County of Monterey - File #: 12-121

Montererey County Home Page Montererey County Home Page

MEETING IN PROGRESS

File #:

12-121

Name:

Type:

Minutes

Status:

Passed

File created:

2/7/2012

In control:

Board of Supervisors

On agenda:

2/7/2012

Final action:

2/7/2012

Title:

Public hearing to consider: a. Denial of the appeal by the Aguajito Property Owners Association and Eric and Teresa Public hearing to consider: a. Denial of the appeal by the Aguajito Property Owners Association and Eric and Teresa

Attachments:

1. Attachment No.1 Discussion, 2. Attachment No.2 Draft Board Resolution & Attach. No.6 Vicinity Map, 3. Attachment No.3 Notice of Appeal, 4. Attachment No.4 Minor Subdivision Committe, 5. Attachment No.5, D. Land Use Advisory Minutes, 6. Attachment No. 5, E. Initial Study PND, 7. Attachment No. 5, F. Comments Received Public Review of Environ. Document, 8. Attachment 5, G. Applicant's engineers Rebuttal to Comments Received on Initial Study, 9. Completed Board Order, 10. Signed Board Report, 11. PowerPoint, 12. Public Comment, 13. Maps

Date	Action By	Action	Result	Action Details	Searchable Meeting Details	Video
2/7/2012	Board of Supervisors	approved		Action details	Searchable Meeting Details	None

ATTACHMENT NO.1 DISCUSSION|Ek��Attachment No. 1

Discussion

Gordon J. Steuck

PLN080454

Board of Supervisors

February 7, 2012

BIB]

40956-U01

ATTACHMENT-U02

NO.1-U02

DISCUSSION-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO107762-U03

FO107838-U03

MG107839-U03

AS107858-U03

AS107864-U03

AI109158-U03

DO109800-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

2/16/2012-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

17709-U05

2-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

DENIAL-U07

OF-U07

THE-U07

APPEAL-U07

BY-U07

THE-U07

AGUAJITO-U07

PROPERTY-U07

OWNERS-U07

ASSOCIATION-U07

ERIC-U07

TERESA-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

1/27/2012-U011

DEL-U012

PIERO-U012

THE-U012

MINOR-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

S-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

LOT-U012

LINE-U012

ADJUSTMENT-U012

BETWEEN-U012

TWO-U012

LEGAL-U012

LOTS-U012

OF-U012

RECORD;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPT-U012

THE-U012

NEGATIVE-U012

DECLARATION-U012

PREPARED-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT;-U012

C.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

APPLICATION-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

LOT-U012

LINE-U012

ADJUSTMENT-U012

BETWEEN-U012

TWO-U012

LEGAL-U012

LOTS-U012

OF-U012

RECORD-U012

OF-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

4.6-U012

ACRES-U012

PORTION-U012

OF-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBER-U012

103-061-015-000-U012

CERTIFICATE-U012

OF-U012

COMPLIANCE-U012

DOCUMENT-U012

NO.-U012

2004079692-U012

THE-U012

NORTHERLY-U012

PARCEL)]-U012

4.3-U012

ACRES-U012

PORTION-U012

OF-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBER-U012

103-061-015-000-U012

CERTIFICATE-U012

OF-U012

COMPLIANCE-U012

DOCUMENT-U012

NO.-U012

20040795684-U012

THE-U012

SOUTHERLY-U012

PARCEL)],-U012

RESULTING-U012

IN-U012

TWO-U012

NEWLY-U012

RECONFIGURED-U012

LOTS-U012

OF-U012

4.6-U012

ACRES-U012

WESTERLY-U012

PARCEL-U012

A)-U012

4.3-U012

ACRES-U012

EASTERLY-U012

PARCEL-U012

B)-U012

RESPECTIVELY.-U012

APPEAL-U012

OF-U012

LOT-U012

LINE-U012

ADJUSTMENT-U012

U012

PLN080454/STEUCK,-U012

570-U012

570-A,-U012

AGUAJITO-U012

ROAD,-U012

GREATER-U012

MONTEREY-U012

PENINSULA-U012

AREA-U012

PLAN)-U012

ATTACHMENT NO.1 DISCUSSION|Ek��ATTACHMENT NO. 1

DISCUSSION

1. INTRODUCTION

On December 19, 2011, the Aguajito Property Owners Association and Eric and Teresa Del Piero

Appellant's") filed a timely appeal of the Minor Subdivision Committee's decision to Adopt a

Negative Declaration and approve the application Steuck/PLN080454) for a Lot Line Adjustment

between two legal lots of record of approximately 4.6 acres portion of Assessor's Parcel Number

103-061-015-000 Certificate of Compliance Document No. 2004079692 the northerly parcel)] and

4.3 acres portion of Assessor's Parcel Number 103-061-015-000 Certificate of Compliance

Document No. 20040795684 the southerly parcel)], resulting in two newly reconfigured lots of 4.6

acres westerly Parcel A) and 4.3 acres easterly Parcel B) respectively See Attachment No. 3).

The appeal is brought on the basis that the decision was contrary to law, that findings 1, 2, 4, 5, and

6 are not supported by the evidence, that the decision violates the California Environmental Quality

Act, and that the decision violates Monterey County Zoning Ordinance requirements with regard to

restoration and the issuance of a permit where a violation exists.

Appellants object to:

Finding 1-Consistency: the appellant contends that the project is not consistent with

the Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan regarding zoning density of 5.1 acres per

unit;

Finding 2-Site Suitability: the appellant contends that the lot line adjustment will

create a second building site in an area where density is restricted to one unit per 5.1

acres, without consideration of the rural and visually sensitive nature of the location;

Finding 4-Violation: the appellant contends that violations remain on the property

regarding undocumented fill with potentially hazardous material, and that the work is

not completed;

Finding 5-CEQA: appellant objects to the project's CEQA determination that the

proposed project will not result in significant environmental impacts associated with

the proposed lot line adjustment, and contends that the environmental review was

piecemealed.

II. ANALYSIS

A. Factual Background

On October 3, 2008, the applicant submitted an application to the County for the development of

two new residences and for the current reconfiguration of the lots.

On November 10, 2008, a notice of violation was filed on the subject property. The property owner

was required to obtain a grading-restoration permit. The permit GP090013) was issued on February

11, 2009 to remove undocumented fill and restore the site to its pre-violation state.

The restoration-grading permit was granted final on April 2, 2009.

The application was revised at the applicant's request on April 16, 2009 to only reflect the proposed

lot line adjustment. The applicant revised the application to omit the two new residences. The only

proposal that remains is to reconfigure the lots as demonstrated in the proposed sketch.

BIB]

40956-U01

ATTACHMENT-U02

NO.1-U02

DISCUSSION-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO107762-U03

FO107838-U03

MG107839-U03

AS107858-U03

AS107864-U03

AI109158-U03

DO109800-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

2/16/2012-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

17709-U05

2-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

DENIAL-U07

OF-U07

THE-U07

APPEAL-U07

BY-U07

THE-U07

AGUAJITO-U07

PROPERTY-U07

OWNERS-U07

ASSOCIATION-U07

ERIC-U07

TERESA-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

1/27/2012-U011

DEL-U012

PIERO-U012

THE-U012

MINOR-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

S-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

LOT-U012

LINE-U012

ADJUSTMENT-U012

BETWEEN-U012

TWO-U012

LEGAL-U012

LOTS-U012

OF-U012

RECORD;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPT-U012

THE-U012

NEGATIVE-U012

DECLARATION-U012

PREPARED-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT;-U012

C.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

APPLICATION-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

LOT-U012

LINE-U012

ADJUSTMENT-U012

BETWEEN-U012

TWO-U012

LEGAL-U012

LOTS-U012

OF-U012

RECORD-U012

OF-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

4.6-U012

ACRES-U012

PORTION-U012

OF-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBER-U012

103-061-015-000-U012

CERTIFICATE-U012

OF-U012

COMPLIANCE-U012

DOCUMENT-U012

NO.-U012

2004079692-U012

THE-U012

NORTHERLY-U012

PARCEL)]-U012

4.3-U012

ACRES-U012

PORTION-U012

OF-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBER-U012

103-061-015-000-U012

CERTIFICATE-U012

OF-U012

COMPLIANCE-U012

DOCUMENT-U012

NO.-U012

20040795684-U012

THE-U012

SOUTHERLY-U012

PARCEL)],-U012

RESULTING-U012

IN-U012

TWO-U012

NEWLY-U012

RECONFIGURED-U012

LOTS-U012

OF-U012

4.6-U012

ACRES-U012

WESTERLY-U012

PARCEL-U012

A)-U012

4.3-U012

ACRES-U012

EASTERLY-U012

PARCEL-U012

B)-U012

RESPECTIVELY.-U012

APPEAL-U012

OF-U012

LOT-U012

LINE-U012

ADJUSTMENT-U012

U012

PLN080454/STEUCK,-U012

570-U012

570-A,-U012

AGUAJITO-U012

ROAD,-U012

GREATER-U012

MONTEREY-U012

PENINSULA-U012

AREA-U012

PLAN)-U012

ATTACHMENT NO.1 DISCUSSION|Ek��The Appellant appealed the building Official's decision to a grant final for a restoration-grading

permit GP090013) restoration) on June 9, 2009.

Building Official Tim McCormick having considered an appeal, issued a Notice of Intent to the

property owner to rescind, final inspection of grading permit GP090013 on November 18, 2009. On

December 18, 2009, Tim McCormick revoked the Grading Permit GP090013.

The applicant corrected the deficiencies stated in the November 18, 2009 letter and was then

allowed to complete the restoration.

Building Official Tim McCormick reviewed the grading permit and determined that the grading

restoration was complete and the grading permit could be finaled. The grading permit was granted

final on July 1, 2010, as indicated in a letter to Mr. Lombardo representing the appellant and Mr.

Steuck, the property owner, dated September 14, 2010.

The Interim Building Official John Villalpando reviewed the Restoration grading permit confirmed

that no further code enforcement issues were pending and that no further action was required as of

April 11, 2011. This determination allowed the project to move forward and allowed to be set for

hearing. See attached letters Exhibit C)

The parcels are zoned RDR/5.1-UR-S-D" Rural Density Residential, 5.1 acres/unit with Urban

Reserve, a Site Plan Review District and Design Control District Overlay]. The 1982 General Plan

requires that the parcels under this zoning maintain a minimum building site of 5 acres, which is

consistent with the density requirements of 1 unit per 5.1 acres as provided in the 1982 General

Plan, Land Use Plan Map. The existing lots are less than 5 acres but were not subject to the size

limitation when they were created

The County identified the Steuck lots as legal lots in unconditional Certificates of Compliance

issued in 2004. At the time the subject parcels were created, there were no local or state statues or

ordinances in effect regulating the division of land into four or fewer parcels, and there was no

zoning in effect requiring a minimum lot size.

The reconfiguration of the lots as proposed is consistent with both the 2010 General Plan and the

Greater Monterey Peninsula Area Plan. The existing parcels are less than 5.1 acres, but remain

consistent with the following General Plan GP) policies:

LU-1.14 Consistent with the provisions of the State Subdivision Map Act, lot line

adjustments shall be between four or fewer existing adjoining parcels."

LU-1.15 Where Lot Line adjustment may be configured to result in lots conforming to the

policies and standards of this General Plan, that configuration is required. Lot Line

Adjustments that may compromise the location of wells, on-site wastewater systems, or

envelopes should not be approved." The present proposal will not compromise the location

of wells or on-site wastewater systems. No building envelopes are recorded on the subject

parcels.

LU-1.16 Lot line adjustments between or among lots that do not conform to minimum

parcel size standards may be allowed if the resultant lots are consistent with all other

General Plan policies, Zoning and Building Ordinances, and the lot line adjustment would

produce a superior parcel configuration." Based on review of department records for the

Steuck property, it was determined that the lots are consistent with County codes and the

site development standards per Section 21.16.060 of the Monterey County Title 21 Zoning

BIB]

40956-U01

ATTACHMENT-U02

NO.1-U02

DISCUSSION-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO107762-U03

FO107838-U03

MG107839-U03

AS107858-U03

AS107864-U03

AI109158-U03

DO109800-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

2/16/2012-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

17709-U05

2-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

DENIAL-U07

OF-U07

THE-U07

APPEAL-U07

BY-U07

THE-U07

AGUAJITO-U07

PROPERTY-U07

OWNERS-U07

ASSOCIATION-U07

ERIC-U07

TERESA-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

1/27/2012-U011

DEL-U012

PIERO-U012

THE-U012

MINOR-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

S-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

LOT-U012

LINE-U012

ADJUSTMENT-U012

BETWEEN-U012

TWO-U012

LEGAL-U012

LOTS-U012

OF-U012

RECORD;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPT-U012

THE-U012

NEGATIVE-U012

DECLARATION-U012

PREPARED-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT;-U012

C.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

APPLICATION-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

LOT-U012

LINE-U012

ADJUSTMENT-U012

BETWEEN-U012

TWO-U012

LEGAL-U012

LOTS-U012

OF-U012

RECORD-U012

OF-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

4.6-U012

ACRES-U012

PORTION-U012

OF-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBER-U012

103-061-015-000-U012

CERTIFICATE-U012

OF-U012

COMPLIANCE-U012

DOCUMENT-U012

NO.-U012

2004079692-U012

THE-U012

NORTHERLY-U012

PARCEL)]-U012

4.3-U012

ACRES-U012

PORTION-U012

OF-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBER-U012

103-061-015-000-U012

CERTIFICATE-U012

OF-U012

COMPLIANCE-U012

DOCUMENT-U012

NO.-U012

20040795684-U012

THE-U012

SOUTHERLY-U012

PARCEL)],-U012

RESULTING-U012

IN-U012

TWO-U012

NEWLY-U012

RECONFIGURED-U012

LOTS-U012

OF-U012

4.6-U012

ACRES-U012

WESTERLY-U012

PARCEL-U012

A)-U012

4.3-U012

ACRES-U012

EASTERLY-U012

PARCEL-U012

B)-U012

RESPECTIVELY.-U012

APPEAL-U012

OF-U012

LOT-U012

LINE-U012

ADJUSTMENT-U012

U012

PLN080454/STEUCK,-U012

570-U012

570-A,-U012

AGUAJITO-U012

ROAD,-U012

GREATER-U012

MONTEREY-U012

PENINSULA-U012

AREA-U012

PLAN)-U012

ATTACHMENT NO.1 DISCUSSION|Ek��Ordinance, regulating structures natural resources and site constraints; and General Plan

Policies regarding residential development and visual sensitivity policies in the Greater

Monterey Peninsula Area Plan.

LU-1.18 states If the standards in this General Plan render a legal lot of record substandard

in size, the substandard size of the parcel shall not by itself render the parcel a legal

nonconforming use. Any proposed expansion, enlargement, extension, or intensification of

uses on such a lot shall not be prohibited due to its substandard size unless there are

overriding public health impacts."

C-3.6 states the County shall establish regulations for new development that would

intensify the use of a private road or access easement. The parcels are consistent with the

intent of the policy because the lots are existing lots which since the time of the creation

have had access to the road as described in the current legal description. For these

reasons, the County finds the proposed lot line adjustment to be consistent with C-3.6.

The reconfigured existing legal lots of record as identified under parcel number 103-061-015-000

and unconditional certificates of compliance numbers 2004079692 and 20040795684, better meet

the objectives of the General Plan by reconfiguring the lots as proposed, thereby rendering a

superior lot design to the newly reconfigured lot B. This would allow the lot to be developed

without violating policies regarding 25% or the removal of protected vegetation.

Currently the property has a 30-foot wide access and utility easement created in 1937, which

transects the mid-point of the parcel roughly going east to west dividing the two lots of record into

a north lot and a south lot. The southerly property slopes downward to Aguajito Road with all

slopes exceeding 25% in steepness. The reconfiguration of the property into parcel A and B will

provide areas of less than 25% slopes that could potentially be developed in a manner consistent

with the Monterey County General Plan.

The RDR zoning designation allows for residential uses in an area identified as urban reserve due to

its proximity to the City of Monterey jurisdictional boundaries. The Monterey County Code

MCC) Section 2.44.010 Design Control District) and MCC) Section 21.45.010 Site Plan

Review) overlays on the property provide the county discretion over development with site plan

control to insure that development does not conflict with policies regarding slopes or natural

resources]. The visual sensitive nature of the area and rural character are regulated through design

control of structures. Consequently, if structures are proposed in the future the County would

scrutinize the design and location to determine if such proposals were consistent with the General

Plan, Area Plan, and Zoning Ordinance. The surrounding properties are of a rural residential nature

and range in size from 4.8 acres to 6.43 acres, each with a single-family residence. The Steuck

properties are consistent with this general size of properties in the immediate area and conform with

the rural character of the area.

In regards to access, the County reviewed all the title documents and easements as described in the

legal description of the property included grant deeds and a deed of trust as recorded in 1946 by

Katherine Gentry describing the current road right of way easement), across the Steuck properties.

No restrictions were identified regarding the number of houses that may have access to the

easement. The easement as described in the legal description reads as follows: A right of way for

construction, maintenance, and use of the roadway and of utility lines over a strip of land 30 feet

wide, lying 15 feet on either side of the described centerline." The right of way has historically

BIB]

40956-U01

ATTACHMENT-U02

NO.1-U02

DISCUSSION-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO107762-U03

FO107838-U03

MG107839-U03

AS107858-U03

AS107864-U03

AI109158-U03

DO109800-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

2/16/2012-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

17709-U05

2-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

DENIAL-U07

OF-U07

THE-U07

APPEAL-U07

BY-U07

THE-U07

AGUAJITO-U07

PROPERTY-U07

OWNERS-U07

ASSOCIATION-U07

ERIC-U07

TERESA-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

1/27/2012-U011

DEL-U012

PIERO-U012

THE-U012

MINOR-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

S-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

LOT-U012

LINE-U012

ADJUSTMENT-U012

BETWEEN-U012

TWO-U012

LEGAL-U012

LOTS-U012

OF-U012

RECORD;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPT-U012

THE-U012

NEGATIVE-U012

DECLARATION-U012

PREPARED-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT;-U012

C.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

APPLICATION-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

LOT-U012

LINE-U012

ADJUSTMENT-U012

BETWEEN-U012

TWO-U012

LEGAL-U012

LOTS-U012

OF-U012

RECORD-U012

OF-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

4.6-U012

ACRES-U012

PORTION-U012

OF-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBER-U012

103-061-015-000-U012

CERTIFICATE-U012

OF-U012

COMPLIANCE-U012

DOCUMENT-U012

NO.-U012

2004079692-U012

THE-U012

NORTHERLY-U012

PARCEL)]-U012

4.3-U012

ACRES-U012

PORTION-U012

OF-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBER-U012

103-061-015-000-U012

CERTIFICATE-U012

OF-U012

COMPLIANCE-U012

DOCUMENT-U012

NO.-U012

20040795684-U012

THE-U012

SOUTHERLY-U012

PARCEL)],-U012

RESULTING-U012

IN-U012

TWO-U012

NEWLY-U012

RECONFIGURED-U012

LOTS-U012

OF-U012

4.6-U012

ACRES-U012

WESTERLY-U012

PARCEL-U012

A)-U012

4.3-U012

ACRES-U012

EASTERLY-U012

PARCEL-U012

B)-U012

RESPECTIVELY.-U012

APPEAL-U012

OF-U012

LOT-U012

LINE-U012

ADJUSTMENT-U012

U012

PLN080454/STEUCK,-U012

570-U012

570-A,-U012

AGUAJITO-U012

ROAD,-U012

GREATER-U012

MONTEREY-U012

PENINSULA-U012

AREA-U012

PLAN)-U012

ATTACHMENT NO.1 DISCUSSION|Ek��provided access to the two exiting lots. Therefore, no additional easements will be required to

access the newly reconfigured lots For these reasons, the County finds the proposed lot line

adjustment to be consistent with the Road Highway Transportation policy C-3.6.

Presently, the property maintains an existing single-family residence and is served water through a

connection to Cal-Am. There is also a domestic water well on the property that the owner developed

for service to the proposed parcel B. During their initial review, Environmental Health Bureau

EHB) noted that the existing wastewater treatment system may be a cesspool or a very small leach

field that crossed the proposed new lot line. Property owner Mr. Steuck responded to this issue and

secured a Septic Replacement Permit for the existing septic system because it would not meet the

setback requirements from the proposed lot line adjustment. The existing septic leach area crosses

the proposed property line. This is not allowed under County Code, and therefore had to be moved.

The EHB conditioned the project to move the septic leach area prior to the recordation of the record

of survey. The owner opted to take care of it before the project went to hearing. The location and

size of the septic system was approved by EHB, who issued a septic replacement permit on October

22, 2010.

No new development of structures is currently proposed for each lot. However, as part of the

evaluation of the lot line adjustment the Environmental Health Bureau EHB) is responsible for

determining if the resulting parcel configuration will have the capacity for wastewater disposal and

have an adequate water supply. Consequently, EHB required the owner to replace the existing

septic system to meet Health Department regulations and required setbacks for future property lines.

Additionally, EHB required the owner to complete a pump test on the well, which demonstrated

ample supply to serve the proposed vacant lot.

The project was referred to the Greater Monterey Peninsula Land Use Advisory Committee

LUAC) for review on June 3, 2009. The Committee recommended approval on a 3-0 vote. The

LUAC noted that there were five areas of concern, and suggested four changes to address those

concerns. See attached minutes Exhibit D.)

Staff reviewed the concerns expressed by the LUAC and the comments and contentions made by

the letter submitted to the LUAC and finds that the project description accurately reflects the

application being considered by the Board of Supervisors and that the LUAC's concerns are similar

to this appeal and have been addressed in the enclosed environmental document and staff report.

No development, with the exception of the demolition of the existing garage is proposed with this

application. Therefore, the proposed lot line adjustment does not represent a piecemealed project.

The demolition of the garage is necessary in order for the reconfigured lots to be consistent with the

site development standards under Title 21, because the garage would be too close to the property

line if it were to remain.

Staff's original environmental review of the Steuck Lot Line Adjustment proposal determined the

project exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act CEQA). CEQA Guidelines Section

15305(a) categorically exempts minor lot line adjustments that do not result in the creation of a new

parcel. The lot line adjustment will adjust the property lines between the two legal lots of record and

reconfigure them in a manner that would provide parcel B with an area that could be developed in

the future without impacting slopes in excess of 25%. In determining that an exemption from

CEQA was appropriate, staff made the following conclusions regarding potential development on

the reconfigured lots of record:

The lot demonstrated the availability of water and potential septic sites as required by the

Monterrey County Environmental Health Bureau;

A minimal amount of grading could occur in an area identified with less than 20% slopes;

BIB]

40956-U01

ATTACHMENT-U02

NO.1-U02

DISCUSSION-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO107762-U03

FO107838-U03

MG107839-U03

AS107858-U03

AS107864-U03

AI109158-U03

DO109800-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

2/16/2012-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

17709-U05

2-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

DENIAL-U07

OF-U07

THE-U07

APPEAL-U07

BY-U07

THE-U07

AGUAJITO-U07

PROPERTY-U07

OWNERS-U07

ASSOCIATION-U07

ERIC-U07

TERESA-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

1/27/2012-U011

DEL-U012

PIERO-U012

THE-U012

MINOR-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

S-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

LOT-U012

LINE-U012

ADJUSTMENT-U012

BETWEEN-U012

TWO-U012

LEGAL-U012

LOTS-U012

OF-U012

RECORD;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPT-U012

THE-U012

NEGATIVE-U012

DECLARATION-U012

PREPARED-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT;-U012

C.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

APPLICATION-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

LOT-U012

LINE-U012

ADJUSTMENT-U012

BETWEEN-U012

TWO-U012

LEGAL-U012

LOTS-U012

OF-U012

RECORD-U012

OF-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

4.6-U012

ACRES-U012

PORTION-U012

OF-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBER-U012

103-061-015-000-U012

CERTIFICATE-U012

OF-U012

COMPLIANCE-U012

DOCUMENT-U012

NO.-U012

2004079692-U012

THE-U012

NORTHERLY-U012

PARCEL)]-U012

4.3-U012

ACRES-U012

PORTION-U012

OF-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBER-U012

103-061-015-000-U012

CERTIFICATE-U012

OF-U012

COMPLIANCE-U012

DOCUMENT-U012

NO.-U012

20040795684-U012

THE-U012

SOUTHERLY-U012

PARCEL)],-U012

RESULTING-U012

IN-U012

TWO-U012

NEWLY-U012

RECONFIGURED-U012

LOTS-U012

OF-U012

4.6-U012

ACRES-U012

WESTERLY-U012

PARCEL-U012

A)-U012

4.3-U012

ACRES-U012

EASTERLY-U012

PARCEL-U012

B)-U012

RESPECTIVELY.-U012

APPEAL-U012

OF-U012

LOT-U012

LINE-U012

ADJUSTMENT-U012

U012

PLN080454/STEUCK,-U012

570-U012

570-A,-U012

AGUAJITO-U012

ROAD,-U012

GREATER-U012

MONTEREY-U012

PENINSULA-U012

AREA-U012

PLAN)-U012

ATTACHMENT NO.1 DISCUSSION|Ek�� There would be no need to remove protected vegetation under the Greater Monterey

Peninsula Area Plan or more than allowed by permit under the Zoning Ordinance,

and that;

There would be no impact to protected biological sensitive plants or animals as identified in

the Greater Monterey Peninsula Area Plan and the California Native Plant and list.

Since this time and during the course of County review of the Steuck Lot Line Adjustment, a

neighbor and his or her representative have contested the application and have questioned numerous

items beyond the scope of the project at hand the Lot Line Adjustment. In an abundance of

caution, County staff has prepared an Initial Study with concurrence from the applicant).

Environmental Review

Staff prepared and completed an Initial Study and concluded that there were no significant or

potentially significant environmental impacts that would result from adjusting the lot lines between

the applicant's two lots of record and that a Negative Declaration is appropriate. The Initial Study

and recommended Negative Declaration are attached as Exhibit E).

The public review period ran from October 13, 2011 to November 1, 2011. Staff received

comments from the appellant see attached Exhibit F). There are several themes that run through

the comments, such as concern and questions for past activity on the parcels and whether the

present proposal has been described properly. There is no development proposal on the table.

Many of the concerns expressed are beyond the question at hand and are questions that have been

addressed by the County of Monterey and resolved.

The project is a lot line adjustment and no other development has been proposed.

Preemptively the property owner secured permits to replace an existing antiquated septic

system for the existing residence to meet County Code regarding setback from property.

In anticipation of the lot line adjustment, the Monterey County Environmental Health

Bureau reviewed and approved the replacement septic system, no variances were granted

for slope over 25% or exceptions to County code regarding setbacks to protected

vegetarian Oak trees). EHB issued a permit to drill a well and determined that the well

met the county's requirements regarding quantity and quality finding it a viable source of

water for the newly reconfigured lot B

No issues remain unresolved regarding development on slopes in excess of 25%

No issues remain unresolved with regard to easements or encroachment, because there are

no restriction described in the current easement deed and because there has not been a

change in the number of lots or intensification after the creation of said easement.

The County has approved and issued two Certificates of Compliance.

Questions of grading cut and fill quantities and the quality of soils on the site have been

investigated and cleared by both the Monterey County Environmental Health Bureau and

Building Services Department.

There are no violations on the property. All violations have been resolved.

Staff has reviewed each of the letters and comments and finds no new concerns or

questions that have not been considered;

The County has reviewed the appellants General comments on the Initial study prepared for the

Steuck project. The County exercised its independent judgment and analysis and determined that

the issues identified in the comment were largely and appropriately addressed in the findings

contained in the Initial study, Section IV. A.

BIB]

40956-U01

ATTACHMENT-U02

NO.1-U02

DISCUSSION-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO107762-U03

FO107838-U03

MG107839-U03

AS107858-U03

AS107864-U03

AI109158-U03

DO109800-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

2/16/2012-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

17709-U05

2-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

DENIAL-U07

OF-U07

THE-U07

APPEAL-U07

BY-U07

THE-U07

AGUAJITO-U07

PROPERTY-U07

OWNERS-U07

ASSOCIATION-U07

ERIC-U07

TERESA-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

1/27/2012-U011

DEL-U012

PIERO-U012

THE-U012

MINOR-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

S-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

LOT-U012

LINE-U012

ADJUSTMENT-U012

BETWEEN-U012

TWO-U012

LEGAL-U012

LOTS-U012

OF-U012

RECORD;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPT-U012

THE-U012

NEGATIVE-U012

DECLARATION-U012

PREPARED-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT;-U012

C.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

APPLICATION-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

LOT-U012

LINE-U012

ADJUSTMENT-U012

BETWEEN-U012

TWO-U012

LEGAL-U012

LOTS-U012

OF-U012

RECORD-U012

OF-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

4.6-U012

ACRES-U012

PORTION-U012

OF-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBER-U012

103-061-015-000-U012

CERTIFICATE-U012

OF-U012

COMPLIANCE-U012

DOCUMENT-U012

NO.-U012

2004079692-U012

THE-U012

NORTHERLY-U012

PARCEL)]-U012

4.3-U012

ACRES-U012

PORTION-U012

OF-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBER-U012

103-061-015-000-U012

CERTIFICATE-U012

OF-U012

COMPLIANCE-U012

DOCUMENT-U012

NO.-U012

20040795684-U012

THE-U012

SOUTHERLY-U012

PARCEL)],-U012

RESULTING-U012

IN-U012

TWO-U012

NEWLY-U012

RECONFIGURED-U012

LOTS-U012

OF-U012

4.6-U012

ACRES-U012

WESTERLY-U012

PARCEL-U012

A)-U012

4.3-U012

ACRES-U012

EASTERLY-U012

PARCEL-U012

B)-U012

RESPECTIVELY.-U012

APPEAL-U012

OF-U012

LOT-U012

LINE-U012

ADJUSTMENT-U012

U012

PLN080454/STEUCK,-U012

570-U012

570-A,-U012

AGUAJITO-U012

ROAD,-U012

GREATER-U012

MONTEREY-U012

PENINSULA-U012

AREA-U012

PLAN)-U012

ATTACHMENT NO.1 DISCUSSION|Ek��The County determined that based on the project description the following environmental factors

could potentially affect the environment as discussed in the environmental checklist Section VI. 1.

of the attached Initial study:

Aesthetics: Would the proposed lot line adjustment substantially degrade the existing visual

character or quality of the site or its surroundings? The County finds that the project as

proposed would have a less than significant impact for the following reasons: Presently,

the southerly legal lot of record is sloped steeply and is without areas to develop that have

slopes less than 25% in steepness. Development of this parcel in its present configuration

would require the applicant to process and obtain Use Permits for impacts to steep slopes

and likely for removal of protected trees. While no development is proposed, the adjustment

of the lot line to the applicant's desired configuration would include areas that are less steep

and not needing Use Permits from the County. Approval of the project would serve to

protect the existing visual character of Aguajito Road. Therefore, impacts to these resources

are considered less than significant in that the applicant's proposal presents a superior parcel

configuration that will better protect the existing visual character and quality of the site".

Land Use Planning: Does the proposed project conflict with any applicable land use plan,

policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project including, but not

limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)

adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect: The land use

plan designation for the subject property is Residential Rural Density 5.1 AC/U. The

zoning designation for the property is RDR/5.1-UR-D-S Rural Density Residential, 5.1

acres per unit / Urban Reserve / Design Control District / Site Plan Review). The Monterey

County General Plan includes several policies that address Lot Line adjustments:

LU-14 and provisions of the State Subdivision Map Act, lot line adjustments shall be

between four or fewer existing adjoining parcels.

The Lot Line Adjustment is between two adjoining parcels. Therefore the subject lot line

adjustment is consistent with General Plan policy.

LU-15. Where Lot Line adjustment may be configured to result in lots conforming to the

policies and standards of this General Plan, that configuration is required. Lot Line

Adjustments that may compromise the location of wells, on-site wastewater systems or

envelopes should not be approved.

As both the 4.3-acre and 4.6 acre parcels are presently less than 5.1 acres in area, it is not

possible to configure both to 5.1 acres. The present proposal will not compromise the

location of wells or on-site wastewater systems. No building envelopes are recorded on the

subject parcels.

LU-16. Lot line adjustments between or among lots that do not conform to minimum parcel

size standards may be allowed if the resultant lots are consistent with all other General Plan

policies, zoning and building ordinances and the lot line adjustment would:

a) Accommodate legally constructed improvements which extend over a property

line; or

b) Facilitate the relocation of existing utilities, infrastructure, or public utility

easements; or

c) Resolve a boundary issue between or among affected owners; or

d) Produce a superior parcel configuration; or

e) Reduce the non-conformity of existing legal lots of record; or

BIB]

40956-U01

ATTACHMENT-U02

NO.1-U02

DISCUSSION-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO107762-U03

FO107838-U03

MG107839-U03

AS107858-U03

AS107864-U03

AI109158-U03

DO109800-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

2/16/2012-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

17709-U05

2-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

DENIAL-U07

OF-U07

THE-U07

APPEAL-U07

BY-U07

THE-U07

AGUAJITO-U07

PROPERTY-U07

OWNERS-U07

ASSOCIATION-U07

ERIC-U07

TERESA-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

1/27/2012-U011

DEL-U012

PIERO-U012

THE-U012

MINOR-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

S-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

LOT-U012

LINE-U012

ADJUSTMENT-U012

BETWEEN-U012

TWO-U012

LEGAL-U012

LOTS-U012

OF-U012

RECORD;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPT-U012

THE-U012

NEGATIVE-U012

DECLARATION-U012

PREPARED-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT;-U012

C.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

APPLICATION-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

LOT-U012

LINE-U012

ADJUSTMENT-U012

BETWEEN-U012

TWO-U012

LEGAL-U012

LOTS-U012

OF-U012

RECORD-U012

OF-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

4.6-U012

ACRES-U012

PORTION-U012

OF-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBER-U012

103-061-015-000-U012

CERTIFICATE-U012

OF-U012

COMPLIANCE-U012

DOCUMENT-U012

NO.-U012

2004079692-U012

THE-U012

NORTHERLY-U012

PARCEL)]-U012

4.3-U012

ACRES-U012

PORTION-U012

OF-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBER-U012

103-061-015-000-U012

CERTIFICATE-U012

OF-U012

COMPLIANCE-U012

DOCUMENT-U012

NO.-U012

20040795684-U012

THE-U012

SOUTHERLY-U012

PARCEL)],-U012

RESULTING-U012

IN-U012

TWO-U012

NEWLY-U012

RECONFIGURED-U012

LOTS-U012

OF-U012

4.6-U012

ACRES-U012

WESTERLY-U012

PARCEL-U012

A)-U012

4.3-U012

ACRES-U012

EASTERLY-U012

PARCEL-U012

B)-U012

RESPECTIVELY.-U012

APPEAL-U012

OF-U012

LOT-U012

LINE-U012

ADJUSTMENT-U012

U012

PLN080454/STEUCK,-U012

570-U012

570-A,-U012

AGUAJITO-U012

ROAD,-U012

GREATER-U012

MONTEREY-U012

PENINSULA-U012

AREA-U012

PLAN)-U012

ATTACHMENT NO.1 DISCUSSION|Ek��Promote resource conservation, including open space and critical viewshed

protection, without triggering eminent domain; or

g) Better achieve the goals, policies and objectives of the General Plan; or

h) Facilitate Routine and Ongoing Agricultural Activities.

The Steuck lot line adjustment proposal is among lots that do not conform to minimum

parcel size standards and may be allowed according to items d), f) and g) above. Approval

of the proposal would provide for a superior parcel configuration in that both adjusted

parcels would include potential development areas that include less steep areas away from

protected slopes. By adjusting the southerly parcel in its proposed configuration, better

opportunities for protecting the steep and visible hillside along Aguajito will exist. The

proposal also serves to better achieve the goals and policies of the General Plan in that

protection of slopes, avoiding development in the viewshed of slopes, and avoiding

unnecessary erosion and control structures on slopes, all serve to retain the character and

natural beauty of Monterey County as characterized by Goal OS-1 of the General Plan.

Additionally, Policy OS-1.9 in the same Conservation and Open Space Goals and Policies

section of the General Plan, states that, Development that protects and enhances the

County's scenic qualities shall be encouraged." This is such a project.

Drawing from the graphic prepared in the Project Description in Section II where the

existing and proposed lot line configurations are superimposed over a Google Earth image

of aerial photography and topographic relief, one can see how a reconfigured Parcel A and B

would allow these steep slopes to be avoided should development be proposed.

The zoning designation on the properties RDR/5.1-UR-D-S Rural Density Residential, 5.1

acres per unit / Urban Reserve / Design Control District / Site Plan Review}) requires

discretionary permits from the County for any future development proposal and as such

would be reviewed and publicly noticed as appropriate under the General Plan and Zoning

Ordinance. The proposed Lot Line Adjustment is consistent with the General Plan in this

manner and is consistent with the purposes of the plan to avoid or mitigate potential adverse

environmental impacts, such as development on protected slope resources.

B. Staff Response to Appellant Contentions

The Appellant contends that the evidence did not support the Minor Subdivision Committee's

decision and is contrary to law for the reasons outlined below. The appellants contentions are

provided in italics:

Appellant's Contention No. 1:

Finding 1-Consistency: Approval of the lot line adjustment will allow the applicant to build

two very large homes on what was consistently transferred as a single lot. The maximum

allowed density in this location is S.1 acres per unit. Each of the surrounding properties has

been developed consistent with this density designation. Allowing two building sites within

the 8.9-acre parcel is clearly inconsistent with the zoning density and the rural character of

this planning area. The project is therefore inconsistent with the zoning ordinance and the

General Plan.

Staffs Response No. 1:

The County issued two unconditional certificates of compliance finding two legal lots of record

existed under APN 103-061-015-000. The research by the staff planner who determined the lots

legality is quoted as follows: At the time the subject parcels were created, there were no local or

BIB]

40956-U01

ATTACHMENT-U02

NO.1-U02

DISCUSSION-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO107762-U03

FO107838-U03

MG107839-U03

AS107858-U03

AS107864-U03

AI109158-U03

DO109800-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

2/16/2012-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

17709-U05

2-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

DENIAL-U07

OF-U07

THE-U07

APPEAL-U07

BY-U07

THE-U07

AGUAJITO-U07

PROPERTY-U07

OWNERS-U07

ASSOCIATION-U07

ERIC-U07

TERESA-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

1/27/2012-U011

DEL-U012

PIERO-U012

THE-U012

MINOR-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

S-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

LOT-U012

LINE-U012

ADJUSTMENT-U012

BETWEEN-U012

TWO-U012

LEGAL-U012

LOTS-U012

OF-U012

RECORD;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPT-U012

THE-U012

NEGATIVE-U012

DECLARATION-U012

PREPARED-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT;-U012

C.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

APPLICATION-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

LOT-U012

LINE-U012

ADJUSTMENT-U012

BETWEEN-U012

TWO-U012

LEGAL-U012

LOTS-U012

OF-U012

RECORD-U012

OF-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

4.6-U012

ACRES-U012

PORTION-U012

OF-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBER-U012

103-061-015-000-U012

CERTIFICATE-U012

OF-U012

COMPLIANCE-U012

DOCUMENT-U012

NO.-U012

2004079692-U012

THE-U012

NORTHERLY-U012

PARCEL)]-U012

4.3-U012

ACRES-U012

PORTION-U012

OF-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBER-U012

103-061-015-000-U012

CERTIFICATE-U012

OF-U012

COMPLIANCE-U012

DOCUMENT-U012

NO.-U012

20040795684-U012

THE-U012

SOUTHERLY-U012

PARCEL)],-U012

RESULTING-U012

IN-U012

TWO-U012

NEWLY-U012

RECONFIGURED-U012

LOTS-U012

OF-U012

4.6-U012

ACRES-U012

WESTERLY-U012

PARCEL-U012

A)-U012

4.3-U012

ACRES-U012

EASTERLY-U012

PARCEL-U012

B)-U012

RESPECTIVELY.-U012

APPEAL-U012

OF-U012

LOT-U012

LINE-U012

ADJUSTMENT-U012

U012

PLN080454/STEUCK,-U012

570-U012

570-A,-U012

AGUAJITO-U012

ROAD,-U012

GREATER-U012

MONTEREY-U012

PENINSULA-U012

AREA-U012

PLAN)-U012

ATTACHMENT NO.1 DISCUSSION|Ek� �state statutes or ordinances in effect regulating the division of land into four or fewer parcels and

there was no zoning in effect." Research pointed out that the lots predate the current zoning and

land use designation of 5.1 units per acre. The current zoning for Assessor's Parcel Number 103-

061-015-000 requires a density of one unit per every 5.1 acres. However, the record indicates the

existing parcels are less than the 5.1 acres. The County's review of the proposed application finds it

to be consistent with the following General Plan GP) Policies:

LU-1.14 Consistent with the provisions of the State Subdivision Map Act, lot line

adjustments shall be between four or fewer existing adjoining parcels." The Lot Line

Adjustment is between two adjoining parcels.

LU-1.15 Where Lot Line adjustment may be configured to result in lots conforming to the

policies and standards of this General Plan, that configuration is required. Lot Line

Adjustments that may compromise the location of wells, on-site wastewater systems, or

envelopes should not be approved." As both the 4.3 acre and 4.6 acre parcels are presently

less than 5.1 acres in area, it is not possible to configure both to 5.1 acres. The present

proposal will not compromise the location of wells or on-site wastewater systems. No

building envelopes are recorded on the subject parcels.

LU-1.16 Lot line adjustments between or among lots that do not conform to minimum parcel

size standards may be allowed if the resultant lots are consistent with all other General Plan

policies, Zoning and Building Ordinances, and the lot line adjustment would produce a

superior parcel configuration." The Lot Line Adjustment would allow the second lot of

record to be developed without violating the General Plan policies restricting development on

slopes in excess of 25%, thereby rendering a superior lot configuration, which meets the

zoning development standards.

LU-1.18 states If the standards in this General Plan render a legal lot of record substandard

in size, the substandard size of the parcel shall not by itself render the parcel a legal

nonconforming use. Any proposed expansion, enlargement, extension, or intensification of

uses on such a lot shall not be prohibited due to its substandard size unless there are

overriding public health impacts." No such issues remain unresolved with regard to the

proposed lot line adjustment. The surrounding properties are rural residential in nature and

range in size from 4.8 acres to 6.43 acres, each with a single-family residence. The proposed

reconfiguration of the Steuck property at 4.3 and 4.6 acres is consistent with the general size

of the lots within the surrounding area.

The lots will remain their original size, which is consistent with the general size of the

surrounding properties. Therefore, based on the aforementioned policies regulating lot line

adjustment under the 2010 General Plan, the lot areas to be reconfigured remain consistent as

provided under those policies.

Appellant's Contention No. 2:

Finding 2-Site Suitability: The project is not suitable for the location because it will allow

the applicant to create a second building site on an 8.99 acre parcel where density is

restricted to one unit per 5.1 acres. This area of the County is considered rural and visually

sensitive. Crowding development into the location is neither acceptable nor appropriate

Staff's Response No. 2:

The proposed reconfiguration of the two legal lots identified in unconditional certificates of

compliance 2004079692 and 2004079684 fully meet the objectives of the General Plan, by

rendering a superior lot design to provide newly reconfigured area Lot B) that could be

developed without violating policies regarding sloped areas of 25% or more and avoid removal

of protected vegetation. The Monterey County Code MCC) Chapter 21.44 Design Control

District) and Section 21.45.010 Site Plan Review) design and site plan overlays on the

BIB]

40956-U01

ATTACHMENT-U02

NO.1-U02

DISCUSSION-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO107762-U03

FO107838-U03

MG107839-U03

AS107858-U03

AS107864-U03

AI109158-U03

DO109800-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

2/16/2012-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

17709-U05

2-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

DENIAL-U07

OF-U07

THE-U07

APPEAL-U07

BY-U07

THE-U07

AGUAJITO-U07

PROPERTY-U07

OWNERS-U07

ASSOCIATION-U07

ERIC-U07

TERESA-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

1/27/2012-U011

DEL-U012

PIERO-U012

THE-U012

MINOR-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

S-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

LOT-U012

LINE-U012

ADJUSTMENT-U012

BETWEEN-U012

TWO-U012

LEGAL-U012

LOTS-U012

OF-U012

RECORD;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPT-U012

THE-U012

NEGATIVE-U012

DECLARATION-U012

PREPARED-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT;-U012

C.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

APPLICATION-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

LOT-U012

LINE-U012

ADJUSTMENT-U012

BETWEEN-U012

TWO-U012

LEGAL-U012

LOTS-U012

OF-U012

RECORD-U012

OF-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

4.6-U012

ACRES-U012

PORTION-U012

OF-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBER-U012

103-061-015-000-U012

CERTIFICATE-U012

OF-U012

COMPLIANCE-U012

DOCUMENT-U012

NO.-U012

2004079692-U012

THE-U012

NORTHERLY-U012

PARCEL)]-U012

4.3-U012

ACRES-U012

PORTION-U012

OF-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBER-U012

103-061-015-000-U012

CERTIFICATE-U012

OF-U012

COMPLIANCE-U012

DOCUMENT-U012

NO.-U012

20040795684-U012

THE-U012

SOUTHERLY-U012

PARCEL)],-U012

RESULTING-U012

IN-U012

TWO-U012

NEWLY-U012

RECONFIGURED-U012

LOTS-U012

OF-U012

4.6-U012

ACRES-U012

WESTERLY-U012

PARCEL-U012

A)-U012

4.3-U012

ACRES-U012

EASTERLY-U012

PARCEL-U012

B)-U012

RESPECTIVELY.-U012

APPEAL-U012

OF-U012

LOT-U012

LINE-U012

ADJUSTMENT-U012

U012

PLN080454/STEUCK,-U012

570-U012

570-A,-U012

AGUAJITO-U012

ROAD,-U012

GREATER-U012

MONTEREY-U012

PENINSULA-U012

AREA-U012

PLAN)-U012

ATTACHMENT NO.1 DISCUSSION|Ek�

�property. These County regulations allow discretion over development with regard to site

control, visually sensitive areas on the property as well as the protection of the rural character of

the area through the site and design control of structures. Therefore, because no development is

proposed with the lot line adjustment the project is considered by the County to be consistent

with Title 21 and The 2010 General Plan.

Appellant's Contention No. 3:

Finding 4-Violations: The record illustrates that the Steuck's deposited undocumented

and potentially hazardous fill on the property which led to a notice of violation. In 2009 the

Building Official issued and subsequently withdrew approval of a grading permit to correct

the violation because he found that Mr. Steuck failed to complete the work as described in

the permit and that the permit was based upon incorrect information. The incorrect

information included the extent of the existing fill and the location of the existing natural

grade.

A subsequent grading plan was prepared by H.D. Peters and the permit reissued. The

permit was finaled but the property was not restored as required by Section 21.84.130 of

the Zoning Ordinance.

Because the site was not completely restored as required, a violation of the ordinance

still exists, and no further permits shall be issued on the property 21.84.120).

The Del Piero s have appealed the grading final. Until that appeal is resolved either

through the County process or the Courts this application should not be approved.

Staff's Response No. 3:

On November 10, 2008, a notice of violation was filed on the subject property. The property owner

was required to obtain a grading-restoration permit. The permit GP090013) was issued on February

11, 2009 to remove undocumented fill and restore the site to its pre-violation state.

The restoration-grading permit was granted a final on April 2, 2009.

On June 9, 2009, Mr. Lombardo, is the appellant's representative, appealed the Building Official

Tim McCormick's decision granting final for GP090013.

On November 18, 2009, Tim McCormick issued a notice of intent to the property owner to rescind

final inspection of grading permit GP090013. On December 18, 2009, Building Official Tim

McCormick revoked the Grading Permit GP090013.

Owner Mr. Steuck corrected the deficiencies stated in the November 18, 2009 letter and was then

allowed to complete the restoration.

On September 14, 2010, Building Official Tim McCormick rendered a final decision on the appeal

filed June 9, 2009. The letter indicated that review of the grading permit determined that the grading

restoration was complete and the grading permit could be finaled. The grading permit was granted

final on July 1, 2010, as indicated in the above-mentioned letter to Mr. Lombardo, the appellant's

representative and Mr. Steuck, property owner.

The Interim Building Official John Villalpando reviewed the Restoration grading permit confirmed

that no further code enforcement issues were pending and that no further action was required as of

April 11, 2011. This determination allowed the project to move forward and allowed to be set for

BIB]

40956-U01

ATTACHMENT-U02

NO.1-U02

DISCUSSION-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO107762-U03

FO107838-U03

MG107839-U03

AS107858-U03

AS107864-U03

AI109158-U03

DO109800-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

2/16/2012-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

17709-U05

2-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

DENIAL-U07

OF-U07

THE-U07

APPEAL-U07

BY-U07

THE-U07

AGUAJITO-U07

PROPERTY-U07

OWNERS-U07

ASSOCIATION-U07

ERIC-U07

TERESA-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

1/27/2012-U011

DEL-U012

PIERO-U012

THE-U012

MINOR-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

S-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

LOT-U012

LINE-U012

ADJUSTMENT-U012

BETWEEN-U012

TWO-U012

LEGAL-U012

LOTS-U012

OF-U012

RECORD;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPT-U012

THE-U012

NEGATIVE-U012

DECLARATION-U012

PREPARED-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT;-U012

C.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

APPLICATION-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

LOT-U012

LINE-U012

ADJUSTMENT-U012

BETWEEN-U012

TWO-U012

LEGAL-U012

LOTS-U012

OF-U012

RECORD-U012

OF-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

4.6-U012

ACRES-U012

PORTION-U012

OF-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBER-U012

103-061-015-000-U012

CERTIFICATE-U012

OF-U012

COMPLIANCE-U012

DOCUMENT-U012

NO.-U012

2004079692-U012

THE-U012

NORTHERLY-U012

PARCEL)]-U012

4.3-U012

ACRES-U012

PORTION-U012

OF-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBER-U012

103-061-015-000-U012

CERTIFICATE-U012

OF-U012

COMPLIANCE-U012

DOCUMENT-U012

NO.-U012

20040795684-U012

THE-U012

SOUTHERLY-U012

PARCEL)],-U012

RESULTING-U012

IN-U012

TWO-U012

NEWLY-U012

RECONFIGURED-U012

LOTS-U012

OF-U012

4.6-U012

ACRES-U012

WESTERLY-U012

PARCEL-U012

A)-U012

4.3-U012

ACRES-U012

EASTERLY-U012

PARCEL-U012

B)-U012

RESPECTIVELY.-U012

APPEAL-U012

OF-U012

LOT-U012

LINE-U012

ADJUSTMENT-U012

U012

PLN080454/STEUCK,-U012

570-U012

570-A,-U012

AGUAJITO-U012

ROAD,-U012

GREATER-U012

MONTEREY-U012

PENINSULA-U012

AREA-U012

PLAN)-U012

ATTACHMENT NO.1 DISCUSSION|Ek�
�hearing. Therefore, the County considers the violation to be abated and the restoration action found

to be consistent with Title 21 Sections 21.84.120 & 21.84.130. See attached letters Exhibit C)

Appellant's Contention No. 4:

Finding 5-CEQA: Please see the attached letter dated October 28, 2011. The proposal is

clearly piecemeal attempt to provide building areas for two large homes. Clearly, the

whole of the action was not analyzed as required.

Staffs Response No.4:

Initially, the applicant submitted an application to the county for the development of two new

residences and for the current reconfiguration of the existing legal lots of record; however, that

application was revised at the applicant's request. The applicant revised the application to remove

the proposal for the homes. The current lot line adjustment proposal is shown in the proposed

sketch.

No development, with the exception of the demolition of the existing garage, is proposed with this

application. Therefore, the proposed lot line adjustment does not represent a piecemealed project.

The demolition of the garage is necessary in order for the reconfigured lots to be consistent with the

site development standards under Title 21, because the garage would be too close to the property

line if it were to remain.

Initially the proposed Lot Line adjustment was considered minor in nature and found to be

exempt. CEQA Guidelines Section 15305(a) categorically exempts minor lot line adjustments

that do not result in the creation of a new parcel. The lot line adjustment will adjust the property

lines between the two legal lots of record to reconfigure them in a manner that would provide

one parcel located all on slopes in excess of 25% with new areas on slopes of less than 20% thus

allowing the property to be developed in the future without affecting slopes in excess of 25%. In

determining, that an exemption from CEQA was appropriate, staff made the following

conclusions regarding potential development on the reconfigured lots of record:

The lot demonstrated the availability of water and potential septic sites as required by the

Monterrey County Environmental Health Bureau;

A minimal amount of grading could occur in an area identified with less than 25% slopes;

There would be no need to remove protected vegetation under the Greater Monterey

Peninsula Area Plan or more than allowed by permit under the Zoning Ordinance; and that

There would be no impact to protected biological sensitive plants or animals as identified

under the Greater Monterey Peninsula Area Plan and the California Native Plant and animal

list.

Initial Study

Following the Minor Subdivision Committee's continuance of the project on June 9, 2011, the

applicant consulted with staff and requested that a more thorough environmental review be engaged

by the County to allay uncertainty. Staff prepared and completed an Initial Study and concluded that

there were no significant or potentially significant environmental impacts that would result from

adjusting the lot lines between the applicant's two lots of record and that a Negative Declaration is

appropriate. The Initial Study and recommended Negative Declaration are attached as Exhibit E.

Initial Study Comments

BIB]

40956-U01

ATTACHMENT-U02

NO.1-U02

DISCUSSION-U02

LI21329-U03

FO96183-U03

FO107762-U03

FO107838-U03

MG107839-U03

AS107858-U03

AS107864-U03

AI109158-U03

DO109800-U03

C12-U03

ATTACHMENTS-U03

2/16/2012-U04

MARCELLAC-U04

17709-U05

2-U06

PUBLIC-U07

HEARING-U07

TO-U07

CONSIDER:-U07

A.-U07

DENIAL-U07

OF-U07

THE-U07

APPEAL-U07

BY-U07

THE-U07

AGUAJITO-U07

PROPERTY-U07

OWNERS-U07

ASSOCIATION-U07

ERIC-U07

TERESA-U07

293-P&BI-U08

ROTHARMEL-U09

LINDA-U09

ROTHARMELL-U10

1/27/2012-U011

DEL-U012

PIERO-U012

THE-U012

MINOR-U012

SUBDIVISION-U012

S-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

LOT-U012

LINE-U012

ADJUSTMENT-U012

BETWEEN-U012

TWO-U012

LEGAL-U012

LOTS-U012

OF-U012

RECORD;-U012

B.-U012

ADOPT-U012

THE-U012

NEGATIVE-U012

DECLARATION-U012

PREPARED-U012

THE-U012

PROJECT;-U012

C.-U012

APPROVAL-U012

OF-U012

THE-U012

APPLICATION-U012

OF-U012

A-U012

LOT-U012

LINE-U012

ADJUSTMENT-U012

BETWEEN-U012

TWO-U012

LEGAL-U012

LOTS-U012

OF-U012

RECORD-U012

OF-U012

APPROXIMATELY-U012

4.6-U012

ACRES-U012

PORTION-U012

OF-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBER-U012

103-061-015-000-U012

CERTIFICATE-U012

OF-U012

COMPLIANCE-U012

DOCUMENT-U012

NO.-U012

2004079692-U012

THE-U012

NORTHERLY-U012

PARCEL)]-U012

4.3-U012

ACRES-U012

PORTION-U012

OF-U012

ASSESSOR-U012

S-U012

PARCEL-U012

NUMBER-U012

103-061-015-000-U012

CERTIFICATE-U012

OF-U012

COMPLIANCE-U012

DOCUMENT-U012

NO.-U012

20040795684-U012

THE-U012

SOUTHERLY-U012

PARCEL)],-U012

RESULTING-U012

IN-U012

TWO-U012

NEWLY-U012

RECONFIGURED-U012

LOTS-U012

OF-U012

4.6-U012

ACRES-U012

WESTERLY-U012

PARCEL-U012

A)-U012

4.3-U012

ACRES-U012

EASTERLY-U012

PARCEL-U012

B)-U012

RESPECTIVELY.-U012

APPEAL-U012

OF-U012

LOT-U012

LINE-U012

ADJUSTMENT-U012

U012

PLN080454/STEUCK,-U012

570-U012

570-A,-U012

AGUAJITO-U012

ROAD,-U012

GREATER-U012

MONTEREY-U012

PENINSULA-U012

AREA-U012

PLAN)-U012

ATTACHMENT NO.1 DISCUSSION|Ek�

�During the public review period for the Initial Study and recommended Negative Declaration that

ran from October 13, 2011 to November 1, 2011, staff received comments from several sources.

These are attached as Exhibit F.

There are several themes that run through the comments, such as concern and questions for past

activity on the parcels and whether the present proposal has been described properly. There is no

development proposal on the table. Many of the concerns expressed are beyond the question at

hand and are questions that have been addressed by the County of Monterey and resolved.

The project is a lot line adjustment and no other development has been proposed.

Preemptively the property owner secured permits to replace an existing antiquated septic

system for the existing residence to meet County Code regarding setback from property.

In anticipation of the lot line adjustment, the Monterey County Environmental Health

Bureau reviewed and approved the replacement septic system. No variances were granted

for slope over 25% or exceptions to County code regarding setbacks to protected

vegetarian Oak trees). EHB issued a permit to drill a well and determined that the well

met the county's requirements regarding quantity and quality, finding it a viable source of

water for the newly reconfigured lot B.

No issues remain unresolved regarding development on slopes in excess of 25%

No issues remain unresolved with regard to easements or encroachment; because there are

no restrictions described in the current easement deed and because there has not been a

change in the number of lots or intensification after the creation of said easement.

The County has approved and issued two Certificates of Compliance.

Questions of grading cut and fill quantities and the quality of soils on the site have been

investigated and cleared by both the Monterey County Environmental Health Bureau and

Building Services Department.

There are no violations on the property.

Staff has reviewed each of the letters and comments and finds no new concerns or questions that

have not been considered. The County has exercised its independent judgment and analysis and

determined that the issues identified in the comment were largely and appropriately addressed in the

findings contained in the Initial study, Section IV. A.

The County determined that based on the project description the following environmental factors

could potentially affect the environment as discussed in the environmental checklist Section VI 1 of

the attached Initial study: