COMPLETED BOARD ORDER"�|Ek �S-4
Before the Board of Supervisors in and for the
County of Monterey, State of California
Appeal by Susan Merrill from the Planning
Commission's decision denying the application for
a Combined Development Permit
Merrill/PLN070376) consisting of.
1) a Minor Subdivision Vesting Tentative Map to
allow the division of a 37.8 acre parcel into three
parcels of 10.5 acres Parcel 1), 13.8 acres Parcel
2), 7.5 acres Parcel 3) and a remainder parcel of
6.0 acres; and;
2) Use Permit for development in a visually
sensitive area VS" District). Appeal,
PLN070366/Wayland Minor Subdivision, 24975
Boots Road, Monterey)
Upon motion of Supervisor Salinas, seconded by Supervisor Armenta, and carried by
those members present, the Board of Supervisors hereby:
Remanded the Merrill project back to the Planning Commission for further project review
and environmental analysis, with a focus on the stability-of arsenic levels, water quality and
quantity, identification of specific building envelopes and impacts to view issues and
landscape as a whole.
PASSED AND ADOPTED on this 7th day of February, 2012, by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES: Supervisors Armenta, Supervisor Calcagno, Salinas, Potter
NOES: Supervisor Parker
ABSENT: None
I, Gail T. Borkowski, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Monterey, State of California,
hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of an original order of said Board of Supervisors duly made
and entered in the minutes thereof of Minute Book 76 for the meeting on February 7, 2012.
Dated: February 10, 2012 Gail T. Borkowski, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
County of Monterey, State of California
By
BIB]
40956-U01
COMPLETED-U02
BOARD-U02
ORDER-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109787-U03
C15-U03
COMPLETED-U03
BOARD-U03
ORDER-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
COMPLETED BOARD ORDER"�|Ek �MONTEREY COUNTY
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AGENCY PLANNINGi,~P RA tNT
MEMORANDUM 6 PH 5: 18
Date: February 6, 2012
To: Board of Supervisors
From: David J. R. Mack, Associate Planner
Subject: Letter of Withdrawal Wayland Appeal PLN 110079)
Agenda Item S-4
hoop. K1
On January 27, 2012, the Office of Brian Finegan, the applicant's representative, submitted a letter
of Withdrawal for the Wayland Combined Development Permit PLN070366) and pending appeal
PLN 110079) scheduled for February 7, 2012 to the RMA Planning Department.
A copy of the letter has been attached for your reference.
In light of this information, portions of the Board Staff Report are no longer relevant, including the
Draft Board Resolution for the Wayland project PLN70366) Exhibit B). However, the analysis
and exhibits pertaining to the Merrill Combined Development Permit PLN070376) and Merrill
Appeal PLN 110078) remain pertinent.
Received by Clerk to the Board
Additional Material for
Board Agenda Date of: Item No:
Dist I CAO_- to' Dist 2 County Counsel L--'
Dist 3 V
Dist 4
Dist 6
BIB]
40956-U01
COMPLETED-U02
BOARD-U02
ORDER-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109787-U03
C15-U03
COMPLETED-U03
BOARD-U03
ORDER-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
COMPLETED BOARD ORDER"�|Ek �BRIAN FINEGAN
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
ATTORNEY AT LAW
SIXTY WEST ALISAL STREET, SUITE 1
POST OFFICE BOX 2058
SALINAS, CALIFORNIA 93902
January 27, 2012
David Mack
Associate Planner
Monterey County Planning Department
168 West Alisal Street, 2n Floor
Salinas, California 93901
Re: Wayland PLN070366)
Dear Mr. Mack:
AREA CODE 831
SALINAS TELEPHONE 757-3641
MONTEREY TELEPHONE 375-9652
FACSIMILE 757-9329
E-MAIL brian@bfinegan.com
HAND DELIVERED
Applicant Warren Wayland hereby withdraws his application for a Combined
Development Permit PLN070366), including the pending appeal presently scheduled
for hearing before the Board of Supervisors on February 7, 2012.
Very truly yours,
GL-7~
Brian Finega
cc: Warren Wayland
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
Joel Panzer
Received by Clerk to the Board
Additional Material for
Board Agenda Date of. Item No:
Dist 1 CAO L/
Dist 2 V County Counsel
Dist 3
Dist 4
Dist 5
BIB]
40956-U01
COMPLETED-U02
BOARD-U02
ORDER-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109787-U03
C15-U03
COMPLETED-U03
BOARD-U03
ORDER-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
SIGNED BOARD REPORT"�|Ek
�MONTEREY COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
MEETING: February 7, 2012 1:30 PM AGENDA NO:
SUBJECT: Public hearing to consider:
a. Appeal by Warren Wayland from the Planning Commission's decision denying the application for a
Combined Development Permit Wayland/PLN070366) consisting of. 1) a Minor Subdivision
Vesting Tentative Map to allow the division of a 38-acre parcel into four parcels of 9.7 acres Parcel
1), 5.3 acres Parcel 2), 9.3 acres Parcel 3), 5.2 acres Parcel 4) and a remainder parcel of 8.8 acres;
2) Use Permit for development on slopes in excess of 25 percent for roadway improvements; 3) Use
Permit for development in a visually sensitive area VS" District); and 4) Use Permit to allow the
removal of approximately 39 oak trees; and
b. Appeal by Susan Merrill from the Planning Commission's decision denying the application for a
Combined Development Permit Merrill/PLN070376) consisting of. 1) a Minor Subdivision Vesting
Tentative Map to allow the division of a 37.8 acre parcel into three parcels of 10.5 acres Parcel 1),
13.8 acres Parcel 2), 7.5 acres Parcel 3) and a remainder parcel of 6.0 acres; and 2) Use Permit for
development in a visually sensitive area VS" District).
Appeal, PLN070366/Wayland Minor Subdivision, 24975 Boots Road, Monterey)
Appeal, PLN070376/Merrill Minor Subdivision, 24915 Boots Road, Monterey)
Continued from January 10, 2012 hearing]
Project Location: 24975 Boots Road, Monterey Wayland) APN: 173-062-009-000
Wayland)
24915 Boots Road, Monterey Merrill) 173-062-008-000
Merrill)
Planning Number: PLN110079 Wayland Minor Subdivision) Name: Wayland Warren Trust
PLN110078 Merrill Minor Subdivision) Merrill Thomas Trust
Plan Area: Greater Monterey Peninsula Area Plan Flagged
Zoning Designation: RDR/5.1-VS Rural Density Residential, 5.1 and
acre per lot minimum, with Visual Sensitivity Staked: NO
Overlay)
CEQA Action: Statutorily exempt from CEQA per 15270
DEPARTMENT: RMA Planning Department
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Board of Supervisors:
a. Adopt a Resolution Exhibit B) to:
1. Deny the appeal by Warren Wayland from the Planning Commission's decision denying the
application for a Combined Development Permit Wayland/PLN070366); and
2. Deny the application for a Combined Development Permit Wayland/PLN070366) consisting
of. 1) a Minor Subdivision Vesting Tentative Map to allow the division of a 38-acre parcel
into four parcels of 9.7 acres Parcel 1), 5.3 acres Parcel 2), 9.3 acres Parcel 3), 5.2 acres
Parcel 4) and a remainder parcel of 8.8 acres; 2) Use Permit for development on slopes in
excess of 25 percent for roadway improvements; 3) Use Permit for development in a visually
sensitive area VS" District); and 4) Use Permit to allow the removal of approximately 39
oak trees; and grading of approximately 3,800 cubic yards of cut and 3,800 cubic yards of
fill, installation of individual septic systems, a 50 foot by 50 foot water tank easement with a
100,000 gallon water tank and 15 foot wide utility easement, a 60-foot wide road and utility
easement and a 30-foot wide road and utility easement;
b. Adopt a Resolution Exhibit C) to:
1. Deny the appeal by Susan Merrill from the Planning Commission's decision denying the
application for a Combined Development Permit Merrill/PLN070376); and
BIB]
40956-U01
SIGNED-U02
BOARD-U02
REPORT-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109788-U03
C10-U03
BOARD-U03
REPORTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
SIGNED BOARD REPORT"�|Ek
�2. Deny the application for a Combined Development Permit Merrill/PLN070376) consisting
of. 1) a Minor Subdivision Vesting Tentative Map to allow the division of a 37.8 acre parcel
into three parcels of 10.5 acres Parcel 1), 13.8 acres Parcel 2), 7.5 acres Parcel 3) and a
remainder parcel of 6.0 acres; and 2) Use Permit for development in a visually sensitive area
VS" District); and grading of approximately 3,100 cubic yards of grading, individual septic
systems and 60 foot wide road and utility easements.
SUMMARY:
On November 2, 2007 and November 15, 2007, the Warren Wayland Trust et al and Thomas Merrill
Trust et al, respectively, filed applications with the Monterey County RMA Planning Department for
Combined Development Permits PLN070366 and PLN070376) for adjacent Minor Subdivisions. Staff
thoroughly analyzed issues related to water quantity, water quality and sewage disposal, and due to
significant concerns regarding these issues brought the matter forward to the Planning Commission with
a recommendation for denial.
The projects were brought to public hearing before the Monterey County Planning Commission on
January 26, 2011. The Planning Commission denied the applications by a 7-1 vote 2 members absent)
PC Resolution No. 11-005 and 11-006) Exhibits H and I).
One of the key issues was water quality. Water quality tests for both projects, submitted to the
Monterey County Environmental Health Bureau EBH") indicated arsenic concentrations above the
maximum contaminant level MCL") of 10 parts per billion ppb). Testing data for the existing well
compiled between August 2007 and September 2010 showed that arsenic concentration levels range
from 6 ppb to as high as 17 ppb, with the overall average being 10.08 ppb. These results did not
demonstrate that the well could reliably stay in compliance with adopted thresholds. Based upon this
evidence, the Planning Commission found that neither project has a reliable long-term sustainable water
source, in regard to water quality, and therefore do not comply with 2010 General Plan policies nor
required health and safety standards.
On February 9, 2011, applicants timely appealed the Planning Commission's decision Exhibits F and
G). The appellants request that the Board grant the appeal and approve the Combined Development
Permits for PLN070366 Wayland) and PLN070376 Merrill). The bases of the appeals are: a lack of
fair or impartial hearing; the findings, decision or conditions are not supported by the evidence; and the
decision is contrary to law. A more detailed discussion of these contentions for each appeal can be
found in Exhibit A.
The appeals were scheduled for public hearing before the Monterey County Board of Supervisors on
March 29, 2011. In a letter dated, March 17, 2011, the applicant's representative, Brian Finegan,
requested a continuance to April 12, 2011; however, during the March 29, 2011 Board hearing, at the
request of Staff, the Board continued the matter to May 3, 2011, due to scheduling conflicts on the April
12, 2011 agenda. On May 3, 2011, a public hearing was held; however, the Board continued the matter
to January 10, 2012, to allow the applicants to perform further water sampling. On January 10, 2012 the
Board continued the matter to February 7, 2012 at the request of the applicant, to allow the full Board to
be present.
Since May 3, 2011, the applicants have conducted additional water sampling tests in each of the months
of May through November 2011. Each of the tests showed arsenic levels acceptable to the EHB and in
compliance with state law relative to the MCL. An arsenic concentration test is also expected in
December 2011; however, the results were unavailable as of the preparation of this report.
Wayland Minor Subdivision Appeal PLN 110079)
Merrill Minor Subdivision Appeal PLN110078) 2
BIB]
40956-U01
SIGNED-U02
BOARD-U02
REPORT-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109788-U03
C10-U03
BOARD-U03
REPORTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
SIGNED BOARD REPORT"�|Ek
�Although it appears that the water quality may finally be acceptable, issues relative to conformance with
the 2010 General Plan, traffic impacts, sewage/septic impacts, and other potential environmental
impacts remain unresolved.
Staff recommends denial of both the Wayland Combined Development Permit PLN 110079) and Merrill
Combined Development Permit PLN110078) because neither map can be found in conformance with
the 2010 General Plan. However, if the Board of Supervisors chooses to grant the appeal the Board
cannot approve the minor subdivisions for Wayland and Merrill because additional project review and
environmental analysis will be required See the discussion in Exhibit A under Options" on page 10).
The matter should therefore be remanded for further project review and environmental analysis, and
consideration by the Planning Commission in light of the new water quality data and the further project
review.
DISCUSSION:
Detailed discussion is provided in Exhibit A.
CEQA:
Public Resources Code Section 21080(b) 5) and California Environmental Quality Act CEQA)
Guidelines Section 15270(a) statutorily exempt projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves.
However, should one or both of the projects Wayland and/or Merrill) move toward approval, that
particular project would be subject to environmental review and would require the preparation of an
Initial Study. Environmental impacts resulting from each application would need to be considered,
including but not limited to: aesthetics, geologic/geology, traffic/circulation, water/water
quality/hydrogeology, noise, and cumulative impacts.
OTHER AGENCY INVOLVEMENT:
The following agencies have reviewed the project and those that are checked /") have comments
and/or recommended conditions:
Environmental Health Division
Public Works Department
Water Resources Agency
Monterey County Regional Fire Protection District
Greater Monterey Peninsula Land Use Advisory Committee
Parks Department
Regional Water Quality Control Board, District 3
FINANCING:
Funding for staff time associated with this project has been provided through payment of all appropriate
appeal fees.
Approved by:
David J. R. M Associate Planner
831)755-509 mackd@co.monterey.ca.us
January 24, 2012
This report was reviewed by Jacqueline
4utA. AiAAd QJ &. U11
ano & Laura Lawrence, Planning Services Managers.
Wayland Minor Subdivision Appeal PLN110079)
Merrill Minor Subdivision Appeal PLN110078) 3
BIB]
40956-U01
SIGNED-U02
BOARD-U02
REPORT-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109788-U03
C10-U03
BOARD-U03
REPORTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT B. DRAFT BOARD RESOLUk�Exhibit B
Draft Board Resolution
PLN070366 Wayland
Merrill PLN1 10078)
Wayland PLN1 10079)
Board of Supervisors
February 7, 2012
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
B.-U02
DRAFT-U02
BOARD-U02
RESOLUTION-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109790-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT B. DRAFT BOARD RESOLUk�Exhibit B
Draft Resolution Wayland
Before the Board of Supervisors in and for the
County of Monterey, State of California
Resolution No.
Resolution by the Monterey County Board of Supervisors
to:
1. Deny the appeal by Warren Wayland from the
Planning Commission's decision denying the
application for a Combined Development Permit
Wayland/PLN070366); and
2. Deny the application for a Combined Development
Permit Wayland/PLN070366) consisting of: 1)
Minor Subdivision Vesting Tentative Map to allow
the division of a 38-acre parcel into four parcels of
9.7 acres Parcel 1), 5.3 acres Parcel 2), 9.3 acres
Parcel 3), 5.2 acres Parcel 4) and a remainder
parcel of 8.8 acres; 2) Use Permit for development
of areas in excess of 25 percent for roadway
improvements; 3) Use Permit for development in a
visually sensitive area VS" District); and 4) Use
Permit to allow the removal of approximately 39
oak trees; and grading of approximately 3,800 cubic
yards of cut and 3,800 cubic yards of fill, individual
septic systems, a 50 foot by 50 foot water tank
easement with a 100,000 gallon water tank and 15
foot wide utility easement, a 60-foot wide road and
utility easement and a 30-foot wide road and utility
easement.
The appeal by Warren Wayland from the Planning Commission's denial of the Wayland Combined
Development Permit and Minor Subdivision Vesting Tentative Map PLN070366) came on for
public hearing before the Board of Supervisors of the County of Monterey. Having considered all
the written and documentary evidence, the administrative record, the staff report, oral testimony, and
all other evidence presented, the Board of Supervisors hereby finds and decides as follows:
FINDINGS
1 FINDING: INCONSISTENCY The Project, as designed is inconsistent with the
applicable plans and policies which designate this area as appropriate
for development.
EVIDENCE: a) During the course of review of this application, the project has been
reviewed for consistency with the text, policies, and regulations in:
2010 Monterey County General Plan, including the Greater
Monterey Peninsula Area Plan,
Monterey County Zoning Ordinance Title 21)
Monterey County Subdivision Ordinance Title 19)
Monterey County Public Service Ordinance Title 15)
Exhibit B
Wayland and Merrill
Page 1 of 13
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
B.-U02
DRAFT-U02
BOARD-U02
RESOLUTION-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109790-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT B. DRAFT BOARD RESOLUk�Conflicts were found to exist during the course of review of the project
indicating inconsistencies with the text, policies, and regulations in
these documents.
b) The proposed project is a Combined Development Permit consisting of:
1) Minor Subdivision Vesting Tentative Map to allow the division of a
38-acre parcel into four parcels of 9.7 acres Parcel 1), 5.3 acres Parcel
2), 9.3 acres Parcel 3), 5.2 acres Parcel 4) and a remainder parcel of
8.8 acres; 2) Use Permit for development of areas in excess of 25
percent for roadway improvements; 3) Use Permit for development in a
visually sensitive area VS" District); and 4) Use Permit to allow the
removal of approximately 39 oak trees; and grading of approximately
3,800 cubic yards of cut and 3,800 cubic yards of fill, individual septic
systems, a 50 foot by 50 foot water tank easement with a 100,000 gallon
water tank and 15 foot wide utility easement, a 60-foot wide road and
utility easement and a 30-foot wide road and utility easement.
c) The property is located at 24975 Boots Road, Monterey Assessor's
Parcel Number: 173-062-009-000), Greater Monterey Peninsula GMP)
Area Plan. The parcel is zoned RDR/5.1-V S Rural Density
Residential, 5.1 acre per lot minimum, with Visual Sensitivity Overlay),
which allows residential development of a rural density and intensity.
Residences are an allowed land use for this site.
d) 2010 General Plan Policy GMP 3.3 refers to the Greater Monterey
Peninsula Scenic Highway Corridors and Visual Sensitivity Map
Figure 14) to designate visually sensitive" and highly sensitive" areas
generally visible from designated Scenic Highways. The subject
property is designated as highly sensitive" in Figure 14. Subsection d)
of GMP 3.3 states that new development shall not be sited on those
portions of property that have been mapped highly sensitive", unless
such development maximizes the goals, objectives, and policies of the
Greater Monterey Peninsula Area Plan. The proposed minor
subdivision would result in the creation of three new residential parcels
and one remainder lot) located within the designated highly sensitive"
area. This would not maximize the goals, objectives, and policies of the
Greater Monterey Peninsula Area Plan; therefore the project is
inconsistent with 2010 General Plan Policy GMP 3.3.
e) 2010 General Plan Policy OS-3.5 prohibits development on slopes in
excess of twenty-five percent 25%) unless no feasible alternative exists
or the development better achieves the resource protection objectives
and polices contained in the General Plan and accompanying Area
Plans. The proposed project involves the subdivision of an existing
parcel into four new lots and one remainder), requiring the construction
of roads on slopes in excess of 25%. This would not be consistent with
2010 General Plan Policy OS-3.5 and would not achieve the resource
protection objective of either the General Plan or Greater Monterey
Peninsula Area Plan. Feasible alternatives do exist, as the existing 38
acre parcel could be developed for residential use, without development
on slopes in excess of 25%, which would be consistent with this policy.
f) The project includes application for a Use Permit for the removal of 39
oak trees and a Use Permit for development in a Visually Sensitive VS)
Exhibit B
Wayland and Merrill
Page 2 of 13
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
B.-U02
DRAFT-U02
BOARD-U02
RESOLUTION-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109790-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT B. DRAFT BOARD RESOLUk�zone. The requirements for issuance of said Use Permits have not been
addressed at this time, as the project is denied for other reasons. See
Finding 2).
g) Title 19 inconsistency See Finding and Evidence 2 below.
h) The project was referred to the Greater Monterey Peninsula Land Use
Advisory Committee LUAC) for review on December 5, 2007. Based
on the LUAC Procedure guidelines adopted by the Monterey County
Board of Supervisors per Resolution No. 08-338, this application did
warrant referral to the LUAC because the project is subject to CEQA
review and involves a discretionary permit application and land use
matter which raises significant land use issues. The GMPLUAC
recommended approval of the project by a 3-0 vote 1 absent, 1 abstain).
It should be noted however, that at the time of the recommendation, the
2010 General Plan had not been implemented, and substantial issues
relative to septic feasibility and water quality had yet to be discovered.
i) The project planner conducted a site inspection on August 9, 2007 and
December 28, 2010.
j) The application, project plans, and related support materials submitted
by the project applicant to the Monterey County RMA Planning
Department for the proposed development found in Project File
PLN070366.
2. FINDING: SUBDIVISION Section 66474 of the California Government Code
Subdivision Map Act) and Title 19 Subdivision Ordinance) of the
Monterey County Code requires that a request for subdivision be denied if
any of the following findings are made:
1. That the proposed map is not consistent with the applicable general
plan and specific plans.
2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not
consistent with the applicable general plan and specific plans.
3. That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development.
4. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of
development.
5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements is
likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and
avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
6. That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to
cause serious public health problems.
7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will
conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access
through or use of property within the proposed subdivision.
EVIDENCE: a) Inconsistency. The project as designed and conditioned is inconsistent
with the 2010 Monterey County General Plan, and Greater Monterey
Peninsula Area Plan, and Monterey County Subdivision Ordinance Title
19) See Finding 1).
b) Design. The lot design is consistent with the Lot Design Standards of
Section 19.10.030 of the Monterey County Code.
c) Site Suitability. The project has been reviewed for site suitability by
the following departments and agencies: RMA Planning Department,
Exhibit B
Wayland and Merrill
Page 3 of 13
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
B.-U02
DRAFT-U02
BOARD-U02
RESOLUTION-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109790-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT B. DRAFT BOARD RESOLUk�Monterey County Regional Fire Protection District, Housing and
Redevelopment Office, Parks, Public Works, Environmental Health
Bureau, and Water Resources Agency. The site is physically unsuitable
for the proposed use due to septic feasibility concerns and inconsistency
with adopted policies of the 2010 General Plan GMP-3.3, OS-3.5).
d) Staff identified potential impacts to Biological Resources,
Archaeological Resources, Soil/Slope Stability, and on-site wastewater
treatment feasibility. Technical reports by outside consultants indicate
that there are physical or environmental constraints rendering the site not
suitable for the use proposed. County staff independently reviewed
these reports and concurs with their conclusions. The following reports
have been prepared:
Preliminary Archaeological Reconnaissance of Assessor's Parcel
173-062-009" LIB070622) prepared by Archaeological
Consulting, Salinas, California, November 26, 2007.
Biological survey report for the Warren and Marjorie Wayland
Property" LIB070623) prepared by Ed Mercurio Biological
Consultant, Salinas, California, October 31, 2007.
Feasibility Level Geotechnical Investigation for Wayland
Property" LIB070625) prepared by Haro, Kasunich and
Associates, Inc., Watsonville, California, October 2007.
Preliminary Geologic Investigation Wayland Property"
LIB070626) prepared by Rogers E. Johnson & Associates,
Watsonville, California, October 16, 2007.
Forest Management Plan for the Wayland Property" LIB070627)
prepared by Ralph Osterling Consultants, Inc., San Mateo,
California, October 30, 2007.
Traffic Analysis for Warren and Marjorie Wayland Subdivision"
LIB070628) prepared by Higgins Associates Civil & Traffic
Engineers, Gilroy, California, October 29, 2007.
Septic Report for Parcels 2, 3, and 4 Wayland Subdivision
LIBI10030) prepared by Grice Engineering and Geology, Inc.,
Salinas, California, February 2010.
e) The percolation and groundwater report prepared by the applicant's
consultant for the proposed Wayland Property did not demonstrate
adequate feasibility for the installation of septic systems and associated
leach fields, to the satisfaction of the Environmental Health Bureau
EHB") and Monterey County Code Chapter 15.20. The study
identified soil make-up consisting of clay and silts, which form
impermeable layers, resulting in sheet flow of subsurface water,
requiring complex engineering curtain drains and berms) to collect and
divert subsurface water before it would infiltrate and hydraulically
overload the wastewater system. In addition, the percolation data
suggests the upper soils are not suitable and would require deep trenches
to allow for slow percolation; which allow little or no air filtration for
the aerobic treatment of effluent. According to the Environmental
Health Bureau, the combination of soil characteristics, evidence of
subsurface sheeting water and moderate to failing percolation test results
would result in a rapid failure of the septic disposal system, despite the
Exhibit B
Wayland and Merrill
Page 4 of 13
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
B.-U02
DRAFT-U02
BOARD-U02
RESOLUTION-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109790-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT B. DRAFT BOARD RESOLUk�engineering mitigations that are proposed. The lack of reliable onsite
wastewater treatment systems for the proposed minor subdivision makes
the site unsuitable for such development, unless it is hooked to a sanitary
sewer system.
f) Health and Safety. The proposed project as designed will, under the
circumstances of the particular application, be detrimental to the health,
safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing
and working in the neighborhood and the general welfare of the County.
g) Necessary public facilities are not available and are not provided for the
proposed project. On-site wastewater systems have been determined to
not be feasible on the subject property. See Sewage Disposal sections
below.
h) Easements. The subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict
with easements. The project, as designed, would require the creation and
conveyance of easements necessary for drainage, utilities, the off-site well,
and development and construction of roadways.
i) Water Supply. Monterey County Code MCC) Section 19.10.070
requires that provisions shall be made for such domestic water supply as
may be necessary to protect public health, safety, or welfare, that the
source of supply is adequate and potable, and that there is proof of a
long term water supply with the proposed project. Section 19.03.015.L
MCC, applicable through section 19.04.15, requires Water Supply and
Nitrate Loading Information in order to assess these conditions. The
proposed water supply for the project is a common well, located off-site
on an adjacent parcel. Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations
sets forth the maximum contaminant level MCL") for arsenic at. 0 10
mg/l or commonly expressed as 10 parts per billion ppb). Water
sources exceeding the MCL require treatment of the water supply prior
to delivery to the consumers so that the MCL is not exceeded. Monterey
County Code Chapter 15.04 requires that a state small water system has
adequate financial, managerial, and technical capability to assure the
delivery of pure and wholesome water for human consumption".
Section 15.04.050.a.2.) Monterey County Code Chapters 19.03 and
19.04 require evidence demonstrating how technical, managerial, and
financial capacity TMF") will be achieved. Section 19.03.15.L.2.C.6,
applicable through section 19.04.015.) Based on local/state experience
and United States Environmental Protection Agency documentation of
small water systems, EHB had determined that creation of new water
systems for subdivisions that are less than 15 connections and must
employ treatment technology do not have the TMF to assure the
delivery of pure and wholesome water for human consumption".
Testing data compiled between October 2005 and September 2010 have
shown that arsenic concentration levels range from 6 ppb to as high as
17 ppb. At the time of the Planning Commission hearing the quarterly
average of arsenic was 10.08 ppb indicating that an exceedance of the
MCL would most likely occur and treatment technology would be
required. While the appeal period was pending the applicant supplied
more water quality test results for arsenic. The time period that
includes these samples is October 7, 2005 April 1, 2011, and the
Exhibit B
Wayland and Merrill
Page 5 of 13
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
B.-U02
DRAFT-U02
BOARD-U02
RESOLUTION-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109790-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT B. DRAFT BOARD RESOLUk�recalculated annual quarterly average is 9.04 ppb indicating that the
exceedance would most likely to occur and treatment technology would
be required. On May 3, 2011, a public hearing was held, which resulted
in the Board continuing the matter to January 10, 2012, to allow the
applicants to continue conducting water sampling. Since that time, the
applicants have conducted additional tests in the months of May through
November 2011. The recalculated annual quarterly average October 7,
2005 to November 15, 2011) is 7.9 ppb. Based on the recalculated
annual quarterly average of 7.9 ppb, this allows sufficient safety margin
to determine that a long-term sustainable water supply exists in regards
to water quality. The project has proven a reliable source of long-term
sustainable water that meets water quality standards; therefore the
project is consistent with 2010 General Plan Policy PS-3.9.
j) Sewage Disposal Section 19.03.015.K MCC).
The soil composition and percolation rates of the Wayland property do
not comply with standards for septic disposal Monterey County Code
Chapter 15.20). The rate of percolation varied greatly at different depths
and locations on each lot. Some percolation holes performed at rates
that are within the acceptable range and while other test holes failed
according to Monterey County Code Chapter 15.20. The percolation
data suggests that the upper soils are not suitable for septic dispersal.
Deep trenches would be needed to function primarily to dispose of
effluent. With this approach there would be little to no air in the
soil/sidewalls of the trench to allow growth of aerobic bacteria that
would provide additional treatment of the effluent. Normally shallow
trenches in permeable soils are preferred over deep trenches to provide
for as much aerobic treatment as possible. Due to the low permeability
of the upper soils a shallow system is infeasible for this project. There is
not a consistent rate of percolation within and among all of the lots to
support the subdivision utilizing the proposed Onsite Wastewater
Treatment System OWTS) design.
k) The application, tentative map and supporting materials submitted by the
project applicant to the Monterey County Planning Department for the
proposed development are found in Project File PLN070366.
1) The project planner conducted a site inspection on August 9, 2007 and
December 28, 2010.
3. FINDING: CEQA Exempt): The project is statutorily exempt from
environmental review.
EVIDENCE: a) Public Resources Code Section 21080(b)(5) and California
Environmental Quality Act CEQA) Guidelines Section 15270(a)
statutorily exempt projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves.
4. FINDING: PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The project has been processed in
compliance with Chapter 21.76 for Combined Development Permits.
EVIDENCE: a) On November 2, 2007 the Warren Wayland Trust et al filed an
application with the Monterey County RMA Planning Department for
a Combined Development Permit PLN070366) for a Minor
Subdivision.
Exhibit B
Wayland and Merrill
Page 6 of 13
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
B.-U02
DRAFT-U02
BOARD-U02
RESOLUTION-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109790-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT B. DRAFT BOARD RESOLUk�b) The Combined Development Permit PLN070366) was deemed
complete on October 9, 2008.
c) Action on the project required policy level decisions and the project was
referred to the Planning Commission. The project was brought to public
hearing before the Monterey County Planning Commission on January
26, 2011. The Planning Commission denied the application by a 7-1
vote 2 members absent) PC Resolution No. 11-005).
d) An appeal was timely filed by Warren Wayland, the property owner
appellant") for PLN070366 Wayland) on February 9, 2011.
e) The appeal was brought to public hearing before the Board of
Supervisors on March 29, 2011; continued to May 3, 2011; continued to
January 10, 2012; and again continued to February 7, 2012. At least 10
days prior to the public hearing, notices of the public hearing before the
Board of Supervisors were published in the Monterey County Herald
and were posted on and near the property and mailed to the property
owners within 300 feet of the subject property as well as interested
parties.
f) Staff report, minutes of the Board of Supervisors, information and
documents in Planning file PLN 110079.
5. FINDING: APPEAL AND APPLICANT CONTENTIONS
The appellant requests that the Board grant the appeal, and approve the Combined Development
Permit and Minor Subdivision Application PLN070366). The appeal alleges: there was a lack of
fair or impartial hearing; the findings or decision or conditions are not supported by the evidence;
and the decision was contrary to law. The contentions are contained in the notice of appeal Exhibit
F) and listed below with responses from staff. The Board of Supervisors makes the following
findings regarding the appellant's contentions:
Contention 1- Lack of Fair or Impartial Hearing
The appellant contends that the following are examples of the lack of a fair and impartial hearing:
a) Application of 2010 General Plan policies to a subdivision map application filed in 2007 and
found complete in 2008.
Government Code section 66474.2 part of the state Subdivision Map Act) provides that, Except as
otherwise provided in subdivision b) or c), in determining whether to approve or disapprove an
application for a tentative map, the local agency shall apply only those ordinances, policies, and
standards in effect at the date the local agency has determined the application complete."
Government Code 66474.2(a), emphasis added.) The application in this case comes under the
exception. The exception provided in subdivision b) of section 66474.2 states that if a local agency
has initiated proceedings by way of ordinance, resolution, or motion" and also published a notice
containing a description sufficient to notify the public of the nature of the proposed change in the
general plan, then the local agency may apply any ordinances, policies, or standards enacted or
instituted as a result of those proceedings which are in effect on the date the local agency approves
or disapproves the tentative map." Gov't Code sec. 66474.2(b).)
The County has met the requirements of the exception set out in Government Code section
66474.2(b). Prior to October 16, 2007, a public hearing notice on the draft General Plan was
published, and the Board initiated public hearings on the draft General Plan beginning September
25, 2007 and continuing on October 16 and November 6, 2007 and completed the public hearings in
Exhibit B
Wayland and Merrill
Page 7 of 13
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
B.-U02
DRAFT-U02
BOARD-U02
RESOLUTION-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109790-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT B. DRAFT BOARD RESOLUk �2010. In the course of those hearings, on October 17, 2007, the Board adopted a motion informing
the public that any subdivision applications deemed complete after October 16, 2007 will be subject
to the plans, policies, ordinances, and standards that result from the current General Plan Update
proceedings and that are in effect at the time the application is considered for approval." See Board
order dated October 16, 2007.) Additionally, on October 23, 2007, the Board adopted Ordinance
No. 5090, which extended for one year the relevant provisions of Interim Ordinance No. 5080
related to processing of applications during the General Plan update, and the ordinance provided that
subdivision applications that were not deemed complete as of October 16, 2007 but which may be
processed under that ordinance would be subject to the standards that, as a result of the General Plan
Update, may be in effect at the time the County takes action on the application. Finally, pursuant to
Government Code section 66474.2(b), the County elected to apply the 2010 General Plan to
subdivision applications deemed complete after October 16, 2007 through the adoption of Policy
LU-9.3 of the General Plan. Policy LU-9.3 provides, in relevant part, Applications for standard and
minor subdivisions that were deemed complete on or before October 16, 2007 shall be governed by
the plans, policies, ordinances and standards in effect at the time the application was deemed
complete. Applications for standard and minor subdivision maps that were deemed complete after
October 16, 2007 shall be subject to this General Plan and the ordinances, policies, and standards
that are enacted and in effect as a result of this General Plan."
The Wayland application was deemed complete on October 9, 2008 after October 16, 2007.
Therefore, pursuant to Government Code section 66474.2(b) and General Plan Policy LU-9.3, the
application is subject to the policies of the 2010 General Plan.
b) Departure from adopted standard MCL for the presence of arsenic in water.
The January 26, 2011 Planning Commission decision to deny the application did not represent a
departure from adopted standard MCL for the presence of arsenic in water. Title 22 of the California
Code of Regulations sets forth the MCL for arsenic at 010 mg/1 or commonly expressed as 10 ppb.
Water sources exceeding the MCL require treatment of the water supply prior to delivery to the
consumers so that the MCL is not exceeded. Monterey County Code Chapter 15.04 requires that a
state small water system has adequate financial, managerial, and technical capability to assure the
delivery of pure and wholesome water for human consumption". Section 15.04.050.a.2) Monterey
County Code Chapters 19.03 and 19.04 require evidence demonstrating how technical, managerial,
and financial capacity TMF) shall be achieved Section 19.03.015.L.2.C.6 applicable through
section 19.04.015.) Environmental Health has determined that creation of new water systems with
less than 15 connections i.e local small and state small water systems) and must employ treatment
technology do not have the TMF to assure the delivery of pure and wholesome water for human
consumption" and thus do not effectively protect the public health and safety.
Testing data compiled between August 2007 and September 2010 has shown that arsenic
concentration levels range from 6 ppb to as high as 17 ppb. At the time of the Planning Commission
hearing the quarterly average of arsenic was 10.08 ppb. Arsenic levels can fluctuate based on season
wet/dry), groundwater level dry years vs. wet years), and amount of rainfall, as is demonstrated in
the fluctuating levels of arsenic in this well. The professional opinion of Environmental Health staff
is that an MCL of 10 ppb does not allow any safety margin for fluctuations of arsenic concentration.
If the project was approved and conditions change such that the MCL level continues to exceed the
acceptable threshold, there would not be sufficient TMF to treat the water and protect public health
and safety. The Planning Commission did not find it an acceptable practice to approve a project
with a water source that does not comply with state public health and safety thresholds and where if
Exhibit B
Wayland and Merrill
Page 8 of 13
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
B.-U02
DRAFT-U02
BOARD-U02
RESOLUTION-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109790-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT B. DRAFT BOARD RESOLUk
�MCL concentrations were to increase in the future there would be no way to the treat the water.
Thus the project could not be found to have a long-term sustainable water supply based on the
information available as of the time of the Planning Commission decision.
The applicants have conducted additional tests in the months of May through November 2011. The
recalculated annual quarterly average October 7, 2005 to November 15, 2011) is 7.9 ppb. Based on
the recalculated annual quarterly average of 7.9 ppb, this allows sufficient safety margin to
determine that a long term sustainable water supply exists in regards to water quality. The project
has proven a reliable source of long-term sustainable water that meets water quality standards;
therefore the project is consistent with 2010 General Plan Policy PS-3.9.
c) Departure from adopted standard for septic percolation tests;
The January 26, 2011 Planning Commission decision to deny the application did not represent a
departure from adopted standard(s) for septic percolation tests. At the request of the Environmental
Health Bureau EHB), the applicant prepared a Septic Feasibility Report, which stated that the
Wayland property contained marginal soil composition and percolation rates required for the
installation of conventional septic systems. The report prepared by the applicant's consultant
identified an engineering option for the subdivision, but this solution is not a preferred method, is
prone to failure and would require extensive maintenance, which is often not provided on single
family lots. A letter from EHB containing detailed information relative to the Wayland soil
composition and percolation rates is attached to the staff report Exhibit M of May 3, 2011 Board
of Supervisors Staff Report). After reviewing all relevant composition and percolation rate data
supplied for the Wayland Application, Staff did not have the level of confidence necessary to
support the subdivision utilizing the proposed Onsite Wastewater Treatment System OWTS)
design; therefore staff recommended connection to a sanitary sewer system.
d) Disregard ofLUAC recommendation for project approval.
The January 26, 2011 Planning Commission decision to deny this application did not represent a
disregard of the Greater Monterey Peninsula Land Use Advisory Committee LUAC)
recommendation for project approval. The LUAC reviewed each project relative to visual aesthetics
from State Route 68, locations of proposed residences and nearby land uses. The issues of septic
feasibility and water quality were not known by the LUAC, in addition, the 2010 General Plan had
yet to be adopted; therefore these issues and 2010 General Plan consistency were not addressed or
discussed during at the time of LUAC review. The minutes, notes and comments from the
December 5, 2007 LUAC meeting were attached to the January 26, 2011 Planning Commission Staff
Report for review and consideration by the Planning Commission. The LUAC recommendations are
advisory only and did not limit the discretion of the Planning Commission.
Contention 2 Findings and Decision Not Supported by the Evidence
The appellant contends that the following are examples Findings and Decision not supported by the
evidence:
a) Numerous citations of evidence are actually conclusory findings not supported by
evidence e.g. Finding #2 c], e], fl, and g]).
Evidence provided in Finding No. 2 in the January 26, 2011 Planning Commission resolution for the
Wayland Combined Development Permit PLN070366) are factual statements supported by the
information in the record. Factual evidence taken directly from reports and tests prepared by the
Exhibit B
Wayland and Merrill
Page 9 of 13
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
B.-U02
DRAFT-U02
BOARD-U02
RESOLUTION-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109790-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT B. DRAFT BOARD RESOLUk
�applicants consultants has been provided relative to marginal soil composition and uneven
percolation rates relative to septic feasibility Evidence e]) and the lack of a proven sustainable
long-term water source relative to water quality Evidence f]).
The appellant was afforded due process. The Planning Commission received presentations from
both staff and the applicant, followed by testimony from the public. The applicant was given the
staff report with attached recommended Findings and Evidence for each project, and granted the
opportunity for rebuttal. Upon the close of the public hearing, staff and counsel responded to
questions from the Commission. Following staff's responses, the Commission publicly discussed
the facts and merits of all evidence presented. Subsequently, a motion to deny the Wayland
Combined Development Permit PLN070366) was moved and seconded, followed by a 7-1 vote,
with 2 members absent.
b) The evidence cited in support of Finding #2 is the 2010 General Plan which is inapplicable
to this application.
The 2010 General Plan does apply to these applications. See Response 1 a above.
c) Finding #2 1) and 2) the proposed project is not consistent with applicable general plan is
not supported by substantial evidence see Contention 1 a above).
Finding No. 2 contains the required findings for subdivisions; items 1) and 2) of that finding
require the project to be evaluated for consistency with policies in the applicable general plan and
specific plans. No specific plan has been developed for the Toro area; the applicable general plan
for this Application is the 2010 General Plan; therefore the project was analyzed in relation to the
policies of the appropriate document. See Response la above.
d) Finding #2 3) and 4) that site is not suitable for the type and density of development
proposed is not supported by substantial evidence in the record.
Finding No. 2 contains the required findings for subdivisions; items 3) and 4) of that finding
require that the decision making body determine whether the site is suitable for the type and density
of development proposed. This specific threshold of site suitability can not be supported. The
projects were reviewed by numerous County departments; the Environmental Health Bureau and
RMA Planning Department expressed concerns relative to septic feasibility and long-term
sustainable water supply water quality). Evidence demonstrating that the site is physically
unsuitable for the type and density of the development is contained in subsections j Water Supply)
and k Sewage Disposal] of Finding No. 2 of the January 26, 2011 Wayland Planning Commission
resolution.
Sewage disposal could be served by a connection to the Pasaderal Laguna Seca/York wastewater
treatment facility. The Pasadera/ Laguna Seca/York wastewater treatment facility operated by Cal
Am has a permitted capacity of 110,000 gallons per day GPD) and is presently running at about
60,000 GPD with 385 connections. A representative from Cal Am indicated that the company is
always looking for more connections for the treatment plant.
The applicants have conducted additional tests in the months of May through November 2011. The
recalculated annual quarterly average October 7, 2005 to November 15, 2011) is 7.9 ppb. Based on
the recalculated annual quarterly average of 7.9 ppb, this allows sufficient safety margin to
Exhibit B
Wayland and Merrill
Page 10 of 13
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
B.-U02
DRAFT-U02
BOARD-U02
RESOLUTION-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109790-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT B. DRAFT BOARD RESOLUk
�determine that a long term sustainable water supply exists in regards to water quality. The project
has proven a reliable source of long-term water that meets water quality standards; therefore the
project is consistent with 2010 General Plan Policy PS-3.9.
e) Finding #2 5) that the design of the project is likely to cause substantial environmental
damage and substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat is not
supported by substantial evidence.
Finding No. 2 contains the required findings for subdivision, item 5) is related to subdivision
improvements causing adverse environmental damage. This specific threshold point was not
addressed in the January 26, 2011 Planning Commission staff report, as this was not a factor in the
Planning Commission's decision.
J)
Citations to the 2010 General Plan are not substantial evidence to support Finding #2 See
Contention la above).
See Response 1 a above.
Contention 3 The Decision was Contrary to Law
The appellant contends that the following are examples of the decision being contrary to law:
a) Application of 2010 General Plan policies to subdivision map application filed in 2007 and
found complete in 2008 is contrary to Government Code 66474.2.
Application of the 2010 General Plan does not violate Government Code 66474.2. See Response
1 a above.
b) Departure from adopted standard MCL) for the presence of arsenic in water is arbitrary
and capricious.
See Response lb above.
c) Departure from adopted standard for septic percolation tests is arbitrary and capricious.
See Response 1 c above.
d) Citing as evidence conclusory statements not supported by evidence e.g. Finding #2, c],
e], f, and g/) is contrary to law.
See Response 2a above.
Contention 4 Disagreement with Findings.
The appellant states they disagree with findings based on the following:
a) Numerous citations of evidence are actually conclusory findings not supported by
evidence e.g. Finding #2 c], e], fj, and gJ).
See Response 2a above.
Exhibit B
Wayland and Merrill
Page 11 of 13
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
B.-U02
DRAFT-U02
BOARD-U02
RESOLUTION-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109790-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT B. DRAFT BOARD RESOLUk
�b) The evidence cited in support of Finding #2 is the 2010 General Plan which is inapplicable
to this application.
See Response 1 a above
c) Finding #2 1) and 2) the proposed project is not consistent with applicable general plan is
not supported by substantial evidence see Contention 1a above).
See Response 2c and la above.
d) Finding #2 3) and 4) that site is not suitable for the type and density of development
proposed is not supported by substantial evidence in the record.
See Response 2d above.
e) Finding #2 5) that the design of the project is likely to cause substantial environmental
damage and substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat is not
supported by substantial evidence.
See Response to 2e above.
Exhibit B
Wayland and Merrill
Page 12 of 13
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
B.-U02
DRAFT-U02
BOARD-U02
RESOLUTION-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109790-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT B. DRAFT BOARD RESOLUk�II. DECISION
NOW, THEREFORE, BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS AND EVIDENCE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors does hereby:
1. Deny the appeal by Warren Wayland from the Planning Commission's decision denying the
application for a Combined Development Permit Wayland/PLN070366); and
2. Deny the application for a Combined Development Permit Wayland/PLN070366) consisting
of: 1) Minor Subdivision Vesting Tentative Map to allow the division of a 38-acre parcel into
four parcels of 9.7 acres Parcel 1), 5.3 acres Parcel 2), 9.3 acres Parcel 3), 5.2 acres Parcel
4) and a remainder parcel of 8.8 acres; 2) Use Permit for development on slopes in excess of
25 percent for roadway improvements; 3) Use Permit for development in a visually sensitive
area VS" District); and 4) Use Permit to allow the removal of approximately 39 oak trees;
and grading of approximately 3,800 cubic yards of cut and 3,800 cubic yards of fill,
installation of individual septic systems, a 50 foot by 50 foot water tank easement with a
100,000 gallon water tank and 15 foot wide utility easement, a 60-foot wide road and utility
easement and a 30-foot wide road and utility easement
PASSED AND ADOPTED on this 7th day of February, 2012, by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
I, Gail T. Borkowski, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Monterey, State of California, hereby certify
that the foregoing is a true copy of an original order of said Board of Supervisors duly made and entered in the minutes
thereof of Minute Book for the meeting on
Dated: Gail T. Borkowski, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
County of Monterey, State of California
By
Deputy
Exhibit B
Wayland and Merrill
Page 13 of 13
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
B.-U02
DRAFT-U02
BOARD-U02
RESOLUTION-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109790-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT A. DISCUSSION OF PROPk �Exhibit A
Discussion of Proposed Projects
Merrill PLNI 10078)
Wayland PLN1 10079)
Board of Supervisors
February 7, 2012
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
A.-U02
DISCUSSION-U02
OF-U02
PROPOSED-U02
PROJECTS-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109791-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT A. DISCUSSION OF PROPk �EXHIBIT A
PROJECT OVERVIEW AND BACKGROUND:
The project sites are located adjacent to Highway 68 about 4 miles north of Monterey, across from the
Bishop RanchlPasadera development. Each project involves the minor subdivision of adjacent parcels.
The Wayland parcel, approximately 38 acres, is proposed to be subdivided into four separate parcels of
9.7 acres Parcel 1), 5.3 acres Parcel 2), 9.3 acres Parcel 3), 5.2 acres Parcel 4) and a remainder parcel
of 8.8 acres. The Merrill parcel, approximately 37.8 acres, is proposed to be subdivided into three
separate parcels of 10.5 acres Parcel 1), 13.8 acres Parcel 2), 7.5 acres Parcel 3) and a remainder
parcel of 6.0 acres. Together, the adjacent subdivisions would convert two existing parcels into seven
separate parcels and two remainder lots 9 lots total), on land located adjacent to State Route 68 a
designated Scenic Highway). The properties are zoned LDR/5.1-VS Low Density Residential, with a
Visual Sensitivity Overlay), and considered Highly Sensitive" in Figure 14 Scenic Highway Corridors
& Visual Sensitivity) of the 2010 Monterey County General Plan.
The Wayland Minor Subdivision PLN070366) and Merrill Minor Subdivision PLN070376) were
scheduled for consideration by the Monterey County Planning Commission on January 26, 2011. The
Planning Commission denied both the Wayland Minor Subdivision and Combined Development Permit
PLN070366) and Merrill Minor Subdivision and Combined Development Permit PLN070376) by a 7-
1 vote, with 2 members absent Exhibits H and I).
ANALYSIS:
In order to approve the Combined Development Permit for either the Wayland Minor Subdivision
PLN070366) or the Merrill Minor Subdivision PLN070376) specific findings are required to be made
including but no limited to: 1) Proof of a reliable long-term sustainable water supply quantity and
quality); 2) 2010 General Plan consistency; and 3) compliance with public health and safety standards.
Water Quantity
The proposed water supply for the projects is a common well off-site adjacent parcel) that lies within
the court adjudicated Seaside Groundwater Basin in the Laguna Seca sub-basin). The Superior Court's
decision in the adjudication of the Laguna Seca sub-basin finds that 5 acre-feet or less of annual water
use by any person or entity is considered diminimus and not likely to significantly contribute to a
material injury to the Seaside Basin California American Water v. City of Seaside et al Case No.
M66343)]. In addition, the Court precluded environmental review regarding the impact of taking water
from the Seaside basin as long as the proposed project's water use is less than the 5 acre feet. For these
reasons, the County is compelled to acknowledge that the applicant has a long-term sustainable water
supply with respect to quantity.
Water Quality
Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations sets forth the maximum contaminant level MCL") for
arsenic at 010 mg/l or commonly expressed as 10 ppb. When a public water system 15 connections or
more) as defined in Title 22 exceeds a quarterly annual average of 10 ppb then that public water system
must either provide treatment or secure another water source so that the water delivered to the consumer
meets the MCL for arsenic.
Monterey County Code Section 15.04.050.a.2 requires that a small water system 5-14 connections)
must show adequate capability to assure the delivery of pure and wholesome water for human
consumption". Monterey County Code Section 19.03.015.L.2.C.6 applicable through section 19.04.15)
Exhibit A
Wayland Minor Subdivision Appeal PLN 110079)
Merrill Minor Subdivision Appeal PLN 110078)
Page 1 of 7
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
A.-U02
DISCUSSION-U02
OF-U02
PROPOSED-U02
PROJECTS-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109791-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT A. DISCUSSION OF PROPk �requires evidence demonstrating how technical, managerial, and financial capacity TMF") shall be
achieved. The Monterey County Environmental Health Bureau EHB") and California Department of
Public Health staff are continually confronting the challenges that small systems face locally and
throughout the state in addressing arsenic exceedences as well as other regulatory issues through
regulatory interaction with small water systems. These small systems do not have the TMF to maintain
and operate treatment plants. Based on local/state experience and United States Environmental
Protection Agency documentation of small water systems, EHB has determined that creation of new
water systems for subdivisions that are less than 15 connections and that must employ treatment
technology do not have the TMF to assure the delivery of pure and wholesome water for human
consumption". The 1982 General Plan and the new 2010 General Plan both encourage consolidation of
water systems acknowledging the larger water systems 15 connections or more) have the TMF to
operate and maintain water systems so as to be able to provide pure and wholesome water.
According to the submitted test data for the Wayland and Merrill applications, the arsenic levels have
been fluctuating above and below the MCL of 10 ppb with a high of 17 ppb and a low of 6 ppb. Prior to
the Planning Commission hearing of January 26, 2011, the annual quarterly average for arsenic was
10.08 ppb. This average represents the test data between October 7, 2005 and June 30, 2010 See
attached table of results). It is EHB's opinion that a calendar quarterly average of 10 ppb does not allow
any safety margin for fluctuations of arsenic concentration that would require treatment. Given the
sampling results showing that the arsenic has fluctuated above and below the MCL, EHB could not, at
that time, recommend a finding of a long-term sustainable water supply in regards to water quality.
EHB was asked by the Planning Commission what concentration of arsenic would be acceptable in
order to consider recommending approval relative to potable water. Richard LeWarne, Assistant
Director of EHB, opined that an annual quarterly average of 8 ppb would provide a safety margin
considering the fluctuations that have been documented.
While the appeal period from the decision of the Planning Commission was pending the applicant
supplied more water quality test results for arsenic concentrations to EHB. Those additional tests are
included in the referenced table. The time period that includes the samples is October 7, 2005 through
April 1, 2011, and the recalculated annual quarterly average is 9.04 ppb.
On May 3, 2011, a public hearing was held before the Board of Supervisors on the appeal. At the
applicant's request, the Board continued the matter to January 10, 2012, to allow the applicants to
continue conducting water sampling. Since that time, the applicants have conducted additional tests in
the months of May through December 2011. Each test showed arsenic levels that appear to be in
compliance with state law relative to the MCL. These additional tests have been included in the
referenced table.
In reviewing the recent tests and prior testing results, it is EHB's opinion that the June 5, 2008 test result
of 17 ppb appears to be an anomalous test result. Therefore, EHB will not consider this result in
calculating the annual Quarterly Average. This practice is consistent with EHB's regular and ongoing
analysis of water quality results from water systems to determine compliance with water quality
standards. The recalculated annual quarterly average October 7, 2011 to November 15, 2011) is 7.9.
Therefore, unless the December test result changes the Annual Quarterly Average above 8 ppb, it is
EHB's opinion there has been demonstrated a reasonable safety margin and a long-term sustainable
water supply in regards to water quality.
Exhibit A
Wayland Minor Subdivision Appeal PLN 110079)
Merrill Minor Subdivision Appeal PLN 110078)
Page 2 of 7
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
A.-U02
DISCUSSION-U02
OF-U02
PROPOSED-U02
PROJECTS-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109791-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT A. DISCUSSION OF PROPk �Merrill Wayland Subdivision Water System
Arsenic Sampling Results by Calendar Quarter ppb)
Calendar Quarter
Date 1 2 3 4
10/7/05 9
8/16/07 6
6/5/08 4-7
8/4/08 6
9/24/09 10
10/29/09 9
1/27/10 11
6/7/10 11
6/30/10 11
9/6/10 6
12/26/10 8
2/28/11 7
4/1/11 7
5/18/11 6
6/14/11 6
7/18/11 6
8/24/11 6
9/14/11 6
10/25/11 6
11/15/11 6
12/15/11 8
N= 11 11 N ii
9
8.7*
Exhibit A
Wayland Minor Subdivision Appeal PLN 110079)
Merrill Minor Subdivision Appeal PLN110078)
Page 3 of 7
6.4
7.9
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
A.-U02
DISCUSSION-U02
OF-U02
PROPOSED-U02
PROJECTS-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109791-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT A. DISCUSSION OF PROPk �6/5/08 Result considered anomalous, not used in calculating 2nd
quarterly averages.
NOTE: Only 1 sample each quarter can be used; therefore during periods of multiple samples in the same quarter, the
samples were average for that quarter.
2010 General Plan Consistency
Both the Wayland and Merrill Minor Subdivision applications were evaluated for consistency with
objectives and policies of the 2010 General Plan; specifically policies related to visual sensitivity along
State Route 68 GMP 3.3-Figure 14), sustainable long-term water GMP 3.14, PS-3.1, PS-3.2, and PS-
3.9) and development on slopes in excess of 25% OS-3.5). The analysis concluded that both
subdivision applications were not consistent with the objectives and policies of the 2010 General Plan.
The evidence supporting this conclusion can be found in Finding and Evidence No. 1 Inconsistency.
Development Evaluation System
2010 General Plan Policy LU-1.19 identifies Community Areas, Rural Centers and Affordable Housing
Overlay Districts as the top priority for development in the unincorporated areas of the County. Outside
of those areas, a Development Evaluation System shall be established and used to evaluate
developments of five or more lots or units and development of equivalent or greater traffic, water and
wastewater intensity. Evaluation criteria shall include but are not limited to: site suitability,
infrastructure, resource management, environmental impacts and potential mitigation, and proximity to
multiple modes of transportation.
At this time, the County has not established a Development Evaluation System DES); however, the
Wayland and Merrill projects would be subject to this requirement, as neither project is located within a
Community Area, Rural Center or Affordable Housing Overlay District. In addition, each project
involves a greater intensity of traffic, water and wastewater service(s). While the DES is not yet in
place, an analysis of these sites would be required prior to project approval.
Sewage Feasibility
The applicant prepared Sewage Feasibility reports for both the Wayland and Merrill Minor Subdivisions
and the EHB reviewed the reports.
After comprehensive review of the reports for the Wayland property, the EHB concluded that this
property possesses marginal soil composition and percolation rates required for the installation of
conventional septic disposal systems. The reports do not demonstrate that there is a consistent rate of
percolation within and among all of the proposed lots to give the EHB the level of confidence necessary
to support the subdivision utilizing the proposed On-site Wastewater Treatment System OWTS) design.
The EHB determined that the Merrill property contained soil compositions having generally acceptable
rate of percolation, suitable for the installation of conventional septic disposal systems.
In the event that the Board were inclined to approve the subdivision proposals, Staff would recommend
that the Wayland Minor Subdivision application be connected to a sanitary sewer system due to the
inadequate soil composition and marginal percolation rates associated with this property. Should the
Wayland property be connected to a sewer network, the adjacent Merrill property would also be
conditioned to connect, as routing of sewer lines would traverse the Merrill property.
Exhibit A
Wayland Minor Subdivision Appeal PLN110079)
Merrill Minor Subdivision Appeal PLN1 10078)
Page 4 of 7
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
A.-U02
DISCUSSION-U02
OF-U02
PROPOSED-U02
PROJECTS-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109791-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT A. DISCUSSION OF PROPk �The closest sanitary sewer system, which could potentially serve the proposed projects, is located across
State Route 68, within the Pasadera Bishop Ranch) subdivision.
The projects could connect to the Pasadera/Laguna Seca/York wastewater treatment facility, operated by
Cal Am. That facility has a permitted capacity of 110,000 gallons per day GPD") and is presently
running at about 60,000 GPD with 385 connections. Thus, the facility has an additional 50,000 GPD
capacity and the possibility of an additional 300 +- connections.
The Wayland property is located about 500 ft. from the sewer treatment plant. A pump station and a
sewer line running under Highway 68 would be needed to connect to the treatment plant. Monterey
County Code Section 15.20.040 Required Connection to Public Sewer" would require the Merrill
property to connect to the Cal Am facility unless certain conditions apply:
A. Except as provided in subdivision B of this Section, no person shall use or maintain any
building or structure where people reside, congregate, or are employed which is within
two hundred 200) feet of an approved sanitary sewer, or which is located on a parcel of
land which abuts a road, street, or alley in which any such sewer has been installed,
unless it is connected to such sewer.
B. The sewer connection specified in subdivision A of this Section shall not be required if:
1. Such building or structure was in existence on June 26, 1981 and is connected to a
septic tank which is functioning in a lawful manner. A system that requires the
pumping of contents more frequently that twice a year to prevent overflow or other
malfunction shall be conclusively presumed to be functioning in a lawful manner,
or,
2. The owner of the sewer refuses to permit such connection; or,
3. The owner or lawful possessor of the building or structure is unable to obtain any
necessary easement for the connection pipe; or,
4. Topographical conditions would make an impossible grade for a connection pipe.
Roger Van Horn, of the EHB, spoke with a Cal AM representative on the morning of December 27,
2011, regarding the possible connection of these two subdivisions to the Cal Am facility. The Cal Am
representative indicated that the company is always looking for more connections for the treatment
plant.
APPEAL(S):
On January 26, 2011, the Planning Commission denied both the Wayland Combined Development
Permit and Minor Subdivision PLN070366) and the Merrill Combined Development Permit and Minor
Subdivision PLN070376); each by a 7-1 vote, with 2 members absent. An appeal was timely filed for
each application, by the respective property owners appellants") Warren Wayland and Susan Merrill,
on February 9, 2011. Each appellant requests that the Board grant the appeal and approve the Combined
Development Permits and Minor Subdivision Applications PLN070366 and PLN070376). The appeals
allege: there was a lack of fair or impartial hearing; the findings and decision are not supported by the
evidence; and the decision is contrary to law. The contentions are contained in the notice of appeal
Exhibit F and G).
Responses to appellants' contentions are found within each of the proposed resolutions presented to the
Board. One of the issues raised in both appeals is which General Plan applies to these applications.
Exhibit A
Wayland Minor Subdivision Appeal PLN110079)
Merrill Minor Subdivision Appeal PLN 110078)
Page 5 of 7
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
A.-U02
DISCUSSION-U02
OF-U02
PROPOSED-U02
PROJECTS-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109791-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT A. DISCUSSION OF PROPk �Both appeals contend that, under Government Code section 66474.2, the 2010 General Plan does not
apply to these applications because they were deemed complete in 2008. Because the issue is
foundational, we address this contention here. As explained below, legally the 2010 General Plan is the
plan applicable to these applications.
Government Code section 66474.2 part of the state Subdivision Map Act) provides that, Except as
otherwise provided in subdivision b) or c), in determining whether to approve or disapprove an
application for a tentative map, the local agency shall apply only those ordinances, policies, and
standards in effect at the date the local agency has determined the application complete." Government
Code 66474.2(a), emphasis added.) The applications in this case come under the exception provided
in subdivision b) of section 66474.2. It states that if a local agency has initiated proceedings by way
of ordinance, resolution, or motion" and also published a notice containing a description sufficient to
notify the public of the nature of the proposed change in the general plan, then the local agency may
apply any ordinances, policies, or standards enacted or instituted as a result of those proceedings which
are in effect on the date the local agency approves or disapproves the tentative map." Gov't Code sec.
66474.2(b).)
The County has met the requirements of the exception set out in Government Code section 66474.2(b).
Prior to October 16, 2007, a public hearing notice on the draft General Plan was published, and the
Board initiated public hearings beginning September 25, 2007 and continuing on October 16 and
November 6, 2007 and completed the public hearing in 2010. In the course of those hearings, on
October 17, 2007, the Board adopted a motion informing the public that any subdivision applications
deemed complete after October 16, 2007 will be subject to the plans, policies, ordinances, and standards
that result from the current General Plan Update proceedings and that are in effect at the time the
application is considered for approval." See Board order dated October 16, 2007/Exhibit M)
Additionally, on October 23, 2007, the Board adopted Ordinance No. 5090, which extended for one year
the relevant provisions of Interim Ordinance No. 5080 related to processing of applications during the
General Plan update, and the ordinance provided that subdivision applications that were not deemed
complete as of October 16, 2007 but which may be processed under that ordinance would be subject to
the standards that, as a result of the General Plan Update, may be in effect at the time the County takes
action on the application. Finally, pursuant to Government Code section 66474.2(b), the County elected
to apply the 2010 General Plan to subdivision applications deemed complete after October 16, 2007
through the adoption of Policy LU-9.3 of the General Plan. Policy LU-9.3 provides, in relevant part,
Applications for standard and minor subdivisions that were deemed complete on or before October 16,
2007 shall be governed by the plans, policies, ordinances and standards in effect at the time the
application was deemed complete. Applications for standard and minor subdivision maps that were
deemed complete after October 16, 2007 shall be subject to this General Plan and the ordinances,
policies, and standards that are enacted and in effect as a result of this General Plan."
The Wayland and Merrill applications were deemed complete in 2008, after October 16, 2007.
Therefore, pursuant to Government Code section 66474.2(b) and General Plan Policy LU-9.3, the
applications are subject to the policies of the 2010 General Plan.
It is important to note that while the appellants identify different findings and evidence as reasons for the
appeal, not every finding need to be negative in order to deny the map(s). All findings must be in the
affirmative to approve a subdivision map; just one negative finding will result in denial. In this
particular case, the Planning Commission determined that a long-term sustainable water supply water
quality) is not available to these projects; thus the projects were denied by the Planning Commission. In
Exhibit A
Wayland Minor Subdivision Appeal PLN110079)
Merrill Minor Subdivision Appeal PLN110078)
Page 6 of 7
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
A.-U02
DISCUSSION-U02
OF-U02
PROPOSED-U02
PROJECTS-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109791-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT A. DISCUSSION OF PROPk �addition, the projects are located in an area designated as highly visually sensitive. General Plan
policies preclude new development in highly sensitive locations. In addition, the Wayland subdivision
cannot support septic waste disposal which would require connection to a public sewer system.
OPTIONS
If the Board of Supervisors chooses to grant the appeal the Board cannot approve the minor subdivisions
for Wayland and Merrill, at this time. Additional project review and environmental analysis are still
required. Although it appears that the water quality may finally be acceptable, issues relative to
conformance with the 2010 General Plan, traffic impacts, sewage/septic impacts, and other potential
environmental impacts remain unresolved. These impacts would need to be analyzed in an initial study.
For example:
Traffic. A traffic analysis was prepared for the project, analyzing the potential impacts to the adjacent
intersection Boots Rd/State Route 68). Denial of this application would result in no impacts to the
Boots Road/SR-68 intersection. However, approval of the application would create impacts that require
analysis and potential mitigation.
Sewage Disposal. The soil composition and percolation rates of the Wayland property do not comply
with standards for septic disposal Monterey County Code Chapter 15.20). The rate of percolation
varied greatly on the lots. Consequently, there is not a consistent rate of percolation within and among
all of the lots to support the subdivision utilizing the proposed Onsite Wastewater Treatment System
OWTS) design. Approval of the application would create impacts that require analysis and potential
mitigation.
Affordable Housing. The projects were reviewed by the Housing and Redevelopment Office relative to
the County's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance No. 04185, as codified in Chapter 18.40 of the Monterey
County Code. Ordinance No. 04185 requires that all new development consisting of three or more lots
or residential units contribute to the Inclusionary Housing Program. The projects would both
individually be subject to this requirement, as the Merrill property would result in the creation of 3
developable lots and 1 remainder 4 lots total); and the Wayland property would result in the creation of
4 developable lots and 1 remainder 5 lots total). However because the Board is denying the
subdivisions, the requirements do not apply. Approval of the application would require review of the
appropriate mechanism for compliance with the requirement.
Parks and Recreation. The project was reviewed by the Monterey County Parks Department relative to
County recreation requirements and/or payment of recreation fees. The projects would both individually
be subject to this requirement, as the Merrill property would result in the creation of 3 developable lots
and 1 remainder 4 lots total); and the Wayland property would result in the creation of 4 developable
lots and 1 remainder 5 lots total). However because the Board is denying the subdivisions, the
requirements do not apply. Approval of the application would require review of the appropriate
mechanism for compliance with the requirement.
Therefore, the Board could, as an alternative to denying the appeal, grant the appeal, but remand the
matter for further project review and environmental analysis, and for consideration by the Planning
Commission in light of the new water quality data, and any further project review.
Exhibit A
Wayland Minor Subdivision Appeal PLN 110079)
Merrill Minor Subdivision Appeal PLN110078)
Page 7 of 7
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
A.-U02
DISCUSSION-U02
OF-U02
PROPOSED-U02
PROJECTS-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109791-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT C. DRAFT BOARD RESOLUk)
�Exhibit C
Draft Board Resolution
PLN070376 Merrill
Merrill PLN1 10078)
Wayland PLN1 10079)
Board of Supervisors
February 7, 2012
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
C.-U02
DRAFT-U02
BOARD-U02
RESOLUTION-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109792-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT C. DRAFT BOARD RESOLUk)
�Exhibit C
Draft Resolution Merrill
Before the Board of Supervisors in and for the
County of Monterey, State of California
Resolution No.
Resolution by the Monterey County Board of Supervisors
to:
1. Deny the appeal by Susan Merrill from the
Planning Commission's decision denying the
application for a Combined Development Permit
Merrill/PLN070376); and
2. Deny the application for a Combined Development
Permit Merrill/PLN070376) consisting of: 1)
Minor Subdivision Vesting Tentative Map to allow
the division of a 37.8 acre parcel into three parcels
of 10.5 acres Parcel 1), 13.8 acres Parcel 2), 7.5
acres Parcel 3) and a remainder parcel of 6.0
acres; and 2) Use Permit for development in a
visually sensitive area VS" District); and grading
of approximately 3,100 cubic yards of grading
combination of cut/fill), individual septic systems
and 60 foot wide road and utility easements.
The appeal by Susan Merrill from the Planning Commission's denial of the Merrill Combined
Development Permit and Minor Subdivision Vesting Tentative Map PLN070376) came on for
public hearing before the Board of Supervisors of the County of Monterey. Having considered
all the written and documentary evidence, the administrative record, the staff report, oral
testimony, and all other evidence presented, the Board of Supervisors hereby finds and decides
as follows:
FINDINGS
1. FINDING: INCONSISTENCY The Project, as designed is inconsistent with the
applicable plans and policies which designate this area as appropriate for
development.
EVIDENCE: a) During the course of review of this application, the project has been
reviewed for consistency with the text, policies, and regulations in:
2010 Monterey County General Plan, including the Greater
Monterey Peninsula Area Plan,
Monterey County Zoning Ordinance Title 21)
Monterey County Subdivision Ordinance Title 19)
Monterey County Public Service Ordinance Title 15)
Conflicts were found to exist during the course of review of the project
indicating inconsistencies with the text, policies, and regulations in these
documents.
b) The proposed project is a Combined Development Permit consisting of:
1) Minor Subdivision Vesting Tentative Map to allow the division of a
37.8 acre parcel into three parcels of 10.5 acres Parcel 1), 13.8 acres
Exhibit C
Wayland & Merrill
Page 1 of 11
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
C.-U02
DRAFT-U02
BOARD-U02
RESOLUTION-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109792-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT C. DRAFT BOARD RESOLUk)
�Parcel 2), 7.5 acres Parcel 3) and a remainder parcel of 6.0 acres; and 2)
Use Permit for development in a visually sensitive area VS" District);
and grading of approximately 3,100 cubic yards of grading combination
of cut/fill), individual septic systems and 60 foot wide road and utility
easements.
c) The property is located at 24915 Boots Road, Monterey Assessor's
Parcel Number: 173-062-008-000), Greater Monterey Peninsula GMP)
Area Plan. The parcel is zoned RDR/5.1-VS Rural Density Residential,
5.1 acre per lot minimum, with Visual Sensitivity Overlay), which allows
residential development of a rural density and intensity. Residences are
an allowed land use for this site.
d) 2010 General Plan Policy GMP 3.3 refers to the Greater Monterey
Peninsula Scenic Highway Corridors and Visual Sensitivity Map Figure
14) to designate visually sensitive" and highly sensitive" areas
generally visible from designated Scenic Highways. The subject
property is designated as highly sensitive" in Figure 14. Subsection d)
of GMP 3.3 states that new development shall not be sited on those
portions of property that have been mapped highly sensitive", unless
such development maximizes the goals, objectives, and policies of the
Greater Monterey Peninsula Area Plan. The proposed minor subdivision
would result in the creation of three new residential parcels and one
remainder lot) located within the designated highly sensitive" area. This
would not maximize the goals, objectives, and policies of the Greater
Monterey Peninsula Area Plan; therefore the project is inconsistent with
2010 General Plan Policy GMP 3.3.
e) The project includes application for a Use Permit for the removal of 39
oak trees and a Use Permit for development in a Visually Sensitive VS)
zone. The requirements for issuance of said Use Permits have not been
addressed at this time, as the project is denied for other reasons. See
Finding 2).
f) Title 19 inconsistency See Finding and Evidence 2 below
g) The project was referred to the Greater Monterey Peninsula Land Use
Advisory Committee LUAC) for review on December 5, 2007. Based
on the LUAC Procedure guidelines adopted by the Monterey County
Board of Supervisors per Resolution No. 08-338, this application did
warrant referral to the LUAC because the project is subject to CEQA
review and involves a discretionary permit application and land use
matter which raises significant land use issues. The GMPLUAC
recommended approval of the project by a 4-0 vote 1 absent). It should
be noted however, that at the time of the recommendation, the 2010
General Plan had not been implemented, and substantial issues relative to
water quality had yet to be discovered.
h) The project planner conducted a site inspection on August 9, 2007 and
December 28, 2010.
i) The application, project plans, and related support materials submitted by
the project applicant to the Monterey County RMA Planning
Department for the proposed development found in Project File
PLN070366.
Exhibit C
Wayland & Merrill
Page 2 of 11
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
C.-U02
DRAFT-U02
BOARD-U02
RESOLUTION-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109792-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT C. DRAFT BOARD RESOLUk)
�2. FINDING: SUBDIVISION Section 66474 of the California Government Code
Subdivision Map Act) and Title 19 Subdivision Ordinance) of the
Monterey County Code requires that a request for subdivision be denied if
any of the following findings are made:
1. That the proposed map is not consistent with the applicable general
plan and specific plans.
2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not
consistent with the applicable general plan and specific plans.
3. That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development.
4. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of
development.
5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements is
likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and
avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
6. That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to
cause serious public health problems.
7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will
conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access
through or use of property within the proposed subdivision.
EVIDENCE: a) Inconsistency. The project as designed and conditioned is inconsistent
with the 2010 Monterey County General Plan, and Greater Monterey
Peninsula Area Plan, and Monterey County Subdivision Ordinance Title
19) See Finding 1).
b) Design. The lot design is consistent with the Lot Design Standards of
Section 19.10.030 of the Monterey County Code.
c) Site Suitability. The project has been reviewed for site suitability by the
following departments and agencies: RMA Planning Department,
Monterey County Regional Fire Protection District, Housing and
Redevelopment Office, Parks, Public Works, Environmental Health
Bureau, and Water Resources Agency.
d) Staff identified potential impacts to Biological Resources, Archaeological
Resources, and on-site wastewater treatment feasibility. Technical reports
by outside consultants indicate that there are physical or environmental
constraints rendering the site not suitable for the use proposed. County
staff independently reviewed these reports and concurs with their
conclusions. The following reports have been prepared:
Preliminary Archaeological Reconnaissance of Assessor's Parcel
173-062-008" LIB070657) prepared by Archaeological Consulting,
Salinas, California, November 8, 2007.
Traffic Analysis for Susan and Tom Merrill Subdivision
LIB070658) prepared by Higgins Associates Civil & Traffic
Engineers, Gilroy, California, October 29, 2007.
Feasibility Level Geotechnical Investigation for Merrill Property"
LIB070659) prepared by Haro, Kasunich and Associates, Inc.,
Watsonville, California, November 2007.
Biological survey report for the Tom and Susan Merrill Property"
LIB080571) prepared by Ed Mercurio Biological Consultant,
Salinas, California, October 31, 2007.
Preliminary Geologic Investigation Merrill Property
Exhibit C
Wayland & Merrill
Page 3 of 11
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
C.-U02
DRAFT-U02
BOARD-U02
RESOLUTION-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109792-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT C. DRAFT BOARD RESOLUk)
�LIB110031) prepared by Rogers E. Johnson & Associates,
Watsonville, California, November 2, 2007.
Percolation & Groundwater Study for Parcels I & 2 Merrill
Subdivision LIBI10032) prepared by Grice Engineering and
Geology, Inc., Salinas, California, April 2009.
Second Evaluation Septic Report of Parcel 1 Merrill Subdivision
LIB110033) prepared by Grice Engineering and Geology, Inc.,
Salinas, California, August 2009.
e) Health and Safety. The proposed project as designed will not, under the
circumstances of the particular application, be detrimental to the health,
safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and
working in the neighborhood and to the general welfare of the County.
f) Easements. The subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict
with easements. The project, as designed, would require the creation and
conveyance of easements necessary for drainage, utilities, the off-site well,
and development and construction of roadways.
g) Water Supply. Monterey County Code MCC) Section 19.10.070
requires that provisions shall be made for such domestic water supply as
may be necessary to protect public health, safety, or welfare, that the
source of supply is adequate and potable, and that there is proof of a long
term water supply with the proposed project. Section 19.03.015.L MCC,
applicable through section 19.04.15, requires Water Supply and Nitrate
Loading Information in order to assess these conditions. The proposed
water supply for the project is a common well, located off-site on an
adjacent parcel. Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations sets forth
the maximum contaminant level MCL) for arsenic at 010 mg/l or
commonly expressed as 10 parts per billion ppb). Water sources
exceeding the MCL require treatment of the water supply prior to delivery
to the consumers so that the MCL is not exceeded. Monterey County
Code Chapter 15.04 requires that a state small water system has adequate
financial, managerial, and technical capability to assure the delivery of
pure and wholesome water for human consumption". Section
15.04.050.a.2.) Monterey County Code Chapters 19.03 and 19.04 require
evidence demonstrating how technical, managerial, and financial capacity
TMF) will be achieved. Section 19.03.15.L.2.C.6, applicable through
section 19.04.015.) Based on local/state experience and United States
Environmental Protection Agency documentation of small water systems,
EHB had determined that creation of new water systems for subdivisions
that are less than 15 connections and must employ treatment technology
do not have the TMF to assure the delivery of pure and wholesome water
for human consumption". Testing data compiled between October 2005
and September 2010 has shown that arsenic concentration levels range
from 6 ppb to as high as 17 ppb. At the time of the Planning Commission
hearing the quarterly average of arsenic was 10.08 ppb indicating that an
exceedance of the MCL would most likely occur and treatment
technology would be required. While the appeal period was pending the
applicant supplied more water quality test results for arsenic. The time
period that includes these samples is October 7, 2005 April 1, 2011, and
the recalculated annual quarterly average is 9.04 ppb indicating that the
Exhibit C
Wayland & Merrill
Page 4 of 11
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
C.-U02
DRAFT-U02
BOARD-U02
RESOLUTION-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109792-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT C. DRAFT BOARD RESOLUk)
�exceedance would occur and treatment technology would be required. On
May 3, 2011, a public hearing was held, which resulted in the Board
continuing the matter to January 10, 2012, to allow the applicants to
continue conducting water sampling. Since that time, the applicants have
conducted additional tests in the months of May through November 2011.
The recalculated annual quarterly average October 7, 2005 to November
15, 2011) is 7.9 ppb. Based on the recalculated annual quarterly average
of 7.9 ppb, this allows sufficient safety margin to determine that a long
term sustainable water supply exists in regards to water quality. The
project has proven a reliable source of long-term water that meets water
quality standards; therefore the project is consistent with 2010 General
Plan Policy PS-3.9.
h) Sewage Disposal Section 19.03.015.K MCC).
The percolation and groundwater studies for the proposed Merrill
Property demonstrates adequate feasibility for the installation of septic
systems and associated leach fields, to the satisfaction of the
Environmental Health Bureau EHB) and Monterey County Code 15.20,
based upon soil make-up and percolation rates. Specific design
requirements for individual septic systems are contained within the
technical reports prepared for the project. However, Monterey County
Code Section 15.20.040.A. Required Connection to Public Sewer) would
require the Merrill property to connect to the Pasadera/Laguna Seca/York
wastewater facility if the Wayland Minor Subdivision PLN110079) is
approved and required to connect to the wastewater facility.
i) The application, tentative map and supporting materials submitted by the
project applicant to the Monterey County Planning Department for the
proposed development are found in Project File PLN070366.
j) The project planner conducted a site inspection on August 9, 2007 and
December 28, 2010.
3. FINDING: CEQA Exempt): The project is statutorily exempt from environmental
review.
EVIDENCE: a) Public Resources Code Section 21080(b)(5) and California
Environmental Quality Act CEQA) Guidelines Section 15270(a)
statutorily exempts projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves.
4. FINDING: PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The project has been processed in
compliance with Chapter 21.76 for Combined Development Permits.
EVIDENCE: a) On November 15, 2007 the Thomas Merrill Trust et al filed an
application with the Monterey County RMA Planning Department for a
Combined Development Permit PLN070376) for a Minor Subdivision.
b) The Combined Development Permit PLN070376) was deemed complete
on October 9, 2008.
c) Action on the project required policy level decisions and the project was
referred to the Planning Commission. The project was brought to public
hearing before the Monterey County Planning Commission on January
26, 2011. The Planning Commission denied the application under the
same motion with a 7-1 vote 2 members absent) PC Resolution No. 11-
006).
Exhibit C
Wayland & Merrill
Page 5 of 11
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
C.-U02
DRAFT-U02
BOARD-U02
RESOLUTION-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109792-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT C. DRAFT BOARD RESOLUk)
�d) An appeal was timely filed by Susan Merrill, the property owner
appellant") for PLN070376 Wayland) on February 9, 2011.
e) The appeal was brought to public hearing before the Board of
Supervisors on March 29, 2011; continued to May 3, 2011; continued to
January 10, 2012; and again continued to February 7, 2012. At least 10
days prior to the public hearing, notices of the public hearing before the
Board of Supervisors were published in the Monterey County Herald and
were posted on and near the property and mailed to the property owners
within 300 feet of the subject property as well as interested parties.
f) Staff report, minutes of the Board of Supervisors, information and
documents in Planning file PLN 110078.
5. FINDING: APPEAL AND APPLICANT CONTENTIONS
The appellant requests that the Board grant the appeal and approve the Combined Development
Permit and Minor Subdivision Application PLN070376). The appeal alleges: there was a lack
of fair or impartial hearing; the findings or decision or conditions are not supported by the
evidence; and the decision was contrary to law. The contentions are contained in the notice of
appeal Exhibit G) and listed below with responses from staff. The Board of Supervisors makes
the following finding regarding the appellant's contentions:
Contention 1- Lack of Fair or Impartial Hearing
The appellant contends that the following are examples of the lack of a fair and impartial
hearing:
a) Application of 2010 General Plan policies to a subdivision map application filed in 2007
and found complete in 2008.
Government Code section 66474.2 part of the state Subdivision Map Act) provides that, Except
as otherwise provided in subdivision b) or c), in determining whether to approve or disapprove
an application for a tentative map, the local agency shall apply only those ordinances, policies,
and standards in effect at the date the local agency has determined the application complete."
Government Code 66474.2(a), emphasis added.) The application in this case come under the
exception. The exception provided in subdivision b) of section 66474.2 states that if a local
agency has initiated proceedings by way of ordinance, resolution, or motion" and also published
a notice containing a description sufficient to notify the public of the nature of the proposed
change in the general plan, then the local agency may apply any ordinances, policies, or
standards enacted or instituted as a result of those proceedings which are in effect on the date the
local agency approves or disapproves the tentative map." Gov't Code sec. 66474.2(b).)
The County has met the requirements of the exception set out in Government Code section
66474.2(b). Prior to October 16, 2007, a public hearing notice on the draft General Plan was
published, and the Board initiated public hearings on the draft General Plan beginning
September 25, 2007 and continuing on October 16 and November 6, 2007 and completed the
public hearings in 2010. In the course of those hearings, on October 17, 2007, the Board adopted
a motion informing the public that any subdivision applications deemed complete after October
16, 2007 will be subject to the plans, policies, ordinances, and standards that result from the
current General Plan Update proceedings and that are in effect at the time the application is
considered for approval." See Board order dated October 16, 2007.) Additionally, on October
23, 2007, the Board adopted Ordinance No. 5090, which extended for one year the relevant
provisions of Interim Ordinance No. 5080 related to processing of applications during the
Exhibit C
Wayland & Merrill
Page 6 of 11
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
C.-U02
DRAFT-U02
BOARD-U02
RESOLUTION-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109792-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT C. DRAFT BOARD RESOLUk)
�General Plan update, and the ordinance provided that subdivision applications that were not
deemed complete as of October 16, 2007 but which may be processed under that ordinance
would be subject to the standards that, as a result of the General Plan Update, may be in effect at
the time the County takes action on the application. Finally, pursuant to Government Code
section 66474.2(b), the County elected to apply the 2010 General Plan to subdivision
applications deemed complete after October 16, 2007 through the adoption of Policy LU-9.3 of
the General Plan. Policy LU-9.3 provides, in relevant part, Applications for standard and minor
subdivisions that were deemed complete on or before October 16, 2007 shall be governed by the
plans, policies, ordinances and standards in effect at the time the application was deemed
complete. Applications for standard and minor subdivision maps that were deemed complete
after October 16, 2007 shall be subject to this General Plan and the ordinances, policies, and
standards that are enacted and in effect as a result of this General Plan."
The Merrill application was deemed complete on October 9, 2008; after October 16, 2007.
Therefore, pursuant to Government Code section 66474.2(b) and General Plan Policy LU-9.3,
the applications are subject to the policies of the 2010 General Plan.
b) Departure from adopted standard MCL for the presence of arsenic in water.
The January 26, 2011 Planning Commission decision to deny the application did not represent a
departure from adopted standard MCL for the presence of arsenic in water. Title 22 of the
California Code of Regulations sets forth the MCL for arsenic at 010 mg/1 or commonly
expressed as 10 ppb. Water sources exceeding the MCL require treatment of the water supply
prior to delivery to the consumers so that the MCL is not exceeded. Monterey County Code
Chapter 15.04 requires that a state small water system has adequate financial, managerial, and
technical capability to assure the delivery of pure and wholesome water for human consumption"
Section 15.04.050.a.2). Monterey County Code Chapter 19.03 and 19.04 require evidence
demonstrating how technical, managerial, and financial capacity TMF) shall be achieved
Section 19.03.015.L.2.C.6, applicable through section 19.04.015). Environmental Health has
determined that creation of new water systems with less than 15 connections i.e local small and
state small water systems) and must employ treatment technology do not have the TMF to
assure the delivery of pure and wholesome water for human consumption" and thus do not
effectively protect the public health and safety.
Testing data compiled between August 2007 and September 2010 has shown that arsenic
concentration levels range from 6 ppb to as high as 17 ppb. At the time of the Planning
Commission hearing the quarterly average of arsenic was 10.08 ppb. Arsenic levels can
fluctuate based on season wet/dry), groundwater level dry years vs. wet years), and amount of
rainfall, as is demonstrated in the fluctuating levels of arsenic in this well. The professional
opinion of Environmental Health staff is that an MCL of 10 ppb does not allow any safety
margin for fluctuations of arsenic concentration. If the project was approved and conditions
change such that the MCL level continues to exceed the acceptable threshold, there would not be
sufficient TMF to treat the water and protect public health and safety. The Planning Commission
did not find it an acceptable practice to approve a project with a water source that does not
comply with state public health and safety thresholds and where if MCL concentrations were to
increase in the future the water system would not have the TMF to install and maintain the
treatment system. Thus the project could not be found to have a long-term sustainable water
supply.
Exhibit C
Wayland & Merrill
Page 7 of 11
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
C.-U02
DRAFT-U02
BOARD-U02
RESOLUTION-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109792-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT C. DRAFT BOARD RESOLUk)
�c) Disregard of LUAC recommendation for project approval.
The January 26, 2011 Planning Commission decision to deny this application did not represent a
disregard of the Greater Monterey Peninsula Land Use Advisory Committee LUAC)
recommendation for project approval. The LUAC reviewed each project relative to visual
aesthetics from State Route 68, locations of proposed residences and nearby land uses. The
issues of septic feasibility and water quality were not known by the LUAC, in addition, the 2010
General Plan had yet to be adopted; therefore these issues and 2010 General Plan consistency
were not addressed or discussed during at the time of LUAC review. The minutes, notes and
comments from the December 5, 2007 LUAC meeting were attached to the January 26, 2011
Planning Commission Staff Report for review and consideration by the Planning Commission.
The LUAC recommendations are advisory only and did not limit the discretion of the Planning
Commission.
Contention 2 Findings and Decision Not Supported by the Evidence
The appellant contends that the following are examples Findings and Decision not supported by
the evidence:
a) Numerous citations of evidence are actually conclusory findings not supported by
evidence.
Appellant's allegation relative to cited evidence being conclusory for the Merrill Combined
Development Permit PLN070376) is non-specific so it is not possible to respond to the
applicant's contention. Evidence in the record supports the findings.
The appellant was afforded due process. The Planning Commission received presentations from
both staff and the applicant, followed by testimony from the public. The applicant was given the
staff reports with attached recommended Findings and Evidence for each project, and granted the
opportunity for rebuttal. Upon the close of the public hearing, staff and counsel responded to
questions from the Commission. Following staffs responses, the Commission publicly
discussed the facts and merits of all evidence presented. Subsequently, a motion to deny the
Merrill Combined Development Permit PLN070376) was moved and seconded, followed by a
7-1 vote, with 2 members absent.
b) The evidence cited in support of Finding #2 is the 2010 General Plan which is
inapplicable to this application.
The 2010 General Plan does apply to these applications. See Response 1 a above.
c) Finding #2 1) and 2) the proposed project is not consistent with applicable general plan
is not supported by substantial evidence see Contention la above).
Finding No. 2 contains the required findings for subdivisions; items 1) and 2) of that finding
require the project to be evaluated for consistency with policies in the applicable general plan
and specific plans. No specific plan has been developed for the Toro area; the applicable general
plan for this Application is the 2010 General Plan; therefore the project was analyzed in relation
to the policies of the appropriate document. See Response la above.
d) Finding #2 3) and 4) that site is not suitable for the type and density of development
proposed is not supported by substantial evidence in the record.
Exhibit C
Wayland & Merrill
Page 8 of 11
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
C.-U02
DRAFT-U02
BOARD-U02
RESOLUTION-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109792-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT C. DRAFT BOARD RESOLUk)
�Finding No. 2 contains the required findings for subdivisions; items 3) and 4) of that finding
require that the decision making body determine whether the site is suitable for the type and
density of development proposed. This specific threshold of site suitability can not be supported.
The projects were reviewed by numerous County departments; the Environmental Health Bureau
and RMA Planning Department expressed concerns relative to septic feasibility and long-term
sustainable water supply water quality). Evidence demonstrating that the sites are physical
unsuitability of the type and density of the development is contained in subsections h Water
Supply] and i Sewage Disposal] of Finding No. 2 of the January 26, 2011 Merrill Planning
Commission resolution.
Evidence h] of the Merrill Planning Commission resolution provides specific information on
arsenic testing conducted on the proposed water source between August 2007 and September
2010. Arsenic levels within this time period fluctuated above and below the maximum
contaminant level MCL) of 10 ppb, ranging from as low as 6 ppb parts per billion) to as high as
17 ppb, with an overall average of 10.08 ppb. Based on this average, the Planning Commission
could not find that the project has a reliable source of water. See Response lb above.
The lack of a proven sustainable long-term water source of potable water demonstrated
unsuitability of the type and density of development as proposed in the Merrill Combined
Development Permit PLN070376).
e) Finding #2 5) that the design of the project is likely to cause substantial environmental
damage and substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat is not
supported by substantial evidence.
Finding No. 2 contains the required findings for subdivision, item 5) is related to subdivision
improvements causing adverse environmental damage. This specific threshold point was not
addressed in the January 26, 2011 Planning Commission staff report, as this was not a factor in
the Planning Commission's decision.
Citations to the 2010 General Plan are not substantial evidence to support Finding #2
See Contention 1 a above).
See Response 1 a above.
Contention 3 The Decision was Contrary to Law
The appellant contends that the following are examples of the decision being contrary to law:
a) Application of 2010 General Plan policies to subdivision map application filed in 2007
and found complete in 2008 is contrary to Government Code 66474.2.
Application of the 2010 General Plan does not violate Government Code 66474.2. See
Response 1 a above.
b) Departure from adopted standard MCL) for the presence of arsenic in water is arbitrary
and capricious.
See Response lb above.
Exhibit C
Wayland & Merrill
Page 9 of 11
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
C.-U02
DRAFT-U02
BOARD-U02
RESOLUTION-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109792-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT C. DRAFT BOARD RESOLUk)
�c) Citing as evidence conclusory statements not supported by evidence is contrary to law.
See Response 2a above.
Contention 4 Disagreement with Findings.
The appellant states they disagree with findings based on the following:
a) Numerous citations of evidence are actually conclusory findings not supported by
evidence.
See Response 2a above.
b) The evidence cited in support of Finding #2 is the 2010 General Plan which is
inapplicable to this application.
See Response 1 a above
c) Finding #2 1) and 2) the proposed project is not consistent with applicable general plan
is not supported by substantial evidence see Contention 1 a above).
See Response 2c and la above.
d) Finding #2 3) and 4) that site is not suitable for the type and density of development
proposed is not supported by substantial evidence in the record.
See Response 2d above.
e) Finding #2 5) that the design of the project is likely to cause substantial environmental
damage and substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat is not
supported by substantial evidence.
See Response to 2e above.
Exhibit C
Wayland & Merrill
Page 10 of 11
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
C.-U02
DRAFT-U02
BOARD-U02
RESOLUTION-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109792-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT C. DRAFT BOARD RESOLUk)
�II. DECISION
NOW, THEREFORE, BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS AND EVIDENCE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors does hereby:
1. Deny the appeal by Susan Merrill from the Planning Commission's decision
denying the application for a Combined Development Permit
Merrill/PLN070376); and
2. Deny the application for a Combined Development Permit Merrill/PLN07376)
consisting of: 1) Minor Subdivision Vesting Tentative Map to allow the division
of a 37.8 acre parcel into three parcels of 10.5 acres Parcel 1), 13.8 acres Parcel
2), 7.5 acres Parcel 3) and a remainder parcel of 6.0 acres; and 2) Use Permit for
development in a visually sensitive area VS" District); and grading of
approximately 3,100 cubic yards of grading combination of cut/fill), individual
septic systems and 60 foot wide road and utility easements.
PASSED AND ADOPTED on this 7t' day of February, 2012, by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
I, Gail T. Borkowski, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Monterey, State of California, hereby
certify that the foregoing is a true copy of an original order of said Board of Supervisors duly made and entered in
the minutes thereof of Minute Book for the meeting on
Dated: Gail T. Borkowski, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
County of Monterey, State of California
By
Deputy
Exhibit C
Wayland & Merrill
Page 11 of l I
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
C.-U02
DRAFT-U02
BOARD-U02
RESOLUTION-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109792-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT D & E PROJECT LOCATIOk6�Exhibit D
Project Location Map
PLN070366 Wayland
Merrill PLN1 10078)
Wayland PLN1 10079)
Board of Supervisors
February 7, 2012
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
D-U02
&-U02
E-U02
PROJECT-U02
LOCATION-U02
MAP-WAYLAND/MERRILL-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109793-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT D & E PROJECT LOCATIOk6�APPLICANT: WAYLAND
APN: 173-062-009-000
FILE # PLN070366
PLANNER: AMADOR
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
D-U02
&-U02
E-U02
PROJECT-U02
LOCATION-U02
MAP-WAYLAND/MERRILL-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109793-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT D & E PROJECT LOCATIOk6�Exhibit E
Project Location Map
PLN070376 Merrill
Merrill PLN1 10078)
Wayland PLN1 10079)
Board of Supervisors
February 7, 2012
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
D-U02
&-U02
E-U02
PROJECT-U02
LOCATION-U02
MAP-WAYLAND/MERRILL-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109793-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT D & E PROJECT LOCATIOk6�GREATER MONTEREY PENINSULA
Laguna Seca Rec. Area & Campgrounds
APPLICANT: MERRILL ti
APN: 173-062-008-000 FILE # PLN070376 /�\v
0 2,000
City Limits III I I I I I I
L__~ 300' Limit 2500' Limit Feet
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
D-U02
&-U02
E-U02
PROJECT-U02
LOCATION-U02
MAP-WAYLAND/MERRILL-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109793-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT F & G NOTICE OF APPEAk;�Exhibit F
Notice of Appeal
2/9/ 11)
PLN070366 Wayland
Merrill PLN1 10078)
Wayland PLN1 10079)
Board of Supervisors
February 7, 2012
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
F-U02
&-U02
G-U02
NOTICE-U02
OF-U02
APPEAL-WAYLAND/MERRILL-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109794-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT F & G NOTICE OF APPEAk;�6,N I q
NOTICE CAF APPEAL 130
Monterey County Code
Title 19 Subdivisions)
Title 20 Zoning)
Title 21 Zoning)
DEPUTY
No appeal will be accepted until a unitten decision is given. If you wish to fide an appeal, you
must do so on or before FEB 1 0 2011 I0 days after written notice of the decision has been mailed
to the applicanl.Date of decision JAN 2 6 Z011,.
1. Please give the following information:
a) Your name Warren Wayland
b)
Amass Post Office Box 1879 City Salinas Zip 93902
c) Phone Number 831-759-6306
2. Indicate your interest in the decision by checking the appropriate box:
Applicant
Neighbor
Other please state)
3. Ifyou are not the applicant, please give the applicants name:
4. Indicate the file number of the application that is the subject of the appeal and the decision making body.
5. File Number Type of Application
Area
a) Planning Commission: PLAT 070366 Minor Subdivision GMPA
b) Zoning Administrator.
c) Subdivision Committee:
d) Administrative Permit::
CLERK Uir' HE. B01\TWD
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
F-U02
&-U02
G-U02
NOTICE-U02
OF-U02
APPEAL-WAYLAND/MERRILL-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109794-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT F & G NOTICE OF APPEAk;�Wayland Minor Subdivision
PLN070366
Notice of Appeal
PC Resolution No. 11-005
Attachment A"
7. Reasons forming basis for appeal.
a) Lack of fair and impartial hearing.
i) Application of 2010 General Plan policies to subdivision map
application filed in 2007 and found complete in 2008,
ii) Departure from adopted standard MCL) for the presence of arsenic
in water.
iii) Departure from adopted standard for septic percolation tests.
iv) Disregard of LUAC recommendation for project approval.
b) Findings and decision not supported by the evidence.
i} Numerous citations of evidence" are actually.conclusory findings
not supported by evidence e.g. Finding #2, c], e], f] and g]).
ii) The evidence cited in support of Finding #2 is the 2010 General
Plan which is inapplicable to this application.
iii) Finding #2 1) and 2) the proposed project is not consistent with
applicable general plan is not supported by substantial evidence
see section 7(a)(i) above).
iv) Finding #2 3) and 4) that site is not suited for the type and density
of development proposed is not supported by substantial evidence
in the record.
v) Finding #2 5) that the design of the project is likely to cause
substantial environmental damage and substantially and avoidably
injure fish or wildlife or their habitat is not supported by substantial
evidence.
vi) Citations to the 2010 General Plan are not substantial evidence to
support Finding #2 see section 7(a)(i) above).
c) The decision was contrary to law.
i) Application of 2010 General Plan policies to subdivision map
application filed in 2007 and found complete in 2008 is contrary to
Government Code 66474.2.
1
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
F-U02
&-U02
G-U02
NOTICE-U02
OF-U02
APPEAL-WAYLAND/MERRILL-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109794-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT F & G NOTICE OF APPEAk;�ii) Departure from adopted standard MCL) for the presence of arsenic
in water is arbitrary and capricious.
iii) Departure from adopted standard for septic percolation tests is
arbitrary and capricious.
iv) Citing as evidence conclusory statements not supported by
evidence e.g. Finding #2, c], e], f] and g]) is contrary to law.
8. Disagreement with findings.
a) Numerous citations of evidence" are actually conclusory findings not
supported by evidence e.g. Finding #2, c], e], f] and g]).
b) The evidence cited in support of Finding #2 is the 2010 General Plan which is
inapplicable to this application.
c) Finding #2 1) and 2) the proposed project is not consistent with applicable
general plan is not supported by substantial evidence see section 7(a)(i)
above).
d) Finding #2 3) and 4) that site is not suited for the type and density of
development proposed is not supported by substantial evidence in the record.
e) Finding #2 5) that the design of the project is likely to cause substantial
environmental damage and substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife
or their habitat is not supported by substantial evidence.
2
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
F-U02
&-U02
G-U02
NOTICE-U02
OF-U02
APPEAL-WAYLAND/MERRILL-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109794-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT F & G NOTICE OF APPEAk;� AGENT)
APN 173-062-009-000
MAUREEN WRUCK PLANNING INTERESTED PARTY)
OWNERS)
CONSULTANTS TINKER STOLICHI
AYLAND WARREN TR ET AL
C/O JOEL PANZER 1014 MONTEREY-SALINAS HWY
r'O BOX 1879
21 W. ALISAL STREET, STE, 11 I MONTEREY
CA 93908
SALINAS CA 93902
SALINAS, CA 93901
173-072-040-000,
APN 173-061-003-000 APN 173-011-008-000
173-011-009-000
APN 173-011-011-000
173-075-029-000 173-011-012-000
& 173-011-027-000
STOLICH WHITNEY L TR
PASADERA COUNTRY CLUB LLC MONTEREY COUNTY SPCA INC
1014 MONTEREY-SALINAS HWY
100 PASADERA DR PO BOX 3058
SALINAS CA 93908-8822
MONTEREY CA 93940 MONTEREY CA 93942
APN 173-061-003-000
SYNDER NANCY M TR APN 173-062-007-000 & 173-011-008-000
PARKS FOUNDATION OF MTY COUNTY MERRILL THOMAS TR ET AL
34 EL PASEO PLACE
% PASADERA COUNTY CLUB 14320 RESERVATION RD
SALINAS CA 93901
100 PASADERA DR SALINAS CA 93908
MONTEREY CA 39340
APN 173-062-003-000 & 173-062-004-000
WAYLAND F WARREN & MARJORIE
H WAYLANDS TRS
900 MTY HWY
SALINAS CA 93908
676-3416
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
F-U02
&-U02
G-U02
NOTICE-U02
OF-U02
APPEAL-WAYLAND/MERRILL-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109794-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT F & G NOTICE OF APPEAk;�r~p~~~5 PO6
1
7,, 7
Y, PITNEY BOWES
02 1P q 009.44�
0002611425
MAILED FROM ZIP CODE 93901
APN 173-062-009-000
OWNERS)
WAYLAND WARREN TR ET AL
PO BOX 1879
SALINAS CA 93902
p,FS POST
rte
oh/ PtrwsY BOWES
021P $000.4411
0002611425
MAILED FROM ZIP CODE 93901
APN 173-061-003-000,173-072-040-000,
173-075-029-000
PASADERA COUNTRY CLUB LLC
100 PASADERA DR
MONTEREY CA 93940
q~P~tis PpS.rA~i
PITPIEY BOWES
02 1P $000.441
0002611425
MAILED FROM ZIP CODE 93901
APN 173-061-003-000
PARKS FOUNDATION OF MTY COUNTY
r,~c nnVY) A rnTfJTV x'1.1IR
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
F-U02
&-U02
G-U02
NOTICE-U02
OF-U02
APPEAL-WAYLAND/MERRILL-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109794-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT F & G NOTICE OF APPEAk;�O~A~~~ POSt
PITWEV 6OWES
02 1P $ 000.440
0002611425
MAILED FROM ZIP CODE 93901
APN 173-062-003-000 &,173-062-004-000
WAYLAND F WARREN & MARJORIE
H WAYLANDS TRS
900 MTY HWY
SALINAS CA 93908
POS4,j
1~{ r=PITNEY BOWES
021P 000.44�
0002611425
MAILED FROM ZIPCODE93901
AGENT)
MAUREEN WRUCK PLANNING
CONSULTANTS
C/O JOEL PANZER
21 W. ALISAL STREET, STE. 111
SALINAS, CA 93901
Pg5S Pos'
V�PI7PoEY BOWES
02 1P 000A40
0002611425
MAILED FROM ZIP CODE 93901
APN 173-011-011-000
STOLICH WHITNEY L TR
1014 MONTEREY-SALINAS HWY
SALINAS CA 93908-8822
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
F-U02
&-U02
G-U02
NOTICE-U02
OF-U02
APPEAL-WAYLAND/MERRILL-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109794-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT F & G NOTICE OF APPEAk;�W a v PIYIUEY BOWES
02 1P S 00044�
000261142.5
MAILED FROM ZIP CODE 933901
SYNDER NANCY M TR
34 EL PASEO PLACE
SALINAS CA 93901
wm� PITNEY BOWES
02 1P $000-440
0002611425
MAILED FROM ZIP CODE 93901
INTERESTED PARTY)
TINKER STOLICHI
1014 MONTEREY-SALINAS HWY
MONTEREY, CA 93908
A 4
PITNEV BOWES
9 021P 000A40
00026111425
MAILED FROM ZIPCODE93901
APN 173-011-008-000,173-011-009-000,
173-011-012-000, & 173-011-027-000
MONTEREY COUNTY SPCA INC
PO BOX 3058
+,.r.+.imrn r. t7 r' OQOA')
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
F-U02
&-U02
G-U02
NOTICE-U02
OF-U02
APPEAL-WAYLAND/MERRILL-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109794-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT F & G NOTICE OF APPEAk; �
7 s,/ Pirw~r satJ~s
021P $0W14411
0002611425
h1AILED FROtv1 ZIP CODE 93901
APN 173-062-007-000 & 173-011-008-000
MERRILL THOMAS TR ET AL
14320 RESERVATION RD
SALINAS CA 93908
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
F-U02
&-U02
G-U02
NOTICE-U02
OF-U02
APPEAL-WAYLAND/MERRILL-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109794-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT F & G NOTICE OF APPEAk;
�Exhibit G
Notice of Appeal
2/9/11)
PLN070376 Merrill
Merrill PLN1 110078)
Wayland PLNI 10079)
Board of Supervisors
February 7, 2012
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
F-U02
&-U02
G-U02
NOTICE-U02
OF-U02
APPEAL-WAYLAND/MERRILL-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109794-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT F & G NOTICE OF APPEAk;
�ri- N I 1oa
NOTICE OF APPEAL B 4
%A t-4
Monterey County Code
Title 19 l lB a~ 1U 4~
Subdivisions)
D
f'
OA
CLErm OF I
Title 24
Zonin
g
Title 21 Zoning)
DEPUTY
No appeal will be accepted until a written decision is given. If you wish to file an appeal, you
must do so on or before FEB 10 2011 10 days after written notice of the decision has been mailed
to the appli.canta. Date of decisionJAN 2 6 2011
1. Please give the following information:
a)
b)
your name Susan Merrill
Address 14320 Reservation Road City Salinas Zip 93g08
c) Phone Number
2. Indicate your interest in the decision by checking the appropriate bozo
I Applicant
0 Neighbor
0 Other please state)
3. If you are not the applicant, please give the applicants name:
4. Indicate the file number of the application that is the subject of the appeal and the decision making body.
5.
He Number Type of Application
Area
a) planning Commission: PLN070376 Minor Subdivision GMPA
b) Zoning Administrator.
c) Subdivision Committee:
d) Administrative Permit:
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
F-U02
&-U02
G-U02
NOTICE-U02
OF-U02
APPEAL-WAYLAND/MERRILL-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109794-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT F & G NOTICE OF APPEAk;
�Merrill Minor Subdivision
PLN070376
Notice of Appeal
PC Resolution No. 11-005
Attachment A"
7. Reasons forming basis for appeal.
a) Lack of fair and impartial hearing.
i) Application of 2010 General Plan policies to subdivision map
application filed in 2007 and found complete in 2008.
ii) Departure from adopted standard MCL) for the presence of arsenic
in water.
iii) Disregard of LUAC recommendation for project approval.
b) Findings and decision not supported by the evidence.
i) Numerous citations of evidence" are actually conclusory findings
not supported by evidence.
ii) The evidence cited in support of Finding #2 is the 2010 General
Plan which is inapplicable to this application.
iii) Finding #2 1) and 2) the proposed project is not consistent with
applicable general plan is not supported by substantial evidence
see section 7(a)(i) above).
iv) Finding #2 3) and 4) that site is not suited for the type and density
of development proposed is not supported by substantial evidence
in the record and contradicts findings to the contrary.
v) Finding #2 5) that the design of the project is likely to cause
substantial environmental damage and substantially and avoidably
injure fish or wildlife or their habitat is not supported by substantial
evidence.
vi) Citations to the 2010 General Plan are not substantial evidence to
support Finding #2 see section 7(a)(i) above).
c) The decision was contrary to law.
i) Application of 2010 General Plan policies to subdivision map
application filed in 2007 and found complete in 2008 is contrary to
Government Code 66474.2,
ii) Departure from adopted standard MCL) for the presence of arsenic
in water is arbitrary and capricious.
1
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
F-U02
&-U02
G-U02
NOTICE-U02
OF-U02
APPEAL-WAYLAND/MERRILL-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109794-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT F & G NOTICE OF APPEAk;
�iii) Citing as evidence conclusory statements not supported by
evidence is contrary to law.
8. Disagreement with findings.
a) Numerous citations of evidence" are actually conclusory findings not
supported by evidence.
b) The evidence cited in support of Finding #2 is the 2010 General Plan which is
inapplicable to this application.
c) Finding #2 1) and 2) the proposed project is not consistent with applicable
general plan is not supported by substantial evidence see section 7(a)(i)
above).
d) Finding #2 3) and 4) that site is not suited for the type and density of
development proposed is not supported by substantial evidence in the record
and is contradicted by other findings.
e) Finding #2 5) that the design of the project is likely to cause substantial
environmental damage and substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife
or their habitat is not supported by substantial evidence.
2
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
F-U02
&-U02
G-U02
NOTICE-U02
OF-U02
APPEAL-WAYLAND/MERRILL-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109794-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT F & G NOTICE OF APPEAk;�173-011-008-000 & 173-011-009-000 173-061-003-000
PARKS FOUNDATION OF MTY 173-062-002-000
173-011-027-000 & 173-011-012-000 COUNTY WAYLAND F WARREN ET AL
MONTEREY COUNTY SPCA C/O PASADERA COUNTY CLUB 1 188 PADRE DR
PO BOX 3058 100 PASADERA DR
SAUNAS CA 93901
MONTEREY CA 93942 MONTEREY CA 93940
173-062-003-000 & 173-062-004-000
WAYLAND F WARREN & MARJORIE H
WAYLAND TRS AND
BRAMERS JOHN & JENNIFER
900 MONTEREY SALINAS HWY
SALINAS CA 93908
173-062-007-000 & 173-062-008-000
WAYLAND F WARREN ET AL
& MERRILL THOMAS TR ET AL
OWNER)
14320 RESERVATION RD
SALINAS CA 93908
173-062-009-D00
WAYLAND WARREN TR ET AL
PO BOX 1879
SALINAS CA 93902
173-011-011-000
STOLICH WHITNEY L TR &
TINKER STOLICHI INTERESTED
PARTY)
1014 MONTEREY-SALINAS HWY
MONTEREY CA 93908
APN 416-193-013-000
MEADOR J DOUGLAS & LU ANN
TRS
9648 POPLAR CT
CARMEL CA 93923-8031
APN 416-141-014-000
PROPERTIES REAL ESTATE 2008-09
LLC
40 RYAN CT STE 220
MONTEREY CA 93940
AGENT)
MAUREEN WRUCK PLANNING
CONSULTANTS
ATTN JOEL PANZER
21 W ALISAL ST STE. 111
SALINAS CA 93901
416-151-003-000 & 416-151-004-000
416-141-003-000
WANG PETER C & GRACE L JT TEN)
PO BOX 234
PEBBLE BEACH CA 93953-0234
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
F-U02
&-U02
G-U02
NOTICE-U02
OF-U02
APPEAL-WAYLAND/MERRILL-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109794-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT H & I PLANNING COMMISkJ�Exhibit H
Planning Commission Resolution
No. 11-005
PLN070366 Wayland
Merrill PLN1 10078)
Wayland PLN1 10079)
Board of Supervisors
February 7, 2012
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
H-U02
&-U02
I-U02
PLANNING-U02
COMMISSION-U02
RESOLUTION-WAYLAND/MERRILL-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109795-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT H & I PLANNING COMMISkJ�Before the Planning Commission in and for the
County of Monterey, State of California
In the matter of the application of
Wayland Minor Subdivision PLN070366)
RESOLUTION NO. 11-005
Resolution by the Monterey County Planning Commission
1) Finding the project statutorily exempt from CEQA per
Section 15270.
2) Denying the Combined Development Permit
consisting of Minor Subdivision Vesting Tentative
Map to allow the division of a 38-acre parcel into 4
parcels of 9.7 acres, 5.3 acres, 9.3 acres, 5.2 acres and
a remainder parcel of 8.8 acres; Use Permit for
development of areas in excess of 25 percent for
roadway improvements; Use Permit for development
in a visually sensitive area VS" District); and Use
Permit to allow the removal of an estimated 39 oak
trees; and grading of approximately 3,800 cubic yards
of cut and 3,800 cubic yards of fill. The project
proposes individual septic systems, a 50 foot by 50
foot water tank easement with a 100,000 gallon water
tank and 15 foot wide utility easement, a 60-foot wide
road and utility easement and a 30-foot wide road and
utility easement. The project will be served by an
existing well and a proposed mutual water company.
PLN070366, Wayland Warren Trust, 24975 Boots Road,
Monterey, Greater Monterey Peninsula Area Plan APN:
173-062-009-000)
The Wayland Minor Subdivision PLN070366) application came on for public hearing
before the Monterey County Planning Commission on January 26, 2011. Having
considered all the written and documentary evidence, the administrative record, the staff
report, oral testimony, and other evidence presented, the Planning Commission finds and
decides as follows:
FINDINGS
1 FINDING: INCONSISTENCY The Project, as designed is inconsistent with the
applicable plans and policies which designate this area as appropriate
for development.
EVIDENCE: a) During the course of review of this application, the project has been
reviewed for consistency with the text, policies, and regulations in:
2010 Monterey County General Plan,
Greater Monterey Peninsula Area Plan,
Monterey County Zoning Ordinance Title 21)
Monterey County Subdivision Ordinance Title 19)
Conflicts were found to exist during the course of review of the project
indicating inconsistencies with the text, policies, and regulations in
these documents.
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
H-U02
&-U02
I-U02
PLANNING-U02
COMMISSION-U02
RESOLUTION-WAYLAND/MERRILL-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109795-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT H & I PLANNING COMMISkJ�b) The property is located at 24975 Boots Road, Monterey Assessor's
Parcel Number: 173-062-009-000), Greater Monterey Peninsula Area
Plan. The parcel is zoned RDR/5.l-VS Rural Density Residential, 5.1
acre per lot minimum, with Visual Sensitivity Overlay), which allows
residential development of a rural density and intensity. Therefore, the
project is an allowed land use for this site.
c) 2010 General Plan Policy GMP 3.3 refers to the Greater Monterey
Peninsula Scenic Highway Corridors and Visual Sensitivity Map
Figure 14) to designate visually sensitive" and highly sensitive" areas
generally visible from designated Scenic Highways. The subject
property is designated as highly sensitive" in Figure 14. Subsection d)'
of GMP 3.3 states that new development shall not be sited on those
portions of property that have been mapped highly sensitive", unless
such development maximizes the goals, objectives, and policies of the
Greater Monterey Peninsula Area Plan. The proposed minor
subdivision would result in the creation of three new residential parcels
and one remainder lot) located within the designated highly sensitive"
area. This would not maximize the goals, objective, and policies of the
Greater Monterey Peninsula Area Plan; therefore the project is
inconsistent with 2010 General Plan Policy GMP 3.3.
d) 2010 General Plan Policy GMP 3.14 requires development projects to
be served by water from public utilities or mutual water companies, and
consider the cumulative effects of the developments water use on
wildlife, fish, plant communities, and the supply available to existing
users. The project will not be served by water from a public utility, and
the project proposal is a small water system using a well with in
adequate water quality See Finding and Evidence No. 2 Water
Supply).
e) 2010 General Plan Policies PS-3.1 and PS-3.2 establish requirements for
the proof of a sustainable long-term water source for developments for
which a discretionary permit is required, and that will use or require the
use of water. The project has not proven a reliable source of long-term
water; therefore the project is inconsistent with 2010 General Plan
Policy PS-3.1 and PS-3.2. See Finding and Evidence No. 2 Water
Supply)
f) 2010 General Plan Policy PS-3.9 states that a tentative subdivision map
and/or vesting tentative subdivision map for either a standard or minor
subdivision shall not be approved until the applicant provides evidence
of long-term sustainable water in terms of yield and quality for all lots
to be created. The project has not proven a reliable source of long-term
water; therefore the project is inconsistent with 2010 General Plan
Policy PS-3.9. See Finding and Evidence No. 2 Water Supply)
g) 2010 General Plan Policy OS-3.5 prohibits development on slopes in
excess of twenty-five percent 25%) unless no feasible alternative exists
or the development better achieves the resource protection objectives
and polices contained in the General Plan and accompanying Area
Plans. The proposed project involves the subdivision of an existing
parcel into four new lots and one remainder), requiring the construction
Warren Wayland TR ET AL PLN070366
Page 2of7
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
H-U02
&-U02
I-U02
PLANNING-U02
COMMISSION-U02
RESOLUTION-WAYLAND/MERRILL-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109795-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT H & I PLANNING COMMISkJ�of roads on slopes in excess of 25%; this would not be consistent with
2010 General Plan Policy OS-3.5 and would not achieve the resource
protection objective of either the General Plan or Greater Monterey
Peninsula Area Plan. Feasible alternatives do exist, as the existing 38
acre parcel could be developed for residential use, without development
on slopes in excess of 25%; which would be consistent this policy.
h) Title 19 inconsistency See Finding and Evidence 2 below.
i) The project was referred to the Greater Monterey Peninsula Land Use
Advisory Committee LUAC) for review. Based on the LUAC
Procedure guidelines adopted by the Monterey County Board of
Supervisors per Resolution No. 08-338, this application did warrant
referral to the LUAC because the project is subject to CEQA review and
involves a discretionary permit application and land use matter which
raises significant land use issues.
j) The project planner conducted a site inspection on August 9, 2007 and
December 28, 2010.
k) The application, project plans, and related support materials submitted
by the project applicant to the Monterey County RMA Planning
Department for the proposed development found in Project File
PLN070366.
2. FINDING: SUBDIVISION Section 66474 of the California Government Code
Subdivision Map Act) and Title 19 Subdivision Ordinance) of the
Monterey County Code requires that a request for subdivision be denied if
any of the following findings are made:
1. That the proposed map is not consistent with the applicable general
plan and specific plans.
2. That the design or. improvement of the proposed subdivision is not
consistent with the applicable general plan and specific plans.
3. That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development.
4. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of
development.
5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements is
likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and
avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
6. That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely
to cause serious public health problems.
7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will
conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access
through or use of property within the proposed subdivision.
EVIDENCE: a) Inconsistency. The project as designed and conditioned is inconsistent
with the 2010 Monterey County General Plan, and Greater Monterey
Peninsula Area Plan, and Monterey County Subdivision Ordinance Title
19) Finding 1).
b) Design. The lot design is consistent with the Lot Design Standards of
Section 19.10.030 County Codes.
c) Site Suitability. The project has been reviewed for site suitability by
the following departments and agencies: RMA Planning Department,
Monterey County Regional Fire Protection District, Housing and
Warren Wayland TR ET AL PLN070366
Page 3 of 7
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
H-U02
&-U02
I-U02
PLANNING-U02
COMMISSION-U02
RESOLUTION-WAYLAND/MERRILL-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109795-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT H & I PLANNING COMMISkJ�Redevelopment Office, Parks, Public Works, Environmental Health
Bureau, and Water Resources Agency. The site is physically unsuitable
for the proposed use.
d) Staff identified potential impacts to Biological Resources,
Archaeological Resources, Soil/Slope Stability, and on-site wastewater
treatment feasibility. Technical reports by outside consultants indicated
that there are physical or environmental constraints that would indicate
that the site is not suitable for the use proposed. County staff
independently reviewed these reports and concurs with their
conclusions. The following reports have been prepared:
Preliminary Archaeological Reconnaissance of Assessor's Parcel
173-062-009" LIB070622) prepared by Archaeological Consulting,
Salinas, California, November 26, 2007.
Biological survey report for the Warren and Marjorie Wayland
Property" LIB070623) prepared by Ed Mercurio Biological
Consultant, Salinas, California, October 31, 2007.
Feasibility Level Geotechnical Investigation for Wayland
Property" LIBO70625) prepared by Haro, Kasunich and Associates,
Inc., Watsonville, California, October 2007.
Preliminary Geologic Investigation Wayland Property"
LIB070626) prepared by Rogers E. Johnson & Associates,
Watsonville, California, October 16, 2007.
Forest Management Plan for the Wayland Property" LIB070627)
prepared by Ralph Osterling Consultants, Inc., San Mateo,
California, October 30, 2007.
Traffic Analysis for Warren and Marjorie Wayland Subdivision"
LIB070628) prepared by Higgins Associates Civil & Traffic
Engineers, Gilroy, California, October 29, 2007
Septic Report for Parcels 2, 3, and 4 Wayland Subdivision"
LIB110030) prepared by Grice Engineering and Geology, Inc.,
Salinas, California, February 2010.
e) The percolation and groundwater study for the proposed Wayland
Property did not demonstrate adequate feasibility for the installation of
septic systems and associated leach fields, to the satisfaction of the
Environmental Health Bureau EBB) and Monterey County Code
15.20, based upon soil make-up and marginal and varying percolation
rates. See Sewage Disposal section below.
f) The project has not proven a sustainable long-term water source relative
to water quality. The off-site well being utilized to serve the minor
subdivision tested above the maximum contaminant level MCL) for
arsenic. See Water Supply section below.
g) Health and Safety. The proposed project as designed will, under the
circumstances of the particular application, be detrimental to the health,
safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing
or working in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the County.
h) Necessary public facilities are not available and are not provided for the
proposed project. A source of sustainable long-term water does not
exist, and on-site wastewater systems have not been determined to be
Warren Wayland TR ET AL PLN070366
Paged of 7
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
H-U02
&-U02
I-U02
PLANNING-U02
COMMISSION-U02
RESOLUTION-WAYLAND/MERRILL-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109795-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT H & I PLANNING COMMISkJ�feasible on the subject property. See Water Supply and Sewage
Disposal sections below.
i) Easements. The subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict
with easements. The project, as designed, would require the creation and
conveyance of easements necessary for drainage, utilities, the off-site
well, and development and construction of roadways.
j) Water Supply. Section 19.10.070 MCC requires that provisions shall
be made for such domestic water supply as may be necessary to protect
public health, safety, or welfare, that the source of supply is adequate
and potable, and that there is proof of a long term water supply with the
proposed project. Sections 19.03.015.L MCC requires Water Supply
and Nitrate Loading Information in order to assess these conditions.
Proof that the well is capable of supplying a sustainable long-term
source of potable water has not been demonstrated, as water quality
sampling data has consistently shown the presence of arsenic, which has
fluctuated above and below the maximum contaminant level MCL) of
10 parts per billion ppb). Testing data compiled between August 2007
and September 2010 have shown that arsenic concentration ranges from
6 ppb to as high as 17 ppb, with the overall average being 10.08 ppb;
indicating the well's reliability of staying in compliance is questionable.
Based on this average the Monterey County Environmental Health
Bureau can not make a finding that the project has a reliable source of
water; as no room for public health protection exists if any subsequent
samples show the slightest increase and bring the average over 10 ppb.
The installation of an arsenic treatment system for the off-site well is
not a feasible solution, due to cost of infrastructure and installation.
Technical, managerial, and financial TMF) capability is a requirement
for new water systems to assure delivery of safe water to the consumers
of the system. Water systems with less than 15 connections do not have
the TMF to maintain the complexity, ongoing reliability, and expense of
treatment plants; therefore the proposed water source does not protect
the public health and safety or meet minimum water quality standards
k) Sewage Disposal Section 19.03.015.K MCC).
The soil composition and percolation rates of the Wayland property, do
not adequately comply with Monterey County Code 15.20. The rate of
percolation varied greatly at different depths and locations on each lot.
Some percolation holes performed at rates that are within the acceptable
range and while other rates failed according to Monterey County Code
15.20. The percolation data suggests that the upper soils are not
suitable for septic dispersal. Deep trenches would function primarily as
disposal of effluent; there will be little to no air in the soil/sidewalls of
the trench to allow growth of aerobic bacteria that would provide
additional treatment of the effluent. Shallow trenches in permeable
soils are preferred over deep trenches to provide for as much aerobic
treatment as possible. Due to the low permeability of the upper soils a
shallow system is infeasible for this project. There is not a consistent
rate of percolation within and among all of the lots to support the
subdivision utilizing the proposed Onsite Wastewater Treatment System
Warren Wayland TR ET AL PLN070366
Page 5 of 7
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
H-U02
&-U02
I-U02
PLANNING-U02
COMMISSION-U02
RESOLUTION-WAYLAND/MERRILL-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109795-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT H & I PLANNING COMMISkJ�OWTS) designs. It is not good practice to create new lots with OWTS
that have a high potential for failure due to existing environmental and
geologic conditions.
1) Traffic. A traffic analysis was prepared for the project, analyzing the
potential impacts to the adjacent intersection Boots Rd/State Route 68).
Denial of this application would result in no impacts to the Boots
Road/SR-68 intersection or intersections along State Route 68.
m) Affordable Housing. The project was reviewed by the Housing and
Redevelopment Office relative to the County's Inclusionary Housing
Ordinance No. 04185, as codified in Section 18.40.060 of County Code.
Ordinance No. 04185 requires that all new development consisting of
three or more lots or residential units contribute to the Inclusionary
Housing Program. The project would be subject to this requirement, as
it is developing 4 new lots.
n) Parks and Recreation. The project as reviewed by the Monterey
County Parks department relative to County recreation requirements
and/or payment of recreation fees. The project would be subject to this
requirement, due to the creation of 4 new lots.
o) The application, tentative map and supporting materials submitted by
the project applicant to the Monterey County Planning Department for
the proposed development are found in Project File PLN070366.
p) The project planner conducted a site inspection on August 9, 2007 and
December 28, 2010.
3. FINDING: CEQA Exempt): The project is statutorily exempt from
environmental review and no unusual circumstances were identified to
exist for the proposed project.
EVIDENCE: a) California Environmental Quality Act CEQA) Guidelines Section
15270(a) statutorily exempts projects which a public agency rejects or
disapproves.
4. FINDING: APPEALABILITY The decision on this project may be appealed to the
Board of Supervisors.
EVIDENCE: a) Section 21.80.040(D) Monterey County Zoning Ordinance.
DECISION
NOW, THEREFORE, based on the above findings and evidence, the Planning Commission
does hereby:
A) Find PLN070366 statutorily exempt per Section 15270(a) of the California
Environmental Quality Act Guidelines; and
B) Deny PLN070366 Wayland Minor Subdivision) based on the findings and evidence:
Warren Wayland TR ET AL PLN070366
Page 6of7
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
H-U02
&-U02
I-U02
PLANNING-U02
COMMISSION-U02
RESOLUTION-WAYLAND/MERRILL-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109795-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT H & I PLANNING COMMISkJ�PASSED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of January, 2011 upon motion of Commissioner Diehl,
seconded by Commissioner Padilla, by the following vote:
AYES: Getzelman, Vandevere, Roberts, Salazar, Mendez, Diehl, Padilla
NOES: Brown
ABSENT: Rochester, Ottone
ABSTAIN: None
WAL
Mike Novo,-Secretary, Planning Commission
COPY OF THIS DECISION MAILED TO APPLICANT ON
JAN 3 2011.
THIS APPLICATION IS APPEALABLE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
IF ANYONE WISHES TO APPEAL THIS DECISION, AN APPEAL FORM MUST BE COMPLETED
AND SUBMITTED TO THE CLERK TO THE BOARD ALONG WITH THE APPROPRIATE FILING
FEE ON OR BEFORE FEB 1,:0 2011
This decision, if this is the final administrative decision, is subject to judicial review pursuant to
California Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1094.5 and 1094.6. Any Petition for Writ of Mandate must
be filed with the Court no later than the 90th day following the date on which this decision becomes final.
Warren Wayland TR ET AL PLN070366
Page 7 of 7
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
H-U02
&-U02
I-U02
PLANNING-U02
COMMISSION-U02
RESOLUTION-WAYLAND/MERRILL-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109795-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT H & I PLANNING COMMISkJ �PRO CTTE!a
inl r~i~-ram
lal mii~
I.nl>n-
LEGEND
Vnm 4mrt r
PLW 070366
PROPOSED
VESTING
TENTATIVE
PARCEL MAP
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
H-U02
&-U02
I-U02
PLANNING-U02
COMMISSION-U02
RESOLUTION-WAYLAND/MERRILL-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109795-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT H & I PLANNING COMMISkJ
�GREATER MONTEREY PENINSULA
APPLICANT: WAYLAND
APN: 173-062-009-000 FILE # PLN070366
0 1,000
1111111111
Feet
PLANNER: AMADOR
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
H-U02
&-U02
I-U02
PLANNING-U02
COMMISSION-U02
RESOLUTION-WAYLAND/MERRILL-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109795-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT H & I PLANNING COMMISkJ
�Exhibit I
Planning Commission Resolution
No. 11-006
PLN070376 Merrill
Merrill PLN1 10078)
Wayland PLNI 10079)
Board of Supervisors
February 7, 2012
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
H-U02
&-U02
I-U02
PLANNING-U02
COMMISSION-U02
RESOLUTION-WAYLAND/MERRILL-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109795-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT H & I PLANNING COMMISkJ
�Before the Planning Commission in and for the
County of Monterey, State of California
In the matter of the application of
Merrill Minor Subdivision PLN070376)
RESOLUTION NO. 11-006
Resolution by the Monterey County Planning
Commission:
1) Finding the project statutorily exempt from
CEQA per Section 15270(a);
2) Deny the Combined Development Permit
consisting of Minor Subdivision Vesting
Tentative Map to allow the division of a 37.8
acre parcel into three 3) parcels of 10.5 acres,
13.8 acres, 7.5 acres and a remainder parcel
of 6.0 acres; Use Permit for development in a
visually sensitive area VS" District); and
grading of approximately 3,100 cubic yards
of grading combination of cut/fill),
individual septic systems and 60 foot wide
road and utility easements. The project will
be served by an existing well and a proposed
mutual water company. The project will not
involve any tree removal or development in
areas in excess of 25 percent slopes.
PLN070376, Merrill Thomas Trust, 24915 Boots
Road, Monterey, Greater Monterey Peninsula Area
Plan, APN: 173-062-008-000)
The Merrill Minor Subdivision application PLN070376) came on for public hearing before
the Monterey County Planning Commission on January 26, 2011. Having considered all
the written and documentary evidence, the administrative record, the staff report, oral
testimony, and other evidence presented, the Planning Commission finds and decides as
follows:
FINDINGS
1. FINDING: INCONSISTENCY The Project, as designed is inconsistent with the
applicable plans and policies which designate this area as appropriate for
development.
EVIDENCE: a) During the course of review of this application, the project has been
reviewed for consistency with the text, policies, and regulations in:
2010 Monterey County General Plan,
Greater Monterey Peninsula Area Plan,
Monterey County Zoning Ordinance Title 21)
Monterey County Subdivision Ordinance Title 19)
Conflicts were found to exist during the course of review of the project
Wayland Minor Subdivision PLN070366)
Page 1 of 6
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
H-U02
&-U02
I-U02
PLANNING-U02
COMMISSION-U02
RESOLUTION-WAYLAND/MERRILL-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109795-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT H & I PLANNING COMMISkJ
�indicating inconsistencies with the text, policies, and regulations in
these documents.
b) The property is located at 24915 Boots Road, Monterey Assessor's
Parcel Number: 173-062-008-000), Greater Monterey Peninsula Area
Plan. The parcel is zoned RDR/5.1-VS Rural Density Residential, 5.1
acre per lot minimum, with Visual Sensitivity Overlay), which allows
residential development of a rural density and intensity. Therefore, the
project is an allowed land use for this site.
c) 2010 General Plan Policy GMP 3.3 refers to the Greater Monterey
Peninsula Scenic Highway Corridors and Visual Sensitivity Map
Figure 14) to designate visually sensitive" and highly sensitive" areas
generally visible from designated Scenic Highways. The subject
property is designated as highly sensitive" in Figure 14. Subsection d)
of GMP 3.3 states that new development shall not be sited on those
portions of property that have been mapped highly sensitive", unless
such development maximizes the goals, objectives, and policies of the
Greater Monterey Peninsula Area Plan. The proposed minor
subdivision would result in the creation of two new residential parcels
and one remainder lot) located within the designated highly sensitive"
area. This would not maximize the goals, objective, and policies of the
Greater Monterey Peninsula Area Plan; therefore the project is
inconsistent with 2010 General Plan Policy GMP 3.3.
d) 2010 General Plan Policy GMP 3.14 requires development projects to
be served by water from public utilities or mutual water companies, and
consider the cumulative effects of the developments water use on
wildlife, fish, plant communities, and the supply available to existing
users. The project will not be served by water from a public utility, and
the project proposal is a small water system using a well with in
adequate water quality See Finding and Evidence No. 2 Water
Supply).
e) 2010 General Plan Policies PS-3.1 and PS-3.2 establish requirements for
the proof of a sustainable long-term water source for developments for
which a discretionary permit is required, and that will use or require the
use of water. The project has not proven a reliable source of long-term
water; therefore the project is inconsistent with 2010 General Plan
Policy PS-3.1 and PS-3.2. See Finding and Evidence No. 2 Water
Supply)
f) 2010 General Plan Policy PS-3.9 states that a tentative subdivision map
and/or vesting tentative subdivision map for either a standard or minor
subdivision shall not be approved until the applicant provides evidence
of long-term sustainable water in terms of yield and quality for all lots
to be created. The project has not proven a reliable source of long-term
water; therefore the project is inconsistent with 2010 General Plan
Policy PS-3.9. See Finding and Evidence No. 2 Water Supply)
2. FINDING: SUBDIVISION Section 66474 of the California Government Code
Subdivision Map Act) and Title 19 Subdivision Ordinance) of the
Monterey County Code requires that a request for subdivision be denied if
Wayland Minor Subdivision PLN070366)
Page 2of6
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
H-U02
&-U02
I-U02
PLANNING-U02
COMMISSION-U02
RESOLUTION-WAYLAND/MERRILL-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109795-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT H & I PLANNING COMMISkJ�any of the following findings are made:
1. That the proposed map is not consistent with the applicable general
plan and specific plans.
2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not
consistent with the applicable general plan and specific plans.
3. That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development.
4. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of
development.
5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements is
likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and
avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
6. That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely
to cause serious public health problems.
7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will
conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access
through or use of property within the proposed subdivision.
EVIDENCE: a) Inconsistency. The project as designed and conditioned is inconsistent
with the 2010 Monterey County General Plan, and Greater Monterey
Peninsula Area Plan, and Monterey County Subdivision Ordinance Title
19) Finding 1).
b) Design. The lot design is consistent with the Lot Design Standards of
Section 19.10.030 County Codes.
c) Site Suitability. The project has been reviewed for site suitability by
the following departments and agencies: RMA Planning Department,
Monterey County Regional Fire Protection District, Housing and
Redevelopment Office, Parks, Public Works, Environmental Health.
Bureau, and Water Resources Agency. The site is physically suitable
for the proposed use.
d) Staff identified potential impacts to Biological Resources,
Archaeological Resources, and on-site wastewater treatment feasibility.
Technical reports by outside consultants indicated that there are
physical or environmental constraints that would indicate that the site is
suitable for the use proposed. County staff independently reviewed
these reports and concurs with their conclusions. The following reports
have been prepared:
Preliminary Archaeological Reconnaissance of Assessor's Parcel
173-062-008" LIB070657) prepared by Archaeological
Consulting, Salinas, California, November 8, 2007.
Traffic Analysis for Susan and Tom Merrill Subdivision"
LIB070658) prepared by Higgins Associates Civil & Traffic
Engineers, Gilroy, California, October 29, 2007.
Feasibility Level Geotechnical Investigation for Merrill
Property" LIBO 70659) prepared by Haro, Kasunich and
Associates, Inc., Watsonville, California, November 2007.
Biological survey report for the Tom and Susan Merrill Property"
LIB080571) prepared by Ed Mercurio Biological Consultant,
Salinas, California, October 31, 2007.
Wayland Minor Subdivision PLN070366)
Page 3 of 6
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
H-U02
&-U02
I-U02
PLANNING-U02
COMMISSION-U02
RESOLUTION-WAYLAND/MERRILL-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109795-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT H & I PLANNING COMMISkJ�Preliminary Geologic Investigation Merrill Property"
LIB110031) prepared by Rogers E. Johnson & Associates,
Watsonville, California, November 2, 2007.
Percolation & Groundwater Study for Parcels 1 & 2 Merrill
Subdivision LIB110032) prepared by Grice Engineering and
Geology, Inc., Salinas, California, April 2009.
Second Evaluation Septic Report of Parcel 1 Merrill
Subdivision" LIB110033) prepared by Grice Engineering and
Geology, Inc., Salinas, California, August 2009-
e) Health and Safety. The proposed project as designed will, under the
circumstances of the particular application, be detrimental to the health,
safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing
or working in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the County.
f) Necessary public facilities are not available and are not provided for the
proposed project. A source of sustainable long-term water does not
exist. See Water Supply sections below.
g) Easements. The subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict
with easements. The project, as designed, would require the creation and
conveyance of easements necessary for drainage, utilities, the off-site
well, and development and construction of roadways.
h) Water Supply. Section 19.10.070 MCC requires that provisions shall
be made for such domestic water supply as may be necessary to protect
public health, safety, or welfare, that the source of supply is adequate
and potable, and that there is proof of a long term water supply with the
proposed project. Sections 19.03.015.L MCC requires Water Supply
and Nitrate Loading Information in order to assess these conditions.
Proof that the well is capable of supplying a sustainable long-term
source of potable water has not been demonstrated, as water quality
sampling data has consistently shown the presence of arsenic, which has
fluctuated above and below the maximum contaminant level MCL) of
10 parts per billion ppb). Testing data compiled between August 2007
and September 2010 have shown that arsenic concentration ranges from
6 ppb to as high as 17 ppb, with the overall average being 10.08 ppb;
indicating the well's reliability of staying in compliance is questionable.
Based on this average the Monterey County Environmental Health
Bureau can not make a fording that the project has a reliable source of
water; as no room for public health protection exists if any subsequent
samples show the slightest increase and bring the average over 10 ppb.
The installation of an arsenic treatment system for the off-site well is
not a feasible solution, due to cost of infrastructure and installation.
Technical, managerial, and financial TMF) capability is a requirement
for new water systems to assure delivery of safe water to the consumers
of the system. Water systems with less than 15 connections do not have
the TMF to maintain the complexity, ongoing reliability, and expense of
treatment plants; therefore the proposed water source does not protect
the public health and safety or meet minimum water quality standards
i) Sewage Disposal Section 19.03.015.K MCC).
Wayland Minor Subdivision PLN070366)
Page 4 of 6
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
H-U02
&-U02
I-U02
PLANNING-U02
COMMISSION-U02
RESOLUTION-WAYLAND/MERRILL-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109795-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT H & I PLANNING COMMISkJ�The percolation and groundwater studies for the proposed Merrill
Property demonstrates adequate feasibility for the installation of septic
systems and associated leach fields, to the satisfaction of the
Environmental Health Bureau EHB) and Monterey County Code
15.20, based upon soil make-up and percolation rates. Specific design
requirements for individual septic systems are contained within the
technical reports prepared for the project.
j) Traffic. A traffic analysis was prepared for the project, analyzing the
potential impacts to the adjacent intersection Boots Rd/State Route 68).
Denial of this application would result in no impacts to the Boots
Road/SR-68 intersection or intersections along State Route 68.
k) Affordable Housing. The project was reviewed by the Housing and
Redevelopment Office relative to the County's Inclusionary Housing.
Ordinance No. 04185, as codified in Section 18.40.060 of County Code.
Ordinance No. 04185 requires that all new development consisting of
three or more lots or residential units contribute to the Inclusionary
Housing Program. The project would be subject to this requirement, as
it is developing 4 new lots.
1) Parks and Recreation. The project as reviewed by the Monterey
County Parks department relative to County recreation requirements
and/or payment of recreation fees. The project would be subject to this
requirement, due to the creation of 4 new lots.
m) The application, tentative map and supporting materials submitted by
the project applicant to the Monterey County Planning Department for
the proposed development are found in Project File PLN070376.
n) The project planner conducted a site inspection on August 9, 2007 and
December 28, 2010.
3. FINDING: CEQA Exempt): The project is statutorily exempt from
environmental review and no unusual circumstances were identified to
exist for the proposed project.
EVIDENCE: a) California Environmental Quality Act CEQA) Guidelines Section
15270(a) statutorily exempts projects which a public agency rejects or
disapproves.
4. FINDING: APPEALABILITY The decision on this project may be appealed to the
Board of Supervisors.
EVIDENCE: Section 21.80.040(D) Monterey County Zoning Ordinance
DECISION
NOW, THEREFORE, based on the above findings and evidence, the Planning Commission
does hereby:
A. Find PLN070376 statutorily exempt per Section 15270(a) of the California
Environmental Quality Act Guidelines; and
B. Deny the PLN070376 Merrill Minor Subdivision) based on the findings and evidence.
Wayland Minor Subdivision PLN070366)
Page 5 of 6
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
H-U02
&-U02
I-U02
PLANNING-U02
COMMISSION-U02
RESOLUTION-WAYLAND/MERRILL-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109795-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT H & I PLANNING COMMISkJ�PASSED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of January, 2011 upon motion of Commissioner Diehl,
seconded by Commissioner Padilla, by the following vote:
AYES: Getzelman, Vandevere, Roberts, Salazar, Mendez, Diehl, Padilla
NOES: Brown
ABSENT: Rochester, Ottone
ABSTAIN: None
Mike Novo, Secretary
COPY OF THIS DECISION MAILED TO APPLICANT ON JAN 3 1 2011.
THIS APPLICATION IS APPEALABLE TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.
IF ANYONE WISHES TO APPEAL THIS DECISION, AN APPEAL FORM MUST BE COMPLETED
AND SUBMITTED TO THE CLERK TO THE BOARD ALONG WITH THE APPROPRIATE FILING
FEE ON OR BEFORE FEB 1,,0 ZU11
This decision, if this is the final administrative decision, is subject to judicial review pursuant to California
Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1094.5 and 1094.6. Any Petition for Writ of Mandate must be filed with
the Court no later than the 90th day following the date on which this decision becomes final.
Wayland Minor Subdivision PLN070366)
Page 6 of 6
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
H-U02
&-U02
I-U02
PLANNING-U02
COMMISSION-U02
RESOLUTION-WAYLAND/MERRILL-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109795-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT H & I PLANNING COMMISkJ�PROJECT TE!Y
mpav-
Y G!rirl.+~ W
%.:wmw.
WIVE
Mtt
py~~
ev r
l
rf.Nr
mmoaa.imu wrm$ wn nn
M~rYid on
auuDtyl ER 3 aTATEJ/@~T
pp~i a qej
w rmb...mr
t
e
O'~O
o�
a
z
u
a.
rw r
n
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
H-U02
&-U02
I-U02
PLANNING-U02
COMMISSION-U02
RESOLUTION-WAYLAND/MERRILL-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109795-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT H & I PLANNING COMMISkJ�GREATER MONTEREY PENINSULA.
APPLICANT: MERRILL
APN: 173-062-008-000 FILE # PLN070376
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
H-U02
&-U02
I-U02
PLANNING-U02
COMMISSION-U02
RESOLUTION-WAYLAND/MERRILL-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109795-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT J. PLANNING COMMISSIOk^ �Exhibit J
Planning Commission Staff Report
From January 26, 2011
Merrill PLN1 10078)
Wayland PLN1 10079)
Board of Supervisors
February 7, 2012
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
J.-U02
PLANNING-U02
COMMISSION-U02
STAFF-U02
REPORT-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109796-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT J. PLANNING COMMISSIOk^ �MONTEREY COUNTY PLANNING COMNIItiSSION
Meeting: January 26, 201 1 Time: 9:00 A.M Agenda Item No.: 3 and 4
Project Description:
PLN070366
Combined Development Permit consisting of. 1) Minor Subdivision Vesting Tentative Map to
allow the division of a 38-acre parcel into four parcels of 9.7 acres, 5.3 acres, 9.3 acres, 5.2 acres
and a remainder parcel of 8.8 acres; 2) Use Permit for development of areas in excess of 25 percent
for roadway improvements; 3) Use Permit for development in a visually sensitive area VS"
District); and 4) Use Permit to allow the removal of an estimated 39 oak trees; and grading of
approximately 3,800 cubic yards of cut and 3,800 cubic yards of fill. The project proposes
individual septic systems, a 50 foot by 50 foot water tank easement with a 100,000 gallon water
tank and 15 foot wide utility easement, a 60-foot wide road and utility easement and a 30-foot
wide road and utility easement, The project will be served by an existing well and a proposed
mutual water company.
PLN070376
Combined Development Permit consisting of: 1) Minor Subdivision Vesting Tentative Map to
allow the division of a 37.8 acre parcel into three parcels of 10.5 acres, 13.8 acres, 7.5 acres and a
remainder parcel of 6.0 acres; and 2) Use Permit for development in a visually sensitive area VS"
District); and grading of approximately 3,100 cubic yards of grading combination of cut/fill),
individual septic systems and 60 foot wide road and utility easements. The project will be served
by an existing well and a proposed mutual water company. The project will not involve any tree
removal or development in areas in excess of 30 percent slopes.
Project Location: APN:
24975 Boots Road, Monterey PLN070366-Wayland) 173-062-009-000 PLN070366-Wayland)
24915 Boots Road, Monterey PLN070376-Merrill) 173-062-008-000 PLN070376-Merrill)
Owner:
Planning File Number: Wayland Warren Trust et al PLN070366)
PLN070366 Wayland) Merrill Thomas Trust et al PLN070376)
PLN070376 Merrill) Agent: Maureen Wruck Planning
Consultants, LLC Joel Panzer)
Planning Area: Flagged and staked: No
Greater Monterey Peninsula Area Plan
Zoning Designation:: RDR/5.1-VS Rural Density Residential, 5.1 acre per lot minimum, with
Visual Sensitivity Overlay)
CEQA Action: Statutorily exempt from CEQA per 15270
Department: RMA Planning Department
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following actions:
1) Adopt a Resolution to:
a. Find PLN070366 Wayland Minor Subdivision) Statutorily Exempt per Section
15270(a) of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines;
b. Deny PLN070366 Wayland Minor Subdivision), based on the findings and
evidence Exhibit C);
2) Adopt a Resolution to:
a. Find PLN070376 Merrill Minor Subdivision) Statutorily Exempt per Section
15270(a) of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines;
b. Deny PLN070376 Merrill Minor Subdivision), based on the findings and
evidence Exhibit D).
Wayland Minor Subdivision PLN070366)
Merrill Minor Subdivision PLN070 376) Page l
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
J.-U02
PLANNING-U02
COMMISSION-U02
STAFF-U02
REPORT-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109796-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT J. PLANNING COMMISSIOk^ �PROJECT OVERVIEW:
The project sites are located adjacent to Highway 68 about 4 miles north of Monterey, across
from the exiting Bishop Ranch/Pasadera development. Each project involves the minor
subdivision of existing adjacent parcels. The Wayland parcel 38 acres) is proposed to he
subdivided into four separate parcels of 9.7 acres, 5.3 acres, 9.3 acres, 5.2 acres and a remainder
parcel of 8.8 acres. The Merrill parcel 37.8 acres) is proposed to be subdivided into three
separate parcels of 10.5 acres, 13.8 acres, 7.5 acres and a remainder parcel of 6.0 acres.
Together, the adjacent subdivisions would convert two existing parcels into seven separate
parcels and two remainder lots 9 lots total), on lands located adjacent to State Route 68 a
designated Scenic Highway) and zoned LDRJ5.1-VS Low Density Residential, with Visual
Sensitivity Overlay), and considered Highly Sensitive" in Figure 14 Scenic Highway Corridors
& Visual Sensitivity) of the 2010 Monterey County General Plan.
Project Issues
Three main issues exist for each proposed Minor Subdivision: Sewage Feasibility, Water Quality
long-term sustainable water supply) and consistency with the 2010 General Plan; with water
qu it and being the primary issue. Without an adequate solution to each of the above issues,
other factors/considerations for each project traffic) are not relevant to projects which are denied
and have not been evaluated in this report.
The Planning Commission's review of minor subdivisions is unusual. Normally minor
r subdivision applications are reviewed by the Minor Subdivision Committee. In this case, these
applications are being recommended for denial based upon the lack of long-term water supply
water quality). This is a significant policy issue in the General Plan and so these applications
are being referred to the Planning Commission.
Water Quantity
The proposed water supply for the projects is from a common well off-site) that lies within the
Seaside Groundwater Basin Court Adjudicated area in the Laguna Seca sub-basin). The Court's
decision in the adjudication of the Laguna Seca sub-basin states that 5 acre-feet or less of annual
water use is considered diminimus. Under the Decision, the County of Monterey as a party to
the Decision) is precluded from performing environmental review regarding the impact of taking
water from the Seaside basin as long as the proposed project's water use is less than the 5 acre
feet; therefore Staff determined that the applicant had a long-term water source related to
quantity.
Water Quality
Both the Wayland and Merrill proposals involve the development/formation of a mutual water
company distributing water from an off-site well in the adjudicated Seaside Water Basin. During
the course of review for each project, the applicant has been unable to provide proof that the well
is capable of supplying a sustainable long-term source of potable water relative to quality. Water
quality sampling data has consistently shown the presence of arsenic, the level of which has
fluctuated above and below the maximum contaminant level MCL) of 10 parts per billion ppb).
Testing data compiled between August 2007 and September 2010 have shown that arsenic
concentration levels range from 6 ppb to as high as 17 ppb, with the overall average being 10.08
ppb; indicating the well's reliability of staying in compliance is questionable. Arsenic levels can
fluctuate based on season, groundwater level, and amount of rainfall. Based on this average the
Monterey County Envirotunental Health Bureau can not make a finding that the projects have a
reliable source of water relative to quality; as no room for public health protection exists if any
subsequent samples show the slightest increase and bring the average over 10 ppb.
Wayland Minor Subdivision PLN070366)
Merrill Minor Subdivision PLN070376) Page 2
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
J.-U02
PLANNING-U02
COMMISSION-U02
STAFF-U02
REPORT-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109796-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT J. PLANNING COMMISSIOk^ �In addition. the Monterey County Environmental Health Bureau is unable to find that the water
will not be detrimental to health and safety, given the fluctuating arsenic levels. Technical,
managerial, and financial TMF) capability is a requirement for new water systems to assure
delivery of safe water to the consumers of the system. Water systems with less than 15
connections do not have the TMF to maintain the complexity, ongoing reliability, and expense of
treatment plants; therefore the Environmental Health Bureau cannot recommend approval of the
projects with the proposed water source.
2010 General Plan Consistency
Both the Wayland and Merrill Minor Subdivision applications were evaluated for consistency
objectives and policies within the 2010 General Plan; specifically policies related to visual
sensitivity along State Route 68 GMP 3.3-Figure 14), sustainable long-term water GMP 3.14,
PS-3.1, PS-32, and PS-3.9) and development on slopes in excess of 25% OS-3.5). The
analysis concluded that each individual project was not consistent with the objectives and
policies contained within the General Plan. Detailed analysis of each evaluation can be found in
Finding and Evidence No. I Inconsistency.
Sewage Feasibility
The applicant prepared Sewage Feasibility reports for both the Wayland Minor Subdivision and
Merrill Minor Subdivision and were reviewed by the Monterey County Environmental Health
Bureau.
After comprehensive review of the reports for the Wayland property, it was concluded that this
property possesses marginal soil composition and percolation rates required for the installation of
conventional septic disposal systems. While evidence does exist to demonstrate the lots are
technically buildable, there is not a consistent rate of percolation within and among all of the lots
to give the Environmental Health Bureau the level of confidence necessary to support the
subdivision utilizing the proposed Onsite Wastewater Treatment System OWTS) design.
Conversely, the Merrill property contained soil compositions having generally acceptable rate of
percolation, suitable for the installation of conventional septic disposal systems.
In the event that a water quality from the proposed mutual water system be deemed acceptable
through additional sampling), Staff would recommend that the Wayland Minor Subdivision
application be connected to a sanitary sewer system due to the inadequate soil composition and
marginal percolation rates associated with this property. Should the Wayland property be
connected to a sewer network, the adjacent Merrill property would also be conditioned to
connect, as routing of sewer lines would traverse the Merrill property.
OTHER AGENCY INVOLVEMENT: The following agencies and departments reviewed this
ect:
RMA Public Works Department
Environmental Health Bureau
Water Resources Agency
Monterey County Regional Fire Protection District
Parks Department
Regional Water Quality Control Board, District 3
Agencies that submitted comments are noted with a check mark
Wayland Minor Subdivision PLN070366)
Merrill Minor Subdivision PLN070376) Page 3
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
J.-U02
PLANNING-U02
COMMISSION-U02
STAFF-U02
REPORT-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109796-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT J. PLANNING COMMISSIOk^ �The Wayland Minor Subdivision PLN070366) was referred to the Greater Monterey Peninsula
Land Use Advisory Committee LUAC) for review, on December 5, 2007. The GMPLUAC
recommended approval by a 3-0 vote 1 absen-, I abstain), The minutes and recommendation of
the LUAC have been attached as Exhibit E.
The Merrill Minor Subdivision PLN070376) was referred to the Greater Monterey Peninsula
Land Use Advisory Committee LUAC) for review, on December 19, 2007. The GMPLUAC
recommended approval by a 4-0 vote 1 absent). The minutes and recommendation of the LUAC
have been attached as Exhibit F.
Note: Tlte d c i.oran`ihis project is a cab
David J. R. Mac Associate Planner
831) 755- 5096, mackd@co.monterey.ca.us
January 26, 2011
cc: Front Counter Copy; Planning Commission; Monterey County Regional Fire Protection
District; Public Works Department; Parks Department; Environmental Health Bureau;
Water Resources Agency; John H. Ford, Planning Services Manager; David J. R. Mack,
Project Planner; Carol Allen, Senior Secretary; Warren Wayland Trust, Owner
PLN070366); Tom and Susan Merrill, Owner PLN070376); Maureen Wruck Planning
Consultants LLC Joel Panzer), Agent; Whitney Tinker" Stolich, Neighbor; Michael
Weaver, Neighbor; Planning File PLN070366 Wayland) & PLN070376 Merrill)
Attachments: Exhibit A Project Data Sheet PLN070366 Wayland
Exhibit B Project Data Sheet PLN070376 Merrill
Exhibit C Draft Resolution PLN070366 Wayland
Exhibit D Draft Resolution PLN070376 Merrill
Exhibit E Vicinity Map PLN070366 Wayland
Exhibit F Vicinity Map PLN070376 Merrill
Exhibit G Greater Monterey Peninsula Land Use Advisory Committee
Minutes PLN070366 Wayland)
Exhibit H Greater Monterey Peninsula Land Use Advisory Committee
Minutes PLN070376 Merrill)
This report was reviewed by John H. Ford, Planning Services M
Wayland Minor Subdivision PLN070366)
Merrill Minor Subdivision PLN070376) Page 4
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
J.-U02
PLANNING-U02
COMMISSION-U02
STAFF-U02
REPORT-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109796-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT J. PLANNING COMMISSIOk^ �EXHIBIT A
Project Data Sheet for PLN070366
Project Title: Wayland Minor Subdivision
Location: 24975 Boots Road, Primary APN: 173-062-009-000
Applicable Plan: Monterey
Greater Monterey
Coastal Zo ne:
NO
Permit Type: Peninsula Area Plan
Combined Development
Zoning:
RDR/5.1-VS(20")
Environmental Status: Permit
Exempt CEQA
Plan Designation:
Rural Density Residential
15270(a)
Advisory Committee: Greater Monterey
Peninsula Final Action Deadline 8B4):
Project Site Data:
Lot Size: 38 Acres Coverage Allowed: 25%
Coverage Proposed: 0%
Existing Structures SF): 0
Proposed Structures SF):
0 Height Allowed:
Height Proposed: 20 Feet
0
Total SF: 0 Floor Area Ratio Allowed: N/A
Floor Area Ratio Proposed: N/A
Resource Zones and Reports:
Environ mentally Sensitive
Biological R Habitat: N/A
eport #: LIB070623 Erosion Hazard Zone:
Soils Report #: HIGH
LIB 110030
Forest Managemen t Rpt. #: LIB070627
Archa eological Sensitivi
Archaeological R ty Zone: Moderate
eport #: LIB070622 Geologic Hazard Zone:
Geologic Report #: IV
LIB070626
Fire Haza rd Zone: Very High Traffic Report #: LIB070628
Other Information:
Water source: Mutual Water System Sewage Disposal method): Septic
proposed
Water DistlCo: N/A Sewer District Name: N/A
Fire District: Monterey County Regional Total Grading cubic ycis.): 3800 cut
Fire Protection District 3800 fill
Tree Removal: 39 Oak Trees
Date Printed: 01/20/2011
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
J.-U02
PLANNING-U02
COMMISSION-U02
STAFF-U02
REPORT-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109796-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT J. PLANNING COMMISSIOk^ �EXHIBIT B
Project Data Sheet for PLN070376
Project Title: Merrill Minor Subdivision
Location:
Applicable Plan:
Permit Type:
Environmental Status:
Advisory Committee: 24915 Boots Road,
Monterey
Greater Monterey
Peninsula Area Plan
Combined Development
Permit
Exempt CEQA
15270(a)
Greater Monterey
Peninsula Primary APN: 173-062-008-000
Coastal Zone: NO
Zoning: RDR/5.1-VS(20")
Plan Designation: Rural Density Residen
Final Action Deadline 884):
ial
Project Site Data:
Lot Size:
Existing Structures SF):
Proposed Structures SF):
Total SF: 37.8 Acres
0
0
0 Coverage Allowed: 25%
Coverage Proposed: 0%
Height Allowed: 20 Feet
Height Proposed: 0
Floor Area Ratio Allowed: N/A
Floor Area Ratio Proposed: N/A
Resource Zones and Reports:
Environmentally Sensitive
Biological R
Forest Managemen
Archaeological Sensitivi
Archaeological R
Fire Haza Habitat: N/A
eport #: LIB080571
t Rpt. #: N/A
ty Zone: Moderate
eport #: LIB070657
rd Zone: Very High Erosion Hazard Zone: HIGH
Soils Report #: LIB 110032 / LIB 1 l 00
Geologic Hazard Zone: IV
Geologic Report #: LIB110031
Traffic Report #: LIB070658
33
Other Information:
Water Source:
Water Dist/Co:
Fire District:
Tree Removal: Mutual Water System
proposed
N/A
Monterey County Regional
Fire Protection District
N/A Sewage Disposal method): Septic
Sewer District Name: N/A
Total Grading cubic yds.): 3100 cut and fill)
Date Printed: 01/20/2011
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
J.-U02
PLANNING-U02
COMMISSION-U02
STAFF-U02
REPORT-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109796-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT J. PLANNING COMMISSIOk^ �EXHIBIT C
DRAFT RESOLUTION
Before the Planning Commission in and for the
County of Monterey, State of California
In the matter of the application of:
Wayland Minor Subdivision PLN070366)
RESOLUTION NO.
Resolution by the Monterey County Planning Commission
to:
1) Find the project statutorily exempt from CEQA per
Section 15270.
2) Denying the Combined Development Permit
consisting of Minor Subdivision Vesting Tentative
Map to allow the division of a 38-acre parcel into 4
parcels of 9.7 acres, 5.3 acres, 9.3 acres, 5.2 acres and
a remainder parcel of 8.8 acres; Use Permit for
development of areas in excess of 30 percent for
roadway improvements; Use Permit for development
in a visually sensitive area VS" District); and Use
Permit to allow the removal of an estimated 39 oak
trees; and grading of approximately 3,800 cubic yards
of cut and 3,800 cubic yards of fill. The project
proposes individual septic systems, a 50 foot by 50
foot water tank easement with a 100,000 gallon water
tank and 15 foot wide utility easement, a 60-foot wide
road and utility easement and a 30-foot wide road and
utility easement. The project will be served by an
existing well and a proposed mutual water company.
PLN070366, Wayland Warren Trust, 24975 Boots Road,
Monterey, Greater Monterey Peninsula Area Plan APN:
173-062-009-000)
The Wayland Minor Subdivision PLN070366) application came on for public hearing
before the Monterey County Planning Commission on January 26, 2011. Having
considered all the written and documentary evidence, the administrative record, the staff
report, oral testimony, and other evidence presented, the Planning Commission finds and
decides as follows:
FINDINGS
1 FINDING: INCONSISTENCY The Project as designed is inconsistent with the
applicable plans and policies which designate this area as appropriate
for development.
EVIDENCE: a) During the course of review of this application, the project has been
reviewed for consistency with the text, policies, and regulations in:
2010 Monterey County General Plan,
Wayland Minor Subdivision PLN070366)
Merrill Minor Subdivision PLN070376) Page 5
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
J.-U02
PLANNING-U02
COMMISSION-U02
STAFF-U02
REPORT-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109796-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT J. PLANNING COMMISSIOk^ � Greater Monterey Peninsula Area Plan.
Monterey County Zoning Ordinance Title 21)
Monterey County Subdivision Ordinance Title 19)
Conflicts were found to exist during the course of review of the project
indicating inconsistencies with the text; policies, and regulations in
these documents.
b) The property is located at 24975 Boots Road, Monterey Assessor's
Parcel Number: 173-062-009-000), Greater Monterey Peninsula Area
Plan. The parcel is zoned RDR/5.1-VS Rural Density Residential, 5.1
acre per lot minimum, with Visual Sensitivity Overlay), which allows
residential development of a rural density and intensity. Therefore, the
project is an allowed land use for this site.
c) 2010 General Plan Policy GMP 3.3 refers to the Greater Monterey
Peninsula Scenic Highway Corridors and Visual Sensitivity Map
Figure 14) to designate visually sensitive" and highly sensitive" areas
generally visible from designated Scenic Highways. The subject
property is designated as highly sensitive" in Figure 14. Subsection d)
of GMP 3.3 states that new development shall not be sited on those
portions of property that have been mapped highly sensitive", unless
such development maximizes the goals, objectives, and policies of the
Greater Monterey Peninsula Area Plan. The proposed minor
subdivision would result in the creation of three new residential parcels
and one remainder lot) located within the designated highly sensitive"
area. This would not maximize the goals, obj(-,ctive, and policies of the
Greater Monterey Peninsula Area Plan; therefore the project is
inconsistent with 2010 General Plan Policy GMP 3.3.
d) 2010 General Plan Policy GMP 3.14 requires development projects to
be served by water from public utilities or mutual water companies, and
consider the cumulative effects of the developments water use on
wildlife, fish, plant communities, and the supply available to existing
users. The project will not be served by water from a public utility, and
the project proposal is a small water system using a well with in
adequate water quality See Finding and Evidence No. 2 Water
Supply).
e) 2010 General Plan Policy PS-3.1 and PS-3.2 establish requirements for
the proof of a sustainable long-term water source for developments for
which a discretionary permit is required, and that will use or require the
use of water. The project has not proven a reliable source of long-term
water; therefore the project is inconsistent with 2010 General Plan
Policy PS-3.1 and PS-3.2. See Finding and Evidence No. 2 Water
Supply)
f) 2010 General Plan Policy PS-3.9 states that a tentative subdivision map
and/or vesting tentative subdivision map for either a standard or minor
subdivision shall not be approved until the applicant provides evidence
of long-term sustainable water in terms of yield and quality for all lots
to be created. The project has not proven a reliable source of long-term
water; therefore the project is inconsistent with 2010 General Plan
Policy PS-3.9. See Finding and Evidence No. 2 Water Supply)
g) 2010 General Plan Policy OS-3.5 prohibits development on slopes in
excess of twenty-five percent 25%) unless no feasible alternative exists
Wayland Minor Subdivision PLN070366)
Merrill Minor Subdivision PLN070376) Page 6
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
J.-U02
PLANNING-U02
COMMISSION-U02
STAFF-U02
REPORT-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109796-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT J. PLANNING COMMISSIOk^
�or the development better achieves the resource protection objectives
and polices contained in the General Plan and accompanying Area
Plans. The proposed project involves the subdivision of an existing
parcel into four new lots and one remainder), requiring the construction
of roads on slopes in excess of 25%; this would not be consistent with
2010 General Plan Policy OS-3.5 and would not achieve the resource
protection objective of either the General Plan or Greater Monterey
Peninsula Area Plan. Feasible alternatives do exist, as the existing 38
acre parcel could be developed for residential use, without development
on slopes in excess of 25%; which would be consistent this policy.
h) Title 19 inconsistency See Finding and Evidence 2 below.
i) The project was referred to the Greater Monterey Peninsula Land Use
Advisory Committee LUAC) for review. Based on the LUAC
Procedure guidelines adopted by the Monterey County Board of
Supervisors per Resolution No. 08-338, this application did warrant
referral to the LUAC because the project is subject to CEQA review and
involves a discretionary permit application and land use matter which
raises significant land use issues.
j) The project planner conducted a site inspection on August 9, 2007 and
December 28, 2010.
k) The application, project plans, and related support materials submitted
by the project applicant to the Monterey County RMA Planning
Department for the proposed development found in Project File
PLN070366.
2. FINDING: SUBDIVISION Section 66474 of the California Government Code
Subdivision Map Act) and Title 19 Subdivision Ordinance) of the
Monterey County Code requires that a request for subdivision be denied if
any of the following findings are made:
1. That the proposed map is not consistent with the applicable general
plan and specific plans.
2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not
consistent with the applicable general plan and specific plans.
3. That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development.
4. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of
development.
5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements is
likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and
avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
6. That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely
to cause serious public health problems.
7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will
conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access
through or use of property within the propo sed subdivision.
EVIDENCE: a) Inconsistency. The project as designed and conditioned is inconsistent
with the 2010 Monterey County General Plan, and Greater Monterey
Peninsula Area Plan, and Monterey County Subdivision Ordinance Title
19) Finding 1).
b) Design. The lot design is consistent with the Lot Design Standards of
Section 19.10.030 County Codes.
Wayland Minor Subdivision PLN070366)
Merrill Minor Subdivision PLN070376) Page 7
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
J.-U02
PLANNING-U02
COMMISSION-U02
STAFF-U02
REPORT-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109796-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT J. PLANNING COMMISSIOk^
�c) Site Suitability. The project has been reviewed for site suitability by
the following departments and agencies: RMA Planning Department.
Monterey County Regional Fire Protection District, Housing and
Redevelopment Office, Parks, Public Works; Envirom-nental Health
Bureau, and Water Resources Agency. The site is physically unsuitable
for the proposed use.
d) Staff identified potential impacts to Biological Resources;
Archaeological Resources, Soil/Slope Stability, and on-site wastewater
treatment feasibility. Technical reports by outside consultants indicated
that there are physical or environmental constraints that would indicate
that the site is not suitable for the use proposed. County staff
independently reviewed these reports and concurs with their
conclusions. The following reports have been prepared:
Preliminary Archaeological Reconnaissance of Assessor's Parcel
173-062-009" LIB070622) prepared by Archaeological
Consulting, Salinas, California, November 26, 2007.
Biological survey report for the Warren and Majorie Wayland
Property" LIB070623) prepared by Ed Mercurio Biological
Consultant, Salinas, California, October 31, 2007.
Feasibility Level Geotechnical Investigation for Wayland
Property" LIB070625) prepared by Haro, Kasunich and
Associates, Inc., Watsonville, California, October 2007.
Preliminary Geologic Investigation Wayland Property"
LIB070626) prepared by Rogers E. Johnson & Associates,
Watsonville, California, October 16, 2007.
Forest Management Plan for the Wayland Property"
LIB070627) prepared by Ralph Osterling Consultants, Inc., San
Mateo, California, October 30, 2007.
Traffic Analysis for Warren and Mat jorie Wayland Subdivision
LIB070628) prepared by Higgins Associates Civil & Traffic
Engineers, Gilroy, California, October 29, 2007.
Septic Report for Parcels 2, 3, and 4 Wayland Subdivision
LIB110030) prepared by Grice Engineering and Geology, Inc.,
Salinas, California, February 2010.
e) The percolation and groundwater study for the proposed Wayland
Property did not demonstrate adequate feasibility for the installation of
septic systems and associated leach fields, to the satisfaction of the
Environmental Health Bureau EHB) and Monterey County Code
15.20, based upon soil make-up and marginal and varying percolation
rates. See Sewage Disposal section below.
f) The project has not proven a sustainable long-term water source relative
to water quality. The off-site well being utilized to serve the minor
subdivision tested above the maximum contaminant level MCL) for
arsenic. See Water Supply section below.
g) Health and Safety. The proposed project as designed will, under the
circumstances of the particular application, is detrimental to the health,
safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing
or working in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the County.
h) Necessary public facilities are not available and are not provided for the
proposed project. A source of sustainable long-term water does not
Wayland Minor Subdivision PLN070366)
Merrill Minor Subdivision PLN070376) Page 8
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
J.-U02
PLANNING-U02
COMMISSION-U02
STAFF-U02
REPORT-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109796-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT J. PLANNING COMMISSIOk^
�exist, and on site wastewater systems have not been determined to bye
feasible on the subject property. See Water Supply and Sewage
Disposal sections below.
i) Easements. The subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict
with easements. The project, as designed, would require the creation and
conveyance of easements necessary for drainage, utilities., the off-site
well, and development and construction of roadways.
j) Water Supply. Section 19.10.070 MCC requires that provisions shall
be made for such domestic water supply as may be necessary to protect
public health, safety, or welfare, that the source of supply is adequate
and potable, and that there is proof of a long term water supply with the
proposed project. Sections 19.03.015.L MCC requires Water Supply
and Nitrate Loading Information in order to assess these conditions.
Proof that the well is capable of supplying a sustainable long-terns
source of potable water has not been demonstrated, as water quality
sampling data has consistently shown the presence of arsenic, which has
fluctuated above and below the maximum contaminant level MCL) of
10 parts per billion ppb). Testing data compiled between August 2007
and September 2010 have shown that arsenic concentration ranges from
6 ppb to as high as 17 ppb, with the overall average being 10.08 ppb;
indicating the well's reliability of staying in compliance is questionable.
Based on this average the Monterey County Environmental Health
Bureau can not make a finding that the project has a reliable source of
water; as no room for public health protection exists if any subsequent
samples show the slightest increase and bring the average over 10 ppb.
The installation of an arsenic treatment system for the off-site well is
not a feasible solution, due to cost of infrastructure and installation.
Technical, managerial, and financial TMF) capability is a requirement
for new water systems to assure delivery of safe water to the consumers
of the system. Water systems with less than 15 connections do not have
the TMF to maintain the complexity, ongoing reliability, and expense of
treatment plants; therefore the proposed water source does not protect
the public health and safety or meet minimum water quality standards
k) Sewage Disposal Section 19.03.015.K MCC).
The soil composition and percolation rates of the Wayland property, do
not adequately comply with Monterey County Code 15.20. The rate of
percolation varied greatly at different depths and locations on each lot.
Some percolation holes performed at rates that are within the acceptable
range and while other rates failed according to Monterey County Code
15.20. The percolation data suggests that the upper soils are not
suitable for septic dispersal. Deep trenches would function primarily as
disposal of effluent; there will be little to no air in the soil/sidewalls of
the trench to allow growth of aerobic bacteria that would provide
additional treatment of the effluent. Shallow trenches in permeable
soils are preferred over deep trenches to provide for as much aerobic
treatment as possible. Due to the low permeability of the upper soils a
shallow system is infeasible for this project. There is not a consistent
rate of percolation within and among all of the lots to support the
subdivision utilizing the proposed Onsite Wastewater Treatment System
OWTS) designs. It is not good practice to create new lots with OWTS
Wayland Minor Subdivision PLN070366)
Merrill Minor Subdivision PLN070376) Page 9
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
J.-U02
PLANNING-U02
COMMISSION-U02
STAFF-U02
REPORT-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109796-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT J. PLANNING COMMISSIOk^
�that have a high potential for failure due to existing environmental and
geologic conditions.
l) Traffic. A traffic analysis was prepared for the project, analyzing the
potential impacts to the adjacent intersection Boots Rd/State Route 68.).
Denial of this application would result in no impacts to the Boots
Road/SR-68 intersection or intersections along State Route 68.
m) Affordable Housing. The project was reviewed by the Housing and
Redevelopment Office relative to the County's Inclusionary Housing
Ordinance No. 04185, as codified in Section 18.40.060 of County Code.
Ordinance No. 04185 requires that all new development consisting of
three or more lots or residential units contribute to the Inclusionary
Housing Program. The project would be subject to this requirement, as
it is developing 4 new lots.
n) Parks and Recreation. The project as reviewed by the Monterey
County Parks department relative to County recreation requirements
and/or payment of recreation fees. The project would be subject to this
requirement, due to the creation of 4 new lots.
o) The application, tentative map and supporting materials submitted by
the project applicant to the Monterey County Planning Department for
the proposed development are found in Project File PLN070366.
p) The project planner conducted a site inspection on August 9, 2007 and
December 28, 2010.
3. FINDING: CEQA Exempt): The project is statutorily exempt from
environmental review and no unusual circumstances were identified to
exist for the proposed project.
EVIDENCE: a) California Environmental Quality Act CEQA) Guidelines Section
15270(a) statutorily exempts projects which a public agency rejects or
disapproves.
4. FINDING: APPEALABILITY The decision on this project may be appealed to the
Board of Supervisors.
EVIDENCE: a) Section 21.80.040(D) Monterey County Zoning Ordinance.
DECISION
NOW, THEREFORE, based on the above findings and evidence, the Planning Commission
does hereby:
A) Find PLN070366 statutorily exempt per Section 15270(a) of the California
Environmental Quality Act Guidelines; and
B) Deny PLN070366 Wayland Minor Subdivision) based on the findings and evidence
Exhibit C):
PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of 2011 upon motion of seconded by
by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Wayland Minor Subdivision PLN070366)
Merrill Minor Subdivision PLN070376) Page 10
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
J.-U02
PLANNING-U02
COMMISSION-U02
STAFF-U02
REPORT-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109796-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT J. PLANNING COMMISSIOk^ �Mike Novo, Secretary, Planning Commission
COPY OF THIS DECISION IvLAILED TO APPLICANT ON
THIS APPLICATION IS APPEALABLE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
IF ANYONE WISHES TO APPEAL THIS DECISION, AN APPEAL FORM MUST BE COMPLETED
AND SUBMITTED TO THE CLERK TO THE BOARD ALONG WITH THE APPROPRIATE FILING
FEE ON OR BEFORE
This decision, if this is the final administrative decision, is subject to judicial review pursuant to California
Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1094.5 and 1094.6. Any Petition for Writ of Mandate must be filed with
the Court no later than the 90th day following the date on which this decision becomes final,
Wayland Minor Subdivision PLN070366)
Merrill Minor Subdivision PLN070376) Page I I
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
J.-U02
PLANNING-U02
COMMISSION-U02
STAFF-U02
REPORT-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109796-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT J. PLANNING COMMISSIOk^ �EXHIBIT D
DRAFT RESOLUTION
Before the Planning Commission in and for
County of Monterey, State of California
In the matter of the application of:
Merrill Minor Subdivision PLN070376)
RESOLUTION NO.
Resolution by the Monterey County Planning
Commission to:
1) Find the project statutorily exempt from
CEQA per Section 15270(a);
2) Deny the Combined Development Permit
consisting of: Minor Subdivision Vesting
Tentative Map to allow the division of a 37.8
acre parcel into three 3) parcels of 10.5 acres,
13.8 acres, 7.5 acres and a remainder parcel
of 6.0 acres; Use Permit for development in a
visually sensitive area VS" District); and
grading of approximately 3,100 cubic yards
of grading combination of cut/fill),
individual septic systems and 60 foot wide
road and utility easements. The project will
be served by an existing well and a proposed
mutual water company. The project will not
involve any tree removal or development in
areas in excess of 30 percent slopes.
PLN070376, Merrill Thomas Trust, 24915 Boots
Road, Monterey, Greater Monterey Peninsula Area
Plan, APN: 173-062-008-000)
the
The Merrill Minor Subdivision application PLN070376) came on for public hearing before
the Monterey County Planning Commission on January 26, 2011. Having considered all
the written and documentary evidence, the administrative record, the staff report, oral
testimony, and other evidence presented, the Planning Commission finds and decides as
follows:
FINDINGS
1. FINDING: INCONSISTENCY The Project, as designed is inconsistent with the
applicable plans and policies which designate this area as appropriate for
development.
EVIDENCE a) During the course of review of this application, the project has been
reviewed for consistency with the text, policies, and regulations in:
2010 Monterey County General Plan,
Greater Monterey Peninsula Area Plan,
Monterey County Zoning Ordinance Title 21)
Monterey County Subdivision Ordinance Title 19)
Conflicts were found to exist during the course of review of the project
Wayland Minor Subdivision PLN070366)
Men-ill Minor Subdivision PLN070376) Page 12
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
J.-U02
PLANNING-U02
COMMISSION-U02
STAFF-U02
REPORT-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109796-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT J. PLANNING COMMISSIOk^ �indicating inconsistencies with the text, policies, and regulations in
these documents.
b) The property is located at 2491 Boots Road. Monterey Assessor's
Parcel Number: 173-062-008-000), Greater Monterey Peninsula Area
Plan. The parcel is zoned RDR/5.1-VS Rural Density Residential, 5.1
acre per lot minimum with Visual Sensitivity Overlay), which allows
residential development of a rural density and intensity. Therefore., the
project is an allowed land use for this site.
c) 2010 General Plan Policy GMP 3.3 refers to the Greater Monterey
Peninsula Scenic Highway Corridors and Visual Sensitivity Map
Figure 14) to designate visually sensitive" and highly sensitive" areas
generally visible from designated Scenic Highways. The subject
property is designated as highly sensitive" in Figure 14. Subsection d)
of GMP 3.3 states that new development shall not be sited on those
portions of property that have been mapped highly sensitive", unless
such development maximizes the goals, objectives, and policies of the
Greater Monterey Peninsula Area Plan. The proposed minor
subdivision would result in the creation of two new residential parcels
and one remainder lot) located within the designated highly sensitive"
area. This would not maximize the goals, objective, and policies of the
Greater Monterey Peninsula Area Plan; therefore the project is
inconsistent with 2010 General Plan Policy GMP 3.3.
d) 2010 General Plan Policy GMP 3.14 requires development projects to
be served by water from public utilities or mutual water companies, and
consider the cumulative effects of the developments water use on
wildlife, fish, plant communities, and the supply available to existing
users. The project will not be served by water from a public utility, and
the project proposal is a small water system using a well with in
adequate water quality See Finding and Evidence No. 2 Water
Supply).
e) 2010 General Plan Policy PS-3.1 and PS-3.2 establish requirements for
the proof of a sustainable long-term water source for developments for
which a discretionary permit is required, and that will use or require the
use of water. The project has not proven a reliable source of long-term
water; therefore the project is inconsistent with 2010 General Plan
Policy PS-3.1 and PS-3.2. See Finding and Evidence No. 2 Water
Supply)
f) 2010 General Plan Policy PS-3.9 states that a tentative subdivision map
and/or vesting tentative subdivision map for either a standard or minor
subdivision shall not be approved until the applicant provides evidence
of long-term sustainable water in terms of yield and quality for all lots
to be created. The project has not proven a reliable source of long-terns
water; therefore the project is inconsistent with 2010 General Plan
Policy PS-3.9. See Finding and Evidence No. 2 Water Supply)
2. FINDING: SUBDIVISION Section 66474 of the Califonala Government Code
Subdivision Map Act) and Title 19 Subdivision Ordinance) of the
Monterey County Code requires that a request for subdivision be denied if
any of the following findings are made:
1. That the proposed map is not consistent with the applicable general
Wayland Minor Subdivision PLN070366)
Merrill Minor Subdivision PLN070376) Page 13
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
J.-U02
PLANNING-U02
COMMISSION-U02
STAFF-U02
REPORT-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109796-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT J. PLANNING COMMISSIOk^ �plan and specific plans.
2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not
consistent with the applicable general plan and specific plans.
3. That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development.
4. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of
development.
5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements is
likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and
avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
6. That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely
to cause serious public health problems.
7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will
conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access
through or use of property within the proposed subdivision.
EVIDENCE a) Inconsistency. The project as designed and conditioned is inconsistent
with the 2010 Monterey County General Plan, and Greater Monterey
Peninsula Area Plan, and Monterey County Subdivision Ordinance Title
19) Finding 1).
b) Design. The lot design is consistent with the Lot Design Standards of
Section 19.10.030 County Codes.
c) Site Suitability. The project has been reviewed for site suitability by
the following departments and agencies: RMA Planning Department,
Monterey County Regional Fire Protection District, Housing and
Redevelopment Office, Parks, Public Works, Environmental Health
Bureau, and Water Resources Agency. The site is physically suitable
for the proposed use.
d) Staff identified potential impacts to Biological Resources,
Archaeological Resources, and on-site wastewater treatment feasibility.
Technical reports by outside consultants indicated that there are
physical or environmental constraints that would indicate that the site is
suitable for the use proposed. County staff independently reviewed
these reports and concurs with their conclusions. The following reports
have been prepared:
Preliminary Archaeological Reconnaissance of Assessor's Parcel
173-062-008 LIB070657) prepared by Archaeological
Consulting, Salinas, California, November 8, 2007.
Traffic Analysis for Susan and Toni Merrill Subdivision"
LIB070658) prepared by Higgins Associates Civil & Traffic
Engineers, Gilroy, California, October 29, 2007.
Feasibility Level Geotechnical Investigation for Merrill
Property" LIBO70659) prepared by Haro, Kasunich and
Associates, Inc., Watsonville, California, November 2007.
Biological survey report for the Toni and Susan Merrill
Propert1.y" LIB080571) prepared by Ed Mercurio Biological
Consultant, Salinas, California, October 31, 2007.
Preliminary Geologic Investigation Merrill Property"
LIB110031) prepared by Rogers E. Johnson & Associates,
Watsonville, California, November 2, 2007.
Percolation & Groundwater Study for Parcels 1 & 2 Merrill
Subdivision" LIB110032) prepared by Grice Engineering and
wavland Minor Subdivision PLNN1070366)
Merrill Minor Subdivision PLN070376) Page 14
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
J.-U02
PLANNING-U02
COMMISSION-U02
STAFF-U02
REPORT-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109796-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT J. PLANNING COMMISSIOk^ �Geolog>>, Inc., Salinas, California, April 2009.
Second Evaluation Septic Report o/ Parcel I I vierrill
Subdivision" LIB110033) prepared bi Grice Engineering and
Geoloal, Inc., Salinas, California, August 2009.
e) Health and Safety. The proposed project as designed will, under the
circumstances of the particular application, be detrimental to the health,
safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing
or working in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the County.
f) Necessary public facilities are not available and are not provided for the
proposed project. A source of sustainable long-term water does not
exist. See Water Supply sections below.
g) Easements. The subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict
with easements. The project, as designed, would require the creation and
conveyance of easements necessary for drainage, utilities, the off-site
well, and development and construction of roadways.
h) Water Supply. Section 19.10.070 MCC requires that provisions shall
be made for such domestic water supply as may be necessary to protect
public health, safety, or welfare, that the source of supply is adequate
and potable, and that there is proof of a long term water supply with the
proposed project. Sections 19.03.015.L MCC requires Water Supply
and Nitrate Loading Information in order to assess these conditions.
Proof that the well is capable of supplying a sustainable long-term
source of potable water has not been demonstrated, as water quality
sampling data has consistently shown the presence of arsenic, which has
fluctuated above and below the maximum contaminant level MCL) of
10 parts per billion ppb). Testing data compiled between August 2007
and September 2010 have shown that arsenic concentration ranges from
6 ppb to as high as 17 ppb, with the overall average being 10.08 ppb;
indicating the well's reliability of staying in compliance is questionable.
Based on this average the Monterey County Environmental Health
Bureau can not make a finding that the project has a reliable source of
water; as no room for public health protection exists if any subsequent
samples show the slightest increase and bring the average over 10 ppb.
The installation of an arsenic treatment system for the off-site well is
not a feasible solution, due to cost of infrastructure and installation.
Technical, managerial, and financial TMF) capability is a requirement
for new water systems to assure delivery of safe water to the consumers
of the system. Water systems with less than 15 connections do not have
the TMF to maintain the complexity, ongoing reliability, and expense of
treatment plants; therefore the proposed water source does not protect
the public health and safety or meet minimum water quality standards
i) Sewage Disposal Section 19.03.015.K MCC).
The percolation and groundwater studies for the proposed Merrill
Property demonstrates adequate feasibility for the installation of septic
systems and associated leach fields, to the satisfaction of the
Environmental Health Bureau EHB) and Monterey County Code
15.20, based upon soil make-up and percolation rates. Specific design
requirements for individual septic systems are contained within the
technical reports prepared for the project.
j) Traffic. A traffic analysis was prepared for the project, analyzing the
Wayland Minor Subdivision PLN070366)
Merrill Minor Subdivision PLN070376) Page 15
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
J.-U02
PLANNING-U02
COMMISSION-U02
STAFF-U02
REPORT-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109796-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT J. PLANNING COMMISSIOk^ �potential impacts to the adjacent intersection Boots Rd/State. Route 68;.
Denial of this application would result in no impacts to the Boots
Road/SR-68 intersection or intersections along State Route 68.
k) Affordable Housing. The project was reviewed by the Housing and
Redevelopment Office relative to the County's Inclusionary Housing
Ordinance No. 04185 as codified in Section 18.40.060 of County Code.
Ordinance No. 04185 requires that all new development consisting of
three or more lots or residential units contribute to the Inclusionary
Housing Program. The project would be subject to this requirement, as
it is developing 4 new lots.
1) Parks and Recreation. The project as reviewed by the Monterey
County Parks department relative to County recreation requirements
and/or payment of recreation fees. The project would be subject to this
requirement, due to the creation of 4 new lots.
m) The application, tentative map and supporting materials submitted by
the project applicant to the Monterey County Planning Department for
the proposed development are found in Project File PLN070366.
n) The project planner conducted a site inspection on August 9, 2007 and
December 28, 2010.
3. FINDING: CEQA Exempt): The project is statutorily exempt from
environmental review and no unusual circumstances were identified to
exist for the proposed project.
EVIDENCE: a) California Environmental Quality Act CEQA) Guidelines Section
15270(a) statutorily exempts projects which a public agency rejects or
disapproves.
4. FINDING: APPEALABILITY The decision on this project may be appealed to the
Board of Supervisors.
EVIDENCE: a) Section 21.80.040(D) Monterey County Zoning Ordinance
DECISION
NOW, THEREFORE, based on the above findings and evidence, the Planning Commission
does hereby:
A. Find PLN070376 statutorily exempt per Section 15270(a) of the California
Environmental Quality Act Guidelines; and
B. Deny the PLN070376 Merrill Minor Subdivision) based on the findings and
evidence Exhibit D).
PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of 2011 upon motion of seconded by
by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Wayland Minor Subdivision PLN070366)
Merrill Minor Subdivision PLN070376) Page 16
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
J.-U02
PLANNING-U02
COMMISSION-U02
STAFF-U02
REPORT-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109796-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT J. PLANNING COMMISSIOk^ �Mike Novo, Secretary Planning Comrnissicn
COPY OF THIS DECISION MAILED TO APPLICANT ON
THIS APPLICATION IS APPEALABLE TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.
IF ANYONE WISHES TO APPEAL THIS DECISION, AN APPEAL FORM MUST BE COMPLETED
AND SUBMITTED TO THE CLERK TO THE BOARD ALONG WITH THE APPROPRIATE FILING
FEE ON OR BEFORE
This decision, if this is the final administrative decision, is subject to judicial review pursuant to California
Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1094.5 and 1094.6. Any Petition for Writ of mandate must be filed with
the Court no later than the 90th day following the date on which this decision becomes final.
Wayland Minor Subdivision PLN070366)
Merrill Minor Subdivision PLN070376) Page 17
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
J.-U02
PLANNING-U02
COMMISSION-U02
STAFF-U02
REPORT-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109796-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT J. PLANNING COMMISSIOk^ �APPLICANT: WAYLAND
APN: 173-062-009-000
FILE # PLN070366
S)IiNr T
PLANNER. AMADOR
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
J.-U02
PLANNING-U02
COMMISSION-U02
STAFF-U02
REPORT-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109796-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT J. PLANNING COMMISSIOk^ �
04
oF 0
/
1.
GREATER MONTEREY PENINSULA
r
\ \
APPLICANT: MERRILL
APN: 173-062-008-000
it
Sou-t SDI
RU
D
0
All
/
FILE # PLN070376
Laguna Seca Rec. Area 8 Campgrounds
ca
Lo
rQ
D
Fy
D
300' Limit
2500' Limit j r City Limits
1.
0 2,000
Feet
PLANNER. AMADOR
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
J.-U02
PLANNING-U02
COMMISSION-U02
STAFF-U02
REPORT-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109796-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT J. PLANNING COMMISSIOk^ �MINUTES
Greater Monterey Peninsula Land Use Advisory
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
1. Meeting called to order
2. Members Present:
3. Members Absent: 3 \5 1~
4. Approval of Minutes: C` 1~C14 C~cllb i~ t~ 1fip( L,I 1~~
August 15, 2007)
5. Public Comments:
Motion: LUAC Member's Name)
Second: LUAC Member's Name)
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
6. Other Items: A) Preliminary Courtesy Presentations by Applicants Regarding Potential
Projects/Applications:
Exhibit 17~
aw
ge 07. Ll awes
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
J.-U02
PLANNING-U02
COMMISSION-U02
STAFF-U02
REPORT-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109796-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT J. PLANNING COMMISSIOk^ �Action by Land Use Advisory Committee
Project Referral Sheet
Monterey County Planning Department
168 VV Atisai St 2" Floor
Salinas, California
831) 75~5025
Advisor), Committee: Greater Monterey Peninsula
Please submit your recommendations for this application by Wednesday, December 0'), 2007
Project Title: WAYLAND WARREN TR ET AL
File Number: PLN070366
File Type: MS
Planner: AMADOR
Location: 24975 BOOTS RD MONTEREY
Project Description:
COMBINED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT CONSISTING OF: 1) MINOR SUBDIVISION VESTING TENATIVE MAP TO ALLOW
THE DIVISION OF A 38-ACRE PARCEL INTO 4 PARCELS OF 9.7 ACRES, 5.3 ACRES, 9.3 ACRES, 5.2 ACRES AND A
REMAINDER PARCEL OF 8.8 ACRES; 2) USE PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT OF AREAS IN EXCESS OF 30 PERCENT FOR
ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS; 3) USE PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT IN A VISUALLY SENSITIVE AREA; AND 4) USE
PERMIT TO ALLOW THE REMOVAL OF AN ESTIMATED 39 OAK TREES; AND GRADING OF APPROXIMATELY 3,800
CUBIC YARDS OF CUT AND 3,800 CUBIC YARDS OF FILL. THE PROJECT PROPOSES INDIVIDUAL SEPTIC SYSTEMS,
A 50 FOOT BY 50 FOOT WATER TANK EASEMENT WITH A 100,000 GALLON WATER TANK AND 15 FOOT WIDE
UTILITY EASEMENT, A 60-FOOT WIDE ROAD AND UTILITY EASEMENT AND A 30-FOOT WIDE ROAD AND UTILITY
EASEMENT. AN EXISITING WELL AND A PROPOSED MUTUAL WATER COMPANY WILL SERVE THE PROJECT. THE
PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 24975 BOOTS ROAD, MONTEREY ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 173-062-009=000),
GREATER MONTEREY PENINSULA AREA.
Was th Owner/Applican epresentative Present at Meeting? Yes No
PUBLIC COMMENT: tID Sv c
t.
vuo
a a~ \bcs es.' tL O; I i Ews
n.c tit C u,, r
f
o c~ i a Q r Rn c 2S D~ au~ yv vv As4 w ry wo r, c~ 1 esn
AREAS OF CONCERN e.g. traffic, neighborhood compatibility, visual impact., etc,):
yw y wv t~ Yee a wT C l~o C t~no t~ lr an~3.
u- C~
6~1
c~
hs ta~ o r~ 1v' V aw~+ v A~r, r 0-') Yu l^-~ Ct^~,
1 h t tvt) J, AIA~ 34 3 J r o Pi es
E
Pag cif ti_, Pages
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
J.-U02
PLANNING-U02
COMMISSION-U02
STAFF-U02
REPORT-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109796-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT J. PLANNING COMMISSIOk^ �DEC 1 1 2007
ra2A 5 nr L(
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
J.-U02
PLANNING-U02
COMMISSION-U02
STAFF-U02
REPORT-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109796-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT J. PLANNING COMMISSIOk^ �I'LN070366 WAYL.ANI) CONTINUED]
RECOMMENDED CHANGES/CONDITIONS e.g. reduce scale, relocate on` property, reduce lighting, etc.):
w w 1-~ 5"mod I dM. j t 1,+~ e u~1 +~.�.~ 8 J l~~ r,:~_
6C
K\F C e 1 z t^p a J i D v 15 1 c,~ 5 t' Ki,
ADDITIONAL LUAC COMMENTS: C v e
RECOMMENDATION e,
recommend approva
recommend denial; recommend continuation):
e- G g I 1 J k U J CL~L S UAo e,c T 1 o Cep eA- rl5
e. c_ D VY\ h-\ ec~
CONCUR WITH RECOMMENDATION:
AYES:
fir, CLC cj L no,--
NOES: U
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
MEETING ADJOURNED AT: PREPARED BY: f
Exhibit
Fagg---y LPages
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
J.-U02
PLANNING-U02
COMMISSION-U02
STAFF-U02
REPORT-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109796-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT J. PLANNING COMMISSIOk^ �MINUTES
Greater Monterey Peninsula Land Use Advisory
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
1. Meeting called to order
2. Members Present: J} n lEi4 Sots f G Li~CVi(~~ 4
4. Approval of Minutes:
August 15, 2007) Motion: LUAC Member's Name)
Second: LUAC Member's Name)
Noes: C
Absent: G co~ 5
Abstain:
t 0.rpk k~ Ou t etu u~t~ A. t 1~ h~, C~
December 5, 2007) Motion: 1l LUAC Member's Name)
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
J.-U02
PLANNING-U02
COMMISSION-U02
STAFF-U02
REPORT-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109796-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT J. PLANNING COMMISSIOk^ �5. Public Comments:
6. Other Items: A) Preliminary Courtesy Presentations by Applicants Regarding Potential
Projects/Applications:
Pale
Exhibit H
L 0 f_ Pages
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
J.-U02
PLANNING-U02
COMMISSION-U02
STAFF-U02
REPORT-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109796-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT J. PLANNING COMMISSIOk^ �Action by Land Use Advisory Committee
Project Referral Sheet
Monterey County Planning Department
16E W Alisal St 2"0 Floor
Salinas. California
331) 755-5025
Advisory Committee: Greater Monterey Peninsula
Please submit your recommendations for this application by Wednesday, December 19, 2007.
Project Title: MERRILL THOMAS TR ET Al.
File Number: PLN070376
File Type: MS
Planner: AMADOR
Location: 24915 BOOTS RD MONTEREY
Project Description:
COMBINED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT CONSISTING OF: 1) MINOR SUBDIVISION VESTING TENTATIVE
MAP TO ALLOW THE DIVISION OF A 37.8 ACRE PARCEL INTO THREE 3) PARCELS OF 10.5 ACRES, 13.8
ACRES, 7.5 ACRES AND A REMAINDER PARCEL OF 6.0 ACRES; AND 2) USE PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT
IN A VISUALLY SENSITIVE AREA V S" DISTRICT). THE PROJECT PROPOSES APPROXIMATELY 3,100
CUBIC YARDS OF GRADING COMBINATION OF CUT/FILL), INDIVIDUAL SEPTIC SYSTEMS AND 60 FOOT
WIDE ROAD AND UTILITY EASEMENTS. THE PROJECT WILL BE SERVED BY AN EXISTING WELL AND A
PROPOSED MUTUAL WATER COMPANY. THE PROJECT WILL NOT INVOLVE ANY TREE REMOVAL OR
DEVELOPMENT IN AREAS IN EXCESS OF 30 PERCENT SLOPES, THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 24915
BOOTS ROAD, MONTEREY ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 173-062-008-000), GREATER MONTEREY
PENINSULA AREA.
Was the Owner/Applicant/Representative Present at Meeting? Yes X No
tars k Ltai" \V' of o.a,. w 1 1j\1~;,--51-- I
PUBLIC COMMENT:
S o.w
AREAS OF CONCERN e.g. traffic, neighborhood compatibility, visual impact, etc.):
Az o-~. At h~ b G 1 1 1~ 1 t 3 1 Y e wr o
k, AA
Y t +
Dfp Lk)
V-b' v i- F l 3
Sp V v~'- V~o~~J-c~ ht&-v- Cr tC~rUr
pa c'P
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
J.-U02
PLANNING-U02
COMMISSION-U02
STAFF-U02
REPORT-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109796-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT J. PLANNING COMMISSIOk^ �jPLN070376 M.ERRILL CONTINUEDI
RECOMMENDED CHANGES/CONDITIONS e.g. reduce scale, relocate onpropem, reduce lighting, etc.):
b+- c~-~" cs~ L 1? wC.~.v~~n ct,.~ u. Y~-4 c,.Js i t 6 1 C`~n<(.,"�-
Lk-
1G,.,us C44
h
ADDITIONAL LUAC COMMENTS:
VDk~
RECOMMENDATION e.g.
recommend approval
recommend denial; recommend continuation):
o~ tb) k k 3-- uLc av +~.~ c o t m~ i tr.A
t ear s+~
CONCUR WITH RECOMMENDATION:
AYES: y \~ CA, 1W~ d y{tIU
NOES: D
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
MEETING ADJOURNED AT:
PREPARED BY: t__ I
Exhibit fL
a~e of~~a~es
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
J.-U02
PLANNING-U02
COMMISSION-U02
STAFF-U02
REPORT-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109796-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT K. GREATER MP LUAC|Ek}�Exhibit K
Greater Monterey Peninsula LUAC
Meeting Minutes
PLN070366 Wayland
Merrill PLN1 10078)
Wayland PLN1 10079)
Board of Supervisors
February 7, 2012
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
K.-U02
GREATER-U02
MP-U02
LUAC-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109797-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT K. GREATER MP LUAC|Ek}�Mif INUTES
Greater Monterey Peninsula Land Use Advisory
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
1. Meeting called to order
2. Members Present:
3. Members Absent:
4. Approval of Minutes:
August 15, 2007)
d~; C-, i u_b
Po~CPd~~
CVi Clk CC,1tL~U 11 t7 l.~aC L"-cC'i 1 5
Motion: LUAC Member's Name)
Second: LUAC Member's Name)
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
5. Public Comments:
6. Other Items: A) Preliminary Courtesy Presentations by Applicants Regarding Potential
Projects/Applications:
SGE---,) C-
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
K.-U02
GREATER-U02
MP-U02
LUAC-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109797-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT K. GREATER MP LUAC|Ek}�Action byy Land Use Advisory Committee
Project Referral Sheet
Monterey Count), Planning Department
165 Vd Alisa! St 2no Floor
Salinas, California
831) 755-5025
Advisory Committee: Greater Monterey Peninsula
Please submit your recommendations for this application by Wednesday, December 05, 2007.
Project Title: WAYLAID) WARD EN TR ET AL
File Number: P-N070366
File Type: MS
Planner: AMADOR
Location: 24975 BOOTS RD MONTEREY
Project Description:
COMBINED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT CONSISTING OF: 1) MINOR SUBDIVISION VESTING TENATIVE MAP TO ALLOW
THE DIVISION OF A 38-ACRE PARCEL INTO 4 PARCELS OF 9.7 ACRES, 5.3 ACRES, 9.3 ACRES, 5.2 ACRES AND A
REMAINDER PARCEL OF 8.8 ACRES; 2) USE PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT OF AREAS IN EXCESS OF 30 PERCENT FOR
ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS; 3) USE PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT IN A VISUALLY SENSITIVE AREA; AND 4) USE
PERMIT TO ALLOW THE REMOVAL OF AN ESTIMATED 39 OAK TREES; AND GRADING OF APPROXIMATELY 3,800
CUBIC YARDS OF CUT AND 3,800 CUBIC YARDS OF FILL. THE PROJECT PROPOSES INDIVIDUAL SEPTIC SYSTEMS,
A 50 FOOT BY 50 FOOT WATER TANK EASEMENT WITH A 100,000 GALLON WATER TANK AND 15 FOOT WIDE
UTILITY EASEMENT, A 60-FOOT WIDE ROAD AND UTILITY EASEMENT AND A 30-FOOT WIDE ROAD AND UTILITY
EASEMENT. AN EXISITING WELL AND A PROPOSED MUTUAL WATER COMPANY WILL SERVE THE PROJECT. THE
PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 24975 BOOTS ROAD, MONTEREY ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 173-062-009.000),
GREATER MONTEREY PENINSULA AREA.
W as th Owner/Appli~epresentative Present at Meeting? Yes x No
PUBLIC COMMENT:
11 w1~.~ C CU L1- g~V tsL q l n j +U 1` L71 1~ V n t 1 ti S 1 S C bv. ISri
Vuj
tk'iY ak. t t_!~~S ar FatiloY k~u 1 LL G Xrw 4y 1 r\ ljYu ct X3lY
1~n+.~ rac.~V~-.~~k- d 9,-.~.~ bLl.~~.~ b YYI-tLtkv o 1~x~�c,'~I4t7PF.~S,
ua, M 041 A"
AREAS OF CONCERN e.g. traffic, neighborhood compatibility, visual impact etc.):
w~C~ lW 1'`^, st F`I 5 P- 1- 5`dt^ U 7 t C~""~ puw r U t ti?p
M., 4 t~ z C;, Iw 6 L it VIA a
Gam? y u Uta J L U h b Wa Lam.
i 1~; v x~sY r~~w Y11 1 oCl /10 cN i1+ Q U
L
Page.
tT T
Pales
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
K.-U02
GREATER-U02
MP-U02
LUAC-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109797-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT K. GREATER MP LUAC|Ek}�t t mac w Js C r~_ U G 3 2.~ b Gc~
fu-U',p 1 t 1
J p'i}~ I~t G.J., V.iJ.lt~�pkQ~.- 1/1. DL~S V~/J U *~lx,(~`~ M.
o Lo
Y T,u c VIA, o~ n iz V~o vJ hxv- S~ i o~~ 6 f~~
l,J J Y~ wJ( K2� C c1 nl~ j t W t V trlDU~, L / NcY Jit c f
t,~ b J t wlu"~ 1-~ t~ J w,0, lt~'~' 4~ YK Au 0.11'k.-10 +,~w,~ C~v,.t)v...r~ cr~ W~u. t~.L~ir'� Y~-
w w 6"c
U works z c 2 L
uv-
Ylni. a w C gyp' k-C,Y~ G�-5 1d
4
DEC 1 1 2007
Ul`j I i
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
K.-U02
GREATER-U02
MP-U02
LUAC-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109797-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT K. GREATER MP LUAC|Ek}�I'LNO70366 W AYLAND CONTINUED]
RECOMMENDED CHANGES/CONDITIONS e.g. reduce scale, relocateton`property,, reduce lighting. etc.):
CL~~ 1 a, w 1 b S JtLu'~- lv. c t'r l'~t~t, t w~V~ / c~t~t) J 6'~"f
111 4(~ C) L('t
ce
c. 1� Cis u- v
r~ e s G c~~ CIL 5C-
ADDITIONAL LUAC COMZVIENTS: I V 41 t
RECOMMENDATION e, recommend apprava recommend denial; recommend continuation):
C 9 t n 4Y~ k p C~ S~~ T t o Gp e 1 t5
1~ted
CONCUR WITH RECOMMENDATION:
AYES: 3
8,111 L" 1Y
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
MEETING ADJOURNED AT: n! PREPARED BY:
Y! L1B.i
w
Page 0r tf
Pauas
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
K.-U02
GREATER-U02
MP-U02
LUAC-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109797-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT L. MEETING MINUTES|Ek��Exhibit L
Greater Monterey Peninsula LUAC
Meeting Minutes
PLN070376 Merrill
Merrill PLN1 10078)
Wayland PLN1 10079)
Board of Supervisors
February 7, 2012
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
L.-U02
MEETING-U02
MINUTES-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109798-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT L. MEETING MINUTES|Ek��MINUTES
Greater Monterey Peninsula Land Use Advisory
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
1. Meeting called to order t'om u^-
g�~~y I a P LLn
2. Members Present: i
3. Members Absent: IKCDybS u
4. Approval of Minutes:
August 15, 2007) Motion: LUAC Member's Name)
Second: t-Ocr-~ LUAC Member's Name)
Ayes: C1 J~~ c~, u., 0~-
Absent: A~ ti
Abstain: t,ie.scn'- ww
December 5, 2007) Motion: LUAC Member`s Name)
Second: LUAC Member's Name)
Ayes: w`~~~^ 1'xn
Noes:
Abscnt: 2~-
Abstain: b
Exhibit
Page of_- Pag�s
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
L.-U02
MEETING-U02
MINUTES-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109798-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT L. MEETING MINUTES|Ek��S. Public Comments:
6. Other Items: A) Preliminary Courtesy Presentations by Applicants Regarding Potential
Projects/Applications:
r---- k13vJ--
Exh"bit
I
ag of rPages
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
L.-U02
MEETING-U02
MINUTES-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109798-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT L. MEETING MINUTES|Ek��Action by Land Use dvisory Committee
Project Referral Sheet
Monterey County Planning Department
16C W Alisal St 2" Floor
Salinas. Caliiornia
531)755-5025
Advisory Committee: Greater Monterey Peninsula
Please submit your recommendations for this application by Wednesday, December 19, 2007.
Project Title: MERRILL THOMAS TR ET AL
File Number. PLN070376
File Type: MS
Planner: AMADOR
Location: 24915 BOOTS RD MONTEREY
Project Description:
COMBINED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT CONSISTING OF: 1) MINOR SUBDIVISION VESTING TENTATIVE
MAP TO ALLOW THE DIVISION OF A 37.8 ACRE PARCEL INTO THREE 3) PARCELS OF 10.5 ACRES, 13.8
ACRES, 7.5 ACRES AND A REMAINDER PARCEL OF 6.0 ACRES; AND 2) USE PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT
IN A VISUALLY SENSITIVE AREA VS" DISTRICT). THE PROJECT PROPOSES APPROXIMATELY 3,100
CUBIC YARDS OF GRADING COMBINATION OF CUT/FILL), INDIVIDUAL SEPTIC SYSTEMS AND 60 FOOT
WIDE ROAD AND UTILITY EASEMENTS. THE PROJECT WILL BE SERVED BY AN EXISTING WELL AND A
PROPOSED MUTUAL WATER COMPANY. THE PROJECT WILL NOT INVOLVE ANY TREE REMOVAL OR
DEVELOPMENT IN AREAS IN EXCESS OF 30 PERCENT SLOPES. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 24915
BOOTS ROAD, MONTEREY ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 173-062-008-000), GREATER MONTEREY
PENINSULA AREA.
Was the Owner/Applicant/Representative Present at Meeting? Yes No
PUBLIC COMMENT:
AREAS OF CONCERN e.g. traffic, neighborhood compatibility, visual impact, etc.):
d l U` L~ r Sao' l ri /~ c o d kt k W wJ lug Yu w U j i,l~ i c z \ Y wr w
\A VLO
i
t~
s I y
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
L.-U02
MEETING-U02
MINUTES-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109798-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT L. MEETING MINUTES|Ek��PLN070376 MERIULL CONTINUED]
RECOMMENDED CHANGES/CONDITIONS e.g. reduce scale, relocate on Property, reduce lighting, etc.):
xv,ti a iv w_ 5jy xt c u c J v-~ awn o o d, b
ktA
ti
bl-
ADDITIONAL LUAC COMMENTS:
RECOMMENDATION e.g, recommend approval recommend denial; recommend continuation):
t er suw Lb-t-~~~
CONCUR WITH RECOMMENDATION:
AYES:
D
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN: 0
I
MEETING ADJOURNED AT: b~ PREPARED BY:
Exhibit L
Page pT ages
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
L.-U02
MEETING-U02
MINUTES-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109798-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT M. LETTER FROM EHB & k��Exhibit M
Letter from Environmental Health Bureau
Janna Faulk), dated March 18, 2010
Merrill PLN1 10078)
Wayland PLN1 10079)
Board of Supervisors
February 7, 2012
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
M.-U02
LETTER-U02
EHB-U02
&-U02
EXHIBIT-U02
N.-U02
BOS-U02
BOARD-U02
ORDER-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109799-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT M. LETTER FROM EHB & k��COUNTY OF MONTEREY
HEALTH DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH BUREAU
MARCH 18, 1-010
To: David Mack, Project Planner
From: Janna L Faulk
Environmental Health Review
Subject: PLN070366, Wayland Percolation and Leachfield Plans
Monterey County Environmental Health Review Services EHRS) has reviewed the Septic Report for
Parcels 2, 3 & 4" from Grice Engineering and Geology Inc. received on February 11, 2010. EHRS
acknowledges that this report is technically valid and acceptable. However, if this project is
approved, EHRS recommends that the parcels would be best served by a sewage treatment
facility due to the concerns listed below:
The soils encountered during the percolation drilling and testing on these parcels indicated
formations with varying clay and silt concentrations that demonstrated very slow percolation
rates. The rate of percolation varied greatly at different depths and locations on each lot. Some
percolation holes performed at rates that are within the acceptable range and while other rates
failed according to Monterey County Code 15.20. Whereas there is enough evidence to
demonstrate the lots are technically buildable, there is not a consistent rate of percolation
within and among all of the lots to give EHRS the level of confidence necessary to support the
subdivision utilizing the proposed Onsite Wastewater Treatment System OWTS) designs.
The clay and silts form impermeable layers that create sheet flow of subsurface water. The
Grice Engineering Report requires curtain drains and berms on several properties to collect and
divert this water before it could infiltrate and potentially hydraulically overload the OWTS
trenches.
The percolation data suggests that the upper soils are not suitable for septic dispersal. The Grice
Engineering Report requires deep trenches to accommodate for the slow percolation in the
upper soils. The proposed trench designs call for a total trench depth of 13 to 18 feet deep and
effective depth of 8 to 11.6 feet deep for the septic trenches. This means that the top 5 to 10
feet of the trench will be backfilled and not used for septic disposal.
o These deep trenches would function primarily as disposal of effluent as there will be
little to no air in the soil/sidewalls of the trench to allow growth of aerobic bacteria that
would provide additional treatment of the effluent. Shallow trenches five feet or less in
depth) in permeable soils are preferred over deep trenches to provide for as much
aerobic treatment as possible. Due to the low permeability of the upper soils a shallow
system is infeasible for this project.
These septic designs are not considered simple, conventional OWTS due to the curtain drains
and the extraordinarily deep trenches. These systems may cost upwards of 50% more than a
standard septic system. The costs include creating a safe working environment by shoring the
sides of the trenches when there would be workers installing system components such as
perforated piping) in a 10 foot deep trench.
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
M.-U02
LETTER-U02
EHB-U02
&-U02
EXHIBIT-U02
N.-U02
BOS-U02
BOARD-U02
ORDER-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109799-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT M. LETTER FROM EHB & k��Regardless of design and construction constraints, OWTS are subject to failure over time by
natural and unnatural means. Cumulatively, the soil characteristics, evidence of subsurface
sheeting water and moderate to failing percolation test results may result in a relatively rapid
failure of the system, despite the various engineering mitigations that are proposed to be
incorporated into the OWTS design. ERRS does not support the creation of new lots with
potentially marginal septic systems; consequently connection to a public sewer conveyance is a
reliable, long-term method of wastewater disposal and should be considered the best option for this
subdivision.
Please Note: Water quality has not been proven for this subdivision
The water quality for the proposed water system has not yet been proven to be under the state
maximum contaminant levels for arsenic. Environmental Health will submit a final
recommendation for approval or denial after the water quality tests are finalized.
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
M.-U02
LETTER-U02
EHB-U02
&-U02
EXHIBIT-U02
N.-U02
BOS-U02
BOARD-U02
ORDER-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109799-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT M. LETTER FROM EHB & k��Exhibit N
Board of Supervisors Board Order
From October 17, 2007
Merrill PLN1 10078)
Wayland PLN1 10079)
Board of Supervisors
February 7, 2012
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
M.-U02
LETTER-U02
EHB-U02
&-U02
EXHIBIT-U02
N.-U02
BOS-U02
BOARD-U02
ORDER-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109799-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012
EXHIBIT M. LETTER FROM EHB & k��Before the Board of Supervisors in and for the
County of Monterey, State of California
a. Hold a Public Hearing regarding policies to be
incorporated in a draft 2007 General Plan GPU5); and
b. Direct staff to return on November 6 with draft General
Plan text that reflects the Board's direction; and
c. Adopt a motion in accordance with the Subdivision Map
Act informing the public that any subdivision applications
deemed complete after October 16, 2007 will be subject to
the plans, policies, ordinances, and standards that result
from the current General Plan Update proceedings and
that are in effect at the time the application is considered
for approval.
Hearing PLN070525/2007 General Plan Update, County-
wide)
Upon motion of Supervisor Salinas, seconded by Supervisor Calcagno, and carried by those
members present, the Board hereby:
a. Held a Public Hearing regarding policies to be incorporated in a draft 2007 General Plan
GPU5); and
d. Directed staff to return on November 6 with draft General Plan text that reflects the Board's
direction; and
e. Adopted a motion in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act informing the public that any
subdivision applications deemed complete after October 16, 2007 will be subject to the plans,
policies, ordinances, and standards that result from the current General Plan Update
proceedings and that are in effect at the time the application is considered for approval.
Hearing PLN070525/2007 General Plan Update, County-wide)
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 16`h day of October, 2007, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Supervisors Calcagno, Armenta, Salinas, and Potter
NOES: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Smith
I, Denise Pennell, Interim Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Monterey, State of California, hereby
certify that the foregoing is a true copy of an original order of said Board of Supervisors duly made and entered in
the minutes thereof of Minute Book 73 for the meeting on October 16, 2007.
Dated: May 28, 2008 Lew Bauman, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
County of Monterey, State of California
Deputy
BIB]
40956-U01
EXHIBIT-U02
M.-U02
LETTER-U02
EHB-U02
&-U02
EXHIBIT-U02
N.-U02
BOS-U02
BOARD-U02
ORDER-U02
LI21329-U03
FO96183-U03
FO107762-U03
FO107838-U03
MG107839-U03
AS107858-U03
AS107864-U03
AI109152-U03
DO109799-U03
C1-U03
GENERAL-U03
DOCUMENTS-U03
2/16/2012-U04
MARCELLAC-U04
17708-U05
1-U06
PUBLIC-U07
HEARING-U07
TO-U07
CONSIDER:-U07
A.-U07
APPEAL-U07
BY-U07
WARREN-U07
WAYLAND-U07
THE-U07
PLANNING-U07
COMMISSION-U07
S-U07
DECISION-U07
DENYING-U07
THE-U07
293-P&BI-U08
ROTHARMEL-U09
LINDA-U09
ROTHARMELL-U10
1/27/2012-U011
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
WAYLAND/PLN070366)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
38-ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
FOUR-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
9.7-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
5.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
9.3-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3),-U012
5.2-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
4)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
8.8-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
ON-U012
SLOPES-U012
IN-U012
EXCESS-U012
OF-U012
25-U012
PERCENT-U012
ROADWAY-U012
IMPROVEMENTS;-U012
3)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DISTRICT);-U012
4)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
REMOVAL-U012
OF-U012
APPROXIMATELY-U012
39-U012
OAK-U012
TREES;-U012
B.-U012
APPEAL-U012
BY-U012
SUSAN-U012
MERRILL-U012
THE-U012
PLANNING-U012
COMMISSION-U012
S-U012
DECISION-U012
DENYING-U012
THE-U012
APPLICATION-U012
A-U012
COMBINED-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
PERMIT-U012
MERRILL/PLN070376)-U012
CONSISTING-U012
OF:-U012
1)-U012
A-U012
MINOR-U012
SUBDIVISION-U012
VESTING-U012
TENTATIVE-U012
MAP-U012
TO-U012
ALLOW-U012
THE-U012
DIVISION-U012
OF-U012
A-U012
37.8-U012
ACRE-U012
PARCEL-U012
INTO-U012
THREE-U012
PARCELS-U012
OF-U012
10.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
1),-U012
13.8-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
2),-U012
7.5-U012
ACRES-U012
PARCEL-U012
3)-U012
A-U012
REMAINDER-U012
PARCEL-U012
OF-U012
6.0-U012
ACRES;-U012
2)-U012
USE-U012
PERMIT-U012
DEVELOPMENT-U012
IN-U012
A-U012
VISUALLY-U012
SENSITIVE-U012
AREA-U012
VS"-U012
DI-U012