Attachment 11 - Additional Information from the Appellant, received November 1, 2021On Mon, Nov 1, 2021 at 2:27 AM Alison Steer wrote:
Dear Mr Prevetti,
Please see below excerpt from the Planning Commision appeal meeting on Sept 9th and
supporting evidence of Town initiated lot mergers are enforceable:
1) City of Saratoga Lot Merger Ordinance (and other Town Ordinances that were highlighted in
Exhibit 11 of supporting exhibits attached)
https://library.municode.com/ca/saratoga/codes/code of ordinances?nodeId=CH14SU ART14-
65MEPA 14-65.020NOINME
2) Woodside Lot Merger Ordinance
https://library.municode.com/ca/woodside/codes/municipal code?
nodeId=CD ORD TITXVLAUS CH152SU ARTIVTOINLOME S152.040TOINLOME
And the Town Council meeting where it was discussed in January 2021.
https://www.woodsidetown.org/sites/default/files/fileattachments/town council/meeting/32358
/item b - mcam2018-0001 amend subdivision ordinance.pdf
ATTACHMENT 11
From the above link:
Note that the comment about consistency with the Map Act.
Please also note that Mr Jeans, Mr Paulson, and the Town Attorney were aware of the lot merger
ordinance back in 2019 as is documented here, and no effect has been made to remove this
ordinance from our Town Code.
http://weblink.losgatosca.gov/weblink/0/edoc/1230776/Item%204%20-%20Addendum.pdf
In this case the structure was sitting on both lots and per the SMA and Town's lot merger
ordinance this would not have applied in this case.
I believe someone may have confused what a Certificate of Compliance signifies. It doesn't confer
building rights, zoning variances or other privileges. In fact, Compliance Certificates are often
issued for "interior" parcels that lack legal means of access.
https://info.courthousedirect.com/blog/bid/263554/what-is-a-compliance-certificate
Please let me know if you have any further questions.
Best Regards,
Alison
On Sat, Oct 30, 2021 at 1:03 PM Alison Steer wrote:
attaching the City of Berkeley appeal of merger which I inadvertently left off this email, but was
included in the exhibits that were submitted to the Town Council packet for the Nov 2nd 17200
Los Robles Way LLA meeting.
Given the appeal packet material was large, I also want to point out the job description of the
DRC committee, which refers to the lot merger ordinance. This was included as exhibit 3.
https://library.municode.com/ca/los_gatos/codes/code_of_ordinances?
nodeId=CO_CH29ZORE_ARTIIADEN_DIV7ASDU_S29.20.745DERECO
Thank you,
Alison
On Sat, Oct 30, 2021 at 12:30 PM Matthew Hudes <MHudes@losgatosca.gov> wrote:
Thank you.
Regards, Matthew
In compliance with the Ralph M. Brown Act, please do not forward my email.
Councilmember Matthew Hudes
Town of Los Gatos
On Oct 30, 2021, at 9:40 AM, Alison Steer wrote:
EXTERNAL SENDER
Hi Matthew,
I have read the Town Attorney's findings that involuntary lot mergers are
unenforceable but would like to direct you to this link that discusses the
Morehart vs Santa Barbara ruling, and the attached involuntarily lot merger in
the City of Berkeley. I find the Town Attorney's behavior incredulous, and very
concerning that he will not defend our Town ordinances, that are clearly
supported by the Subdivision maps act, and wonder what his personal
motivation is in this case. Allowing developers to skirt formal subdivision review
is asking for disaster.
https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/4th/7/725.html
best regards,
Alison
B. Merger Provisions' Procedural Safeguards
Section 66451.11 provides that "[a] local agency may, by ordinancewhich conforms to and implements the procedures prescribed by
this article [§§ 66451.10-66451.21], provide for the merger of a
parcel or unit with a contiguous parcel or unit held by the same
owner" if at least one of the parcels meets certain requirements.
The prescribed procedures, found in sections 66451.12 through66451.18 and described more fully in the margin, are somewhat
elaborate. fn. 21 The local agency must initiate a merger by a
"notice of intention to determine status" that may be recorded as
well as mailed to the record owner. (§ 66451.13.) fn. 22 The owner
may request a hearing and present evidence on whether the parcels
meet the standards for merger specified in the ordinance. (§§
66451.14-66451.16.) After deciding whether to merge the parcels,
the local agency must record either a notice of merger or a releaseof the notice of intention to determine status. (§§ 66451.16-
66451.18.)
Petitioners contend that the county ordinances improperly
transgress a legislative intent that a required merger of parcels beaccompanied by these procedural safeguards. But as the record in
this case illustrates, a property owner receives just as much due
process under the ordinances as would be [7 Cal. 4th 757] afforded
under the Act's merger provisions. Under the Act, a merger ofparcels is initiated by recorded notice to the owner of an intention to
determine status. Such a notice would be superfluous under the
ordinances because application of the merger requirement is
initiated by the owner's own application for a development permit.
Under both the Act and the ordinances, an owner desirous of
resisting the merger is entitled to a hearing. Here, plaintiffs were
heard before the county's planning commission and board of
supervisors. The only issue on which the Act provides a hearing iswhether the property meets the standards for merger that are
specified in the merger ordinance as authorized by the Act. (§§
66451.13, 66451.16.) Here, plaintiffs were fully heard before the
county's bodies on their contention that the ordinances' mergerrequirements did not apply because the parcels adjacent to
plaintiffs' block 132 were under separate, rather than common,
ownership.
Finally, the county ordinances provide that any merger they requirebe put into effect by the owner's own "recordation of a reversion to
acreage, voluntary merger, final parcel map or final tract map."
(Ord. No. 3718, § 2, amending § 35-102.3.) Thus, there is no need
under the ordinances for the requirement, imposed by sections66451.12 and 66451.16 through 66451.18 of the Act, that the
county itself record a decision to merge or not to merge.
Since the county ordinances provide as much procedural protection
to parcel owners as the Act's merger provisions (§§ 66451.12-66451.18), the ordinances are not impliedly preempted by the state
concern underlying those provisions for the owners' procedural
rights.
From:Alison Steer
To:Robert Schultz
Cc:Joel Paulson; Ryan Safty; Jennifer Armer; Planning
Subject:17200 Los Robles Way LLA Application M-20-12 - Town Initiated Lot Mergers
Date:Monday, November 1, 2021 9:19:28 AM
Attachments:image.pngimage.pngimage.pngimage.pngSupporting Exhibits for Appeal of 17200 Los Robles Way LLA Application.pdf
EXTERNAL SENDER
Dear Mr Schultz,
I have read your findings regarding the details on Lot Merger. I'm including the excerpt below from thePlanning Commision appeal meeting on Sept 8th and am including supporting evidence of Towninitiated lot mergers. I believe your argument is around semantics that our Ordinance does notspecifically describe the procedure required for involuntary lot merger per SMA 66451, even thoughwe know we operate under the provisions of the Subdivision Maps Act? It should be noted that we alsodo not have a lot line adjustment ordinance that specifically calls out Section 66412 either. If this was aconcern, I am wondering why this ordinance wasn't addressed two years ago when the 11/15 PeraltaAve lot merger request was submitted by neighbors to the Town? In this case, the request for mergerdid not apply since there was a building on both properties, but it did afford an opportunity for reviewof the Town's ordinance with regard to enforceability.
http://weblink.losgatosca.gov/weblink/0/edoc/1230776/Item%204%20-%20Addendum.pdf
You had mentioned in the Planning Commission appeal meeting (transcribed excerpt below) that youwould check for other cities that may have ordinances that prevent unbuildable parcels from becomingbuildable. I submitted numerous examples of them in the supporting exhibits (exhibit 11), includingour neighboring city of Saratoga. Have you found a ruling that supports that a non-buildable parcelcannot be made buildable through lot line adjustment is in fact not enforceable in the State ofCalifornia? The City of Berkeley successfully processed an involuntary lot merger by following SMA66451.
In addition, here is the Woodside Lot Merger Ordinance https://library.municode.com/ca/woodside/codes/municipal_code?nodeId=CD_ORD_TITXVLAUS_CH152SU_ARTIVTOINLOME_S152.040TOINLOME
And the Town Council meeting where it was discussed in January 2021.https://www.woodsidetown.org/sites/default/files/fileattachments/town_council/meeting/32358/item_b_-_mcam2018-0001_amend_subdivision_ordinance.pdf
From the above link:
As they mention, Town-initiated lot mergers are very rare, and given the situation with how this parcelof land (APN 532-36-077) exists in the first place, you would not expect them to be common. You hadmentioned previously that staff share my frustration with regard to providing certificate of complianceon these non-conforming lots. This is why Town Ordinance Sec 29.10.070 is required to ensure newbuildable sites cannot be created without proper due diligence. The creation of a new buildable parcelshould go through the formal subdivision process, because of the serious concern of property damageto the neighbors at the bottom of the hillside, and because this may lead to another Bellavista situationwhen this comes back to planning, which could harm the future owner of APN 532-36-075 when it issold.
At the Woodside link above please also see the section regarding CEQA, bullet 2 which says that a LotLine adjustment including steeper average slopes than 20% cannot be exempt from CEQA. I haveraised this in my appeal packet as well.
https://library.municode.com/ca/woodside/codes/municipal_code?nodeId=CD_ORD_TITXVLAUS_CH152SU_ARTVLOLIAD
A detailed summary of the Morehart case finds the following:
https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/4th/7/725.html
"the act does impliedly preempt any local zoning ordinance provision that purports to require,as a condition to issuance of a development permit, a merger of parcels that the county couldnot compel under section 66451.11"
Given the appeal packet material was large, and perhaps items were overlooked, I also want to pointout the job description of the DRC committee, which refers to the lot merger ordinance. This wasincluded as exhibit 3.
https://library.municode.com/ca/los_gatos/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=CO_CH29ZORE_ARTIIADEN_DIV7ASDU_S29.20.745DERECO
Please let me know if this is not sufficient evidence for the Town to deny lot line adjustment of APN532-36-077.
Thank you,Alison Steer
EXHIBITS
Exh.# Item
1 Town of Los Gatos Lot Merger Ordinance (Sec 29.10.070)
2 Sub Division Maps Act Gov Code 66451.11
3 Requirements of the Development Review Committee
(Sec. 29.20.745)
4 Sierra Club vs Napa County Superior Court Ruling on Lot
Line Adjustment for Sequential Lots.
5 Town Lot Line Adjustment Procedure Handout.
6 CEQA Categorical Exemption Class 5, Guidelines Section
15305 (minor alterations in land use limitations).
7 List of CEQA Exemption Types
8 City of Santa Barbara criteria for Environmental Review
9 17200 Los Robles Way Average Slope Calculations
10 Required Findings For 17200 Los Robles Way
11 Links to other CA Town and County Lot Line Adjustment
Ordinances:
a. Santa Cruz County
b. Napa County
c. Saratoga
d. Laguna Beach
e. Sonoma County
f. City of Fillmore
g. Marin County
12 Burke Lot Line Adjustment- Big Sur
13 Subdivision Maps Act Gov Code 66412(d)
14 Santa Clara Count Fire Department Requirements for
driveways >150ft.
15 Non-Buildable Area of APN 532-36-077 outside the
LRDA
16 Berkeley Merger of Two Parcels
17 Attached Sierra Club vs Napa County Highlighted PDF
18 Thompson Title Deed for 17200 Los Robles Way showing
acknowledgement of the Thompson/Clifford Quit Claim to
Harding Ave ROW (Parcel 4 description)
Exhibit 1: Town of Los Gatos Lot Merger Ordinance
Sec. 29.10.070. - Lot merger.
(a) A parcel of land does lawfully exist separately from other land and is a lot when the
parcel meets each of the following criteria:
(1) Comprises at least five thousand (5,000) square feet in area.
(2) Was created in compliance with applicable laws and ordinances in effect at
the time of its creation.
(3) Meets current standards for sewage disposal and domestic water supply.
(4) Meets slope stability standards.
(5) Has legal access which is adequate for vehicular and safety equipment access
and maneuverability.
(6) Development of the parcel would create no health or safety hazards.
(7) The parcel would be consistent with the applicable general plan and any
applicable specific plan, other than minimum lot size or density standards.
(8) No structures are built over a common property line which is shared with
another parcel under the same or substantially the same ownership.
(b) Any parcels under the same or substantially the same ownership that do not meet
the criteria listed above shall be considered merged. In addition, no parcel shall be
modified through a lot line adjustment procedure in order to meet the criteria listed
above.
(Ord. No. 1316, § 3.10.010, 6-7-76; Ord. No. 1337, 11-1-76; Ord. No. 1432, 6-4-79; Ord. No.
1438, 8-6-79; Ord. No. 1756, § I, 8-1-88)
Exhibit 2: Subdivision Maps Act Gov Code 66451.11
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode
=GOV§ionNum=66451.11
GOVERNMENT CODE - GOV
TITLE 7. PLANNING AND LAND USE [65000 - 66499.58] ( Heading of Title 7 amended by
Stats. 1974, Ch. 1536. )
DIVISION 2. SUBDIVISIONS [66410 - 66499.38] ( Division 2 added by Stats. 1974, Ch. 1536. )
CHAPTER 3. Procedure [66451 - 66472.1] ( Chapter 3 added by Stats. 1974, Ch. 1536. )
ARTICLE 1.5. Merger of Parcels [66451.10 - 66451.24] ( Article 1.5 added by Stats. 1983, Ch. 845,
Sec. 2. )
66451.11.
A local agency may, by ordinance which conforms to and implements the
procedures prescribed by this article, provide for the merger of a parcel or unit with
a contiguous parcel or unit held by the same owner if any one of the contiguous
parcels or units held by the same owner does not conform to standards for
minimum parcel size, under the zoning ordinance of the local agency applicable to
the parcels or units of land and if all of the following requirements are satisfied:
(a) At least one of the affected parcels is undeveloped by any structure for which a
building permit was issued or for which a building permit was not required at the
time of construction, or is developed only with an accessory structure or accessory
structures, or is developed with a single structure, other than an accessory
structure, that is also partially sited on a contiguous parcel or unit.
(b) With respect to any affected parcel, one or more of the following conditions
exists:
(1) Comprises less than 5,000 square feet in area at the time of the
determination of merger.
(2) Was not created in compliance with applicable laws and ordinances in
effect at the time of its creation.
(3) Does not meet current standards for sewage disposal and domestic water
supply.
(4) Does not meet slope stability standards.
(5) Has no legal access which is adequate for vehicular and safety equipment
access and maneuverability.
(6) Its development would create health or safety hazards.
(7) Is inconsistent with the applicable general plan and any applicable
specific plan, other than minimum lot size or density standards.
The ordinance may establish the standards specified in paragraphs (3) to (7),
inclusive, which shall be applicable to parcels to be merged.
This subdivision shall not apply if one of the following conditions exist:
(A) On or before July 1, 1981, one or more of the contiguous parcels or units of
land is enforceably restricted open-space land pursuant to a contract, agreement,
scenic restriction, or open-space easement, as defined and set forth in Section 421
of the Revenue and Taxation Code.
(B) On July 1, 1981, one or more of the contiguous parcels or units of land is
timberland as defined in subdivision (f) of Section 51104, or is land devoted to an
agricultural use as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 51201.
(C) On July 1, 1981, one or more of the contiguous parcels or units of land is
located within 2,000 feet of the site on which an existing commercial mineral
resource extraction use is being made, whether or not the extraction is being made
pursuant to a use permit issued by the local agency.
(D) On July 1, 1981, one or more of the contiguous parcels or units of land is
located within 2,000 feet of a future commercial mineral extraction site as shown
on a plan for which a use permit or other permit authorizing commercial mineral
resource extraction has been issued by the local agency.
(E) Within the coastal zone, as defined in Section 30103 of the Public Resources
Code, one or more of the contiguous parcels or units of land has, prior to July 1,
1981, been identified or designated as being of insufficient size to support
residential development and where the identification or designation has either (i)
been included in the land use plan portion of a local coastal program prepared and
adopted pursuant to the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 of the Public
Resources Code), or (ii) prior to the adoption of a land use plan, been made by
formal action of the California Coastal Commission pursuant to the provisions of the
California Coastal Act of 1976 in a coastal development permit decision or in an
approved land use plan work program or an approved issue identification on which
the preparation of a land use plan pursuant to the provisions of the California
Coastal Act is based.
For purposes of paragraphs (C) and (D) of this subdivision, “mineral resource
extraction” means gas, oil, hydrocarbon, gravel, or sand extraction, geothermal
wells, or other similar commercial mining activity.
(c) The owner of the affected parcels has been notified of the merger proposal
pursuant to Section 66451.13, and is afforded the opportunity for a hearing
pursuant to Section 66451.14.
For purposes of this section, when determining whether contiguous parcels are held
by the same owner, ownership shall be determined as of the date that notice of
intention to determine status is recorded.
(Amended by Stats. 1995, Ch. 162, Sec. 1. Effective January 1, 1996.)
Exhibit 3: Requirements of the Development Review Committee
Sec. 29.20.745. - Development Review Committee.
The Development Review Committee shall:
(1) Regularly review and make recommendations to the Planning Commission
concerning the determination of all matters which come before the Planning
Commission except zoning ordinance amendments, zone changes (not including
rezoning to PD), general plan adoptions and amendments, specific plan adoptions and
amendments, and capital improvement plans.
(2) Review and make recommendations to the Council concerning community-oriented
bulletin boards and kiosks proposed to be erected on public property.
(3) May on its own motion review and make recommendations concerning matters not
assigned to it.
(4) Reserved.
(5) Determine and issue zoning approval for the storage of hazardous materials as
provided in division 1 of article VII of this chapter.
(6) Determine appropriate screening (fencing, landscaping or a combination) for
hazardous materials storage sites as provided in division 1 of article VII of this chapter.
(7) Determine and issue zoning approval for grading permits as provided in section
29.10.09045(b) and (c) of this chapter.
(8) Reserved.
(9) Determine and issue zoning approval for lot line adjustments and lot mergers.
(10) Reserved.
(11) Under the provisions of section 29.10.070 of this chapter and section 66424.2 of the
Subdivision Map Act, determine whether lots have merged.
Exhibit 4: Sierra Club vs Napa County Superior Court Ruling on Lot
Line Adjustment for Sequential Lots. (See highlighted sections in attached
pdf)
Sierra-Club-v.-Napa-County-Board-of-Supervisors.pdf
Exhibit 5: Town Lot Line Adjustment Procedure Handout.
This procedure cannot be used because of State Law SMA 66451.11 stating
lots meet merger criteria. Building on APN 532-36-076 is derelict. APN 532-
36-077 is land-locked due to quit claim deeds signed in 1978 and has no
frontage. Is non-conforming.
https://www.losgatosca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/348
Exhibit 6: CEQA Categorical Exemption Class 5, Guidelines Section
15305 (minor alterations in land use limitations).
Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14 § 15305
Section 15305 - Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations
Class 5 consists of minor alterations in land use limitations in areas with an average slope of less than 20%,
which do not result in any changes in land use or density, including but not limited to:
(a) Minor lot line adjustments, side yard, and set back variances not resulting in the creation of any new
parcel;(b) Issuance of minor encroachment permits;(c) Reversion to acreage in accordance with the
Subdivision Map Act.
Exhibit 7: List of CEQA Exemption Types
https://sfplanning.org/list-ceqa-exemption-types
Categorical Exemptions from the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA)
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the Guidelines for implementation of
CEQA adopted by the Secretary of the California Resources Agency require that local agencies
adopt a list of categorical exemptions from CEQA. Such list must show those specific activities
at the local level that fall within each of the classes of exemptions set forth in Article 19 of the
CEQA Guidelines, and must be consistent with both the letter and the intent expressed in such
classes.
In the list that follows, the classes set forth in CEQA Guidelines Sections 15301 - 15332 are
shown in bold italics, with further elaboration or explanation for applying these exemptions in
San Francisco shown in normal upper- and lower-case type. The Secretary of the California
Resources Agency has determined that the projects in these classes do not have significant
effect on the environment, and therefore are categorically exempt from CEQA. The following
exceptions, however, are noted in the State Guidelines.
* CLASS 5: MINOR ALTERATIONS IN LAND USE LIMITATIONS
Class 5 consists of minor alterations in land use limitations in areas with an average slope of less than
20%, which do not result in any changes in land use or density, including but not limited to:
(a) Minor lot line adjustments, side yard and setback variances not resulting in the creation of any new
parcel.
This item covers only the granting of lot line adjustments and variances, not construction that
could occur as a result of such approvals. Setback variances include both front and rear yard
variances and modification or abolition of legislated setback lines. Class 15 may also apply for
minor land divisions into four or fewer parcels when no variance is required.
CLASS 15: MINOR LAND DIVISIONS
Class 15 consists of the division of property in urbanized areas zoned for residential, commercial, or
industrial use into four or fewer parcels when the division is in conformance with the General Plan and
zoning, no variances or exceptions are required, all services and access to the proposed parcels to local
standards are available, the parcel was not involved in a division of a larger parcel within the previous
two years, and the parcel does not have an average slope greater than 20 percent.
Only land divisions into four or fewer parcels requiring no variances from the City Planning
Code and no exceptions from the San Francisco Subdivision Ordinance are covered by this
Class.
Exhibit 8: City of Santa Barbara criteria for Environmental Review
https://www.santabarbaraca.gov/SBdocuments/Advisory_Groups/Staff_Hearing_Officer/
Archive/2018 Archives/03 Staff Reports/2018 06 20 June 20 2018 Item IV.D 125-
127 Eucalyptus Hill Circle Staff Report.pdf
Exhibit 9 Los Robles Way Average Slope Calculations:
Exhibit 10 Required Findings For 17200 Los Robles Way:
(No development proposed yet Town is able to make these affirmative findings without
review of proposed development?)
PLANNING COMMISSION – September 8, 2021
REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR:
17200 Los Robles Way
Subdivision Application M-20-012
Consider an Appeal of a Development Review Committee Decision Approving a Lot Line
Adjustment Between Three Adjacent Lots on Properties Zoned R-1:20. APNs 532-36-075,
-076, and -077. PROPERTY OWNERS: Daren Goodsell, Trustee and Mark Von Kaenel.
APPLICANT: Tony Jean. APPELLANTS: Alison and David Steer, Terry and Bob Rinehart,
Nancy and Jim Neipp, Gary and Michelle Gysin, and Gianfranco and Eileen De Feo.
PROJECT PLANNER: Ryan Safty.
FINDINGS
Required findings for CEQA:
■ The project is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to the adopted
Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA, Section 15061(b)(3): A project is exempt from CEQA
when the activity is covered by the common sense exemption that CEQA only applies to projects
which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen
with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question will have a significant effect on
the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. The project proposes to modify lot lines
between three legal, adjacent parcels. No development is proposed at this time.
Required findings to deny a Subdivision application:
■ As required by Section 66474 of the State Subdivision Map Act the map shall be denied if any of
the following findings are made: None of the findings could be made to deny the application.
Instead, the Planning Commission makes the following affirmative findings:
a. That the proposed map is consistent with all elements of the General Plan.
b. That the design and improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with all elements of
the General Plan.
c. That the site is physically suitable for the type of development.
d. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development.
e. That the design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause
substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their
habitat.
f. That the design of the subdivision and type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public
health problems.
g. That the design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not conflict with easements,
acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed
subdivision.
B) Napa County Lot Line Adjustment Ordinance
https://library.municode.com/ca/napa_county/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT17SU_CH
17.46LOLIAD_17.46.030LOLIADPPDECO
C. The county surveyor shall tentatively approve the lot line adjustment if it meets the
following standards at the time the filed application is deemed complete, provided
however that the county surveyor may impose conditions as part of such tentative
approval to ensure that the standard established by subsection (E) of Section
17.46.060 will be satisfied prior to recordation of the deed(s) consummating the lot line
adjustment. Applications complying with the following standards are deemed to
conform to the county general plan, any applicable specific plan, and county zoning
and building ordinances:
1. The lot line adjustment will result in the transfer of property between at least two,
but no more than four, existing adjoining legal parcels. Parcels are adjoining only if
each of the parcels proposed for adjustment abuts at least one of the other parcels
involved;
2. A greater number of parcels than originally existed will not result from the lot line
adjustment;
3. A nonbuildable parcel will not be made buildable by the lot line adjustment. For
purposes of this standard, a lot is considered buildable if it meets all three of the
following criteria:
a. The parcel contains a minimum two thousand four hundred square feet of net lot
area as defined in Section 17.02.350;
b. The parcel has existing access rights to a public street as defined in Section 17.02.020;
and
c. The parcel contains a building site, as defined in Section 17.02.080, which is a
minimum of twenty-five feet wide and twenty-five feet deep;
17.02.080 - Building site.
"Building site" means a site on a lot which is suitable for construction of a main
building and is reasonably free from geotechnical hazards such as settlement,
landsliding, mudsliding and flood hazards, and to which there is reasonable
access.
(Ord. 854 § 2 (part), 1987: prior code § 11602.2 (b))
C) Town of Saratoga
https://library.municode.com/ca/saratoga/codes/code of ordinances?nodeId=CH14SU ART14-
50LOLIAD
14-65.010 - Requirements for parcel merger. | Code of Ordinances | Saratoga, CA | Municode Library
D) Laguna Beach
http://qcode.us/codes/lagunabeach/view.php?topic=21-21 08-21 08 030
E) Sonoma County
https://sonomacounty.ca.gov/PRMD/Instructions-and-Forms/PJR-030-Lot-Line-Adjustment/
F) CITY OF FILLMORE Lot Line Adjustment Criteria
https://www.fillmoreca.com/home/showpublisheddocument/6559/637245227149470000
G) Marin County Lot Merger Ordinance
https://library.municode.com/ca/marin county/codes/municipal code?nodeId=TIT22DECO ARTVISU
CH22.92MEPA 22.92.020REME
22.92.020 - Requirements for Merger.
On or after January 1, 1984, when any one of two or more contiguous parcels or units of
land, which are held by the same owner or owners, does not conform to the minimum
lot area requirements of the applicable zoning district or the minimum lot area
requirements based on lot slope (Section 22.82.050 - Hillside Subdivision Design), the
contiguous parcels shall merge if required by Subsection A of this Section (Merger
Required), except where otherwise provided by Subsection B of this Section
(Exemptions from Merger Requirements). Such mergers may be initiated either by the
County or by the property owner.
A. Merger required. Contiguous, nonconforming parcels held by the same owner or
owners shall merge if both of the following requirements are satisfied:
1.At least one of the affected parcels is undeveloped by any structure for which a
Building Permit was issued or for which a Building Permit was not required at the time
of construction, or is developed only with an accessory structure or accessory
structures, or is developed with a single structure, other than an accessory structure,
that is also partially sited on a contiguous parcel or unit of land; and
2. With respect to any affected parcel, one or more of the following conditions exist:
a. Comprises less than 5,000 square feet in area at the time of the determination of
merger;
b. Was not created in compliance with applicable laws and ordinances in effect at the
time of its creation;
c. Does not meet current standards for sewage disposal in Title 18 (Sewers) of the
County Code;
d.Does not meet current standards for domestic water supply in Title 7 (Health and
Sanitation) of the County Code;
e. Does not meet slope stability standards. A parcel will be deemed to not meet slope
stability standards if more than 50 percent of its gross area is located within slope
stability zone 3 or 4 as shown on the latest slope stability maps on file with the Agency;
f.Has no legal access which is adequate for vehicular and safety equipment access and
maneuverability. The standards of access shall be those contained in Title
24 (Improvement and Construction Standards) of the County Code;
g. Its development would create health or safety hazards; or
h. Is inconsistent with the Marin Countywide Plan, the Local Coastal Plan or any
applicable Community Plan or Specific Plan, other than minimum lot size or density
standards.
For purposes of determining whether contiguous parcels are held by the same owner,
ownership shall be determined as of the date that the Notice of Intent to Determine
Status is recorded in compliance with Section 22.92.040 (Notice of Intent to Determine
Status).
Exhibit 12: Burke Lot Line Adjustment- Big Sur
https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2009/9/W19a-9-2009.pdf
“The LUP contains a policy that encourages lot line adjustments when no
new developable lots are created and when plan policies are better met
through the adjustment. In other words, a lot line adjustment must not take
unbuildable parcels and make them buildable, and the new lot configuration
must improve the potential development’s consistency with the LUP. This
emphasis on only encouraging lot line adjustments when they would
facilitate less and more sensitive development is consistent with the LCP’s
strong policy to minimize development in Big Sur. The three existing Burke
parcels contain numerous constraints that would preclude them from being
deemed buildable under the LCP’s guidelines, including 30% or greater
average slopes, sensitive riparian corridor habitat, and substandard sizes
relative to minimum parcel size requirement”
Exhibit 13: SMA Gov Code 66412(d).
(Irrelevant due to APN 532-36-077 meeting criteria for merger.)
GOVERNMENT CODE – GOV
TITLE 7. PLANNING AND LAND USE [65000 - 66499.58] ( Heading of Title 7 amended by Stats. 1974, Ch.
1536. )
DIVISION 2. SUBDIVISIONS [66410 - 66499.38] ( Division 2 added by Stats. 1974, Ch. 1536. )
CHAPTER 1. General Provisions and Definitions [66410 - 66424.6] ( Chapter 1 added by Stats. 1974, Ch.
1536. )
ARTICLE 1. General Provisions [66410 - 66413.5] ( Article 1 added by Stats. 1974, Ch. 1536. )
66412.
This division shall be inapplicable to any of the following:
(a) The financing or leasing of apartments, offices, stores, or similar space within apartment
buildings, industrial buildings, commercial buildings, mobilehome parks, or trailer parks.
(b) Mineral, oil, or gas leases.
(c) Land dedicated for cemetery purposes under the Health and Safety Code.
(d) A lot line adjustment between four or fewer existing adjoining parcels, where the land taken
from one parcel is added to an adjoining parcel, and where a greater number of parcels than
originally existed is not thereby created, if the lot line adjustment is approved by the local
agency, or advisory agency. A local agency or advisory agency shall limit its review and
approval to a determination of whether or not the parcels resulting from the lot line adjustment
will conform to the local general plan, any applicable specific plan, any applicable coastal plan,
and zoning and building ordinances. An advisory agency or local agency shall not impose
conditions or exactions on its approval of a lot line adjustment except to conform to the local
general plan, any applicable specific plan, any applicable coastal plan, and zoning and building
ordinances, to require the prepayment of real property taxes prior to the approval of the lot line
adjustment, or to facilitate the relocation of existing utilities, infrastructure, or easements. No
tentative map, parcel map, or final map shall be required as a condition to the approval of a lot
line adjustment. The lot line adjustment shall be reflected in a deed, which shall be recorded. No
record of survey shall be required for a lot line adjustment unless required by Section 8762 of the
Business and Professions Code. A local agency shall approve or disapprove a lot line adjustment
pursuant to the Permit Streamlining Act (Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 65920) of
Division 1).
Exhibit 14: Santa Clara Count Fire Department Requirements for
driveways >150ft.
17200 Los Robles Way does not have an adequate turnaround for emergency vehicle access.
https://www.sccfd.org/images/documents/fire prevention/standards/S
DS D-1 DrivewaysTurnaroundsTurnOuts 04272021 1.pdf
Exhibit 15: Non Buildable Area of APN 532-36-077 outside the LRDA
(note APN error on the surveyor drawings)
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank