Legislation Details

File #: PC 24-012    Name: PLN210339 – PLP PAJARO LLC
Type: Planning Item Status: Agenda Ready
File created: 1/23/2024 In control: County of Monterey Planning Commission
On agenda: 1/31/2024 Final action:
Title: PLN210339 - PLP PAJARO LLC Adopt a Resolution to: a. Deny the appeal of Mark Blum on behalf of PLP Pajaro LLC from the March 31, 2023 Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) Chief of Planning's decision on Parcel Legality Status Determination (Planning File No. PLN210339 - PLP PAJARO LLC); b. Find that denial of the appeal is Statutorily Exempt per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section 15270(a) - CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves; and that issuance of a single UCOC is not a project pursuant to CEQA Guidelines CCR Section 15378(b)(5) because it is an administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. c. Authorize the Director of the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to issue a single Unconditional Certificate of Compliance (UCOC) for the Subject Property and record the UCOC with the County Recorde...
Attachments: 1. Staff Report, 2. Exhibit A - Discussion, 3. Exhibit B - Draft Resolution, 4. Exhibit C - County Responses to Blum April letter FINAL, 5. Exhibit D - Notice of Appeal Submitted September 8, 2023, 6. Exhibit E - Brown v Tehama County, 7. Exhibit F - April 30, 1941 Recorded Deed, 8. Exhibit G - July 25, 1947 Recorded Deed

Title

PLN210339 - PLP PAJARO LLC

Adopt a Resolution to:

a. Deny the appeal of Mark Blum on behalf of PLP Pajaro LLC from the March 31, 2023 Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) Chief of Planning’s decision on Parcel Legality Status Determination (Planning File No. PLN210339 - PLP PAJARO LLC);

b. Find that denial of the appeal is Statutorily Exempt per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section 15270(a) - CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves; and that issuance of a single UCOC is not a project pursuant to CEQA Guidelines CCR Section 15378(b)(5) because it is an administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment.

c.  Authorize the Director of the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to issue a single Unconditional Certificate of Compliance (UCOC) for the Subject Property and record the UCOC with the County Recorder.

Project Name: PLP Pajaro LLC

File Number: PLN210339

Project Location: End of Wells Road off of Hudson Landing Road, Royal Oaks

Proposed CEQA Actions: Find that denial of the appeal is Statutorily Exempt per CEQA Guidelines CCR Section 15270(a) - CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves; and that issuance of a single UCOC is not a project pursuant to CEQA Guidelines CCR Section 15378(b)(5) because it is an administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment.

Report

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following actions:

a. Adopt a Resolution to Deny the appeal of Mark Blum on behalf of PLP Pajaro LLC from the March 31, 2023 Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) Chief of Planning’s decision on Parcel Legality Status Determination (PLSD) (Planning File No. PLN210339 - PLP PAJARO LLC); and

b.  Find that denial of the appeal is Statutorily Exempt per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section 15270(a) - CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves; and that issuance of a single UCOC is not a project pursuant to CEQA Guidelines CCR Section 15378(b)(5) because it is an administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment.

c.  Authorize the Director of HCD to issue a single Unconditional Certificate of Compliance (UCOC) for the Subject Property and record the UCoC with the County Recorder. 

 

PROJECT INFORMATION:

Agent: Mark Blum (Horan Lloyd, A Professional Corporation)

Property Owner-Applicant/Appellant:  PLP Pajaro LLC

APN: 117-151-003-000

Plan Area: North County Land Use Plan

Flagged and Staked: N/A

Project Planner: Mary Israel, x. 5183, israelm@co.monterey.ca.us

 

BACKGROUND/ SUMMARY:

On behalf of the Owners PLP Pajaro LLC, Mark Blum of Horan Lloyd, A Professional Corporation (Applicant’s/Appellant’s Agent), requested that the County process a Parcel Legality Status Determination (PLSD) of five proposed lots within two adjacent Assessor’s Parcel Numbers in the Royal Oaks area to the east of the Pajaro Golf Course in the North County Land Use Plan area of the unincorporated area of the County. During staff review of this application, conflicts were found with the Subdivision Map Act (SMA) and the Monterey County Code (MCC) for two of the proposed “lots” located within APN 117-151-003-000.  The other lots were found to be legal lots of a 1921 subdivision, the Fruitland Subdivision Map, recognized by County HCD in October 2020 as an Unconditional Certification of Compliance pursuant to MCC section 19.14.050.A. Following that conclusion, lots 18, 21 and 22, within APN 117-151-004-000, were found to have transferred together by Deed in the same configuration and with specific reference to the Fruitland Subdivision Map’s lot numbers.  However, the determination on the area of property identified as 117-151-003-000 was that the properties that were once “Lot 16” and “Lot 17” had been altered in size and shape through legal transfers over time such that they no longer hold the same configuration as in the 1921 Fruitland Subdivision Map.  After being split essentially in half, the western remainder portion of Lot 16 and the western remainder portion of Lot 17 were sold as one parcel with a legal description that included the whole area. A small portion of the western remainder of Lot 16 was also transferred by Deed and in that legal description, the area from which it was taken was the whole of a lot that included areas previously identified as Lot 16 and Lot 17.  The strongest evidence for this PLSD was from the 1941 conveyance that resulted in the current configuration of the Subject Property (Exhibit F).

 

Included with the application was a discussion on the applicability of California Civil Code Section 1093, an anti-merger rule, as the basis for recognition of portions of Lot 16 and Lot 17 as legal lots. Also included was a discussion of the intent of the Indenture and Trust Deed for the value of the lands described therein to relieve a lien. After review of the submitted materials and other materials, the Director of HCD denied the request for the two remainders to be recognized as legal lots. HCD instead found a new lot was formed in 1941 by grant deed and legal description of a merged lot. Following the court direction from central arguments put forth in Brown v. Tehama (2007) 149 Cal. App. 4th 122 (March 16, 2007, Exhibit E), the California Court of Appeals ruled that the anti-merger rule in Civil Code section 1093 does not apply to fractional parcels. The applicant appealed the Director’s decision on September 8, 2023. The appeal included an April 24, 2023 letter requesting reconsideration (which was replied to but not elaborated on by HCD on July 13, 2023) and additional appeal contentions and materials (Exhibit D) to support the position that more than one legal parcel be recognized at the Subject Property.

 

DISCUSSION:  See Exhibit A.

 

CEQA

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section 15270 (a) provides that, “CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves.”  Therefore, the denial of the appeal is statutorily exempt per CEQA Guidelines CCR Section 15270(a).  Further, CEQA Guidelines CCR Section 15378(b)(5) provides that administrative activities such as Parcel Legality Status Determinations that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment are not a project.

 

OTHER AGENCY INVOLVEMENT:

The following Departments have reviewed this appeal:

The Office of the County Counsel

Public Works, Facilities and Parks (PWFP)

 

Prepared by:                     Mary Israel, Supervising Planner, ext. 5183

Reviewed by:                     Michael K. Goetz, Chief of Surveys, PWFP

Approved by:                     Melanie Beretti, AICP, Acting Chief of Planning

 

The following attachments are on file with HCD:

Exhibit A - Discussion

Exhibit B - Resolution

•                     Attachment 1 - Subject Properties Highlighted in the Fruitland Subdivision Map

•                     Attachment 2 - Legal Description of Subject Property from Crystal Springs Golf Club, Inc. to BJ-CR Inc., by deed dated November 1, 1980

Exhibit C - County's Responses to Applicant’s/Appellant’s Agent’s letter dated April 24, 2023

Exhibit D - Notice of Appeal submitted September 8, 2023

Attachment 1 - April 24, 2023 letter from Mark Blum

Exhibit E - Brown v. Tehama, 56 Cal. Rptr. 3d 558, 149 Cal. App. 4th 422, Court of Appeal, Third District, California (March 16, 2007, As Modified April 11, 2007)

Exhibit F - April 30, 1941 Recorded Deed, Floyd G. Loveland and Norma E. Loveland to William L. Myrick and Lona M. Myrick (Book 713 of Official Records Page 499)

Exhibit G - July 25, 1947 Recorded Deed, -George and Florence MacDonald to Clyde and Hazel Thomas (Book 986 of Official Records, Page 276)

 

cc: Front Counter Copy; Michael K. Goetz, Chief of Surveys; PLP Pajaro LLC, Property Owners; Mark Blum, Applicant’s representative; Mary Grace Perry, Deputy County Counsel, Office of the County Counsel; Melanie Beretti, Acting Chief of Planning; Craig Spencer, Acting HCD Director; Molly Erickson, The Open Monterey Project; Executive Director, LandWatch; Laborers International Union of North America (Lozeau Drury LLP); Project File PLN210339.