110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● (408) 354-6832 www.losgatosca.gov
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: 10/20/2026
ITEM NO:
ADDENDUM
DATE: October 16, 2026
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: Chris Constantin, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Consider a Recommendation by the Planning Commission to Introduce an Ordinance Amending Chapter 29 (Zoning Regulations) of the Town Code Regarding Objective Design Standards for Single-Family and Two-Family Residential Dwelling Units and Second-Story Additions. The Proposed Amendments to the Town Code are Not Subject to CEQA Review Pursuant to CEQA Section 15061(b)(3) Because it can be Seen with Certainty that they will not Significantly Affect the Physical Environment in that they Make Minor Changes to the Regulations and Design Review Process Applicable to New Single-Family and Two-Family Residential Dwelling Units and SecondStory Additions. Town Code Amendment Application A-26-003. Project Location: Town Wide. Applicant: Town of Los Gatos. Project Planner: Ryan Safty.
REMARKS:
Attachment 6 contains public comments received between 3:01 p.m., Thursday, October 15, 2026, and 3:00 p.m., Friday, October 16, 2026.
ATTACHMENTS:
Previously Received with the October 20, 2026, Staff Report:
1. Required Findings
2. Draft Ordinance
3. August 12, 2026, Planning Commission Staff Report with Exhibits
4. August 12, 2026, Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes
5. Public Comments Received Between 11:01 a.m. Wednesday, August 12, 2026, and 3:00 p.m.
Thursday, October 15, 2026
Attachment received with this Addendum:
6. Public Comments Received Between 3:01 p.m. Thursday, October 15, 2026, and 3:00 p.m.
Friday, October 16, 2026
Austin
October 16, 2026
Town Council
Town of Los Gatos
110 E Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Re: Public Comment on Town Council Meeting, October 20, 2026 — Item 12 re: Zoning
Dear Mayor and Members of the Los Gatos Town Council:
SB 9 was enacted to make it easier to create new housing in single-family neighborhoods.
SB 450 then subsequently prohibited municipalities from imposing special restrictions on SB 9 developments that do not apply to other residential projects. Presented with the choice between eliminating restrictions and expanding them to other housing, Staff unfortunately chose the latter.
The Staff Report acknowledges that many of the Town’s existing SB 9 standards became unenforceable under SB 450. Rather than embracing an inclusive, pro-housing agenda consistent with the spirit of the law and clear needs of the Town to address a dire housing affordability crisis, the Town proposes instead to exploit the letter of the law and preserve those restrictions by applying them universally to all new single-family and two-family residences and second-story additions. This will, unnecessarily in my opinion, create additional burdens on new and existing homeowners, regardless of SB 9 status.
Furthermore, this proposal creates a clear, demonstrable asymmetry in the Town’s housing policy, making it more difficult – not easier – to build new housing. Conventional applicants may request exceptions to the new standards through discretionary review. SB ATTACHEMENT 6
9 projects generally cannot. This clearly undermines the intent of SB 9 and could jeopardize the Town’s Housing Element altogether.
The Town’s Housing Element commits Los Gatos to encouraging SB 9 infill housing, increasing housing supply, and reducing government constraints. This ordinance does the opposite. To that end, the Town is telling the State it plans to do one thing, and yet it tells residents something entirely different. Under CA Govt Code § 65585(i), California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) can review the actions the Town takes relative to its adopted Housing Element and act, including potentially revoking the Housing Element.
Despite meeting with the architecture and design community and learning from regional peers that “less is more”, Staff are proposing changes that impose additional restrictions. I worry that there has not been meaningful analysis establishing that these additional standards, which will make new construction more expensive for everyone, and which would impose greater load on Town resources, are necessary. Before imposing new limitations, the Town should be able to clearly explain what problems these regulations solve, why existing standards are insufficient, and what additional burdens residents will face.
Given the consequence of jeopardizing Housing Element compliance, I ask the Council to direct Staff to prepare a substantive Housing Element consistency analysis, evaluate the potential impact on housing feasibility, and seek guidance from HCD, if necessary. This analysis should explain the specific public benefits and justifications for each new restriction. As well, evaluate the additional costs, design constraints, and potential housing impacts associated with these requirements.
Finally, I encourage the Council to prioritize housing opportunities, property-owner flexibility, and reasonable development standards over preserving unnecessary restrictions.
Sincerely,
Austin