Main Street Pedestrian Lights

• Share

Evading the Codes

Finished plans for the Main Street Enhancement Project went before the supervisors for approval in 2002. Those plans had no indication of pedestrian lighting in them. The two documents being approved were the Mitigated Negative Declaration (environmental review) which stated no new lighting would be a part of this project and the Coastal Development Permit application which included the concept of pedestrian lighting. The county claims that since the concept of lighting was mentioned in the Coastal Development Permit application, and since that document was approved by the Supervisors, they had the right to design and install lighting as they saw fit. The problem: The lighting element of the project evaded the public’s right to appeal and evaded environmental review. The local code requires applications to have certain drawings and plan descriptions to be deemed complete. The following summary is the result of a lawsuit brought against the county by D.O.V.E. — an organization dedicated to finding out how 39 “pedestrian lights” were installed in less than seven-tenths of a mile on Cambria’s rural Main Street. The following is what we discovered over a year of research and by bringing suit:

1. Land Use code states clearly that only finished plans (drawn) can be approved in a Coastal Development Permit (CDP).

2. After the Planning Commission has approved a CDP for a project, the public has 14 days to review the finished plans and appeal any problems to the Board of Supervisors. In Cambria’s case, there were no finished plans which included the lighting. The only grievance process available after those 14 days was to lobby the supervisors for a new vote or to bring suit. The public came to local meetings which included our supervisor, but the supervisor wanted the lights — so the only road was a suit. It took a year because public access to public documents is a slow process limited by county lawyers who stall and censor the files. It was only in the discovery phase of our suit that we were allowed to see all the files we had requested over a year’s time.

3. Right now there are CDP’s going before the supervisors which contain concepts for future project elements with no plans drawn or with only a broad brush conceptual drawing and no complete project description.

4. In the lawsuit, the county claimed they (as developer) had the right to develop any concept mentioned in the Coastal Development Permit once it had been approved by the supervisors and the appeal period was over. In effect, the concept could evolve into finished plans with no environmental reviews required by the Local Coastal Program and no appeal process available to the public as required by code. The lawsuit alleged that, as the project developer, the County constructed the street light project illegally without a coastal development permit for the lights, in violation of the laws that prohibit development to occur without a coastal development permit.

5. We have a Local Coastal Program that has gone through an approval process by the Coastal Commission. After an LCP has been finally approved, the Commission’s coastal permitting (Coastal Development Permits) authority over most new development is transferred to the local government (county), which applies the requirements of the LCP in reviewing proposed new developments. The Commission retains permanent coastal permit jurisdiction over development proposed on tidelands, submerged lands, and public trust lands, and the Commission also acts on appeals from certain local government coastal permit decisions. An example of this is the public trust land that is being pushed towards housing private enterprise cell towers. The Commission retains the jurisdictional rights over that land.

6. Our judge did not necessarily agree with the county’s stance above (#4), but declared we were too late in our lawsuit. However, the approved Main Street Enhancement Project had no lighting plans for the public to review — no reason to appeal because of the protection of the Local Coastal Program codes which state only finished plans can be approved. No reason on the part of the public to fear that the lighting wouldn’t go through required reviews with a subsequent appeal process available when they were finally drawn as per the requirements of the Local Coastal Program.

6. The county was able to circumvent an environmental impact report on the lighting element by claiming the lights were approved in the CDP, also claiming that lights were deemed to be of insignificant concern in the Mitigated Negative Declaration and, therefore, not a pollutant and in no need of review. The Mitigated Negative Declaration states there would be NO lights introduced in this project, that’s why they would be of no significance. The TEA grant (federal funds) the county received required an environmental report, but even though funds were scheduled for this report, no report exists in the files, so where did the budgeted funds go?

7. The County is required, just like any other developer, to adhere to the Local Coastal Program when it applies for a Coastal Development Permit. The Local Coastal Program has required each town to define itself in a Design Plan to ensure no developer can change the feel or nature of each town. Our design plan specifically calls Main Street a “special community” because of its proximity to the creek, riparian hunting grounds, breeding grounds and wetlands. The county defines our street as urban and has designed accordingly with no deference to our rural definition of ourselves in the Cambria Design Plan — a clear breech of the Local Coastal Program.

8. Someone needs to read all the Coastal Development Permits that are being considered by the supervisors to catch the concepts (among other things) and appeal them. I think the North Coast Advisory Council (NCAC) is the appropriate body to do this labor — with the help of the community doing research. All projects being considered in our area need to go before this body, but the NCAC would have to demand that because the county only gives the NCAC what the county wants it to review — the county calls it discretionary power. Because of the evasions of the Local Coastal Program, the NCAC, in my opinion, needs to be well-versed in the codes and requirements of that program in order to advise the supervisor wisely.

9. The lawsuit brought by Defend Our Village Environment (D.O.V.E.) against the county had to do with discovering how the county is pushing projects on Cambria which are out of scale with our rural town and our budget and are in violation of local codes, state statutes, including the Coastal Act and the California Environment Act, and the Local Coastal Program. An example is the county demanding the CCSD come up with the 2 million dollars it will take to move utilities so the county can fix the Leffingwell bridge on Moonstone Beach Drive. They have a grant to perform their part — why didn’t they include Cambria in their request for money? The county should be working with our CCSD to fix the water runoff pipe which goes down Bridge Street to the collapsed part of the pipe where the old CCSD building was. The county claims they have no record of putting that pipe in so they have no responsibility for it. Who does, then? The research needs to be done so we can fix our infrastructure. The “rodeo grounds” is being processed to become an “active” sports facility — when the poll taken by the CCSD clearly came out in favor of passive sports. At a CCSD meeting we found out that the county has given the CCSD $500,000 toward the purchase of the ranch only if the rodeo grounds are developed into active sports fields (I’m requesting the contract to find out the truth of it). If we develop passive sports areas, the CCSD has to give the money back to the county. All of this maneuvering goes on and on and on. It can only be addressed if the public agencies stick to the rules instead of ignoring them for their own projects. The point of D.O.V.E.’s lawsuit was not to “get our way” or the product of “poor losers” as we were described in court, but to find out how the county operates, as well as protect ourselves from inappropriate development as we go through these times. We need to keep the county accountable and we can only do that by keeping tabs on the processing of all projects. Just because the county gets a grant should not mean we have to weather some project that makes no sense for our small, coastal town. Our Local Coastal Program supports us — we just need to know it better and stand up for it and ourselves.

Local Coastal Programs

Local Coastal Programs (LCPs) are basic planning tools used by local governments to guide development in the coastal zone, in partnership with the Coastal Commission. LCPs contain the ground rules for future development and protection of coastal resources in the 74 coastal cities and counties. The LCPs specify appropriate location, type, and scale of new or changed uses of land and water. Each LCP includes a land use plan and measures to implement the plan (such as zoning ordinances). Prepared by local government, these programs govern decisions that determine the short- and long-term conservation and use of coastal resources. While each LCP reflects unique characteristics of individual local coastal communities, regional and statewide interests and concerns must also be addressed in conformity with Coastal Act goals and policies. Following adoption by a city council or county board of supervisors, an LCP is submitted to the Coastal Commission for review for consistency with Coastal Act requirements.

Many of the 74 coastal counties and cities have elected to divide their coastal zone jurisdictions into separate geographic segments, resulting in some 126 separate LCPs. As of 2002, approximately 70 percent of the LCP segments have been certified, representing close to 90 percent of the geographic area of the coastal zone, and local governments are issuing coastal permits in these areas. To determine the status of the LCP in any given geographic area, contact the appropriate district office of the Coastal Commission.

After an LCP has been finally approved, the Commission’s coastal permitting authority over most new development is transferred to the local government, which applies the requirements of the LCP in reviewing proposed new developments. The Commission retains permanent coastal permit jurisdiction over development proposed on tidelands, submerged lands, and public trust lands, and the Commission also acts on appeals from certain local government coastal permit decisions. The Commission reviews and approves any amendments to previously certified Local Coastal Programs.

More on the SLO North Coast Local Coastal Program documents tomorrow.

Contributed by Lauren Younger.