SPECIAL MEETING ON CAYUCOS FRINGE VIEWSHED DRAFT ORDINANCE
Meeting called to order by
President Ed Carnegie Ð7:00pm [approx. 45in
public attendance]
Present: Arley Robinson, John Carsel, Ed Carnegie, MaryAnn Carnegie, Harry
Wiese, Lynn Schoennauer, Mike Hargett, DeAnne Harland, Greg Bettencourt, Smith
Held, Frank Otis;
Absent: Roland Hutchinson,
Bill Shea (Alt), Larry Fishman(Alt.), ÒBudÓ McHale, Tom Mitchell (Alt),
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Election
Committee Chair-John Carsel verified that all candidates running for the 8
precincts are official residents of Cayucos. Voting will be held on Tuesday, March 6, in the annex room
of the VetÕs Hall from 7:30AM Ð7:00PM.
Mary Ann Balzar will be chairing the voting.
ONLY
AGENDA ITEMÑCAYUCOS VIEWSHED ORDINANCE DAFT:
CCAC
president Ed Carnegie informed all that tonightÕs meeting was strictly to
review, discuss, and act upon the proposed draft ordinance from County
Planning. All questions would be
directed through him and that everyone would be given fair and equal time to
discuss and to listen to one anotherÕs concerns, views, etc.. The meeting was then turned over to
Supervising Planner Mike Wulkan to present the new draft of the proposed
Cayucos Fringe view-shed.
County
PlanningÑMike Wulkan: gave a brief history on the timeline of
the ordinance over the past few years, beginning in 2002 when the BOS directed
staff to look at a possible view-shed ordinance based on a request from the
CCAC. The process was
authorized. Several proposals were
looked at, eventually an ad-hoc committee was formed consisting of advisory
council members, ag laison, POPRS general public of interest. No consensus was reached, but several
versions of an ordinance were previewed.
In May of 2006 a draft was sent to the BOS. Native Americans requested to review further for possible
consideration of being sacared grounds; BOS also requested to review further,
compare similar ordinances within
the county and come back in 2007.
We now have before us a new ordinance drafted showing comparisons
between 3 areasÑSalinas River, San Luis Obispo, and South County Planning
areaÑall have major viewsheds seen from major roads. Ideas were also incorporated from the special ad-hoc
committee. The Cayucos fringe area
was defined by showing this via a projection of the map on the wall. Originally it was a greater area; now 1
mile and visible from 3 major roads of Hiwy 1, Old Creek Road and Santa
Margarita. Considers areas inland
and not coastal as coast is entirely different and under Coastal Act. Max area is 15,800 acres with approx.
320 assessor parcels; mostly within CCAC areaÑ7.5% and approx 1200 acres on
northern edge are under Templeton CAC[TAC]. Applies to new residential structures, if everything is met
approval is given, otherwise a MUP or CUPÑas discretionary can be approved or
not. Features are consistent with
exiting standards of muted, non-reflective, no silhouetting on prominent
ridgelines, 25ft. height, 50% landscape screening, etc. (see copy of draft for
further details). Main differences
is the 1-mile limit. Next timeline
step is that on March 20, 2007 the proposal goes to the Bd. Of Supervisors for
introduction for later hearing of April 3. Staff report comments are due by March 6.
At this
point the public audience participated with questions.
Art
[?] questioned the exact number of
homes that could be built by the ordinance. Mike pointed out that the ordinance doesnÕt regulate the
number, just the design. Estimated
that there are approx 320 parcels [could be more], and assume maximum of
two/parcel=640 and 75-100 already exist.
Bill Marteny: questioned the screening of 50% vs. 80%; thought too
restrictive. Mike actually said it
could be more, so this is actually pretty lenient in comparison. 50% allows for view outward.
Jan Davis: how do
the 320 parcels have any bearing on the ordinance? The viewshed has no affect on how you build, mainly on
design and location
Joy Fitzhugh: questioned use of assessor parcel numbers in that they
have 1700 acres, homes to be built would be less, some is under the Williamson Act so this gives a
misconception
Mary Ann Carnegie: the
remodel of 25% how maintained/enforcedÑcumulative or what? Mike said 25% total over the entire life of the project. May be increments but 25% total
allowed.
Smith Held: why
same standards to smaller roadsÑthought BOS tapes didnÕt say to look at all
roads plus Hwy. 1. Mike said tapes
did as he listened to them several times.
Joe Rocano: said the
aesthetics of the rural area
should be preserved, once built, no taking it back. Land value remains very attractive if rural character is
preserved.
Several discussions from the audience then questioned the potential affects of land values, windows that might be reflected and become blinding, this could become another San Diego area since the same was said of San Diego years ago of its rural character and look what it has become; is this to protect our area, or to get developers with houses on the books to develop? Could be researched out within the Dept. of Planning. How much of the land is actually under the Williamson ActÑwasnÕt exactly sure but what ever it is makes it almost prohibitive and the longer under the act the harder it is to develop. Were any comments received from the Native AmericansÑper MikeÑNO. the boundary on the east side of Old Creek was questioned as to how does this follow significant ridgelines?
Stuart Selkirk: had a petition, with approx. 18 signatures to support the inclusion of all original roads coveredÑfeel that as the area of the coverage of the ordinance shrinks it is becoming more of an anti-ordinance.
Roger LyonÑsupporter of the original
ordinance then presented the supporters viewpoints: has
lived in Cayucos area for the last 30 years and has worked on the ordinance
process from the get go beginning 5 years ago. He recommends and supports the staffÕs ordinance that is
patterned after various other ones in the county but with the proviso that the
CCAC recommend the addition of structures visible within one mile of all local
roads shown in fig. 92-1ÑVilla Creek, San Geronimo, Picachio, thunder Cyn.,
Cayucos Ck., cottontail Ck., Montecito, and Toro Creek. And to add to fig. 92-2 prominent
ridgelines within one of of these local roads. Expressed concerns of the possibility of 1200 homes that
could be build will impact, there should be regulations on structures and silhouetting; though the
process has at times been contentious, it has been agreed that there should be
viewshed protection. Thought there
were major deficiencies in the comparison chart of being too narrow in scope leaving 30,000 acres without
protection and there is nothing on the books to adequately review silhouetting
or screening of homes on hilltops.
Expressed how POPRÕs had continually changed what they recommended once
and then change laterÑnever sure of what they advocate. To date, regarding what is on the books
for other county areas he has no heard of any horro stores of losses, no loans
given, or no houses allowed to be built so therefore these other viewshed
ordinances work. On LOVR, OÕconnor
and orcutt Rds. Homes have been
sensitively sited or screened. The
Cayucos fring should have the same level of protection. SLO has 40,000 acres with 6 miles from
roads vs. CayucosÕ 47,000 acres with 1 mile limit. County staff had previously recommended the entire area and
to date has provided no really good reason for deviating from this. What is applied to one should be
applied to all in an equal and reasonable way. Without regulation it is thought property value will
decrease; ordinance may be inconvenient, but it doesnÕt stop building. He would recommend a motion from the
council.
Public comments then ensued
again regarding regulating siting, screening, possibility of screening
interfering with solar applications to homes, what measures are in place for
followupÑperformance bond posting, inspections, code enforcement. Basically stated that if a permit is
applied for, screening would be requiredÑif not done, then no permit. Had TAC been notified of ordinance
draftÑper Mike all correspondence had been forwarded; re: screening
materialsÑcounty has an approved list of screening materialsÑnative or low
water, non-invasive, resistant to fire and how plants fit in with surrounding
area
Pat Molnar representing POPR as their
V-president then spoke: said the ordinance was shelved for more
input and information; that the Ag. Laison group had changed their position on
ordinance to not support it;
wasnÕt sure how POPR would support the taking out of Santa rita Rd.
could not speak for POPR with their input first. Positively spoke that viewshed protection is needed but with
balance and reasonable protection.
Felt the problem with skylining is that a MUP would kick in and one
couldnÕt build. It would take away
from discretion. Wanted to have
75% screening rather than countyÕs 80% for backdrop. Was not in favor of the county ÒsinkingÓ a house into the
groundÑanother new layer of a MUP and requires screening below and above. Also discussed the idea of grading vs.
putting homes on ridges. Basically
said he doesnÕt want to be tied into one thing, just doesnÕt like the process,
thus supports the POPR Ordinance.
A
break was taken from 8:50-9:05
President Carnegie said the
council has had three proposals before itÑthe one CCAC recommended, the POPR
proposal, the Staff county one and now we have the NEW one by county Staff which has taken into account these
three. Views, public input and
further discussion has occurredÑwhat direction is recommendedÑso discussion was
turned over to the council now.
John CarselÑwe would be
short-sighted to limit the viewshed.
For future generations the rural character of the area should be
preserved.
Greg Bettencourt-current
property owners are good stewards of the land and not so worried now; however,
the probable is later. There is
never a more comfortable time to make changes than now. Regulations to protect for the common
good are needed. Good zoning
balances the needs of the public with the needs of the individuals, and a good
balance needs to be struck now. We
need to look to the future.
Mike HargettÑfelt the county
ordinance as presented is sufficient.
It was then asked if these
smaller roads could potentially become major roads in the futureÑMike Wulkan
said he thought it would be highly unlikely.
Additional similar comments
in support or not ensued and a motion was finally made.
Motion: [John Carsel] the Cayucos
Citizens Advisory Council recommends the current staff proposed ordinance, with
the addition that the requirements for zoning clearance in Section C5, a-f, be
applied to not only the three (3) designated roads, but also to structures
visible within one (1) mile of the local roads shown on Figure 92-1: (i.e.)
Villa Creek, San Geronimo, Picachio, Thunder Canyon, Cayucos Creek, Cottontail
Creek, Montecito, and Toro Creek roads.
Staff should also be asked to add to Figure 92-2 prominent
ridgelines within one (1) mile of these roads. [Seconded: Mary Ann Carnegie] Motion
carried: 6 ayes; 5
noes [no abstentions].
A letter with motion, and
results of special meeting will be forwarded to Mike Wulkan prior to March 6
for inclusion in the staff report to go before the Board of Supervisors.
Good of the Order:
reminder to get out and vote Tuesday, March 6 at the VetÕs Hall
Adjournment: 9:45PM.
Respectfully Submitted:
Mary Ann Carnegie Date:
Acting Secretary
Motion to Approve:- Seconded: