and exclusion areas, new Hillside Standards,
utility connection requirements, replacement housing,
relationship with ADUs, and owner attestation statements.
Details on each of these are provided in Section A of the
Staff Report.
Staff has also made edits to the draft ordinance
in order to help clarify existing standards based on
questions from the public that arose in this past year,
which are described in detail in Section B of the report.
Last week the Town hosted a community meeting to
discuss developing a permitted SB 9 Ordinance and foster
public participation. The public comments gathered during
this meeting, as well as all other written public comments
that were submitted this year, are included in the packet
and discussed in the Staff Report. Of the public comments
received there are seven comments that were repeated, which
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2022
Item #3, Amendment to Town Code re: SB 9
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
are described in Section C of the report. Additional public
comments were forwarded with today’s Desk Item report.
Staff looks for direction from the Planning
Commission on the topic included in Sections C and D of the
Staff Report, as well as any questions or comments on the
drafted ordinance. This concludes Staff’s presentation and
we are happy to answer any questions.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for your presentation,
and thank you for the thorough Staff Report. I’d like to
find out if any Commissioners have questions for Staff
before we go to public comments. And you will have another
opportunity to ask questions after we take public comments.
I don’t see any Commissioners raising their hands
right now, so I will turn to Verbal Communications and
offer this as an opportunity for any members of the public
to speak on this item.
I would like to preface that by saying we’re very
thankful to all those who participated in the community
meeting last week as well as sent in comments that were
included in our Staff Report, and in addition we got
additional comments from the public in the Desk Item today,
and now would be an opportunity to speak in Verbal
Communications on this item, and you will have up to three
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2022
Item #3, Amendment to Town Code re: SB 9
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
minutes. Please raise your hand if you would like to speak
on this item.
JENNIFER ARMER: If anyone would like to speak on
this item, Senate Bill 9 permanent ordinance, please raise
your hand now. We’ll give them just a moment in case anyone
wishes to speak. All right, we’ve got a couple of people
who are interested in speaking. The first will be Lee
Quintana. You should be able to unmute and speak now.
LEE QUINTANA: My most important question has to
do with the fact that the ordinance contains a provision
that once the lot split has occurred that the construction
on the lots can be processed as a discretionary project. I
don’t understand that since I believe the bill says that
you need to use Objective Standards when implementing SB 9,
and SB 9 covers both the lot split and two-unit
developments by only requiring the lot split to be
objective or building up to four units on a parcel that is
not a lot split, but allowing once the lot split has taken
place. To allow the resulting projects to be discretionary
doesn’t seem consistent with my understanding of the law.
I have other questions, but I’m going to reserve
them until I see the report that comes out for the Council.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2022
Item #3, Amendment to Town Code re: SB 9
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for your comments. I
wanted to find out if any Commissioners have questions for
Ms. Quintana? I don’t see any hands raised.
Staff, in terms of responding to the comments,
we’re just going to proceed as we normally do in a hearing
and not directly address them, but I do have a question on
her comment for Staff.
JENNIFER ARMER: That is correct, though if the
comments and questions from the public bring up questions
for the Commissioners, Staff is happy to provide
clarification.
CHAIR HANSSEN: I will hold off on that for now,
and we will ask if there’s anyone else that would like to
speak on this item?
JENNIFER ARMER: Yes, Tony Jeans. You may go
ahead.
TONY JEANS: Yes, would it be possible to show
the very last page on the public comments?
JENNIFER ARMER: Just a moment. Let me see if we
can pull that up.
TONY JEANS: While that’s being pulled up, I’d
like to say that what I’d like to do is show you the
dilemma that I have when I am asked by clients to consider
a lot split on their property, and I would like you to
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2022
Item #3, Amendment to Town Code re: SB 9
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
consider one change to the existing draft ordinance. Okay,
if you could make that a little larger.
What you’re seeing there is a lot on the left-
hand side, and the same lot is on the right, and it’s a
12,800 square foot lot. I just picked a lot that was
80’x160’, a typical lot that you might find in an R-110
neighborhood.
The way I have to split that lot, if a client
comes to me and says, “Could you split this lot for me and
give me 60% for my main house on the front, and split a lot
at the rear of 40% that I could sell?” what I have to do at
the moment is first of all I do a calculation of 40% of the
lot size, and 40% of 12,800 is 5,120. That is what I have
to create at 40%.
The existing ordinance requires me to have a 20’
wide right-of-way to the back lot on the left hand side
that is shown in the purple color, and it is counted as
part of the 5,120 square feet. So when you take the 5,120
square feet you can see what a small piece of property you
end up with at the back, because the flagpole, the
panhandle, whatever you want to call it, is 20’ wide and it
has to be part of the 40%.
I don’t believe that that is a property that you
want to create and subsequently have houses designed for. I
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2022
Item #3, Amendment to Town Code re: SB 9
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
think it’s a disaster waiting to happen, and I would ask
you to change it to the way every other jurisdiction has
it—go to the picture on the right hand side—which is you
split it 60%/40%, that is the line through the middle, you
are allowed an easement to the back lot, and SB 9
specifically requires the Town to give you either street
frontage for the property or provide a means of access to
the street, which every other jurisdiction—Monte Sereno,
Saratoga, Santa Clara, San Jose—have all interpreted to
mean an easement.
Furthermore, the width of that easement only
needs to be wide enough for a fire truck ingress/egress
easement to access the rear lot for safety. Twenty feet
just happens to be what the current Town Code is and they
haven’t changed it. So what you have is a really, really
difficult situation.
Also, the 20’ width requirement means that it is
incredibly difficult on most lots, unless they’re very
large, to not demolish the house, because it tends to go
closer to the side property lines than 20’.
I would like you to look at changing that to the
way every other jurisdiction does it, which is allow an
easement to the back parcel and treat it that way. Thank
you.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2022
Item #3, Amendment to Town Code re: SB 9
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for your comments, and
I would note that you made multiple comments through the
process and we really appreciate that, including the
drawings as well.
It looks like Commissioner Janoff has a question
for you.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Thank you. Just briefly,
Mr. Jeans, you indicate that every other jurisdiction has
used the 12’-15’ width. Is that something that they have
done in conjunction with their SB 9 ordinance or with a
different ordinance? Is their response to SB 9? And could
you be specific, when you say every other, are they using
12’, or are they using 15’, or is it a mix?
TONY JEANS: In every case, as I see it, it is a
specific response to SB 9 to implement it according to the
literal terms of the law, which I believe requires the town
to allow it. The choice of width varies from jurisdiction
to jurisdiction. Some it is not defined, some it just says
sufficient for fire access ingress/egress. The City of San
Jose says anywhere between 12’-15’ either as a fee title
ownership to the rear lot, or as an easement. The City of
Saratoga does not define the width, but it allows an
easement.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2022
Item #3, Amendment to Town Code re: SB 9
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
So you have a wide range of options, but I think
that if you were to put footage on it, 12’-15’ is good,
because the fire access requirement to a property is 12’
wide, so if you provide a minimum of 12’, you’re okay.
CHAIR HANSSEN: I think that answered the
question. I just wanted to clarify, because you had sent in
multiple documents, and I have a couple of questions.
First of all, on this particular issue you’re
asking for multiple things and I just wanted to make sure
that I’m clear about this. One is that you feel that the
20’ is too wide, and it sounds like you’re neutral to
whether it’s 12’ or 15’; it just should be in that range.
Then secondly, you are opposed to counting the driveway at
the access as part of the square footage of either parcel,
and by doing an easement that would solve that problem. Is
that the right way to look at it, what you are asking for?
TONY JEANS: I think my primary concern is that an
easement should be allowed. If you allow an easement you
could choose to—I don’t think you should, but you could
choose to—take that square footage off the front lot. I
don’t think you should. I think an easement is an easement.
I think it gives the simplest way to do a 60%/40% split and
end up with reasonable lots so that you’re not cramping a
design of either house on the front or the back. I think if
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2022
Item #3, Amendment to Town Code re: SB 9
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
you go away from 20’ fee frontage, which is what the Town
has in its code now, I think there’s no rational basis for
taking away that corridor from either lot. We’re dealing
with relatively small lots, I don’t think that it’s
beneficial, so I think the main thing is allow an easement
as an option instead of requiring it to be a 20’ wide fee
frontage.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you. That clears up my
question. Are there any other Commissioners that have
questions for Mr. Jeans? I don’t see any other hands
raised, so I’d like to ask if any other members of the
public would like to speak on this item?
JENNIFER ARMER: If anyone else would like to
speak on this item, please raise your hand now. I’ll give
them just a moment in case there is anyone else who would
like to share their thoughts on this. David, you should be
able to unmute, and you have three minutes.
DAVID: Thank you. I’d like to just comment on
two things.
The first is of course we all know the point of
this is not to make everyone happy, the point of this is to
provide an orderly rollout of the State law, so that makes
a lot of sense to me.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2022
Item #3, Amendment to Town Code re: SB 9
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Some of the provisions that don’t make sense, for
instance, Tony brought up a good example. Even if the
ordinance goes through like this and it is required that
you eat into the front lot and it’s not an easement, then
surely nobody would divide their lot that way. Well, this
is attractive enough for some homeowners that they will
divide the lot that way and you will get these non-optimal
solutions and non-optimal results just for people trying to
follow the letter of the law so that they can get what they
see as a perceived benefit from this ministerial process in
terms of their time and money.
I think with that in mind, and a couple of points
I’m about to comment on, it makes sense actually to provide
the fewest restrictions possible within reason for this
orderly rollout of State law, because the more restrictions
there are, the more sort of non-optimal results you’ll get
when people are attracted toward trying to follow this
ordinance but they find a funny way around it that really
no one is happy with, they’re not happy with, the planners
are not happy with, and perhaps the neighbors are not happy
with.
If a proposed projects fails on any one point in
this local ordinance it becomes ineligible, so some of the
ways we might want it to fail is if they’re trying to
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2022
Item #3, Amendment to Town Code re: SB 9
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
create a very large house, so that fails because there’s a
square footage slide and we don’t necessarily want anyone
to build anything with this law, or if they’re trying to
build closer than 4’property line, of course that is not
eligible. But it can also fail in other ways that are not
intended, like the one that Tony Jeans has pointed out.
Another way I’d just point out is, for instance,
with an urban lot split. Lot lines need to be right angles
to the street. That’s not practical. Not every lot in Los
Gatos can be divided with lot lines that are at right
angles to the street or radial to a curve. Consider the
irregularly shaped lots, or if what Tony is saying is
implemented by the Planning Commission, meaning that this
becomes an easement and not actually part of the rear
parcel, then that lot line, which Tony draw horizontal,
would not be parallel to the street.
I would worry that implementing any rule in this
that cannot be followed, is simply impossible for every lot
in Los Gatos to follow, is a violation of State law, that
requiring lot lines to be at right angles to the street is
not always possible.
Another example is a minimum public frontage of,
I think, 20’ on public roads. There are many houses and
lots that are not on a public road, they’re on a private
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2022
Item #3, Amendment to Town Code re: SB 9
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
road, so it’s not clear how they comply without further
clarification, or perhaps just reduced restriction. For
instance, if this minimum public frontage requirement was
deleted from the text, I wonder if that would solve this
particular problem? That’s all I have to say. Thank you.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you very much for your
comments, and also for the written comments that you sent
in as well as part of our packet. I’d like to ask if any
Commissioners have any questions for David? Vice Chair
Barnett.
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: I’d also like to thank you
for your written submission to the Commission in the
attachment to the Staff Report that we received as a Desk
Item, I believe.
Would it satisfy your concerns if an easement was
used for access rather than a fee simple grant, and also if
the requirement of right angles or radial was deleted?
DAVID: That would satisfy that aspect. I only had
three minutes, so I didn’t talk to some of the
architectural points and concerns, but that certainly
satisfies the particular point that I raised tonight, yes.
CHAIR HANSSEN: All right, thank you for that. Do
any other Commissioners have questions for David? I don’t
see any additional hands up, so I will open it up to anyone
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2022
Item #3, Amendment to Town Code re: SB 9
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
else from the public that would like to speak on this item,
and this is the only opportunity to speak on this item,
because I will be closing the public hearing and we will be
having the discussion of our recommendations amongst the
Commissioners.
JENNIFER ARMER: So one more opportunity if
anyone wishes to speak on this item, share thoughts, or
questions that have come up on Senate Bill 9
implementation. I’m not seeing any additional hands raised.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Very good. I will remind everyone
that is watching from the public that there will be other
opportunities to comment on this item. You can send your
written comments into Staff following this meeting. When
the Town Council hears this item you’ll have an opportunity
to send written comments as well, as well as speak at their
meeting when they’re actually making the deciding vote on
going forward with this SB 9 Ordinance, so there will be
multiple opportunities to speak going forward.
That being said, I will close public comments and
we will go back to the Commission and to Commissioner Rasp.
COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thanks, Chair. Actually, I’m
curious to hear from Staff as to their thoughts on the
easement issue and then the perpendicular right angle issue
for our streets, and why we’re currently apparently the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2022
Item #3, Amendment to Town Code re: SB 9
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
outlier on it and if there’s a rationale for using a
different approach.
CHAIR HANSSEN: It looks like our Town Attorney
has a comment for you.
ATTORNEY WHELAN: I’ll address the easement
question first. The proposed ordinance referenced the fee
interest because the thought was that we would be
consistent with what is required for other flag lots in
town, but I do think that the speakers have raised a good
issue with regard to the language of SB 9. They are correct
that SB 9 simply requires that both parcels have access to
right-of-way, and they are correct that access could be
provided via either the fee or the easement interest, so
that is a valid comment.
With regard to the line being parallel to the
right-of-way, SB 9 does require that agencies ministerially
approve lots that meet a set of criteria and none of those
enumerated criteria include that the lot line is parallel
to the right-of-way, however, there is a subsequent section
of SB 9 that says, “A local agency may impose objective
subdivision standards that do not conflict with this
section.”
It’s kind of interesting, because the legislation
is setting forth the criteria under which the lot split is
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2022
Item #3, Amendment to Town Code re: SB 9
18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to be approved, yet it’s also giving agencies the ability
to impose objective subdivision standards, and there’s
really a question as to whether an extra requirement
conflicts with the enumerated requirements in the statute,
so if I don’t have a definitive answer on that second issue
regarding the parallel line, perhaps Jennifer has a thought
on that.
JENNIFER ARMER: Yes, thank you, Town Attorney. I
would just add the idea behind including that provision.
The goal there really was just to keep things relatively
orderly, trying to find an Objective Standard, something
that could be put in place to try to make sure any
subdivision is done in a relatively simple,
straightforward, orderly way, but as with many of the
Objective Standards that have been included in here, if
that is something that the Planning Commission recommends
modifying, that’s definitely one that could be removed or
modified.
COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thanks, that answers my
question. Chair, one follow up question as long as I’ve got
the lawyer close by.
Assuming that there would be use of easements,
would we envision that we’d leave the terms of the easement
up to the developer, for instance, who is responsible for
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2022
Item #3, Amendment to Town Code re: SB 9
19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
maintenance and payment, or would that be something we’d
have to dictate as part of our SB 9 Town Code regulations?
ATTORNEY WHELAN: What I would recommend is that
maintenance, and one Commissioner asked about requiring
that the parties agree that attorney’s fees will be paid in
the event of a dispute, my recommendation would be that
terms like that be negotiated between the two property
owners, but I do think that it would make sense for the
Town to impose as a condition of approval that access
always has to be maintained so that the access can’t be
blocked.
JENNIFER ARMER: I would add to that that Staff
does review the map and we do send it over to Parks and
Public Works for a preliminary review as well, and
generally they would be looking to make sure that there is
an easement shown both for access and for any utilities to
get to the rear walk.
COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thanks to you both for
answering those questions.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Before I go to Commissioner
Janoff or anyone else, I did want to say that what we
decided for this meeting is to go through the issues that
are outlined in the Staff Report starting on page 6 for
this item, which is page 124 in the packet. They mention C
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2022
Item #3, Amendment to Town Code re: SB 9
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and D relative to public comments. I was going to bring up
each and every one of those issues and get some resolution
on that, but since we are on the subject of the easement,
and it’s fresh on our minds, as well as with the access,
maybe we should take that issue first and see if we can get
a recommendation that gels with the Commission that we can
make to Town Council. So why don’t we continue this
particular discussion and see what other comments and
suggestions we have from the Commission?
Commissioner Janoff.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Thank you. I did have a
question about the minimum frontage comments, but if we’re
going to get to those as we proceed, then I’ll hold off on
that.
CHAIR HANSSEN: If you’re talking about the 20’,
but there’s also the minimum frontage for any portion to
the street, right?
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Right, and I was just
curious what the Town Attorney might interpret along that
particular issue.
ATTORNEY WHELAN: Is this a good time, Chair
Hanssen?
CHAIR HANSSEN: Go ahead, since it was brought
up.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2022
Item #3, Amendment to Town Code re: SB 9
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ATTORNEY WHELAN: The only requirements that I
see in SB 9 are the 40%/60% difference and that one lot
can’t be smaller than 1,200. I’m not recalling a portion of
SB 9 that addresses minimum street frontage.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: And I think minimum street
frontage is in our code elsewhere, so SB 9 does not drive
it.
I would be in favor of the developer having the
choice of a fee, whatever that’s called, or an easement.
Different properties are shaped differently. The example
that Mr. Jeans provided is a long lot. You could have a
wide lot, you could have an oddly shaped lot, you just
don’t always have the same structure, so I would allow that
to be a choice that the developer would make in the
determination of the lot split. At least, I would be in
favor of that.
Same issue with regard to right angles, and Ms.
Armer, you talked about an organized split, and that
probably means something to you. I can imagine what that
means. I think what you’re saying is you don’t want
something jury-rigged with a lot of angles and strange
shapes in order to get to some percentage that isn’t really
useable. There’s probably a better way to say that than the
right angles. I know, for instance, in my neighborhood we
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2022
Item #3, Amendment to Town Code re: SB 9
22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
don’t have any right angles. None of the plots have right
angles, but they have angles, so I think moving away from
the right angle terminology is a good thing, but talking
about simplified shapes or something would maybe make more
sense in trying to convey the idea that we want something
organized.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Janoff, since you
have the floor, could you also comment on your thoughts
about the width of the access.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: As I said, as I recall from
previous Planning Commission meetings when we talked about
flag lots, I think the 20’ access is related to the Flag
Lot Ordinance that we have. I could be mistaken. But I
would be in favor of reducing that for sure. I think the
argument that it creates a potentially unworkable remaining
shape for the structures is a good argument. If you’re
talking about between 5’-8’, that makes a big difference,
and so I would say if the Fire Department says 12’ minimum,
I think 12’ minimum is fine.
The only comment I would say to that is elsewhere
we say 12’-18’ I can’t remember what it is, a driveway or
something, and then the hillsides it says 12’ but no
maximum, so whatever we use, if we’re using a number or a
range, we should be consistent with that in SB 9 and also
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2022
Item #3, Amendment to Town Code re: SB 9
23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
in the other guidelines, even if that means making some
change to our code.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Okay, fair enough. Commissioner
Tavana.
COMMISSIONER TAVANA: Thank you, Chair. I guess
I’m a little bit confused in terms of the square footage
requirements in parcels with respect to nonconforming
conditions. On page 12 of the draft ordinance, I guess #5,
it says, “Nonconforming conditions. The Town now requires
as a condition of approval the correction of nonconforming
zone conditions, however, no new nonconforming conditions
may result from the urban lot split other than interior
side or rear setbacks as specified in Table 1.2.” So my
question is are we creating many nonconforming lots by
splitting these lots into smaller pieces? Because across
town, at least in my neighborhood, every lot is
nonconforming, so what controls do we have in place to
prevent nonconforming lots or small flag lots? Just a
general question, maybe surface level.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Staff, could you respond relative
to what we have in the ordinance right now?
RYAN SAFTY: Yes, thank you for the question, and
Ms. Armer, if there’s anything else to add afterwards,
please feel free.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2022
Item #3, Amendment to Town Code re: SB 9
24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Via SB 9 we are required to allow a 1,200 square
foot minimum lot size. The terms nonconforming, we’re no
longer looking at the zoning requirements for minimum lot
size, so generally an R-18 zone, 8,000 square foot is the
minimum lot size. SB 9 does come in and say the minimum lot
size we can require is 1,200, so it is a lot smaller than
what we’re used to.
JENNIFER ARMER: What I can add to that is that
language about the Town shall not require a correction of
nonconforming zoning conditions, that’s actually directly
from the State law that as part of an application if
there’s a nonconforming situation, we can’t make them fix
that as a condition of an SB 9 subdivision. There clearly
are a number of components here where it is allowed under
these regulations where it otherwise would not be allowed.
Minimum lot size is an obvious example where a subdivision
wouldn’t be allowed through the standard process, because
the lot isn’t double the minimum lot size, but SB 9 would
allow it.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Tavana, does that
help answer your question?
COMMISSIONER TAVANA: Yes, it does, thank you.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Just to keep things on track for
the same subject that we’re on, there will be an
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2022
Item #3, Amendment to Town Code re: SB 9
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
opportunity to bring up whatever you want, but I do want to
make sure we answer all the questions, so I would like to
find out from any other Commissioners if you have comments
on any of the things that have come up so far, which is the
fee or easement discussion, the width of the access for the
flag lots, whether or not it could be less than what’s in
the code, or should we revise the underlying code as well,
and the issue about the right angles?
I just want to clarify with Staff, the issue of
counting the access in the square footage is a separate
issue, or does that get resolved if we use an easement?
JENNIFER ARMER: Thank you for that question. We
would use the current standard practice, which is the area
that is in the easement as he showed it. What was shown in
that image was that the new rear parcel would gain access
to the street through an easement over the front parcel,
and so the area that easement goes over is still part of
the front property and would still count as part of the
area of the front property.
For example, the size of the house that would be
allowed on that front property would be based on the full
lot size, it would not be reduced based on that flagpole
area, because it’s an easement, whereas the standard
practice right now for flag lots, if there is a flagpole
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2022
Item #3, Amendment to Town Code re: SB 9
26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that is dedicated, that’s part of the land for the rear
lot, that area is actually removed from the lot size before
you calculate the floor area, that’s a net lot size, and so
that, I think, is part of the component of what they were
talking about with the benefits of having an easement being
used.
I also did want to provide a little more
clarification to the question of the perpendicular property
lines. Since we have had to expand the application of this
ordinance to include the hillside lots, it is correct,
we’ve dealt with more irregularly shaped lots. The
perpendicular, I think, was primarily focused on
rectangular parcels, which is a lot of what we have in the
flatlands. It does have a provision that if you have a
curved front lot line, like at the end of a cul-de-sac,
that it would be a radial, so it’s kind of perpendicular to
the curve, and we have successfully used that.
For example, on a hillside lot that came in
recently, they have kind of, if you think of a pie slice,
it’s a quarter of a pizza, and they wanted to divide that
in half. They basically cut that into two slices, and if
the road is on the curved crust side of that pizza, then
the line is cutting it into two similar sized pieces, and
so the line was perpendicular to the curve of that lot, and
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2022
Item #3, Amendment to Town Code re: SB 9
27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
so it is possible even with irregular lots to find a way to
use that requirement and make it function for that site.
That is just additional context for your discussion.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Can I ask a question to respond
to that to make sure I understand? Since it’s not in the
State’s SB 9 ordinance, why are we including this in there?
What are we worried would happen if we don’t have it in
there?
JENNIFER ARMER: As I said, it really was
intended to not have oddly shaped, complex, kind of jury
rigged shapes, to have something in there to provide
guidance as to how to do a standard layout for the sites.
That really was the goal. If it feels to the Planning
Commission that it’s overly restrictive, then it’s not
something that we have to have in there.
CHAIR HANSSEN: I was just asking the question,
but thank you for that, and we’ll see what the
Commissioners think about that.
Just another question for Staff in terms of
process that I should have asked yesterday, when we’ve done
the General Plan and some other things we’ve voted on
sections of things, but we have a lot of individual issues
that are on the list to go through, what would be the best
thing? Do you want us to try to vote on everything, or to
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2022
Item #3, Amendment to Town Code re: SB 9
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
see if we have consensus and then hopefully we can put
together a motion at the end?
JENNIFER ARMER: I think it would be fine if you
wanted to do it either way. If somebody wants to keep track
of the consensus items and make a final motion at the end
of what additional changes should be made, that would work.
But it also would be equally fine if you wanted to make
interim motions of changes that are agreed upon. I will
also defer to the Town Attorney if she has anything to add.
ATTORNEY WHELAN: I agree with those suggestions.
CHAIR HANSSEN: All right, so we’re flexible. We
are only making a recommendation; it’s not a deciding vote
that will go into law.
Vice Chair Barnett.
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: I have a question for the
Town Attorney, which is whether you can articulate any
benefits to using a simple access road versus having an
easement. We talked about both, and I don't know if there
would be a situation where the fee would be preferred.
ATTORNEY WHELAN: The only benefit that came to
mind for me was consistency with what the Town requires for
other flag lots, but other than that I can’t think of a
benefit of one versus the other.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2022
Item #3, Amendment to Town Code re: SB 9
29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIR HANSSEN: I’m going to ask a follow up on
the Vice Chair’s question, which is since this is for
specific kinds of projects is it problematic that we have
things in the ordinance that are different than what’s in
our Zoning Code?
ATTORNEY WHELAN: No.
JENNIFER ARMER: And I would say that it’s not a
problem. If you think of the regulations that were adopted
for Accessory Dwelling Units, there are situations there,
for example, the setbacks that are allowed for those
Accessory Dwelling Units, the floor area that is allowed
for those additional Accessory Dwelling Units, and the fact
that they can be a second story on a detached structure,
those are all things that otherwise wouldn’t be allowed,
but are allowed for that specific type of use or process.
CHAIR HANSSEN: All right, that’s helpful. So the
issues that we’re talking about right now, and I would like
to hear more from the other Commissioners, is this issue
about the fee simple or easement, or both, which is
certainly an option, for how to provide access. The issue
of the access and how it’s counted, and then the issue of
the right angles.
Commissioner Raspe.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2022
Item #3, Amendment to Town Code re: SB 9
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you, Chair. My
thoughts on the easement issue, I think we should make
available to the developer either/or and give them the most
amount of flexibility, because as we know in this town,
every lot is different and I think any more flexibility
also adds to supporting the general purpose of SB 9.
The only caveat to that is, as Town Council
notes, if we are going to do an easement, at a minimum the
user of the easement should be responsible for the
maintenance of the easement so that at least there’s always
access, and no property can block another from use of that
easement at any given time.
On the radial versus perpendicular line issue,
again, I would counsel flexibility, because it seems to me
that probably more than half of this town is nonconforming
in its shapes and sizes, and so again, whatever allows us
the greatest benefit and of use, let’s use that standard,
so I don’t think we should have a hard and fast rule that
it be 90% or any other. In my view, more flexibility in
that regard is better.
Back to the easement issue, who owns and holds
that, I think it’s whoever owns the land, that portion of
the land should be allotted to their interests. That’s my
thinking.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2022
Item #3, Amendment to Town Code re: SB 9
31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIR HANSSEN: Very good. Oh, and the width of
the access?
COMMISSIONER RASPE: It seems to me that 20’ is
entirely too large, so I would be happy with any number
between 12’-15’. It should probably be a standard number,
and I would defer to experts on that one if there were a
standard in the industry that’s more.
And again, I think the only issue is in the
hillsides. They’ve recommended, I think, 18’ because of
fire reasons. Let’s maintain that one, because I think the
Fire Department has already opined that they need a wider
access on the hillsides.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Can Staff clarify about the
access in the hillsides? Is it 18’?
RYAN SAFTY: Thank you. The guideline says 12’
for driveways in the hillsides.
COMMISSIONER RASPE: Okay, I stand corrected.
Thanks.
CHAIR HANSSEN: All right, good. Vice Chair
Barnett.
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: I agree with Commissioner
Raspe in terms of giving a developer the option to use a
fee interest or an easement, but I think we need to keep in
the requirement that in the case of the fees means that the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2022
Item #3, Amendment to Town Code re: SB 9
32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
lot size has to be considered without that fee interest.
That’s the way (inaudible) read.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Is that possible if they use the
fee simple structure to not count that as a reduction of
the square footage that they have available?
JENNIFER ARMER: Just to ask for some
clarification, what you’re saying is if the rear lot
included the flagpole, so they own that area rather than
having that as an access easement, that you are interested
in having the rear lot being able to use the flagpole area
in terms of calculating their maximum house size, is that
what you want?
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: I read the current draft of
the ordinance. In the case of the fee interest grant to
establish the right-of-way to both parcels that there would
be a reduction in the minimum parcel size. Maybe I had that
wrong.
JENNIFER ARMER: My understanding of the way that
it’s written so far—and Mr. Safty, you can correct me if
I’m wrong—is that when we are looking at the lot size for
the rear parcel in terms of what maximum allowed floor
area, we just calculate that rectangle in the rear; we do
not include the purple area. I believe that’s what we’re
talking about, or are you talking about the lot area in
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2022
Item #3, Amendment to Town Code re: SB 9
33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
terms of the 40%/60% split? I guess there are a couple of
different components here.
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: My understanding from
reading the ordinance, and perhaps I’m wrong, is that the
fee grant as opposed to the easement would reduce the
available square footage for the improvements with Parcel 1
or Parcel 2.
JENNIFER ARMER: That is correct, because when
it’s fee that is part of the lot area for the rear, but it
doesn’t count towards when they’re calculating the maximum
floor area, so that is correct, whereas if it was an
easement, then the entire parcel size is divided between
the two and can be used towards that calculation. My
understanding then is what you’re suggesting, that when the
flagpole is fee rather than easement, that that would not
be excluded from the net lot size of the rear parcel.
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Correct. I think we’ve got
it now.
JENNIFER ARMER: I think I understand what you’re
suggesting, hopefully.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Just to add on to this
discussion, so the chart that you just had up from Mr.
Jeans where he was showing that the back lot would only
have half of what they thought they had because you’re
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2022
Item #3, Amendment to Town Code re: SB 9
34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
including the flag, that’s not what our ordinance says, is
that what you’re saying? Because counting it as part of the
overall lot and then deciding that you could build less on
account of it because of FAR, those are dramatically
different things that we would be worried about, because
you wouldn’t be able to get the desired result?
JENNIFER ARMER: I think part of what is causing
some confusion in this situation, if you look at the first
example that he provided you can see that for Parcel 2
there is the gross lot area, which includes the purple, and
then there’s the net lot area, which does not include the
purple area, and the reason that there is a net lot area in
this case is that the Town’s current regulations for flag
lots say that when you calculate your floor area it needs
to be based on that net lot area excluding the flagpole. So
you still have the gross floor area that’s the equal
between these two examples, but because so much of that is
for the 20’ flagpole it ends up very uneven in terms of net
lot size that can be used for the purposes of calculating
the house size.
CHAIR HANSSEN: So I’m going to say, at least
from my perspective, that that’s an undesirable result,
because they’re sharing that for access and you shouldn’t
penalize them in terms of the square footage of the house
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2022
Item #3, Amendment to Town Code re: SB 9
35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
they should build, so is there a way we can make it so that
that’s to the case?
JENNIFER ARMER: I’ll actually defer to Community
Development Director Paulson to see if he has thoughts to
add.
JOEL PAULSON: Thanks. Not to add more confusion
to what’s already seemingly confusing to folks here. The
current code actually doesn’t include the flag portion as
part of the lot, so for meeting the minimum requirement,
and as Ms. Armer mentioned, it also reduces the potential
FAR. Obviously, the simplest way to deal with that is if
someone chooses not to do a flag lot because the lot is
small, as in Mr. Jeans’ instance, but you could have much
larger lots in the R-120 or the HR, for instance, where
that’s not going to be as much of an issue, but I think the
easement really cleans that up.
Having the option, I think, is probably the best
way to go, and that way if they do run into an issue where
it is significantly restricting the FAR, for instance, or
impacting the lot at the rear because it reduces the net
lot area by so much, then that easement really is going to
be the provision that allows them to have the most
flexibility.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Okay. Commissioner Tavana.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2022
Item #3, Amendment to Town Code re: SB 9
36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER TAVANA: Thank you. Just a quick
question for Staff, and I would be remiss if I didn’t ask
this out loud actually tonight. Is there a minimum square
foot size for the urban lot split in terms of the
applicability in terms of how large a lot should be that’s
applicable?
ATTORNEY WHELAN: I can answer that one. There
are two requirements. Neither of the two lots can be
smaller than 1,200 square feet, and the ratio of the lots
to one another needs to be 40%/60%, so you can’t have one
tiny lot and one huge lot.
COMMISSIONER TAVANA: So what you’re saying is we
can start with a 2,400 square foot lot, and divide it by
two to have two 1,200 square foot lots?
ATTORNEY WHELAN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER TAVANA: And that’s the requirement
that’s coming down from the State? We can’t circumvent that
anyway?
ATTORNEY WHELAN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER TAVANA: Okay. I just wanted to make
sure. Thank you.
CHAIR HANSSEN: And the 40%/60% as well, so if
the 40%/60% made it that the lot was bigger than you
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2022
Item #3, Amendment to Town Code re: SB 9
37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
described and their minimum lot size would go up for the
40% if the lot was big enough.
COMMISSIONER TAVANA: Got it.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Unless I misunderstood the Town
Attorney. I think it would be (inaudible) the 1,200 square
feet if it violated the 40%/60%.
ATTORNEY WHELAN: That’s correct.
CHAIR HANSSEN: All right. I was just going to
weigh in on the issues that we’ve been discussing so far. I
would advocate for as much flexibility as possible to
encourage production as long as we’re not going to create
unintended consequences.
On the issue of the fee simple or the easement, I
think we should offer both, and if the fee simple does
result in a reduced square footage I would want to make
that go away if we can do that, because I think that should
be on a level playing field based on whether or not they
choose one access form or another, and I also agree that we
should have something very specific in there that there’s
no way that access can be denied to that second lot, so I
would say that.
Then on the issue of the width of the access, I
think we should go with 12’. That’s minimum required for
Fire, and that’s what we do in our hillsides. Whether or
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2022
Item #3, Amendment to Town Code re: SB 9
38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
not we adjust the Zoning Code as a follow up to this to
reduce it from 20’ is a subject that could be considered,
but I think we want to make flexibility while still holding
to our standards.
Then on the issue of the right angles, I would
vote for more flexibility. I can’t imagine what could go
wrong, and there might be something that could go wrong,
but since it’s not in the SB 9 Ordinance from the State, or
law from the State, we should probably just not discuss it
here, because I think we would find that there are issues
where it wouldn’t apply and we wouldn’t want to throw them
in a discretionary review.
Do any others have comments on these issues so
far before we move on? All right, I’m going to back to page
6 of 9 in the Staff Report and the issues that is titled,
“Proposed Changes that Resulted from the Public Comment.”
We’ve been discussing some of that already, but there are
some other items in here that we haven’t discussed, and the
first one that they have is applicable zones, and the issue
is that it has to be a Single-Family Residential zone, but
it might not be called that per se, so what Staff was
asking is could we consider allowing SB 9 permits with
other zoning designations? Possibilities could include
Multi-Family zones, or in any zone where the existing use
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2022
Item #3, Amendment to Town Code re: SB 9
39
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
is a Single-Family use. I was curious from Staff’s
perspective what other zones would that be specifically? Or
are there too many to discuss?
JOEL PAULSON: I’m happy to jump in, and then if
Mr. Safty or Ms. Armer has any other comments. This is a
comment we received from a property that’s in the RM:5-12,
and so they were built as detached condos, so they’re
detached Single-Family homes in the Multi-Family zone but
they’re under condo ownership. There’s an interest from at
least one party who I have spoken to to be allowed to
subdivide using SB 9, and we have those instances in the
RM:5-12, probably not so much in the RM:12-20, although I
could think of at least one. Those are the two that really
came to mind.
We also have nonconforming uses where there are
Single-Family homes in Commercial zones. I think that might
be a bridge too far, but ultimately we wanted to at least
get some input from the Planning Commission to see if there
was any interest. Again, we’re not obligated to allow that,
but as with some of the other discussions this evening it’s
kind of that balance of do you want to be to the letter of
the law or do you want to allow a little more flexibility?
So that’s really the question, whether they should be
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2022
Item #3, Amendment to Town Code re: SB 9
40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
allowed in any other zones, or none other than what we have
currently proposed?
CHAIR HANSSEN: Let me just ask one clarifying
question before I go to Mr. Safty. The law from the State
basically excludes the Historic District, and I understand
that some people have asked to get off the historic
inventory on account of SB 9 so that they can do this kind
of stuff, but since the State has said historic properties
are not part of SB 9, if we wanted to go there, and I don’t
know that we do, are we allowed to be more lenient than the
State on that issue of historic?
ATTORNEY WHELAN: Yes, SB 9 says that cities can
be more expansive than SB 9 if they choose to.
CHAIR HANSSEN: So other zones, and it could
include Historic, even though we’re protected by the State
to not include Historic if we want to go there?
ATTORNEY WHELAN: Yes.
JOEL PAULSON: Yes. Staff wasn’t intending
including Historic districts. The comment that you
reference about other properties, as you all know we have
(inaudible) levels of Historic, so it may be a pre-1941
home but it’s not in the districts. Those are some of the
ones that we will probably see asking to be removed so that
they may be able to take advantage of these new
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2022
Item #3, Amendment to Town Code re: SB 9
41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
regulations. We don’t envision opening up the Historic
Districts, but of course that’s something the Planning
Commission could discuss if they feel that that’s
something.
CHAIR HANSSEN: I’m only asking the question. I
wanted to ask about the condo example that you gave. If
they have condo ownership and they did a lot split, what
would happen with the land? Because the land is owned by
the condo association, right? They would have their
buildings, so would they just divide it amongst the
individual condo owners? How would they handle the land and
the access if they did a lot split on a condo?
JOEL PAULSON: Thank you. Vice Chair Barnett or
Commissioner Raspe might have some additional comments, but
technically the condos are just air space, so they would
have to undo the condo map and simultaneously record an
urban lot split, which would give them the land. Currently,
as you mentioned, there is a one lot and then there are two
air space condos that encompass their Single-Family homes,
so now they would each have a portion of the existing
underlying lot rather than just air space rights.
CHAIR HANSSEN: So Commissioner Raspe.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2022
Item #3, Amendment to Town Code re: SB 9
42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you, Chair. I think
Director Paulson is essentially right. It’s actually tough
to envision how it’s going to work mechanically.
Chair, you raised the question with respect to
applicable zones and how it’s currently applicable to HR
zones and do we want to push that into other Multi-Family.
My thought as we’re talking tonight, I’m all for as much
flexibility as we can, but we’re kind of venturing into the
unknown a little bit, and so my thinking is perhaps at our
first cut at the SB 9 implementation we leave it to its
current confines and not expand it into Multi-Family or
condos, or certainly not Commercial. Then let’s get our
feet under us a little bit, and if we have to come back and
revisit that issue, we can always do that, but I think as a
first cut I would feel more comfortable limiting its scope
to what it’s currently drafted to be.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that, Commissioner
Raspe. By the way, that was my initial reaction as well
reading through this, but we were asked by Staff to
consider this, but I think it’s still pretty new and I
agree. I think a lot of studies should be done, or
understanding of where this could go to add a bunch of
other zones, because we’re taking on the hillsides as it
is.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2022
Item #3, Amendment to Town Code re: SB 9
43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Vice Chair Barnett.
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: I think in the case of a
condo association where every owner has an undivided share
or percentage in the project as a whole, the buildings, the
land, it would probably take 100% of the owners and the
lenders to approve a lot split under SB 9, so I would agree
with Commissioner Raspe that we hold off on that as not
being practical or certainly deserving of further
investigation.
In the case of Planned Development forms of
common interest developments where everyone owns their own
home and the land under it but the association owns the
common area, in that case there’s usually very little
common area space and building our buildings on that would
certainly impair that open space, so I’m generally against
it, but I think the Council could look at it and see if
they would come to the same conclusion. Thank you.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that. Any other
thoughts on increasing or adding other applicable zones at
this point with our first permanent ordinance? Commissioner
Tavana.
COMMISSIONER TAVANA: I would just say I would
highly advise against it. That’s all. Thank you.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2022
Item #3, Amendment to Town Code re: SB 9
44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIR HANSSEN: And as was said, this is a
recommendation to Council, so I think what we’re asked to
do is discuss it and consider the issues around it, and
what I’m hearing is don’t go there on adding more
applicable zones since we’re adding on the hillsides and
having to digest that, and let’s see how it goes, because
we can always do more later.
Let’s move onto the grading limitation. We have
the grading limitations from the hillsides. A lot of people
have expressed objections to the 50 cubic yards grading
limit, and there is also the cut and fill that was included
from the Hillside Design Guidelines. The issue that was
brought up is there are people that want to get rid of it
entirely, and then there are some that would want a carve
out for the driveway, or Staff also suggested the light
well, so thoughts on that. Keep it in there? Modify it?
Commissioner Thomas.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I have a question for Staff
about grading and I guess grading limitations and SB 9, if
people take this route and how CEQA comes into this whole
picture.
JENNIFER ARMER: I’ll start with the CEQA
question. SB 9 applications are explicitly exempt from
CEQA, so there wouldn’t be any CEQA review under this. If
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2022
Item #3, Amendment to Town Code re: SB 9
45
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
somebody came in for a new two-unit development, they were
building two units and they complied with the regulations
that we had, then it would go through an exempt project
under CEQA.
If you could clarify what other questions you
had, I could describe what the current regulations are for
grading and how it would work with SB 9 if that would be
helpful, or if there’s something else you wanted clarified.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Thank you. I think that
sometimes we can pass ordinances and come up with some
regulations surrounding them knowing that if projects are
going to have to abide by CEQA then we have some safety
with regard to environmental issues. Grading is not
necessarily an area that I am an expert on, and I see
Commissioner Janoff raise her hand, but I don’t want
grading to be limiting, because we want people to be able
to use SB 9 in a productive way to create more housing that
we need in town, but I also don’t want us to be creating
any major environmental consequences associated with it
incidentally.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you. Commissioner Janoff.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I had a couple questions on
this section, but before I ask, we sort of left the
question of Historic Districts unanswered, and I would be
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2022
Item #3, Amendment to Town Code re: SB 9
46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
an advocate of exempting Historic Districts from SB 9, just
in case that was something that we needed to cover.
But back to the grading, my understanding is that
if the grading is in excess of a 50 cubic yard net, then
there’s a grading permit required. There was an implication
from the public that that would cause the whole thing to be
taken out of the SB 9 queue and move it into the
discretionary queue. That’s not my understanding, but if
Staff could comment about whether that is in fact what
would happen. Is this one of those gotchas that if you’re
over the 50 cubic yards you’re no longer eligible for SB 9?
RYAN SAFTY: Thank you for the question. As
currently drafted, and this is also the same with the
Urgency Ordinance, if you were triggering more than 50
cubic yards—again, we’re not talking about excavation for
the main house, but grading associated with the driveway or
the yards—you would not be able to use an SB 9 two-unit
development. That doesn’t mean you can’t use any of the
provisions of SB 9. You could still go through the urban
lot split, you could still theoretically get a
discretionary permit for the grading permit and then
proceed with the administrative two-unit development
process. It’s not saying that you can’t use anything with
SB 9, but if grading or 50 cubic yards is triggered you
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2022
Item #3, Amendment to Town Code re: SB 9
47
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
would need that separate discretionary application as one
part of the process.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: So if they had that, then
they could still continue with the SB 9 two-unit. Okay. I’m
generally in favor of keeping the grading pretty low,
because we’ve seen a lot of pretty crazy examples of people
digging a whole ton of dirt out, not to be literal, so I’d
be inclined to keep it low and let that grading permit be
triggered, and then it can still go back into the SB 9 lane
if they get that grading permit.
I had a question too about the light wells. As
written in the Staff Report it seems to be the opposite of
what we would want. It says, “Additional clarification
could be added to state light wells that do not exceed the
size required by the Building Code would also be considered
excavation,” and it seems to me that we would do just the
opposite, light wells that do exceed the size required by
Building Codes would be considered excavation if it’s
within the envelope of the Building Code it seems to me
that that shouldn’t be counted as excavation.
JENNIFER ARMER: And that is correct. Currently
we don’t count light wells as excavation, but we have seen
situations where a light well becomes a below-grade patio,
or it becomes a cut-out around the entire back perimeter of
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2022
Item #3, Amendment to Town Code re: SB 9
48
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
an existing building, and so one thought was to try to have
this be an Objective Standard that we could tie the
limitation that it’s exempt from the grading calculation,
but only when it is just the minimum required for light and
access by the Building Code.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: So what you’re stating is
opposite of what this sentence reads, and it’s what I would
advocate, but if the light well is within the envelope
required by the Building Code it does not count as
excavation. Anything beyond that, and yes, we’ve seen all
kinds of excessive grading to create patios and other
things in various requests, and I think I would even be
inclined to say once you go outside the Building Code it
all counts. You can’t say up to the Building Code doesn’t
count and anything beyond that does count. I’d say if it’s
within, it doesn’t count, and if it’s over, it all counts.
I don't know if that’s excessive, but it just seems to me
that it flirts with a lot of it’s within this but it’s not
there kind of arguments, and so that’s my thinking.
RYAN SAFTY: Just to clarify, the reason it was
written that way, excavation is actually exempt from a
grading permit, so the light well we were saying would
count as excavation for the house and therefore not trigger
the 50 cubic yards.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2022
Item #3, Amendment to Town Code re: SB 9
49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: That’s a nuance. I would
maybe write that differently. Thank you.
CHAIR HANSSEN: I’m going to weigh in and agree
with Commissioner Janoff. In the years I’ve been on the
Planning Commission people buy properties in the hillside
and then they have big slopes and all that stuff and they
wish it wasn’t that way. They want it to be flat, and so
they want to go put in a 20’ retaining wall and excavate
thousands of yards of soil. We’ve seen some of these
things, and sometimes they’ve even come to us for code
compliance issues, so the temptation is way too high for
people to try to make the hillsides not be hillsides so
that they can be fully usable by them for their property,
which is understandable in terms of idea, but we should be
trying to guard our hillsides and keep them the way they
are.
I would be personally in favor of allowing the
driveway and the minimum required for light wells and the
house, but not the rest to make it completely flat for the
purpose of (inaudible). I would definitely not take it out.
Vice Chair Barnett.
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: The comment from the public
was that additional grading should be allowed for
driveways, fire access, and turnarounds, and I wonder if
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2022
Item #3, Amendment to Town Code re: SB 9
50
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Staff could give some idea of how often permits are pulled
for that kind of additional grading.
RYAN SAFTY: Thank you for the question. Ms.
Armer, if you have a specific number, chime in as well.
Fairly often in the hillsides, especially with the new fire
requirements for driveway widths and turnarounds, a grading
permit is triggered just solely based on the Fire
Department requirements.
JENNIFER ARMER: I would agree.
CHAIR HANSSEN: We’ve seen a few in the last year
where the grading for the driveway was the thing that threw
it over the 50 cubic yards or the maximum cut and fill.
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: So my input would be that we
perhaps submit a recommendation to the Council to at least
consider adding additional grading for those specific
purposes without getting a permit.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Any other comments? So what I
heard is the support is there for keeping the grading
limitation in there, but having exemptions for the building
is already in there maybe to add the driveway, and then to
make sure that the light well is limited to a light well. I
think I captured that correctly, so does anyone see it
differently than that?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2022
Item #3, Amendment to Town Code re: SB 9
51
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
All right, so then we can move on. The next is
Fire review, and it was about requesting Santa Clara County
Fire Department be included in the review. This would not
need to be included in the ordinance but could be
recommended as part of the implementation of the project
review process.
Staff, if you could clarify, I saw one comment
from one of the architects or developers that when they
started going through the process Fire came in later, and
then that might have been the thing that threw it out of
the ministerial process, so they wanted them to be included
earlier in the process, like at the beginning. Is that
where this came from?
JENNIFER ARMER: Yes, I believe that is correct.
We actually have a number of Accessory Dwelling Unit
examples in the hillsides where they submitted an
application for an Accessory Dwelling Unit, they received
that permit, and then they came in for their building
permit and during the building permit review there is
review by Santa Clara County Fire Department, and at that
time they were told they needed to have a fire truck
turnaround, for example, on the site because of the new
dwelling unit, and that was either infeasible or caused
additional problems.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2022
Item #3, Amendment to Town Code re: SB 9
52
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I believe we have an application in right now
where they’re going through the Architecture and Site
review process because of site grading that’s associated
with an Accessory Dwelling Unit, so there is a desire by
some applicants to get early pre-review or review by Fire
during the SB 9 application process, and what we tried to
convey in our Staff Report is that if you had review by
Clara County Fire as part of an SB 9 application that that
causes some real problems in terms of timelines and cost,
and so that is not something that we would recommend, but
that we are happy to work with Santa Clara County Fire to
see if there’s a possibility of setting up some sort of
pre-review.
I believe at least one other agency in the area
has as a requirement of the application’s submittal for one
of these SB 9 applications that they already have gone to
Santa Clara County Fire, or whatever the applicable fire
district is, for approval and have a letter saying that
they can do this before the submittal is received. We would
need to work further with the Fire District before
establishing the details of that review. Hopefully that
helps.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2022
Item #3, Amendment to Town Code re: SB 9
53
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIR HANSSEN: That helps. So what you’re
looking for is for the Planning Commission to say whether
that is a good idea or not?
JENNIFER ARMER: We’re bringing this up because
this is an issue that has been brought up by the public and
we want to make sure that the Planning Commission has an
opportunity to weigh in on it, but we would not recommend
that it include any modification to the ordinance.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Got it. But it could be as part
of the process in our recommendation to Council that you
ought to, or not, involve Fire early to make it more
streamlined and to increase the ministerial part of this
process.
Commissioner Janoff.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: As I understand it that
makes a lot of sense to have that step earlier in the
process than later. It’s a whole lot less redo, and if
we’re trying to make this as streamlined as possible I
would be in favor of adding that as part of the
implementation.
CHAIR HANSSEN: I think that makes a lot of sense
as well. Any other thoughts on that? Okay, so consider that
a recommendation from the Planning Commission, not to be in
the ordinance, but to be part of the process.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2022
Item #3, Amendment to Town Code re: SB 9
54
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The next one is windows. This was about the
standards were originally included to minimize privacy
impacts as State law limits setbacks to 4’ on the internal
and rear property lines. The draft ordinance amends the
windows standards to decrease restrictions so that all
second stories within 10’ from the side and rear property
lines can have clerestory windows and larger windows as
needed for access. Some of the people were commenting that
they wanted to just utilize the underlying zoning
standards, so as it stands right now though it’s based on
the 10’, is that right?
RYAN SAFTY: If you don’t mind clarifying 10’ in
terms of what exactly?
CHAIR HANSSEN: Because there is some movement in
this area. Maybe you could recap what’s in the draft
ordinance right now, because people were complaining about
that being too restrictive.
RYAN SAFTY: Currently in the draft ordinance you
need a 4’ side and rear yard setback. If you build a second
story, that then needs to step in an additional 5’, so
we’re saying if you are a little bit beyond that… I’m
sorry, all second stories within 10’ from the side and rear
property lines can have both the clerestory and the larger
windows. What a lot of the members of the public were
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2022
Item #3, Amendment to Town Code re: SB 9
55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
hoping to see is that if they meet the underlying zoning
for setbacks, for example, there’s one specific gentleman
who lives in the Hillside zone, so if he incorporated a 20’
side yard setback would they still need to meet those
clerestory and minimum egress/egress size requirements?
CHAIR HANSSEN: And what is Staff’s
recommendation on this? What problem would it cause to use
the underlying zoning versus what we have in there now?
RYAN SAFTY: I can start off, and Ms. Armer, if
you see any other additional issues, let me know.
This was included originally just solely to
protect privacy, because again, the setbacks are reduced so
substantially, so we don’t see any initial concerns with
something like that. We would just be looking for
recommendation from the Planning Commission to make that
change.
JOEL PAULSON: I would just add that, for
instance, in the R-1 rezone the minimum side setback is 5’,
so if you used just the underlying zoning that some people
are requesting you could have a second story that’s 5’ from
the property line with picture windows in it, but again,
our recommendation currently carrying forward is in a
similar vein to the Urgency Ordinance’s, if it’s 10’ or
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2022
Item #3, Amendment to Town Code re: SB 9
56
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
more, then you can have a little more freedom from a window
size perspective.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Because the setback is only 4’,
so we’re saying you have to get up to 10’ to do that. Okay.
Commissioner Janoff.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I think that’s a good
change. Thinking about what this is going to do to add in
terms of density, changing it from the underlying zone to
have that 10’, say if it’s 5’ underlying zone, makes good
sense to me, so I think this is a good change and I’m in
favor of it.
CHAIR HANSSEN: I wanted to ask the question as
far as the Hillside since we do have bigger setbacks in the
hillsides. Does this make it harder for them, because most
of the lots are already more than 10’ anyway, or are the
setbacks going to be reduced to 4’ for the Hillside?
RYAN SAFTY: The setbacks would be reduced for 4’
in the Hillside. That is a standard requirement across all
SB 9 applicable zones.
CHAIR HANSSEN: All right, so then that makes
sense. Any other thoughts on this? Basically what the draft
ordinance says now is that if you want more flexibility
with the windows you have to have 10’, and then
automatically the setbacks for everybody under SB 9
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2022
Item #3, Amendment to Town Code re: SB 9
57
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
applications will be 4’, even including the hillsides. So
this would be to help ensure privacy, and do we want to
make it less restrictive is the thing that we were asked by
some of the architects.
Vice Chair Barnett.
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: I don’t see making it least
restrictive, but I’m kind of concerned, and maybe Staff can
help me on this. I think the proposal was that if the
underlying zoning requirements in terms of setbacks were
met that they could have the standard windows that are
allowed by the code now, and they didn’t want that changed
by SB 9, so maybe I could get some clarification on that.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Did I hear this wrong, that if
it’s 20’ in the hillsides it’s not for SB 9, it’s going to
be 4’?
JENNIFER ARMER: That is correct. If you did a
two-unit development, or an Accessory Dwelling Unit for
that matter, in the hillsides, then the side and rear
setbacks are only a 4’ requirement. In a case where maybe
there’s a standard zoning setback of 5’ we would still have
it as requirement that the second story must be set back at
least 10’ from the property line before you could do a
window that is greater than either clerestory or the
minimum that’s required for egress. We need to have that
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2022
Item #3, Amendment to Town Code re: SB 9
58
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
minimum for egress allowance, but all other windows would
have to be clerestory unless you move the second story wall
back so that it’s more than 10’ from that side or rear
property line. If it’s more than 10’, then whether it’s
complying with the underlying zone setback or not is not
restricted.
CHAIR HANSSEN: So if the issue is that, let’s
just take the hillsides for example was an issue, we can’t
revert to the underlying zoning for the hillsides because
it’s now 4’ instead of 20’, so I would say what you guys
put in there makes a lot of sense for anything that’s part
of SB 9, since we can’t use the underlying zoning for the
hillsides, unless I’m not hearing something right.
Any other thoughts on this? So what I’m hearing
by lack of disagreement is that we should stay with the
language that’s in the ordinance right now, that we
shouldn’t change it.
Let’s see, second story stepback was the next
issue. Comments received regarding the stepback requirement
requesting that this be removed for two-story SB 9 units
that meet underlying zoning setbacks. This standard
provides both the reduction in potential privacy impacts as
well as providing construction (inaudible) that extend the
full height of the new two-story residence. Some of the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2022
Item #3, Amendment to Town Code re: SB 9
59
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
architects were saying it’s going to limit their design
flexibility and whatnot.
Commissioner Raspe.
COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you, Chair. I just
wanted to make sure I was reading it correctly. It’s
Section B-5 of the (inaudible) ordinance, which says, “All
elevations of the second story of a two-story primary
dwelling shall be recessed by 5’ from the first story.” If
I read that correctly, if the building has four walls, or
four sides, every side has to be recessed on the second
floor, is that correct?
RYAN SAFTY: That is correct as currently
drafted.
COMMISSIONER RASPE: I could just envision that.
I understand that has certain privacy benefits to the
neighbors and everybody, but I can see it resulting in some
kind of odd architectural choices if every wall has to be
recessed, and so I’m curious if maybe there’s a way to
limit it to those that are exposed or create privacy
concerns?
JENNIFER ARMER: I would add that as we stated in
the Staff Report, it’s both for the privacy as well as we
often see comments from the consulting architect about big,
blank, tall, two-story walls, or the tall front of a
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2022
Item #3, Amendment to Town Code re: SB 9
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
building in terms of compatibility with the surrounding
neighborhood.
COMMISSIONER RASPE: Absolutely. I agree that
breaking up a façade with stepbacks is in many cases
desirable. It just seems to me difficult to make it a
requirement for all four sides of a building. I can’t
envision it correctly in my mind perhaps.
JENNIFER ARMER: It is similar to the discussion
we had about Objective Standards previously. It’s hard to
have Objective Standards and envision how to include those
without going too far and causing odd architecture.
COMMISSIONER RASPE: Agreed.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Can you remind us—because we
spent hours on the Objective Standards—where did we finally
come out on the recommendation for the Objective Standards
on the stepback?
JENNIFER ARMER: I don't know if Mr. Safty has
specific memory on that, but I do believe we had stepback
requirements above the second story, so if you had a three-
story building that that was going to be required. But I
think in some cases it also was part of modify the façade
so it might not have been for the entire length of that
third story. We are still in the process of taking the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2022
Item #3, Amendment to Town Code re: SB 9
61
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
comments from the Planning Commission and putting it
together in a revised document for Town Council.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Fair enough. I’m going to agree
with Commissioner Raspe. I’m having trouble envisioning a
scenario where they would stepback, because most of the
projects that we’ve seen here where they stepback the
second story, it’s not all four sides necessarily, it could
be parts that are facing other things or where they really
need to break up the wall. I could see it as problematic to
require it of all four sides, but then I wouldn’t want it
to not be there, because we don’t want the big, blank
walls, and we’ve seen those in proposals as well.
That’s why I was asking what we ultimately
decided, but the Objective Standards are for Multi-Family
and this is for Single-Family, and it sounds like there
might not be a way to make this an Objective Standard if it
had to have a discretionary review just to decide what else
is it facing and everything; I’m not sure about that.
Commissioner Janoff.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: You kind of get the image
of a small block on top of a bigger block, and that kind of
gets your design ethic stuck, and I’m not sure that that
necessarily would drive this.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2022
Item #3, Amendment to Town Code re: SB 9
62
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
My recommendation would be to see if other
jurisdictions have a stepback requirement. What’s Monte
Sereno doing? What’s Saratoga doing? And if they have one
that seems reasonable, great. And I think it’s a good idea
to have a stepback, I think it makes for more interesting
design, but if we make it a requirement for two sides where
you have the closest proximity to a neighboring structure
or something, I don't know, maybe not all four sides so
that there’s some discretion about where you put that and
taking into consideration the specific context, but I’d
certainly want to see what other jurisdictions have tried.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Ms. Armer, and then Commissioner
Tavana.
JENNIFER ARMER: Thank you, Chair. I just wanted
to quickly answer the question that this was actually
included based on the City of Campbell’s interim ordinance,
so this was something that was taken directly from what
they were putting in place. We were definitely looking at
other agencies and what they have and what they included in
their ordinance.
CHAIR HANSSEN: So we’ve already gone through
this process, and so what we’re doing wouldn’t be different
than what others are doing is what you’re saying?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2022
Item #3, Amendment to Town Code re: SB 9
63
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JENNIFER ARMER: That it was drawn from another
example in the area. The other caution that I would share
is that we are hoping to keep these regulations simple so
that it is a straightforward thing for applicants to come
in with a proposal, and so getting too complex about
proximity to other buildings or property lines can cause
unintended consequences in that direction as well.
CHAIR HANSSEN: I had a thought on this, but I’m
going to go to Commissioner Tavana and Commissioner Janoff
first.
COMMISSIONER TAVANA: Thank you, Chair. I’ll just
quickly add that I agree with this second story stepback. I
do think this is opportunity for us to shape how SB 9
projects are going to be seen in our town and I think a
second story stepback, however that may look or may be
feasible or not, will ultimately look better for these
projects, so I would like to see this kept as is in the
ordinance.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that, Commissioner
Tavana. Commissioner Janoff.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Given that Campbell is
establishing something similar, I feel more confident that
we could keep this. If we did any other benchmarking to
verify that more than just Campbell is including something
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2022
Item #3, Amendment to Town Code re: SB 9
64
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
along these lines, then that would be great if you’ve got
time, but I’m comfortable leaving it as is.
CHAIR HANSSEN: I think now that I heard that, I
am as well. Vice Chair Barnett.
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: I agree. I think having an
Objective Standard on this particular subject would be the
least worst solution. The double box structures are really
unattractive in my personal opinion and I think we don’t
want to encourage that type of construction.
CHAIR HANSSEN: So you’re saying to leave it as
is, or to change it?
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: As is, yes, with
(inaudible).
CHAIR HANSSEN: I just wanted to make sure I
heard it correctly. I started thinking about what we talked
about was Objective Standards, but the second story
stepback here is not about breaking up the façade, it’s
about privacy, so if it’s about breaking up the façade,
then there are a lot of other things you can do besides the
stepback like we were talking about in the earlier hearing.
So if it’s really about protecting privacy and we’re going
into uncharted territory with having a lot of properties
closer together because they’re splitting their lot or
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2022
Item #3, Amendment to Town Code re: SB 9
65
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
adding additional buildings on their lot, I’m okay with
leaving it as is. Any other comments on this one?
We only have a couple more to go through, but
there might be other things that you want to bring up, in
which case I’ll do a check and see if we need to continue
for the next meeting.
Size limit. Comments have been received in
opposition to the 1,200 square foot size limitation for the
first new SB 9 unit. The original Urgency Ordinance
included the 1,200 square foot size limitation for any SB 9
unit versus the new one. When the Urgency Ordinance was
extended the Council modified this to only apply to the
first new unit. The 1,200 square foot size limitation is
consistent with the maximum size of ADUs, and the second
unit is allowed to use the remainder of the floor area
allocated based on the lot’s FAR.
There was an example from a potential applicant,
or an actual applicant, about the way they saw it is they
wanted to build a 2,400 square foot second building and
they had around 4,000 and they wouldn’t be allowed to do
this because the limit would be 1,200 square feet for the
additional building.
Commissioner Janoff.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2022
Item #3, Amendment to Town Code re: SB 9
66
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: This is really confusing to
me, and I’ll explain why. Throughout the ordinance we were
talking about primary units and then the second unit, and
so I was really confused about what’s primary, and if you
can demo the existing, then what’s the primary, and what’s
the first new unit? It doesn’t make any sense to me, so I
think we should be clearer in our terms.
And I suggested that we might add a definition
for primary, because if primary is intended to be the
larger of the two, then that’s one thing, but I’m under the
understanding that you can have two primary units on a two-
unit lot split, so that’s unclear to me.
I understand the 1,200 square foot limit, because
that’s consistent with the ADU policy, but I’m wondering if
we should just leave it at FAR and let the developer figure
out whether they want a 3,000 square foot and a 1,200
square foot, or a 2,000 and a… I’m not sure that it makes
sense to limit the… And I’m assuming that the first new
unit means the existing stays and there’s one new unit, and
that’s 1,200 square feet, but that whole terminology is
very unclear to me, and I think I understand this pretty
well. Anyway, I would think that we could do something
different for the SB 9s and could make slightly larger
units but stay within the FAR and FAR plus… I’m not sure if
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2022
Item #3, Amendment to Town Code re: SB 9
67
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the plus 10% applies to this or not, so there’s just a lot
of confusion around these things for me.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that. I had the
same reaction. I was listening to the example that was in
our written comments about if you are in the hillsides and
if you can go up to 6,000 square feet and you’re not there
with your current house, why couldn’t you use the rest of
your FAR for that? And I also am not 100% sure about how
the 10% bonus applies to this, but to me they ought to be
able to build whatever is within the FAR for the property.
I’m not sure why to limit it, and I understand that we did
it for ADUs, but if you’re talking about a second dwelling
unit, the comment that was made, a lot of people couldn’t
live in a 1,200 square foot unit.
Ms. Armer.
JENNIFER ARMER: Thank you, Chair. I wanted to
offer some of the context based on the discussion with Town
Council, which is where this requirement originated, and
for exactly the reason that Commissioner Janoff was
mentioning.
We did actually add a new definition in the
ordinance that lays out that a first residential unit means
one of two housing units developed under a two-unit housing
development that can be an existing housing unit if it
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2022
Item #3, Amendment to Town Code re: SB 9
68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
meets or is modified to meet the 1,200 square foot floor
area limitation on first residential units.
The way that I think of this requirement to try
to envision how it works is that the idea is there’s a goal
that we heard from the Town Council to try to have one of
the two units be affordable, and so affordable by design by
not letting it be too large.
In addition to that then they said because with a
two-unit housing development application under SB 9 you
could submit an application on a vacant lot for a two-unit
housing development going through this ministerial process
but only propose a single housing unit, and so they wanted
to make sure that if they’re proposing only a single
housing unit that it be one that is affordable by design.
If they chose to do two, then they can actually make use of
their full floor area, but by requiring it to be the first
of the two, then it ensures that one of them is the smaller
unit and therefore affordable by design.
In addition to that they then did decide that
because they are putting this limitation they wanted to
include the 10% additional floor area that is allowed for
Accessory Dwelling Units. One of the things that we have
discovered over these last few months is that it is
important for us to have additional language like we have
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2022
Item #3, Amendment to Town Code re: SB 9
69
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
for Accessory Dwelling Units, that that 10% is intended
just for the use of that small unit. If you’ve got a large
property, for example, say it’s an acre sized lot in the
hillsides, the intent was not to allow a 10% of that full
lot size, it really was meant to allow this smaller unit to
be built even if the existing house used the full floor
area that was currently allowed. Hopefully that is helpful
in understanding what was behind this regulation when
Council put it in place.
CHAIR HANSSEN: That helped a lot, because
honestly, if people are going to build a 2,500 square foot
house as a second unit, it’s going to be worth several
million dollars, so it’s not going to be affordable based
on the way things are currently going here.
Commissioner Janoff.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Wow, that was a great
explanation and completely changes my mind. Okay, yes,
let’s try to keep these as affordable as possible; so keep
that 1,200 square foot.
I don't know whether there’s any opportunity for
any preamble around the SB 9 Ordinance introduction, but I
think that explanation about why the 1,200 is a really
important one, at least for me, and maybe it’s not
important once we put it in place or Town Council approves
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2022
Item #3, Amendment to Town Code re: SB 9
70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
it, then it will be what it is, but I think it’s important
for people to understand what we’re trying to achieve in
the way of more affordable housing, so yes, I’m in favor of
leaving it at 1,200. Thank you.
CHAIR HANSSEN: I also wanted to ask a clarifying
question, and then I’ll go Vice Chair Barnett.
This was on another issue. It was about the
occupancy, but I see that as applicable to this situation
where they were talking about I go do a lot split, I sell
the one lot, and then I want to build on the other, so then
is it open territory or does that have to be 1,200 square
feet?
JENNIFER ARMER: The way that we look at
something like that is we’re dealing with separate
applications, so if they come in for an urban lot split,
then we’re just looking at the sizes of those two lots,
making sure that it’s meeting the 40%/60% split, all of
those requirements for the urban lot split. Once that urban
lot split is complete and recorded, then you have two legal
lots and this actually does get to one of the questions
that were asked by the member of the public.
On those lots you have a choice. Do you want to
go through a discretionary process so that you can do a
Single-Family home that uses the full floor area that is
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2022
Item #3, Amendment to Town Code re: SB 9
71
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
allowed on that new lot size, or do you choose to use the
two-unit housing development application, which is more
limited. The first unit on that parcel would have to be
1,200 or less, but you could do two units at the same time
and therefore use the full floor area.
CHAIR HANSSEN: So they could not go through this
process, an urban lot split, and then build a Single-Family
home and take advantage of a ministerial review?
JENNIFER ARMER: Not if they want it to be more
than 1,200 square feet. However, if you think of a house
with an attached Accessory Dwelling Unit, as long as those
were designed as two separate units, we don’t say that one
has to be in front of the other, and because of this 1,200
square foot limit what we’re considering the first Single-
Family unit is actually effectively the same as an
Accessory Dwelling Unit, so there are ways around it a
little bit, but they would need to meet some of these
Objective Standards included in the SB 9 if they want the
more limited process.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Thanks for that clarification.
Vice Chair Barnett.
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Thank you. In the context
that we’re talking about I’m confused by paragraph 9 on 7
of 14 where it says, “The minimum living area of a primary
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2022
Item #3, Amendment to Town Code re: SB 9
72
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
dwelling unit shall be 150 square feet subject to the
Health and Safety Code.”
JENNIFER ARMER: So that’s the minimum size for
any dwelling unit. It can be larger than that, but we’re
not going to count it as a dwelling unit if it’s only 100
square feet. Does that help?
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Yes, I’m trying to reconcile
that with the 1,200 square feet limit.
JENNIFER ARMER: I was going to say that the
1,200 is a maximum. The 150 is a minimum.
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Thank you. That’s very
helpful.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Other thoughts on this? Right now
the current thinking, based on the Commissioners who have
spoken, is to leave the additional unit at 1,200 square
feet for all the reasons that went into the original
ordinance to make more affordable housing. So are there any
thoughts to change it from that? Okay, I’m going to say
that’s a leave it as is.
The last one that’s in Section C is the frontage
requirement. Comments received regarding the minimum width
required for the… Oh no, we did this already, the 20’. We
didn’t have an additional comment about lot frontage if
it’s not a flag lot, or did we? I’m trying to remember.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2022
Item #3, Amendment to Town Code re: SB 9
73
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JENNIFER ARMER: I believe we may have had a
request that the lot frontage requirement be removed
completely. It was often connected with the discussion of
flag lots. Mr. Paulson, I don't know if you have additional
thoughts on that.
JOEL PAULSON: I would just say with the
discussion previously tonight that really was tied to the
20’ for a flag lot, which has already been decided. So now
the new minimum width, I would say would be if you’re doing
a flag lot it’s 12’, but you also could have no frontage
and do an easement, so I think that we can clarify that
component and/or remove it. We’ll look at that prior to
going to Council.
CHAIR HANSSEN: All right, that sounds good. And
was there anything else that we needed to consider, let’s
see, you said in Section D?
JOEL PAULSON: I think, Chair, in Section D
you’ve talked about most of it except for the 16’ height
limitation in HR zones, the 30% slope, and then the 40’
(inaudible).
CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you. I just wasn’t pulling
up the right page. I have highlighted it here. So there are
a couple of more things we need to talk about.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2022
Item #3, Amendment to Town Code re: SB 9
74
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The 16’ height limitation for HR zones. Some
people have complained about it, because the way it goes in
the Hillside Design Guidelines is it’s 25’ unless you’re
visible, in which case it’s 18’, but now for the sake of
simplicity it’s 16’, period. Some people are saying that’s
not enough, so thoughts on that?
Commissioner Janoff.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: We’ve struggled so much in
the Planning Commission with these excessive heights or
what’s visible and what isn’t visible. I’m thinking that
the 16’ is perfectly reasonable, especially since in theory
it’s a second unit on a property, so I think that’s
reasonable.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Raspe.
COMMISSIONER RASPE: I would agree. It seems to
me that 16’ allows a two-story if you wanted to with 8’
plates, so I think it probably gives you all the height
you’re going to need if you use it wisely, so I think 16’
seems like the right number to me.
CHAIR HANSSEN: And going back to the discussion
we just had on the 1,200 square feet, I’m sure there are
some enterprising people that are thinking SB 9 is for
building mega-houses, two on a lot, so we have to remember
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2022
Item #3, Amendment to Town Code re: SB 9
75
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the intent of SB 9 was not to do that, it was to make more
housing, but affordable in smaller units.
The next one is we adopted, as you’ve read in the
Staff Report, quite a number of things from the Hillside
Design Guidelines. Well, we actually adjust the square
footage available, but the 30% slope restriction for
buildings in the HR zones. So what it’s saying is if
there’s a 30% slope that you cannot do SB 9? Let me make
sure I understand that ordinance. Staff, could you clarify?
RYAN SAFTY: That is correct. Specifically the
building sites, it would prohibit a new two-unit
development from being located in the area of the property
where the slope is over 30%, and as you mentioned, that is
to line it up with the Hillside Design Guidelines where
that generally is a major exception or something that does
Planning Commission approval whenever they are going beyond
that 30%.
JENNIFER ARMER: A lot could have areas that are
greater than 30% slope as long as the proposed housing
units are not located in those areas.
CHAIR HANSSEN: So if there’s an LRDA and it’s
not 30% on that property, let’s just say that the average
slope of the property is 30% but there are some parts of it
that are reasonably flat, they can still do SB 9?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2022
Item #3, Amendment to Town Code re: SB 9
76
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JENNIFER ARMER: Correct. The 30% is just the
building site, not the whole property.
CHAIR HANSSEN: And we’ve had some submissions to
the Planning Commission where they wanted to build on a
huge thing, and I think what you guys are trying to avoid
is having to do all these calculations to figure out the
usable square feet, so just keep it simple and have it be
if it’s 30% you can build there, is that right?
JENNIFER ARMER: (Nods head yes.)
CHAIR HANSSEN: I just am trying to make sure I
understand the intent.
JENNIFER ARMER: And reducing the grading
involved. Right now the regulations say that the building
should not be located in areas where there is a 30% slope
or greater, and so we’re working just to be consistent with
that. I see that Director Paulson has his camera on. He may
have something to add.
JOEL PAULSON: I’ll wait for Vice Chair Barnett
and then see if there’s any additional. I think Ms. Armer
covered it.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Vice Chair Barnett.
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: It was a comment from the
public on this subject that the calculation of the 30% was
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2022
Item #3, Amendment to Town Code re: SB 9
77
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ambiguous as to what would be an average, for example, and
maybe we could tighten that up in the proposed ordinance.
JOEL PAULSON: We can definitely add that
clarification.
CHAIR HANSSEN: I definitely saw in a couple of
the comments about if they have to do all kinds of
different calculations before they even start on the SB 9
calculation, is it really a ministerial thing? But the idea
of this for simplicity seems to make a lot of sense. Any
other thoughts on the 30% slope?
Then we already talked about the right angle
requirement. Oh, there was the 3’ finished floor height
limitation. It was increased from 18”, is that correct?
RYAN SAFTY: That is correct.
CHAIR HANSSEN: So now it’s 3’, and some of the
architects have said it’s not enough for the hillsides,
because you’re building on a sloped lot and you would be
varying part of the home more than you’d want to. How did
we come up with the 3’?
RYAN SAFTY: Similar to the 30% that’s also from
the Hillside Design Guidelines, it’s one of the guidelines
that encourages you to step the building with the slope as
opposed to building a flat pad.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2022
Item #3, Amendment to Town Code re: SB 9
78
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIR HANSSEN: Thoughts on whether or not to
change this. I don’t think they were asking to eliminate
it, or were they?
RYAN SAFTY: The question was is 3’ too limiting,
so I’m not sure there is one specific recommendation with a
recommended number or removing it, but it was just to
revisit it.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Janoff.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: If we’ve got a 3’
requirement for the Hillside Design Guidelines and this is
the area that this is going to be problematic or not, it
strikes me that we should be consistent. We’ve had the 3’
requirement for some time, yes? Or is it new?
RYAN SAFTY: Correct, it’s been in the document,
I believe, since its adoption.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: So if it’s been working
well enough in that sense that we haven’t talked about
needing to change it, then I would say that we could
probably let the 3’ stand.
CHAIR HANSSEN: My general thinking was the
Hillside Design Guidelines have served us very well since
they were created in 2004, and kudos to all the people that
put those together, because they’ve been very, very helpful
in so many hearings that we’ve had, and so if the 3’ has
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2022
Item #3, Amendment to Town Code re: SB 9
79
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
worked for us, I’d say (inaudible) that over a long list of
the other requirements will serve us well as we go into
this SB 9 territory without making it too onerous. I’m sure
there will be exceptions, but you have to put a stake in
the ground. Any other thoughts on this 3’?
I think we did the right angles. Then the rest of
this says you’ve got questions and you can answer the
questions. Town Attorney.
ATTORNEY WHELAN: Thank you. In my notes I
unfortunately didn’t write down where the Commission landed
on the right angle issue.
CHAIR HANSSEN: My sense of where we were is that
we should not put the right angle limitation in there to
give people more flexibility, and any Commissioners speak
up if I didn’t get that right. I didn’t miss anything that
was in your notes, I don’t think, because the other ones
here were questions.
It is 10:00 o'clock, but I do want to see if
there are more things that people are worried about that we
should continue this to our next meeting, and if there’s a
lot of stuff that we haven’t covered, then we should
continue, but if not we can see if we feel like we’ve gone
through enough to make a recommendation.
Vice Chair Barnett.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2022
Item #3, Amendment to Town Code re: SB 9
80
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: One of the commentators
suggested that we might want to have affordability
requirements for the SB 9 units, and I’m not sure where I
stand on that, but since we’re trying to mix low- and
medium- and high-income residences throughout the town I
think it might be worth discussion.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Our Town Attorney has her hand
up.
ATTORNEY WHELAN: I think there was a discussion
on that previously, and it’s my opinion that SB 9 would
preempt imposing an affordability requirement. I don’t
think SB 9 authorizes towns or cities to do that.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Director Paulson.
JOEL PAULSON: Yes, thank you, and to add onto
that, because this obviously was an item of conversation
throughout the Urgency Ordinance discussion through the
Town Council, because our BMP requirements start at five
units or more if we wanted to do something, as Town
Attorney Whelan mentioned, I think it was mentioned
previously that we would probably likely have to do a nexus
study to bring that number down, since we’re only talking
about a maximum of four units here, but appreciate that
input.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2022
Item #3, Amendment to Town Code re: SB 9
81
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIR HANSSEN: Question for Staff. Could we do
the same thing that we do with AUDs and we give them some
kind of benefit if they sign a deed restriction on the
additional property?
ATTORNEY WHELAN: I do think that would be
defensible.
CHAIR HANSSEN: And I would also add, since I
worked on the last Housing Element and we’re currently
working on the current Housing Element, we tried to put
affordability restrictions on the last Housing Element and
it came back from HCD as no, because what they want is for
stuff to get built and then the secondary goal is the
affordability thing, and my sense is they would view that
as trying to preempt SB 9 from being built by adding too
many restrictions on it. Even though it’s counterintuitive
to what you really actually want to have happen, it comes
out that way in terms of their thinking. Are there other
thoughts on affordability restrictions? It sounds like we
can’t do it unless we offer a deed restriction. What would
be the benefit to the applicants that were willing to sign
a deed restriction?
ATTORNEY WHELAN: I’m just going to throw out
some ideas. Maybe the permit is processed faster. Maybe
there are different, more lenient FAR rules, or more
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2022
Item #3, Amendment to Town Code re: SB 9
82
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
lenient height rules. Those are the thoughts that spring to
mind for me.
JENNIFER ARMER: Or reduced fees.
CHAIR HANSSEN: That’s what I recollect from the
ADUs. I don’t know the current state of it, but the fees
seem to be an issue, because they do have to pay fees for
SB 9, right? Even though that’s ministerial the fees aren’t
any less than we have for other things, or are they?
JENNIFER ARMER: The fees currently align
approximately with an Accessory Dwelling Unit application,
but then they do still need to pay the fees for a building
permit. If it’s an urban lot split they still need to pay
the fees to do the recordation of the map.
CHAIR HANSSEN: In terms of a recommendation from
us, I don't know if the other Commissioners think that it
might be worth exploring whether or not to offer a deed
restriction and what benefits we could throw in with it,
but I think it would require some more thought than the
time that we have right now. Any other thoughts on this?
Are there other things that Commissioners saw in
the comments from the public, including all the architects,
that we need to discuss that we haven’t? I think Staff did
a great job of pulling these out and putting them in the
Staff Report, and then they had the benefit of the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2022
Item #3, Amendment to Town Code re: SB 9
83
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
community meeting a week ago, so we have all that input as
well. I feel like we’re probably in pretty good shape, but
I just want to make sure we haven’t missed something.
Vice Chair Barnett.
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: I missed something when we
were talking about driveways, which is the Desk Item from
Adam Mayer that we received today, and he had thoughts
about configurations of buildings that would require one
driveway, for example, and then having two would preclude a
viable architectural approach to Multi-Family use, so I
would just suggest that we commend to the Town Council that
they consider that.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for bringing that up. I
have a question for Staff. I was thinking that was kind of
related to this whole access corridor discussion, but maybe
there’s more to it, but he’s doing a four-unit thing on the
property and it doesn’t sound like it was under SB 9.
Should we consider this differently than the discussion we
already had with the width of the access corridor and how
to count the square footage and everything? I’m asking
Staff.
JENNIFER ARMER: I believe there was some
confusion in terms of the driveway requirements when you’re
talking about a two-unit development that’s on a single
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2022
Item #3, Amendment to Town Code re: SB 9
84
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
parcel versus the requirements if you do a subdivision and
so then you have two separate lots. I don't know if Mr.
Safty or Director Paulson has more to add to that.
JOEL PAULSON: I would just add that ultimately
the example he has, as you mentioned, is a four-plex with
one driveway, which would be on one lot. If we’re going to
have a flag lot or an easement to a second lot we have to
have at least a minimum of one driveway to each of those
lots. I think otherwise it would be too challenging on most
configurations. The only thing that comes to mind if
there’s a big concern about that would be, from his
comments, to limit the number of driveways to a maximum of
one per lot. Again, that would be potentially restrictive
for a large lot that maybe did a two-unit housing
development where it might make sense to have different
driveways, but that’s something the Planning Commission and
ultimately Council could consider.
CHAIR HANSSEN: So basically, thinking it through
now that we’ve gone through this thing, Mr. Mayer’s
suggestion was related to a four-plex, which is not
permitted under the current SB 9, because you would have to
have done a lot split to have four units.
RYAN SAFTY: Unless of course there was an
Accessory Dwelling Unit.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2022
Item #3, Amendment to Town Code re: SB 9
85
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIR HANSSEN: No, no, unless it was a Junior
Accessory Dwelling Unit, yes. But what he showed us
pictures of is not currently possible under SB 9 as
written, is that right?
JENNIFER ARMER: Unless all of the units were
similar in size. Three of those units would have to be
1,200 square feet or less, so there is potential, I guess,
that it could be something like that, but they probably
wouldn’t be as large as was shown in his illustration.
CHAIR HANSSEN: But if we wanted to make it so to
encourage people to have multiple units on a property and
we wanted them to have only one driveway, what would we
have to do differently?
JOEL PAULSON: As I mentioned earlier, you could
impose a maximum of one driveway per lot and that would
cover the scenario he has, which would be confined by our
FAR ultimately, and then would also allow for access to a
newly created lot if an urban lot split developed, so that
would create a maximum of two with an urban lot split and a
maximum of one if you decided to do a two-unit development
and two Accessory Dwelling Units on one existing lot.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Good. It took me a couple tries
to get it. I actually think that sounds pretty good. Vice
Chair Barnett, what do you think, since you brought up the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2022
Item #3, Amendment to Town Code re: SB 9
86
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
thing? I thought Mr. Mayer’s letter was great and I think
that is the kind of thing that we’d like to see.
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: I guess the challenge would
be making that an Objective Standard when we want to have
other situations with two driveways. I’m not sure how we
could carve that out, but maybe it could be.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Other thoughts on this? So maybe
we could leave it at we think it’s good idea but maybe it
needs more research to see if it would be problematic to
limit the number of driveways.
Are there other things that we missed in the
comments or that are on peoples’ minds relative to SB 9
before we make a recommendation to Town Council? I’m not
seeing anyone. All right, does anyone feel brave enough to
make a recommendation that we could vote on, a motion?
JENNIFER ARMER: If it would helpful for Staff to
list out the modifications that have been discussed this
evening, we could give that a try.
CHAIR HANSSEN: If you could do that, that would
be helpful. I made notes, but yes.
JENNIFER ARMER: I’ll put a list out there and
we’ll see if anyone has modifications or changes or
additions to that. I heard nine items. Some were
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2022
Item #3, Amendment to Town Code re: SB 9
87
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
modifications to the ordinance; some were just discussion
items or recommendations.
Number 1 was support for access easement for flag
lots in addition to the way that it’s written right now.
Number 2 would be to remove the 20’ requirement,
reducing that to a 12’ width for that access to the rear
lot.
Number 3 was removal of the requirement of right
angles for new lot lines.
Number 4 was about grading. It was to keep the
limits on grading but to allow light wells as minimally
required by the Building Code, and allow driveways per fire
requirements to be exempt from grading, so not trigger a
grading permit.
Number 5 was just a recommendation that Fire
review early in the process would be good, but no
modification to the ordinance.
Number 6 was to provide some clarification on the
frontage requirement.
Number 7 was in regard to the 30% slope, again
clarifying the language there that it just applies to where
the homes would be located.
Number 8 would be to explore an optional
affordability requirement, that there might be some
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2022
Item #3, Amendment to Town Code re: SB 9
88
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
benefits, and provide some information on that for Town
Council.
And number 9 was an additional discussion item
about driveways, about whether restriction to one driveway
per lot maximum or in some cases two, but no change to the
ordinance.
Mr. Safty, did you have anything different?
RYAN SAFTY: Thank you. I did hear just one
additional one, to be clearer in the definitions in terms
of primary structure in relation to the Accessory Dwelling
Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units.
CHAIR HANSSEN: These weren’t actual changes, but
things we decided not to change. Do we need to go over that
as well? For example, we decided not to add any other
zones. We didn’t want to change anything with the windows.
JENNIFER ARMER: No, the motion can just be the
changes that you want to recommend to the draft ordinance.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Good. Did we miss anything else?
Commissioner Thomas, and then Commissioner Janoff.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Thank you, Chair. I just
want to make sure, I think that we want to keep how the
second story stepback is, but in looking at my notes I’m
still a little bit confused about that one, so I just want
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2022
Item #3, Amendment to Town Code re: SB 9
89
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to confirm what we all agreed to was we didn’t want to
change that.
JENNIFER ARMER: That is what I heard.
CHAIR HANSSEN: That’s what I heard too.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Okay, I just wanted to
confirm.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Janoff.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Back to the Historic
Districts are exempted from SB 9 currently, or do we want
to specifically say that?
JENNIFER ARMER: Historic Districts and
properties that are built pre-1941 are designated by our
ordinance to be considered historic, and therefore SB 9
would not apply to those properties.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: That’s clear now.
CHAIR HANSSEN: If you had a chance to read the
actual SB 9, it clearly spells out that they intended to
exclude Historic properties from this SB 9 law, as well as
anything in an earthquake zone, although exceptions that
were wetlands and stuff that were listed in our ordinance
and listed in the SB 9 law.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Right, but we could be more
lenient and include those if we wanted to, so I just wanted
to be sure where we stand.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2022
Item #3, Amendment to Town Code re: SB 9
90
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
And to that point, I had a question. I think in
the ordinance it talks about a limitation on excluding very
high fire severity zones. I was under the impression that
all of Los Gatos is in a high- or extremely-high zone, like
even more extreme than Paradise, which burned, so can Staff
just clarify, is this a relatively small area for Los
Gatos, or is this a pretty large area?
JENNIFER ARMER: Thank you for that question. No,
this is actually something that there was extensive
discussion both for the Town of Los Gatos and other
agencies when SB 9 first was put into place, and there is
that section that says that it doesn’t apply in those
higher fire areas, but it basically says if you meet the
Building Code and the Fire requirements for construction,
then you can build. So in the end, because we’ve adopted
the Fire regulations that they list there, and any new
buildings have to comply with that, then they are allowed
in those areas.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Right. Okay, thank you for
that.
CHAIR HANSSEN: That was a great question to ask
though, because that was such a big issue when we were
working on our General Plan, and it’s an ongoing issue for
everybody, not just in Los Gatos but all through
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2022
Item #3, Amendment to Town Code re: SB 9
91
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
California, but it sounds like it’s not going to prevent SB
9.
So is anybody ready to make a motion to recommend
this to Council with the changes that we have recommended
so far? Vice Chair Barnett.
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: I move to recommend approval
of Ordinance 2327 to the City Council together with the
proposed amendments, changes, and recommendations that we
have processed today.
JENNIFER ARMER: If I may, Chair? We don’t
actually have an ordinance number. What we would be
recommending is that you are looking at Exhibit 1 to the
Staff Report, which is the Draft Permanent Ordinance. It is
based on the previous ordinance, but Exhibit 1 is what we
would ask you include in your recommendation.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Is the maker of the motion okay
with that?
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: I’d be happy to revise my
motion to refer to Exhibit 4 instead of Ordinance 2327.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Okay, thank you. Is Commissioner
Janoff making a second?
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I’m making a second, but I
think it’s Exhibit 1, not Exhibit 4.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2022
Item #3, Amendment to Town Code re: SB 9
92
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIR HANSSEN: Maker of the motion, is Exhibit 1
okay?
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Yes, that was my intention,
Exhibit 1.
CHAIR HANSSEN: All right, and then your second
is good for Exhibit 1, yes?
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Yes, I second that.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Any further discussion? We’ll do
a roll call vote. Start with Commissioner Thomas.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Yes.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Tavana.
COMMISSIONER TAVANA: Yes.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Raspe.
COMMISSIONER RASPE: Yes.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Janoff.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Yes.
CHAIR HANSSEN: Vice Chair Barnett.
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Yes.
CHAIR HANSSEN: And I vote yes as well. I know
the answer to this, but just for the sake of clarity, there
are no appeal rights on this action by the Commission,
correct?
JENNIFER ARMER: That is correct, because it is a
recommendation to Town Council.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2022
Item #3, Amendment to Town Code re: SB 9
93
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIR HANSSEN: Good. Well, that was a great
discussion.
(END)
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
Mr. Ryan, Town Councils and Town Attorney,
Here is my recommendation regarding the draft SB9 ordinance, from a hillside resident.
o Page 4, 1. Building Height:
PROBLEM: 16’ height limitation prohibits 2 story building at hillside.
SOLUTION: Apply the most restrictive town code at 18’ height limitation at hillside.
o Page 5, 5. Floor Area Ratio and Lot Coverage:
PROBLEM: I understand the 1,200 sqft limitation is for affordable house; this is very nice
consideration. However, it does not consider the options of marketable and affordable house
beyond the current 1,200 sqft ADU.
SOLUTION: Please change to 1,400 sqft as maximum size of first SB9 unit. It can still be an
affordable house, as well as differentiate from 1,200 sqft ADU. You can help to provide more
options from 1,200 sqft ADU to 1,400 sqft SB9 in the affordable rental market. The additional
100 - 200 sqft matters for the people who live in the small house.
o Page 5, 8. Building Sites:
PROBLEM: Town Code does not have a 30% slope restriction for Hillside development. Adding
30% slope restriction in the Town’s SB9 ordinance results in a reduction in intensity of the use,
violate state law. Housing Crisis Act (Gov. Code 66300, subd. (b)(1)(A).
I have checked 4 jurisdictions regarding the slope restriction of SB9 ordinances:
Saratoga and Palo Alto simply applied the same standard development restriction to SB9.
Monte Serena does not apply density formula restriction to SB9.
Los Altos Hills has a loosened slope restriction in their SB9 ordinance.
None of them tighten the slope restriction on SB9 developments, because they follow state law
to ensure it does not cause a reduction in the intensity of the use.
SOLUTION: REMOVE “30% slope restriction” in SB9 Ordinance, because page 5 Cut and Fill
table already controls hillside development as defined by Town Code. I expect the Town will
not violate the state law, under the watch of the current Town Council and Town Attorney
Gabrielle Whelan.
ATTACHMENT 6
o Page 7, B. Design Review Standards
PROBLEM: These standards are a nice consideration for privacy concern because SB9 setbacks
are smaller than standard development. However, it does not motivate residents to meet
standard zoning setback for SB9 developments.
SOLUTION: We should encourage residents to meet standard zoning setbacks. These
additional SB9 design standards should only be required for development within the smaller
SB9 setbacks. Please exempt these SB9 privacy related restrictions, if standard zoning setbacks
are met on all 4 sides. See detailed comments below:
§ 1 Balconies/Decks and 8 Windows.
PROBLEM: This restriction is for privacy concern because SB9 setback is smaller.
However, if there is no house around, and we meet all standard zoning setback,
why can’t we have a normal balconies/deck, normal windows?
SOLUTION: Please exempt 1 and 8 restrictions, if meet standard zoning setback
on 4 sides.
§ 5 Step-back:
PROBLEM: At many the hillside locations, the 2nd floor can only be seen from the
public road. The first floor is actually semi-buried, like a basement. In this case,
why is the step-back required?
SOLUTION: Please exempt the step-back if (1) the building can only be seen one
story from public road and (2) meet standard zoning setback on 4 sides.
§ 7 Plate Height:
PROBLEM: The plate height restriction is to ensure that a single-story building is
not 25 feet tall, which is not applied to Hillside.
SOLUTION: Please exempt the plate height restriction from Hillside.
Best Regards,
Ivy
Mr. Ryan, Town Councils and Town Attorney,
Town Code does not have a 30% slope restriction for Hillside development. However, the Town
of Los Gatos includes a 30% slope restriction in the draft SB9 ordinance, which makes SB9
development more restrictive than standard development. This will violate the state law
Housing Crisis Act (Gov. Code 66300, subd. (b)(1)(A).). The Code states that any proposed
modification to an existing development standard applicable in a single-family residential
zone MUST demonstrate that it would NOT result in a reduction in the intensity of the use. (see
SB9 factsheet, page 7)
The draft SB9 ordinance already contains the Cut and Fill table in page 5, item 7, which matches
existing Town Code for standard developments. The 8-foot cut restriction limits house width in
the uphill / downhill direction. For example, on a 30% slope, the 8-foot cut restriction limits the
house width to only 27 feet. Lessor slopes allow a wider house, but steeper slopes result in
much smaller widths, naturally limiting development. Therefore, the 8-foot cut restriction is
sufficient to limit the developments on the Hillside. Please see the attached diagram which
illustrates this.
Further, geotechnical, and geological reports are required for building permit. If the
investigation and engineered confirmed the site is buildable, even it is 31% slope on average
house pad, it is still buildable. I believe it is the reason there is no 30% slope restriction
language in Town Code.
I respectfully request that the Town of Los Gatos remove the 30% slope restriction language in
the SB9 ordinance, to eliminate the conflict with HCA state law. Please keep the Cut and Fill
table in page 5, item 7 in ordinance. The 8-foot cut restriction can well control the hillside
development, as defined in Town Code.
Best Regards,
Scott
A Housing Crisis Act of 2019. (Gov. Code, §66300, subd. (b)(1)(A).) Any
proposed modification to an existing development standard applicable in the
single-family residential zone must demonstrate that it would not result in a reduction in the intensity of the use. (SB9 factsheet p7)
KEEP -7. Cut and Fill: Sufficient to restrict the hillside
development, matching Town Code.
REMOVE -8. Building Site: 30% restriction. It is NOT in
Town Code, and causes a reduction in the intensity of
use, violating HCA state law.
29% Slope 30% Slope
8’ cut
27’
17’
8’ cut
28’
18’ 5’step back
5’step
back
Why 29% slope is allowed, but 30% slope is not?Draft SB9 Ordinance -Section V
SB9 Recommendation
40% Slope 50% Slope
8’ cut
20’
10’
8’ cut
16’
8’
Town Code 8’ cut restriction is sufficient.
As slope increases, the house width decreases, limiting development.
5’step
back 5’step back
35% Slope
8’ cut
23’
13’
California Department of Housing and Community Development
SB 9 Fact Sheet
On the Implementation of Senate Bill 9 (Chapter 162, Statutes of 2021)
Housing Policy Development Division
March 2022
California Department of Housing and Community Development – SB 9 Fact Sheet
1
This Fact Sheet is for informational purposes only and is not intended to implement or
interpret SB 9. HCD does not have authority to enforce SB 9, although violations of SB 9 may concurrently violate other housing laws where HCD does have enforcement
authority, including but not limited to the laws addressed in this document. As local
jurisdictions implement SB 9, including adopting local ordinances, it is important to keep
these and other housing laws in mind. The Attorney General may also take independent
action to enforce SB 9. For a full list of statutes over which HCD has enforcement authority, visit HCD’s Accountability and Enforcement webpage.
Executive Summary of SB 9
Senate Bill (SB) 9 (Chapter 162, Statutes of 2021) requires ministerial approval of a
housing development with no more than two primary units in a single-family zone, the
subdivision of a parcel in a single-family zone into two parcels, or both. SB 9 facilitates
the creation of up to four housing units in the lot area typically used for one single-family
home. SB 9 contains eligibility criteria addressing environmental site constraints (e.g.,
wetlands, wildfire risk, etc.), anti-displacement measures for renters and low-income
households, and the protection of historic structures and districts. Key provisions of the
law require a local agency to modify or eliminate objective development standards on a
project-by-project basis if they would prevent an otherwise eligible lot from being split or
prevent the construction of up to two units at least 800 square feet in size. For the
purposes of this document, the terms “unit,” “housing unit,” “residential unit,” and “housing
development” mean primary unit(s) unless specifically identified as an accessory dwelling
unit (ADU) or junior ADU or otherwise defined.
Single-Family Residential Zones Only
(Reference: Gov. Code, §§ 65852.21, subd. (a); 66411.7 subd. (a)(3)(A))
The parcel that will contain the proposed housing development or that will be subject to
the lot split must be located in a single-family residential zone. Parcels located in multi-
family residential, commercial, agricultural, mixed-use zones, etc., are not subject to SB
9 mandates even if they allow single-family residential uses as a permitted use. While
some zones are readily identifiable as single-family residential zones (e.g., R-1 “Single-
Family Residential”), others may not be so obvious. Some local agencies have multiple
single-family zones with subtle distinctions between them relating to minimum lot sizes or
allowable uses. In communities where there may be more than one single-family
residential zone, the local agency should carefully review the zone district descriptions in
the zoning code and the land use designation descriptions in the Land Use Element of
the General Plan. This review will enable the local agency to identify zones whose primary
purpose is single-family residential uses and which are therefore subject to SB 9.
Considerations such as minimum lot sizes, natural features such as hillsides, or the
permissibility of keeping horses should not factor into the determination.
California Department of Housing and Community Development – SB 9 Fact Sheet
2
Residential Uses Only
(Reference: Gov. Code, §§ 65852.21, subd. (a))
SB 9 concerns only proposed housing developments containing no more than two
residential units (i.e., one or two). The law does not otherwise change the allowable land
uses in the local agency’s single-family residential zone(s). For example, if the local
agency’s single-family zone(s) does not currently allow commercial uses such as hotels
or restaurants, SB 9 would not allow such uses.
Ministerial Review
(Reference: Gov. Code, §§ 65852.21, subd. (a); 66411.7, subds. (a), (b)(1))
An application made under SB 9 must be considered ministerially, without discretionary
review or a hearing. Ministerial review means a process for development approval
involving no personal judgment by the public official as to the wisdom of carrying out the
project. The public official merely ensures that the proposed development meets all the
applicable objective standards for the proposed action but uses no special discretion or
judgment in reaching a decision. A ministerial review is nearly always a “staff-level
review.” This means that a staff person at the local agency reviews the application, often
using a checklist, and compares the application materials (e.g., site plan, project
description, etc.) with the objective development standards, objective subdivision
standards, and objective design standards.
Objective Standards
(Reference: Gov. Code, §§ 65852.21, subd. (b); 66411.7, subd. (c))
The local agency may apply objective development standards (e.g., front setbacks and
heights), objective subdivision standards (e.g., minimum lot depths), and objective design
standards (e.g., roof pitch, eave projections, façade materials, etc.) as long as they would
not physically preclude either of the following:
Up to Two Primary Units. The local agency must allow up to two primary units
(i.e., one or two) on the subject parcel or, in the case of a lot split, up to two primary
units on each of the resulting parcels.
Units at least 800 square feet in size. The local agency must allow each primary
unit to be at least 800 square feet in size.
The terms “objective zoning standards,” “objective subdivision standards,” and “objective
design review standards” mean standards that involve no personal or subjective judgment
by a public official and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform
benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or
proponent and the public official prior to submittal. Any objective standard that would
physically preclude either or both of the two objectives noted above must be modified or
California Department of Housing and Community Development – SB 9 Fact Sheet
3
waived by the local agency in order to facilitate the development of the project, with the
following two exceptions:
Setbacks for Existing Structures. The local agency may not require a setback
for an existing structure or for a structure constructed in the same location and to
the same dimensions as an existing structure (i.e., a building reconstructed on the
same footprint).
Four-Foot Side and Rear Setbacks. SB 9 establishes an across-the-board
maximum four-foot side and rear setbacks. The local agency may choose to apply
a lesser setback (e.g., 0-4 feet), but it cannot apply a setback greater than four
feet. The local agency cannot apply existing side and rear setbacks applicable in
the single-family residential zone(s). Additionally, the four-foot side and rear
setback standards are not subject to modification. (Gov. Code, §§ 65852.21, subd.
(b)(2)(B); 66411.7, subdivision (c)(3).)
One-Unit Development
(Reference: Gov. Code, §§ 65852.21, subd. (a); 65852.21, subd. (b)(2)(A))
SB 9 requires the ministerial approval of either one or two residential units. Government
Code section 65852.21 indicates that the development of just one single-family home was
indeed contemplated and expected. For example, the terms “no more than two residential
units” and “up to two units” appear in the first line of the housing development-related
portion of SB 9 (Gov. Code, § 65852.21, subd. (a)) and in the line obligating local agencies
to modify development standards to facilitate a housing development. (Gov. Code, §
65852.21, subd. (b)(2)(A).)
Findings of Denial
(Reference: Gov. Code, §§ 65852.21, subd. (d); 66411.7, subd. (d))
SB 9 establishes a high threshold for the denial of a proposed housing development or
lot split. Specifically, a local agency’s building official must make a written finding, based
upon a preponderance of the evidence, that the proposed housing development would
have a specific, adverse impact, as defined in Government Code section 65589.5,
subdivision (d)(2), 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. “Specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and
unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety
standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed
complete. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (d)(2).)
California Department of Housing and Community Development – SB 9 Fact Sheet
4
Environmental Site Constraints
(Reference: Gov. Code, §§ 65852.21, subd. (a)(2) and (a)(6); 66411.7, subd. (a)(3)(C) and (a)(3)(E))
A proposed housing development or lot split is not eligible under SB 9 if the parcel
contains any of the site conditions listed in Government Code section 65913.4,
subdivision (a)(6)(B-K). Examples of conditions that may disqualify a project from using
SB 9 include the presence of farmland, wetlands, fire hazard areas, earthquake hazard
areas, flood risk areas, conservation areas, wildlife habitat areas, or conservation
easements. SB 9 incorporates by reference these environmental site constraint
categories that were established with the passing of the Streamlined Ministerial Approval
Process (SB 35, Chapter 366, Statutes of 2017). Local agencies may consult HCD’s
Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process Guidelines for additional detail on how to
interpret these environmental site constraints.
Additionally, a project is not eligible under SB 9 if it is located in a historic district or
property included on the State Historic Resources Inventory or within a site that is
designated or listed as a city or county landmark or as a historic property or district
pursuant to a city or county ordinance.
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Reference: Gov. Code, §§ 65852.21, subd. (j); 66411.7, subd. (n))
Because the approval of a qualifying project under SB 9 is deemed a ministerial action,
CEQA does not apply to the decision to grant an application for a housing development
or a lot split, or both. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21080, subd. (b)(1) [CEQA does not apply
to ministerial actions]; CEQA Guidelines, § 15268.) For this reason, a local agency must
not require an applicant to perform environmental impact analysis under CEQA for
applications made under SB 9. Additionally, if a local agency chooses to adopt a local
ordinance to implement SB 9 (instead of implementing the law directly from statute), the
preparation and adoption of the ordinance is not considered a project under CEQA. In
other words, the preparation and adoption of the ordinance is statutorily exempt from
CEQA.
Anti-Displacement Measures
(Reference: Gov. Code, §§ 65852.21, subd. (a)(3); 66411.7, subd. (a)(3)(D))
A site is not eligible for a proposed housing development or lot split if the project would
require demolition or alteration of any of the following types of housing: (1) housing that
is subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to levels affordable
to persons and families of moderate, low, or very low income; (2) housing that is subject
to any form of rent or price control through a public entity’s valid exercise of its police
power; or (3) housing that has been occupied by a tenant in the last three years.
California Department of Housing and Community Development – SB 9 Fact Sheet
5
Lot Split Requirements
(Reference: Gov. Code, § 66411.7)
SB 9 does not require a local agency to approve a parcel map that would result in the
creation of more than two lots and more than two units on a lot resulting from a lot split
under Government Code section 66411.7. A local agency may choose to allow more than
two units, but it is not required to under the law. A parcel may only be subdivided once
under Government Code section 66411.7. This provision prevents an applicant from
pursuing multiple lot splits over time for the purpose of creating more than two lots. SB 9
also does not require a local agency to approve a lot split if an adjacent lot has been
subject to a lot split in the past by the same property owner or a person working in concert
with that same property owner.
Accessory Dwelling Units
(Reference: Gov. Code, §§ 65852.21, subd. (j); 66411.7, subd. (f))
SB 9 and ADU Law (Gov. Code, §§ 65852.2 and 65858.22) are complementary. The
requirements of each can be implemented in ways that result in developments with both
“SB 9 Units” and ADUs. However, specific provisions of SB 9 typically overlap with State
ADU Law only to a limited extent on a relatively small number of topics. Treating the
provisions of these two laws as identical or substantially similar may lead a local agency
to implement the laws in an overly restrictive or otherwise inaccurate way.
“Units” Defined. The three types of housing units that are described in SB 9 and related
ADU Law are presented below to clarify which development scenarios are (and are not)
made possible by SB 9. The definitions provided are intended to be read within the context
of this document and for the narrow purpose of implementing SB 9.
Primary Unit. A primary unit (also called a residential dwelling unit or residential
unit) is typically a single-family residence or a residential unit within a multi-family
residential development. A primary unit is distinct from an ADU or a Junior ADU.
Examples of primary units include a single-family residence (i.e., one primary unit),
a duplex (i.e., two primary units), a four-plex (i.e., four primary units), etc.
Accessory Dwelling Unit. An ADU is an attached or a detached residential dwelling
unit that provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons
and is located on a lot with a proposed or existing primary residence. It includes
permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation on the
same parcel on which the single-family or multifamily dwelling is or will be situated.
Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit. A Junior ADU is a unit that is no more than 500
square feet in size and contained entirely within a single-family residence. A Junior
ADU may include separate sanitation facilities or may share sanitation facilities
with the existing structure.
California Department of Housing and Community Development – SB 9 Fact Sheet
6
The terms “unit,” “housing unit,” “residential unit,” and “housing development” mean
primary unit(s) unless specifically identified as an ADU or Junior ADU or otherwise
defined. This distinction is critical to successfully implementing SB 9 because state law
applies different requirements (and provides certain benefits) to ADUs and Junior ADUs
that do not apply to primary units.
Number of ADUs Allowed. ADUs can be combined with primary units in a variety of
ways to achieve the maximum unit counts provided for under SB 9. SB 9 allows for up to
four units to be built in the same lot area typically used for a single-family home. The
calculation varies slightly depending on whether a lot split is involved, but the outcomes
regarding total maximum unit counts are identical.
Lot Split. When a lot split occurs, the local agency must allow up to two units on
each lot resulting from the lot split. In this situation, all three unit types (i.e., primary
unit, ADU, and Junior ADU) count toward this two-unit limit. For example, the limit
could be reached on each lot by creating two primary units, or a primary unit and
an ADU, or a primary unit and a Junior ADU. By building two units on each lot, the
overall maximum of four units required under SB 9 is achieved. (Gov. Code, §
66411.7, subd. (j).) Note that the local agency may choose to allow more than two
units per lot if desired.
No Lot Split. When a lot split has not occurred, the lot is eligible to receive ADUs
and/or Junior ADUs as it ordinarily would under ADU law. Unlike when a project is
proposed following a lot split, the local agency must allow, in addition to one or two
primary units under SB 9, ADUs and/or JADUs under ADU Law. It is beyond the
scope of this document to identify every combination of primary units, ADUs, and
Junior ADUs possible under SB 9 and ADU Law. However, in no case does SB 9
require a local agency to allow more than four units on a single lot, in any
combination of primary units, ADUs, and Junior ADUs.
See HCD’s ADU and JADU webpage for more information and resources.
Relationship to Other State Housing Laws
SB 9 is one housing law among many that have been adopted to encourage the
production of homes across California. The following represent some, but not necessarily
all, of the housing laws that intersect with SB 9 and that may be impacted as SB 9 is
implemented locally.
Housing Element Law. To utilize projections based on SB 9 toward a jurisdiction’s
regional housing need allocation, the housing element must: 1) include a site-specific
inventory of sites where SB 9 projections are being applied, 2) include a nonvacant sites
analysis demonstrating the likelihood of redevelopment and that the existing use will not
constitute an impediment for additional residential use, 3) identify any governmental
constraints to the use of SB 9 in the creation of units (including land use controls, fees,
California Department of Housing and Community Development – SB 9 Fact Sheet
7
and other exactions, as well as locally adopted ordinances that impact the cost and supply
of residential development), and 4) include programs and policies that establish zoning
and development standards early in the planning period and implement incentives to
encourage and facilitate development. The element should support this analysis with local
information such as local developer or owner interest to utilize zoning and incentives
established through SB 9. Learn more on HCD’s Housing Elements webpage.
Housing Crisis Act of 2019. An affected city or county is limited in its ability to amend
its general plan, specific plans, or zoning code in a way that would improperly reduce the
intensity of residential uses. (Gov. Code, § 66300, subd. (b)(1)(A).) This limitation applies
to residential uses in all zones, including single-family residential zones. “Reducing the
intensity of land use” includes, but is not limited to, reductions to height, density, or floor
area ratio, new or increased open space or lot size requirements, new or increased
setback requirements, minimum frontage requirements, or maximum lot coverage
limitations, or any other action that would individually or cumulatively reduce the site’s
residential development capacity. (Gov. Code, § 66300, subd. (b)(1)(A).)
A local agency should proceed with caution when adopting a local ordinance that would
impose unique development standards on units proposed under SB 9 (but that would not
apply to other developments). Any proposed modification to an existing development
standard applicable in the single-family residential zone must demonstrate that it would
not result in a reduction in the intensity of the use. HCD recommends that local agencies
rely on the existing objective development, subdivision, and design standards of its single-
family residential zone(s) to the extent possible. Learn more about Designated
Jurisdictions Prohibited from Certain Zoning-Related Actions on HCD’s website.
Housing Accountability Act. Protections contained in the Housing Accountability Act
(HAA) and the Permit Streaming Act (PSA) apply to housing developments pursued under
SB 9. (Gov. Code, §§ 65589.5; 65905.5; 65913.10; 65940 et seq.) The definition of
“housing development project” includes projects that involve no discretionary approvals
and projects that include a proposal to construct a single dwelling unit. (Gov. Code, §
65905.5, subd. (b)(3).) For additional information about the HAA and PSA, see HCD’s
Housing Accountability Act Technical Assistance Advisory.
Rental Inclusionary Housing. Government Code section 65850, subdivision (g),
authorizes local agencies to adopt an inclusionary housing ordinance that includes
residential rental units affordable to lower- and moderate-income households. In certain
circumstances, HCD may request the submittal of an economic feasibility study to ensure
the ordinance does not unduly constrain housing production. For additional information,
see HCD’s Rental Inclusionary Housing Memorandum.