Return to Meeting AgendaTO: Coastal Commissioners and Interested Parties
FROM: Tami Grove, Central Coast Deputy Director
RE: North Coast Area Plan Comprehensive Update, San Luis Obispo County Local Coastal Program (LCP) Major Amendment No. 1-97.
For public hearing and Commission action at its meeting of January 15, 1998, to be held at the Embassy Suites Hotel, 333 Madonna Road, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405.
SYNOPSIS
This submittal is San Luis Obispo County Major LCP Amendment 1-97: the North Coast Area Plan Update. The Update was approved by the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors on December 10, 1996, and received in the Coastal Commission’s Santa Cruz office on March 14, 1997. On May 14, 1997, the Commission extended the time period for action on this amendment due to the comprehensive nature of the submittal, and the fact that a new Board of Supervisors was considering making changes to parts of the submittal. The new Board of Supervisors made changes to the submittal on June 3, June 17, and August 5, 1997, to the Hearst Resorts, East-West Ranch, and North Cambria properties, respectively.
The County is proposing comprehensive revisions to the North Coast Area Plan goals, standards, programs, informational background, land use categories at 21 locations; combining designations at 11 locations; and the location and size of future major developments. The County has also proposed numerous miscellaneous text clarifications, additions, deletions, rearrangements, and typographical corrections. This is the first major revision to the North Coast Area Plan since it was certified by the Commission in 1983 as part of the Land Use Plan.
These findings evaluate the consistency of the updated North Coast Area Plan with the California Coastal Act. As discussed herein, the staff recommendation is that the amendment as submitted is not consistent with the Development, Agriculture, Recreation, Visual Resource, Environmentally Sensitive Habitat, Public Access, Hazards, and Archeological policies found in Chapter Three of the Act. Appendix A, however, contains Suggested Modifications to the North Coast Area Plan which, if adopted by the County, would bring the updated North Coast Area Plan into conformance with the Coastal Act.
Principal Staff
Tami Grove, Deputy Director
Charles Lester, District Manager
Lee Otter, District Chief Planner
Diane Landry, District Staff Counsel
Steve Guiney, Lead Analyst
....................................................................................................................................
This submittal is San Luis Obispo County Major Local Coastal Program (LCP) Amendment 1-97: the North Coast Area Plan Update. The California Coastal Commission is reviewing the updated plan for consistency with the applicable resource protection policies and public access policies of the Coastal Act. Staff recommends that the Commission find that the amendment as submitted is not consistent with the development, agriculture, recreation, visual resource, environmentally sensitive habitat, public access, hazards, and archeological policies found in Chapter Three of the Act. Staff has also recommended more than 100 Suggested Modifications to the North Coast Area Plan that, if adopted by the County, would bring the updated North Coast Area Plan into conformance with the Coastal Act.
The Update of the North Coast Area Plan (NCAP) was approved by the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors on December 10, 1996. Amendments to the plan were adopted by a new Board of Supervisors on June 3, June 17, and August 5, 1997, to Hearst Resorts, East-West Ranch, and North Cambria properties, respectively. The County is proposing comprehensive revisions to the North Coast Area Plan goals, standards, programs, informational background, land use categories at 21 locations, combining designations at 11 locations, and the location and size of future major developments. The County has also proposed numerous miscellaneous text clarifications, additions, deletions, rearrangements, and typographical corrections. This is the first major revision to the North Coast Area Plan since it was certified by the Commission in 1983 as part of the LCP’s Land Use Plan.
In contrast to the typical LCP amendment, which is usually focused on a specific policy or set of policies, this amendment is a comprehensive update of the entire North Coast Area Plan. The County intends the update to serve as a comprehensive evaluation of the NCAP, similar to a Periodic Review (see Amendment Description below for details). More importantly, in the fifteen years since the North Coast Area Plan was first certified, there have been significant changes in both environmental circumstances and knowledge about coastal resource protection along the North Coast. These findings consider, therefore, whether the amended North Coast Area Plan as submitted by the County is consistent with the resource protection and public access policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act, in light of these changed circumstances.
The following sections summarize the primary findings concerning the consistency of the updated NCAP in three categories: Hearst Resort Development; Cambria Development; and Rural Area changes. More detail on each of these topics is provided in the findings for each Coastal Act issue area.
The updated NCAP proposes resort development on the Hearst Ranch as follows:
„ Ten acres of land are added to an existing 18 acres of land designated "Commercial Retail" adjacent to the State Parks Staging Area for Hearst Castle. This 28 acres could be developed with between 150 and 300 hotel units, a restaurant, shops and two caretaker units.
„ Seventeen acres in the small village of Old San Simeon is designated "Commercial Retail." Potential development includes an 50 unit hotel (added in the new plan), commercial stores, restaurants and a 100 bed hostel (or a 50 site campground).
„ Two hundred and forty-eight acres adjacent to Old San Simeon are designated "Recreation". This includes an additional 60 acres of agricultural land to accommodate an 18 hole golf course. A 250 unit hotel and accessory uses are permitted, although any hotel development must not occur on San Simeon Point itself.
„ Fifty acres one half mile north of San Simeon Acres is also in the "Recreation" category. Development on this site includes the proposed 250 unit Pine Resort hotel/lodge and an equestrian facility adjacent the native pine forest.
In total, the County’s proposed plan allows up to 650 units in four phases. An unspecified amount of employee housing is also permitted and is not included in the maximum unit count for hotel units. Employee housing has been added as a permitted use and may now be located on the hotel/golf course site in Old San Simeon, at the Staging Area, and at the Pine Resort.
Most of the remaining Hearst ranchland is in the "Agriculture" category; the revised development proposal does entail the redesignation of approximately 70 acres from Agriculture to Recreation and Commercial Retail. Finally, in addition to proposed expansion of the Recreation designation for the golf course, the updated plan encourages the Hearst Corporation to apply for a future amendment for an additional 300 acres of agricultural land to be converted for expanded golf course use.
Staff Recommendation: The components of the North Coast Area Plan concerning the proposed Hearst Resort development are inconsistent with various policies of the Coastal Act. The Update amendment, as submitted, is not adequate to correct these deficiencies. Coastal Act Section 30250 does not allow for the location and intensity of development currently proposed for the Hearst Ranch, particularly the Pine Resort location and development at the base of San Simeon Point. The proposed development at the Staging Area is inconsistent with Section 30251, which protects visual resources. Development here would also require the conversion of Agricultural grazing lands to non-agricultural development, inconsistent with Section 30242.
Similarly, the golf course adjacent to Old San Simeon is inconsistent with the visual resource and agriculture policies of the Coastal Act, as well as section 30250, which requires adequate services to be available for new development -- in this case water. And while it is a visitor-serving use, the golf course is also not coastal-dependent recreation and thus, it is subordinate to the protection of agriculture in the Coastal Act hierarchy of priority uses.
When the other various Coastal Act resource constraints are considered, particularly the availability of water, the need to protect environmentally sensitive stream habitat, and the limited capacity of Highway One, it becomes more difficult still to contemplate intensive, relatively unconsolidated resort development on the rural North Coast.
Nonetheless, Coastal Act section 30250(c) does allow visitor-serving development to be located in "existing isolated developments or at selected points of attraction for visitors" if it cannot be feasibly located in existing developed areas. The California State Parks Hearst Castle facility has been a major visitor attraction since the late 1950s. In addition, Old San Simeon does contain a small node of commercial and residential development. Because the type of resort development anticipated by the Hearst Corporation can not be feasibly located in Cambria or San Simeon Acres, a certain amount of visitor-serving development is allowable at Old San Simeon. Based on the limitations of this site, staff is recommending that 100 visitor-serving units be approved for location here.
To expand beyond the Old San Simeon development node, requires the conversion of viable agricultural grazing lands. And because no showing that these lands are not viable has been made, Section 30242 allows such conversion only if development would be concentrated consistent with section 30250. Therefore, the staff is recommending that an additional 275 units be allowed in the immediate vicinity of Old San Simeon, if the allowable uses on the remainder of the Ranch are restricted through amendment of the North Coast standards. This number reflects the non-agricultural development potential of the remainder of the Ranch. Also, staff is recommending a 1000 foot agricultural easement be put around the allowable development area at Old San Simeon, to protect against any future expansion of the designated development envelope.
The actual development envelope is defined by the requirement to concentrate development, as well as geological hazard constraints (the San Simeon Fault Trace), viewshed considerations, environmentally sensitive habitat, and archeological sites. As shown in Figure 1 in the Development findings, staff is recommending that a maximum of 375 units be allowed in a 100 acre site around Old San Simeon. The density of such development will not have an adverse effect on the character of San Simeon Cove, and will result in a site coverage of about 26%.
Finally, the proposed development is necessarily constrained by the need to provide services, as well as protect sensitive resources. Staff is recommending that any new development at Old San Simeon be contingent on a showing of adequate public services, and protection of sensitive coastal resources. Similarly, new visitor-serving development will have impacts on the public access resources of the rural North Coast. Staff is recommending that the County’s recommended access improvements associated with Hearst Resorts be strengthened.
The North Coast Area Plan is proposing significant changes to the development context in Cambria as well, including changing standards for the proposed subdivision and development of East-West Ranch. Following is a summary of the major features of the updated plan, with brief evaluations and the staff’s suggested modifications to bring the NCAP into conformance with the Coastal Act:
Rural Area Changes
Because much of the rural lands of the North Coast are occupied by the Hearst Ranch, many of the significant changes for the rural lands are discussed above. However, staff is recommending some changes for the rural lands more generally as follows:
Denial of Land Use Plan Amendment as Submitted
MOTION 1:
"I move that the Commission certify amendment # 1-97 to the County of San Luis Obispo Land Use Plan as submitted by the County."
Staff recommends a NO vote. An affirmative vote by a majority of the appointed commissioners is needed to pass the motion.
RESOLUTION 1:
The Commission hereby denies certification of Amendment # 1-97 to the North Coast Area Plan, a component of the Land Use Plan portion of the San Luis Obispo County Local Coastal Program, as submitted and, for the reasons discussed below, finds that the amended Land Use Plan does not meet the requirements of, and is not in conformity with, the Chapter 3 policies of the California Coastal Act (commencing with Section 30200) to the extent necessary to achieve the goals specified in Coastal Act section 30001.5; and that the certification of the amendment does not meet the requirements of Sections 21080.5(d)(2)(i) of the California Environmental Quality Act, because there are further feasible mitigation measures or feasible alternatives that could substantially lessen significant adverse impacts to the environment.
Approval of Land Use Plan Amendment if Modified
MOTION 2:
"I move that the Commission certify amendment # 1-97 to the County of San Luis Obispo Land Use Plan if it is modified as suggested."
Staff recommends a YES vote. An affirmative vote by a majority of the appointed commissioners is needed to pass the motion.
RESOLUTION 2:
The Commission hereby approves certification of Amendment # 1-97 to the North Coast Area Plan, a component of the Land Use Plan portion of the San Luis Obispo County Local Coastal Program, as submitted and, for the reasons discussed below, finds that the amendment, if modified as suggested, meets the requirements of, and is in conformity with, the Chapter 3 policies of the California Coastal Act (commencing with Section 30200) to the extent necessary to achieve the goals specified in Coastal Act section 30001.5; and that the certification of the amendment meets the requirements of Sections 21080.5(d)(2)(i) of the California Environmental Quality Act, because there are no further feasible mitigation measures or feasible alternatives that could substantially lessen significant adverse impacts to the environment.
Overview of North Coast Area Plan Update and Standard of Review
The San Luis Obispo County submittal of the North Coast Area Plan Update is a comprehensive update of the standards, programs, land use map designations, combining designations, narrative descriptions and background information for the entire North Coast Planning Area. The planning area extends from the Monterey County line to four miles north of Cayucos and from just west of the ridge of the Santa Lucia Mountains to the Pacific Ocean. (See Exhibit 1)
The County has been working on the update of the North Coast Area Plan (NCAP) since at least 1989. Since then, the County has conducted numerous public hearings and produced 11 volumes of administrative record. In addition, the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors considered and adopted the North Coast Update once in December of 1996; and reconsidered and amended several major portions of the plan on three separate occasions: June 3, June 17, and August 5 of 1997. Between the December decision and the subsequent hearings, the County revisited certain basic policies of the NCAP concerning the location and intensity of development along the North Coast, as well as a variety of specific standards.
In contrast to the typical LCP amendment, which is usually focused on a specific policy or set of policies, this amendment is a comprehensive update of the entire North Coast Area Plan. There is little in the NCAP that has not been reevaluated and amended, either with entirely new policies, or with modifications to existing policies. And although the County’s update of the NCAP is not a formal Periodic Review of the County's LCP or the NCAP, the County does intend it to serve the same basic comprehensive reevaluation function, as clearly stated in the introductory statement for the NCAP submittal:
This amendment package is consistent with the Coastal Act goal of providing a process for the county and Commission to periodically review a segment of the LCP in an organized manner. All parts of the LCP that may be directly or indirectly affected by the changes are included in this submittal [emphasis added].
More generally, the County's Framework for Planning states that the purpose of periodic planning updates is "to review new information or conditions that affect land use policy and to review the effectiveness of policies in implementing plan goals."
As the County has suggested, a comprehensive evaluation of Local Coastal Programs, particularly Land Use policies and designations, is critically important to the effective implementation of the California Coastal Act. Land use conditions are constantly changing, unanticipated circumstances inevitably arise, and knowledge about the effectiveness of various policies necessarily increases. In the case of the North Coast Area Plan, the last comprehensive evaluation of coastal resources and appropriate policies for the North Coast was in 1982, when the staff first evaluated the plan for conformance with the Coastal Act. In the fifteen years since this review, there have been significant changes in both circumstances and knowledge about coastal resource protection along the North Coast. These changes include:
„ Increased population growth in the planning area, with significant new development and associated resource demands;
„ New information concerning the limited capacities of the five major water supply creeks in the planning area;
„ The listing of several endangered species, including steelhead trout and red-legged frog;
„ The emergence of Pitch Canker Disease as a significant threat to the Monterey Pine Forest in and around Cambria;
„ Emergence of significant new breeding colonies of elephant seals at Piedras Blancas in the early 1990s;
„ Designation of the San Simeon fault as an active fault by the State Geologist in 1986;
„ Designation of the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary in 1992;
„ Increases in the number of visitors to the North Coast, and a 110% increase in the number of visitor-serving accommodations.
„ Better knowledge concerning the effectiveness of visual resource protection policies from the Commission's experience in Big Sur, just above the North Coast of San Luis Obispo;
„ Significant flood events in Cambria;
„ Discovery of new archeological sites;
„ Significant changes in 5th amendment Takings jurisprudence;
These findings consider each of these changed circumstances, as well as others not listed here, in order to order conduct the most comprehensive review of the NCAP as is possible in the limited review period available. More important, given the magnitude and scope of these changes, as well as the fact that 15 years have passed since the last comprehensive review of the North Coast planning area, these findings necessarily evaluate the basic policies incorporated into the plan, the appropriate land use designations in light of new information, as well as basic structural features of the NCAP. For example, the existing NCAP does not have a separate access component, as required by Coastal Act Section 30500. This policy gap is addressed in the Public Access findings. Similarly, these findings address a policy gap concerning the conversion of agricultural lands in the planning area. Where relevant, then, and consistent with the County’s hope that the NCAP update is a comprehensive evaluation of the plan given changed circumstances, these findings make recommendations to address policy oversights, new insights on effective implementation, and new programmatic efforts that might improve the protection of coastal resources, consistent with the Coastal Act.
Overall, these findings address whether the amended North Coast Area Plan as submitted by the County is consistent with the resource protection policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act. This is the standard of review for LCP amendments according to Section 30512.1 and 30514 of the Coastal Act; and Section 13540 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. As discussed herein, although the County has made considerable improvements to the NCAP, there are also numerous policies, programs, land use designations and other miscellaneous changes that are inconsistent with Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act. These findings, therefore, also present suggested modifications that would bring the NCAP into conformance with the Coastal Act (see Appendix A).
Relationship of North Coast Area Plan to the San Luis Obispo County LCP
The North Coast Area Plan Update operates in conjunction with other elements in the San Luis Obispo County Local Coastal Program. The County’s LCP is composed of seven parts: the Coastal Zone Land Use Ordinance, which is the County’s coastal zoning ordinance and is the Implementation Plan portion of the LCP; the Framework for Planning, the Coastal Plan Policies, and four Area Plans, one of which is the North Coast Area Plan. The Framework, Coastal Plan Policies, and the four area plans make up the Land Use Plan (LUP).
The Land Use Plan (LUP) portion of the San Luis Obispo County LCP was submitted to the Commission for formal review and possible certification in late 1981. On February 16, 1982, the Commission held its first public hearing on the LUP. Staff recommended that the Commission find that the LUP raised a substantial issue as to conformity with the policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act. The Commission did not act on the submittal but continued the hearing until April 21, 1982. On that date, the Commission found that the LUP, including portions of the North Coast Area Plan, raised substantial issue as to conformity with the policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act.
On October 14, 1982, after negotiations between Commission and County staff, the Commission denied the LUP as submitted and approved it with modifications. On March 18, 1983, the County resubmitted the LUP. On July 13, 1983, the Commission approved the resubmitted LUP with modifications. Revised findings reflecting the Commission’s action were approved by the Commission on October 14, 1983. Certification of the LUP was achieved on April 12, 1984.
The Coastal Zone Land Use Ordinance (CZLUO), the Implementation Plan portion of the LCP was approved by the Commission, as submitted, on October 7, 1986. Revised findings were approved by the Commission in January 1987. In late 1987, the County submitted Amendment 1-87, a comprehensive package of 301 changes to the entire LCP, which was approved with modifications on December 11, 1987. The County assumed permit-issuing authority on March 1, 1988.
As mentioned above, the San Luis Obispo County Local Coastal Program includes the Framework for Planning, the Coastal Plan Policies document; the four area plans (North Coast, Estero, San Luis Bay, and South County), the Coastal Zone Land Use Ordinance; and the County’s official Combining Designation Maps are also important for LCP implementation. Each of these are briefly discussed below.
To determine the requirements for development on a particular site, each of the components of the LCP must be consulted. Some policies are implemented through a specific CZLUO section referenced at the end of the policy. For example, Agriculture Policy 3 states that that policy shall be implemented pursuant to section 23.04.050. In these cases, the ordinance is controlling if there is a conflict with the overarching policy. Other policies, though, state that they shall be implemented as a standard, that is, equivalent to an area plan standard.
The North Coast Area Plan standards are the most specific of the LCP’s regulations governing land use in the North Coast Area. They apply only in that geographic area. Some standards apply area-wide but most are specific to a particular land use category designation and some standards are specific to individual sites within a particular land use category designation. Because of this specificity, if an area plan standard conflicts with a policy or a CZLUO section, the area plan standard prevails. Most of the significant suggested modifications of this report concern specific standards for the North Coast.
In addition to area plan standards, an extremely important part of the North Coast Area Plan is the combining designation map. The combining designations are areas where, for example, environmentally sensitive habitats (ESHA), geological hazards, flood hazards, etc., have been identified and mapped. These designations indicate where special studies and/or development requirements apply, based on the particular combining designation. However, the combining designations often do not reflect on-the-ground resources, either because they were not mapped originally, or because the presence of a particular resource or hazard was not known at the time. As mentioned earlier, an important aspect of a comprehensive update such as this is the opportunity to bring part of the LCP, including the combining designation maps, up to date with existing resources and knowledge.
Implementation: The One-Map System
In their land use planning, most local governments utilize a "two-map" system. One map (General Plan or Land Use Plan map) shows general land use designations which, by themselves, have no particular uses associated with them. They indicate intended long-term, general land uses. The other map (zoning ordinance map) shows specific zone districts which list specific uses that may be established in each zone district. Within each land use designation, only certain zone districts apply, although it is possible for a zone district to appear in more than one land use designation. A variety of land uses might be able to be established in each zone district. To know what uses might be allowed in a given land use designation, it is necessary to determine the zone district within which a parcel lies.
Under the "two-map" system, if the land use designation map is changed, the zone district map must also be changed. Consider two hypothetical land use designations, say Industrial and Commercial. The zone districts which implement the Industrial designation might include Industrial, Commercial Service, and Manufacturing. The Commercial land use designation might be implemented by the Retail and Office zone districts. Suppose a parcel with an Industrial land use designation that is zoned Manufacturing is redesignated to Commercial. The Manufacturing zone district is not one which implements the Commercial land use designation. Therefore, the zone district of the parcel, in addition to the land use designation, would have to be changed; in this case from Manufacturing to Retail or Office, depending on the specifics of the site.
An alternative to the "two-map" system is the "single" or "one-map" system, which is what San Luis Obispo County uses. Under this system, there is only one map, the land use designation map. There is no zone district as such under this system. The land use designation map and the zone district map are essentially combined into one. Consider the same hypothetical land use designations as in the "two-map" system example above. In the "one-map" system there aren’t separate zone districts which implement the land use designations. Each land use designation lists the potentially allowable land uses. Suppose a parcel with an Industrial land use designation is redesignated to Commercial. Since there is no separate zone district or zone district map, there is nothing to change but the land use designation map. According to the Framework for Planning,
The LUE [Land Use Element] establishes where land uses may be located. The ordinances regulate site design and development. . . .In general, the LUE allows a wider range of land uses than zoning that attempts to maintain harmonious land uses by rigidly segregating uses in separate districts. The performance standards of the Coastal Zone Land Use Ordinance ensures compatibility of adjacent uses.
Thus, proposed changes to land use designations in the North Coast Area Plan do not have any corresponding zone district map changes.
Local Coastal Program Amendment Summary
Since the certification of the Land Use Plan in 1983, there have been 26 amendments to the Local Coastal Program. The Comprehensive North Coast Area Plan Update amendment is the 27th amendment. The North Coast Area Plan itself has been amended seven times. Besides those seven amendments, another 10 amendments have affected the North Coast Planning Area because they applied throughout the coastal zone.
Following is a chronological summary of the major amendments that applied to the North Coast Planning Area, either as amendments specifically to the North Coast Area Plan or because they amended other parts of the LCP that applied throughout the coastal zone. Major amendments are those that change the kind, location, intensity or density of use allowed in the coastal zone. For the two amendments summarized in tables, specific references to the relevant North Coast Area Plan amendments are shown in column one.
The County submitted 35 amendments to the Land Use Plan (LUP) just before the Commission’s final action on the LUP in July 1983. Due to the late submittal of the amendments, they were not included in or considered as part of the LUP. Subsequent to submittal of the first amendment package, the County made two additional submittals for a total of 42 amendments. Two of the amendments were withdrawn by the County and the Executive Director determined that 14 of the amendments were minor, leaving 26 major amendments. Of those 26 major amendments, only seven applied to the North Coast Planning Area and had or could have had significant effects. The following table summarizes the major components of Amendment 1-84.
Amendment 1-84
Amend. Number |
County Submittal |
Commission Action |
1(15b). |
Include reference to the Hearst Ranch Environmental Data Base prepared by Envicom in 1977, in the Area Plan’s standards. | Modification : Deleted reference. |
2(16). |
Change the bluff setback in the rural Recreation land use category from 50 feet to 100 feet, with possible reduction to 25 feet if found to be sufficient with a geology report. | Modification: Allow reduction to 50 feet with geology report support |
3(17). |
Change land use designation from AG to REC on State Parks property at San Simeon State Park; include rv parks as an allowable use in the Park, on Van Gordon Creek Road, just east of Highway One just south of the Monterey County line, and at the Pine Forest site on the Hearst Ranch just north of Pico Creek. | Modification: Required recreational vehicle parks to be located only east of Highway One, but, through specific Development Standards only allow expansion of existing recreational vehicle sites at San Simeon State Park, and new site on Van Gordon Creek Road. |
4(18). |
Modify San Simeon Acres Combining Designation standard regarding shoreline access, delete recreational vehicle parks as an allowable use, modify height standards, and clarify the density for multi-family projects. | Modification: Require lateral access dedications from the toe of bluff to the mean high tide line; allow rv parks to be located only east of Avonne Ave. and east of Highway One; limit height to 25 feet as measured from existing natural grade; and limit grading on bluff top parcels to that necessary for building foundation. |
5(19). |
Change land use designation from Residential Multi-family to Commercial Retail on three APNs comprising 11 acres (Cambria Village Square site) while allowing multi-family residential uses, clarify master development plan permit requirements and height limits. | Modification: Limit density to 15 units per acre, with area for residential use to be calculated using only portions of the site on slopes of 20% or less; required detailed, early 20th century architectural design, mitigate traffic impacts, restrict vehicular access; limit heights to 22 feet above average finished grade. |
6(21). |
Change land use designation at the Cambria Pines Lodge from RMF to REC to allow major expansion of the Lodge. | Modification: Delete residential uses, add that site is a visitor-serving priority area. |
7(26) |
Add Hazards Policies to Policy document | Modification: Prohibit all permanent structures on the beach except for necessary public health and safety facilities; require review of development in hazard areas to be conducted by a qualified engineering geologist; prohibit residential, commercial, and industrial development in the mapped Flood Hazard area except within the urban boundary; make existing public roads to public beaches and recreation areas eligible for shoreline protective structures, if no other feasible routes are available; require shoreline protective structures to not have adverse impacts on fish and wildlife and to be allowed only when non-structural means have been found infeasible or impracticable; site shoreline protective structures to minimize visual impacts, erosion, encroachment on beaches, and to provide public overlooks where feasible; dedicate area seaward of protective structures for lateral public access; require a site stability report by certified engineering geologist indicating bluff setback is adequate to allow for erosion for 75 years; add high fire risk hazard policy. |
Originally heard by the Commission on February 13, 1985, amendment 2-84 consisted of 14 amendments, six of which were determined to be minor. Of the remaining major amendments, five pertained to the North Coast Planning Area. Amendment 2-84 was approved, partly as submitted and partly with suggested modifications, excepting the amendment pertaining to the Hearst Agricultural/Open Space Easement. That amendment was approved with suggested modifications on November 20, 1985. The County accepted the Commission’s February 13, 1985, action, including the suggested modifications, on September 24, 1985, more than six months after Commission action. Since the County was required to act in no more than six months, the amendment had to be resubmitted. The resubmittal contained the suggested modifications and was approved as submitted by the Commission on December 19, 1985. (See Agriculture findings for details)
The 2-84 major amendments modified the Framework for Planning (Framework), the North Coast Area Plan and the Coastal Policy document. The Framework and the Policy document apply throughout the coastal zone, including the North Coast Planning Area.
Amendment 2-84
Amend. Number |
County Submittal |
Commission action |
1(3). |
Add mining as an allowable use on non-prime agriculture lands. | Modification : None to NCAP. Policy document modified to indicate mining is a non-principally permitted use on agricultural lands |
| Add bed and breakfasts (b&b)as an allowable use in land use categories where hotels and motels are allowed. | Modified NCAP to clarify b&b is an allowable use in the Commercial Retail category but is a principally permitted use in Recreation. | |
2(4) |
Allow development on slopes greater than 20 percent; no maximum slope for grading; within the Urban Services Line, allow grading to be closer than 100 feet from an environmentally sensitive habitat, with no minimum distance. | Modifications: limited grading to slopes less than 20 percent except on existing lots where a residence could not be feasibly site otherwise; and where necessary to provide access to a development site of less than 20 percent; set maximum slope of 30 percent for grading, required new subdivisions to locate building envelopes and roads on slopes less than 20 percent; and allowed grading within the USLine to be as close as 50 feet to an ESHA if the standard 100 foot setback would render a parcel unusable for a principally permitted use. |
3(6) |
Move Urban Services Line to encompass a parcel next to developed parcels within the line. A church was proposed on the site, which would require much less water than a residential use, and the site was located adjacent to Highway One which physically separated the site and the developed parcels from agricultural land | Approval as submitted |
4(7) |
Reduce three year pre-construction monitoring requirement for Hearst Resorts prior to diversion of water from Arroyo de la Cruz to one year and eliminate required biological analysis. | Reduce monitoring to one year, require additional rainfall and runoff data to be considered, require biological analysis of Arroyo de la Cruz habitat, allow biological analysis to be conducted concurrently with permitting and construction of first phase of Hearst resort development. |
| Eliminate Hearst’s responsibility to construct public coastal access improvements at time of construction of resort development and instead require only offers-to-dedicate or deed restrictions. | Required Arroyo de la Cruz access to be improved by Hearst within 6 months of public agency/private association acceptance or assumption of liability and maintenance; San Simeon Point access improvements to be provided by Hearst at time of issuance of coastal development permit but not opened until liability assumed by public agency/private association; San Carpoforo access improvements to be provided by Hearst with issuance of coastal development permit for resort development on San Simeon Point and opened to public within 6 months of acceptance of maintenance and liability by a public agency/private association | |
| Add construction of a 50 site campground as an alternative to the required 100 bed hostel, defer construction of either for five years, and Hearst to retain control and operation of the facility | Allowed either 50 site campground under control and operation of Hearst, or 100 bed hostel operated and controlled by a non-profit organization or State Parks, deferred construction for only four years. | |
| Eliminate need to study two alternative sites to the Pine forest Resort.. | Allowed for study of alternative sites if Pine Forest site did not receive County approval, required relocation of equestrian center out of forest. | |
| Eliminate the requirement for dedication of an agricultural/open space easement on all Hearst Ranch property outside of the resort developments. | Deferred action. |
This amendment contained only one revision affecting the North Coast Planning Area. The amendment changed the land use designation on the old Cambria Air Force Station from Public Facility to Recreation and retained the specific limitations on use of the site. The amendment was approved as submitted.
Three of the six amendments in this submittal pertained to the North Coast Planning Area. Only one is of significance. Amendment 5 proposed to change permitted uses and development standards on the former Fiscalini Ranch in Cambria. The amendment proposed to delete the requirement that a Master Development Plan be prepared for the entire Fiscalini Ranch as a prerequisite for development on a portion of the ranch east of Highway One, including the Mid-State Bank site, which is physically separated from the rest of the ranch by Santa Rosa Creek; and proposed to add additional uses, such as churches and business schools, clearly not in keeping with the Recreation land use category, on a portion of the ranch east of Highway One, including the Mid-State Bank site.
The modifications required a separate Development Plan prior to any permanent development on the Mid-State Bank site; added development standards requiring development to be sited to preserve the open views from Highway One across the meadows to Santa Rosa Creek; substituted Open Space uses as the residual principally permitted uses for Cultural, Education and Recreation uses in the Recreation land use category; and clarified that financial services expressly designed to serve visitor needs would be a non-principally permitted use.
Heard by the Commission just a few months before the County assumed coastal development permit issuing authority, Amendment 1-87 was characterized by the County as a "clean-up" package. Since the amendments were to the CZLUO, which applies throughout the coastal zone, the amendments could have affected the North Coast Planning Area. Seven separate amendments were included in the submittal, all of them affecting the CZLUO. The amendments proposed to:
This last amendment, unlike the other six, was modified specifically for development in the North Coast Planning Area. The modification required that "North of Pico Creek, dish antennas and broadcast towers shall be located so that they will not be seen from State Highway Route 1."
The proposed amendment added a new County-wide procedural requirement and a new substantive development review standard to the Policy document which provided that no "permit, entitlement, lease or other authorization" for specified activities involving onshore support facilities for offshore oil and gas activities shall be final unless approved by the County’s voters in an election. The issuance of a coastal development permit would be subject to this procedure. This amendment was a result of a voter initiative that was approved by the voters in a general election on November 4, 1986. The amendment was modified to require voter approval only when a change in a land use designation in the LCP is necessary to permit onshore support facilities. Such approval would be required before the County submitted the change as an LCP amendment to the Coastal Commission.
The agricultural easement placed over portions of the Hearst Ranch by the Commission in 1983, was the subject of this amendment. The Commission, in certifying the North Coast Area Plan in 1983, approved conceptual plans for the location and size of the Hearst Resorts on agricultural land and required that the rest of the agricultural lands of the ranch be protected from further non-agricultural development by means of an agricultural easement. Amendment 2-88 deleted the requirement for an agricultural easement. (Please see the Agriculture findings for more detailed information.)
Amendment 1-89 amended the Cambria Urban Area Standards of the North Coast Plan to allow "Participant Sports and Active Recreation" in the Recreation land use category. Those uses had been inadvertently excluded from the allowable uses in the Recreation category in Cambria. Without such an addition, activities such as tennis courts, swimming pools, golf courses, and public parks would not be allowed in the Recreation category in Cambria. Also proposed was adding "Participant Sports and Active Recreation" as a use in the Commercial Retail land use category. Amendment 1-89 was approved as submitted.
The Coastal Zone Land Use Ordinance (CZLUO) and Table O in the Framework for Planning were amended to allow golf driving ranges in the Commercial Retail land use category anywhere that that the category exists in the coastal zone, including Cambria and San Simeon Acres. (There were no substantive effects to the North Coast Planning Area.)
Amendment 2-91 addressed permit processing for new oil and gas development in the Industrial land use category, which does not exist in the North Coast Planning Area; consistency among the Framework, the parks Master Plan, and the Quimby Ordinance regarding funding, standards, and policies for local and regional parks county-wide; and adoption of fire safe standards incorporating State fire safe requirements into the LCP. None of these affected the North Coast Planning Area in substantive ways.
(There was no amendment designated 1-92. Due to confusing information about the status of the previous amendment (2-91), received in late 1991, the number 1-92 was reserved. Amendment 2-92 was the County’s first amendment for 1992.)
Two amendments, both of which were approved as submitted, applied in the North Coast Planning Area. One amendment was to revise the noise standards in the CZLUO. That included identification of the maximum allowable noise levels that could impact some noise-sensitive uses that could be considered coastal zone priority uses, such as outdoor recreation, hotels and motels, and bed and breakfasts. The noise standard revision amendment was approved as submitted and has had no detectable adverse effects on the Planning Area. The other amendment proposed to amend the CZLUO and the Framework to make it easier to accommodate agricultural workers in mobilehome units, and enable the County Environmental Coordinator’s Office to determine that grading is statutorily or categorically exempt from CEQA provisions, if the grading meets the necessary CEQA requirements for such a determination; there would be no change in the necessity for a coastal development permit wherever such permit is required by the LCP. There have been no known adverse effects from this amendment.
All four of this submittal’s amendments applied in the North Coast Planning Area:
This amendment to update and improve the clarity of the Framework for Planning included:
The amendment also included changes to the CZLUO to maintain consistency with the Framework, improve regulation of energy facilities, and add standards for bed and breakfast facilities. The CZLUO amendment was approved with a modification requiring that greater than 50 megawatt thermal electric power plants shall not be sited in those areas designated by the Coastal Commission as areas where such development would prevent achievement of the objectives of the Coastal Act.
The final amendment of 1993 amended the CZLUO and the Framework. The standards on roadside stands in the CZLUO were amended in several ways, including requiring that all agricultural products for sale be grown on the site, adjacent contiguous parcels or other agricultural parcels in the County owned or leased by the owner of the site where the stand is located, and adding the Recreation category to those categories where roadside stands may be approved. The Framework amendment was initiated by the County to revise the procedures for updating Area Plans and for processing amendment requests from individual landowners. The only substantive change to the Framework was the addition of a visual resources criterion to the list of potential mitigations for land divisions. Amendment 3-93 was approved as submitted.
One amendment to the Framework and two to the CZLUO were contained in Amendment 1-95. The Framework amendment deleted some of the uses allowed as Organizational Houses and moved them to Churches and deleted Organizational House as an allowable use in the Rural Lands, Residential Rural, and Residential Suburban land use categories. The Framework amendment was approved as submitted. The CZLUO was amended to maintain consistency with the Framework changes; and to modify day care standards to allow two additional children without increased zoning or fire regulations, reduce the level of permit review from public hearing to administrative review, with public notice required so that an interested party could request a hearing; and clarify that day care as a secondary use would be approved with the permit for the primary use. The CZLUO amendments were approved as submitted.
Amendments to 161 sections of the CZLUO were proposed in Amendment 2-95. The proposed changes ranged from minor typographical and cross reference corrections to additions of new language dealing with reclamation of mining areas mandated by the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act. The amendment was approved as submitted.
Amendments to both the Framework and the CZLUO were included with Amendment 1-96, and were approved as submitted. The Framework was modified by broadening the Resource Management System (RMS) level III action requirement. In particular, the amendment removed the requirement that a development moratoria be imposed if the Board of Supervisors found the highest level of resource constraint had been reached in any give resource category. The amendment also added eating and drinking establishments and bed and breakfast facilities as non-principally permitted uses on non-prime agricultural land, adding homestays (dwellings occupied full-time by permanent residents in which no more than two bedrooms without cooking facilities are rented for overnight lodging) as a new non-principally permitted use in the Residential Single Family and Residential Suburban land use categories, including greenhouses engaged in agricultural research in the definition of agricultural accessory structure, and including commercial composting in the definition of agricultural processing. The CZLUO was modified by adding standards for eating and drinking establishments, bed and breakfast facilities, homestays, agricultural research greenhouses, and commercial composting; and by updating the list of areas in which secondary dwellings are not allowed. Tract 159, along the bluffs extending south from Park Hill in Cambria, is one of those areas where secondary dwellings are not allowed. Tract 159 was on the list and remains on the list.
This amendment has been in effect for less than two years; it is unknown if it has had any effect on the North Coast Planning Area.
Motions and Resolutions
Denial of Land Use
Plan Amendment as Submitted
Approval of Land
Use Plan Amendment if Modified
Description of Amendment
Overview of North
Coast Area Plan Update and Standard of Review
Relationship of
North Coast Area Plan to the San Luis Obispo County LCP
Procedural History
Operation of the LCP
Local Coastal Program Amendment Summary
Development
and Public Services
Coastal Act
Policies
Overview of
Existing and Planned Development for the North Coast
The Rural North Coast
Urban Areas of The North Coast
Issues and Analysis
1. Location, Type and Intensity of Hearst Resort Development
2. New Development in Cambria
3. Water Supply
4. Roads and Circulation
5. Wastewater Treatment
6. Miscellaneous Land Use Designation Changes
7. Proposed Combining Designation Changes
Public
Recreation and Visitor-Serving Facilities
Coastal Act
Policies
Overview of North
Coast Recreation
Issues and Analysis
1. Location, Scale, and Character of Hearst Resort Development
2. Lower Cost Visitor-Serving Facilities at Hearst Resorts
3. Golf Courses
4. Miscellaneous Recreational Land Use Changes
Agriculture
Coastal Act
Policies
Overview of North
Coast Agriculture
Issues and Analysis
1. Hearst Ranch Non-Agricultural Development
2. Other Agricultural Land Use Changes
3. Water for Agricultural Uses
Environmentally
Sensitive Habitat Areas
Coastal Act
Policies
Overview of North
Coast Environmentally Sensitive Habitats
Issues and Analysis
1. Stream Diversions for Hearst Resort Ranch development.
2. Other Coastal Stream Issues.
3. Marine Water Quality.
4. Elephant Seal Colonization.
5. Native Monterey Pine Forest.
6. Reintroduction of California Condor.
7. Other ESHA’s on the San Luis Obispo County North Coast.
Scenic
Resources
Coastal Act
Policies
Overview of the
Principal Visual Attractions
Big Sur Gateway
Issues and Analysis
1. Protecting the Critical Viewshed.
2. Cambria Pine Forest
3. Protecting Other Scenic Resources Along the North Coast
Public
Access To And Along The Shoreline
Coastal Act
Policies
Overview of North
Coast Public Access Resources
Issues and Analysis
1. Organization of North Coast Area Plan Access Components
2. Planning for Maximum Public Access
3. Interference with Existing Access
4. New Development Access Standards
Coastal
Hazards
Coastal Act
Policies
Overview of North
Coast Hazards
Issues and Analysis
1. Ocean-fronting Bluff Erosion
2. Flood Hazards
3. Seismic Hazards
4. Fire, Landslides, and Non-coastal Bluff Erosion
Archaeology
Coastal Act
Policies
Overview
Issues and Analysis
1. Urban Areas: Cambria and San Simeon Acres
2. Rural Area
End Notes
Appendix A -- Suggested Modifications
Exhibits
Exhibit 1 -- Planning Area and
Groundwater Basins
Exhibit 2 -- Cambria, Small Lot Subdivisions
Exhibit 3 -- Hausrath Assoc., 1997, Economic Analysis, North
Coast Area Plan, Executive Summary
Exhibit 4 -- Correspondence, North Coast Advisory Council, Oct.
27, 1997
Exhibit 5 -- Groundwater Hydrology Overview
Exhibit 6 -- CCSD, Water Production Tables for San Simeon and
Santa Rosa Creeks, 1985-1997
Exhibit 7 -- CCSD, Correspondence, Dec. 18, 1997, Discussion of
District Programs
Exhibit 8 -- Correspondence, William Bianchi, Discussion of North
Coast Basins
Exhibit 9 -- West Ranch, Urban Service Boundary
Exhibit 10 -- Correspondence, SWRCB Comments on Arroyo de la Cruz
Monitoring Program, Nov. 21, 1997
Exhibit 11 -- Map of Existing and Proposed Roads in Cambria
Exhibit 12 -- North Coast Access, County Line to Piedras Blancas
Exhibit 13 -- North Coast Access, Piedras Blancas to Pico Creek
Exhibit 14 -- North Coast Access, Cambria Area
Exhibit 15 -- North Coast Access, Proposed Hearst Ranch Access
Exhibit 16 -- North Coast Access, Proposed Hearst Ranch Access
Exhibit 17 -- Fault Map, North Coast Area, Old San Simeon
Exhibit 18 -- Cambria, Flood Map
Exhibit 19 -- Correspondence, Hatch and Parent Letter Regarding
East/West Ranch
Return to Meeting Agenda
Return to California Coastal Commission Home Page