Attachment 4 - Applicants Response to Appeal, received October 8, 2021T.H.I.S. DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT P.O.Box 1518, Los Gatos, CA 95031
Tel: 408.354.1863 Fax: 408.354.1823
Town of Los Gatos
110 E Main St,
Los Gatos CA 95030
Attn: Town Council
October 8th, 2021
17200 Los Robles Way, Los Gatos
Appeal Rebuttal re: LLA M 21-001
Councilmembers:
As this is the second appeal for this project, I am limiting my comments here to points
that I did not previously address in my original DRC submission and in the Appeal
Rebuttal provided to the Planning Commission. I would respectfully request that you
review these documents as they contain more detailed arguments.
I would like you to further consider these 4 points, which are worthy of consideration
1.The Appellant has no Grounds for Appeal:
The Appeal Packet requires that interested parties may appeal Residential projects if
they are:
“A person or persons or entity or entities who own property or reside within 1,000 feet of a
property for which a decision has been rendered, and can demonstrate that their property
will be injured by the decision.”
So I really have to question the grounds for an Appeal at all. This is a second Appeal
and ‘Loss of Privacy’ is not an Injury.
2.The Appellant Questions why this LLA is Categorically Exempt from CEQA:
The project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the adopted Guidelines for the Implementation
of the California Environmental Quality Act, 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 simply
proposes to modify lot lines between three legal, adjacent parcels.
No development is proposed at this time. So there can be no Environmental Impact with the LLA.
ATTACHMENT 4
3. The Appellant also uses Sections of the SMA that are inapplicable to this LLA:
The Subdivision Map Act Section 66412 explicitly singles out LLAs of this nature by excluding
other provisions of the Act, which the Appellant is attempting to use to disqualify it:
This division [SMA] shall be inapplicable to any of the following:
(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.
4. The Appellant further Suggests that 2 of the 3 Parcels should be Merged:
The Appellant has gone to great lengths to attempt to hijack this appeal hearing and
turn it into a Request for Merger hearing. As a pre-curser to the LLA application, the
Town required the Owner to address the legality of the Parcels in question. Town has
essentially made a “Determination of Non-Merger” by providing, after exhaustive
research and consultant reviews, a recorded Certificate of Compliance – Doc#
25076094 for the Parcel 536-32-077 [attached] in which it explicitly states:
In conclusion - It should be pointed out that the owner of the 3 parcels waited until the
Certificates of Compliance were Approved before selling 2 of them [536-32-076 and
077] to a second party who is now a co-applicant in ths LLA. The new owner purchased
these 2 parcels with the explicit understanding that they were in fact 2 parcels [per the
CoC]. It would be complex and expensive to ‘undo’ this sale.
I would ask the Town Council to consider the ‘before’ and ‘after’ lot configurations
proposed by the LLA and determine which best fits the Town Zoning Ordinance for
R1:20 residential lots; ratify the decisions of the DRC and the Planning Commission to
approve the LLA; and finally to deny the appeal.
Thank you
Tony Jeans