LLA and CEQA?

[bubblewatcher]

I have a minor lot line adjustment where there is a zero net change in area (400 sqft). Moving a line between neighbors to accommodate a wall. The area in question is less than 20% slope, however the average on the 15,000 sqft lots is greater than 20%. I have been told by the city that i am required to pay for a CEQA app and pay for a negative declaration!!. Has this type of shakedown been happening to you? Does anyone have anything i can fire back with?

[subman]

Categorical Exemption

15305. Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations

Class 5 consists of minor alterations in land use limitations in areas with an average slope of less than 20%, which do not result in any changes in land use or density, including but not limited to:

(a) Minor lot line adjustments, side yard, and set back variances not resulting in the creation of any new parcel;

(b) Issuance of minor encroachment permits;

(c) Reversion to acreage in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act.

Note: Authority cited: Section 21083, Public Resources Code; Reference: Section 21084, Public Resources Code.

[bubblewatcher]

This is the exception that the city is citing, that because the entire lot is over 20% slope that we are required to file. I see this as a backwards interpretation.

[E_Page]

Bubble,

According to your lat/lon, you are in north-central KS, not near any towns of any size but in what looks like good whitetail country. Are you in CA?

It looks to me as if this LLA is squarely within the exemptions to CEQA. Shakedown by a broke local government.

[bubblewatcher]

yes this seems to me to be a shakedown by a broke city, how do i fight back? Advise my client to hire an attorney? Pay the $2k Negative Declaration and the $2k "plan check" fee to the cities retirement account?

[E_Page]

If it were me, I would advise the client that, IMO, it is not required, but that my opinion means very little to the city in this regard. Let the client decide whether to fight or not. Client's project, client's $, client's decision. You're the consultant, not the owner.

[pls 3875]

The entire LLA proceedure needs to be completely revamped. It has been infiltrated with policy dictates, ordinances and code requirements that are unrelated to the probem being addressed. The LLA process is broke, and this might just be another example to add the mountain.

[bubblewatcher]

My client, is leaning towards not doing anything to solve the encroachment problem for this very reason. My outrage stems from the fact that in the face of all common or in this case not so common sense, the definition of a project or development has been so twisted, that moving a line on a piece of paper, without disturbing one granule of dirt would require an investigation as to the impact on the environment. What human being with most of its chromosomes intact would agree. The city was given authority to make its own decisions. Whats next? You apply to re-roof your house is that a project or development? Street widening dedications, utility undergrounding, recording an easement?

my bitter .02

[Anthony Maffia]

The LLA would adjust a limited area, all of which is under 20% slope. They shouldn't be looking at larger areas.

State law says the city can deny based on zoning or general plan.

No development will occur (a wall isn't a development) so this isn't a development project.

Exempt from CEQA. Write a letter to planning director, public works maybe, and cc city attorney.

Should be about 2 hours of work.