Commission Determination of Applicable Hearing and Notice Provisions (pursuant to California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 13569) for the issuance of two Certificates of Compliance to Albert Schoenfield for one acre and 3

CCC-284378

California Rules of Court

! STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY Gray,Davta, Governor _.~ALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION W17b CENTRAL COAST DISTRICT OFFICE • 12& FRONT STREET, SUITE 300 ~95060 • • Prepared May 30, 2001 (for June 13, 2001 hearing date) To: Coastal Commissioners and Interested Parties From: Peter Douglas, Executive Director Tami Grove, Deputy Director Diane Landry, Staff Counsel RECORD PACKET COPY Subject: Commission Determination of Applicable Hearing and Notice Provisions (pursuant to California Code of Regulations, Title 14,

Section 13569) for the issuance of two Certificates of Compliance to Albert Schoenfield for one acre and 3.2 acre parcels located at 2731 Pecho Valley Road, Los Osos by the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors. Commission determination of the applicable hearing and notice provisions for development authorized, on appeal from the decision of the Planning Director, by the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors for the approval of two parcels through the issuance of two, unconditional Certificates of Compliance.

The approved project creates an additional vacant parcel in an area designated as a Sensitive Resource Area in the LCP and causes one of the newly created parcels, which contains an existing single family home, to be below the minimum parcel size for the area .

Summary The San Luis Obispo County Local Coastal Plan (LCP ) was certified on July 8, 1987. The County assumed authority over the issuance of Coastal development Permits on March 31,1988. After certification of a Local Coastal Program, the Coastal Commission is authorized under CCR Title 14, § 13569 to resolve disputes concerning a local government's proposed processing of development proposals for purposes of Coastal Development Permit requirements (i.e., is the development categorically excluded, non-appealable, or appealable).

In this case, the Planning Director's decision to approve only one Certificate of Compliance was appealed to the Board of Supervisors by the Applicant. The county staff prepared a recommendation to the Board that the Planning Directors decision should be upheld and suggested in a memo to Commission staff that if the decision was overturned, they expected the Board would grant two, Conditional Certificates of Compliance. Subsequent to the Board's action, a local resident, Janice Rohn, contended that the April 10, 2001 approval should be appealable to the Coastal Commission.

She requested the county to ask for an Executive Directors Determination pursuant to CCR, Title 14,

Section 13569 and

Section 23.01.041 (g) (1) and (2) of Title 23 of the County Code. ( Please see Exhibit 1 ) Commission Staff had also received a copy of the request, and, in a letter dated May 7, 2001, advised the County and applicant to immediately request the determination. ( Please see Exhibit 2 ). On May 17, 2001, the County notified Commission staff that it had chosen not to California Coastal Commission June 2001 Meeting ~ Staff: Diane Landry Approved by: f' 1-=-\-. s\·;o <:l\ 13569 Determination for Schoenfield Cetificates of 6bmpliance 5. 2 . 01.doc

San Luis Obispo County LCP 13569 Determination Schoenfield Certificates of Compliance Page2 request a determination because 11 ••• the Schoen field application was not an application for development, it was unnecessary for the County to make a determination under

Section 13569 as to what type of development was being proposed ..... " ( Please see Exhibit 3 for the full text of the County response ) The Executive Director of the Coastal Commission replied to the County the next day stating that the dispute resolution process outlined in

Section 13569 was appropriate and that his determination was that the County had effectively approved two Conditional Certificates of Compliance that, under the terms of the certified LCP, were appealable to the Coastal Commission. ( Please See Exhibit 4 ) The County disputes the Executive Director's Determination.

Under §13569, when the local jurisdiction does not agree with the Executive Director's determination regarding the appropriate permitting status of a particular proposal, the Commission is required to hold a hearing and make the determination at the next meeting in the appropriate geographic region of the state following the Executive Director's determination, which in this case is the June 13, 2001 meeting in Los Angeles.

Executive Director's Recommendation • The Executive Director recommends that the Commission adopt the attached findings and resolution to determine that the project authorized by the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors was effectively the approval of two Conditional Certificates of Compliance and as such, constitute appealable Coastal Development Permits. • Motion.

I move that the Commission determine that the development authorized by San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors on April 10, 2001 to create two parcels through the Certificate of Compliance process constitutes Coastal Development Permits that are appealable to the Coastal Commission. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends a YES vote. Passage of this motion will require that these Coastal Development Permits are processed as appealable items. A majority of the Commissioners present is necessary to pass the motion and adopt the following resolution and findings. Resolution.

The Commission, by adoption of the attached findings, determines, pursuant to

Section 13569 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, that the appropriate designation for the development approved by the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors on April 10, 2001 is that it constitutes appealable Coastal Development Permits. California Coastal Commission •

• • • San Luis Obispo County LCP 13569 Determination Schoenfield Certificates of Compliance Page3 Recommended Findings and Declarations The Commission finds and declares as follows: 1. Project History and Background The gently rolling 4.2 acre site is located on the seaward side of Pecho Valley Road between the first public road and the sea on the edge of the developed portion of Los Osos. It is outside the defined "Urban Services Area" and just within the "Urban Reserve " line.

Most of the nearby lots are developed with single family homes and range in size from over four acres to less than one half an acre. (Please see Exhibit 5). The LCP designation for the site is suburban residential with a minimum parcel size of two and one half acres. The site is identified as a "Sensitive Resource Area" for terrestrial habitat. The current Applicant purchased the site in 1987 and in 1989, the County approved a Coastal Development Permit for the construction of a 3500 square foot home on the westerly portion of the parcel.

The Staff Report prepared for the project identified existing and potential habitat on the site coastal scrub, Morro Bay Kangaroo Rat and Morro Manzanita ). Various conditions were attached to the approval including requirements for an open space easement on a portion of the property and deed restrictions to protect habitat values and native vegetation. At the time the project was approved, it was anticipated that a Habitat Conservation Plan would be prepared in the near future. It has not been determined whether this HCP has been prepared to date.

The project was not appealed to the Coastal Commission and has been constructed. In 1995, Mr. Schoen field applied for a land division to divide his parcel into two parcels of 1 + and 3+ acres configured exactly as the parcels recently authorized by the Board's action. The land division was denied by the County because the resulting lots did not meet the minimum parcel size for the area of two and one half acres.

The Staff Report for this project included a letter from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS } that stated there would be adverse impacts on habitat values if the land division was approved and an additional house built on the site. In 2000, Mr. Schoenfield applied for two Unconditional Certificates of Compliance (C00-0166). In October of 2000, County staff prepared a report on the proposal and recommended that only one certificate for the entire site be approved .

The report stated that the Applicant was not entitled to two Unconditional Certificates of Compliance as the lots had been created illegally in 1949 and were thus not eligible to receive Unconditional Certificates pursuant to Map Act and County requirements. ( Please se Exhibit 6 ) On November 14, 2000, the Planning Director approved the issuance of one, unconditional Certificate of Compliance. The Planning Director's decision was challenged by the Applicant and a hearing before the California Coastal Commission

San Luis Obispo County LCP 13569 Determination Schoenfield Certificates of Compliance Page4 Board of Supervisors was set for March of 2001. A staff report recommending that the Planning Director's decision be upheld was prepared.

In March, a copy of this report was sent to Commission staff with a cover memo indicating that if the Director's decision was overruled " Staff fully expects that if the Board overturns the Director's decision and approves two certificates then both would be conditional certificates of compliance." The memo also notes that the "project is in a coastal appeal zone". (Please see Exhibit 7, County Staff Report., Memo and Board of Supervisor's action on the Appeal ) The Board continued the hearing on the item from the March 6 meeting to April 10.

On April 10, the Board ruled that the Applicant's parcels had not been created illegally in 1949 and were therefore entitled to two, unconditional Certificates of Compliance. Since the Board had determined this was a ministerial act, no notice of their action was sent to the Commission, nonetheless, an appeal of the action was made by Janice Rohn and received at the Commission offices on April 30, 2001. Ms. Rohn was advised by Commission staff that no Notice of Final Local Action on this item had been received and an appeal period could not be initiated until such receipt.

She then asked the County to request an Executive Director's Determination pursuant to CCR Title 14,

Section 13569 of the Commission's regulations. Ten days later, the County indicated that such a request would not be forthcoming. In response, the Executive Director, stated that, in his opinion, the dispute resolution process outlined in

Section 13569 was applicable in this case and determined that the County had effectively .. " • issued two Conditional Certificates of Compliance which were appealable to the Coastal • Commission. The County~ disagrees with this determination and therefore the Commission must decide whether the Board's April 1 0 action to approve these certificates constitutes appeallable development. 2. Authority for Determination The authority for the Commission's determination stems from California Code of Regulations, Title 14,

Section 13569 (Determination of Applicable Notice and Hearing Procedures) that states: The determination of whether a development is categorically excluded, non-appealable or appealable for purposes of notice, hearing and appeals procedures shall be made by the local government at the time the application for development within the coastal zone is submitted. This determination shall be made with reference to the certified Local Coastal Program, including any maps, categorical exclusions, land use designations and zoning ordinances which are adopted as part of the Local Coastal Program.

Where an applicant, interested person, or a local government has a question as to the appropriate designation for the development, the following procedures shall establish whether a development is categorically excluded, non-appealablE;, or appealable: (

a) The local government shall make its determination as to what type of development California Coastal Commission •

• • • San Luis Obispo County LCP 13569 Determination Schoenfield Certificates of Compliance PageS is being proposed (i.e. categorically excluded, appealable, non-appealable) and shall inform the applicant of the notice and hearing requirements for that particular development. The local determination ·may be made by any designated local government employee(

s) or any local body as provided in local government procedures. · (

b) If the determination of the local government is challenged by the applicant or an interested person, or if the local government wishes to have a Commission determination as to the appropriate designation, the local government shall notify the Commission by telephone of the dispute/question and shall request an Executive Director's opinion; (

c) The executive director shall, within two (2) working days of the local government request (or upon completion of a site inspection where such inspection is warranted), transmit his or her determination as to whether the development is categorically excluded, non-appealable or appealable: (

d) Where, after the executive director's investigation, the executive directors determination is not in accordance with the local government determination, the Commission shall hold a hearing for purposes of determining the appropriate designation for the area. The Commission shall

schedule the hearing on the determination for the next Commission meeting (in the appropriate geographic region of the state) following the local government request. San Luis Obispo County LCP implementation plan also includes a dispute resolution process.

Section 23.01.041 (g) (1) and (2) of the County Code, a portion of the certified LCP states: (

g) Determination of applicable notice and hearing procedures. The determination of whether a development is categorically excluded, non appealable or appealable for purposes of notice, hearing and appeal procedures shall be made by the County at the time the application for development within the Coastal Zone is submitted. This determination shall be made with reference to the certified Local Coastal Program, including any maps, categorical exclusions, land use designations and provisions of this title which are adopted as part of the Local Coastal Program. Where an applicant.

Interested person or the county has a question as to the appropriate designation for the development, the following procedures shall establish whether a development is categorically excluded, non appealable or appealable :

(1) The Planning Director shall make his/her determination as to what type of development is being proposed (i.e. categorically excluded, appealable, non appealable) and shall inform the applicant of the notice and hearing requirement for that particular development.

(2) If the determination of the Planning Director is challenged by the applicant or California Coastal Commission

San Luis Obispo County LCP 13569 Determination Schoenfield Certificates of Compliance PageS interested person, or if the county wishes to have a determination by the Coastal Commission as to the appropriate designation, the Planning Director shall notify the Coastal Commission by telephone of the dispute/question and shall request an Executive Director's opinion. After the certification of a LCP, the Commission is authorized to determine the appropriate status of a development proposal (i.e., categorically excluded, non-appealable, or appealable) when requested to do so.

The purpose of the regulation and companion LCP provision is to provide for an administrative process for the resolution of disputes over the status of a particular project. Such a process is important when two agencies, here the County of San Luis Obispo and the Coastal Commission both havejurisdiction over a given project. The Coastal Act was set up to give certified local governments the primary permitting authority over projects proposed in the Coastal Zone but to allow the Commission oversight authority over specified projects through the appeal process.

Thus, the regulations anticipated that, from time to time, there may be disagreements regarding the status of a particular project and an administrative dispute resolution process would be preferable (and quicker) than the immediate alternative of litigation. The local government may initiate the request or forward a request made by an applicant or other interested party. The first step in this process is to request a determination from the Commission's Executive Director.

If the Executive Director and the local government are in disagreement over the appropriate processing status, as is the situation here, the Commission is charged with making the final determination. In this case, the County received a request for an Executive Director's Determination on the Board approval of two Certificates of Compliance but chose not to ask for one.

The applicable regulations and ordinance sections do not offer the County this option but rather state that "the local government shall notify the Commission by telephone of the dispute/question and shall request an Executive Director's opinion. ~~ ( CCR, Title 14,

Section 13569 (b) ) and ~~ ... the Planning Director shall notify the Coastal Commission by telephone of the dispute/question and shall request an Executive Director's opinion" (San Luis Obispo County Code, Title 23

Section 23.01.041 (g) (2) ). Likewise, the Executive Director is required to render a determination ( CCR Title 14,

Section 13569 (c) ) and, in the event the local government disagrees with the opinion, " the Commission shall hold a hearing for purposes of determining the appropriate designation for the area~~ ( CCR, Title 14,

Section 13569 (d)). It is clear from a plain reading of the regulation, that, once a request is made, participation is not optional and that if a system for dispute resolution is to be effective, the requirements for · implementation of the prqcess must be observed by both the Coa~tal Commission and the local government. The Executive Director has, therefore made a determination, the County disagrees and the matter will be heard by the Commission. 3. Executive Directors Determination Disputed by the County In response to the request by Ms.

Rohn and the Commission's letter asking that the request be forwarded, the County replied, on May 17, that such a request was unnecessary because California Coastal Commission • • •

• • • San Luis Obispo County LCP 13569 Determination Schoenfiefd Certificates of Compliance Page7 the application submitted to the county was for two unconditional Certificates of Compliance. The County asserts that since unconditional certificates are not considered development under the definition in the LCP, the project is outside the Commission's jurisdiction and therefore no determination regarding the appeal status is needed.

Furthermore, the County response noted that "disputes over what type of development is being proposed are to be resolved at the beginning of the process when the application is submitted so that the matter can be properly noticed and processed for hearing. " The Commission finds that the fact that Mr. Schoenfield may have applied for unconditional certificates should not be determinative of the actual status of the proposed project.

It is the County's responsibility to determine whether a particular proposal is either exempt from the Coastal Development Permit requirement, or is appeallable or not appeallable to the Coastal Commission. In this case, County staff, in response to the application for two certificates, determined that only one unconditional Certificate of Compliance could be granted to Mr. Schoenfield.

Since one unconditional Certificate of Compliance for the entire 4.2 acre site had already been granted to a previous owner in 1976, prior to Coastal Commission authority over the area, the re-affirmation of a single certificate was appropriate. On November 14, 2000, the Planning Director approved the application, but for only one, unconditional certificate. The Applicant appealed this discretionary decision of the Planning Director to the Board of Supervisors in November of 2000. In March, Commission staff was notified by the County that a hearing on the appeal was scheduled for March 6, 2001.

The attached County Staff report recommended that the Planning Director's decision should be up held. A cover memo to Commission Staff stated that the project was in the Coastal Commission appeal area and County staff expected that if the Director's decision was overturned, two Conditional Certificates of Compliance would be awarded. The Commission believes this correspondence supports the contention that the County had determined that if two certificates were to be granted they must be conditional and would be appeallable.

Therefore, the County's observation suggesting disputes over the status of a particular development should be dealt with earlier in the process is, in this case, inapplicable because until the time of the Board hearing, the application was correctly identified as to it's appeal status and there was no need to request a determination under

Section 13569. The Commission notes that when it became apparent that the Board action differed so significantly from the recommendation, a timely request for a determination was made by a county resident. The last minute discretionary Board decision to declare that a project, that would otherwise be subject to appeal, did not constitute "development" has a tremendous adverse effect on the public and other agencies ability to participate in the regulatory process. It is precisely this kind of situation that is properly addressed by the dispute resolution provisions in

Section 13569 of the Commission's regulations. If the process for administratively resolving these disput~s is not followed, the only alternative remaining is time consuming and expensive litigation . California Coastal Commission

San Luis Obispo County LCP 13569 Determination · Schoenfield Certificates of Compliance · PageS 4. Commission's Determination of Applicable Hearing and Notice Requirements for the Board's Action on C00-0166 Background • Commission staff has reviewed the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisor's April 10, 2001 action to approve two Certificates of Compliance for two parcels of land ( one acre and 3.2 acres respectively) on the west side of Pecho Road in Los Osos. Staff has traced the chain of title on this property and analyzed the Applicant's supporting documentation prepared by John Wallace and Associates, the current version of the Subdivision Map Act·( Government Code

Section 66410 et seq. and specifically

Section 66499.35 ), the 1943 version of the Map Act ( Business and Professions Code 11535), the County Staff Reports on the application for the certificates, for a denied land division (1996) and for the construction of a single family home on the site (1989),

Section 21.02.020 of Title 21 of the County Code, and the "Subdivision Regulation Matrix" prepared by the County to assist in the analysis of applications for Certificates of Compliance.

Based on a review of this information, the Commission finds that the Applicant was not entitled to two Certificates of Compliance and the County should have either denied the request or approved two Conditional Certificates if conditions could bring the proposed parcels into conformity with the requirements of the LCP. • Subdivision Map Act and Coastal Act I LCP Requirements: The Subdivision Map Act provides for the approval of Certificates of Compliance and Conditional Certificates of Compliance ( Gov't. Code

Section 66499.35) Certificates of Compliance are granted to confirm the legality of an existing parcel that was created consistent with the rules for land divisions in effect at the time the parcel was created. A Conditional Certificate of Compliance is granted to legalize a parcel that was not created pursuant to the rules in place at the time of its creation. From a land use standpoint, Certificates of Compliance do not create new parcels, they are simply a procedure for recognizing an existing, legal parcel.

Conditional Certificates of Compliance do, however, create new parcels at the time they are awarded and may be conditioned to bring these parcels into conformity with current land use regulations regarding subdivisions ( if the illegal subdivider is still the owner ) or the rules that were in effect when the current owner ( the successor to the illegal subdivider ) purchased the property (Subdivision Map Act

Section 66499.35 (b)). The newly created parcels constitute development under the Coastal Act ( Public Resources Code

Section 301 06 ) and must also therefore be found consistent with the policies and implementing ordinances of the LCP by obtaining a Coastal Development Permit. San Luis Obispo LCP: The certified LCP provides a procedure for considering Conditional Certificates of Compliance that includes notice, hearing and appeal provisions. Action on Conditional Certificates of Compliance for property located in the coastal zone appeal areas is California Coastal Commission •

• • • San Luis Obispo County LCP 13569 Determination Schoenfield Certificates of Compliance Page9 appealable to the Coastal Commission (Title 21,

Section 21.02.020 ). (Please see Exhibit 8)

Section 21.01.010 (

d) of Title 21 provides that action on a Conditional Certificate of Compliance constitutes action on the Coastal Development Permit as well. In order to approve a Coastal Development Permit, the decision making body must find that the project is consistent with the applicable policies and implementing ordinances of the LCP. The Board action to erroneously grant unconditional Certificates of Compliance circumvented this process to mitigate the impacts on coastal resources that occur by legitimizing illegal parcels and impermissibly restrains the rights of the public and the Commission to appeal the decision.

Analysis of the Schoenfield Proposal The following analysis of the Applicant's proposal to obtain unconditional Certificates of Compliance demonstrates that the parcels he sought to have recognized were in fact illegally created in 1949 and were not entitled to unconditional Certificates. History of the Property The Applicant's representative submitted a lengthy, detailed chain of title for this property tracing the conveyances from the original land grants in the late 1800's to the present time. Staff has reviewed all of this material and checked and mapped each conveyance.

For each conveyance, staff consulted the County's "Subdivision Regulation Matrix" and other information to determine if the conveyance was consistent with the land division regulations in effect at the time. Up until the 1949 conveyance from Martin to Wilcoxn, which created six parcels, the conveyances were consistent with the rules for creating and conveying parcels. The critical conveyances that occurred in 1949 are discussed in the following sections of this determination. Vermazen to Martin In February of 1949, Vermazen deeded two parcels of land to Martin.

Parcel One was approximately 8 acres in size and Parcel Two was a little over 4 acres ( See Exhibit 9). Parcel1 was located entirely with the south west quarter of the northwest quarter of

Section 24, T 30 S, R 1 0 E. Parcel Two was contiguous to Parcel One but located entirely within the South east quarter of the north east quarter of

Section 23, T 30 S, R. 1 0 E. At that time, the Subdivision Map Act of 1943 as amended in 1949 provided the regulations for subdivisions. Land divisions not defined as subdivisions did not fall under these rules and could, in 1949, be accomplished by deed with a specific property description. Business And Professional Code

Section 11535 ( 1943 Act ) defined a subdivision as the division of a unit of land or contiguous units of land into five or more parcels within a one year period. The deed from Vermazen to Martin is specific and clearly describes each parcel according to Township, Range and

Section coordinates. Staff followed the descriptions and they are accurate to the properties in question. Thus, in February of 1949, there were two, legal parcels west of Pecho Road owned by Martin . California Coastal Commission

San Luis Obispo County LCP 13569 Determination Schoenfield Certificates of Compliance Page 10 Martin to Wilcoxn In March of 1949, Martin deeded out a portion of the property described above to Wilcoxn. The property deeded to Wilcoxn totaled 6.6 acres and was made up of a 4+ acre portion of Martin's original Parcel Ohe and a 2+ acre portion of Martin's Parcel Two ( See Exhibit 10 ). The property was not described as separate parcels but was identified by Township, Range and

Section coordinates. The effect of conveyance of the property to Wilcox resulted in the division of Martin's Parcel One into three lots and Martin's Parcel Two into three lots for a total of six lots out of the original two, contiguous parcels. Martin retained two lots north of Wilcoxn and two lots south of the deeded out land. The north lots were sold to Andersen in 1955 and the south lots were ultimately sold and resubdivided.

In their Staff Report, t_he County Staff correctly asserted that this conveyance to Wilcoxn was illegal because a Tract Map was required in 1949 for the creation of five or more lots within a year by the same person. The law in effect at the time was the Map Act of 1943 as amended up to 1949. The relevant regulation is found in the 1949 Act in the Business and Professions Code

Section 11535 (

a) as follows:

Section 11535 (a) "Subdivision" refers to any land or portion thereof, shown on the last preceding tax roll as a unit or as contiguous units (emphasis added), which is divided for the purposes of sale, whether immediate or future, by any subdivider into five or more parcels within any one year period. The Map Act thus provides that if a person has a parcel or two or more contiguous parcels and divides the parcel, or group of parcels into five or more lots within any one year period, that division constitutes a subdivision and comes under the authority of the Map Act..

Section 11538 provides that 11 It is unlawful for any person to offer to sell, to contract to sell or to seli any subdivision or any part thereof until a final map ....... .in full compliance with the provisions of this

chapter and any local ordinance has been duly recorded. "Therefore in order to legally create five or more parcels in 1949, the subdivider would have had to comply with the procedure for processing a final map as laid out in the Map Act. In this case, no Final Map was ever applied for or filed. In 1949, Martin owned two contiguous parcels, Parcel One and Parcel Two. As detailed in the previous paragraph, the Map Act of 1943 required that, if the division of these two contiguous parcels, for immediate or future sale, resulted in five or more parcels, then a Final Map was required.

It can be presumed that Martin created the parcels for sale because within the next few years, he in fact sold the parcels. He sold two to Wilcoxn shortly after he acquired the original two parcels from Vermazen, sold two more to Andersen six years later and the last two sometime after that. Note ~lso, that the language of the 1943 Map Act does not count only the additional parcels created by the division, it simply provides that if, after the division is done, there are more than five parcels, then the provisions for Tract Maps must be complied with . CaiHomla Coastal Commission • • •

• San Luis Obispo County LCP 13569 Determination Schoenfield Certificates of Compliance Page 11 The question then becomes how many parcels were created when Martin, through his sale to Wilcoxn I 1949, described the new property lines that separated Wilcoxn's property from Martin's lots to the north and south. If we accept the Applicant's contention that this sale transferred two lots to his predecessor Wilcoxn, then the same rationale must apply to the creation of two lots on the north and two lots on the south.

The· fact that Martin didn't sell these other lots immediately has no effect on the fact that they were created by the property lines defining Wilcoxn's parcels. The County Findings in support of the Boards action argue that somehow the situatioD whereby Martin conveyed out two of the lots by deed to Wilcoxn did not have the immediate result of creating six lots because Martin didn't sell the other four lots within a year. This assertion is inconsistent with the plain language of the 1949 Map Act.

The Map Act effective at the time simply says if five or more lots, (I divided for the purpose of sale, whether immediate or future (I are created within a year, then the Map Act applies. A review of Exhibit 11 clearly shows that six lots were created at the moment Wilcoxn's north and south property boundaries were defined. In conclusion, Martin created six lots in March of 1949 and did not comply with the regulations for land divisions of more than five lots in a single year as required by the 1943 Map Act. The lots were created illegally are, therefore not entitled to Certificates of Compliance under

Section 66499.35 (

a) of the current Subdivision Map Act. The 1943 Map Act does include the following exemptions from it requirements in

Section • 11535(b)(1)and(2): • Business and Professions Code

Section 11535 (b)" Subdivision 11 does not include either of the following; ( 1 )Any parcel or parcels of land in which all (emphasis added) of the following conditions are present:(/) which contain le!Ss than five acres (ii) which abut upon dedicated streets or highways, (iii) in which street opening or widening is not required by the governing body in dividing the land into lots or parcels, and (iv) the lot design meets the approval of the governing body. ( 2) Any parcel or parcels of land divided into Jots or parcels each of a net area of one acre or more, a tentative map of which has been submitted to the governing body and has been approved by it as to street alignment and widths, drainage provisions and lot design.

The lots created by Martin in March of 1949 do not meet these criteria for exemption found in

Section 11535 (b) {1) because they do not all abut on a dedicated street, a street opening would be required to serve at least one of the lots, and there is no evidence that the lot design was approved by the governing authority {San Luis County Board of Supervisors) . California Coastal Commission

San Luis Obispo County LCP 13569 Determination Schoenfleld Certificates of Compliance Page 12 The lots created by Martin also do not meet any of the criteria for exemption found in

Section 11535 (b) (2) because only four of the parcels created are greater than one acre in size with two of the lots being less than one acre each. There is also no evidence that Martin submitted a tentative map to the governing body and that the map was approved. In conclusion, Martin divided two contiguous parcel into six lots in 1949 and did not comply with the subdivision requirements in place at that time nor were the lots exempt from the provisions of the Map Act. All of the resulting lots were therefore created illegally.

Wilcoxn to Thorbergsson In January of 1959, Wilcoxn conveyed a 2.2 acre portion of his 6.6 acre site to Thorbergsson. Overlooking the fact that the Wilcoxn parcel was created illegally, this conveyance was otherwise consistent with the land division rules at the time and resulted in the present configuration of the property. Willfong Certificate of Compliance In 1976, a subsequent owner, Willfong obtained a single Certificate of Compliance for this site as presently configured. The legal description of the property included both of the lots, but did not describe them as different parcels.

The parcel was identified by one APN. This Certificate predated Coastal Commission jurisdiction in this area. Conclusion The Applicant's lots were illegally created in 1949 and should not have been processed as unconditional Certificates of Compliance. The Commission therefore determines that the County's action effectively granted two Conditional Certificates of Compliance to lllr. Schoenfield. Because the affected property is located within a "Special Resource Area " and between the first public road and the sea, the County's action is appealable to the Coastal Commission pursuant to Coastal Act

Section 30603 (a) (1) {3) {4) and the provisions of Title 21,

Section 23.01.043 (c) (1) (3) and (4). The County is requested to forward a Notice of Final Local Action to the Santa Cruz District .office that states that this item - an effective grant of two Conditional Certificates of Compliance .... is appealable to the Coastal Commission. Until the corrected notice is received and the appeal period has run without an appeal being filed the County action to approve this project is suspended pursuant to CCR Title 14

Section 13572 • California Coastal Commission • • •

• • • San Luis Obispo County LCP 13569 Determination Schoenfield Certificates of Compliance Page 13 California Coastal Commission

• • • •

m• Ward•n Lnke /!~J.'!>t> .... -/--..I!!!!~-..J),..' - . ···~ :......-..__ ... _ ...

May•01·01 08:05pm From-riebel systems +650 477 7322 T-509 P.002 F-812 Janice Rohn & Mike Monegan • 2710 Pecho Valley Road Los Osos, CA 93402 (805)528·0495 Pat Beck Planning SupeJVisor County Government Center San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 Dear Pat, Mays, 2001 We would like to ask SLO County to request the California Coastal Commission Executive Director to give his opinion on the appealability of the granting of a straight certificate of compliance to Albert Schoenfield/John l. Wallace & Associates (County File Number: C00.0166/S990330C), pursuant to

Article 17,

Section 13569 of theCA Coastal Commission Regulations. We are requesting this for the following reasons: 1. The lots were created inconsistent with the applicable law, and the request should have been processed as a conditional certificate of compliance.

Section 21.02.02003 of the SLO County Coastal Zone Land Use Ordinance states that approval of a conditional certificate of compliance, which are appealable to the Coastal Commission, are not final until all the appeal periods have expired. 3. The parcels in question are within the appealable jurisdiction of the coastal Commission because • · they are in a sensitive resource area and are between the first public road and the sea. We expect the law to be upheld by the County, and therefore ask that the request be made to the Califomia Coastal Commission Executive Director.

We are also including the appeal to the CA Coastal Commission dated April25, 2001, along with our letter to you dated May 1, 2001. Please let us know if we can help in any way. Sincerely, p~ Jamce Rohn and Mike Monegan oc: Larry Kelly, Shirley Bianchi, Steve Monowitz ~ISIT I· •

STATE OF CALIFORNIA- THE RESOURCES AGENCY PETE WILSON. Govemor , CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION 1 . CENTRAL COAST DISTRICT OFFICE 725 FRONT STREET, SUITE 300 SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060 • (408) 427-4863 CERTIFIED MAIL ··NG IMPAIRED: {415) 904·5200 May 7, 2001 • • K.H.

Achadjian, Chair San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors County Government Center San Luis Obispo, CA. 93408 Subject: Determi11ation of Appeal Status of tire Schoerifield Certificates of Compliance (Local File C00-0166/S990330C) Dear Chair Achadjian, I am writing concerning the County's determination on April 10, 2001, that certificates of compliance for the Schoenfield property in Los Osos are not conditional, and therefore not appealable to the Coastal Commission (Local File C00-0166/S990330C).

Our office has received a copy of a challenge to the County, made by Janice Rohn, in which she disputes the Board's determination to issue unconditional certificates in this case, rather than conditional certificates, which would have been noticed to the Commission as appealable coastal development permits. Her challenge references CCR Title 14

Section 13569 of the Commission's regulations, which provides a process for interested parties to challenge a local government's determination of the appealability of development in the coastal zone (see attached). Upon its determination to issue unconditional certificates, the Board effectively determined that the Schoenfield certificates were not appealable coastal development permits. Ms. Rohn has now disputed this determination. California Code of Regulations

section 13569 requires that a local government notify the Commission by telephone of disputes of this nature, and request an Executive Director's opinion on the matter. We are not aware of having received telephone notice of this dispute. In the interest of reaching a speedy resolution of this matter, I am requesting that you notify the Executive Director of the Coastal Commission by telephone immediately ofthis dispute, and request his determination as to whether the locally issued certificates of compliance are appealable to the Coastal Commission. Pursuant to

section 13569, if the Executive Director does not concur with the County's determination, the matter may be set for public Commission hearing for resolution. Thank you in advance for the County's prompt attention to this request. Sincerely, Gj~J~ Tami Grove Deputy Director Central Coast District Office Cc: Victor Rolanda, Planning Director Albert Schoenfield Janice Rohn EXWIBIT Z- \\BLUESHARK\groups\Central Coast\P & R\SLO\Appeals\Schoenfield Appeal Oet ltr 5.7.01.doc

I I I § 13569. Determination of Applicable Notice and Hearing Procedures. The determination of whether a development is categorically ex cluded, non-appealable or appealable for purposes of notice, hearing and appeals procedures shaD be made by the local government at the time the , application for development within the coastal zone is submitted. This determ.ination·ehallbe'riladewidncf~to·die:CcrtitiCdEoclleouta~w Program, including any maps, categorical exclusions, land usc designa tions and zoning ordinances which are adopted as part of the Local Coast· al Program.

Where an applicant. interested person, or a local government has a question as to the appropriate designation for the development, the following procedures shall establish whether a development is categori cally excluded, non-appealable or appealable: ·(

a) The local government shall make its determination as to what type of development is being proposed (i.e. categorically excluded, appeal· able, non-appealable) and shaD inform the applicant of the notice and hearing requirements for that particular development. The local determi nation may be made by any designated local government employee(

s) or any local body as provided in local government procedures. (

b) If the detc:rmimltiotrof the local government is clralJenged·by the applicant or an interested person, or if the local government wishes to have a Commission determination as to the appropriate designation, the local government shall notify the Commission by telephone of the dispu te/question and shaD request an Executive Director's opinion; (

c) The executive director shall, within two (2) working days of the lo cal government request (or upon completion of a site inspection where such inspection is warranted),. transmit his or her determination·as.·to whether the development is categorically excluded, non-appealable or appealable: (

d) Where, after the executive director•s investigation. the executive director's determination is not in accordance with the local government determination, the Commission shall hold a hearing for purposes of de· · termining the appropriate designation for the area. The Commission shall

schedule the hearing on the determination for the next Commission meet· ing (in the appropriate geographic region of the state) following the local . government request. NOll!: Authority cited: Sections 30333 and 30620, Public Resoun:es Code. Ref'et· ence:

Section 30600, Public Resources Code. • •

• • • 5-17-2001 11 :16AM FROM COUNTY COUNSEL 8057814221 P.3 SAN lUIS OBISPO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND BUILDING Tami Grove Deputy Director California Coastal Commission Central Coast District Office 725 Front Street, Suite 300 Santa Cruz, CA 95060 May 16, 2001 Re: Certificates ofCompliance C00~0166 (Albert Schoenfield) County of San Luis Obispo, California Dear Ms. Grove: VICTOR HOLANOA, AICP DIRECTOR BRYCE TINGlE, AICP ASSISTANT DIRECTOR ELLEN CARROLL ENVIR.ONMENTAL COOROINATO~ .

FORREST WERMUTH CHIEF BUilDINC OFFICIAl This letter is in response to your letter ofMay 7, 2001, which was addressed to Supervisor Achadjian as Chair of the Board of Supervisors. Your correspondence concerned the application of Albert Schoenfield for the issuance of two unconditional certificates of compliance under Government Code

section 66499.3 5(a). This application was approved by the Board of Supervisors on AprillO, 2001. A copy of the Board's action, Resolution No. 2001-148, has previously been for.varded to your office. California Code ofRegulations, title 14,

section 13569 requires a local government to make a determination, at the time an application within the coastal zone is submitted, whether the development is categcricaHy excluded, non-appealable, or appealable. The prerequisite fer such a detenninaticn is an application for "development" within the coastal zone. ' The County determined that the Schoenfield application was not an application for development within the coastal zone because it requested the issuance of unconditional certificates of compliance under Government Code

section 66499.35(a). The definition of"subdivision development" is set forth in the County's Real Property Division Ordinance Sections 21.08.020 COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER • SAN luiS OBISPO • CAliFORNIA 93408 • (805)781-5600 • 1-800-834-4636 EMAil: ipcoplng@slonet.org • FAX: (805)781·1242 • WEBSITE: http:/ /www.slonet.org/v v/ipcoplng

5-17-2001 11 :17AM FROM COUNTY COUNSEL 8057814221 Tami Grove Re: Certificates of Compliance C00-0 166 (Albert Schoenfield) May 16, 2001 and 21.01:01 0(

d) and is defined to include the issuance of conditional certificates of compliance under Government Code

section 66499.35(b). The definition does not include uncqnditional certificates under Government Code

section 66499.35(a). Since the Schoenfield application was not an application for "development," it was unnecessary for the County to make a determination under

section 13569 as to what type of development was being proposed (i.e., whether it was categorically excluded, non~appealable, or appealable development). Furthermore, disputes over what type of development is being proposed are to be resolved at the beginning of the process when the application is submitted so that the matter can be properly noticed and processed for hearing. Neither the applicant nor any other interested person questioned the processing of this application or submitted any testimony concerning this issue to the Board of Supervisors.

P.4 • Consequently, since the Schoentield application for unconditional certificates of compliance was not an application for development within the coastal zone. the County will not be asking the • Executive Director for a Commission determination under

section 13569(

b) as such a request is uMecessary. ~&tz{}deet Patricia Beck Principal Planner PB:kt cc: Janice Rohn and Mike Monegan Kerry Margason, John L. Wallace & Associates PLN 7905ktltr. wpd -2- •

-- --------------------------------- STATE OF CAliFORNIA- THE RESOURCES AGENCY GRAY OAVIS, Governot CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION 'ceNTRAL COAST DISTRICT OFFICE • ONT STREET. SUITE 300 CRUZ, CA 95060 27-4863 • • Pat Beck San Luis Obispo County Planning County Government Center San Luis Obispo, California 93408 May 18, 2001 Subject: Request for Executive Director's Determination on the County's Action on C00-0166, Schoenfield Certificates of Compliance Dear Ms. Beck, I am writing in response to your letter of May 16, in which you state that the County has chosen not to respond to the request of Janice Rohn for an Executive Director's determination, pursuant to CCR Title 14

Section 13569, regarding the appealability of the County Board of Supervisors action of April 10, 2001 to approve two Certificates of Compliance for property owned by Mr. Albert Schoenfield at 2731 Pecho Valley Road in Los Osos. In your letter you state that the Schoenfeld application was for unconditional Certificates of Compliance and, because an unconditional certificate is not development under the definition in the LCP, the project is outside the Commission's jurisdiction and thus any determination on the appeal status is unnecessary.

As discussed below, I have determined that the dispute resolution provisions of CCR 13569 do apply to this case. Further, I determined that if any certificates were issued, they should have been Conditional Certificates and properly noticed to the Commission as appealable Coastal . Development Permits. First, the fact that Mr. Schoenfield may have applied for unconditional certificates should not be determinative of the actual status of the proposed project.

It is the County's responsibility to determine whether a particular proposal is either exempt from the Coastal Development Permit requirement, or is appeallabte or not appeallable to the Coastal Commission. In this case, County staff, in response to the application for two certificates, determined that only one unconditional Certificate of Compliance could be granted to Mr. Schoenfield.

Since one unconditional Certificate of Compliance for the entire 4.2 acre site had already been granted to a previous owner in 1976, prior to Coastal Commission authority over the area, the re-affirmation of a single certificate was appropriate. On October 30, 2000, the Planning Director approved the application, but for only one, unconditional certificate. The Applicant appealed this discretionary decision of the Planning Director to the Board of Supervisors in November of 2000. In February, Commission staff was notified by the County that a hearing on the appeal was scheduled for March 6, 2001.

. Page 2 Commission appeal area and County staff expected that if the Director's decision was overturned, two Conditional Certificates of Compliance would be awarded. Commission staff believes this correspondence supports the contention that the County had determined that if two certificates were to be granted they must be conditional and would be appeallable to the Commission.

Therefore, your observation suggesting disputes over the status of a particular development should be dealt with earlier in the process is, in this case, inapplicable because until the time of the Board hearing, the application was correctly identified as to it's appeal status and there was no need to request a determination under

Section 13569. I note that when it became apparent that the Board action differed so significantly from the recommendation, a timely request for a determination was made by a County resident. The last minute discretionary Board decision to declare that a project, that would otherwise be subject to appeal, did not constitute "development" has a tremendous adverse effect on the public and other agencies ability to participate in the regulatory process. It is precisely this kind of situation that is properly addressed by the dispute resolution provisions in

Section 13569 of the Commission's regulations. If the process for administratively resolving these disputes is not followed, the only alternative remaining is time consuming and expensive litigation. • Second, in keeping with the intent of

Section 13569, I am providing a response to Ms. • Rohn's request for an Executive Director's determination regarding this project. For the reasons detailed in the following sections of my letter, I have determined that the Board. action to approve two Certificates was inconsistent with the Local Coastal Program provisions for legalizing illegal parcels and, if any certificates were to be approved, Conditional Certificates would have been the proper procedure to carry out the requirements of both the Subdivision Map Act and the Coastal Act/LCP. Conditional Certificates of Compliance for Mr.

Schoenfield's property are appeallable to the Coastal Commission. Background Commission staff has reviewed the San Luis Obispo County Board· of Supervisor's April 10, 2001 action to approve two Certificates of Compliance for two parcels of land (one acre and 3.2 acres respectively ) on the west side of Pecho Road in Los Osos. Staff has traced the chain of title on this property and analyzed the Applicant's supporting documentation prepared by John Wallace and Associates, the current version of the Subdivision Map Act (Government Code

Section 66410 et seq and specifically

Section 21.02.020 of Title 21 of the County Code, and the "Subdivision Regulation Matrix" prepared by the County to assist in the analysis of applications for Certificates of • Compliance. Based on a review of this information, the Applicant was not entitled to two Certificates of Compliance and the County should have either denied the request or

• • • Page 3 approved two Conditional Certificates if conditions could bring the proposed parcels into conformity with the requirements of the LCP. Subdivision Map Act and Coastal Act I LCP Requirements: The Subdivision Map Act provides for the approval of Certificates of Compliance and Conditional Certificates of Compliance ( Gov't. Code

Section 66499.35 (b)). The newly created parcels constitute development under the Coastal Act (Public Resources Code

Section 30106) and must also therefore be found consistent with the policies and implementing ordinances of the LCP by obtaining a Coastal Development Permit. San Luis Obispo LCP: The certified LCP provides a procedure for considering Conditional Certificates of Compliance that includes notice, hearing and appeal provisions. Action on Conditional Certificates of Compliance for property located in the coastal zone appeal areas is appealable to the Coastal Commission (Title 21,

Section 21.02.020 ).

Section 21.01.010 (

d) of Title 21 provides that action on a Conditional Certificate of Compliance constitutes action on the Coastal development Permit as well. In order to approve a Coastal Development Permit, the decision making body must find that the project is consistent with the applicable policies and implementing ordinances of the LCP. The Board action to erroneously grant unconditional Certificates of Compliance circumvented this process to mitigate the impacts on coastal resources that occur by legitimizing illegal parcels and impermissibly cut off the rights of the public and the Commission to appeal the d~cision.

For each conveyance, staff consulted the County's

- Page 4 "Subdivision Regulation Matrix" and other information to determine if the conveyance was consistent with the land division regulations in effect at the time. Up until the 1949 conveyance from Martin to Wilcoxn, which created six parcels, the conveyances were consistent with the rules for creating and conveying parcels. The critical conveyances which occurred in 1949 are discussed in the following sections of this determination. Vermazen to Martin In February of 1949, Vermazen deeded two parcels of land to Martin.

Parcel One was approximately 8 acres in size and Parcel Two was a little over 4 acres ( See Exhibit 1 ). Parcel 1 was located entirely with the south west quarter of the northwest quarter of

Section 24, T 30 S, R 10 E. Parcel Two was contiguous to Parcel One but located entirely within the South east quarter of the north east quarter of

Section 23, T 30 S, R. 10 E. At that time, the Subdivision Map Act of 1943 provided the regulations for subdivisions. Land divisions not defined as subdivisions did not fall under these rules and could, in 1949, be accomplished by deed with a specific property description. Business And Professional Code

Section coordinates. Staff followed the descriptions and they are accurate to the properties in question. Thus, • in February of 1949, there were two, legal parcels west of Pecho Road owned by • Martin. { Exhibit 1) Martin to Wilcoxn In March of 1949, Martin deeded out a portion of the property described above to Wilcoxn. The property deeded to Wilcoxn totaled 6.6 acres and was made up of a 4+ acre portion of Martin's original Parcel One and a 2+ acre portion of Martin's Parcel Two ( See Exhibit 2 ). The property was not described as separate parcels but was identified by Township, Range and

Section coordinates. The effect of conveyance. of the property to Wilcox resulted in the division of Martin's Parcel One into three lots and Martin's Parcel Two into three lots for a total of six lots out of the original two, contiguous parcels. Martin retained two lots north of Wilcoxn and two lots south of the deeded out land. The north lots were sold to Andersen in 1955 and the south lots were ultimately sold and resubdivided.

In their Staff Report, the County Staff correctly asserted that this conveyance to Wilcoxn was illegal because a Tract Map was required in 1949 for the creation of five or more lots within a year by the same person. The law in effect at the time was the Map Act of 1943 as amended up to 1949. The relevant regulation is found in the 1949 Act in the Business and Professions Code

Section 11535 (

a) as follows:

• • • Page 5 The Map Act thus provides that if a person has a parcel or two or more contiguous parcels and divides the parcel, or group of parcels into five or more lots within any one year period, that division constitutes a subdivision and comes under the authority of the Map Act..

Section 11538 provides that II It is unlawful for any person to offer to sell, to contract to sell or to sell any subdivision or any part thereof until a final map ....... .in full compliance with the provisions of this

chapter and any local ordinance has been duly recorded." Therefore in order to legally create five or more parcels in 1949, the subdivider would have had to comply with the procedure for processing a final map as laid out in the Map Act. In this case, no Final Map was ever applied for or filed. In 1949, Martin owned two contiguous parcels, Parcel One and Parcel Two. As detailed in the previous paragraph, the Map Act of 1943 required that, if the division of these two contiguous parcels, for immediate or future sale, resulted in five or more parcels, then a Final Map was required.

It can be presumed that Martin created the parcels for sale because within the next few years, he in fact sold the parcels. He sold two to Wilcoxn shortly after he acquired the original two parcels from Vermazen, sold two more to Andersen six years later and the last two sometime after that. Note also, that the language of the 1943 Map Act does not count only the additional parcels created by the division, it simply provides that if, after the division is done, there are more than five parcels, then the provisions for Tract Maps must be complied with .

The question then becomes how many parcels were created when Martin, through his sale to Wilcoxn I 1949, described the new property lines that separated Wilcoxn's property from Martin's lots to the north and south. If we accept the Applicant's contention that this sale transferred two lots to his predecessor Wilcoxn, then the same rationale must apply to the creation of two lots on the north and two lots on the south. The fact that Martin didn't sell these other lots immediately has no effect on the fact that they were created by the property lines defining Wilcoxn's parcels.

The County Findings in support of the Boards action argue that somehow the situation whereby Martin conveyed out two of the lots by deed to Wilcoxn did not have the immediate result of creating six lots because Martin didn't sell the other four lots within a year. This assertion is inconsistent with the plain language of the 1949 Map Act. The Map Act effective at the time simply says if five or more lots, "divided for the purpose of sale, whether immediate or future II are created within a year, then the Map Act applies.

A review of Exhibit 3 clearly shows that six lots were created at the moment Wicoxn's north and south property boundaries were defined. In conclusion, Martin created six lots in March of 1949 and did not comply with the regulations for land divisions of more than five lots in a single year as required by the 1943 Map Act. The lots were created illegally are, therefore not entitled to Certificates of Compliance under

Section 66499.35 (

a) of the current Subdivision Map Act. The 1943 Map Act does include the following exemptions from it requirements in

Section 11535 (b) (1) and (2 ) :

Page6 Business and Professions Code

Section 11535 {b) "Subdivision " does not include either of the following; ( 1 )Any parcel or parcels of land in which all ( emphasis added) of the following conditions are present: (/) which contain less than five acres (iij which abut upon dedicated streets or highways, (iiij in which street opening or widening is not required by the governing body in dividing the land into lots or parcels, and (iv) the lot design meets the approval of the governing body. ( 2) Any parcel or parcels of land divided into lots or parcels each of a net area of one acre or more, a tentative map of which has been submitted to the governing body and has been approved by it as to street alignment and widths, drainage provisions and lot design.

The lots created by Martin in March of 1949 do not meet these criteria for exemption found in

Section 11535 (b) (1) because they do not all abut on a dedicated street, a street opening would be required to serve at least one of the lots, and there is no • evidence that the lot design was approved by the governing authority ( San Luis County • Board of Supervisors ). The lots created by Martin also do not meet any of the criteria for exemption found in

Section 11535 (b) (2) because only four of the parcels created are greater than one acre in size with two of the lots being less than one acre each. There is also no evidence that Martin submitted a tentative map to the governing body and that the map was approved. In conclusion, Martin divided two contiguous parcel into six Jots in 1949 and did not comply with the subdivision requirements in place at that time nor were the lots exempt from the provisions of the Map Act. All of the resulting Jots were therefore created illegally.

Wilcoxn to Thorbergsson In January of 1959,Wilcoxn conveyed a 2.2 acre portion of his 6.6 acre site to Thorbergsson. Overlooking the fact that the Wilcoxn parcel was created illegally, this conveyance was otherwise consistent with the land division rules at the time and resulted in the present configuration of the property. Willfong Certificate of Compliance In 1976, a subsequent owner, Willfong obtained a single Certificate of Compliance for this site as presently configured. The legal description of the property included both of the lots, but did not describe them as different parcels.

The parcel Nas identified by one APN. This Certificate predated • Coastal Commission jurisdiction in this area. E,k.1

• • • . Page 7 Conclusion The Applicant's lots were illegally created in 1949 and are not, as a matter of law, eligible to be processed as unconditional Certificates of Compliance. I have determined therefore that the County's action effectively granted two Conditional Certificates of Compliance to Mr. Schoenfield. Because the affected property is located within a "Special Resource Area " and between the first public road and the sea, the County's action is appealable to the Coastal Commission pursuant to Coastal Act

Section 30603 (a) (1) (3) (4) and the provisions of Title 21,

Section 23.01.043 (c) (1) (3) and (4 ). By way of this letter, I am requesting the County to forward a Notice of Final Local Action to the Santa Cruz District office that states that this item --an effective grant of two Conditional Certificates of Compliance -- is appealable to the Coastal Commission. If the County does not agree with this determination, CCR Title 14,

Section 13569 (

d) provides that "the Commission shall hold a hearing for purposes of determining the appropriate designation" and "shall

schedule the hearing ... .for the next Commission meeting (in the appropriate geographic region of the state) .. ". Please advise me by May 24 of the County's position in this matter. If we do not hear from you by this date or if the County disagrees with this determination, we will

schedule the determination for Commission hearing and action at the June meeting. · Sincerely, ~am~r/)jAw'L/ Jr"--Peter Douglas L Executive Director California Coastal Commission c.c. Chair Achadjian James Orton, Deputy County Counsel · Albert Schoenfield Janice Rohn Kerry Margason, John Wallace Associates William Walter, Esq. Ralph Faust, Chief Counsel

•• • - ··.· . . ~~ / § PTN. SEC'S. 23 824, T. 30S.,R.IOE.,M.D.B.aM. _--J. ~ ---· • . • .,,.,........ i=l' (.Jfr .~c. :";•·'"'PM9·SJ~ ,.,) • • l••'f....-..u. •. ~~'F- u r, 1 ,._,. ~ ,-Jf' ....... t-· ....... lD ---~.~ ~ J .......... 'i. "')(' ILl iy· 0 " • " " • 'j._:/<<Jo t'~41J~~7~ , .L , .. @) ~ ~2~_.. ·. ® ~t @hj, I @ I ~ !!~~- ~ I'.' ~ .. r--cz:.-=n.: ~- 1 '! ~ , •c. a.&,· No•••Jio•C" - · I. lb=m, ?.•l.• '13 cf·l.·rl. .

SEP 1 2 1991t . @ , 317. :t 4 "'"'"'·.t'f ;.,:Q:"'o·,.<C~"£ ~~ ..J I ,-.... uJ 3 v.o ~ 0C3\U ~rr .......; .rr5 • .. 74-024T' ~~ ~~; , •• eoo' nuiAA.I' 11 I'IIU'MI:D filii ASII.t:UAENT I'~ OM.¥ D u.l ·\1.1 p tb -z ~ r-:· ..A . "~. ~ '[" J: . \j 'a;~ -. - c ~/ ~ r- \.J -z lL d•r•t~...ca..,., · W N <!. 2: ct w > Assessor's Map Bk. 74-Pg.OZ4 County of San l.uls Obispo, Calif • - ~ I I ,,

t • --l_ -~ :·· ---- . . ... • a >ffH e l . i l:J:.--~· et ux.: 1367 .nu •10 0 ·-u· .. I ' L l • . . . · 1 .s.I.a; < TO • Dr COHaii!ElU!!:IO:I o!' rei' .A!l'D RO 100 Dolla:r:s•/.. J. l:'El!M.AZ.E!I • ST.AM?S ,.~ ! M~ S. MAR%Xll• et ~- a.nd nuBCES L. ~- ha.:sbi\Qd. ll:!d vife, 00 tm!I:!n' GlWIT -~~ ~ -. - ' • • • • _... • • ' • • w :.: I • • ·. • • • • •' • • • • M. s. HAR'Illi and :ROSE ~IN, ll:luband m~ vUe, .&s joint ' • tena:ats, all th2l:t Reel Propert:T 'si~uate m the. C<l=tT ot Sm I.l1is OliLsp:i, StAte o!' Cal.:!..:t'o~a, · . " . . . . . . . .. . . ~ . desl:rlbed &s 'tollowl!; ~ •• ~:~ ...

"'· .. , •. - - . • # ,. ... • .• ;.·· ·PJIICEt,<1: JJ.l tha.t pll.l"t ot the So:u.thwest quarter ct tlle llloll'1:lrlfes:t qt!IU'ter or Sec:t:f.an ~ ·:::~·:;:~-~~>·-'.~\>t~;-,;_ .. ~· .~ • . . . . 'i ~P 30 South,. Rmce J.O East, Hoant Diablo Merl41m, aCCG%"Cl1Jl& to t!:Le.otttdal. plat or~ .. . J plata f1t the rm:-rq ot lld.4lal::d.a :retw:D.ed to tile General. r.cr. ...

O!'tiee bT the.B:trr~ar Gener.ill, W1ch U.a VerlerJ:;r ot Cc:oar.tT l'loa4 llo. l23 u sa14 :road exS.:Itat Dee~ 1, i9~. ~ •· .................... · • ·">'·'1'!' & ~~?/i>.&itC:Er, :iz')bat port;1au. r:1t the &xttheaat quc.-ter ot the .lortheaat q'llll.rte:r, Sectiazl 23, i ~-~j~{~~~ Bcga 10 E.ut, Hacmt DiablJ:I Kerl.dia.n., aeccrdJl:lc to 1he ott1e1al. pl&t or I ,pl.a;t;~ ot t:le &1ZI:"ft7 ot and l.aM.I :retu.rned to the General. J.m4 Ott1ce bT tbe Sw:1rqCI1' Gena.iaJ,., . . . . I deac:il!ed u tonota~: . . . · . I ~-·t· the ·~•a.st 'coma. ot w:d.

SOu~ q_u~.; cr -~. iart~:Least ~ t -~cce Vest elcmC t21e .:irart.h l_.ine-th4reot l.4S.; teet; thence South an! panllel uth the i .. :Eut lme or llld4·Sol:lthe&st q;aa.rter ot the llo:rtheut qtiiU'ter 1.235.6..{. teet to the I~ster~ . . ' ll]ie at c.::.mty l!caa. lio. l.23 u.s s:d.d :road existed Dee~ l, 1941!1 vhich paint beus llartlf 59° 091 55• 'llest 1'12.93 .teet~ ~e East qtllll'ter cc:r:o.u ct a&id Sect:f.cm 23; the.nce tier~ . ' ea.sterlT al.Cl1tlg fhe :lior'tl:lv-esterl;r Une o.r said eowt:r R.cad llo. 123 to the East lme ot said. t I ' &!ction 23; tb«ce Jlo:rtll elo.rlll: S&t.d East 11.!18 J.l'76.5S .teet t!l the point ot b'es:1mrlJ:I&.

SIJBJ'EC: :0: L 5eecm4 .in:rblJJ~~etxt ot £eneral .11:114. aped..al. ta:e:l ot tl1• ti:lcel ~ar 1948-49• : 2. O::lad!. tioC:r; ::estr.i.c:t1ttJ1:>1 :re:oe:.t"Rticms. a:ad ~igbta ot v~ ct rec:ard. · . · ~ .. ~ocr~ ~thl:w ll'th 4q a£ .fmtw:7• 1949; · , · ]· ., J. .T·~ ... :bodisc abloa .t;o ''llr.S.te, . ,;.· .T..:i: v~ · .11:44e bia aux 1n w:r :pre~e d I · . · · . d.po4 b1.a l:llllH at :t:d.JI zo~est Kid. : l'ral1c:es r.. ·X Ve::azm mhtapre.__ ;r z v-..:s . Blbacril:Uc 111tlr.la · . .T B Xt:C:lszN .

Jd41UGD&l 1fS;b:laa , • 5 l"r~SDCU L Te~, beiJl.l unable to mte, lUiie li1:L ll&r5l: 1n 1Q" PH1!CII.ee c14 X a1&:4o! ~zu+_e . a.t JWl nc;.v.est 4Q4 m his prenuee. .T E. Ve:..zm lhllacr.tbiD., 'lf1taesa J . .T Z Hc:Cl.ue J441t1.allal. Y1tz1e1a !.Sti1'E OF~~ ~ SS. ·: : Coantt at 6cd:.tts Obi. IIPO S .. J . . . . . . 1 O:l 1hi.:s 11~ d.q ot .T.ID:IIl-:,-~ :1949., be1'ore ae, J. 'E. K~ a_Jfota:r 1'ubllc 111 ~ tor 1 i u14 Colmt:r m4 State, pe~ appe~ A. J. Vemuc d l"r~mces r..

Vensuen, 1l=airn to; ' . . . ; ; me to be the persona deac:r:Died 111 IIZid llbQse n~~m~~s are aubsc:r:ibed to the uthi:n 1n.st:r=a!llt 1 i acs:l ada-01deqe4 th&t thq executed th• ...... VIm&s-., hal:ld .ad att1cW seal. 'the 4a, JD4 7'1&1' m • " certU'1cate ttrat above ~~~ .. li '£ /. 1 ;latvT l'WIUo u mel far 1&14 .C'I:IIult7 aZld. State. · ' l.387 - .I!ECCIIU:!E!) .l'! 1ll!Q!JEST aP Seearlt.;r Htlla. Iha • .;,.4 Ourarltee eo. at 1 .tzl. put 9 .A..H. ; Vol. S02 Ct!'11::1al Records P• .301 San tu1.1 Obtspo 'C-tr., C&Ut~ 1!3141«M.9 . v. r.. JaMCe.

Colmt;r ll.eco:r4er : B p:spe fB@ *::!te&eo: H fHfStBfB fbE Afri fHF:SEH!I gap egap ep;ariipgepfikb @i!H!APB£8§i@i§MkiPtH fSBHfH ± •. ·. . " E"· .. : • - ···--.· _,,5 __ _.... .·

. en m -c -t-.:> c:E· • tD -. .. . ' •

t(l ' \-....... ) :l "Ul ,! . ........,. ::r rl.fi ® ... ~ !11'1.41 1_..............(1\ ,;p ::JLI" ® Jt ~H I I @ 11 ~ -i~· . •<-•.&r · No•o·~o·.- j l t'-~ ii.•Z.· f:J d·t.·w· . SEP 1 2 1994 • @ ':SST. :t4. "--*.&~~., ~~ co..,.. :Tu.,. ...!J • ... 6 trVI - • 9" '8~ 0 --3"- .... ,....~ - Nd't1*4»•11 .'1. 0 ,..... ...... "' fl\~4 -eN '.n~. ,. -~ ·. 74-0241 . s. ~~ ; .-... , I" • aoo' · P . ~ c na """",$ I'ROM£D Rllf ., • ... ...__.,..,,., ~. ~~ '-.::/ -~· _., \II' ~t 3 ~ .. ., 7 ~ u ., I' ,... .. -~ 0'~ ,.. . <i''"2 --~ \\ ,_ ~21'. ~ ~ . ~ ·'Jo -~ -4 :rO ;";-'· ~~ "'~ N Assessor's Map Bk. 74-Pg.OZ4 ~unty of San Lui' Obispo, Call(, · an .. •

• ! • .. : . . ' . . . . . . . . · vrl. 510 .• . . . .. ' ::· · .ioint Te~cr:.arant.~eeit_._· _ .. : · · .L .. ~' t·t/ ·. nt. c .. r.....,.., .......,.,._r.s...r-_. ~c-a-:r ·· ·. FOR A VA.UIABU: CONSIDEBA'l'IO!f, telllipc ot 1daWt J....., l&borl 'I \ · _;f"'].i!.~:i;~fo~!:~·:f~+o_:"~' '•j:-~.,-~~~~~*'~:f. '?r:;_-:':::"~~-~-~~··"';~_-::•-_:·:;:~:,:,r- ,.:;~~--,~-;~~:;-;'~~ -_: ~- ,c: · J' no..._-Ben~~r ~,... T· · · ··ax ·~!.:~:'F.!P.!L"9' ·lQ&Iw.

IJI&OIDR. ·•· --------------'hptUMUJcd-..~.-m .... ....~...u.....:e..,,'":-· ------· Aa ~ T...-. .. . .: . . . .. . . ·The~ ·p~ ~···-....---.:.:;.-· .... · -·~· ·---~-----=----'--------.·. • Com11J ol -.,.---------.Sm::::u...:tuis:-&... . .:.:Obiao.:. . ..,'----.• &ate ol Cllilomla.. ~ • fallanr r . i t 1 ! I I ·: ... ... . I I ! I ~ .• ... • : .. •• ~·~.

• • C/) rn -o ........ ••• •• 'lN .. ..... • i6 ' . . E.Xt4rerr . 1\) /_cD \...1\) . • .· • S)(\S11NGI .. fifO (JJ 0 .· ~ - . :u 0 P1 -~ ~ !II Q:l ~ : '

~.\N lUIS OBISPO COUNTY ALtLU w uuw 'l"''eCCFIII'='liD~_..,..,..==......,==-•---"""""'..,..........,..._,.._,. __ _,,.D'~~~Jt't DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND BUILDIN. October 30, 2000 John L. Wallace and Assoc. 4115 Broad Street, Suite B-5 San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93401 Attn: Kerry Margason SUBJECT: Approval of Schoenfield Certificate of Compliance C2000-166 Dear Mrs.

Margason: VICTOR HOlANDA, AICP DIRECTOR BRYCE TINGLE, AICP ASSISTANT DIRECTOR ELLEN CARROLL ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATOR FORREST WERMUTH CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL The Department ofPlanning and Building has reviewed all of the materials submitted in conjunction with the Schoenfield application for certificates of compliance. We will act to reissue and approve • One (1) certificate of compliance for the entire property on November 14. 2000. That review and approval is based on the following findings of facts in this matter: 1.

A grant deed from Wilcoxon to Thorbergsson dated December 11, 1958 (Deed: 977 /OR/284) created the parcel as a remainder from the property conveyed. The parcel was. thereafter separately conveyed in its current configuration in a grant deed from Wilcoxon to Willfong dated June 28, 1968 (Deed: 1487 /OR/63 7). The purpose of these conveyances was to create parcels with access to Pecho Road. 2.

On April 30, 1976, upon the request of Donald and Alice Willfong (the previous owners of the parcel) and based upon the grant deed from Henry and Joan Wilcoxon to Donald and Alice Willfong dated June 28, 1968 referred to above, the Planning· Department issued, approved and reCorded one certificate of compliance for the entire property based upon a determination that the parcel was determined to be one parcel in compliance with the applicable provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and the County's ordinances enacted pursuant thereto (Document No.'16678 recorded April30, 1976).

The County's decision was not appealed nor challenged by the property owners. 3. Thereafter, through intermediate conveyances, the parcel was separately conveyed by grant deed from Krongeld to Schoentield dated April 15, 1987 (Deed: • 2984/0R/881 ). The same legal description was used in this grant deed as was used in the 1968 deed when this property was first conveyed. -~~ '- COUNTY GovERNMENT CENTER • SAN lUIS OBISPO • CALIFORNIA 93408 • (~IJOIQ800-834-4636 EMAIL: ipcoplng@slonet.org • FAX: (805)781-1242 • WEBSITE: http://www.slonet.org/vv/ipcoplng

• • • Schoenfield Cert. of Comp. October 30, 2000 Page 2. 4. The problem with the applicant's method of analysis ofparcel creation is that the grant deed from Martin to Wilcoxon dated February 24, 1949 (Deed: 510/0R/395) would have.been in violation of the Subdivision Map Act because it would have created five or more parcels within a one-year period without the required filing of a final map (1943 version of the Subdivision Map Act). Consequently, the 1949 grant deed did not create legal parcels which could be later divided. 5.

The existence of two separate assessor parcel numbers created for assessment and taxation purposes does not create separate legal parcels for purposes of the Subdivision Map Act. 6. On June 9, 1989, at the request of the applicant Schoenfield, the Zoning Administrator of the County of San Luis Obispo (the Hearing Officer) conditionally approved Minor Use Permit/Coastal Development Permit D880 127P authorizing the construction of a new single-family residence with attached garage and driveway on the property. Thereafter, on August 18, 1989, the County's ChiefBuildinglnspector issued Building Permit No.

B881755 to the applicant, Schoenfield, authorizing the construction of a single-family residence on the property in accordance with the approved minor use permit/coastal development permit. 7. Approval of the minor use permit/coastal development permit and issuance of the building permit for the property as described in Paragraph 6 above constitutes real property "approved for development" pursuant to the provisions of Government Code

section 66499.34. As a result ofbeing approved for development, the property is entitled to the issuance of one certificate of compliance, for the entire property as a single legal parcel, under the provisions of Government Code

section 66499.35( c). 8. The property was first separately conveyed as a single legal parcel by grant deed dated June 28, 1968 (1487/0R/637). Based upon this conveyance, a single unconditional certificate of compliance was issued on April 30, 1976, recognizing the entire property as a single legal .parcel (1894/0R/847). There has been no documentation submitted showing that the configuration of the property has been changed by merger or other means from the time of its creation to the present.

As a result, the property is entitled to the ·re-1ssuance of one certificate of compliance, recognizing the property, as a whole, as a single legal parcel. Attached for your review is the legal description for the re-issued certificate of compliance that will be recorded by the County to finalize your application. Review the legal description carefully and please contact our office if you have any concerns or questions regarding the description on the certificate .

Schoenfield Cert. of Comp. October 30, 2000 Page 3. The cost for recording the document is$ 23.00 , which includes a $10.00 transfer fee. Please transmit a check made out to the County of San Luis Obispo to: Barbara Spann, Accounting Department of Planning and Building County Government Center San Luis Obispo, California 93408 Please also clearly mark that this payment is for C2000-166 to assure that it is credited to the appropriate project. A Statement of Fees has been enclosed with this letter for your use. You may submit the statement with your payment to further insure proper crediting.

If you do not agree with the decision made by the department, you may appeal this determination to the County Board of Supervisors. You must appeal the decision within 14 days from the action date, which is the date of this correspondence. If you wish to appeal, please submit the request to the Planning Commission Secretary with the appropriate appeal fee. If you have any questions concerning yourproj ector this notice please contact me at (805) 781-5600 . Sincerely, Victor Rolanda, AICP, Director Department of Planning and Building ~"'" LarryW.

Kelly, Se 'or Planner Supervisor, Information Services Gro Enclosures Statement of Fees Certificates of Compliance ' cc: Albert Schoenfield • • •

• • • DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND BUILDING OFFICE MEMORANDUM 2/26/01 Steve Monowitz, California Coastal Commission. Larry Kelly, Senior Planner, Information Services Group Appeal of Schoenfield Certificate of Compliance Attached is a staff report prepared for the March 6, 2001 San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors meeting. This project is in a coastal appealable zone (between the 1st road and the ocean) and I wanted to forward you a copy of the report for your information.

The applicant applied for two certificates of compliance for an approximate 4.2 acre property. Approval of a certificate of compliance for Mr. Schoenfield is a ministerial matter and staff approved one certificate for the entire 4.2 acre property on behalf of the Planning Director back in November of 2000. However, the applicant has filed an appeal ofthe Planning Director's approval of only one certificate and will be asking the Board to overturn the Director's decision and approve two certificates for the property.

Staff fully expects that ifthe Board overturns the Director's decision and approves two certificates then both would be conditional certificates of compliance. Please give me a call at (805) 781-5799 if you have any questions. Recreev MAR 1 2 2001 CO CALIFORNIA CE~~h~t ~g~r-~~~fA'

(1) DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA ITEM TRANSMITTAL

(2) MEETING DATE {3) CONTACT/PHONE Planning and Building March 6, 2001 Larry W. Kelly, Information Services Group (805) 781-5799

(4) SUBJECT Hearing to consider an appeal by Albert Schoenfield of the Planning Director's approval of Certificate of Compliance, C00-0166, (S990330C) for an approximate 4.2 acre property in the Residential Suburban Land Use Category, located in the county at 2731 Pecha Valley Road, in the community of Los Osos; 2nd District.

(5) SUMMARY OF REQl.JEST The Applicant has filed an appeal of the Planning Director's decision regarding the Applicant's request for two certificates of compliance. The Planning Director's recommendation is for one certificate of compliance for the entire property of approximately 4.2 acres.

(6) RECOMMENDED ACTION Adopt the attached resolution upholding the Planning Director's approval of Certificate of Compliance, C00-0166, (S990330C) as one certificate and deny Albert Schoenfield's appeal based on the findings in Exhibit A.

(7) FUNDING SOURCE(S)

(8) CURRENT YEAR COST N/A N/A

(11) OTHER AGENCY/ADVISORY GROUP INVOLVEMENT (LIST): Not applicable.

(12) WILL REQUEST REQUIRE AOOITIONAL STAFF? 181 No D Permanent __ 0 Umited Term_ D Contract --

(13) SUPERVISOR DISTRICT(S) 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, All

(15) AGENDA PLACEMENT OConsent 181 Hearing {Time Est. 30 minutes) 0 Presentation 0 Board Business (Time Est

(17) NEED EXTRA EXECUTED COPIES? ONumber: DAttached 181 NJA

(19) ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE REVIEW

(9) ANNUAL COST

(10) BUDGETED? N/A DYES 181 N/A DNO DYes, How Many? 0 Temporary Help __ )

(14) LOCATION MAP 0 Attached ~ NIA {16) EXECUTED DOCUMENTS 181 Resolutions (Orlg + 4 copies) D Contracts (Orig + 4 copies) 0 Ordinances (Orlg + 4 copies) ON/A

(18) APPROPRIATION TRANSFER REQUIRED? 0 Submitted 0 4/5th's Vote Required 181 NJA ~Elmlcr:~"r~, bll . ~rJ v ......_~ MAR 1 2 2001 CAliFORNIA COASTAL COMMIS~'"'f.J CHJTRAL COAST ;:...-.~A • •

• • TO: FROM: VIA: DATE: SUBJECT: SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND BUILDING BOARD OF SUPERVISORS VICTOR HOlANDA, AICP DIRECTOR BRYCE TINGLE, AICP ASSISTANT DIRECTOR EllEN CARROll ENVIRONMENTAl COORDINATOR FORREST WERMUTH CHIEF BUilDING OFFICIAl LARRY ,V. KELLY, INFORMATION SERVICES GROUP BRYCE TINGLE, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR PLANNING AND BUILDING MARCH 6, 2001 HEARING TO CONSIDER AN APPEAL BY ALBERT SCHOENFIELD OF.

THE PLANNING DIRECTOR'S APPROVAL OF CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE, C00-0166, (S990330C) FORAN APPROXIMATE 4.2 ACRE PROPERTY IN THE RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN LAND USE CATEGORY, LOCATED IN THE COUNTY AT 2731 PECHO VALLEY ROAD, IN THE COMMUNITY OF LOS OSOS; SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT 2 RECOMMENDATION Adopt the attached resolution upholding the Planning Director's· approval of Certificate of Compliance, C00-0166, (S990330C) as one certificate and deny Albert Schoenfield's appeal based on the findings in Exhibit A.

DISCUSSION A grant deed from Wilcoxon to Thorbergsson dated December 11, 1958 (Deed: 977 /OR/284) created the parcel as a remainder from the property conveyed. The parcel was thereafter separately conveyed in its current configuration in a grant deed from Wilcoxon to Willfong dated June 28, 1968 (Deed: 1487 /OR/63 7). The purpose ofthese conveyances was to create parcels with access to Pecho Road. Merger is not an issue because there were no legal lots previously created.

On April 30, 1976, upon the request of Donald and Alice Willfong (the previous owners of the parcel) and based upon the grant deed from Henry and Joan Wilcoxon to Donald and Alice Willfong dated June 28, 1968 referred to above, the Planning Department issued, approved and recorded one certificate of compliance for the entire property based upon a determination that the parcel was determined to be one parcel in compliance with the applicable provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and the County's ordinances enacted pursuant thereto (Document No. 16678 recorded April30, COUNlY GOVERNMENT CENTER • SAN lUIS OBISPO • CALIFORNIA 93408 • (805)781-5600 • 1-800-834-4636 EMAIL: i pco ping@ slo net. o rg • FAX' (80 5) 7 81-1242 • WEBSITE' http'/ /wl".or, j; pco pIng

Board of Supervisors Schoenfield Appeal C00-0166 (S990330C) March 6, 2001 Page2 1976). The County's decision was not appealed nor challenged by the property owners and the time to do so has run. The County does not contend this certificate of compliance merged legal parcels. Instead, the certificate of compliance recognized the legal parcel that was created by remainder by the grant deed from Wilcoxon to Thorbergsson dated December 11, 1958. Thereafter, through intermediate conveyances, the parcel was separately conveyed by grant deed from Krongeld to Schoenfield dated April 15, 1987 (Deed: 2984/0RJ881).

The same legal description was used in this grant deed as was used in the 1968 deed when this property was first conveyed. The problem with the applicant's method of analysis of parcel creation is that the grant deed from Martin to Wilcoxon dated February 24, 1949 (Deed: 51 O/OR395) would have been in violation of the Subdivision Map Act because it would have created five or more parcels within a one-year period without the required filing of a final map (1943 version ofthe Subdivision Map Act- Business and Professions Code

Section 11535). Consequently, the 1949 grant deed did not create legal parcels which could be later divided. • The existence oftwo separate assessor parcel numbers created for assessment and taxation purposes • does not create sepamte legal parcels for purposes of the Subdivision Map Act. On June 9, 1989, at the request ofthe applicant Schoenfield, the Zoning Administrator of the County of San Luis Obispo (the Hearing Officer) conditionally approved Minor Use Permit/Coastal Development Permit D880127P authorizing the construction of a new single-family residence with attached ·garage and driveway on the property.

Thereafter, on August 18, 1989, the County's Chief Building Inspector issued Building Permit No. B881755 to the applicant, Schoenfield, authorizing the construction of a single-family residence on the property in accordance with the approved minor use permit/coastal development permit. Approval of the minor use permit/coastal development permit and issuance of the building permit for the property as descnoed in the previous paragraph above constitutes real property "approved for development" pursuant to the provisions of Government Code

section 66499.34. As a result of being approved for development, the property is entitled to the issuance of one certificate of compliaoce,forthe entire property as a single legal parcel, under the provisions of Government Code

Section 66499.35(c). Approval of the minor use permit and building permit did not merge parcels (as the applicant misconstrues the County's position). Instead, these approvals authorized "development" on a single legal parcel owned by the applicant. Multiple legal parcels were never created and, therefore, merger never took place. •

• • • Board of Supervisors Schoenfield Appeal C00-0166 (S990330C) March 6, 2001 Page3 The property was first separately conveyed as a single legal parcel by grant deed dated June 28, 1968 (1487/0R/637). Based upon this conveyance, a single unconditional certificate of compliance was issued on April 30, 1976, recognizing the entire property as a single legal parcel (1894/0R/847). There has been no documentation submitted showing that the configuration of the property has been changed by merger or other means from the time of its creation to the present.

As a result, the property is entitled to there-issuance of one certificate of compliance, recognizing the property, as a whole, as a single legal parcel. OTHER AGENCY INVOLVEMENT/IMPACT None. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS The Applicant submitted an appeal fee payment of $4 7 4.00 to cover associated staff costs.

RESULTS Should the Board of Supervisors approve the staff recommendation to deny the appeal by Albert Schoenfield and approve the issuance of one certificate of compliance for the approximate 4.2 acre property, Certificate of Compliance, C00-0166, would be issued in accordance with the Board's resolution recognizing the property, as a whole, as a single legal parcel.

~,{N LUIS OBISPO COUNTY ------------=-----·-----=-===--~---------------~~~~z~~~3. DEPARTMENT OF PlANNING AND BUilDIN. October 30, 2000 VICTOR HOLANDA, AICP DIRECTOR BRYCE TINGLE, AICP ASSISTANT DIRECTOR EllEN CARROLL ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATOR John L. Wallace and Assoc. 4115 Broad Street, Suite B-5 San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93401 Attn: Kerry Margason FORREST WERMUTH CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL SUBJECT: Approval of Schoenfield Certificate of Compliance C2000-166 Dear Mrs.

Margason: The Department ofPlanning and Building has reviewed all of the materials submitted in conjunction with the Schoenfield application for certificates of compliance. We will act to reissue and approve • One (1) certificate of compliance for J:he .entire propertyDn November 14. 2000. That review and approval is based on the following findings 1){ facts in this matter: 1. A grant deed from Wilcoxon to Thorbergsson dated December 11, 1958 (Deed: 977/0R/284) created the parcel as a remainder from the property conveyed.

The parcel was thereafter separately conveyed in its current configuration in a grant deed from Wilcoxon to Willfong dated June 28, 1968 (Deed: 1487/0R/637). The purpose of these conveyances was to create parcels with access to Pecho Road. 2.

On April 30, 1976, upon the request of Donald and Alice Willfong (the previous owners of the parcel) and based upon the grant deed from Henry and Joan Wilcoxon to Donald and Alice Willfong dated June 28, 1968 referred to above, the Planning Department issued, approved and reCorded one certificate of compliance for the entire property based upon a determinatiqn that the parcel was determined to be one parcel in compliance with the applica.Dle provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and the County's ordinances enacted pursuant thereto (DocUment No.· 16678 recorded April30, 1976).

The County's decision was not appealed nor challenged by the property owners. 3. Thereafter, through intermediate conveyances, the parcel was separately conveyed by grant deed from Krongeld to Schoenfield dated April 15, 1987 (Deed: • 2984/0R/881). The same legal description was used in this grant deed as was used in the 1968 deed when this property was first conveyed. 1ft V -'J COUNTY GOVUNM£NT CENTER • SAN LUIS OBISPO • CAUFOINIA 93408 • (805)781-5600 ~1~0-8314636 EMAIL: ipcoplng@slonet.org • FAX: (805)781-1242 • W£1SITE: http:/ /www.slonet.org/vv/ipcoplng

• • • Schoenfield Cert. of Comp. October 30, 2000 Page 2. 4. The problem with the applicant's method of analysis of parcel creation is that the grant deed from Martin to Wilcoxon dated February24, 1949 (Deed: 510/0R/395) would have' been in violation of the Subdivision Map Act because it would have created five or more parcels within a one-year period without the required filing of a final map {1943 version of the Subdivision Map Act). Consequently, the 1949 grant deed did not create legal parcels which could be later divided. 5.

The existence of two separate assessor parcel numbers created for assessment and taxation purposes does not create . separate legal parcels for purposes of the Subdivision Map Act. 6. On June 9, 1989, at the request of the applicant Schoenfi.eld, the Zoning Administrator of the County of San Luis Obispo (the Hearing Officer) conditionally approved Minor Use Permit/Coastal Development Permit D880 127P authorizing the construction of a new single-family residence with attached garage and driveway on the property. Thereafter, on August 18,1989, the County's ChiefBuildinginspector issued Building Permit No.

section 66499.35(c). 8. The property was first separately conveyed as a single legal parcel by grant deed dated June 28, 1968 (1487/0R/637). Based upon this conveyance, a single unconditional certificate of compliance was issued on April 30, 1976, recognizing the entire property as a single legal parcel (1894/0R/847). There has been no documentation submitted showing that the configuration of the property has been changed by merger or other means from the time of its creation to the present.

As a result, the property is entitled to the 're-1ssuance of one certificate of compliance, recognizing the property, as a whole, as a single legal parcel. Attached for your review is the legal description for the re-issued certificate of compliance that will be recorded by the County to finalize your application. Review the legal description carefully and please contact our office if you have any concerns or questions regarding the description on the certificate .

-----~----------------------------------------- Schoenfield Cert. ofComp. October 30, 2000 Page 3. The cost for recording the document is $ 23.00 , which includes a $10.00 transfer fee. Please transmit a check made out to the County of San Luis Obispo to: Barbara Spann, Accounting Department of Planning and Building County Government Center San Luis Obispo, California 93408 Please also clearly mark that this payment is for C2000-166 to assure that it is credited to the appropriate project. A Statement of Fees has been enclosed with this letter for your use.

You may submit the statement with your payment to further insure proper crediting. If you do not agree with the decision made by the department, you may appeal this determination to the County Board of Supervisors. You must appeal the decision within 14 days from the action date, which is the date of this correspondence. If you wish to appeal, please submit the request to the Planning Commission Secretary with the appropriate appeal fee. If you have any questions concerning your project or this notice please contact me at (805) 781-5600 .

Sincerely, Victor Rolanda, AICP, Director Department of Planning and Building Larry W. Kelly, Se ·or Planner Supervisor, Information Services Gro Enclosures Statement ofFees Certificates of Compliance cc: Albert Schoenfield • • • E~1

DATE 10/30/00 TIME 12.38.52 SAN LUIS .ISPO COUNTY PERMIT TRACKii SYSTEM STATEMENT OF FEES ~ITTEE: SCHOENFIELD ALBERT .., 2731 PECHO VALLEY RD LOS OSOS, CA 93402 LOCATION: 2731 PECHO VALLEY RD LSOS PBL116-R067 PAGE 1 PROJECT: S990330 C STRUCTURE: MAP: C00-0166 CHARGE CODE: PSC0506 TYPE: CERT OF COMP COASTAL STATUS: INFORMATION HOLD 07/07/00 CURRENT ( +) (+) ( +) (=) DESCRIPTION FEE PAYMENTS ADJUSTMTS RFND/TRAN BALANCE MICROF 36.00 36.00- .00 .oo COAST A 62.00 62.00- .oo .oo CERTIF 300.00 300.00- .00 .oo RECORD 17.00 .00 .00 .00 RECORD 6.00 .oo .oo .00 THESE FEES ARE AN ESTIMATE ONLY AND MAY BE ADJUSTED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE.

THIS STATEMENT DOES NOT REFLECT ALL FEES ASSESSED BY OTHER AGENCIES. (X) +--------------------+ BALANCES: INSTALLMENT P: .00 ,_, INSTALLMENT 1 : .00 ,_, IVED BY: 23.00 ,_, -- INSTALLMENT 2 : RECEIPT: ---- INSTALLMENT S: .00 l_l UNAPPLIED CREDITS: .oo l_l +--------------------+ UNPOSTED PAYMENTS: .00 ,_, AMOUNT DUE: fi:3.~ • .oo .00 .00 17.00 6.00 1 1 1 2 2 I

RECORDING REQUESTED BY' SAN LUIS OBISPO COUN'J.T WHEN RECOBDED, RETURN TO: Dlrectar of pbpmlng & BuiJdlag Cou:a.t:J 0alaJDIMJJt Caldar San Luis Ohlllpo, Calll:mda 93t08 A'l"'J'N: LaDy w. l81ly APN(S): 074-024-019 and OliO PIOJECT/PCL NO: C2000-168Jl FILE NO: S9II0330C CERTIFICATE OF CO:MPLIANCE This certificate relates only to issues of compliance or noncompliance with the Subdivision Map Act and local ordinances enacted pursuant thereto.

The following described single parcel of real property has been detennined to be in compliance with the applicable provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and local ordinance enacted pursuant thereto. The parcel described herein may be sold, leased. or financed without further compliance with the Subdivision Map Act or any local ordinance enacted pursuant thereto. Development of the parcel may require issuance of a permit or pemrits, or other grant or grants of approval.

Said parcel of real property is situated in the unincorporated area of the County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, being described as follows: · · As described in Exhibit A attached to this certificate and incorporated herein a.s if set forth in full RECORD OWNER(S): See Exhibit B for Ownership Vesting. STATE OF CALIFORNIA. ) )SS COUN'J.T OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ) (SEAL) VICTOR HOIANDA Director, Department of Planning and Building By. __________________________________ ___ Larry W. Kelly, Senior Planner . On tlds day of , in the year 2000, before me; I.

Hanley, Notary Public, personally appeared ' persona]ly knoWn. to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evklence) to be the person(

s) whose name(

s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that, he/she/they executed the same m his/her/their authorized capacity(fes), and that by lUslher/their signature(

s) on the instrument the penson(

s) or the entity upon behalf of which the person(

s) acted, ex:ecu.ted the instrument. wu...s my haDdad- saaL ! ~ , I. Hanley, Notary PublJc

APN(S): 074-fl24-019 and 020 PROJECT NO: C2000..168 EXHIBIT A Legal Descripticm FILE NO: S990330C P.ARCEI.t NO: ! That portion of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of

Section 23, and the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of

Section 24, Township 30 South, Range 10 East, Mount Diablo Base and Merid.ian. in the qounty of San Luis Obispo, State of California, according to the official plat of said land, described as follows: Beginning at a point in the West line of the Northwest Quarter of said

Section 24 which is South 0" 00' 30" West, 183.68 feet from the Northwest comer of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of said

Section 24; Thence North 89" 59' 30" West, 148.5 feet; Thence South and parallel with the West line of said

Section 24, 322.0 feet mere or less, to the Northwest comer of the property conveyed to Jon Thorbergsscn, et ux., in deed recorded January 16, 1969 in Beak 977, Page 284 of Official Records: Thence South 89° 59' 30" East, along the North line of said Parcel, a distance of 148.50 feet; Thence South 37° 01' 30" East, a distance of409.32 feet to the Westline of County Road No. 123 (now known asPecho Valley Road) as said read existed December 1, 1948: Thence Northeasterly along the West line 689 feet, more or less, to a point which bears South 89" 59' 30" East from the point of beginning; Thence North 89° 59' 30" West, 408.69 feet to the point of beginning. fX1

APN(S): 074-0H-OlSIUid oao PRO]EC'l' NO: 02000..188 EXHIBITS Ownemhtp Vesting Albert Schoenfield, a widower as to that portion of said land lying within

Section 24 of TCWI1Ship 30 South, Range 10 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian; and Albert Schoenfield, Suc:ceasor frustee of the JL and. F. Schoenfield Living Trust, dated May 13, 1974 u to that portion of said land lyJng within Sec1ion 23 of Township 30 South, Range 10 East, Mount Diablo Base and !lezidian.

JL "l"IfA l John L. Wallace & Associates V VJ Civil Engineering • Surveying • Planning November 13, 2000 Board of Supervisors County of San Luis Obispo County Government Center San Luis Obispo, California 93408 Subject: Appeal of Certificate of Compliance C2000-0 166 Honorable Board Members: Mr. Schoenfield wishes to appeal the decision made by the Planning Director regarding his application for certificates of compliance. Mr. Schoenfield believes that the denial of his application is unconstitutional and is inconsistent with the principles oflaw.

The specific reasons for denial of the application and our response are listed below: 1. A grant deed from Wilcoxon to Thorbergsson dated December 11, 1958 (977/0R/284) created a remainder parcel. The purpose of the conveyances was to create parcels with access to Pecha Road. . This transaction would not have resulted in a merger of the 2 remainder lots, regardless of the purpose. 2. Donald and Alice Willfong (the previous owners) requested a certificate of compliance which was issued and recorded in April30, 1'976 as Document No. 16678 of Official Records.

A certificate of compliance does not merge legal parcels. In addition, County staff has said a certificate of compliance may be subsequently reviewed in the light of new or additional evidence of a parcel"s creation. A reView of the file for the previously recorded certificate indicates a complete chain of title was never reviewed. 3. The parcel has consistently been conveyed according to the legal description in 977/0R/284. This does not constitute a merger. • • •

• • • County of San Luis Obispo November 13, 2000 Page 2. 4. Mr. Martin, through his conveyance to Mr. Wilcoxon, dated February 24, 1949 (510/0R/395) created five or more parcels, resulting in a violation of the Subdivision Map Act of 1949. We believe this

interpretation of the 1949 Map Act is in error. 5. Separate Assessor Parcel Numbers do not constitute legal parcels. 6. Approval of Minor Use Permit D880127P and Building Permit 8881755 act as a merger of the lots. 7. We believe this

interpretation of the minor use permit and building permit process is in error. Development permits/building permits do not .:~ct as mergers. Approval of the minor use permit constitutes real property "approved for development" pursuant to the provisions of Government Code

section 66499.34.

Section 66499.34 states " ... The issmptce of a permit or grant of approval for development of real property, ... or grant of approval for development, shall constitute real property which has been approved for development, for the purposes of subdivision (

c) of 66499.35 ... "

Section 66499.35 (

c) states "A certificate of compliance shall be issued for any real property which has been approved for development pursuant to

Section 66499.34." These sections are for determining when a certificate must be issued and do not state that that a development permit acts as a merger of underlying lots. 8. The separate conveyance of the parcel on June 28, 1968 (1487/0R/637) acted as a merger of the two parcels. The conveyance of a parcel does not merge the underlying parcels. The responses to the items listed above constitute the bulk of our appeal. However, please note, we reserve the right to raise any other legal issues that will substantiate our appeal position. Sincerely, JOHN L. WALLACE & ASSOCIATES ' .I ---~· (} wv\ YV\cvt_\~(}>~..../ 1 ~"""" KelT) , argason \J Associ te Plarmer cc: Albert Schoenfield

IN THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA ____ day _____ _, 2001 PRESENT: Supervisors ABSENT: . RESOLUTIONNO. __ RESOLUTION DENYING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING AND AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND BUILDING AND APPROVING THE ISSUANCE OF ONE

(1) UNCONDITIONAL CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE PURSUANT TO THE APPLICATION OF ALBERT SCHOENFIELD FOR CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE C00-0166 The following resolution is now offered and read:

WHEREAS, on November 14, 2000, the Director ofPJanning and Building of the County of San Luis Obispo {hereinafter referred to as the "Planning Director") d~ly considered and approved the issuance of one (1) unconditional certificate of compliance pursuant to the application of Albert Schoenfield for Certificate of Compliance C00-0166; and ' .

WHEREAS, Albert Sch~t:~eld has appealed the Planning Director's decision to the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Luis Obispo {hereinafter referred to as the 11 Board of Supervisors'') pursuant to the applicable provisions of Title 21 of the San Luis Obispo County Code; and

WHEREAS, a public heafing was duly noticed and conducted by the Board of Supervisors on March 6, 2001, and determination and decision was made on March 6, 2001; and

WHEREAS, at said hearing, the Board of Supervisors heard and received all oral and written protests, objections, and evidence, which were made, presented, or filed, and all per$ons present were given the opportunity to hear and be heard in respect to any matter relating to said appeal; and

WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors has duly considered the appeal and determined that the appeal should be denied and the decision of the Planning Director . ~ 1 • • •

should be upheld and affirmed and that one (1) unconditional certificate of compliance should be issued based upon the findings set forth below.

NOW, THEREFORE,

BE IT RESOLVED AND ORDERED by the Board of Supervisors ofthe County of San Luis Obispo, Sta~e of California, as follows: 1. That the recitals set forth hereinabove are true, correct, and valid. 2. That the Board of Supervisors makes all of the findings offact and determinations set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein as though set forth in full. 3. That the issuance of unconditional certificates of compliance is found to be statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act under the provisions of Public Resources Code

section 21080(b)(l), whichprovides that CEQA does not apply to ministerial projects. 4. That the appeal filed by Albert Schoenfield is hereby denied and the decision ofthe Planning Director is upheld and affirmed and that issuance of one (1) unconditional certificate of compliance is hereby approved pursuant to the application of Albert Schoenfield for Certificate of Compliance C00-0 166 based upon the findings of fact and determinations set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein as though set. forth in full.

Upon motion of Superv~sor ___________ __, seconded by Supervisor -------------' and on the following roll ~all vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAINING: the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted. ATTEST: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors rsEALl Chairman ofthe Board of Supervisors ofthe County of San Luis Obispo

APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL EFFECT: JAMES B. LINDHOLM, JR. County Counsel STATE OF CALIFORNIA. ) ) ss. County of San Luis Obispo, ) I, , County Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, in and for the County of San Luis Obispo, State of California. do hereby certify the foregoing to be a full, true and correct copy of an order made by the Board of Supervisors, as the same appears spread upon their minute book. WITNESS my hand and the seal of said Board of Supervisors, affixed this ----- day of 2001. (SEAL) Coun~¥ Clerk and Ex-Officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By __________________ ~ ~-~:ran ·I l • 1 • • •

• 1. 2. 3. • 4. 5. 6. • EXHIBIT A Findin~:s - S990330C Appeal A grant deed from Wilcoxon to Thorbergsson dated December 11, 1958 (Deed: 977/0R/284) created the parcel as a remainder from the property conveyed. The parcel was thereafter separately conveyed in its current configuration in a grant deed from Wilcoxon to Willfong dated June 28, 1968 (Deed: 1487/0R/637). The purpose of these conveyances was to create parcels with access to Pecha Road.

On April30, 1976, upon the request of Donald and Alice Willfong (the previous owners of the parcel) and based upon the grant deed from Henry and Joan Wilcoxon to Donald and Alice Willfong dated June 28, 1968 referred to above, the Planning Department issued, approved and recorded one certificate of compliance for the entire property based upon a determination that the parcel was determined to be one parcel in compliance with the applicable provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and the County's ordinances enacted pursuant thereto (Document No. 16678 recorded April 30, 1976).

The County's decision was not appealed nor challenged by the property owners. Thereafter, through intermediate conveyances, the parcel was separately conveyed by grant deed from Krongeld to Schoenfield dated Aprill5, 1987 (Deed: 2984/0R/881). The same legal description was used in this grant deed as was used in the 1968 deed when this property was first conveyed .

The problem with the applicant's method of analysis of parcel creation is that the grant deed from Martin to Wilcoxon dated February 24, 1949 (Deed: 510/0R395) would have been in violation of the Subdivision Map Act because it would have created five or more parcels within a one-year period without the required filing of a final map (1943 version of the Subdivision Map Act). Consequently, the 1949 grant deed did not create legal parcels which could be later divided.

The existence of two separate assessor parcel numbers created for assessment and taxation purposes does not create separate legal parcels for purposes of the Subdivision Map Act. On June 9, 1989, at the request of the applicant Schoenfield, the Zoning Administrator of the County of San Luis Obispo (the Hearing Officer) conditionally approved Minor Use Permit/Coastal Development Permit D880127P authorizing the construction of a new single-family residence with attached garage and driveway on the property. Thereafter, on August 18, 1989, the County's ChiefBuilding Inspector issued Building Permit No.

B881755 to the applicant, Schoenfield, authorizing the construction of a single-family residence on the property in accordance with the approved minor use permit/coastal development permit. A-1

7. Approval of the minor use permit/coastal development permit and issuaflce of the building permit for the property as described in the previous paragraph above constitutes real property "approved for development" pursuant to the provisions of Government Code

section 66499.34. As a result of being approved for development. the property is entitled to the issuance of one certificate of compliance, for the entire property as a single legal parcel, under the provisions of Government Code

Section 66499.35(c). 8. The property was first separately conveyed as a single legal parcel by grant deed dated June 28, 1968 (1487/0R/637). Based upon this conveyance, a single unconditional certificate of compliance was issued on April30, 1976, recognizing the entire property as a single legal parcel (1894/0R/847). There has been no documentation submitted showing that the configuration of the property has been changed by merger or other means from the time of its creation to the present. As a result, the property is entitled to the re-issuance of one certificate of compliance, recognizing the property, as a whole, as a single legal parcel. A-2 • • •

• • • OFFICE OF THE COUNTY COUNSEL JAMES B. LINDHOLM. JR. COUNTY COUNSEL Via Facsimile Diane Landry, Esq. Staff Counsel California Coastal Commission 725 Front Street, Suite 300 Santa Cruz, CA 95060 COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, ROOM 386 SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93408 TELEPHONE 761·5400, 761·5401 FAX 761-4221 (AREA CODE 605) April23,2001 CALl CQt,ST/. ' CE:·JTHi;{ Re: Certificates of Compliance C00-0 166 (Albert Schoenfield) Dear Ms. Landry: s::; ~ /~. f-~ ASSISTANT JAC A. CRAWFORD CHIEF DEPUTY R. WYATT CASH DEPUTIES JON M. JENKINS JAMES B. ORTON WARREN R. JENSEN MARY A. TOEPKE RAYMOND A.

BIERING A. EDWIN OLPIN PATRICIA A. STEVENS KATHY BOUCHARD :.r.:;•,,TIMOTHY MCNULTY ~·ANN CATHERINE DUGGAN ;~· _..~PATRICKJ. FORAN ,.,.,.,..,. LESLIE H. KRAUT RITA L. SCIARONI . " The Board of Supervisors held a continued hearing on the application of Albert Schoenfield for the issuance of two unconditional certificates of compliance under Government Code

section 66499.35(a). At the conclusion of the hearing, the Board deliberated on the matter and then decided to uphold the appeal and issue two unconditional certificates of compliance as requested by the applicant. Enclosed is a copy ofResolution No. 2001-148 setting forth the Board's final action in this matter. Also enclosed as you requested is a copy ofBusiness and Professions Code

section 11535 (Stats. 1943,

chapter 128) that was effective in 1949 at the time of the grant deed from Martin to Wilcoxon. Should you need anything further, please give me a call. JBO:kt Enclosure cc: Pat Beck (w/enclosure) 010706 7846ktltr. wpd PLN Very truly yours, JAMES B. LINDHOLM, JR. C nty Counsel e~~•••r 1

COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA Tues day April 10 • 2001 PRESENT: Supervlson Harry L. Ovitt, Shirley Bianchi, Peg Pinard, • Michael P. Ryan, Chairperson K.H. 'Katcho' Achadjian r::CEIVED ABSENT: None API( 2 5 2001 RESOLUTIO:t..T:t..TO 2001 148 CALIFORNIA 'J." J.'l ·--- COASTf,L COMMISSION CENTRAL COAST AREA RESOLUTION UPHOLDING THE APPEAL AND REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND BUILDING AND APPROVING THE ISSUANCE OF TWO

(2) UNCONDITIONAL CERTIFICATES OF COMPLIANCE PURSUANT TO THE APPLICATION OF ALBERT SCHOENFIELD FOR CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE C00-0166 The following resolution is now offered and read:

WHEREAS, on November 14, 2000, the Director of Planning and Building of the County of San Luis Obispo (hereinafter referred to as the uPlanning Director") duly considered and approved the issuance of one (1) unconditional certificate of compliance pursuant to the application of Albert Schoenfield for Certificate of Compliance C00-0166; and

WHEREAS, Albert Schoenfield h~s appealed the Planning Director's decision to the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Luis Obispo (hereinafter referred to as the "Board of . Supervisors") pursuant to the applicable provisions of Title 21 of the San Luis Obispo County Code; and

WHEREAS, a public hearing was duly noticed and conducted by the Board of Supervisors on March 6, 2001, and the matter was continued to and determination and decision was made on AprillO, 2001; and

WHEREAS, at said hearing, the Board of Supervisors heard and received all oral and written protests, objections, and evidence, which were made, presented, or filed, and all persOns present were given the opportunity to hear and be heard in respect to any matter relating to said appeal; and

WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors has duly considered the appeal and determined that the appeal should be upheld and the decision of the Planning Director should be reversed and that two (2) unconditional certificates of compliance should be issued based upon the findings set forth • below. '~, • ••

NOW, THEREFORE,

BE IT RESOLVED AND ORDERED by the Board of Supervisors ofthe County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, as follows: 1. That the recitals set forth hereinabove are true, correct, and valid. 2. That the Board of Supervisors makes all of the fmdings offact and determinations set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein as though set forth in full. 3. That the issuance of unconditional certificates of compliance is found to be statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act under the provisions of Public Resources Code

section 21080(b)(l), which provides that CEQA does not apply to ministerial projects. 4. That the appeal filed by Albert SchoenfieJd is hereby upheld and the decision of the Planning Director is reversed and that issuance of two (2) unconditional certificates of compliance is hereby approved pursuant to the application of Albert Schoenfield for Certificate of Compliance C00-0166 based upon the findings offact and determinations set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein as though set forth in full.

Upon motion of Supervisor ___ B_ia_n_c_h_i ______ --> seconded by Supervisor ____ __:Ov::.=i;.:t.=.t __ ----,......_ _ ___, and on the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: Supervisors Bianchi, Ovitt, Pinard, Ryan, Chairperson Achadjian NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAINING: None the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted. ATTEST: JULIE L. RODEWALD Chairman of the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Luis Obispo

APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL EFFECT: JAMES B. LINDHOLM, JR. County Counsel STATE OF CALIFORNIA, } ) ss. County of San Luis Obispo, ) I, JULIE L. RODEWALD , County Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, in and for the County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, do hereby certify the foregoing to be a full, true and correct copy of an order mad!;} by the Board of Supervisors, as the same appears spread upon their minute book. WITNESS. my hand and the seal of said Board of Supervisors, affixed this __ 1_2_th __ day of April , 2001. (SEAL) f:\wp\jbo\770Sktres.wpd:mja JULIE L.

RODEWALD County Cleric and Bx..Qfficio Clerk of the Board of Supcrvisotl By V«t-IY}~ Deputy Clerk. ~~ "1 • • ••

• • • EXHJBIT A Findings- C00-0166 (S99033Q . Cf:' rr::r, ;:-~~:I' i~~)¥mi'~~~~i~Ey:;t~P1J 1. A conveyance of a patent from the U.S. Government to Tobias Kennan (D/Patents/277) dated September 25, 1890, created a separate legal parcel 2. A conveyance of a patent of contiguous property from the U.S. Government to Charlotte Redecker (F/Patents/36) dated November 9, 1891, created a separate legal parcel. 3. The two patents described ,above share a common property line running between them from north to south. 4.

Subsequently, legal parcels were conveyed out of each patent by the owners of the patent properties reducing the acreage (and size) of each patent property. 5. On January 11, 1949, a grant deed from Verrnazen to Martin (502/0R/301) conveyed two contiguous legal parcels separated by the· "patent line" described above. 6.

On February 24, 1949, Martin conveyed to Wilcoxon (510/0R/395) the central part of Martin's property containing all property located east and west ofthe "patent line." This conveyance from Martin to Wilcoxon was the first conveyance out of the Martin property described in paragraph 5 above and created two separate legal parcels divided by the old "patent line." 7. There were no other conveyances of the remaining Martin prop

Document details

Collection	California Rules of Court
Citation	CCC-284378
Type	court_rule
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	CA_ROC
Identifier	acd425625b440e22fa8bce753870d1fb5c509db8

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).