North Coast Advisory Council
Minutes of Regular Meeting
Wednesday, Feb. 16, 2011
I Call to Order- Chair Joyce Renshaw at 6:40 PM
Quorum established
II Roll Call-Marty Main, Recording Secretary
Present: Bob McLaughlin, Bambi Fields, Gary Gall, Stevan Rosenlind, Marjorie Sewell, Ralph Covell, Sigrid Castaneda, Jeff Miller, Clive Finchamp, Marty Munoz-Main,Mary Giacoletti, Laurel Stewart (some of the above were late)
Excused: Gail Robinette, Teri O’Rourke, Tom Gray, Erwin Ohannesian, Dawn Dunlap, Debby Mix
Absent: Mac VanDuzer
III Agenda Review-changes to agenda, none.
IV Public Comment Period
1. S.Cole-recommends placement of trash can near bus stop on Main St.
V Council Comments
consent agenda /minutes. treasurer’s report( current balance of $1331.22) . Motion made to approve. Motion passes unanimously.
VI Public Agency Reports
1. Public Safety: Martin Basti, filling in for T. Steeb, who will attend later this evening. New sheriff, Parkinson, interested in attending future meetings of NCAC.
Month of Jan. 2011, 196 calls for service, include 60 ambulance calls and 14 arrests.
A. Rice- info on 911 calls.
J. Lamb-interested in types of arrests, reasons for.
theft, vandalism, assault and battery. Is interested in receiving this information monthly. will be on Sheriff’s website.
2. CCSD Report: Jim Bahringer
Trash can on Bridge St. overflowed. Mission county Disposal is in charge. Issue may be in hands of Chamber?
3. Supervisor’s Report: Bruce Gibson, out of town on business. Cherie Aispuro reporting.
Feb. 22- Board scheduled to conduct meeting – Budget Planning Session
4. Planning Department Update: Airlin Singewald
no new projects scheduled. End of April, Advisory Council training. Date to be forthcoming (April 29th?)
5. RTA Service Report: Aimee Wyatt
2 new bus shelters, donated by Sierra Vista Hospital
grant for additional bus service on coast means service on central coast to double.
Aug. 1, 2011 –target date for new service additions.
Summer Trolley in Cambria-5 trips between Morro Bay and San Simeon. The San Simeon Campground may be the turnaround point.
Benches and shelters around Cambria.
The Cambria Community Bus (not affiliated with RTA) for resident seniors.
Request by M.Cole for bus to Paso Robles.
VII Old Business
Election Procedures Reminder.
Gary Gall, Chair of the Election Committee. He has arranged for Cambrian notice this month. Marty Main has changed on NCAC website to reflect the election areas for this year’s election. Election scheduled for May 3, 2011 in the conference room of Rabobank. The forms can also be downloaded from website. Forms must be signed and turned in no later than the third Wednesday of March.
The Council will accept the nominated candidates and approve the official ballot in March. The names of all candidates will be published in the Cambrian on the third week of April.
Vacation Rental Ordinance-
J. Renshaw-any action taken by Board of Supervisors re. VRO? Not yet, according to Singewald.
Forest Committee Report-Amanda Rice
The Committee concludes that cutting of the trees was optional, not a maintenance issue.
$75 00. not enough to pay for replacement trees acc. to Area Plan.
Letter Composed by Forest Committee follows:
February 14, 2011
TO: Joyce Renshaw, Chair of North Coast Advisory Council
District 2 Supervisor Bruce Gibson
Ryan Hostetter, Planner, SLO County Department of Planning & Building
The Cambria Forest Committee reviewed the after-the-fact permit submitted by PG&E.
(DRC2010-0002) and offers the following comments and suggestions.
The CFC supports the goal of mitigating for environmental damage done when the trees were removed, but finds the permit to be inconsistent with local policies and ordinances, including the North Coast Area Plan and the Cambria Forest Management Plan, and not in the best interest of Cambria or its Monterey Pine forest.
The Committee recommends that PG&E be required to meet the relevant standards of the North Coast Area Plan. The Plan was developed with a great deal of public input and was approved by the County and certified by the California Coastal Commission. Pages 7-23 and 7-24 of the NCAP include quite specific guidelines for replacement of trees removed that are larger than 6” diameter at 4.5’ from grade:
_ Appropriate off-site location identified and permission secured from land owner;
_ Planting done during optimum planting season;
_ Trees maintained until they are successfully established;
_ Annual monitoring reports submitted until established or 3 years, whichever is sooner.
The permit we reviewed has many deficiencies. The permit does state that “PG&E intends provide in-lieu funding for off-site replacement at a 4:1 ratio with a per tree cost of $25 (for a total of $7500).” But it missing the critical details the County would need to determine whether PG&E has adhered to the NCAP guidelines listed above.
Other problems identified by the CFC include the following:
1. $7,500 is unlikely to cover the actual costs of the mitigation for 300 trees.
2. The permit lacks details about how many trees were actually removed from which
specific properties (75 tree removals are noted on the permit, although earlier report by
PG&E counted 88). No information or documents are offered to support the number
removed.
Page2
3. There is no description of a re-vegetation and monitoring plan, no specific sites for
planting, no timeline for the mitigation or description of follow-up monitoring plans.
4. “Off-site replacement” is described as acceptable policy only when there is no space for replacement trees on the same property as the removals. The CFC suggests Fern
Canyon would be an excellent place to plant some of these trees. It is our understanding
that PG&E must secure permission from the CCSD or other lot owners to plant trees on
their (our) property. At the very least, the owners of the lots, whether replacement is on
site or elsewhere, should be notified/identified of what PG&E plans to do.
5. The County should set a completion date for the planting specified in the permit. The
date should allow for planting at the best time of the year and otherwise follow time
requirements imposed by the county on MUPs.
Given all the above deficiencies, the ability to monitor the mitigation and ensure follow-through by PG&E would be not just difficult, but actually impossible It is not in the interests of the community of Cambria, nor within the guidelines of the North Coast Area Plan to approve this permit.
The Forest Committee is also concerned that the county has failed to address how the county and PG&E will approach policy regarding future tree removals and the issue of why expanded tree removals were allowed outside the Public Resource Code requirements.
The Forest Committee will partner with County staff to ensure the standards of the North Coast Area Plan and the Cambria Forest Management Plan are carried out.
Sincerely,
Cambria Forest Committee
Page3
Attachment 1:
Excerpt from the 2007 North Coast Area Plan (pp7-23 and 7-24)
“Any Monterey pine trees that are six inches or more in diameter 4.5 feet above ground
removed shall be replaced at a 4:1 ratio. All open areas of the site disturbed by project
construction are to be seeded with native, drought and fire resistant species that are compatible with the habitat valve of the surrounding forest. Replacement vegetation shall be planted in conformance with the following measures:
(1) A replanting plan shall be prepared as a part of the application. Elements of thisplan
shall include the type, size and location of vegetation; a description of irrigation plans;
and plan notes indicating compliance with the standards of this section. Any proposed
on-site or off-site replanting plan must be approved by the County Planning and Building
Department prior to issuance of building permits.
(2) Container sizes for all replacement seedlings shall be one gallon, unless approved by
the Director of Planning and Building. Pinus radiata var. macrocarpa, the native
Monterey Pine tree, shall be used for replanting of any pine tree removed. No out of
area Monterey Pine stock shall be used.
(3) New trees shall be planted to reinforce the forest character on the site and in the
street frontage, and to screen proposed development.
If insufficient area exists to plant all or any of the replacement vegetation on site, then
the replanting plan shall identify an appropriate off-site area and owned or managed by
an appropriate government agency or nonprofit organization.
If an off-site replanting is chosen, the replanting must occur with the review and approval
of the Environmental Coordinator, and shall be verified by submittal of a letter from the
appropriate agency or organization to the Environmental Coordinator. All replacement
conditions and monitoring measures (e.g., number of trees, maintenance, etc.) shall
apply.
(5) Prior to final building permit inspection, the applicant shall provide a letter to the
County prepared by a qualified nurseryman or landscape contractor that the re-vegetation plan has been properly implemented; and
(6) All new plants shall be maintained until successfully established. This shall include
caging from animals (e.g., deer, rodents), periodic weeding and adequate watering (e.g.,
drip-irrigation system). If possible, planting during the warmest, driest months (June
through September) shall be avoided. In addition, standard planting procedures (e.g.,
planting tablets, initial deep watering) shall be used.
(7) Maintenance shall be often enough to keep weeds at least 3 feet away from each
planting, provide adequate moisture to all plants, and ensure all other components (e.g.,
irrigation system, caging) are kept in good working order.
(8) The health and maintenance of replacement vegetation shall be monitored at least
once a year from the date of final building permit inspection for a period of time no less
than three years, or until the vegetation is successfully established, whichever comes
later. Monitoring reports shall be prepared by an expert competent in landscape planting
and maintenance of the Monterey pine forest, and reports shall be submitted to and
approved by the County.
NCAC Comments made at meeting on Feb. 16.
MUP-requires the County to check if trees have been planted.
J. Bahringer-too man limitations placed on PG&E may have neg. effects.
R. Covell- the conditions imposed by County are impossible to perform/ overkill? eg. include caging watering, maintenance, etc.
Why 4 new trees to replace one tree? A. Rice- need four trees to replace one because all seedings do not survive.
J. Lamb-PGE left a terrific mess. fire hazards left on fronts of peoples’ properties.
Issue-letting PGE understand that the community is concerned.
S.Castaneda-PGR hires Davey Tree Service , who does not know how to cut and not destroy trees. Also the limbs cut with pitch disease contaminate other trees
NEXT FOREST COMMITTEE MEETING IS SET FOR THE SECOND WEDNESDAY OF MARCH AT 7 PM AT RABOBANK.
A. Singewald-another issue is that PGE does not want to submit an MUP for each clearing it makes in the future.
VIII NCAC Reports
1. Business Traffic and Transportation Committee Report: Joyce Renshaw filling in for Erwin Ohannesian, Chair of the Traffic Committee
Issue: change direction of traffic pattern in front of Post Office/
John Brannon’s idea(?) of reversing traffic pattern on Bridge Street.
No positive feedback on this idea.
Chamber seems to be opposed to the idea.
G. Gall-tourists would not favor.
M. Main-dangerous change of habit with no positive results.
Any positive comments received? Not many, says Chair.
2. Environmental Report-Chair M. Giacoletti
meeting in SLO on Thursday pm re. climate change. Mtg. in the Gov’t Building at 6:30 PM-8:30 PM Traffic pollution/wood burning.
2 control burns which got out of control in SLO county.
3. Land Use and Project Review Committee-John Lamb reporting. Tom Gray, absent.
Formal Report below. NCAC Comments made re. Project #1 are shown at end of project. NCAC Comments made re. Project #2 are shown at end of project.
Land Use/Project Review Report
February 16, 2011
1. New Project: DRC2010-00034 HERB – MUP for an addition to an existing single family residence; also, a request for waiver from Vacation Rental Ordinance distance restriction. Site located at 6063 Brighton Lane, Cambria. APN: 022-013-050.
Planner: Paul Sittig
Link to MUP application: http://www.slocounty.ca.gov/Assets/PL/referrals/coastal/
DRC2010-00034HERB/DRC2010-00034HERB.pdf
Comments: The proposed project would add second-floor level decks on east and south two sides of an existing home, as well as replacing windows and doors. No square footage would be added to living area, though the project would require 34 square feet of TDCs. Part of the deck addition would be a replacement for an existing screened-in deck.
The new construction, if fully in compliance with current land use rules, would be an enhancement of the property and its surroundings.
However, the plans as submitted (in both original and revised versions) call for a
projecting deck on the rear (south) side of the structure that appears to violate the setback requirements of the Coastal Zone Land Use Ordinance. The deck would extend to within five feet of the lot line. This fails to meet the requirement (see below)
that limits the distance to seven feet. This figure is based on a formula allowing the deck to extend no more than 30% into the required rear setback, which in this case is 10 feet. (On a corner lot such as this one, the “rear” is the side opposite the shorter of the two street-fronting sides.) The proposed location of the side deck, three feet from the lot line, appears to meet County standards, which are based on the Uniform Building Code.
Here is the applicable language from Coastal Zone Land Use Ordinance (23.04.116).
The key formula is highlighted:
a. Decks: When constructed higher than 30 inches above the surrounding finish grade,
a wood deck may extend into required setbacks as follows (decks less than 30 inches
high are exempt from these requirements – see Section 23.04.104):
(1) Front setback: A deck is not to be located therein.
(2) Side setback: As determined by Sections 1206 and 1710 of the Uniform Building
Code.
(3) Rear setback: A deck may occupy up to 30% of a required rear setback, but is to
extend no closer than three feet to the rear property line.
The Land Use committee recommends that the plans be revised, based on a credible survey, to ensure that the project meets all applicable ordinance requirements.
Recommendation on MUP for deck addition: Do not approve.
The request for a Vacation Rental Ordinance distance waiver is mentioned only on the last pg. of the MUP application package and is not explained. A waiver would be necessary because an adjacent SFR (to the west) currently holds a Vacation Rental permit. We have been given no reason, and we can see none, why an exception should be made to the ordinance in this case.
We also recommend that, in future, any request of this kind be decoupled from
applications for MUPs or other permits. Because it is crucial that neighbors be notified of any request for a vacation rental permit or waiver, the application and notification should be for that topic only. In the case of this VRO waiver request, it could easily have escaped the attention of neighboring property owners receiving their official notice of an MUP application for the deck additions and other property improvements.
Recommendation on request for VRO waiver: Do not approve.
NCAC Comments/John Lamb’s report to NCAC.
Brighton Lane decks. Land Use recommends approval if complies with all setback requirements.
In addition, there is a second issue: waiver of Vacation Rental Ordinance rules. Review by NCAC committee recommends County to not place both issues on one MUP. And to do so on all future requests submitted to County.
County’s opinion-there have been no waivers of Vacation Rental Ordinance rules on any MUP for the past several years.
Motion to approve project as stated but deleting the VRO waiver.
Vote taken.
Motion passes unanimously.
2. New Project DRC2010-00041 PEARSALL – MUP for a 159-square-foot addition to an existing single family home located at 356 Wedgewood Street, Cambria. APN:023-016-046.Planner: Airlin Singewald
Link to MUP application:
http://www.slocounty.ca.gov/Assets/PL/referrals/coastal/DRC2010-00041_PEARSALL/
DRC2010-00041_PEARSALL.pdf
Comments: This MUP request is for a “proposed workroom” (per the floor plan) under an existing deck. The project would be within the applicable setbacks, square footage limits /eight limits, though it would require 159 square feet of TDCs. Its visual impact on other properties would be insignificant.
However, the land use committee found when its members visited the property that a structure already exists where the addition is being requested. The exterior of it appears to be recent (and unfinished) construction. It appears to be a non-permitted addition that would now either have to be brought up to code or torn down and replaced. The plans are not clear on this point; there is elevation showing the side of the house in insufficient detail. According to Airlin Singewald, the county at this point has no information beyond what the applicant has submitted.
At this point, the only recommendation we can make is against approval, because the plan as submitted does not explain what is to be done about the existing structure. The MUP application needs to be clarified on this point before it is re-submitted.
Recommendation: Do not approve.
NCAC Comments:
A structure already exists at the proposed location. The plan is insufficient.
Motion to deny. (not approve plan)
Vote taken.
Motion passes unanimously.
4. Chair’s Report-Joyce Renshaw
Updates
Eucalyptus Project in central part of Cambria-need Fish and Game permit. Will not begin until the Fall of 2011.
If budget is cut, Airlin Singewald may not be attending our NCAC meetings in the future.
Permits for new construction in SLO County down by 40% (from last year?)
March 9, 2011-Forest Committee Meeting . Bridge Street Issue of clearing brush alongside roadway will also be discussed.
R. Covell- issue very important for all of Cambria’s residents since high fire danger exists. A Nature Conservancy representative will attend. (Scott Butterfield)
IX Adjournment-Chair Joyce Renshaw at 8:05 PM.
Respectfully submitted, Marty Munoz-Main, Recording Secretary
Below is a copy of letter written after this meeting and sent from NCAC to Department of Planning and Building re. the second project reviewed by the Land Use/Project Review Committee this month.
