Desk Item with Exhibits 14 and 15.220 Belgatos Rd
PREPARED BY: Jocelyn Shoopman
Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Planning Manager, Community Development Director, and Town Attorney
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● (408) 354-6872
www.losgatosca.gov
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING COMMISSION
REPORT
MEETING DATE: 01/22/2025
ITEM NO: 3
DESK ITEM
DATE: January 22, 2025
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Consider an Appeal of a Development Review Committee Decision Approving
a Subdivision of One Lot into Two Lots on Property Zoned R-1:10. Located at
220 Belgatos Road. APN 527-25-005. Subdivision Application M-24-011.
Categorically Exempt Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15315: Minor Land
Divisions. Property Owner: Union School District. Applicant: Robson Homes,
LLC. Appellant: Mary Cangemi. Project Planner: Jocelyn Shoopman.
REMARKS:
Exhibit 14 includes further correspondence from the appellant.
Exhibit 15 includes public comments received between 11:01 am, Tuesday, January 21, 2025,
and 11:00 a.m., Wednesday, January 22, 2025.
EXHIBITS:
Previously Received with the January 22, 2025, Staff Report:
1. Location Map
2. Required Findings
3. Conditions of Approval
4. Revised Recommended Conditions of Approval
5. Project Description
6. Summary of Neighborhood Outreach
7. December 10, 2024, Development Review Committee Meeting Minutes
8. Appeal of the Development Review Committee
9. Supplemental Correspondence from the Appellant
10. Applicant’s Response to Appeal
11. Applicant’s Response to Supplemental Correspondence from the Appellant
12. Project Plans
PAGE 2 OF 2
SUBJECT: 220 Belgatos Road/M-24-011
DATE: January 22, 2025
Previously Received with the January 21, 2025, Addendum Report:
13. Additional Correspondence from the Appellant
Received with this Desk Item Report:
14. Correspondence from the Appellant
15. Public comments received between 11:01 a.m., Tuesday, January 21, 2025, and 11:00 a.m.,
Wednesday, January 22, 2025
EXHIBIT 14
No tentative subdivision map or parcel map can be approved unless the city or county finds that the
subdivision, together with design and improvement provisions, is consistent with all aspects of the
general plan or any applicable specific plan (Gov. Code §§ 66473.5, 66474, and 66474.61). Lot line
adjustments must also be consistent with the general plan (Id. at § 66412).
Consistency in Implementation
The general plan is largely implemented through zoning and subdivision decisions. In 1971, the
Legislature made consistency with the general plan a determinative factor for subdivision
approvals. Since then, lawmakers have continued to add consistency requirements to California’s
planning and land use laws. Other statutes, while not mandating consistency, require findings or a
report on whether various local actions conform to the general plan.
Consistency statutes and legal precedents are detailed below.
In order for zoning and other measures to comply with consistency requirements, the general plan
itself must first be complete and adequate (i.e., it must address all required issues and be internally
consistent). In 1984, the Court of Appeal ruled that a conditional use permit issued pursuant to
existing zoning may be challenged if a city or county general plan does not comply with the
statutory requirements that are relevant to the permit in question (Neighborhood Action Group v.
County of Calaveras (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 1176, 1184). More recently, the appeals court ruled that
a general plan amendment can only be challenged on the basis of an internal general plan
inconsistency when there is a nexus between the particular amendment and the claimed
inconsistency in the general plan (Garat v. Riverside (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 259, 289-90).
The California Attorney General has opined that “the term ‘consistent with’ is used interchangeably
with ‘conformity with’” (58 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 21, 25 (1975)). A general rule for consistency
determinations can be stated as follows: An action, program, or project is consistent with the
general plan if, considering all its aspects, it will further the objectives and policies of the general
plan and will not inhibit or obstruct their attainment (see Ibid.).
The city or county is responsible for determining whether an activity is consistent with the general
plan. A city council’s finding of a project’s consistency with the plan would be reversed by a court if,
based on the evidence before the council, a reasonable person could not have reached the same
conclusion (No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 223).
Any given project need not be in perfect conformity with each and every policy of the general plan if
those policies are not relevant or leave the city or county room for interpretation (Sequoayah Hills
Homeowners Association v. City of Oakland, (1998) 23 Cal.App 4th 704, 719 (1993)). In Families
Unafraid to Uphold Rural El Dorado County v. El Dorado County Board of Supervisors (1998) 62
Cal.App.4th 1332, 1341, the court held that “[t] he nature of the policy and the nature of the
inconsistency are critical factors to consider.” A project is clearly inconsistent when it conflicts with
one or more specific, fundamental, and mandatory policies of the general plan (Id. at p. 1342).
Zoning Consistency
Counties, general law cities, and charter cities with populations of more than two million are
required to maintain consistency between their zoning ordinance and their adopted general plan
(Gov. Code § 65860). Charter cities with populations under two million are not subject to this
mandate but may choose to enact their own code requirements for consistency (Id. at §§ 65803,
65860(d)).
Where the consistency requirement applies, every zoning action, such as the adoption of new
zoning ordinance text or the amendment of a zoning ordinance map, must be consistent with the
general plan.
A zoning ordinance that conflicts with the general plan at the time it is enacted is “invalid at the
time it is passed” (Lesher Communications v. City of Walnut Creek (1990) 52 Cal.3d 531; accord,
Sierra Club v. Board of Supervisors (1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 698).
By the same token, when a general plan amendment makes the zoning inconsistent, the zoning
must be changed to re-establish consistency “within a reasonable time” (Gov. Code § 65860(c)).
Zoning can be a useful tool in creating vibrant spaces and Zoning Law does not contemplate that
general plans will be amended to conform to zoning ordinances. The tail does not wag the dog.”
(Lesher Communications v. City of Walnut Creek, supra, at p. 541).
State law does not prescribe what constitutes “a reasonable time” for reconciling the zoning
ordinance with the general plan.
OPR suggests that when possible, general plan amendments and necessary related zoning changes
be heard concurrently (Gov. Code § 65862). When concurrent hearings are not feasible, OPR
suggests the following time periods:
• For minor general plan amendments (those involving a relatively small area), six months.
• For extensive amendments to the general plan (such as a revision that results in the inconsistency
of large areas), two years.
When a new element or major revision to a general plan is adopted, the zoning scheme should be
thoroughly reviewed for consistency. It must be amended if necessary to ensure that it is adequate
to carry out the new element or revisions.
Since timing can be a problem, general plans should provide clear guidance for the pace of future
development, perhaps by using five-year increments or by establishing a set of conditions to be met
before consistent zoning would be considered timely.
Enforcement and Remedies
Any resident or property owner may sue to enforce the requirements for the adoption of an
adequate general plan (58 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 21 (1975)). The same is true for enforcing the
requirements that zoning and subdivisions must be consistent with the general plan (Gov. Code §§
65860(b), 66499.33). As the state’s chief law enforcement officer, the Attorney General may do the
same (58 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 21; Cal. Const., art. V, § 13). Additionally, persons living outside a city
have standing to sue if the city’s zoning practices exclude them from residing in the city or raise
their housing costs by adversely affecting the regional housing market (Stocks v. City of Irvine (1981)
114 Cal.App.3d 520).
The courts may impose various remedies for failure to have a complete and adequate general plan
(Gov. Code §§ 65750, et seq.). One is a writ of mandate to compel a local government to adopt a
legally adequate general plan. The courts also have general authority to issue an injunction to limit
approvals of additional subdivision maps, parcel maps, rezonings, and public works projects or
(under limited circumstances) the issuance of building permits pending adoption of a complete
and adequate general plan (Id., 58 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen.21 (1975), Friends of “B” Street v. City of
Hayward (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 988, Camp v. Mendocino (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 334). Where a
court finds that specific zoning or subdivision actions or public works projects are inconsistent with
the general plan, it may set aside such actions or projects. Under certain circumstances, the court
may impose any of these forms of relief prior to a final judicial determination of a general plan’s
inadequacy (Gov. Code § 65757).
Respectfully,
JAS
John Shepardson
Attorney at Law
Office
Cell
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: the information contained in this e-mail, including any attachment(s),
is confidential information that may be privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable
law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or if you received this message
in error, then any direct or indirect disclosure, distribution or copying of this message is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify Marti H. Castillo at the Law
Office of JOHN A. SHEPARDSON immediately by calling (408) 395-3701 and by sending a return e-
mail; delete this message; and destroy all copies, including attachments. Thank you.
IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE To ensure compliance with new requirements of the
Internal Revenue Service, we inform you that, to the extent any advice relating to a Federal tax issue
is contained in this communication, including in any attachments, it was not written or intended to
be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (a) avoiding any tax related penalties that may be
imposed on you or any other person under the Internal Revenue Code, or (b) promoting, marketing
or recommending to another person any transaction or matter addressed in this communication.
UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT
5175 Union Avenue, San Jose, CA 95124
Phone: 408-377-8010 SUPERINTENDENT
www.unionsd.org Carrie Andrews, Ph.D.
January 21, 2025
Planning Commission
Town of Los Gatos
110 E Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Planning@losgatosca.gov
Re: Opposition to Appeal of Development Review Committee Approval of Application
M-24-011 (220 Belgatos Road)
Dear Honorable Members of the Planning Commission,
The Union School District (“USD”) hereby opposes the appeal to the Development Review Committee’s
decision to approve a subdivision of the 220 Belgatos Road, Los Gatos, California (“Property”) into two
lots (Application M-24-011). USD is the current owner of the Property and is party to a contract with
Robson Homes who is in the process of securing required approvals and entitlements for the eventual
development of a housing project on a portion of the Property. The application at issue here relates only to
a subdivision of the Property and not the proposed housing development. The parcel split is necessary
because the agreement between USD and Robson Homes only relates to a portion of the larger USD site.
Separating the Property into two lots is a first step in Robson’s effort to complete the Town’s entitlement
process for a housing development. As outlined in correspondence from Robson Homes, the housing
development itself was not before the Development Review Committee for review and approval. As
such, the appeal is improper and should be denied.
As we previously shared with the Town, the transaction between USD and Robson will generate much
needed revenue for the school district. We urge you to follow Town Staff’s recommendation to deny the
appeal and support the Development Review Committee’s approval of Application M-24-011.
Sincerely,
Dr. Carrie Andrews
Superintendent, Union School District
FOUNDATION FOR EXCELLENCE
________________________________________________________________________________________
BOARD OF TRUSTEES Sheila Billings - Vickie Brown - Doug Evans - Jennifer Petroff - Thomas E. Rossmeissl
EXHIBIT 15
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank