AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE
CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED BY THE
CITY COUNCIL FOR PUBLIC REVIEW
PRIOR TO THE MEETING
AGENDA NO: 7c
MEETING DATE: March 25, 2025
AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE
CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED BY THE
CITY COUNCIL FOR PUBLIC REVIEW
PRIOR TO THE MEETING
AGENDA NO: 9a
MEETING DATE: March 25, 2025
2 "9.02.005 Unnecessary noise.
(a) It is unlawful for any person to keep, harbor or maintain upon any lot, or in any residence, building, or structure owned, occupied, or controlled by them any animal which, by any frequent or prolonged noise, causes annoyance or discomfort to a reasonable person of normal sensitivities. (p54 of 109) Can this language be used in the STR ordinance?
"9.03.002 Animal keeping limitations—Dogs and cats.
(a) Except as provided by Section 9.03.003, no person may keep, harbor, or maintain more than three dogs, nor
more than three cats, over the age of four months" (p58 of 109) There should be an exception statement when the shelters are maxed out and fostering becomes important, or in the case of a disaster/crisis an emergency exception or permit can be had. "9.04.001 Private individuals finding lost animals.(b) Any person having custody of a lost, stray, or stolen animal shall surrender" (p60 of 109) "Shall" should be "may" as it is under the livestock section. Some animals are so scared, they are better off in a home than the shelter.
"9.04.003 Authority to take up (5) Any animal whose owner or custodian has failed to provide it with necessary sustenance, drink, shelter, and veterinary care." (p60 of 109) Is this a loophole to take unhoused people's dogs/cats? "9.04.005 Vaccination and medical treatment of impounded animals authorized." (p61 of 109) Why is medical treatment not offered, i.e. broken bone? "9.04.006 Holding period—Household pets.
(a) Unless otherwise specified within this title or by California state code, any household pet impounded under the provisions of this title shall be held by the division and kept available for owner redemption for a period of no less than three business days, not including the day of impoundment.
(b) Calculation of the holding period for animals impounded with current identification as defined by Section 9.01.003(v) shall commence upon notification to the owner or custodian of the impoundment. If such notification is not made, the holding period for such animals shall be no less than seven calendar days." (p62 of 109) Is 9.04.002 consistent with this? (p60 of 109)
"9.04.010 Euthanasia of animals.
(a) Any impounded animal which, upon the conclusion of its holding period, has not been redeemed by its owner or which has not been adopted may be humanely euthanized by the division in its discretion.
(b) Any owner surrendered animal which has not been reclaimed by its owner within a period of time equivalent
to the holding period for impounded stray animals as set forth in Section 9.04.006 may be humanely
euthanized by the division in its discretion." (p63 of 109) Eliminate (a) and (b). We should be a no-kill shelter.
3 "9.05.005 Hobby breeder permit—Term, fee, and delinquency, (c) the division may assess a penalty fee." Change "may" to shall (p65 of 109) "9.06.002 Commercial animal operation permit—Operational standards" Does this encompass fish? (p66 of 109)
"9.07.004 Dog license term. In the event that a dog has been exempted from rabies vaccination as provided for in Section 9.08.003, the term of the license shall be for one year." (p69 of 109) Why penalize for the exception; paying 3 times the amount
9.08.002 Rabies vaccination required—Cats" (p71 of 109) According to the AAFP (American Association of Feline Practitioners) feline vaccination guidelines, rabies is categorized as a non-core vaccine.
Wording corrections?
1. Consistently, except in the following 3 cases, gender is balanced, i.e. him/her, she/he. These 3 need to be corrected.
"9.01.002 Rules and regulations. "as he deems necessary" (p49 of 109) "9.03.004 Cats at large. controlled by him" (p59 of 109) "9.03.005 Leash law. controlled by him" (p59 of 109)
2. Is this really an "interim" ordinance, or should that word be deleted? "SECTION 3. Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This interim ordinance (p41 of 109)
3. ee) "Public nuisance" (1) Effects a substantial portion" (should be Affects) (p51 of 109)
4. Throughout the document the term "shelter" is used; yet, the title uses the term "pound." Should it be changed for consistency?
"9.01.004 Establishment of a public pound." "9.01.005 Chief animal control officer. (3) Have charge of and supervise the county animal shelter(s) " inconsistent language (p52 of 109) and in other sections, too.
Sincerely,
Betty Winholtz
AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE
CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED BY THE
CITY COUNCIL FOR PUBLIC REVIEW
PRIOR TO THE MEETING
AGENDA NO: 9b
MEETING DATE: March 25, 2025
1 Dana Swanson
From: Airlin Singewald
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2025 3:47 PM
To: betty winholtz; Carla Wixom; Zara Landrum; Cyndee Edwards; Jeff Eckles; Bill Luffee Cc: Dana Swanson; Erik Valentine; Yvonne Kimball; Council Subject: Re: agenda item 9b
Dear Ms. Winholtz,
Thank you for your questions and for allowing me to provide this detailed written response prior to the meeting.
The short answer to your first question is yes, the CCC staff still comments on projects in the Coastal Zone (even outside COJ) when they have concerns that a project may not be consistent with the City's LCP or the Coastal Act.
Here's the more detailed answer. Most of the power plant property today is within the City's permitting jurisdiction, subject to appealability to the CCC ("appeals jurisdiction"). The Vistra project is located almost entirely within the City's appeals permitting jurisdiction. A small sliver of the berm and entrance is within COJ. The CCC staff letter on the Vistra project was irrespective of this small area of COJ.
The recently discovered MB tidelands survey expands that tiny sliver to include a much larger section of the power plant property, particularly through a portion of the power plant building itself. In other words, the survey tells us that more of the power plant property was on tidelands than previously thought.
The jurisdiction transfer would give all of the power plant jurisdiction to the City, making it appeals jurisdiction instead of COJ. Through an appeal, the CCC would still likely have the final say on any approval on the power plant property. With some exceptions, the City's denial of a project is not appealable to the CCC, even in appeals jurisdiction.
The existence of ESHA does not preclude a site from meeting the definition of urban as used in the relevant section of the Coastal Act.
Without knowing the exact location of the well sites on Morro Creek, I can't say whether they are within COJ or appeals jurisdiction. However, I can say this item would have no effect since it only affects the yellow cross hatched areas of the power plant, triangle parking lot area, boat storage, and east side of the Embarcadero as shown on the maps.
There is an area along the pedestrian trail to Little Morro Creek that will change from COJ to appeals jurisdiction. However, no jurisdiction transfer is needed for this change because it simply is City jurisdiction based on the tidelands survey, and we will have to update maps accordingly. In other words, the tidelands survey shows this area was not actually tidelands and never should have been designed COJ in the first place. What the change means for a well or any project in this area is an applicant would get a permit from the City instead of going directly to the CCC.
3 On page 101 Maya Restaurant is listed as one of the owners of a parcel. Maya has vacated. Does it still own the property and is leasing to the new restauranteur, or has it changed ownership?
Sincerely,
Betty Winholtz