Land Use/Project Review Report
January 19, 2011
1. Old Business: Report and Recommendations on Proposed Amendments to the SLO County Event Ordinance – see Page 3.
2. New Project: DRC2010-00032 BROCKWAY – MUP for an addition to an existing SFR. Site located at 1895 St. James Road, Cambria. APN: 023-133-004.
Planner: Paul Sittig
Link to MUP application: http://www.slocounty.ca.gov/Assets/PL/referrals/coastal/DRC2010-00032BROCKWAY/DRC2010-00032BROCKWAY.pdf
Comments: Project would add a master bedroom and loft over garage, totaling 404 sq. ft., to existing two-story residence. Total living area would increase from 1,362 sq. ft. to 1,766 sq. ft., plus new 182 sq. ft. loft. GSA would increase to 2,312, sq. ft. vs. 2,140 allowed without TDCs. Lot size is 3,750 sq. ft., designated “typical” (0-10% slope). Allowable TDCs total 321 sq. ft., of which 172 will be used for this project.
The project is within all applicable limits as to setback, height, proportion of building area to lot size, etc. As planned, it will enhance the applicant’s property with no significant impact on streetscape, views or surrounding properties.
Recommendation: Approve.
3. New Project DRC2010-00022 PG&E – MUP for after-the-fact tree removal of Monterey Pines and vegetation management. Sites located along Ardath Drive in Cambria. APN: 023-074-010.
Planner: Ryan Hostetter
Link to development plan application: http://www.slocounty.ca.gov/Assets/PL/referrals/coastal/DRC2010-00022PG$!26E/DRC2010-00022PG$!26E.pdf
Comments: This MUP was filed in connection with a mitigation plan proposed by PG&E to replace trees removed near power lines in the Lodge Hill area during 2010. PG&E proposes working with the County and the Cambria Forest Committee to pay for off-site replacement of the 75 Monterey Pines at a 4-to-1 ratio – or 300 trees at $25 apiece — at a total cost of $75,000.
This appears to be an appropriate mitigation, but the Land Use Committee believes that the Cambria Forest Committee better able to assess this MUP application in detail and recommend specific action concerning this MUP. In addition, we urge the County to develop a tree management policy for PG&E and other utilities that would allow for removal of trees as needed, with a streamlined permit process that provides adequate notification to area residents.
Recommendation: Refer to Cambria Forest Committee.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE
SLO COUNTY EVENT ORDINANCE
UPDATED JAN. 3, 2011
North Coast Advisory Council Land Use Committee
Submitted to full NCAC on Nov. 17, 2010; continued to Jan. 19, 2011
The Land Use Committee of the North Coast Advisory Council met on November 1, 2010 and January 3, 2011 to consider the Referral Draft of the proposed amendments to the San Luis Obispo County Event Ordinance.
Committee members in attendance were Tom Gray, Joyce Renshaw, Jim Bahringer (Nov. 1, 2010 only), Steve Cole and Gail Robinette (Jan. 3, 2011 only). John Lamb did not attend.
Attending from the County Dept. of Planning and Building on Nov. 1, 2010 was Senior Planner Karen Nall.
Also attending the meeting and offering comments on Nov. 1,2010 were NCAC members Dawn Dunlap and Ralph Covell, along with Susan McDonald. Susan McDonald submitted additional comments via email on Jan. 3, 2011.
General comments:
The Land Use Committee members present at the two meetings found most of the specific provisions in the proposed amendments to be acceptable without further revisions. Exceptions, keyed to sections of the latest referral draft, are listed below.
One general issue that could not be resolved by changing specific sections was the question of how to treat certain large-scale public events on private property (e.g. Pinedorado and the Creston Rodeo) that are longstanding community traditions but would have difficulty operating within all of the new event ordinance rules regarding on-site parking, hours of operation, noise, etc. One suggestion was to exempt such well-established events by name or perhaps by a definition that would effectively exempt them, along with maybe a small number of other events. No consensus has been reached by the full committee on this question. However, the Land Use Committee agrees on the principle that “one size does not fit all” when it comes to regulating use of rural properties for events.
In particular, we recognize that certain properties (including Hearst Ranch in San Simeon, Varian Ranch in Parkfield, the Camatta Ranch near Carrisa Plains and the Work Ranch in San Miguel) can host very large events without causing any significant impact on other properties by way of noise, dust, traffic, parking, light, etc. The proposed restriction on hours of operation, in particular, was called into question for these situations. As with the major community-wide events mentioned above, any exemption here would be limited to just a handful of the largest properties in the county. And no event should be exempt from restrictions regarding on-street parking or other activities that might impede traffic or emergency-vehicle access. Also, we would suggest defining this large-property group by total site acreage rather than by names of specific properties.
Specific recommendations by section (all references are to September 2010 Referral Draft ):
I. Proposed Purpose Statement
Approve as drafted.
II. Proposed Definition of Event (“event” to replace the term “temporary event”)
Add language to second sentence (starting “Events and/or programs that are offered …) that extends exemption for educational events to individual farmers and ranchers, not only to “valid agricultural non-profit organization.”
Also, add language to clarify that purely private gatherings such as family weddings, birthday parties, etc. are not “events” regulated by this ordinance. (In other words, explicitly exclude them from events or other activities “open to the public either with or without invitation.”)
III. Events to be allowed in the following Land Use Categories: AG, RL, RR< OP, CR, CS, IND, REC and PF.
Approve as drafted.
IV. Proposed Ordinance Language.
Approve as drafted, with the following exceptions:
Delete Subsection B.3.a (Parking on the road). The committee sees no need to bar all parking along 1,000 feet of public right-of-way during an event (even for those not attending it), when permittees already are required to provide on-site parking for all attendees.
(Also see the comment above about possible exemptions or adjustments for exceptionally large properties. The Council should consider possible adjustments of Subsections B.2.a.(3) (number of attendees allowed) and B.5 (Hours of Operation) for properties over a certain acreage threshold.)
In Subsection F (Neighbor Notification), revise language to clarify that notice is to go to owners of property within 1,000 feet of the proposed event site.
Also in Subsection F, require that this public notice be provided through both website and letter, not one or the other. The 30-day minimum would remain in effect.
