HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/17/1992, 3 - ARC 89-80: APPEAL OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S (ARC) ACTION APPROVING, WITH ONE CONDITION, A HOUSE ON A SENSITIVE SITE, ON THE SOUTHEASTERLY SIDE OF LA VINEDA, EAST OF JOHNSON AVENUE. 99II Original agenda report from the 3/3/92 meeting.
IIIII�,7�II�uIIIIiIIII��IIIIIN � r MEETING DATE
city In�uil ofsan l�.is ogIspo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER:
FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director
BY: Judith Lautner, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: ARC 89-80: Appeal of Architectural Review Commission's (ARC) action
approving,with one condition, a house on a sensitive site, on the southeasterly
side of La Vineda, east of Johnson Avenue.
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution denying the appeal, thereby upholding the ARC's action.
Report-in-brief
The project has a long history: A similar house was reviewed by the Community
Development Director, the Architectural Review Commission, and the City Council. The
Director approved the design as a "minor or incidental" project on September 12, 1989.
This action was appealed by a neighbor. The appeal was heard by the ARC and denied
on October 3, 1989. The action was appealed to the Council, and denied on November 14,
1989. The neighbor took the case to court, citing environmental concerns that were not
properly addressed in the review process. On October 18, 1990, the Superior Court judge
set aside the Director's decision. The judge's decision was that proper environmental
procedures were not followed by the City: the Director had declared the site "sensitive"
based on environmental concerns, but the City had not made the proper findings to support
the use of a categorical exemption instead of an environmental initial study.
The applicant was required to file an application for environmental review. This was done
in February 1991. With the assistance of a biologist hired by the City, an initial study was
completed in May, and advertised in the newspaper. In response to the published notice,
the City received a large number of letters objecting to the project as designed. (Copies
of these letters are available in council Office) . A revised initial study was finally
completed in October, which included a mitigation measure requiring a 20' setback from
riparian vegetation. This requirement was based on finding cumulative impacts would result
from continued lessening of the creek setback required by the administrative creek policy,
where none of the listed lesser-setback criteria are met. Allowing a lesser setback than is
normally required, in this case, may create a precedent that further erodes the
administrative creek policy. The applicants did not agree to the mitigation measure
requiring the 20' setback from riparian vegetation.
The applicants returned to the ARC on November 4, 1991, asking for approval of virtually
the same design as was presented to and approved by the ARC in 1989. The commission
continued the request, with direction to pull the southeast house corner away from the
creekside vegetation to provide as close to a 20-foot riparian setback as possible.
The plans were revised, and now the closest part of the house is about ten feet from the
edge of riparian habitat. The applicants requested approval by the ARC of this modified
design, and concurrently asked the ARC to modify the mitigation measures required by the
initial study. The ARC approved the house, with a condition that it be set back 20' from
the edge of riparian habitat (as required by the approved mitigation), with revisions to be
3�- 1
City Of San LUIS OBiSpO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
ARC 89-80: 1673 La Vineda
Page 2
approved by staff. The applicants appealed the decision because they do not want to
comply with the condition. The appeal states that the portion of the house that is within
the 20' setback is minor, the house is compatible with the neighborhood, and the previous
design was approved (see letter of appeal).
OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS �
The Fire Department's comments are attached to the initial study. Other departments have
no opinion on this request. j
FISCAL IMPACTS
i
Either an approval or a denial of the appeal would have no fiscal impact on the city.
ALTERNATIVES
1. The Council may uphold the appeal and grant a lesser setback than the required 20',
either 10' as requested by the applicant, or another distance as determined
appropriate, if the Council can find that no significant impacts will result from this
action. Specifically, the Council will need to address the issue of cumulative impacts,
as discussed in the initial study. In this case, staff recommends the Council continue
consideration of the request, to allow staff to develop findings and mitigations
consistent with Council direction. For this reason, staff has not provided a resolution
approving the appeal with this report.
2. The request may be continued, with direction to staff or the.applicant.
RECOMMENDATION
i
Adopt a resolution denying the appeal, thereby upholding the-Architectural Review
Commission's approval of the request with a condition requiring the 20' setback from the
1989 riparian line.
Attached: RC report for February 3, 1992
(D4raft resolution
Vicinity map
initial study
ARC Nov. 4, 1991 minutes
ARC Feb. 3, 1992 draft minutes (kr+hcoming)
Administrative creek policy
Letters from citizens supporting 20' setback, received at 2/3/92 meeting
Applicant's letter of appeal
Plans, packet of letters from citizens are available in Council Office
for review.
rr�13-,r1'•aalo4lll�y��°�7a;..1� k��S. �t3"�n•4.�.. �j' ,Ni td Ys er-
arm 7 t "y �ay.[�L•� �YJ } t� fi�t'y��k�v�° �-� �,.;� Fy,�,.'�h,J. 1
�RESOLiJI'ION`"NO f, 1,992
fY: � ':a 14
_ �.
A .RESOLUTION°'OF -THE" COUNCIL Q'F THE CITY OF A LUIrS'OBISPO 1i
DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMIrSS-ION''S-cACTION;,,
_ —
, - _
THEREBY 'APPROVING A HOUSE ON A SENSI-- -MVE •SITE[, 'WITH :A CONDITION; •, '
_�.—
REQU•IRING�THAT ,THE HOUSE BE SET BACK FARTHER FROM; THE�CREEK,„ '
4 ' AT 1673 LA VINEDA (ARC 89=80)
J E. �P' •' LL Y rx^ �Y I
.. I I�& r' ` 's.d ° 'i�i l.�''•3r E'd" ..^1 n �� E ^ '
ilU 3 _"'a °E• II `x _ q_Mk...t, „+n[t"y'��1`:i r r �t
BE( IT3�RESOLVED by the Counc la of. wthe „City. of San $ Luis
Obispo. as4`fO1�FOWss
SECTION m1 " Firidinas: That `this` ,council,
consideration o public testimony'; the .applicant's request fo'r- �, ar
approval,',of house, as submitted (ARC 89-80.) , the Archtecturah ;
Review'�1Commission�s action; staff recommendations and reports
thereon, makes the following findings:
r4 ry .l 1 r .4 v f 'e 1 tta 4x17 A� },'Lt,'.
1. Theproposed building; as conditioned, will, not adversely r
affect the health, safety and welfare of ,per--sons, lving._or
working at the:. site or in the' vicinty r�Y
T
2 . . The Commun ty Development.Difedt6r has^ determined that the ren "A<•
f: }
proposed imsidence,. as amended."by m tigat'ion., will 'not have '
a 'significant' effect• on the environment and has ranted a �y�'a "
g
ne ative declaration.
<g_ -The City Council hereby affirms this 5 �
- �I
e Nom' ., l p,.• t. .P - n, A.'J/ ry l 7 ei�, rs'. Y+yl ,h r�f
�1 irt. _.:r
SECTION s2 . _Appeal .denied., T$e• appeal of the xArchf-ecturaT�� �
Review,:Comm ssion- s action is hereby denied; and the residence s^ x '
approvdd, subject •to the fgll'owing conditions TSI y p
y
1M "r`z �.-. J� "�y.JFs , Jt i"' t ✓, tin'"• �F
The ;house must be set back at yeastyf-rom "thee 1989 ' s�
riparian Vegetation .line.. r4
' � ,C'x ?"•.., �'S 7x �'ar - ` I(I•q ..l'�Q r Mil ' + rvr a� s- rn rt `"i .'Yt •rr«4y.� ,A '.
^.. },�• 1\J'1 7.' 1. }h �> 1 A i f LJ ••4"`'-NS -.'�
On motion �ofY
h•'. I 4a f' .j •r•[ ct
1 J3f,. fA __ 2r.�:1•.. 1, x._ -f'11" y4.-f^ ,
aeconded by'@ ,�:dnd on the following roll
call vOte� r • �` e S; � . o `i u ^ .z3li� ,1fs av r u 1 ge'LL yD 1
C'attrK
,AY_ ES •.c•14,K
f i '� 4, ✓,; iS{'a ? y s nY 4 p f Pr^x�q1` 7� or�tx k�— - yt4
y Zw5 Ir 'r f c� rT ! 4r 1l` 4;�. �"'�
y i fS, 1 0 i .4N ll. •'I , I Y ) " '� S� LP,'Y-. eJ '.4z � � ti.h.Jr r ';;A
. :`'NOES., ,r ti 4 . .f � , I c tv .• � ' „M, bf: $_
, 1z - r�'� 4•e,,+t'*, �.;. -. �' 9' k ra; Fr G, .;.
y r.�•> L ay��,aS
ABSENT
- . %. u�•��t t�-'tiV��'
1 Irtq
the foregoing��esoluton was passed and �adop`ted, this day tofINA
y�
-- •,
LTor f ^ a ,yN C A.. �'rY 3 ' • 'a I'
/ 4 t v r. 1 6. 'A.I I �„ J I4a 2•,41 ' rj�, I f. .u:
xC1, 1J
(Y'•• 13 St Yarm t �� ,y J). I 1
~n{Iy�tx v "Y,h'y,! 4yt - i1. ag �7 ti a� ^!1 �w!`k l? E.l''"� � ilT A+ P �Ln•
. h a�-., � ''' ' t •� ;r. 1 � L i'�e9i-•f'„i.. .,,N CAu. j rY'f f°_I. -.� 6
_- i. .l y ! ..� 1 n H � .:�+ CS'F" � I YL�� rr.. 0�'3^}^' •
7
r l V i
J, i �• �i4 Ike. `jt r. UT ti'-'s, rf-, " �i'' jiiL ..{"..� ^J.
XT
PI
°3,_
t�"-AN",', 'S r:1i>'� ,s hR ri :.u'sh'. �'� P '-'*'. 1 f I i',•ft , ,.
,.�, r7�',y
• - - :ry ' .%
Resolution No. (1992 Series) c
ARC 89-80: 1613 ta. Vineda
Mayor, Ron Dunin
ATTEST
Csty Clerk Pam Voges - -
APPROVED-
4:
75-
L., _-.- ,.
City - - - _ni rat' Offi_er
.Community Devel pent Director
- t
04 .
CITY of sari LUIS OBISPO
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION STAFF REPORT rrEm#
BY: Judith Lautner, Associate Planner MEETING DATE: Feb. 3, 1992
FILE NUMBER: ARC 89-80
PROJECT ADDRESS: 1673 La Vineda
SUBJECT: Review of a house on a sensitive site, on the southeasterly side of La Vineda, a cul-
de-sac east of Johnson Avenue.
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
Continue with direction to revise plans to conform to a 20' setback from the riparian vegetation,
or grant final approval with a condition that plans be revised to conform to the 20' setback.
BACKGROUND
Situation
The proposed house has undergone review by the Community Development Director, the
Architectural Review Commission, and the City Council. The Director approved the design as
a "minor or incidental° project on September 12, 1989. This action was appealed by a neighbor.
The appeal was heard by the ARC and denied on October 3, 1989. The action was appealed
to the Council, and denied on November 14, 1989. The neighbor took the case to court, citing
environmental concerns that were not properly addressed in the review process. On October
18, 1990, the Superior Court judge set aside the Director's decision. The judge's decision was
that proper environmental procedures were not followed by the City: the Director had declared
the site "sensitive" based on environmental concerns, but the City had not made the proper
findings to support the use of a categorical exemption instead of an initial study.
The applicant was required to file an application for environmental-review. This was done in
February '1991. With the assistance of a biologist hired by the City, an initial study was
completed in May, and advertised in the newspaper. In response to the published notice,•the
City received a large number of letters objecting to the project as designed. A revised initial
study was finally completed in October.
The. applicants returned to the ARC on November 4, 1991, asking for approval of virtually the
same design as was presented to and approved by the ARC in 1989. The commission
continued the request, with direction to pull the southeast house corner away from the creekside
vegetation to provide as close to a 20-foot riparian setback as possible.
The plans have been revised, and now the closest part of the house is about ten feet from the
edge of riparian habitat The applicants are asking for approval of this design, and concurrently
are asking the ARC to modify the mitigation measures required by the initial study.
ARC 89-50: 1673 La Vineda
Page 2
Data summary
Address: 1673 La Vineda
Applicant/Property owners: Mac and Pat Short
Representative: Steven D. Pults, AIA, & Associates (Brent Wiese)
Zoning: R-1
General plan: Low-density Residential
Environmental status: Negative declaration, with mitigation, granted by the Director on
October 10, 1991
Site description
The 20,460-square-foot site is irregularly shaped and slopes away from the street at
approximately 15016. A tributary of Acacia Creek traverses the southerly portion of the site, which
is lined with mature riparian vegetation. A 15-foot drainage and utilities easement also crosses
the southerly boundary of the site in the same general area as the creek. Surrounding land uses
include new and recently-built single-family homes and vacant residential lots.
The majority, if not all, homes on the southeasterly side of La Vineda and the northwesterly side
of La Cita were built with 20' setbacks from the riparian vegetation, although at this time
additional growth has occurred on some of those lots, making the existing setback smaller.
Project description
The applicants want to build a two-story, 2843-square-foot (including garage) home on the site.
The house would be set back a minimum of 25' from the street property line, and ten feet from
previously-existing riparian vegetation (see discussion below on vegetation removal).
EVALUATION
1. Environmental study. The primary issue in this case continues to be the nearness of the
proposed house to the riparian vegetation. The City adopted a policy of requiring buffer
areas between riparian vegetation and new building projects in 1989. In the present case,
since the riparian vegetation is mature and healthy,and since surrounding houses have
maintained a minimum 20' setback from the vegetation, the policy states that a 20'
setback should be required.
In 1989, the Director, the ARC, and the City Council (CC) all approved the siting of the
house much closer than 20' from the vegetation. The approvals were based on a
consideration of the applicants' desire to have the primary living area on one level, the
lesser roof height that would result from its being placed farther down the hill, and the
project's compatibility with the neighborhood. The approvals were also based on the
applicant's willingness to grant an open space easement to the City, which would restrict
uses in the riparian area permanently.
A neighbor challenged the approval process. The Superior Court judge ruled that the.City
had not followed proper procedures in processing this request. The judge's ruling was
that the City determined that the site was "sensitive" for environmental reasons, and
therefore it follows that either findings needed to be made to support a categorical
exemption, or an initial study had to be completed. The judge did not rule on the
appropriateness of the actions taken by the Director, ARC, or CC. In other words, he only
considered the process, not the actions.
ARC 89-80: 1673 La Vineda
Page 3
The first initial study completed for this project (in May 1991) came to the conclusion that
the house's siting near the creek would not have a significant effect on the environment.
This determination is essentially the same as that made by the Director, ARC, and CC in
approving the project in 1989.
After publishing this determination, the City received several letters objecting to this
conclusion. The letters came from various environmental groups and biologists, as well
as local citizens. The gist of most of the objections was that the effect on the environment
of siting this one house close to the creek was not significant in itself, but that it created
a precedent: allowing this house to intrude in the 20' setback without sufficient hardship
reasons may open the door to additional unjustified exceptions to the policy. (Copies of
these letters are available to review in the Community Development Department.)
The. Community Development Department staff and Director, after consideration of these
objections, came to the conclusion that an exception to the 20' policy would be
inappropriate in this case, and the initial study was revised to reflect that conclusion. One
of the mitigation measures required in the initial study is a requirement to set the house
back at least 20' from the riparian vegetation line.
The applicants are unwilling to sign a statement agreeing to this mitigation measure. They
are asking the ARC to revise the initial study to conclude that the house may be sited
closer to the creek, as shown on the plans. Staff recommends that the Commission
uphold the Director's action, requiring the 20' setback. However, if the Commission
agrees with the applicants and wants to require a lesser setback, then staff recommends
that an open space easement be required to be dedicated to the city, over that part of the
lot below the 360' elevation. These alternative mitigation measures are listed under
"Alternatives° near the end of this report.
2. Vegetation removal. In early 1990, the applicants removed vegetation along the outer
edge of the riparian area, in compliance with a Fre Department request to reduce
hazardous materials. The Director determined that riparian vegetation had been removed,
in conflict with a tract condition that requires no removal of any riparian vegetation. The
applicants were required to submit a revegetation plan and implement that plan. Because
of the drought, the City has not required installation of replacement plants as of this time.
However, because this additional vegetation did exist previously,the former vegetation line
(10/89 surrey) was considered the edge of the riparian habitat in determining the 20'
setback, rather than the currently existing vegetation line, which is approximately_where
Vegetation was in May 1988. The two lines are shown on the site plan (sheet C-1).
3. What has changed? The designer has modified the house by pulling back the kitchen
nook, shortening the width of the house on both sides, and moving it forward on the lot.
These changes have resulted in a minimum ten foot setback from the riparian edge. The
difficulties encountered by the designer, in modifying this house to increase the creek
setback, were in maintaining an acceptable driveway slope, and staying within the required
height and sideyard standards. It would be difficult to make further changes to this
particular design. Another design could easily fit on the site and maintain the 20' setback
from the 1989 riparian line.
3)w- 7
ARC 89-80: 1673 La Vineda
Page 4
4. The house design. The house is to be stucco with a tile roof, similar to several others
in the vicinity. Staff finds the general design acceptable and appropriate for the area. At
the previous hearing, the Commission had no problems with design, colors, or materials.
ALTERNATIVES
* The ARC may grant final approval to the project as submitted. The Commission must.
make specific findings based on evidence that the closer setback is not a significant
environmental impact, or require alternative mitigation measures that would reduce the
impacts to less than significant.. Staff recommends, in this case, that at least the following
mitigation measures be imposed:
a. To mitigate the effects of placing the building close to the riparian vegetation, the
property owner shall grant to the city an easement covering the riparian area, for the
purpose of protecting sensitive riparian habitat. Conditions of the easement shall
include the following:
* No structures or solid fencing shall be placed on or within the easement area.
* The general topography of the easement area shall be preserved substantially i
its existing condition. No grading shall be allowed except as permitted by the
Community Development Director.
* No removal of vegetation shall be allowed, except for fire protection or other
hazards, or for the elimination of diseased growth as approved by the Community
Development Director.
* Any landscaping done within the easement shall be native species and to the
approval of the Community Development Director.
Monitoring City staff will require the easement to be recorded prior to issuance of a
building permit
* The Commission may grant final approval, with a condition that the house be set back a
minimum of 20' from the 1989 riparian line. This action would allow staff to approve the
final design.
* The Commission may grant schematic approval, with direction on items to return for final
review. This action, which °locks in" the building footprint on the lot, would require
changing the initial study also, as noted under the "final approval" alternative above.
* The Commission may continue the project, with direction to revise plans to meet the 20'
setback. This action would likely result in a different design for the house.
* The Commission may deny the project, if it finds it is inconsistent with the City's adopted
architectural guidelines or other City policies. Staff recommends the Commission take this
action if the applicants are not willing to change the design to conform with the 20'
setback from the riparian habitat line.
3�-8
L
ARC 89-80: 1613; a;Vneda
Page 5 :,
4Jt. ;�' y• PTA�Mr ` +. f^ a 11�` J•' L yr.
1° t
RECOMMENDATION }: f `"' ,♦ Y
Theapplicants bave�Made significant efforts to enlarge the setback ftom the fiparnan_�habdat}lin-e '
and have. achieved Half of that _required by the ihitiai study. While staff'is sympathetic-to
applicants'`desire hto retain the building design asmuch as possible, We feel ,the potential
settingiya p'recedei t yin conflict with the. City's goals for creeks is signficant Therefore;
recommends,the Commission oontinue the project, With direction to revise the project to conformw ^:
with:the 20 'setback required by the initial study: Staff would also support final approval;withal= 'V
condition'tha_t the House be redesigned to achieve a.20' setback from -the riparian line
attached: b P
vicinitynap ` . .
Irniial'study,,
i Cr 'ate
minutes of"November 4 ; 1991 ARC meeting r 4
administrative cr k li/yk ;
- P lee po Y _J• r - 'I 1 '1 '_ F ,1 YM` 3'.� ,
a i
ell
h. - r t•
l
i I
- cr
a-
•
•M 1.-. • ,
• .Y.
4
/V ,q b• a./` 1' �- �..� �e'•1 ":�mi:..::::.:.::f:T�3J::77:a:i:-';�.::i:::::;:".a:'. � /.
f '\
IY •J/ " � w• �:
O / '�'...a ps• ,r•' .. •.
O. �� . / •\�J.. •� eoo
. .jam
. J /
r �, 1 • '6p =♦
�' •oho ~ i V \C .•�.
J
00
mo
/. fir• .•a
` 1
P • n � \ II
�•\
,�
40
city o� san lugs oBispo
INITIAL STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
SITE LOCATION 1673 La V17]eda APPLICATIONNO.6-91
DescalPTloNConstruction of a single-family house on a 20, 460-square-
PROJECT foot sensitive site. The site slopes downward from the street to a creek,
which is lined with mature riparian vegetation.
APPLICANT Mike Hernandez
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
X NEGATIVE DECLARATION X MITIGATION INCLUDED
EXPANDED INITIAL STUDY REQUIRED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REOUIRED
PREPARED BY Judith Lautner, Associate Planner DATE Oct 2 , 1991
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S ACTION: ^ C, ` DATETq��__ _
,�rtt,��nr�n cJ��,rs.�t.lc „�,c, ran cl,� �, �•�. ' ,
V
SUMMARY OF INITIAL STUDY FINDINGS
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
11.POTENTIAL IMPACT REVIEW POSSIBLE ADVERSE EFFECTS
NONE*
A. COMMUNITY PLANS AND GOALS ...................................................
NONE
B. POPULATION DISTRIBUTION AND GROWTH...................................... ....
C. LAND USE ......................................................................
NONE
D. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULAT10N ..............................................
NONE
E. PUBLIC SERVICES ................................................................
NONE
F. UTILITIES........................................................................ -
NONE
G. NOISE LEVELS .............. ............._................................... NONE
-H. GEOLOGIC S SEISMIC HAZARDS&TOPOGRAPHIC MODIFICATIONS .:................. NONE
1. AIR OUALITY AND WIND CONDITIONS................................................. NONE
J. SURFACE WATER FLOW AND QUALITY ........:..................................... NONE
K PLANT LIFE..................................................................... -
YES*
L. ANIMALLIFE................. ...... ... YES*
.......................... .. . . _
M. ARCHAEOLCGICALIHISTORICAL ..................................................... NONE -
N. AESTHETIC ...................................................................... YES*
( 0. ENERGYIRESOURCEUSE ................ .......................................... NONE*
P. OTHER ..........................................................................
NONE
III:STAFFRECOMMENDATION
NEGATIVE DECLARATION, WITH MI'T'IGATION
-SEE ATTACHED REPORT 5545
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY ER 6-91
1673 La Vineda .
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The applicants want to build a 3 , 191-square-foot (including garage)
two-story house on a large, sloping site. The house is to be
placed about 30 ' from the street property line, and at the rear
ranges from about one foot to about 36 ' from the dripline of
riparian vegetation that existed in November 1989 , the point at
which vegetation growth had reached its highest point. (After
November 1989 , some of the vegetation was removed, as explained
below. )
The 20, 460-square-foot site is irregularly shaped and slopes down
from the street at approximately 15%. A tributary of Acacia Creek
crosses the southerly portion of the site, which is lined with
mature riparian vegetation, mostly willows, but also live oaks .
A 15 foot drainage and utilities easement also crosses the
southerly boundary of the site approximately narallel• to the creek.
Surrounding land uses include recently built single-family hones
and vacant residential lots.
POTENTIAL IMPACTS
Communitv glans and goals
Land use element - Hillside standards: The general plan land use
element (LUE) includes a section on hillside development ( "Hillside
Planning Policies and Standards" - Section D of the LUE) . Included
in this section are "hillside standards" - standards for building
on hillside lots.
The proposed house is on a sloping lot. However, it is not a
"hillside lot" as defined by the land use element. The L•UE
(Section D. 2) says:
THE LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS PRESENTED IN THIS SECTION :LL'
APPLICABLE TO THE AREF.S IDENTIFIED IN THE HILLSIDE PLANNING PROGRAM (SEE
MAP #1) . ALL SPECIFIC PLANS, Si]BDIVISION MAPS, ANNEXATION APPLICATIONS
OR DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS WITHIN THESE AREAS MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH THESE
PROVISIONS.
The project site is not within the Hillside Planning Program areas ,
as shown on Map =1 in the LUE. Therefore, the hillside standards
do not apply to this project.
Conclusion: ?Jot applicable, therefore not significant.
General plan safety element: The safety element addresses
potential dangers from fire, flooding, earthquakes, and other
natural and man-made hazards. Policy 2 . 0 says:
ER 6-91; 1673 La Vineda
Page 2
ENSURE THAT NEW DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE CITY 'S PLANNING AREA IS DESIGNED
TO WITHSTAND THE EFFECTS OF NATURAL AND MAN=CAUSED HAZARDS TO ACCEPTABLE
LEVELS OF RISK, AND IS DESIGNED TO AID EMERGENCY RESPONSE.
Flooding: A portion of the site is in a "B" flood zone. The flood
zone includes the creek and extends to approximately the edge of
the riparian vegetation as it existed in November 1989 . The B zone
includes those areas between limits of 100 year flooding and 500
year flooding, and. areas of 100 -year flooding where depths are
less than one foot. Projects within this zone must be designed so
that finish floor elevations are above the 100 year flooding
elevation.
The project is designed to be outside the flood zone entirely.
Conclusion: Not significant.
Fire hazards: The project is designed to be as close as one foot
from the riparian vegetation. If vegetation dries out in dry
years, .it may serve as fuel in fires coming from nearby hillsides
or originating within the vegetated area. The open creek corridor
represents a path for a fire to follow, if it should become dry.
According to the Fire Department, the vegetation within the
riparian area is green most of the year. Dead wood and grasses
represent the primary source of fuel. The Fire Department finds
the proposed location of the house acceptable from a fire safety
standpoint, as long as seasonal grasses are cut every year, in
accordance with weed abatement provisions in the Municipal Code.
The attached rienorandum from the Fire Department confirms this
position.
Conclusion: Not significant.
Administrative creek policy/Cumulative impacts: The city is guided
by a written policy on development near creeks. This policy says
that "new structures, including parking lots, should generally be
set back at least 20 ' feet from the top of bank. " Further, the
policy says that greater setbacks may be required in certain
situations, including "if significant riparian vegetation extends
beyond the 20-foot line. "
The top of bank, in the present case, is not readily defined.
According to the administrative policy,
"TOP OF BANK" MEANS THE PFYSICAL TOP OF BANK (IE: WHERE THE MORE
STEEPLY ERODED BANK BEGINS TO FLATTEN To CONFORM WITH THE TERRAIN NOT
CUT BY T E WATER FLOW) . IF THE SANK IS TERRACED, THE HIGHEST STEP IS
THE TOP OF BANK, NOT ANY INTERMEDIATE STEP. (IN SOME CASES, THE TOP OF
BANK WILL NOT BE APPARENT; THE DIRECTOR, PRINCIPAL PLANNER OR LONG-
RANGE PLANNER SHOULD BE CONSULTED TO HELP DETERMINE A REASONABLE LINE,
ER 6-91; 1673 La Vineda
Page 3
CONSIDERING SUCH VARIABLES AS THE TOP OF BANK ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE
CREEK THE EXTENT OF RIPARIAN VEGETATION AND THE 100-YEAR FLOOD LINE. )
In the present case, the obvious channel is a narrow ditch
approximately in the center of the vegetation. However, this ditch
carries only a small portion of flood waters. The land slopes
fairly evenly from the ditch to the sidewalk. Therefore, no steep
bank is present. The top of bank has therefore been determined by
flooding characteristics, to coincide with the vegetation line
shown on the november 1989 survey discussed above.
The proposed house sits about one foot from the defined top of
bank, at its closest point (the upper level nook) . Therefore, its
location is not consistent with the 20 ' setback guideline. The
guidelines say that a lesser setback may be acceptable if
1. the channel is minor and is not judged to be a
significant riparian corridor or likely to be part of the
urban trails system;
2 . the lot is small, and reasonable developnent without sore
exception is inpcssible;
3 . the lot is a snall infill site where a clear pattern of
lesser setbacks has been established on both sides of the
lot along the creek.
The California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) has found that the
corridor is significant. The let is large, and the house can be
redesigned to meet the administrative policy ' s 20 ' setback
standard. A clear pattern of 20 ' setbacks has been established,
at least within this subdivision. Therefore, none of these
criteria are net. Reductions in setback to 10 ' have been allowed
at other creek locations in the city where similar vegetative
characteristics exist, but criteria noted above have been present.
However, the guidelines are prefaced with:
THE FOLLOWING ARE GUIDELINES, NOT STRICT STANDARDS, AND MAY BE DEPARTED
FROM WHEN THE PLANNER, WITH THE DIRECTOR' S CONCURRENCE, JUDGES THAT THE
INTENT CAN BE MET THROUGH ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES.
The alternative in this case is the placement of the house as close
as one foot from the riparian vegetaion, plus dedication of an
easement over the riparian vegetation and creek, coupled with an
existing tract condition that prohibits removal of any riparian
vegetation. The easement would extend from the 360 ' elevation (the
elevation of the riparian vegetation closest to the proposed house
location in 1989) to the rear of the lot. In a review of an
identical project on this site in 1990, the Architectural Review
Commission and City Council determined that this alternative is
ER 6-91; • 1673 La Vineda
Page 4
acceptable, in that it provides sufficient protection of the
riparian habitat, and allows the applicants to build the one-story
design of their choice.
Conclusion: Flay be significant.
Recommended mitigation:
.: .1. The building shall be setback 20 ' from the top of bank,
which has been determined to be the drip line of
vegetation as surveyed in 1989 .
Monitorina: Building plans will be checked for
compliance with this measure.
Plant and animal life
Background:
Riparian vegetation has covered about half of the site. This
vegetation serves as cover, nesting areas, and food for many snail
animals and birds.
A condition of approval of the subdivision that created this lot
says that no riparian vegetation may be removed. The permit
applicant removed an unspecified amount of vegetation within the
riparian area, in July 1990. 'The Co.�..munity Development Director
required remedial action, including preparation of a landscape plan
for rehabilitation of the vegetated area.
For purposes of this report, therefore, the edge of existing
vegetation is considered to be that which was existing prior to
removal by the applicant. This edge is defined on a topographic
map prepared by General Engineering Company, showing the brush line
as of 11-10-89.
Value of riparian habitat:
The riparian vegetation is healthy and green virtually year-round.
Vegetation extends from about 20 ' to about 75 ' from the center of
the channel , towards the proposed residence. This dense cover
provides protection for a wide range of species, especially birds,
but also including riparian amphibians. Among the species that
have been seen in the vicinity are the Western Pond Turtle and the
Red Legged Frog, both of which are included on the California
Department of Fish and Game ' s list of "Species of Special Concern" .
They are also candidate species for threatened or endangered
status.
The creek channel is an open corridor for most of its length, from
.its beginnings in the foothills to where it flows into the east
ER 6-91; 1673 La Vineda
Page 5
fork of San Luis Obispo Creek. Open creek channels serve as
transportation corridors for birds and small animals, many of which
will not venture far (if at all) from the protection of the
foliage. Since this one is open, it therefore has significant
habitat value.
Potential impacts:
Temnorarv: Construction activities are expected to have some
effect on wildlife in the area. People and possibly domestic
animals may intrude into the riparian area, disrupting feeding,
mating or nesting behavior. Because the house is planned to be
located as close as one foot from the defined edge of riparian
vegetation (although actually five to seven feet from currently-
existing vegetation) , construction activities are likely to damage
this vegetation, and waste materials may be thrown into it,
subsequently affecting those animals that use it.
The heavy vegetative cover currently provides protection from
intruders, and serves as part of a valuable wildlife Corridor. To"
maintain this protection, the vegetation needs to be retained, and
people and domestic animals should be discouraged from entering the.
area. The degree of damage to the habitat cannot be predicted..
conclusion: May be significant.
Recommended mitigation:
2 . To preclude any activity within the riparian area,
temporary fencing at the 360-foot elevation shall be
installed prior to the start of construction, and shall
remain throughout the construction period.
Monitoring: City inspection staff will require the contractor
to stake the 360 ' elevation prior to installation of the
fence. City inspection staff will confirm that the location
is correct, and that the fencing remains in place until
occupancy is granted for the residence.
Permanent: The construction of a house on the lot will introduce
greater numbers of persons and domestic animals to the site. The
location of the house close to the riparian area will make it easy
for residents and guests to intrude into that area, or to observe
it from the balconies• and kitchen nook. The use of the balconies
and nook by human observers will especially affect birds who use
the . outer fringes of the habitat, causing them to fly further
inward or away from the site altogether, while humans and domestic
animals entering the creek area on foot will affect animals and
• birds foraging, resting, or protecting young near the ground..
However, because the creek is already lined by housing on both
ER 6-91; 1673 La Vineda
Page 6 :
sides, the remaining wildlife is expected to be forms that have
adjusted to human intrusion: those . that are adept at hiding from
people during the day (and are active at night) , those that can
move easily to a more secluded riparian area , and those that can
escape through the trees and shrubs.
A wildlife biologist (Michael Hanson, Ph.D. ) reviewed the plans and
a draft initial study, and concluded that the intrusion of the
house into the •normally-required 20 ' setback would not create a
significant biological impact in this specific case. In his
comments made after reviewing letters from other biologists,
environmental groups, and citizens, Dr. Hanson reiterated his
conclusion that any harm to cone to wildlife in this urban area has
already been done by the construction of housing in the vicinity.
However, Dr. Hanson also noted that the 20 ' setback is "a good
idea" in general. (Comments attached. )
Other biologists have reviewed the plans and have recommended that
the 20 ' setback be required in this case. These biologists say that
2'0 ' buffers have been required of other homes built in this
subdivision, and to naint.ain the corridor as it now exists requires
that this house be set back at least 20 ' also. They also state
concerns with cumulative impacts - that allowing a home to be.built
close to the vegetation, where there are no hardship factors, is
setting a precedent for other development in the future along
creeks. The DFG has also raised concerns with the gradual
elimination of wetlands and surrounding buffer zones throughout
California, and recommend that buffers 'be required in all cases
where they can reasonably be met. (Comments received from DFG and
other biologists are on file in the Community Development
Department and available for review. )
In spite of a subdivision condition prohibiting removal of riparian
vegetation, some owners of lots in this subdivision have removed
many riparian plants. The degree to which the habitat value in
this case is degraded depends on the sensitivity with which it is
treated by the residents and guests.
conclusion: I,ay be significant.
Recommended miticati.on:
Same as no. 1, above.
Aesthetic:
View blockage: The proposed house would not affect views of the -
Santa Lucia hills to the east, from La Vineda or other public
vista, although it would likely block views of these hills from the
east windows of the house at 1655 La Vineda. If the house is
redesigned to incorporate a 20 ' setback, then it will be located
347-/7
ER 6-911 ' 1673 La Vineda
Page 7
farther up the hill and therefore will be higher in elevation.
Somewhat greater view blockage for neighbors would occur, but views
from public vistas will not be significantly .affected.
Public views of the riparian area on the south side of the lot will
be blocked by any house built on the site. Although attractive,
this corridor is not considered a significant scenic public
resource.
Conclusion: Less than significant.
Compatibility with neighborhood: The house design is similar to
others in this block and nearby. Since the subdivision is recent,
all homes on the block were built after 1985, and reflect current
trends and styles. The proposed house style is compatible. The
primary difference between this house and others in the
neighborhood is its location on the lot. All other .homes on this
side of the street are set back approximately 20 ' from the street
property line, while the proposed house is to be set back 301 . If
the house is redesigned to incorporate the 20 ' buffer from the
creek vegetation, then it will be located closer to the street and
therefore more consistent with neighboring homes. However, it is
not unusual to have homes set back at varying distances from the '
street. Whether it is set back twenty or thirty feet, it will be
compatible.
Conclusion: Less than significant.
Effect on significant visual features: Construction of the house
could alter or degrade •a significant visual feature - the riparian
area.
Conclusion: May be significant.
Recommended mitigation: Same as number 1 , above.
Energy/resource use:
Water: ' The city is currently in a drought situation, and has
adopted an ordinance to control water use, both in existing
projects and in new development. The ordinance ensures that no
projects are built that worsen the load on the city ' s water- supply.
The regulations will also limit issuance of building permits after
the drought period is passed, and are expected to mitigate water-
use impacts at that time.
Hater use at the site is expected to increase as a result of this
request. The average water use for a single-family residence on
a lot larger than . 25 acre is 0. 75 acre-feet. With a recorded
easement, which limits irrigated planting areas to 3 , 000 square
feet or less, the average annual usage can be reduced to 0. 56 acre-
18
ER 6-91; * 1673 La Vineda
Page 8
feet. The larger number represents about . 01% of the city ' s "safe
annual yield" - the amount of water that can be drawn from
reservoirs yearly, during years equal to the severest drought on
record, without running out.
Conclusion: Less than significant: the city' s water
regulations will reduce impacts.
Other impacts:
The project is not expected to have significant impacts on any
other aspect of the environment.
RECOMMENDATION:
Grant a negative declaration of environmental impact, with the
following:
Mitigation measures:
1.. The building shall be set back 20 ' from the top of bank, which
has been determined to be the drip line of vegetation as
surveyed in 1989.
M,onitor_inc: Plan checks will verify the location of the house
on the lot.
2 . To preclude any activity within the riparian area, temporary
fencing at the 360-foot elevation shall be installed prior to
the start of construction, and shall remain throughout the
construction period.
Monitoring: City inspection staff will require the contractor
to stake the 360 ' elevation prior to installation of the
fence. City inspection staff will confirm that the location
is correct and that the fencing remains in place until
occupancy is granted for the residence.
Attachments:
Fire Department memo = June 26, 1991
Reviews of draft initial study er 6-g1, by Michael T. Hanson,
wildlife biologist
ilt':'.'7l777li(': �Il.ltri•il<'(Jl;ll
1995 MrUi11an Am,Suite 196
P.O.Bax 15359
San Luis Obispo,G 93406
805/541.1858 FAX-541-5724
May 10 , 1991MAY 1 i9Q.
City of San .Luis Obispo Fire Department l-'- ""o'"'
748 Pismo Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Attn: Carrie Bassford
Re: Weed Abatement
1673 La Vineda
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
APN: 003 ,771 ,002
Project Environmental Study 16-91
Dear Carrie:
We are in receipt of your notice dated May 10, 1991 giving us
ten days in which to clear weeds and/or debris from the above
referenced property. On April 22, 1991 , in anticipation of this
notice, I sent a letter to you requesting some coordination and
cooperation from your department and from the Planning Department
regarding the riparian vegetation and how it affects the clearing
of the vacant property. I have not heard from your department
other than this standard notice to clear weeds.
While this may seem extreme, this project has already been
through the court system and so we are extremely careful regarding
any activity on the property. We would appreciate your cooperation
in this matter. I will contact your office to set up an
appointment with one of your representatives in the field. Again,
thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
an a Ramsay
/jr
CC: Judy Lautner
Project Planner
N
3�-a�
n °
r MAY Q 6199 `Y
. Ci*pf.SPH. 0�s7.'.,
IF. ,.L,
Review of
" '. Environmental Initial Study ER 6=91
a �
1673 La Vineda
by
' Michael T. Hanson Wildlife Biologist
Depar►ment of Biological Sciences
San Luis Obispo, CA 93.407
1 I
A.
A recommendation that the deck be setback 10 feet was
suggested. I believe the plans currently have a setback of 4 feet. To
me it * seems that the additional setback would not be that
significant, that as much disturbance would occur at either distance.
Therefore, it seems unnecessary to alter this part of the original
plans of the house. I would concur that the windows of the kitchen
nook be of a glass that allows people to see out but limits the view
into the room. This would prevent birds from mistakenly flying into
the window and would reduce their disturbance by activity in the
house.
I would agree with the easement conditions. Solid fencing
would tend to isolate the riparian zone from the adjacent yard,
reducing the value of the riparian zone (also seems like it would
reduce the value of the yard). The fence would in essence block out
the edge effect of the riparian zone, a primary factor that makes
this habitat so valuable to wildlife. Topography and riparian
vegetation should be preserved. A short distance toward Johnson
Avenue a section of the riparian zone has been replaced with a row
of pine trees. For most practicable purposes, that section of the
riparian zone has been destroyed. No grading or removal of
vegetation, except as permitted by the Community Development
Director, should be allowed. Landscaping within the easement
should be of species native, to that riparian zone to maintain and
protect its current integrity.
city o� san lues oBispo
INITIAL STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
SITE LOCATION 1673 La Vineda - APPLICATION NO. 6-91
PROJECT.DESGRIFTION Construction of a sing
_1_e-family house on a 20, 460-sq'uare-
foot sensitive site. The site slopes downward from the street to a creek,
which is lined with mature riparian vegetation.
APPLICANT Mike Hernandez
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
X NEGATIVE DECLARATION X MITIGATION INCLUDED
EXPANDED INITIAL STUDY REQUIRED E VIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REQUIRED
s
PREPAREDBY Judith Lautner, Asciate Pla-nne DATE Apr. 19 , 1991
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S ACTON: BATE—U- 0r� -
-Lb%v� �,
.J
SUMMARY OF INITIAL STUDY FINDINGS
I:DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
II.POTENTIAL IMPACT REVIEW POSSIBLE ADVERSE EFFECTS
A. COMMUNITY PLANS AND GOALS ........................... NONE
B. POPULATION DISTRIBUTION AND GROWTH.......................................... NONE
C. LAND USE .........................................................................
NONE
D. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION .............................................. NONE
E. PUBLIC SERVICES ...................................................................... NONE
F. UTILITIES...........................................................................
NONE
(I NOISE LEVELS ...............................................................I.....
NONE
H. GEOLOGIC3 SEISMIC HAZARDS 3 TOPOGRAPHIC MODIFICATIONS .................... NONE
1. AIR QUAUTY AND WIND CONDITIONS........................................ -NONE -- _
J. SURFACE WATER FLOW AND OU_AUTY .............................................. NONE
K PLANT LIFE.............................................................................
YES*
LANIMAL UFE..................................................................... -YES*
M.. ARCHAEOLOGICALIHISTORICAL ................................................. ..... NONE
N. AESTHETIC .....................................................................
YES*
O. ENERGWRESOURCE USE ...........................................................
NON E*
P. OTHER ............................................................................. NONE
IIL.STAFF RECOMMENDATION
NEGATIVE DECLARATION, WITH MITIGATION 2okc73
'SEE ATTACHED REPORT seas
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY ER 6-91
1673 La Vineda
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The applicants want to build a 3191-square-foot (including garage)
two-story house on a large, sloping site. The house is to be
placed about 30 ' from the street property line, and ranges from
about 3 ' to about 36 ' from the dripl.ine of riparian vegetation that
existed in November 1989, the point at which vegetation growth had
reached its highest point. (After November 1989, some of the
vegetation was removed, as explained below. )
The 20, 460 square foot site is irregularly shaped and slopes down
from the street at approximately 15%. A minor creek tributary
crosses the southerly portion of the site, which is lined with
mature riparian vegetation, mostly willows, but also live oaks.
A 15 foot drainage and utilities easement also crosses the.
southerly boundary of the site approximately parallel to the creek.
Surrounding land uses include recently built singie-family homes
and vacant residential lots.
POTENTIAL IMPACTS
Plant and animal life
Background:
Riparian vegetation has covered about half of the site. This
vegetation serves as cover, nesting areas, and food for many small
animals and birds.
A condition of approval of the subdivision that created this lot
says that no riparian vegetation may be removed. The permit
applicant removed an unspecified amount of vegetation within the
riparian area, in July 199'0. The Community Development Director
required remedial action, including preparation of a landscape plan
for rehabilitation of the vegetated area.
For purposes of this report, therefore, the edge of existing
vegetation ,is considered to be that which was existing prior to
removal by the applicant. This edge is defined on a topographic
map prepared by General Engineering Company, showing the brush line
as of 11-10-89 .
Potential impacts:
Temporary: Construction activities are expected to have some
effect on wildlife in the area. People and possibly domestic
animals may intrude into the, riparian area, disrupting feeding,
mating or nesting behavior. Because the house is to be located as .
close as three feet from the riparian vegetation, construction
activities are likely to damage this vegetation, subsequently
ER 6-91; 1673 La Vineda
Page 2
affecting those animals that use it.
The heavy vegetative cover currently provides protection from
intruders, and serves as part of a valuable wildlife corridor. To
maintain this protection, the vegetation needs to be retained, and
people and domestic animals should be discouraged from entering the
area. The degree of damage to the habitat cannot be predicted.
Conclusion: May be significant.
Recommended mitigation:
1. Temporary fencing at the November 1989 dripline, as
defined on plans prepared by Tom Baumberger and available
in the Community Development Department, shall be
installed prior to the start of construction, and shall
remain throughout the construction. period.
Permanent: The ccnstruction of a house on the lot will introduce
greater numbers of persons and domestic animals to the site. The
location of the house close to the riparian area will make it easy
for residents and guests to intrude into that area, or to observe
it from the balconies and kitchen nook. The use of the balconies
and nook by human observers will especially affect birds who use
the 'outer fringes. of the habitat, causing them to fly further
inward or away from the site altogether, while humans and domestic
animals entering the creek area on foot will affect animals and
birds foraging, resting, or protecting young near the ground.
In spite of a subdivision condition prohibiting removal of riparian
vegetation, some owners of lots in this subdivision have removed
many riparian plants. The degree to which the habitat value in
this case is degraded depends on the sensitivity with which it is
treated by the residents and guests.
Conclusion: May be significant..
Recommended mitigation: -
2. To avoid disturbing animals and birds near the edge of
the riparian area, the nearest balcony (the balcony off
the family room) shall be set back a minimum of ten feet,
and the windows in the kitchen nook shall be of a
material that allows persons to see out but limits views
into the room.
3 . To mitigate the effects of placing the building close to
the riparian vegetation, the property owner shall grant
to the city an easement covering the riparian area, for
the purpose of protecting sensitive riparian habitat.
Conditions of the easement shall include the following:
ER 6-91;s 1673 La Vineda
Page 3
* No structures or solid fencing shall be placed on
or within the premises.
* No advertising of any kind shall be located within
the easement area.
* The general topography of the easement area shall
be preserved substantially in its existing
condition. No grading shall be allowed except as
permitted by the Community Development Director.
* No removal of vegetation shall be allowed, except
for fire protection or other hazards, or for the
elimination of diseased growth as approved by the
Community Development Director.
* Any landscaping done within the easement shall be
native species and to the approval of the Community
Development Director.
Aestbetic:
View blockage: The proposed house would not affect views of the
Santa Lucia hills to the east, from La Vineda or other public
vista, although it would likely block views of these hills from the
east windows of the house at 1655 La Vineda.
Conclusion: Less than significant.
Compatibility with neighborhood: The house design is similar to
others in this block and nearby. Since the subdivision is recent,
all homes on the block were built after 1985, and reflect current
trends and styles. The proposed house is compatible.
Conclusion: Less than significant.
Effect on significant visual features: Construction of the house
could alter or degrade a significant visual feature - the riparian
area.
Conclusion: May be significant.
Recommended mitigation: Same as numbers 2 and 3, above.
Ener /resource use:
The city is currently in a drought situation, and has adopted an
ordinance to control water use, both in existing projects and in
new development. The ordinance ensures that no projects are built
that worsen the load on the city' s water supply. The regulations
ER 6-91;• 1673 La Vineda
Page 4
will also limit issuance of building permits after the drought
period is passed, and are expected to mitigate water-use impacts
at that time.
Water- use at the site is expected to increase as a result of this
request. The average water use for a single-family residence on
a lot larger than . 25 acre is 0.75 acre-feet. With a recorded
easement, limiting irrigated planting areas to 3 , 000 square feet
or less, the average annual usage can be reduced to 0. 56 acre-
feet. The larger number represents about . 01% of the city's "safe
annual yield" - the amount of water that can be drawn from
reservoirs yearly, during years equal to the severest drought on
record, without running out.
Conclusion: Less than significant: the city's water
regulations will reduce impacts.
Other imflacts:
The project is not expected to have significant impacts on any
other .aspect of the environment.
RECOMMENDATION:
Grant a negative declaration of environmental impact, with the
following:
Mitigation measures:
I. Temporary fencing at the November 1989 dripline, as defined
on plans prepared by Tom Baumberger and available in the
Community Development Department, shall be installed prior to
the start of construction, and shall remain .throughout the
construction period.
2. To avoid disturbing animals and birds near the edge of tha
riparian area, the nearest balcony (the balcony off the family
room) shall-be set back a minimum of ten feet, and the windows
in the kitchen nook shall be of a material that allows persons
to see out but limits views into the room.
3 . To mitigate the effects of placing the building close to the
riparian vegetation, the property owner shall grant to the
city an easement covering the riparian area, for the purpose
of protecting sensitive riparian habitat. Conditions of the
easement shall include the following:
* . No structures or solid fencing_ shall be placed on
or within the premises.
* No advertising of any kind shall be located within
.j? f'-0?7
ER 6-91; • 1673 La Vineda
Page 5
the easement area.
* The general topography of the easement area shall
be preserved substantially in its existing
condition. No grading shall be allowed except as
permitted by the Community Development Director.
* No removal of vegetation shall be allowed, except
for fire protection or other hazards, or for the
elimination of diseased growth as approved by the
Community Development Director.
* Any landscaping done within the easement shall be
native species and to the approval of the Community
Development Director.
��a8
• -- ..—Jud1M-Lautner-- e F::•r - 17 July 1991 _.. . _ . -..- .... �r -
Co-YunitY Ceve�auen�Deportmen� --
City of pan Luis Obispo, CA 93403
v�ar Ms. Lautner,
! have read /most of the comMents re;ztive to the house propos d for
'n-^a and nr F . r; ri , A wr-,
� `J%.1 L3 Vii lrr:J ,i.s possible imNact :o :`ie Ipal pan zone o, „cacla l..i
comn".,ents ! Vv;S`1 to 'hr" ma'n 1-. %-'.
1. Destruction of riparian zone: Some of the comments. seem to address the
"destruction" of the riparian zone. As far as I understand, none of the
rT,ar;n zone is to be rernov?(` Or -ny n{ itC vPrPt C.; to":'ar (11i ::�� :�•' -r
_ r J v
J'. ♦✓• ort J iv l :v l•-. (^nMwn, n n I
tie n�l'N In^':'1 1 S� '.'iC:•t. C` w�:e W •IIG \J �LE^' L! V11e �I�i.:.�i IG�iI \V \^•C
�4a111rJJVC.7. 1 isle 'a-
aAW.+e, drl/ 41IVY JV114 V=
-eZay
7111 V--eV CV
V�ILitjIV YV 1 CrrIUrCU. 4
2. Disturbance to wildlife: Currently Acacia Creek is surrounded by ho :seCc.
It is difficult for me to see how this last house will be so critical to the
arrnount of disturbance to l'12i which wildlife is already suD?ected. Pe^L";.
ar,d r: r cle:� of tri. ri+�u5as cr exert FA -;V conduct acti1 -i les i^ t^_;r
wnr •:.n .•'. '..' L
al v� B;-0) 'iV'..3aJ 7v Y� � ��.ifiE 4iS Z U^V Cd a,re0V�1 \r!'r �.a� :4~^i".•�
}'fir. -r. :/� ':•e' /'1'� r,er....-.a "a"V
Bte"V. — - CU..rt i.•at�;1 r..,
.✓:,�'ti `I. .,J N\I I`I . Y \ .+ bM'.1 .Y .r ri4 .,! l .: r ,Vll�f l\.a'ir
i.rr.-♦ ler. in y• +I.r •h L.r� 1. wn..=� .-. •1.� =•.,L.• nr,. r .r.l-�
✓i r yY' r : r va'r1 r.•.4' y � . ':Y_.. M� .. v _ . • .:V fY •i'. .:Y._
r r.1 r..1 I -� ✓,•. 1� n 7rr1TI• - ..w:r. 'S' _ _ r r.:, r-. .. _
;r.-.- .:pn ,n nn ^rn.r.7n;" r.n* �nn„nn rr tit nr inpn-',+ �.�- .•:-, ,ttr?+r- �?^.nn
o ec come^oat o a ! oo• + tnat ,1 w
L: \. VL• V�4 LI 4YI\. � �,... � `. , '1 , n �" r, 1F •:y!r1 L15 Ali
see out but limits the View into the room mould De interpreted o Uc tinted
•;'Js-S. '1Ct :, e way ddJs or .1; . D, ti. 1'1.+ ti'2'i ;s ZOu'�✓r•. '�•':i� ti�,�G ,:i25c
�,r� ai �14' peop;e �risive .rle .n..Gr tl� 7-e v:a Ci'.V ':�1%i:i .0 C: 711Z
rr r .''r.. ..'. �r:::IV: V:r .. ... .r': V:.: \�w`J V✓-. . . = r ':.'r'.r'.: ,.�.. ,. .. .. ...
1w_•5 '',��� tri'.-,1:'rl n.,vir..0 -:in�.,v Lf+h�1/ ter.`% ++.: �11r•Fa+r.: .-1 r!,',!Z by r.Jrn 1,
�:V v,JZ.
;iCt;G V
JUL i 8 '99
cm m W LM oau-
- f.'KA.-n:. � mac.,iS�'.::::w.�-.+^:,:f:..... ., .. .._� .. . ..rsa.• _ _ ._ _ .. ... -.- Y
Violation of 20-foot setback. ;he 20 foot setcacic is a good ?ol 1Cy' and
should be adhered to whenever possible. if other houses previously
to abide ey the 20-foot aolicy, then it seems only fa'r that new nous==,,
whenever possible, should do likewise. i am not an expert on buildings and
their sites-so whether this house could abide by this ool icy would have to be
!'�y cc r�n I�.!Y a
U�Le1111 .no a rI^1c1 a qua;; �
1 led 4 Ia (. I �Ii:111e7� J C.
Issue of ollsturbance to wI',(life 4! 'L ie proposed .glans " re
Michael T. anson, ildlife Biologist
Department of Biological Sciences
C?li`ornia Polvtechnir I�:niver_i'
5.31 _U S �o p0, C.A 9 3-+I.;%
,x,40-30
ARC Minutes
November 4, 1991
Page 2
of concern included paving, lighting, wall details, storage space for thear water
heater, play equipment, benches, garage doors, and balustrades.
Steve Puglisi explained that utility meters would be screened ehind covered doors.
Chairman Underwood requested a colored rendered made showing detailed planting
and paving for a typical unit and to also show ligh ' g, signage, playlots, and retaining
walls.
Commr. Cooper moved to grant final a oval subject to directory signs at main project
entries; weather protection for the p Bola; vegetable garden paths; manufacturer's
product information on site light' „ retaining/noise wall materials and design, garage
doors, statuary, benches and itectural masks and other details; historicalmarker;
outdoor storage; storage visions in garage for trash/recyclable materials; and a
rendering of a typical tlding cluster showing colors and materials, paving (including
brickwork), planting esign, signage, and site lighting to return for commission approval.
Commr. Illin orth seconded the motion.
AYE . Cooper, Illingworth, Combrink, Underwood
N S: Sievertson
ABSENT: Bradford, Gates
The motion passes.
2. ARC 89-80: 1673 La Vineda. New house on sensitive site; R-1 zone; final
review.
Jeff Hook, Associate Planner, presented the staff report recommending the commission
grant continue the project with direction to revise plans to conform to a 20-foot setback
from the riparian vegetation.
Brent Wiese and Steve Putts, representatives, responded to the staff report and
explained the project and the applicant's concerns.
Mac Short, applicant, said they have done everything they could do to address the city's
concerns. He said this was his dream home and wanted the main livina area on one
floor.
Commr. Sievertson felt the house could easily be revised to pull it back farther from the
creek vegetation.
ARC Minutes
November 4, 1991
Page 4
The motion passes.
4. ARC 91-73: 948 Foothill Boulevard. Revisions to shopping center parking lot;
C-R-S zone; appeal of director's action approving with conditions as minor ancj/
incidental.
Jeff Hook, Associate Planner, presented the staff report recommending the c mission
uphold the d'irector's action and conditionally approve the parking lot revi ' ns.
Rob Strong, representative, responded to the staff report and expl ' the appeal.
Eve Vigil, representing the San Luis Obispo Tree Committee, commended against the
proposed elm tree removal, explaining that tree replacemenu ould be done on site.
Gil Hoffman felt that the elm tree should be saved.
Jack Brazeal, tree consultant, recommended that th . ee be removed because if kept in
place, trucks may damage the tree.
Commr. Illingworth indicated he would supp keeping the tree.
Commr. Combrink also supported keep' the tree if additional trees were added in
front of the McMahan's furniture stor .
Commr. Cooper agreed with Co ' , Combrink.
Commr. Sievertson wanted tVsee the tree retained and additional trees added along the
frontage of McMahan's st efront.
Commr. Combrink indicated that with traffic issues resolved, a maximum number of
bicycle racks should b/e installed. He noted problems with off-site signs.
Commr. Cooper/moved to uphold the appeal of the Community Development Director's
decision to approve parking lot revisions for the University Square Shopping Center, but
allowed the �femoval of a large, mature Chinese Elm tree in return for the installation of
eight 24-WIon sized box specimen replacement trees, to the Community Development
Directof's approval.
Co /. Combrink seconded the motion.
ADMINISTRATIVE CREEK POLICY
Note: the following are guidelines, not strict standards, and may be departed from when
the planner, with the Director's concurrence, judges that the intent can be met through
alternative approaches. They do not replace, but are in addition to, other existing
policies, standards and ordinances.
1. When reviewing any development proposal, all unlined, open drainage channels should
be evaluated as potential sensitive habitat areas (ie: riparian corridors to be preserved
or enhanced).
In general,-such channels should not be culverted, filled or encroached into.
Exceptions could include:
a. Minor drainage channels (guideline: less than three feet across);
b. Short (guideline: 200 feet or less) sections of channels which tie together lined
or culverted drains;
c. Improvements necessary for erosion control, flood protection or circulation,
reviewed and approved pursuant to existing adopted policy.
In all cases, the Director, Principal Planner or Long-range Planner should be consulted
before a channel is determined not to be a sensitive habitat area-, if there is any
significant doubt, the Department of Fish and Game should be consulted, too.
2. New structures, including parking lots, should generally be set back at least 20 feet
from the top of bank. 'Top of bank' means the physical top of bank (ie: where the more
steeply eroded bank begins to flatten to conform with the terrain not cut by the water
flow). If the bank is terraced, the highest step is the top of bank, not any
intermediate step. (In some cases, the top of bank will not be apparent; the Director,
Principal Planner or Long-range Planner should be consulted to help determine a
reasonable line, considering such variables as the top of bank on the other side of the
creek, the extent of riparian vegetation and the 100-year flood line.)
A. Greater setbacks may be required if
1. significant riparian vegetation extends beyond the 20-Coot line;
2. a setback line which is farther from the bank has been adopted or proposed by
Public Works;
3. the 100-year flood plain extends beyond the 20-Coot line.
B. Lesser setbacks may be acceptable if:
1. the channel is minor and is not judged to be a significant riparian corridor
or likely to be part of the urban trails system;
gJ- 33
'Flrff
ice•
Draft Creek Policy
Page 2
2. the lot is small, and reasonable development without some exception is
impossible;
3. the lot is a small Will site where a clear pattern of lesser setbacks has
been established on both sides of the lot along the creek.
Note: in determining if a channel is minor or if a riparian corridor is significant,
the staff should consider variables such as size, area drained, volume/capacity,
topography, context (urbanized or open), soils and hydrology, relation to other creek
stretches and the creek system generally, existing vegetation and potential for
restoration.
In determining what is "reasonable development", the staff should consider comparable
uses on similar-sized lots in the area as well as the practicalness and feasibility
of smaller-than-comparable projects.
In all such cases where setbacks are to be reduced or increased, the Director and
Principal Planner or Long-range Planner should be consulted.
3. If the site is considered by the Long-range Planner to be a possible link in the
urban trails system, then an offer of dedication for public access should be required as
a condition of any discretionary permit.
d. All areas in the setback should be dedicated in an open space easement as a condition
of approval-of any discretionary permit.
5. If the corridor has been degraded, a restoration program may be required as a
condition of approval for any discretionary permit.
6. Sites with creeks are considered to be "sensitive sites" for architectural review
purposes; projects which would not otherwise need architectural review should be taken
in as minor and incidental and may be approved if the guidelines above are met; if they
arc not met, then the project should be referred to the ARC with a recommendation that
the guidelines be followed.
RECEIVED
Architectural Review Commission rhii Ash.; -y FEB 0
- and tfl_S Planner J11d,r uc3litl]E r I JC+GLa i_i a (_ `llT t
990 Palm Street. ;an Luis Obisrr 1EW6pBf5P0
Box 810 ) 7^:r-1-•C• iwork TM0EVF1ovu�►R
LU-i s :_lni st..C., CA = 4l,;-D J1ll{1 ;J�:j_`�'�._.1 t, it vI;!e J
Zr . '.cam _..
.S ub jecL: Arch LcCL'ural , 'view C•n;uT.liBSiC+i: ;,caring on
ebruar}% $, 1"92 . Monday, :5 7:1 M. Ior t.`:'c Brr.!pc,sed, ;lC_;se
•L>%',,ici_:l aL 1D J Lo. 1!i!le.d.a
Dear Comm issit:rner_• and 11is .
1 agree with e :,t.b.=f RepcLrt• to ?^ev =_ -
c:_!nf_,rC}; 7,(D t•ne C_'y S 2%; it . riparan =ebaci; :o1 - Cy.
i're only thing that 1a3 changed since ti-ie ':;.0 };earinE
_ moi . iS �.ca L.:c aF•_•i_Cant ;':as moved the ;1 ruse _ riea�•,_;re'r
1?. =aT: Lne eases i:aCn ijT _ ..
i r'om t•;3e riparian -,-==etat i0!i, - --i' Ne -;-.e c r i
setoal A. i:'3e = _ se-t,:!al_',ir T_!'C_�i'i .fie ,,-i�^.K i_ tI1 C;T'C= ::i - - ,..- _. _ : .
one since l:ii.man c i'Ji ij' jrCcEi c ;ryr.,^E _n. - -
ari.an ltiild1ifC _':a :i'.,-=;r: .9 jvi-.}' . :. a.
L. = illaCc uaCJ o` Zfi = iL . ELLa.7.'r_ .7Ea_uT'_ r'cm
'r.•ev3o':1s _ ;j=C._ _,.,.s -.o -::5 i;rr ^ T. Fa=. j. iir e - _ "C'::1_•i'^ t,_'.. '_:.:
_L3r
L. ��: .�
' a .:� _ ., . �rian ,'G .•w�I'1 _'!�' �y -Gi l.l. 3�'r•_,-. _?le�C � 4' 'rl._
__GnS wErc = 3ted. I P]}' :Ct _ •='" _ ..i . 1_ 'cam 1 . _ _ cI _ _T Ji: i':::'•. =.....=j^
Ei5 i..eV iW. t.h=.?•c _ n S tvcr'r 35 -W=
First,
tlirst, t;lere were man, ltr _ "'re ..i? -.Iie Ui_ :1_�.c `l'
_ f1�_ • s.�^ .'"`'IG 1^_ _ _ _ _•� - = T;- f 1 -
r. U_.=•g_ .'. _.'tL' _'T.Sri,... 1_._i�IrJ_
Gam'
• .:c LLBrS ciu_ .aE1� = ..._ '1� = -=,.._=- _•1 ,__ _ _ _ _. _ :� _ c _ -:: -_ _ __•-.
:• e'.i:'1Gl��Cr _= V 1.-r 1?: _C L.C✓ N:; 11 t. _\ W'v rr:1?":G L+ L:IG .1
illir'7. r1a`_:ing ta`3 7L':bF _ 10_E r• t. l$ ._':f) r,� -._? ri :_•a_ _- _
i"eg=tat i•o Z2 2rea t.e= the i:Ilpo3sinle t=_'. _ _ _ n ': _•*'•c=;r--,-2
r�t'ar'1ar' II C.L`1:+6'.. N'i111� _._ _212 E,crie - 1r,s t er'1ld..11�a11� 'a rJ�
_L r;y C'at.Liri6 {v„ Fir= nr'=it.?:^-.1_�f2 . " _ :t _'e2T- _c i}C'L t?:•C_;'ligii
Serar'ation 'ner,,,:ee n nc.use and P9g9tati'^n . I dry =gcLn-
i_' on. to avoid this •':Cnt-n,_ial cutting. i!^:e '= i5
v.eget.aLion now due to the dro glitT and t•he armpj_icanz. s IIIEga;
removal t ailegediy for fire rrDtectiC!n on .: d">I -.r:•r ='ut.er enrorl _.. _ .
?em-'vai of this Shady ccoli_r•g layer- of ins•:,lating shrubs
.=ed the I"emainiIlg trees and newly 5::g•osed grC`und. l:I aer thein
.`.fiore _u2:'iigtil1 .^."Iia inCrEaSe:= ev?_='oT'3t.:: G•r '_:? :d:Ytar i__ -.r,-,
_ground and transpiration of water IrC!m the :7-emair'iY_c �", anz.s'
G11aie -"he ilc Eff ECL i$ t%c:=@ P- 6-t- are �?in€ E:: vSEC to
c.Z a _ •- n ..
g aha v_ng t, -•
_uan :le:y wv_i.l�- ;i& . �;g�:: Cd
..
1�lCoa1 rC : 'VQi of VCC�Va 14'11. 1?�� Gtr'1ld Irl . ori= 1'd no :,C
rew-er ed for i.^ic iilc Gal removal Of �•i an v'iL` a ic__ " &
teat: will for'_e cc!nz i',i i a i cu-L :in g _'1 r i an
rr`—uec:t their house from fire. illi 5'
ri-'arian Vegetal ion Cali !e avtiiucu --` _ _ _
t 5 }.: �y C'C'u1F.•_1' i wli.1-i the _ tt .
And fourth, the alternative in tle Staff Report of a setcac :
of less than 20 ft _ combined with an easement to protFct. the
riparian habitat , is not fair mitigation. The ril-ar. ian har'i -at.
i5 already prc•tected by a tract map cC•n"ic'n c-•at•in?, ":•:ice-inE
riparian vegetatiC•n shall no- be removed The suEEestc3 ea=7,l_ it,
would merely duplicate the t.r'acr. Map C6fidi7i=ri _ lIi Ic.' t• ,
eas?flier:L is worse , 5ince c•?":e of _- Ls fi ri0.iti=: 's al1C,wS _c.r
cutting of dry and • di5cased ripar'ian, ;egeL7t '_Cn. .
dry and
diseased veget.a.ticmn are 'v=ry i1c'-'Y'tant r:yi.ng c'om.-nor.'ents _r a
L_Jnudily recyciing and _a.1zi-iy _ -_'8.2yZ'-.e:j-,
i have onev-
Erapn it state !hi= gi t C_ ..:;-.C-. _ ` Lr_c c,`L.c_ -_. 4A
the mss_ ^r. 1 r, -- 7,-- - -
Fr
Creel_ was not signcant in " se_,, !_gut that _ _ ,Cre-aLea ^ _-'r'e =;':'--'•`. :
allowing this house '.C! serr-iP.",-
ficient hardship reasons Sia.y: r' =n the doo Lr �C i - - _
n _ _ ��_ r Tait. nal u.:: ::s�-.�: d
:Ce=tlr^_ Ls ti.0 -r= L• ''1 J 'v• iA---r• _,Fi _ _-G WGr _ _ _ --T. i'.
l".I1�,'CZ'nCi�. ai_!i�'l: ..ile m'r E—ceder—t svttin= n L;.r'. _ - O
Sete^C:r mut =ney WAY �l':�t c� ..:_i:_�1. _ _riCcT'..c_. -]i t:!
c _Etil11 a::- ad'.'Sr's_ ITa'a,- 'Q i•:_._dii� ':cl:•_-a. SiC ccc -__:L cr'•'_ :.'_r:=
-^.p �; I _- r.l S•7.i'1 J.:1 �_ - -+_ .� _..C'= •_ _ _'.1 '�.....= C idn_ - 1 _ - Jam_ _ _ -i--
_ _._ i?QL+.S_ L'I'fj�•CL wC':.i__, .:o'. c '.iE.?-•____ �._. t .•ii '�.ry'i2.?. .-c _ n _ .
i nste aid LL.=y were Saylnff -avr, _Lifi:u;lat_ - S�= -•i 2 _. _ =.__
a;:I =_ G - -_:ra•:7S wi_C7ii=e :Ial:)I-tet =act-. .':v'.:Se n 1c _ _
n�
._-i•v _.-'.-?�.:t.a_ 'q'-:..G__ y:
iat_.:ciy a•:TJ I'c;%rJ1'!"iL• o - ob
as _- Stress=_- Sial3irE_= ='r0�;?'-
inc =:12i..i::g ._ __ __.S1S =.� :7C �.. _.-'_'� o.... .__ .`.
� C✓�:'_:�i4:_.Li iG� s.. =r ._�.y'!� -.._C ='f:' ...,_ r - _-... _ _•
cin anG-nor _,r;_� ._ n::,1 _ w_r r:•_ - ._._..g _. c ._ _ _ , --.4
i'epar L:i:er!L of : i`h a^d r:n.j!iC _.-C_- _ ..-
CCi'ri significant 9C•:crs e _ t 7n L:, I'---,..9_I^ ..:L ir•' _- i__1
i t:11'Gt_ '.n ) frOi.,
-,ie �'�i acr... tz.�_-_ . h-E- d nc'' r"a = "i=..•-.
any 1T:iti?aticn L.'• a•,'c-:1 cr _,-.,r this
rr
9dvEY'Se _:Ti::•SCt . _.:ice t7.1111.Y'F c,n ilE' rj.rt ^8':..iLS .
Lhrougfi 5 hearings- since :irroyo Gran�:e C:fflC:iais C'C•nti:: cc
tell me _^_C'• ,J4 nn wes :1ece�a ry ._ _ c:at `6 i•:i:..^.l i
consultant cid no-u recommend any.
'Wren _ spoke to this same crrsv'Lti-*'?g f:_:rn;' r-
t_lat sei'erai mitie.ation measures wer? pc:ssib_: ,s ani feast' _^.. and
u ..
that CEQA reqires feasible mi t.lgaT.1G caB r.-t�C.1i":= _ .
significant_ adverse impacts, he repli=C< Ari7c 'r: -rand= I.ity 1 .
r,ot ask him _Q M 4 gat _ an d .. 7:::•�- .::
what he is told to do . l said that as t.iie consult-
ing triOiogis.. _^:e was Supposed -._ understand }ii i'.P'y,;?
_
litia5' and supr'_y r1G I iL igal ion re ar'1le S,S __ •v:,^.a' t:ic`_ _L;% t•- _
il'_m tc do. fie replied they did riijL pay film enough LO 5'J.•_ .. ;
-pit ation . l said tI1aL as Lnc'
=€' -E,
, ., consuitan: it was ni_ r s-'•_•.:
Sloillty tc, supply the (-:E(;?A required mitlgati'':n aVF,n l:.
asking for more money- The Rancho Grande .fearing Lar'e.=
copies ) have testimony demonstrating this consulting bioicgis-L-
'wa;J l:Jt li;;wlec: - _. Dic Si:.ij l:L :iia: _:Z -ri 1 03; _ _ _ _
Etc= t.'�ii:�iL•i � ii.ioa a� �.ila�.
3� 3G
time. And his we%rh or. that and this Project oCCuri2d about the
same time last year.
rie.carding the 1673 La Vineda project., it was Ciear to the
piolcgi=ts coz-m-entiro on the projeci , that the con-su_tant missed
alt:6ct)'!cr the ir., 'Qr•tant. Cr.:,�P. t'reC@F`t C•� cLtmula? _ . = =ui' ^'_'Tc :-n
LhF_. strongly objected to :.Ills overslght. r;I the im-portancs o
Cumulative iIllf-'Ficts :h} - - he Sa.i'd that he diQ i:r:L -.-_ii!�: :- ,,e hr-1---se 1
f= ZL':e T'iparian tla!_'Itat wpu�Q ?:'era signiii ^ai.t ii7:✓aCL _
Lnis point !._Lj% s-aSI mace Tne correct gi Ct
i.iC (11.-
project , i =t• _ from t•he riparian wr ir7 Sit. an
&C -, -
'
aC:ie r'rece•jefit ana it was an UnaCC'ec. aC!ie lmUlR' ' vc1V s' r^iI=-
cant aCverse im_'aCt . n ri 'ar'ian_ wili, it e .
appropri-sreiy chan-ged the Negative Ieciaration to rc_le'_:, zn_
nECessi t ,-,t a. Gli ft . r2.pari.aIl a-et
J. cring this matter up about the pi"CiGlem: with zhe iii lQl ile
nc)-. =ca;ase i wars _C
.._ wig
;dr�:':'ge*•e�a a_ _'�i.;a _I t:'?d a.�''plir �._.t ^C`U,i dfi'.'�'? gY.c-;'_'•.::=.c -g i:..
_.ver. '_n'S was _1—.:rC .
L '•ice __ :iQ: a _,.:i:i�- _..+ t.,l�=.r. _,Y._..T.er
1 z'rG-riQcQ 3 _ct C•S pIS.P_:: er,t S.i,_w�.a_ '._c = c- r':. di'.•_ �-
Ig "p'�f7� \✓viLii d lii i.'.i'_,- •_ _.-.�� r.�_.__, Qi _.._ __•_ _
_ J _ ;U= .. aY' ggar ol:.e . ._ _ .:i:i C'- C''Ui_ .. �,.r, t.^,_ s_-- _ _, __ _`•'` N;__:n
'-'1a._ s:LnaC s1Qc and 1:'GnL
iriii ano t.t:'e . rivews-,•- c� c.."7.c.r• .. '.3.: _ .:.. `!'.
� SnTI �_ ZZ . 'e T.,age nx-IQnt 'a:_y. =i:a
`T
y' , r ircr.ert, -.r _.rc-pev=.
w:1-a .,c- =
1-I n 77 . diL�C. _ •_..'. �E'.^'. Qat( L_,e L'h i. L'`' �I:C -.r.�'�=�crl.j7.
:1_':.:.sc' 'w !_ia _.cY.c as., c -.^T"-g e -.,;C
S-econ''1_ t.nic is n'_;t. .an •ai'.iFiir _L,r r:-`;t; •ir,r _:- ii.'i_:r-;s..=.; =,n
r`+, i T rr r. he r i r_ _ _
._.5'P.i L`V LI":E .._ .y- The f_Vu.� daQ vL the ty, _.,L.i_ dQ _.,mss new,
:'rocess-. P,o they U.nli::81y :!ave any} recourse S.galiis,t 7ne
And t'hir'd -•.hat leaves the arL?ume^.t the air_Diicanz. merle at the
last ARC hearing that the wildlife Consultant 'did not see t,,-is
^B house cl^se Lo the riparian veget•atic-n as a sigrifi:^a.ni. adverse
! d ; - e impair'. _ ^IiQ tLiat is wnjr i brought Up the prGbiBL^.H OT i 5
conc-'_iitan, s understanding cf his 1_L'QA Yesp,jns,ibi ities d.iir !:€ t,h
t i n7 !Le worl-ed Gn tn:3 pro i_'C t ias t h= a p p
.i 1' _ .
Gniy1cE.ai aY'�uitleYiL is that Lne w 'I ai : Jon stilt a .0Id it":'t a e e a
wl_r.'l = i%ipaCt
Ling ir:"J'1 ttlis. _t,..'::
:,a-vC .M sseQ t = J•'C -.:l t. `.ntlrell a8 i'll!s t.":.:. _'}'i$-,ili..nr-:C. . n:-!•._''.:.-.
rta%•ce o2 ct�i;:rcSin? a%i1 IDiLiE,aLiiY!E. =c:r CUTii:;1ati\`c» i2i•can
impacts Icr a .Ela: . pr�ject . ELlt , again. -,114- i)T.:i.-:'• _`jr)'1r;g1St.3 C3 i,7
3 ��-37
in their objection letters . And s-afI properly weighed `...1 7'1'e-
ponderance of evidence by these other hiologisr_s tc•r C'.he ::C: It. .
riparian setback to protect riparian. Wil'i_Jfe and change) t.^c
Negative declaration to reflect the Gv it . riparian
ti.Gl: . i tt:ln_: 11 the applicant c?iGGS^E3 tG use ttiC w'_1G___c
consultant ' s inli.iai Opinion in a legal action, -hey '✓, ill _ _.se.
Wlt:i it . Espe'c Tally given the- �_,ntr•ary eVi'cence 3ut'p�ied C,y' L_':E
cons In J]iB Iinai rer•Grt l (/i 1l ? in an veering. all 7,n
=�thBr --,ic'1G'g15tS o[_:'jectiGh.` t..7 [115 fir3t rcL•Ort -
contrary evidence iLf .hac ;i:•e- (2onSu:_ .ImIr bic
final report that if tiie l.- tv ha= a :11 it. . riparia?i SELba•_ _
policy, they should use it if The r,c%i se c.an be rea.eSigreG -C,
With the setback.
In fairness to the Wiidlife CC,ri871iant . .ie q-. a ncU-. r:r_:W
about the. City ' s GU ft . riparian sethac pc.).i.icy wi;en he '-rer•are'
"-
his first project report . nil:a?? 1:'c ICil+2?+ ' iii i.t'i="+ :t: i- i1=''. i_:c.l: _.. _
;
iG1,u.�.l vi_`lil?::�..:1. ��.L.t_T':i. :•:C rr•.:i:T:]-::T,E:'::::^':-; 'i%a;: i 'i: t_:E U.
1
1� _ _ci Lr.
Y,7crs._ T,.,. ._ _++ }.1 r•r.r,p 11 .r ^,, r.•'
7.
-..•V r �.L Y•��1511^G` 1��: 1_.�J'•.-1 _.GY_•-1_ ._�. y.- _. _ .. _Y._.C.T '=.1::. :. 1 :•n'
L. ^•Y' .��•':.�1._ iT. L.Y'1-��Y'ir" r._ .. L_
�•i_ . 1. __ .Y^.�Y:v' 1..
1,Tas CYVr7 �se_y iV_ ..Ii 1.. IL. _. -`._ll S ...lC tiI-'_ r. . 0 _ �.
uSua.1y 'V;I7-n i?-:'.7 1 1O✓8.. r;[i.. ?... T. r.
'y Vii:;'_'. _ }• - C'r�•.�'.-:i"':t'_C::
• ,.._ W:.101 1 4.+_•l.i L'y 77. . •,tet. _ '.1 ...'I O.i _ _.
is a.-a c— _ '_r'C:':
PrOXesSirJi:_._ oerti:l::a: i_'n _.... _�•l tom. __.r.:- _ _.1 _� .:i_:- _ -C.7._..._ .._.- .
S ._:r:'yid c` .:..-'w- c � _ ___`•iA.
✓1�. _ �oiC .. _'t:... .frl T. .':: iia.'. .. r'_J ']! 'v.•...
L;Se ._;L.•_Llg1b La and r :1G•\'C aU11C _"]E
cir,.d r=tc : ;. .-.n�rc'r = ..
lire^_ i'r r�IES_ (J C:eS ?-. ^;P_..=?i ?,-y
_ The = r r : • -�r ,..� _ _-Y•. -�i. _�.^.._ _ -_^e_ _
Y: y- n
..nn. _ _ _
L.r•qta
mor :,=•ci�• WithGi:rt t:!E1=. _.\, .±. r:$•v r. =-
itieS under I_61A '!•r is i_' a _20 J:ear c•l 6 _.rcr• em talar. ;:E r�;S
correction.
L'ut _'C,Y• ^•r:.W, r:•Oid .^iOr_.S tni� l_.?.Lv 4?'7UN+ IT lt. is
�:+�•;-:Sui Lal:L.j i�:'.'moi. arc aware Jf talcIr reSp0;-iSi t-:iii tiES' un ar '.r_r �:_ '
�Ur.tit an off lcia_ , C7,-A -tY.� i r: _aT ir.r: pr�ograrr.. :'"S -v$i I-ab,j :
s i d rec—u; -e r• 41,D jD -tonSiderl^_e• _fir 1-.S
c.n s i^ SNOW ;Drr `f ---I" c F:' n_.:,c_ ?-r`B.I'•7 C,i 7- _ ._
This train i•"_ s.^_l ui'd be a comi:Ji!:atic'n of acce_•table 1 �dt1 cGl:rsEs -
WGr'r_Sr1UpS, i.r3.:'.-:iGg SesslC+riS•. r?.G . _r'.'_.S is ib siC:alli•' 'whi-4T
rc_Dires of its own c rec-r cir?:::crS wnc. Wl)i"k wit", l,^aYh Til
should require the Sfl2fic 4I lis '::viiSLiL ^'-`:' . 2?:Nj ':?, r•i:2 j
_�:�:�::i:: nGL c+i1 !W r.:TGCi %i_:• [.= +j Tl LncL _^.Ti.: _ _ = - 1`.":4r� 1 __ _ .?+=�c-"_.?-
r1_hl ?1UW tL•o:. cerr.liica- -,?i rnr.a r�ie%,r.a• ..^t=r :'.t;-;r :�:��r = - - - _ . ..
R;iIl i2?181 trOI�551C'f781 L'1 Q.10"] Jcl.l Tc\Il 7:d r"C:.S. Ui7L Iri c•cL :i�' lG.i.I':' , i '+...
C1lZiA stahnjards.
. _.. _lc... v_ ruL.•vl vi ._-•qua �v..a 1'('c bd=:.' i': , '.ti_ - ._�_. __ 7Y
sessions;, etc . J a C=WA specialist on the (.;ity . s st.af f
review the Cr-.'%q-'A expertise of candidate consu.it.ants_ This could bez
a review of a minimal number of CnQA documents candidate
-- consultants have prepared to insure the candidates are aware o-r:
..-,. r.
tfi2lr vi'b�'t1 Y'BS •f_•n8ibi1lTleti: t 1J .=E7B5 I" _ r�^E• _ , ._
J \ � "J
ti1B imp•a.•::t. and ( 31 F•?"F� :rl[:�r.. mitiga.tion re6uce rCl c' 2i7:g•aC8 'O c.
leve_' oI insignificance . ;his review _i7
should also cover reviewing their ciLat.i'ons from. an,i r=tc!'=?:''o F5 o .
(,r,QA snowing L,'lelr kriciwIedge of
ane
,6 lr. - 1L1 C.Iieii c= I16 i C)1.11 L]a r3 lin(-neC C.r;, af_i: .
insuring: T-.^.a, c,:insu tan ms have had proper
Just proper tr'al Ii !7Q and cert•i I iCaLiJn in t.i'•.ci2^ i;rf•- a5'__ .� i 'i=1 7
as i.n 7ri].-: Ali 7. ii T"r!
Lo a more FI lcienz process --;Dr SiJ_ , anciu6in_g Tproj Et' a_r+i::CcY'.Lo_
In s;a'lmarlZing ine suggesT•ed legal ] :-•lit J L!?r•,e
yrobiEm L+] L.^.B crDili;a27L OI p•liLLlllg t:;o mliJtl Emp11a51S Gri W_`!9 Lr2
r.: _
Carl ldiiiE \=Gr?sui=.ar'it 1:''.] '�i6_1. _ colo e; •'u'. n ].:7�:1 g17_._ .. - k': LL .
___..l _fir ai_'.t• 1'r.:ilitiT7g71riC.T. 2._S r'1''-'j s,ct _ S-,i '.
have t^ overoc-me ( = . wh-5-T: O .-iter D2, ^.al' i2 _.1•.:_'-_'._ t.:- '•
=alp. 5.t9o79 t. the cumu ia.L lv@ :' S ..-niSl cant. ;i.,a erg:?
_:r.^ljer:t 'tai in-3L -r:c Snl J.lry: i .- _ _:i5w�.- . . ''A-=r'
ri=ar= .: 3EL'yC3 •C:•iiCy ' viiia. c:L'r_I? c 11... 1 lg=
_ a r: -ar�c:ii _ .. _ .
:ai::•\D1_IL is..= , f:J � 1!' ��v��.._�1_ S r.4 I, ij-. _i_' . .
a7 j
A.iia.L _ .iPave 5.9,,'i I';E r'P .a.'. �Ut i•a.- (.Cyil: L'� _ _.__. • 8 =icic _
I'� li,I-:'.!ir g 0_ !i15 re- PC,I-,S1 ... _ _ i s u leL �r1.1�.L: , •M'_. �' _ _ l'�I:i
y. D]
._i . _
a.,..Cv it �ng :=J_r`2i::i. .:1.'1r:PY•c.".t•�;'t r]F, ^ � _ _._ �.12-
nc_•w_ :rev are ri:JL tliet. C,_)MSJ.e'-' I T t^ i=ai ^ . _
'1.:'7 T;;r 7 l:.ria,:.c v -.n c' _'C'P,S1;_. ar!
!}' c;tner =L` iiile'.iT ] nn - _ L _ `_:.'Y'' .f��: i'.� _
r� __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _
rasponv_.. ___ es .
iy. _ w a,
AR(- Hear; n - _„5_ T r'- '_ .•YL�''S::_ .?I`.•=,•., L '.?. n S _ - a-
t0 a 10 ft. rI}i_.S'le_^. .cT.,:• ,C.r. s,.r% 1 ;1iS 7i�a !i
vpec 13:i ' 7_ b.^i-'F1: I.''y t .•.T?LT:: _ �1Cnc:':� t_ _E _ _.;_I _ !ic
prcpose d EI ft . FC-.[',aCS is A :=,_9 via;; -r'['.,.
qac { voted. `_+n and passe- h__: the Me,jority oD_ `oz=. ^r_
b :=L _ setC_'9jiisr, Iii='L. i'c"�eiGiF Ir'C::i; ''__ c- T
.servIng ripariar7 W1 i.UilZC PaGit•aL . 1 H°i1i si.uCly me pic-_S to
find a r_.nmprrmise. sc;lut.ion t.'i d.t. vii J. 17 C:'t jFC Li a.2, '.Ze i^.1 ', r ar:
wild-life and hopefully satisfy the cppii'LcanLS ana I F"_i.:oors. 1 .
for some reason c&ajj:iro1Ti7.se ( meaning minimally v r. -. , rT . rJ.t.;:"
setbac"-. as voted on by the Co.rmmisSioner'r• )i is not possible . LhEn
1 ask t:Iat the CImmissi•_>ners s apport. the. Scarf ?c-,';r't
the hnuse }>e redesigned to comply with the City ' s 20 ft . rir•ar �n-
SE tlJaC pO1'_Cy_
Sincerely ,
A71ACHMENI r
1991 (Fifth) Edition
Guide
to the
California
Environmental
Quality
Act
(CEQA)
Michael H. Remv
Tina A. Thomas
James G. Moose
Solano Press Book.
Point Arena, California
9. to provide the people of the State with clean air end water, enjoyment
of aesthetic, Aatural, scenic, and historic environmental qualities, and
freedom from excessive noise (section 21001, subd. (b));
10. to prevent the elimination of fish and wildlife species due to man's
activities, ensure that fish and wildlife populations do not drop below
self-perpetuating levels, and preserve for future generations
representations of all plant and animal communities and examples of the
major periods of California history (section 21001, subd. (c)); 12
11. to ensure that the long-term protection of the environment,
consistent with the provision of a decent home and suitable living
environment for every Californian, shall be the guiding criterion in
public decisions (section 21001, subd. (d));
12. to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can
exist in productive harmony to fulfill the social and economic
requirements of present and future generations(section 21001, subd. (e));
13. to require governmental agencies at all levels to develop standards
and procedures necessary to protect environmental quality (section
21001, subd. (f)); and
14. to require government agencies at all levels to consider qualitative
factors as well as economic and technical factors and long-term benefit
and costs, in addition to short-term benefit and costs and to consider
alternatives to proposed actions affecting the environment(section 21001,
subd. (g)).
B. SPECIFIC POLICIES
1. Feasible Alternatives and Mitigation
The most substantive aspect of CEQA is found in Public Resources Code section _
21002. That provision forbids agencies from approving project with significant adverse 3
impacts when feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures can substantially _
lessen such impact. (Citizens for Quality Growth v itv of Mount Shasta (3d Dist.
'r/ This policy statement has been interpreted not to create a cause of action requiring agencies to
disapprove projects unlessthey can guarantee the survival of rare or endangered species affected by such
projects. (Sierra Club v Gilroy City-Council (6th Dist. 1990)222 Cal.App.3d 30, 41-42(221 Cal.Rptr.
393, 398-3991.)
8 a
li
•.T
must "consider" these proposals, it has no manctatory duty to act Oo thcni, ^%,gin if they
I
are feasible. (40 C.V-.R. section 1502. 14; Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens
Council (1989) --- U.S. ---, --- [109 S.Ct. 1835, 1846].) In other words, as to those -
matters subject to their statutory discretion, federal agencies can effectively ignore the
conclusions of an EIS, even regarding alternatives and mitigation, and can take actions
causing grave environmental damage. (Vermont Yankee, supra, 435 U.S. at 558 [98
S.Ct. 1197, 12191 (narrow construction of NEPA; statute is "essentially procedural";
Robertson, supra, --- U.S. at --- (109 S.Ct. 1835, 1846] ("[a]lthough these procedures ' r
are almost certain to affect the agency's substantive decision, it is now well settled that
NEPA itself does not mandate particular results, but simply prescribes the necessary
process"); Strvcker's Bim, supra, 444 U.S. at 227-228 [100 S.Ct. 497, 500] ("[t]he
only role for the court is to ensure that the agency has considered the environmental
consequences [of its action]").)
Because CEQA was modeled on NEPA, the California courts have generally
looked to federal cases interpreting the latter statute as "strongly persuasive" authority
as to the meaning of the former. (See Friends of Mammoth v Board of Su rvisors
(1972) 8 Cal.3d 247, 261 [104 Cal.Rptr. 761, 769-770]; Environmental Defense Fund
_Inc. v. Coastside Water District (1st Dist. 1972) 27 Cal.App.3d 695, 701 [104
Cal.Rptr. 197, 200]; No Oil. Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1975) 13 Cal.3d 68, 86, fn.
21 [l18 Cal.Rptr. 34, 46]; Mount Sutro Defense Committee v Regents of rile -
Universitv of California (1st Dist. 1978) 77 Cal.App.3d 20, 35-38 [143 Cal.Rptr. 365, j
373-375].) Because the California statute is more protective of the environment,
however, it seems fair to say that NEPA cases generally set the environmental floor but 5
not the ceiling for interpreting CEQA. (See San Francisco Ecology Center, supra, 48
Cal.App.3d at 590 [122 Cal.Rptr. 100, 104].) In other words, the federal cases are
persuasive authority whenever they require environmental protection on issues not vet
reached by Califomia courts; but the state courts may find that the federal precedents
require too little such protection, particularly when CEQA's substantive mandate is at
issue.
b. Substantive Provisions of CEQA
In contrast to NEPA, CEQA rgQuire agencies to implement feasible mitigation
measures or feasible alternatives identified in EIRs for projects that will otherwise cause
significant adverse impacts. (Sections 21002, 21081; Guidelines, sections 15002, subd.
10
v
L
15021, subd. (a)(2), 15091, subd. (a); Sierra Club v. Gilroy City Council (6th
Dist. 1990) 222 Cal.Ap�.3d 30, 41 [271 Cal.Rptr. 393,- 3981; Kings County Farm
Bureau v. City of Hanford (5th Dist. 1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 711, 730-731 [270
Cal.Rptr. 650, 656, 668-669].) " Thus, in such cases an agency cannot satisfy the
statute simply by "considering" the environmental impacts of a proposed project. (,&&
also Burger v. County of Mendocino (1st Dist. 1975) 45 Cal.App.3d 322 [119
Cal.Rptr. 5681.)
In order to effectuate the substantive mandate of Public Resources Code section
2I002, an agency approving any project for which an EIR identified significant impacts
must make appropriate findings for each significant impact identified in an EIR.
(Citizens for Quality Growth v. City of Mount Shasta (3d Dist. 1988) 98 Cal.App.3d
433, 440 [243 Cal.Rptr. 727, 730], citing Guidelines section 15091.) Three different
findings are possible.
The first option is to find that "[c]hanges or alterations have been required in,
or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental effect . . . ." (Guidelines, section 15091, subd. (a)(1); = also section
21081, subd. (a).) Such a finding fully satisfies section 21002.
The second option is to find that "[s]uch changes or alterations are within the
responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency," and that "[s]uch changes have
been adopted by such other agency or can or should be adopted by such agency."
(Guidelines, section 15091, subd. (a)(2); = also section 21081, subd. (b).) This
finding has limited application, however; agencies cannot avoid imposing conditions
within their power simply because some other agency, with subsequent permitting
authority over a project, also has the ability to impose similar or related conditions.
(Citizens for Quality Growth, IU.pra, 198 Cal.App.3d at 443, fn. 8 [243 Cal.Rptr. 727,
732], citing Guidelines section 15020 (rejects agency's argument that adoption of
mitigation measures for loss of wetland was sole responsibility of Army Corps of
"/Aside from this mandate, the courts have been reluctant to find other substantive duties in CEQA.
In Sierra Club v. Gilroy City Council (6th Dist. 1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 30, 4142 1271 Cal.Rptr. 393,
398-3991, the Court of Appeal rejected the argument that section 21001, subdivision (c), prevents
agencies from approving projects unless they can guarantee the survival of rare or endangered species
affected by the projects. The Court held that the cited provision contained a mere 'policy statement' that
did not supersede other statutory provisions and case law recognizing agencies' ability to approve projects
with significant environmental effects where mitigation measures and environmentally superior
alternatives have been found to be infeasible.
11
ATTAC 4MO `r, SITE MAP
SCALE ' 0.92mm i Ii i
� pRpP . . ••' .i"
�, ,••:::;:,�' rte/'.••••►
Mq
-
ED(5f_ OP
23= :;/tea •••, _......._-•-//-r
•• 'i: .. _.. r,,. -"� .:J..:._lam«
•_,._ ��...-- .ter 1+
3 -•` Si_ - THIS PASHE
UNE 15 THE
7tN5 ARBA IS ; X'RIPMAI
4"rE(&2.69)(=A5r SETBRC�C[��
NodK)AlJPl%VrDECK
146/WF) ECT1.Y -
�NDrMU1TTEGDFr�NH7fy�W- � •_ (`yyp�;
lDWrpl,/, loop
THIS DASga
ENCl $lW.v
UNEDi9REJq
VHS AREA A NOc 15E 09IV
56 W ll.T 1N COMPClN(, '� DRrvEwAY a
GJIMC)rYF�T,SIWE _ � � z
ANDZ"Plb
IPPIPcrArvSEtPACl�' _
/. el
� � w
t �
jk
/.ywJ.�/'/��/.���/y�/� �/�j/J//�� //may/ �/l�}, 4 `/� `1 ••' `
�NG
46
ria
V% .
Z
LL z
_ W
cLosa
Ul
I � c
33 I
oo-
.1
$
m ..
7-7-1 -
Vv
O� a
oo : ' ...... .
ucg ' Lu i
`L Q
VKFZ
_ — — —�—=------- -— — — '---•—=---- � tip.
1L� NO
ea& lz
7
LL
LLI W --
LOD
--......._
�I�/Z scow OW&R RDC F X
- -- i 7777
- - - -
x is :+
q O.
O -1
V1 V -1
o
i
' t
- --- — ._
Llf
f
!... . . .
.... . .... .. i. -- — --.--j
... . .
i Q
K '
W : �
1,
7.
- - 177 ` {
0
i - - - --- �- - • .•�
,673 cA VIM,PA: P.�Es�c� To 20'rRlPi�zW 5ETg>� A00MENr3
(0/llfl90 (GAR. -.jE F46OR c6' �.t�l.D! H�. -, f1s Ta
��c-ycvlr� tx�vE ��.s����,H�r'�ru��1r)
�. GAP GC FG�f� HF&tT (TO coAAPL!c� ccs ( T-10 T-r .DRYE H 5iAA)Aib
STs gt�N OF .)RJVEW)��= L-F-Fr 7= 'F-p-nm
�-K -Z) r,f A&�-r PCGD2 t j T-
RO
RO P
SD' VEJ�T1GPrL G(,i2vE = 0.80 '.ORDP��,rv;�v )
.Z. 0 6 ' D POP TOTAL-&L4W ED
A
. 75 IbPZP AC-
501 A W 8P,311( 69")OF PILL- 7a 8ernjL
uP FRDM Exr STI M& 2. 75"bP-CP To .2,66 'b�P
5d 6AAA5E -R-iL 37/-67 17.
�. HFA&HT H^1,�E LE-_ AWvE. fvE. W ZjRAZ, 61<-11�' ,,E I
c�MPl-- V) (7H 2S' t���6�-tT UM cr :
7 6 '�1FFEk=
F�oNTe� ND,.C4 N£.G..H 1 GUrTNDGCr i<'bF % D•(o9'F1l.:•.�Tp �GMi�`�GUlirl�'JE„_;.
ACU `5 r pl_,,R. HE 1&'
If, Gb'jOr5T 7M&HT
S m z"DF'409 HP-10i
AEAlR OF HOU-5E HE I&H760f rHa T ftF : 7601oFSTEMW&-J. t u cE.Ta flr FF.
BP--1 U-)Ef,&3 ERCA3T%* REJ1/c>>
p.69'OF 57rMAaLftD cCA*E/J597E P
, /-s Z�P1i4r rI �WVFX. t
501769 FEJT H1.
2 Z9'2F�1 HT. !,CO' -41!>T )tF-i&H7-
`tz• �8=,2=,Zl.�9 j41/E.
� � T
TOT. C �cfies
MtTG �T
ROOF H£16HT6f6F : 3.S/ �eovE2FGY .
'1 .
Tr- .5 HE-6tiT FIS 0W 8F- AEOu
�2��cr�
_FUe of V or10'inte ral 10': vertical curve B' vertical curve
curb driveway
Back of sidewalk
08 GR. 13' 42' Floor of
IN t_\ ` ` J garage or
A1�r 200 �20, tarpon
Tai.
Straight grade A to C 5.04'
Slope 1/4'per ft. B to C 7.54
10.0' 2'Y2'drainage slot
(slope to drain)
NOTES
I —Twenty percent(20%) maximum slope for residential uses. Ten percent (10%) maximum
slope for commercial and industrial uses. Five percent(5%) deviation allowed with
special construction techniques if opproveo oy the City Engineer.
2 — Maximurn descent,and the run,shall be measured for the worst condition between the back
of the sidewalk and the finished floor,at the garage or carport entrance. May be used
with either 6' or B' curb.
ADOPTED B7 RESOLUTION No. 4557 (1981)
APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER DATE
7-(1_ If PARKING DRIVEWAY STANDARDS
REVISIONS BY APP DATE "� `'" STANDARD
DOWNWARD DRIVEWAY
2150
jjQ eiat
January 30, 1992
TO: Architectural Review Commission
SUBJECT: 1673 La Vineda, Sensitive Site - ARC 89-80
After reviewing the initial study of Environmental Impact Report
performed by the City of San Luis Obispo, I concur with the City
staff 's recommendation to require a 20 ' setback from the riparian
vegetation on this sensitive site. I feel the concerns of
numerous biologists, State Fish & Game, various environmental
groups and the great concern of the neighbors in 'this area cannot
be ignored or taken lightly.
This area is an established open corridor of riparian vegetation
that has been preserved by existing houses that were required to
set back, and it would suffer greatly if a house was permitted to
be built within this 20 ' buffer zone. If a dedicated easement
was granted to the City it would be of no further benefit than
the existing tract conditions that prohibits the removal of
riparian vegetation. A house built within the 20 ' setback would
affect my view of the Santa Lucia Hills and would not if the
house were moved up hill and in line with existing homes.
Now that the City has gone through the proper procedures, studied
and reviewed the concerns of this sensitive site, .1 feel their
findings are in line with the new creekside ordinance that is
being drafted that will make a 20 ' setback mandatory and not just
a policy. Allowing a home in this area would undermine the
City' s recognition to preserve these valuable corridors.
I feel this is a very buildable lot where the owner can still
enjoy views and the openness of the area that the neighborhood
now shares. By redesigning a house that meets the setback and
height limitations that this neighborhood has followed up to this
point, this house will infill the last lot of this tract without
setting out of place. A redesign would preserve this valuable
wildlife corridor and blend with the existing community feeling.
This latest revision of plans still does not meet the
recommendation of City staff, -Fish & Game, biologists and the
ARC. I feel the house should be moved back as recommended by the
ARC on November 4, 1991.
Sincerely,
Richard Fisher
1691 La Vineda
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Stream Consciousness
Local Affiliate, Urban Creeks Council
531 Highland Dr., Los Osos, CA 93402
October 30, 1991
Dear Commissioners;
I would like to urge your Commission to uphold the conditions of the Mitigated
Negative Declaration for the project at 1673 La Vineda, especially those
concerning the 20 foot setback from the dripline of the riparian vegetation and
the fencing of the riparian zone during construction.
As noted in the Negative Declaration, a 20 foot setback in this case is consistent
both with the City's administrative creek policy and with the other houses in the
subdivision. The applicant has shown no need to deviate from this policy, and
therefore it would be wise to apply the policy, especially in light of.She fact that
this riparian corridor has been maintained in a relatively undisturbed manner for
its length, as noted on pages 4-5 of the Negative Declaration.
The Department of Fish and Game has determined that buffers are desirable
wherever feasible. Numerous biologists have commented on the need to
maintain a buffer from the vegetation for wildlife considerations.
I would note that the City is currently engaged in development of a Creek
Ordinance designed in part to strengthen protection of creeks and their wildlife
value. It would be a shame to weaken the application of the present
administrative policy at this time by allowing an unnecessary incursion into the
riparian corridor. I would ask that your Commission have the wisdom to accept
the mitigations recommended by Staff for this project, thereby continuing the
clear precedent of allowing buffers for riparian habitat.
Sincerely,
Judy Neuhauser
��� ►�►II�I[II�I�� 11111
city 0 Shc' k& OBISPO
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 •San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL
In accordance with the appeals procedure as authorized by Title I, Chapter 1.20 of the San Luis Obispo
Municipal Code,the undersigned herebyappeaisfromthedeclsionOf},t/ 1/ P.C. 7C/a� /?(//&K,)6/yVS-W/ "
rendered on3 1 e6 ?12L which decision consisted of the following (I.e. set forth factual
situatlon and the grounds for submitting this appeal. Use additional sheets as needed):
10190W l k// cerldt�/PW5 - Q-sloWco /eo' 73 G/r 144eo'& • o
o-,C cpnd/irW lVf0/r/A7 20 '-5eoP1-b4vCA 4=91 ��ro�-�an U11e- t�7c,
�sic�eillt Quos �/-ev/ods// aB�rovtd by �4,eG Qild c.�/r�r �u�cr� —
/�srn�e�ce, cditif,.r /20 boa f- f�i�a . b�`��•r / . co,,,�,,[„/ w�7Yt /e�i�hhrr�fooc
C ¢Xcc�o� dor G/14j Practdvres -/or-.ewervS dese�n Ws �erml#_d cur C1
�12rove d a7- a/l 'Ieluc/S 0.=4 /PM ccSsl* moi.
The undersigned discussed the.decision being appealed with:
on
DATE &TIME APPEAL RECEIVED: Appellant:
/'1'4.G S,4o�T �ocv/ter
ame tie
epresentat e
•~ � /4b/ �/9ver�i � cS�D
FEB 41992 AddrOSS r
CITY CLERik /�'✓
SAC:Ll: S
�QOI�PQ,CA
to City Clerk
City Attorney
Calendared for Copy to Administrative Officer
Copy to the-following department(s):
n
e
-Y •�— - ,
CITY CLERK
30671
w 1NG �_9z AGENDA
DATE�_If u#-_
March 2 , 1992 David and Shara Hildenbran<
2621 Flora Street
San Luis Obispo , Ca . 93401
City of San Luis Obispo
' COPL570:
990 Palm Street ❑•DmotesAction ❑ Fri
San Luis Obispo , Ca . 93401 _/CDDDUL
CAO Uhl N.DIR.
i7ACAO ❑ FIRE 01111
Re : 1673 L a V i n e d a ATf06W!•'y ❑ FW DR
CLERK/011= ❑ POLICE CI.
Dear Council Members , IACMI••TEAM ❑ P.ECDI&
O C r FILE ❑ I�.G
We are members of the original tract partnership which developed
tract 1304 in 1986 . At the time of it ' s development , it was
made clear to us by the city that a 20 ' setback from riparian
vegetation was mandatory . Upon our selling of each lot the
tract map provision was made clear to each prospective buyer .
We , along with all the other residence who border this creek
were required to abide by the tract map provision enforced by
the city at that time .
Allowing placement of the residence to encroach the 20 ' setback
is unnecessary, as placement of the residence closed to the street
is certainly more acceptable . We realize that the applicant states
that this is their "dream house" , but they knew of this provision
at the onset of their project , why did they not design a house
that meet them?
We hope that you will enforce the tract map conditions already
in effect to preserve the riparian vegatation and habitat that
has been abided by the rest of the residence .
We happen to be residence of 2621 Flora , up creek , the applicant
keeps stating that we have built into the riparian vegatation .
Our house sits17 feet from the nearest pepper tree , pepper trees
are not considered riparian vegatation .
We trust you will kept our concerns in mind while making a
reasonable decision .
Sincerel
( � ove
David and Shara Hildenbrand
f,1.gR r SOU
J.�
SkfC f Y JU14CIL
OBISPO, CA
AGENDA
GENDA
QAT _q$
�9z 3
COP'S TO:
❑-TOaw:es Action,.../❑ FYI
March 2, 1992 �coun°I 1Q CDDDUL
.fid'CAO ❑ FIN.DIR.
Gr ACRO ❑ FIRE CHIEF
VA 77COVEY ❑. FW DUL ,
V CLERK/oPic ❑ POLL O-L
To the Mayor and Council Members: ❑ MGMT.TEAht ❑ PZC.DIR
CREA P FILE ❑[I1 un�LDU
SUBJECT: 1673 La Vineda
As everyone knows, the review for the development of this lot has
been a long and lengthy process. I would first like to thank the
City and all its staff for being patient and keeping an open mind
on the actual issue being addressed here.
The Community Development Director, the planning involved, and
the ARC have done an excellent job in reviewing the facts
presented to them and have not allowed the information to be
clouded by accusations, finger-pointing and emotional please. I
am confident that if any wrong doing or violations to City
ordinances or policies have taken place on adjacent properties,
that the City would have brought it to the attention of the
property owners involved. I do not believe it is the intention
of the city to prohibit property owners from using their yards.
I do get concerned when I see people taking pictures of my yard.
I do have a wood pile 17 ' to 18 ' away from the dripline of the
vegetation and two small piles of compost and topsoil.
Encroachment into this area for the purpose of landscaping -and
property enhancement, is very minimal and cannot be compared to a
two-story plus house within 10' of riparian vegetation. I feel a
20' setback for a buffer should be required of this development
and the 20' setback line should not be used as a starting point
to compromise a part of nature that we can never replace.
Twenty-foot setbacks have been required of surrounding homes and
I do not believe a significant hardship exists to where this lot
should be treated any different.
Thank you for your time and please consider these thoughts while
determining the fate of our community's valuable open space and
riparian flyways.
sincerely,
Richard Fisher
1691 La Vineda
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
IAA 2 0
CI Y OUNCIL
SAN LU BIISPO, CA
-- U1 NG AGENDA
WE 3/i 9z ITEM # 3
City Council Members Phil Ashley
990 Palm Street 1586 La Cita Court
Post Office Box 8100 San Luis Obispo; CA--93401
San Luis Obispo, CA 756-2505 (work)
March 1, 1992
Subject: Proposed house for 1673 La Vineda.
Friday past I submitted a letter dated February 27, 1992, on
the subject project that had 2 typos I am correcting here.
Page 5, paragraph 2, sentence 2, change the 2nd " (1" about =
236' )" to read " ( 1" about = 226' ) " .
Page 6, paragraph 4, 2nd from last sentence, change " . . . (the
latter measured from the closet deck, . . . . " to " . . . (the latter
measured from the closest deck, . . . . " .
Sincerely,
copies:
all City Council members
Ms. Judy Lautner, staff project planner
COPD M:
❑•Dates nafon,_,/❑ FYI
I� mxa i CDDDIK �C
F
O ❑ f]N.DIR.
AO ❑ MECf�P YCIS
rau� D rwDut
5ra.uK/ov-za ❑ PoucEai
❑ MCMr.MAN ❑ FEC DIR. LEfU
C READ ❑itlTliD 613P8,CA
M__JNG AGENDA
DATE REI�i3
March 2 , 1992 David and Shara Hildenbran�
2621 Flora Street
San Luis Obispo , Ca . 93401
City of San Luis Obispo
COPIESTO:
990 Palm Street ❑•DeaotmAction ❑ Fn
San Luis Obispo , Ca . 93401
CDDDR
CAO FIN.DIR.
ACAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF
Re : 1673 LaVineda ATrMgEY ❑ FWDIX
C.ERK/Oa.G. ❑ POLICECFL
Dear Council Members , IdCMT.TfF.AM ❑ FXCDIp,
5Fc�A�Fn.s ❑ i pg
We are members of the original tractpartnershipwhich developed
tract 1304 in 1986 . At the time of it ' s development , it was
made clear to us by the city that a 20 ' setback from riparian
vegetation was mandatory . Upon our selling of each lot the
tract map provision was made clear to each prospective buyer.
We , along with all the other residence who border this creek
were required to abide by the tract map provision enforced by
the city at that time .
Allowing placement of the residence to encroach the 20 ' setback
is unnecessary, as placement of the residence closed to the street
is certainly more acceptable . We realize that the applicant states
that this is their "dream house" , but they knew of this provision
at the onset of their project , why did they not design a house
that meet them?
We hope that you will enforce the tract map conditions already
in effect to preserve the riparian vegatation and habitat that
has been abided by the rest of the residence .
We happen to be residence of 2621 Flora , up creek , the applicant
keeps stating that we have built into the riparian vegatation .
Our house sits 17 feet from the nearest pepper tree , pepper trees
are not considered riparian vegatation .
We trust you will kept our concerns in mind while making a
reasonable decision.
Sincerel ,
David and Shara Hildenbrand
itLv
'iANtUNCIo6
O, CA
MEETING AGENDA
DATE 3-17 9z. ITEM I 3
COPITSTO:
❑•Denotez Action ❑ FYI
March 2, 1992 RrCo=W VCDDDIR.
W CAO ❑ FAT.DIR.
Gr/1CAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF
ATTOWY ❑. FWDIR. ,
CLERK/O°.IG. ❑ POLICE CH.
To the Mayor and Council Members: ❑ MGMT.TEAM ❑ FECDIR.
11 SUBJECT: 1673 La Vineda ge
C.
d ftREAD FILE El p
As everyone knows, the review for the development of this lot has
been a long and lengthy process. I would first like to thank the
City and all its staff for being patient and keeping an open mind
on the actual issue being addressed here.
The Community Development Director, the planning involved, and
the ARC have done an excellent job in reviewing the facts
presented to them and have not allowed the information to be
clouded by accusations, finger-pointing and emotional please. I
am confident that if any wrong doing or violations to City
ordinances or policies have taken place on adjacent properties,
that the City would have brought it to the attention of the
property owners involved. I do not believe it is the intention
of the city to prohibit property owners from using their yards.
I do get concerned when I see people taking pictures of my yard.
I do have a wood pile 17 ' to 18 ' away from the dripline of the
vegetation and two small piles of compost and topsoil.
Encroachment into this area for the purpose of landscaping and
property enhancement, is very minimal and cannot be compared to a
two-story plus house within 10' of riparian vegetation. I feel a
20' setback for a buffer should be required of this development
and the 20' setback line should not be used as a starting point
to compromise a part of nature that we can never replace.
Twenty-foot setbacks have been required of surrounding homes and
I do not believe a significant hardship exists to where this lot
should be treated any different.
Thank you for your time and please consider these thoughts while
determining the fate of our community's valuable open space and
riparian flyways.
Sincerely,
Richard Fisher
1691 La Vineda
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 �VVF.0
. fA�. 2
o;)
CI uNCIL
SAN Ll+ BISp% CA
STING AGENDA
WE �/�9.2' ITEM #=
City Council Members Phil Ashley
990 Palm Street 1586 La Cita Court
Post Office Sox 8100 San Luis Obispo, CA--93401
San Luis Obispo, CA 756-2505 (work)
March 1, 1992
Subject: Proposed house for 1673 La Vineda.
Friday past I submitted a letter dated February 27, 1992, on
the subject project that had 2 typos I am correcting here.
Page 5, paragraph 2, sentence 2, change the 2nd "(1'" about =
236' )" to read " ( 1" about = 226' ) " .
Page 6, paragraph 4, 2nd from last sentence, change " . . . (the
latter measured from the closet deck, . . . . " to " . . . (the latter
measured from the closest deck, . . . . " .
Sincerely,
copies:
all City Council members
Ms. Judy Lautner, staff project planner
COPTS To:
03-Denotes Adlon ❑ FYI
��cc.AO ❑ FN.DTR.
6a ACAo ❑ FumEcHiEF Yr- QLEf
2 1992
grA7TORNEY 13 FW D13L
Wc1.FIx/o?.Fc. ElPoucm-L
❑ MGW TFANI Q- FECDIR 3G�FU ��tJTI1.D SABlu�l'9.CA
AGENDA
DATEITEM l
DATE 1'1-9
draft
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
San Luis Obispo, California
Regular Meeting - February 3, 1992
PRESENT: Commrs. Melinda Bradford, Woody Combrink, Allen Cooper, Curtis
Illingworth, Bruce Sievertson, and Chairman Mike Underwood
ABSENT: Commr. Madi Gates mPIESM:❑•DmoresActon ❑ FYI
R�C«mdl 60 CDD DM
OTHERS 5V-CAO ❑ IN.DIF.
PRESENT: Greg Smith, Assistant Planner; and Ken Bruce, Senior ❑ FMCHW
TmRrvEY 11 Fw DRaEra5voslC. ❑ POUCEM
❑ mwr TF u4 ❑ P,SC D1R
PROJECTS: � C READ FILE ❑�LMILDIR.
T
1. ARC 89-80: 1673 La Vineda; new house on sensitive site; R-1 zone; final review.
Greg Smith, Associate Planner, presented the staff report recommending that the
commission continue the project with direction to revise the plans to conform to a 20
foot setback from the riparian vegetation or grant final approval with a condition that
the plan be revised to conform to the 20 foot setback.
Brent Wiese of Steve Pults & Assoc, representative, responded to the staff report and
discussed the location of the riparian vegetation. He questioned the city's
professionalism and good faith dealings.
Steve Pults noted changes made to the project in response to the ARC's November 4th
meeting. He noted that the upstream houses were built to the riparian line.
Phil Ashley supported staff's recommendation for the 20 foot setback. He reviewed his
letter submitted February 2, 1992.
Mac Short, applicant, wanted the issue resolved at this meeting and noted two prior
approvals.
Richard Fisher supported the 20 foot setback.
Judith Wittmeyer also supported the 20 foot setback for consistency reasons.
J. Hildenbrand also supported the 20 foot setback.
Commr. Mingworth wanted to move the project along and was ready to take action. He
noted that a 10 foot setback would not be a dangerous precedent and could support it.
He had problems with the creek policy and felt it was being misused.
RECEP ED
MAR 1 3 1992
CITY CLERK
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA
ARC Minutes
February 3, 1992
Page 2
Commr. Cooper was worried about the riparian habitat and fire safety. He wanted the
May 1988 setback used and noted exceptions that have been made on other cases. He
felt there should be a restudy about where the top of bank was vs. the edge of the
vegetation.
Commr. Sievertson believed that either a 17 or 18 foot setback was reasonable. He
noted that other communities often require fire-resistive vegetation. He felt it would be
helpful to see aerials of the area. He questioned the 6-foot spread of vegetation in a
short period.
Commr. Combrink could not find a reason to allow the exception. He felt it seemed
liked positions were being "dug in". He felt the project could be redesigned to a 17 or
18 foot setback.
Commr. Bradford indicated she had reviewed the tapes of the November 4th meeting.
She felt strongly about the 20 foot setback. She noted the Department of Fish and
Game's position and other house locations. She noted the drought's impact on fire
buffer and felt there was room for interpretation regarding the biologist's report. She
believed that staff had acted in good faith and supported either a continuance or final
approval with a 20-foot setback.
Commr. Underwood indicated he was comfortable with this plan and felt it provided
enough buffer area. He felt there would be no precedent set or any cumulative impact.
He felt staff could review proposed colors and the landscape plan.
Commr. Illingworth moved to grant final approval as submitted and with an additional
mitigation measure that would reduce the impacts to less than significant, with the
vegetation line moved to allow a significant amount of remaining vegetation, and a small
amount of encroachment.
Commr. Cooper seconded the motion.
AYES: Illingworth, Cooper, Underwood
NOES: Bradford, Combrink, Sievertson
ABSENT: Gates
The motion failed.
Commr. Combrink moved to deny the project.
Motion died for lack of a second.
ARC Minutes
February 3, 1992
Page 3
Commr. Combrink moved to concur with the mitigated negative declaration approved by
the Community Development Director and grant final approval with a condition that the
house be set back 20 feet from the 1989 vegetation line.
Commr. Bradford seconded the motion.
AYES: Combrink, Bradford, Cooper, Sievertson
NOES: Illingworth, Underwood
ABSENT: Gates
The motion passed.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY MEMNQ AGENDA a PETE WILSON, Go errwr
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME UATEIj�IVI
2201 GARDEN ROAD
TEREY, CA 93940 ,
649-2870
February 28, 1992 REGI
Al QED
Ms. Judy Lautner, Associate Planner c,Q 0
City of San Luis Obispo
P.O. Box 8100 GESy� r,
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
Dear Ms. Lautner:
RE: Appeal of Riparian Setback Requirement for
Project at 1673 La Vineda, City of San Lui bispo
It is our understanding that on March 3, 1992, the City
Council will hear an appeal of the riparian setback requirement
for a single-family home project at 1673 La Vineda in the City of
San Luis Obispo.
In our letters to the City of San Luis Obispo on February
26, 1990 and June 13, 1991, the Department of Fish and Game
strongly advocated the retention of the 20-foot riparian setback
for this project pursuant to City policies. Please consider the
content of these letters in the Council's deliberation and action
on subject appeal.
In our opinion, perpetuation of wildlife habitat and
sensitive wildlife species within riparian corridors is greatly
dependent upon compliance with established protective setback
requirements. The proposed project should not encroach upon the
20-foot setback defined in the City's Administrative Creek
Policy.
If you have questions regarding these comments, please
contact Ms. :Karen Worcester, Area Fishery Biologist, P.O. Box
5, M n'w--CA 93443 ; telephone (805) 772-4122.
COPIESTO-
❑*DenotMActim ❑ FYI Sincerely, .
g1nol e'Q DUL
rAO ElFIN.DIR.
LrACRO ❑ FIRE CHIEF
EY ❑ FW DUL
�j
P=OfLC. ❑ POLIO CEI. '
❑ MGwf.TEAm ❑ RECDIR Brian Hunter
20 D� ��M
rRegional Manager
Region 3
KRA/dcm
RECEIVED ED
cc: Ms. Karen Worcester
MAR 1 71992
CITY LERK
SAN -U'S OBISPO,CA
a 4
WARREN A.SINSHEIMER 111 SINSHEIMER. SCHIEBELHUT 8 BACCETT
ROBERT K.SCHIEBELHUT A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
L ROBIN BACCETT STREET ADDRESS
MARTIN J.TANCEMAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1010 PEACH STREET
THOMAS M. DUCCAN
MARTIN P. MOROSKI POST OFFICE BOX 3t FACSIMILE
DAVID A.1UHNKE SAN LUIS OBISPO. CALIFORNIA 93406.0031. 805-541-2802
U'I LLIAM P.CLKRK
D. IAN DUFFY 805-541-2800
M. SUZANNE FRYER
STEVEN 1.ADAMSKI
DIANE W. MOROSKI CLIENT 1170001
CYNTHIA CALDEIRA
1ALYNNE CILES
JOHN W. BELSHER
THOMAS
OYY L OCDENEEN June 19, 1991
THOMAS). MADDEN 111
CHRIS A. CARR
MARIA L HUTKIN
Arnold Jonas HAND DELIVERED
Community Development Director
990 Palm Street
P.O. Box 8100
San Luis Obispo, California 93403-8100
.Re: Environmental Determination for 1673 La Vineda
Dear Mr. Jonas:
As you are aware, this firm represents Mr. Phil Ashley with
respect -to the above site. It has come to our attention that the
City has prepared an initial study and is intending to issue a
negative declaration following the conclusion of a 21-day public
review period.
It is Mr. Ashley's contention that you have not prepared the
initial study in compliance with CEQA because .the Department of
Fish and Game was not consulted, as required by CEQA Guideline
Section 15063 (g) , prior to preparation of the initial study.
Further, it is Mr. Ashley's contention that the initial study was
required to have been sent to State Clearinghouse, with a 30-day
review period, because the Department of Fish and Game has
jurisdiction over the riparian vegetation/habitat impacted by the
project. Because of these procedural errors, the City is required
to halt the CEQA process for the project, consult with the
Department of Fish and Game and re-prepare and circulate a new -
initial study.
The 21-day public review period was apparently decided upon
on the basis that no State agency has jurisdiction over this
project. However, the California Department of Fish and Game does
have jurisdiction over this site, because of the threatened impact
on riparian habitat. Attached hereto are (1) the Fish and Game
Commission' s Wetlands Resources Policy and (2) the Department's
Wetland Definition, Mitigation Strategies, and Habitat Value
Assessment Methodology. The Fish and Game Commission sets policy
for the Department of Fish and Game. These documents clearly show
1
Arnold Jonas
June 19, 1991
Page 2
that the Department of Fish and Game has jurisdiction over the
project in question. The Wetlands Resources Policy identifies
policies for protection, preservation, restoration, enhancement and
expansion of wetland habitat in California. The Policy directs the
Department of Fish and Game to implement the policies. The
Department's Wetland Definition document indicates the riparian
vegetation along Acacia Creek, adjacent to the project site, is a
wetland. See page 5. Page 10 of the Wetland Definition states
that:
"Buffers between existing or proposed development and
existing wetlands or wetland compensation sites should
be included as an integral component of all mitigation
plans . . . ."
On February 26, 1990, the Department wrote the City regarding
its concerns over the project's impact on riparian vegetation and
habitat. My discussions with Department staff indicate the staff
believes the Department has jurisdiction with respect to the
project. Accordingly, the 30-day, State Clearinghouse review
process is the appropriate procedure to follow.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15063 (g) requires informal
consultation with any State agencies having jurisdiction over the
project, "as soon as a Lead Agency has determined that an Initial
Study will be required for the project. " Your staff recently met
with a Department representative on site, prior to preparation of
the initial study recently circulated. However, Fish and Game was
not advised the project was pending. Instead, Fish and Game was
asked to identify former vegetation lines (prior to the destruction
of a significant portion of the vegetation by the developer, Mike
Hernandez) . This meeting did not satisfy the requirements of this
CEQA Guideline. Had the Department been consulted, the Initial
Study prepared might have reached different conclusions, or the
project might have been modified to account for adverse
environmental impacts.
Please feel free to call and discuss any of the foregoing.
Sincerely,
SINSHEIMER, SCHIEBEIMn & BAGGETT
JOHN W. BELSHER
JWB:ehj
13:Jonas619.ltr
Enclosures
cc: Cindy Clemens
Phil Ashley
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
RECOMMENDED WETLAND DEFINITION,
MITIGATION STRATEGIES, AND HABITAT VALUE
ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
Prepared by
Environmental Services Division
Presented by Glenn Rollins , Environmental Services Supervisor in
public workshop to the* Fish and Game Commission, on June 24 , 19870
Sacramento
INTRODUCTION
f.
At the March 9, 1987 Fish and Game Commission hearing during which `
the Commission adopted a wetlands policy, the Commission assigned
the Department two tasks. These tasks were: 1) to recommend a
wetland definition for use in the implementation of the
Commission' s adopted policy, and 2 ) to recommend a means by which
retention of wetland habitat values may be assured when it becomes
necessary to compensate for the loss of wetland acreage and/or
wetland habitat values resulting from the implementation of
projects or other activities . This report is in to respond
to the Commission' s request.
The Commission' s wetland policy is not a regulatory program. The
Department and the Commission possess only limited regulatory
authority over potential uses within remaining wetlands not
currently owned by the Department. Our role in wetland
protection, as we have explained in our March 91 1987 report to
the Commission, is primarily advisory in nature . Therefore, this
report identifies a wetland definition and an implementable
procedure by which wetland acreage and habitat values will be
retained when it has been determined that projects , plans or 'other
activities will occupy or otherwise adversely impact wetlands.
2
WETLAND DEFINITION
: It is apparent that the adequacy of the Commission's wetland
policy is directly related to the adequacy of the wetland
definition to which the policy relates. As we indicated in our
previous report to the Commission, the Department has found the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) wetland definition and
classification system to be the most biologically valid of those
definitions and classification systems presently utilized in
California .
The USFWS definition utilizes hydric soils l/, saturation or
inundation, and vegetative criteria, and requires the presence of
at least one of these criteria ( rather than all three ) in order to
classify an area as a wetland. The USFWS definition has been
employed in project review nationwide for over 8 years .
It has been well tested and proven to be adequate. Further ,
because it requires the application of the same array of
biological and physical parameters , it exhibits a degree of
consistency and uniformity which is - advantageous to biological and
developmental planners alike. The Department' s use of the USFWS
wetland definition as the principal means of wetland
identification, combined with on-site inspections to establish
actual wetland acreage and habitat values , will substantially
1/Hydric soils are those soils identified as such by the U. S.
Soil Conservation Service criteria.
3
increase the consistency of our wetland determinations. • This
improved level of consistency should subsequently
alleviate the
d frustrations experienced by. the development
past uncertainties an
cbe explained in greater detail
community. Lastly, and as will
later, if a wetland compensation site is to be located within or
adjacent to the project site , assurances regarding the
establishment and long-term retention of fish and wildlife habitat
values must be provided.
The USFwS definition is as follows:
"Wetlands are lands transitional between terrestrial and
aquatic systems where the water table is usually at or near
the surface or the land is covered by shallow water . For
purposes of this classification, wetlands must have one or
more of the following three attributes: ( 1 ) at least 2/
periodically, the land supports predominantly hydrophytes
( 2) the substrate is predominantly undrained hydric soil ; and
( 3) the substrate is non-soil and is saturated with water or
covered by shallow water at some time during the growipg
season of each year . " (Classification of Wetlands and
e United States" ; FWS/OBS 79/31 ;.
Dee water Habitats of th
December 1979 ) .
ecies that OccL:
2/Pursuant to the USFWS document "List of Plant S
in Wetlands — Region O" - Region 0 is California.
4
The USFws wetland classification publication also describes the
upper (landward) and lower (waterward) limits of wetlands. These
limits are described as follows:.
"The upland limit 'of wetland is designated as (1) the
boundary between land with predominantly hydrophytic cover
and land with predominantly mesophytic or xerophytic cover ;
(2) the boundary between soil that is predominantly hydric
and soil that is predominantly non-hydric; or ( 3) in the case
of* wetlands without vegetation or soil , the boundary between
land that is flooded or saturated at some time each year and
land that is not." (Ibid, page 4 ) .
The lower limit of wetlands in estuarine or marine areas ( i .e . ,
those wetlands which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide )
is established as coincident with the extreme low spring tide .
The lower limit of wetlands in an inland setting ( i .e. , those
wetlands associated with lakes , rivers , ponds, vernal pools , etc. )
is established at a depth of -two meters (6 . 6 feet) below low
water ; however, if emergents , shrubs , or trees grow beyond this
depth at any time, then the deepwater edge of such vegetation is
the boundary.
The USPwS definition includes, swamps; freshwater, brackish water ,
and saltwater marshes; bogs ; vernal pools; periodically inundated
saltflats ; intertidal mudflats; wet meadows; wet pastures , springs
onds, rivers and streams; and all
and seeps; portions of lakes, p
other areas which are periodically or permanently covered by
5
•:� shallow water, or dominated by hydrophytic vegetation, Sr in which
the soils are predominantly hydric in nature.
Therefore, for all of the reasons set forth above, the Department
recommends the USFWS definition as its principal means - of wetland
identification in conjunction with on-site inspections for
implementation of the Fish and Game Commission' s policy.
RETENTION OF WETLAND ACREAGE AND HABITAT VALUES
The Commission' s wetland policy contains essentially two
considerations for offsetting adverse impacts to ' wetland
resources. The policy stresses the need to compensate for the
loss of wetland habitat on an acre-for-acre basis . That is , for
every acre of wetland lost, no less .than an acre of wetland must
be created from non-wetland habitat. Compensation for the loss of
wetland habitat values to fish and .wildlife resources requires the
/ creation of habitat values at the zhe,- compensation site which at
least duplicate those habitat values which are lost to project
implementation. Requisite assurance that habitat values will, in
fact, be at least retained shall be the subject of the remainder
of this discussion.
Mitigation for habitat values lost to the implementation of a
project may be accomplished in four ways taking into consideration
mitigation site location and wetland type to be crated. The term
"out-of-kind' as used in mitigation scenarios 3 and 4 refers to
different types of wetlands and does not include the replacement
6
T
of wetland habitat with nonwetland habitat. These mitigation
alternatives, in descending order of general acceptability are:
1. "in-kind, on-site" . This form of mitigation would seek to
duplicate the physical nature of the wetland area to be
negatively impacted within or adjacent to a project site .
.This mitigation technique , if properly applied, would tend to
assure that the habitat derived from wetland creation is
essentially identical to that which was lost to development;
would concentrate on benefiting those fish and wildlife
species and local populations adversely impacted by
development; and would tend to provide a greater degree of
certainty that the benefits provided by the impacted wetland
to associated plant and animal communities in the project
vicinity are retained.
2. "In-kind, off-site" . This form of mitigation would be
selected when "in-kind, on-site" mitigation would result in
the creation of wetlands of demonstrably inferior quality to
those which could be created elsewhere. In general , " in-kind,
off-site" mitigation should be located as near to the impact
site as is feasible. The advantage of in-kind, off site
mitigation is that it would, through duplication of the
_. physical nature of the wetland area to be-negatively impacted,
tend to benefit those fish and .wildlife species which would be
adversely impacted at the project site at.3 would also tend to
maintain their population levels . This form of mitigation
7
does not necessarily assure retention of the local fish and
wildlife populations affected by the project.
l
3 . "Out-of-kind, on-site" . It is conceivable that situations `
could exist where fish and wildlife resources would be better
served from a regional standpoint if creation of wetlands of a
different type than those adversely impacted through
development were selected as mitigation. For example , it
could be that, from a management perspective, a freshwater
marsh is more valuable to fish and wildlife resources in a
given region than an equivalent area of saltmarsh. In such a
situation, the Department believes that an alternative to
mandatory in-kind replacement of habitat values can be
desirable. However, out-of-kind mitigation is generally
inferior to in-kind mitigation, since it does little to
provide assured benefit to those species which would be
negatively impacted as a result of development. Therefore ,
only if a compelling biologically-based rationale exists for
acceptance of out-of-kind mitigation should such a fora of
mitigation be employed. Application of out-of-kind
compensation on site would generally provide values which
relate geographically to those values lost through
development, and would generally result in benefiting that
ecosystem, or collection of communities , with which the
developed wetland was associated.
4 . "Out-of-kind , Off-site" - This form of mitigation would not
result in the maintenance of those fish and wildlife values r
8 \.
lost through development nor would it necessarily have any ,
bearing upon the ecosystem involved at the project site. For
these reasons, "out-of-kind, off-site mitigation" is a less
acceptable means of compensating for adverse impacts to
wetlands. However , if mitigation approaches 1, 2, and 3
cannot be employed, and if the choice is retention of wetland
acreage through out-of-kind, off-site compensation or a net
loss of wetland acreage , then, and only then, would the
Department accept out-of-kind, off-site compensation.
For the reasons explained above, the Department will normally seek
to compensate for adverse impacts to wetland through in-kind
compensation. The controlling assumptions involved in this
mitigation approach are : ( 1 ) Given duplication of the physical
features associated with wetlands to be impacted, the vegetative
component of the wetland to be impacted can also be duplicated
either through a planting program or through natural colonization
and (2) If the physical features and the vegetational components
of the impacted area are duplicated, then fish and wildlife
resources should become- established at the mitigation site ,at
levels which compensate- for -losses sustained at the project site .
Physical features include substrate contours , water depth,
duration of inundation, periodicity of inundations , salinity, and
soil type .
When dealing with in—kind compensation, it is essential to
consider each of the, representative species or species groups
present at a project site and to assure that those representative
A
9
species or species groups will not be negatively affected. This
can be accomplished by taking .into consideration existing values
provided at the project site and comparing those to the values
which would be provided at the compensation site. A habitat
evaluation procedure, such as that used by the USFWS, could be
used to assure no reduction in habitat value for any of the
representative species or species groups present at the project
site, provided that such a procedure presumes that there shall be
no net loss of wetland acreage . When dealing with out-of-kind
compensation, it is neither desirable nor reasonable to attempt to
show equivalency between values foregone at the project site and
those different values to be generated at the compensation site.
As we have previously indicated, the rationale for acceptance of
out-of-kind compensation shall be based upon a biological
determination that, from a regional perspective , out-of-kind
compensation is demonstrably superior to in-kind compensation.
Buffers between existing or proposed development and existing
wetlands or wetland compensation sites should be included as an
integral component of all mitigation plans in order to assure the
attainment and maintenance of habitat values sufficient to
compensate for project impacts. Buffers should be of sufficient
Width and should be designed to eliminate potential disturbance of
fish and wildlife resources_ from noise, human activity, feral
animal intrusion, and any other potential sources of disturbance.
The size and character of buffers shall ultimately be determined
by the requirements of the affected species most sensitive to such
disturbances. When feasible , buffers should be designed in a
10
manner which compliments the habitat values associated with
adjacent wetland. For example, a buffer located near freshwater
ponds could be planted with those grasses and forbes known to
support high density nesting by waterfowl. In no case shall such
buffers be credited as wetland acreage necessary to achieve
compliance with the requirements of. the Commission's policy
regarding retention of wetland acreage .
The loss of wetland acreage and 'habitat values to project '
implementation is permanent. Therefore , it is necessary to .
maintain the mitigation area in perpetuity in order to compensate
for the permanent effects of development. it follows then that
the project sponsor and his successor( s) must be responsible for
the acquisition, development, and permanent maintenance of the
compensation site in a manner which fully mitigates the projects
impacts to fish and wildlife resources . . For this reason, the
Department recommends that permanent maintenance of compensation
sites be required as- a condition of the granting of any permits
which might be required for project construction.
As was pointed out by several public speakers at the Commission' s
March 9 , 1987 hearing, the art of wetland creation and enhancement
is not yet a science. The Department is confident that wetlands
can be created in such a manner as to duplicate or exceed that
acreage and those habitat values associated with wetland areas
which may, in the future , be . developed. . However, we are also
aware of the possibility that wetland creation sites may not
-develop all of those fish and wildlife values which were projected
11
at their inception. Therefore, the Department recommends the
universal •application of requirements that fish. and wildlife
values at compensation sites shall be thoroughly assessed after C
their construction pursuant to appropriate permit conditions ; that
these values be compared to the values which were lost through
project development; and that the project sponsor or his
successor(s) be required to take such actions as may be necessary
to offset any habitat value shortfall which may be discovered as a
result of followup studies.
The foregoing discussion relates primarily to individual project
review, and provides a framework for assuring retention of wetland
habitat values lost through project implementation. However , a
related, but somewhat less obvious, problem threatens the
preservation of wetland habitat values on a statewide basis . This
problem involves the direct impacts of large—scale urban expansior
upon upland plant communities, and the indirect impacts of such
upland development upon wetland habitat values . The problem
revolves around the fact that wetlands generally exist as
biologically valuable components of larger aggregations of ,
biological communities including a variety of upland communities .
wetlands and associated uplands complement one another. Numerous
animals found in wetland areas are, nevertheless , at least
partially dependent upon associated uplands . For example ,
waterfowl, which rest and forage in wetlands , are also, at times,
dependent upon associated upland areas for nesting. If, in this
example , ' we protected the wetland but lost the associated upland
to development, then the wetland would provide reduced habitat
12
values for waterfowl. So it is with many animals . In spite of
the fact that elimination of the ecological bond between wetlands
and associated uplands often reduces the value of wetlands to fish
and wildlife resources, relatively little regulatory authority
exists for' dealing with this issue on -a project review, or permit
review, basis. It seems that the most effective means .of
addressing this ongoing problem is to place increased emphasis
upon the future review of county general plans in an attempt to
steer unavoidable future urban expansion into patterns which
provide for retention of upland/wetland relationships . :Failure to
retain this ecological bond between wetland and associated uplands
will result in the creation of isolated wetland enclaves scattered
throughout highly urbanized areas , and will result in indirect
loss of wetland habitat values . The Commission should be aware
that no universal regulatory framework exists for effectively
dealing with this issue . Nevertheless, the Department shall
attempt to address this issue through county general plan review
and the review of other long-range planning documents and actions
by local , state, and federal agencies.
The Department believes that a concerted effort to protect
California' s remaining wetlands can result in achieving compliance
with the Commission' s wetland policy. In order- to retain and to
expand California' s wetland acreage and wetland habitat values , it
will be necessary, in light of the non-regulatory nature of the
Commission' s policy, to work closely with the development
community • and various local , state , and federal governmental
entities . Given a mutual commitment on the part of all concerned
i
13
. parties, maintenance of wetland acreage and attendant fish and
wildlife values is possible. Through .a combination of such
cooperation and a continuation of ongoing wetland acquisition,
enhancement, and creation activities by local, state, and federal
agencies as well as similar efforts by various sportsmen' s groups
and other conservation organizations, the Department is optimistic
that expansion of California' s wetland acreage and considerable
increases in attendant wetland habitat values are both achievable .
The Department wishes to thank the Commission for the opportunity
• to recommend a comprehensive wetland definition and identification
process , and to recommend the means by which the Commission' s
wetland policy may be implemented.
14
WETLANDS RESOURCES POLICY
Thfe Fish and Game Commission finds that:
I. California's remaining wetlands provide significant and essential
habitat for a wide variety of important resident and migratory fish and
wildlife species.
II. The quantity and quality of the wetlands habitat remaining in
California have been significantly reduced; thus, maintenance and
restoration are essential to meet the needs of the public for fish and
wildlife resources and related beneficial uses. In addition, the
.protection, preservation, restoration, enhancement and expansion of
wetlands as migratory bird breeding and wintering habitat are.-justly
recognized as..being critical to the long-tern survival of such species.
Wetland habitat is also recognized as providing habitat for over half of
the listed endangered and threatened species in California.
III. Projects which impact wetlands are damaging to fish and wildlife
resources if they result in a net loss of wetland acreage or wetland
habitat value.
IV. Through the passage of Senate Concurrent Resolution 28
(January 1 , 1583) , the Legislature. A n recognition of the importance of
wetlands, indicated its "intent to preserve, protect, restore and enhance
California's wetlands and the multiple resources which depend upon them for
the benefit of the people of the state% The Legislature further declared
its desire that wetland habitat acreage be increased by '50 percent by the
. year 2000.
Therefore, it is the policy of the Fish and Game Commission to seek .-to .
provide for. the protection, preservation, restoration, .enhancement and
expansion of wetland habitat in California.
Further, it is the policy of the Fish..and Game Commission to strongly
discourage development in or conversion of wetlands. It opposes,
consistent with its legal authority, any development or conversion which
would result in a reductiop �of wetland acreage or wetland habitat values.
To that end.. the Commission opposes wetland development proposals unless ,
at a minimum., project mitigation assures. there will be "no net 'loss" of
either wetland habitat values or. acreage.
The Commission strongly prefers mitigation which would achieve
expansion of wetland acreage: and enhancement of wetland habitat values.
Furthermore, to make recommendations to the Commission on
implementation of this policy, a temporary Working Group shall be
established. It shall 'make recommendations concerning the following:
A. Long-range tannin
p g, prioritization and implementation of a
;�.,..... �
comprehensive program to protect, enhance and expand wetlands;:
41<
.�- ;rZ :f•
V• �J• ...w JM• } .r:y..Y�fL '. ,: ,. r�V}..�.YJ1 • r:.•;
:.r.�..;Q1.-.t:4' r�.i�[S•i i.y' 1,1��'l ^• 't.: . !fy'} .�1.4. -Y l' n •• fY"i"� �,4 :i .: . . ,t
'• - .••,. i � i. 'ft::� - l+in"- ,.3•-:!.'Y •i^�..t. sib: a•:.;..:•1 .�_
:f�Y.. - ',rte eeY '.t- }n•r w -1 =IV 4r
r•.. J- 6.\
_ b. •7.•s+:. -i•�il.1�Af-'• ' � s�rlK: •9< •. •(�.LV•... .1. w •'.r 1.-:,:.<� -
. .'?;t." 6ti.?�: c �:--' .�....y7•.r. •i•1�-.' •:t.�.1;.sem..;,.. •' •.: :•�' q. - R..,�^.
B. Enhancing public awareness-9f and mobiIizing public support for }
the need to protect wetlands;
C. Cooperative mechanisms and coordination with local government and
private sector interests to achieve A. and B.; and
D. Needed legislation, regulations, staffing and/or funding necessary
to accomplish A. . B. and C.
The Working Group shall include the .Commission's Subcommittee on
Waterfowl and one representative, selected by the Commission, from each
of the following: local government; environmental group; sportsmen/
conservation group; and wetlands developers/converters. Additionally,
it shall include one representative ofthe Department of Fish and Game as
designated by the Director. The group's work shall be coordinated by
the Executive Secretary of the Commission who shall present its
recommendations, which shall include guidelines for the. Department's
implementation of this policy including an appropriate wetland definition,
to the Commission no later than June 30, 1987.
SIERRA CLUB SANTA LuCIA CHAPTER
IOVMDlD IM 1191
June 15, 1991
San Luis Obispo City Council Members:
I am writing at the request of Mr. Phil Ashley regarding the proposed
negative declaration for the construction at 1673 La Vineda, San Luis Obispo.
The construction appears to be contrary to the City's Administrative Creek
Policy—its riparian setback is 1 foot vs. the 20 your guidelines recommend.
While we understand that the policy provides only guidelines, we feel that a
deviation from them as significant as this proposal merits an EIR. We feel
that the mitigations are a step in the right direction, but feel also that the
riparian setbacks are there for a sound ecological purpose.
We concur with the materials and comments you have received from the
California Department of Fish and Game and other public interest
organizations about the potential negative impact this project will have on
the rapidly vanishing urban riparian zone. We request that you give this
project and its impact the closest study before acting on it.
Thank you for your time and interest.
For the Conservation Committee
Si�frZ-fly,
Tom phe
Conservatio Chai
Santa Lucia Chapter, Sierra Club
f; FCEI\J F_ID
JUN '1 8 1991
CI CLERK
sA OSISPO.CA
. . . To explore. enjoy. and protect the notion's sernir resources . .
)CAA-S RIPE OR PHIL AMs F-Y
��rvtn�u�nTY� !X86 Lh na CouRr
'moo ��l,M 5r2E �ti J-1Up%15fO,CA VqO
�uf5 D3001i�A g3q63-810D
M�zg, c�1
orfe2. CEQA e4kjvtP40n MEM7"tt.
Ul�ly �p `f�tE f673 �11NF A5515rPosT(�ArME
m l �flUStTVE SCBE tfG�t`� F � lt/�.5•�l1JA�C1�-�S
N I�r.
C? zrr
c /AT!-AGif-t)
13Y N,Y tf:-ITEk T-0 You of /0/S10, uFsr� T Ar x t
tKEf.P MF- IAJFaWt-b 0, 0 THf 9EVF-6E-jPffl0k ce,5uE AA)b 01-MP MEX
AW UJISTIMTVF- ANEVEbdPMW73 CO Tt L5 PRO-\E-r-r.
CaJvER,5A•rfW ON /t16l90 , MR, A-W 6&tCF- sv-i� THAr ! AAID
NEY No)LA>R5 k.xWL,b BE XFDRi •Eb u>NE-4v 7HE.
,5rARJF,b DUE To CUK tZMS ISMND(UG COW-ERM AB&tft7- YH15PROL)a
l�L.50 Ef�p PtbUE 6.,WVF-95&770N 00 �/i��9/ �e7ba T,7xb NLS
TtfAT"A5 .SMN A5 TRE 6T REG VFX AWY X-b1 A-TDN WHif r
APP9CftAA5 WERE (SD[A2; YD bo R 6pd,:' 111Ys THEIR /-Ma
epa)rzfr,, You G0cauJ> C jThc- ME. !.Du Tzxb M E no 31/f141
ZRE� 0,06 W uvbtCATW ttT 7-H,%'6- TIME- u9H"krTH2YPI-iW/Lt
7a bo. �{oLv�UFS 1 HAUF-RE(�F- uT7-Y PCCtA!D THS H l,EfEk 8c-
;TtlFig
NE25 Dk9 //71'?/ ftAlD ft d,E17Fa2 6F Tp-� SM i nAL BY
MR, fff�NfaD 9/ kECEfU� B� rH� Crry /l�l�r
mnDE lT Cj,& 2 THPrT rHFS' WEAf 601&67a PP4C-E � W177 i�If
!6AMF PRoJECr. blA. flEn s TPA-�kLsna r T17-L WA5 AWJ5-�E
'To arc Amb 5TT�rEA 64) 17- "t4ffEP, 7D /IP-6Czr,-b ". 6 vEV�) int.
H t5Ta2� DF 7tr15 OZO-IELr, / a3 JPIVF IT OAVi� FA-ci2 AO W6A Mft&
TH-Pr-F ((tu .5tWJ--b NRVE 6�YOrPcTF-b NE6HWk5 AA)-b / oN 7H 15
PROJECr jArr THE FACPF..5T 1Nb10 170N THAI APP6.16Toik7-5 WE&
por . a-^6 w THE
fzAusE I HAD A R 16 HT To FACECr TgAT in , uzxuLb&V M
MI BA5Rb DN 7-Iff• AROUE P! 90f CDNVER.5F1T1GK15 PtNC MY
;l-EITEp- TD ibu wits F&irH Fau--Y Avgp,-i`nAZ 71-1AT MP,
w&s Corte --o
:6O PW fou W)I rH TSE- PRTA C4Pt b t-E FEPS 6F Cftu FORM I
+D£PRPjMf-NY 6F FL5H 1-6ftmE 1,218/40 Nd
Y�E �1:�5 dF ,I�2s. �IC JoHN�N /�,ND �ftV�. Irl-D/to`ED
31,Z6191 Rh» 31-51W • AU- OF -rHf:5E P-JEH� WbICAVE 77ff-
IMPOR77tA.)Ce (:nF THF Cc rY 6autf oX--� W1TH 7NF .20 Fr. PJPAPJAtO
5f-rg-BP,6K IN THF- Cr TY(s 1j bM IA)(SM.ATrVE d EF-K PouCY VO
P)20UIDE THE C zi T"IGttl, Lvllbki FE BuFFf2 kWfbEl�
BF-usEE-N Vf oPW-JMT' tVsb W rtb4[FE tfAB c rt}T. �� r
CokJb(-RW5 bC> WT-OP '�V(tE l Hr5 Nft SSPr,�rter[.bG-lFEBuFF 2.
At,5o YwR f2oofzT c1 7vis Pr-bvf-as><LY EFFEcr rtfF-
F-?Z Nr P4Pftt4a 10 CotaSE lfrnM M l 716frnW ALPXhW W
-FFFBn- MD PIEZ091ta x I TN T Hf- 5UBII U 15CO/3 TRhCT m A
5mn ky--.) " Fx15MZ 9IP/9PJ/)" V€6ETAMON SHALL- k)Cl 81=
'c s� H EPCH &)F 77rF- 5 i7°& c ZrLQs AAt P4&L
EponH 6E -rZ�I rk) TtW- amour PRjf))fCT-A MrN1s��nUE
FII win f f� 9ECFJUFb Po4b.DffiTT--D 6FFICIN, CITY 5T-AAA. Alb
.p!-FSE IIt U 2E TtfH-T 4buR .57-PFF USE- 7-HF- z IETFFRS R`r'
R01) THL l-�fPS 8U jPS. jot#,LS tWb kIL. IN 7-�
,ENV12o& Af-07-ISL INITIAL :57-aIce P2cxFs5. A5 I rnlDl�Rit�� f
LvouL-D HAUL 14P1 THESE IA4PoaT-l9MT- Blol r :rnre l--Erl X25 PnU-b
THF-J2 Cl fftl2 9FCoti1M1=Il M'FTC fJ5 FOP, A 7�O PT. 9JPAPJJ -Iv
WLL�WFF. &,tF-FFA TO ` tXt 5EFC4ZE. CZIX, - IY THEE /Nr77RL.
STz,�DY 5T-,ftFF PF-VLE0 Drax IF i-bU- HHb Cwrncr--b ME fts
I R 16tfTFutLY ExPEC`�-
� f� IT-5 rHRT At OT2,F-12,FrUz7uFST 1fittr A
6�Y5c� CCITH HltiVrtEP, AT rrfE FFtf2t 1�5T'�eSSIL�'
.TIME AI,(WAY6 THE C�A P�55. T f1qT �u�r FnSL alp
-17 ME HPS -Pf61F OtO TH 15 f96 EGTj <o PkEP6E uoTl FY AAf-
f 0P, < KDK fMTIIW fop, E H hND EFR� 5YIP OF THf. W Rr ss
Fdrz-I-tE fEsr e-F THIS PRa)F-CT-
lA1,S 51 NG,F TH 15 l 5 f XR TW THE ,Sd° f- PQOJ� ft5 fAqbdEZ>
I A118-f, a 1AU6aefL)2AqE-rtlF- W7-1 RE PrZEVW-5 I�MWs hRWWE
SIrJ Y� kb Pp6E 8Y m5E PHYS r6Ai l.Y AMOMS lS F ILF.5tkKE 1'-•.51711_..
A b Ts OBY� �T-OP-o 7HE SPrA E UWC tfliX-THAT
ZINN=
KtI:tIV�_
Dr. David J. Keil
JUN 141991 Professor of Botany
Biology Department
c„ro+San Lu„oo:,� Cal Poly University
Ms. Judy Lautner San Luis Obispo, Ca 93402
Project Planner 10 June 1991
Community Development Department
Post Office Box 8100
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
Dear Ms. Lautner:
I provided Mr. Ashley the attached letter of 5 March 7.991,
on the proposed 1673 La Vineda house project adjacent to riparian
vegetation of Acacia Creek to give to the City when the owners
reapplied for a house. Mr. Ashley said he was under the impression
the City would notify him and others of the project before the court
ordered Environmental analysis was made so important biological
information could be included in the project, as the necessity of
a riparian setback. Apparently this coordination was overlooked
by the City and the Environmental Initial Study has been completed
recommending a Negative Declaration be issued for the same project
that the court nullified.
For these reasons I am now providing my March 5 project letter
to the City as part of these comments on the Initial Study Report.
The letter describes the biological significance of riparian vege-
tation and the adverse impacts unmitigated or inadequately miti-
gated developments have had on riparian habitat in California and
locally. Then, as now, I recommend the City follow their 20-foot
riparian setback policy. A conservation easement without a ripar-
ian buffer may appear to protect the vegetation, but in reality
it does not. Riparian plants have evolved integrally with riparian
animals. Just as animals rely on plants for necessities as food,
cover, and breeding habitat, plants rely on animals for necessities
as pollination, seed dispersal , fertilizing, and pruning. Therefore,
a riparian setback that is necessary for preventing adverse impacts
to wildlife (animals periodically fleeing or permanently emigrating
from the site ) , also is necessary for preventing adverse impacts to
riparian vegetation . resulting from the loss of interdependent
wildlife.
To prevent incrementally- significant adverse impacts from
occuring to riparian ecosystems, each development project, small
or large, should abide by the City' s 20-foot riparian setback.
The City's Environmental Initial Study Report does not provide
this critical riparian setback and without it a Negative Declara-
tion should not be issued.
Attachment Sincerely,-
\David J. Keil
497 Lilac Drive
Los Osos, CA 93402
Mr. Arnold B. Jones 5 March 1991
Community Development director
990 Palm Street
Post Office Box 8100
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
Dear Mr. Jones:
The information presented below includes a summary of my
professional views of the value and importance of riparian vegetation. I
have added my evaluation of the importance of the riparian vegetation
along Acacia Creek in San Luis Obispo.
Before proceeding with this discussion I will give my
qualifications to comment on this matter. I am Professor of Botany in
the Biological Sciences Department at California Polytechnic State
University in San Luis Obispo. I have been on the staff at Cal Poly since
1976. 1 am a plant taxonomist, ecologist, and biogeographer with
expertise on the vegetation and flora of California and much field
experience. I am co-author of California. Vegetationl and Vascular
Plant Taxon.orrty2 and a major contributor and Asteraceae family editor
for the new Jepson Manual 3. 1 have prepared numerous botanical
surveys and inventories for the County of San Luis Obispo and various
other public and private agencies and individuals.
Water in California is a valuable resource. In this driest of
drought years all Californians are being made aware of the critical role
of water in our lives. Water is no less critical as a resource for the
vegetation and wildlife of California. The brown hills that have
characterized the San Luis Obispo area this winter attest to the
importance of water to plant growth—and to all of the animal life that
depends directly or indirectly upon that plant growth for food and
shelter. In the prolonged absence of water, all suffer.
The dry conditions throughout the state during the past five
years have emphasized the importance of water. However, most of
- California has an annual drought of six months or more duration. The
lulls turn golden and then a dusty brown. The ground dries up and
water becomes scarce. During this annual drought water remains
IV, L. Holland and D. J. Kcil. 1990. California Vegetation, 4th ed. El Corral
Bookstore, San Luis Obispo,
21). K Walters and D. J. Keil. 1988. Vascular Plant Taxonomy, 3rd ed. Kendall
Hunt Publ. Co., Dubuque, Iowa.
3J. C. Hickman, ed. The Jepson Manual. projected 1992. University of
California Press, Berkeley. This is an identification manual for the wild plants
of California.
2
available only in small portions of the landscape. Riparian areas—the
narrow bands of moist ground along streams and other wetlands—
become critical sources of water to the thirsty animal life of the state.
Because streams and rivers cut across the landscape, riparian
areas have generally been accessible to wildlife of adjacent hills,
valleys, and plains. That is, until the current century began. Dam
construction, stream diversion, and pumping of groundwater have all
contributed to the drying of California streams. Flood control projects
and canals now divert streams from their original course to the sea.
The remaining riparian areas are now that much more important as
water sources to wildlife.
Riparian areas are also very important as wildlife habitats.4 The
multilayered canopy provided by the assorted trees, shrubs and herbs
provides a diversity of nesting and feeding sites for birds and
mammals. Riparian areas are productive habitats, especially at times
when plants of other communities are dormant. The moisture of the
stream is an important summer water source in the dry California
landscape. The nutrients added to the stream and the alternating
shaded and sunny zones of the patchy vegetation are important in
stream ecology. The vegetation is an important component of the
habitat for fish and other aquatic animals.
Biotic interactions in riparian systems are complex, involving
many types of organisms. Riparian vegetation is especially important
in determining the structure and function of stream ecosystems.5 A
wide variety of animals use riparian areas as habitat. Most of these are
non-game species. About 83 % of the amphibian species (frogs, newts,
etc.) and 40 % of the reptiles use riparian areas as habitats Many
kinds of birds use riparian vegetation for food or living space.
Mammalian species include those visiting stream habitats for water as
well as those resident in the area. Corridors of riparian vegetation are
particularly important as routes for movement of animals.
The wooded corridor that characterizes much riparian
-vegetation is Important in another fashion—erosion control. When
streams flow rapidly after storms, they carry the potential of massive
erosion. Running water is capable of much destruction. Riparian
vegetation has the ability to stabilize banks and floodplains, reducing
4 This paragraph is quoted from California Vegetation, ibid. p. 281.
5 A. W. Knight and R. L. Bottorff. 1984. The importance of riparian vegetation
to stream ecosystems. Pp. 160.167 in R. E. Wamer and K. M. Hendrix (eds.),
California Riparian Systems. Ecology, Conservation, and Productive
Management. University of California Press. Berkeley.
6J. M. Erode and R. B. Bury. 1984. The importance of riparian systems to
amphibians and reptiles. Pp. 30-36 in R. E. Warner and K. M. Hendrix, ibid.
3
the erosive forces of the flowing water. Removal of the woody
vegetation along California streams has often led to increased erosion.
Destruction of California's riparian habitat has been especially
severe. Less than ten percent of the original riparian vegetation of
California remains.? Over much of the state the trees have been
logged, the streams have been dammed or enclosed in concrete, and
the landscape has been converted to other uses. Where towns and
cities have grown up along streams or rivers, the riparian vegetation
has often been eliminated or highly modified. Much of the loss has
been incremental—a small band of willows destroyed here, some
cottonwoods cut down there, a section of once lush woodland
vegetation diverted into a culvert. Many individual projects, such as
residential construction, eliminate their own little sections of riparian
habitat. No one of these by itself is seen as a significant loss, but
collectively these changes bring about a reduction or elimination of
habitat values.
The destruction of riparian vegetation caused by the preliminary
grading for a house at 1673 La Vineda along Acacia Creek in San Luis
Obispo is an example of such incremental loss of habitat. What had
been part of a shaded, willow-dominated corridor with scattered oaks
and other shrubs and trees was transformed in one day into a highly
erodible area exposed to full sun. The open ground is subject to the
Invasion of weedy exotic species of low value as wildlife habitat.
In view of the importance of riparian habitat, restriction of
development to non-riparian habitats is a wise policy. When I prepare
vegetation surveys, I am particularly cognizant of the importance of
riparian habitat and I make sure that reports that I prepare note any
incursions by developers into riparian areas and the habitat values of
these areas. I note two things about the Acacia Creek development.
First, there was no survey of the site by a qualified biologist. Second, it
Is evident that the City of San Luis Obispo chose to deliberately ignore
its own guidelines for development in such areas, even after the
matter was brought to their attention. The needless habitat
destruction that occurred in this situation is an egregious example of
policy gone awry. The situation easily could have been avoided had the
city followed the 20-foot riparian setback prescribed in its own
Administrative Creek Policy.
I am concerned that similar deliberate violations of its own
environmental policies by the City of San Luis Obispo could continue to
occur. However, the court's decision in the case of Phil Ashley vs, the
City of San Luis Obispo is a clear indication that such policies should
not continue. As a result of the decision, the city should now be more
9 A. Siarker Leopold. 1984. Forward. Pp. xxi-xxii in R. E. Warner and K. M.
Hendrix , ibid.
M �
4
diligent in carrying out environmental responsibilities under its own
rules and policies and those of the California Environmental Policy Act.
As indicated above, there are sound ecological reasons for having
environmental restrictions on development—such as a 20-foot riparian
setback. We cannot afford the continued incremental destruction of
riparian habitat. -
Sincerely,
David J. Keil
June 18, 1991 2621 Flora Street
San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93401
City of San Luis obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93401
RECEIVt�
Re: 1673 LaVineda JUN 19
1991
Attn: Judith Lautner/Associate Planner city 01 San Luis ObJ3PC
-:�ur..av[kveinc-
Dear Judith,
In reviewing the Environmental Initial Study ER 6-91 we were surprised
and confused. If we are reading your report correctly it would seem that
the allowance being made for this sensitive siteis out of-order.
We are members of the original tract partnership which developed this
tract in 1986. At the time of it's development, it was made clear to
us by the city that a 20' setback from the creek was mandatory. Upon
our selling of each lot this tract map provision was made clear to each
prospective buyer. We, along with all the other residence who border
this creek were required to abide by the provision enforce9 by the city
at that time. Why are the "rules" changing in the middle of the game?
Allowing placement of a residence to encroach the 20' setback is un-
necessary, as placement of the residence closer to the street is
certainly more acceplable.
We hold little faith in the cities monitoring of any development on
this lot, as the city has not held the developer accountable for the
damage done last July by removal of the riparian vegetation on this
property.
We would hope that you would reconsider your position regarding this site
and enforce the tract map conditions already in effect. preservation of
the riparian vegetation and habitat are what we would request that you
would take into consideration when reevaluating this site. We do not feel
that mirrored windows and easements are the solution to this sensitive
site problem, for when the property changes hands who is going to police
these items to make sure they are in compliance, the city, or the neighbors? -
Last summer we got a taste of how fast the city will react to enforcement of .
provisions, and to date no foliage has been replaced!
We would request be notified of any hearings or meetings regarding this
site. We look forward to you coming to a feasible solution to this
sensitive site problem.
Sincer ly,
David Hildenbrand Cott T,athrop
Ellen op
city of sAn tuts oBispo
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403.8100
22 May 1991
TO: Karen Worcester, Department of Fish and Game
FROM: Judy Lautner Ssociate Planner
SUBJECT: Initial study on 1673 La Vineda
Attached is the initial study for the proposed house at 1673 La
Vineda. It was advertised in last evening' s paper - May 21. In
accordance with state environmental guidelines, you have 21 days
from that date to comment on this study.
Please review the study and mitigation measures, and get . any
comments to me by June 11. Our director will be taking a final
action on this study at that time. (After that date, any citizen
has ten days to appeal the action to the council. )
Mr. Arnold B. Jonas, Director Phil Ashley
'Community Development 1586 La Cita Court
990 Palm Street JUN 1.7 1991 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Box 8100 756-2505 (work)
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100 city m Sa"`°'.5 0°1p' 544-9741 (home)
June 15, 1991
Subject: My comments on the Environmental Initial Study Check List, Summary
of Initial Study Findings, ER 6-91, Hanson's "Review", and the pro-
posed Negative Declaration for the proposed 1673 La Vineda riparian
house project.
Dear Mr. Jonas:
Before I provide specific comments on the above listed documents, I will
first make a general comment.
My attorney is preparing you a letter specifying violations of CEQA
regarding your preparation of the Initial Study and proposed Negative Decla-
ration. These violations merit you looking at how the study was done to
arrive at justifying the same project voided by the court. My attorney, Mr.
John Belsher, of Sinsheimer, Shiebelhut, & Baggett, will explain the CEQA
violations and our request in a brief letter to you within the next few days
to be timely for everyone's benefit.
For now I will say that your coordination with CDFG is the problem this
time, much as it was last time. Last time your staff told me you do not need
a staff biologist because you always coordinate with CDFG on sensitive biolo-
gical projects, as this one. The problem last time was you did not coordinate
with CDFG, so I had no information to support my position that you should
comply with your administrative 20 ft. riparian setback policy. My time
constraints did not allow me to do this coordination for you, which I should
not have to do anyway. This time your staff has said they do not have to
coordinate with CDFG. Still, staff did meet with CDFG on site March 26,
1991. However, it was not coordination on the new application because staff
never informed CDFG of the new application. instead staff only said the site
visit was necessary to determine where the original riparian vegetation line
was before about 2000 sq. ft. of habitat was illegally destroyed by the
contractor July 5, 1990.
The City's new contention they do not have to coordinate with CDFG at
the beginning of the Initial Study on a biologically sensitive project is not
supported by CEQA, your Conservation Element, CDFG permit authority on USGS
mapped blue-lined streams, or state policy on wetlands. The June 1986 Edi-
tion of CEQA states under the section Initial Study 15063, page 91:
(g) Consultation. As soon as a Lead Agency has determined that an Ini-
tial Study will be required for the project, the Lead Agency shall
consult informally with all Responsible Agencies and all Trustee Agen-
cies responsible for resources affected by the project to obtain the
recommendations of those agencies as to whether an EIR or a Negative
Declaration shouuld be prepared.
CDFG is the agency given jurisdiction and responsibility for the state's
wildlife resources, and page 5.4 of the City's Conservation Element states:
PRESENT GOVERNMENT RESPONSE
Most of the present wildlife protection efforts are handled at the State
1
. y
. level. The California Department of Fish,and Game has been given the
responsibility to collect and evaluate Wildlife information, . . . to
improve and manage wildlife habitat,'and to provide public information
on wildlife conservation. The Department has a small staff in the
County to carry out these programs.
This statement makes it clear the City recognizes it is CDFG's responsi-
bility to carry out these vital wildlife functions including in the City.
Furthermore, the City should have also coordinated with CDFG at the start of
the CEQA Initial Study process,as required by section 15063 of CEQA, due to
CDFG's permit authority on USGS mapped blue-lined streams, as is the case for
Acacia Creek.
Plus the City's responsibility to coordinate with CDFG, as required by
CEQA, is further established by state wetland policy, which defines
intermittent streams as wetlands. The advisory authority of CDFG to protect
the state's wetlands is stated in their Wetlands Resources Policy:
IV. Through the passage of Senate Concurrent Resolution 28 (Janu-
ary 1, 1983), the Legislature, in recognition of the importance of
wetlands, indicated its "intent to preserve, protect restore and enhance
California's wetlands and the multiple resources which depend upon them
for the benefit of the people of the state".
Therefore, it is the policy of the Fish and Game Commission to seek
to provide for the protection, preservation, restoration, enhancement
and expansion of wetland habitat in California.
Further, it is the policy of the Fish and Game Commission to strong-
ly discourage development in or conversion of wetlands. It opposes, con-
sistent with its legal authority, any development or conversion which
would result in a reduction of wetland acreage or wetland habitat values.
To that end, the Commission opposes wetland development proposals unless,
at a minimum, project mitigation assures there will be "no net loss" of
either wetland habitat values or acreage.
But how can CDFG be expected to carry out its state authorized stream
permit and stream wetland responsibilities on City projects if the City does
not coordinate with CDFG as required by CEQA and as recognized by the City in
its own Conservation Element.
Hiring a consultant cannot legally substitute for the •City's responsibi-
lity under CEQA to contact CDFG before the Initial Study is started. And
the City's contacting CDFG for comment after the Initial Study is done, also
cannot substitute for the much earlier coordination required by CEQA.
My specific comments follow in this order: I.S. Check List, Summary of
I.S. Findings, I.S. ER 6-91, Hanson's "Review", and the Negative Declaration.
INITIAL, STUDY CHECK LIST
A. COMMUNITY PLANS AND GOALS:
General Plan Element, Conservation: This blank should be checked "yes" and
not "no" since the City's Conservation Element (pages 5.1 and 5.2) states:
As with plant communities, direct destruction of wildlife habitat
often results from land subdivision and construction in undeveloped
areas. Another problem for many species is the expansion of the "zone
2
of disturbance". . . .. It is apparent, then, that in order to protect our
wildife, it is essential to protect the territory required by each
species.
By this project not providing the City's 20 ft. riparian setback functioning
as a wildife buffer, an essential part of wildlife's territory near human
development is missing. This project is inconsistant with your Conservation
Element in meeting the territorial needs of wildlife.
Development Regulations, Hillside Planning Guidelines (in LUE): Pages 5 and
6 (attached) of the staff Council Agenda Revort of November 14, 1989, indi-
cated if the Hillside Planning Criteria are utilized on this project requir-
ing the house to be built close to the street, the 20 ft. riparian setback
and all other City requirements could be met by this project. This blank
should be checked "yes" and not "no" to address this feasible and reasonable
mitigation.
General Plan Element, Safety: This blank should be checked "yes" and not
"no". The project conditions that place the house so close to the riparian
vegetation, precluding an adequate backyard, guarantee that periodically
residents, especially including renters who will not know about the easement
conditions, will remove riparian vegetation for all kinds of reasons. That
this type of removal will occur was proven to the City and others when the
contractor removed about 2000 sq. ft. of the riparian vegetation, 7/5/90,
in violoation of the easement conditions. If someone knowledgeable of the
easement conditions removed vegetation, then others less knowledgeable will
also do so throughout the 100 to 200 year life of the project. If, on a work
day, it took the City 1 1/2 hours after the first phone call to come to the
site to stop the contractor's habitat destruction, then what hope does the
community have that the City will respond evenings, weekends, and holidays to
enforce the project conditions? The City puts the neighborhood in the hazard-
ous position of monitoring the protection of this sensitive habitat when some
strong willed resident wants to make a bigger backyard with a chainsaw or
small tractor, as did the contractor. The City could avoid this unfortunate
neighborhood monitoring hazard by following their 20 ft. riparian setback
policy creating an adequate backyard and habitat buffer.
K. and L. , ANIMAL LIFE and PLANT LIFE: None of these blanks have been
checked, but instead "discuss" has been penciled in. But none of these
questions are discussed anywhere in the City's ER 6-91 or in Hanson's "Re-
view". Plant—Life blanks 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 and Animal Life blanks 1, 2, 3,
4, 5 should all be checked "yes" or "maybe" and discussed in the ER 6-91
to indicate how this project effects and mitigates these natural resources.
This is necessary because the site was declared sensitive based on biological
issues and the court required this CEQA review based on these same biological
issues. To assist you in answering these biological questions, I have
attached my wildlife and plant list (no herbs are listed but they should also
be assessed). Also in your assessment it should be evaluated that riparian
wetland habitat is considered rare, threatened, or endangered by various
entities as CDFG, USFWLS, Calif. Native Plant Society, Keil (letter of
3/5/91), Johnson (letter of 3/26/91), and others. It should also be noted
(see my list) that the western pond turtle is being considered for listing as
a rare or threatened species. Also, as documented by John Terborgh
(Where Have All The Birds Gone, 1989, Princeton University Press, Princeton,
New Jersey. 207 pp. ) several birds on my list, western tanager, black-headed
3
grosbeak, and hooded oriole are in potential endangerment from the loss of
wintering habitat in Latin America. To avoid added stress to these birds we
should insure that we maintain the quality of their summer breeding habitat
in our already threatened riparian wetlands. A creekside project without a
riparian setback wildlife buffer does little to insure protection of the
territorial and habitat value needs of these potentially threatened birds.
P. OTHER
1. Produce new light or glare?: This should be checked "yes" because a
project condition says the nook must use one-way glass and this type of glass
will tend to act like a mirror and reflect glaring sunlight around the
neighborhood. Since my house is adjacent and east of this house, I do
not look forward to mirrors shinning bright sunlight into my house, and I
doubt neighbors will either.
4. Create or expose people to any health hazard?: See my comments under
General Plan Element, Safety.
9. Achieve short-term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of lone-term,
environmental goals?: This blank should be checked "yes" instead of "no%
Wildlife in sensitive riparian habitat should not be made to, for the long
life of this project, suffer due to the lack of a necessary wildlife buffer.
There is a large amount of profit in this project even with a redesign, since
the applicants paid about $96,500 (from public records in County Recorder's
Office) for the lot in 1988 and are now, the last I heard, asking about
$220,000 for it.
10. Have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively consider-
able? (A single Project may have limited impacts on resources. but the effect
of the total of several projects with similar impacts on the environment is
significant_ ): This blank should be checked "yes"and not "no". The reason
the City has an Administrative Creek Policy with a 20 ft. riparian setback is
specifically to prevent cumulatively significant impacts from occuring to
sensitive riparian wetland habitat, as a result of building many creekside
house projects. Avoiding cumulatively significant riparian impacts is what
this project is all about and is addressed in the letters of Dr. Keil
(3/5/91), Dr. Johnson (3/26/91), CDFG (2/26/90 and 12/18/90), and my first
letter to the City on this project (5/28/89). But more importantly it is
clear that the City understands the importance of avoiding incremental losses
of riparian habitat in light of your current efforts to make the 20 ft.
riparian setback policy an ordinance. Furthermore, your project conditions
are not an answer to foregoing your 20 ft. riparian setback on this project.
The overwhelming biological evidence in the project file indicates a vegeta-
tion easement, without a wildlife buffer setback does not maintain the habi-
tat value of the riparian habitat.
SUMMARY OF I. S. FINDINGS:
A. ODMM01 Y PLANS and GOALS: This should read "yes" and not "none". For the
reasons why, see my comments for the I.S. Check List for this section.
K. and L. , PLANT LIFE and ANIMAL LIFE: I agree these should be checked "yes"
but the questions .in the I.S. Check List, as I indicated in my comments on
these sections of the I.S. Check List, are not answered anywhere in the I.S.
ER 6-91 or Hanson's "Review".
4
P. OTHER: This should read "yes" and not "none". For the reasons why, see my
comments for the I.S. Check List for this section.
I.S. ER 6-91:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING: The house is still about 1
ft. from the riparian vegetation. This is evident in the most recent house-
plans submitted by the applicant 4/18/91 titled "site section" and "grading
plan with site section location" (in the project file). You can verify it is
about 1 ft. in the field, as I did, but, as with all other setback measure-
ments, you must measure from the closest part of the house, which would be
the cantelevered nook, and not the closest place the house touches the
ground.
Also, regarding this section I provided the city with a letter on July
11, 1990, with a determination showing that about 2000 sq. ft. of vegetation
was removed by the contractor on 7/5/90. If the City disputes my documented
determination, then you should make the calculation yourself to avoid saying
"some of the vegetation" when a reasonably accurate figure is readily calcu-
lable.
In the second paragraph of this section, the City should refer
to this creek by its proper name, Acacia Creek, instead of refering to it as a
minor creek. It has a name, just as San Luis Obispo Creek has a name, and
that name should be used for consistancy and everyone's convenience. And the
City should justify its refering to Acacia Creek as "minor". For example,
how many minor creeks make a major creek? How big is a minor creek; how much
riparian vegetation does it have; how long is it; how big a drainage does it
have, etc.? My perspective is this is a biologically important creek and
neither major nor minor adequately describes this biological significance,
especially since the riparian habitat at the project site is about 100 ft.
across.
Plant and animal life, second paragraph: The Community Development Director
may have "required remedial action, including preparation of a landscape plan
for rehabilitation of the vegetated area", but nothing in this respect has
been done to date, as far as I know. The revegetation plan was supposed to
have been submitted September 28, 1990, but that plan, nor anything else
regarding revegetation, seems to have been accomplished. The court ruled
that the remedial revegetation plan was discretionary, but the court also had
a right to expect that the City would adhere to its written discretionary
plan. You should explain in the I.S. ER 6-91 why you have not adhered to the
court approved plan.
Potential impacts:
Temporary: Again, change 3 ft. to about 1 ft. -or give documentation contra-
dictory to the most recent plans in the project file for using 3 ft.
Page 2, second paragraph: How are people and animals going to be discouraged
from entering this poison oak ladened riparian habitat when the house is so
close to it that neither human nor dog can easily travel around the house
without disturbing the vegetation.
Conclusion, page 2, top of page: This should say "cumulatively significant"
and not "May be significant", since the types of activities you just des-
cribed in the I.S. ER 6-91 will be cumulatively significant due to similar
5
Wildlife habitat disturbances associated with other creekside development
projects in the City.
Permanent, page 2, paragraph 2: This paragraph is one sentence long and the
first half of this sentence gives the impression all Acacia Creek houses
intrude on Acacia Creek like this proposed project would. But all the adja-
cent houses up, down, and across the creek have complied with the 20 ft.
riparian setback.
The second half of this sentence admits. that building the house, with
its several decks and overlooking nook, this close to the sensitive riparian
habitat will have cumulatively significant, unmitigated, adverse impacts on
wildlife. No one doubts that birds and wildlife can "move" or "escape" from
periodic disturbances, but the question is--why should they have to? With
good planning and design using the City's 20 ft. riparian setback, most of
these flights and escapes by frightened wildlife can be avoided. People are
capable of continually escaping from adverse situations, too, such as from
thieves and thugs, but it is traumatic, so we mitigate such adverse situa-
tions with police protection. We do not have that police protection for
wildlife here, so we should mitigate to prevent their continual frightened
escapes from human disturances by providing a riparian setback wildlife
buffer.
Permanent, page 2, paragraph 3: This paragraph is misleading since the only
vegetation that has been removed has been a pepper tree, Schinus molle, which
is not a native riparian tree but rather an introduced ornamental tree from
Peru. One owner removed one of these trees that was intermixed with an old
barn and corral the City required him to remove as part of his building
permit. In turn this land owner has planted various native shrubs and trees
as oaks and toyon. One other subdivision land owner removed several limbs
of a non riparian pepper tree when building a deck. Please correct your ER
6-91 to note this. This has been very insignificant, non-riparian distur-
bance.
Conclusion, page 2, bottom of page: As 1 indicated for your previous "Com
clusisn" on this page of the ER 6-91, "May be Significant" should be changed
to "Cumulatively significant" or "Significant" to reflect the wildlife distur-
bances you describe here. Wildlife repeatedly having to fly and run to
escape human disturbance, due to the house with several decks and an overlook-
ing nook being so close to the habitat (1 ft. for the nook and 4 ft. for a
deck), cannot be termed "May be significant". I cannot find anywhere in CEQA
justification for the use of "May be significant% You should determine if
it is significant, cumulatively significant, or insignificant. In fact,
there is support in CEQA to suggest that a project that is potentially (may
be) damaging to the environment, should have an EIR done to determine the
extent of that potential (may be), adverse impact. Then it can be correctly
mitigated and not potentially erroneously mitigated on the slim or less sub-
stantial evidence of an Initial Study. And you have slim or no evidence in
the file to support your contention that a wildlife buffer is not necessary
to maintain the habitat value of this sensitive, endangered riparian wetland.
Instead,there is substantial biological evidence stating that a 20 ft. ripa-
rian setback is necessary to maintain the habitat value of this riparian area
(CDFG, Keil, Johnson, Ashley, Audubon Society, etc. ).
Recommended mitigation, No. 2: I have already opposed one-way windows earlier
in my comments based on unacceptable glare on my house and the neighborhood.
Just as bad, or worse, is the adverse effect these one-way windows, adjacent
6
to the riparian habitat, could have on birds. These one-way windows will be
more reflective than clear or tinted glass and will mirror the willow habi-
tat. This apparent habitat will become a flight hazard to birds continually
frightened by close human disturbance. This could easily be resolved by the
project complying with your 20 ft. riparian setback policy making one-way
glass a non-issue.
Recommended mitigation, No. 3: The easement the City proposes is not mitiga-
tion. Instead it is the opposite of mitigation as it adds to, and does not
lessen, the adverse impacts of the project. The concept of adverse mitiga-
tion does not seem to exist in CEQA lexicon. So I have had to coin a word
for the opposite of mitigation--namely, noitagitim, i-e. , adverse mitigation.
The City's easement conditions not only merely duplicate the very good 1985
tract map conservation easement that states "Exist. riparian vegetation shall
not be removed. ", but the conditions diminish the value of the tract map
conservation easement. Because the City is allowing the house 1 ft. from the
riparian vegetation, the conditions allow riparian vegetation removal for
fire control, to reduce the City's exposure to liability. And because the
City is concerned with other liability it incurs by taking over control of
the heretofore excellent tract map conservation easement, it allows more
riparian vegetation removal for things like "other hazards" and "diseased
growth". Removal of this endangered riparian habitat (Keil, 3/5/91) is being
needlessly sacrificed for fire, hazard, and disease control. All of these
adverse impacts could be avoided by the City requiring a redesign to complay
with its 20 ft. riparian setback policy.
Monitoring, page 3, bottom: I recommend that you do not record your easement
as prescribed. If you feel you must record an easement with the property,
please make it the simple, excellent tract map condition. However, an ease-
ment is only half the needed mitigation. Your Administrative Creek Policy
makes it clear that the city understands that the easement protects, to
some degree, the riparian vegetation, but to maintain the habitat value of
that riparian vegetation, a riparian setback wildlife buffer is also needed
(CDFG, Keil, Johnson, Ashley, SLA City, Audubon Society7and others).
Compatibility with neighborhood: This house would be more compatible with
all the other houses on La Vineda, which are built as close to the street as
possible, if it too were as close to the street as possible, instead of being
set far back on the lot. Complying with the Hillside Planning Criteria which
says, "Houses should generally be built close to the street" would improve
compatibility with the neighborhood, and, by moving the house forward on the
lot, would help the project to comply with the City"s 20 ft. riparian
setback.
Other impacts: Please address in the ER 6-91 those items in the I .S. Check
List that I have indicated in my comments on the I.S. Check List should have
been checked "yes" or "maybe" that you checked "no" or "discuss" (and did not
discuss).
RECOMMENDATION, page 4: Based on my comments, I recommend that you deny the
Negative Declaration. The overwhelming biological evidence in the project
file indicates that to protect the habitat value of the riparian wetland
the applicant should redesign to comply with the 20 ft. riparian setback in
Your Administrative Creek Policy. I also recommend your conservation ease-
7
ment be eliminated to avoid significant damage to the excellent tract map
conservation easement. If the City believes recording a conservation easement
with the property is desirable, then the tract map condition should be
recorded. The City's 20 ft. riparian setback combined with the City's exis-
ting tract map conservation easement are the reasonable and feasible mitiga-
tion the City should require for this project. If these two true mitigation
measures are incorporated into the project, I support the Negative Declara-
tion. Otherwise, an EIR should be done to discuss the pros and cons of not
adequately mitigating this project on a site declared biologically sensitive
by the City in respect for the endangered riparian habitat on the site and
the publicly owned wildlife that rely upon this habitat.
HANSON"S REVIEW OF I.S. ER 6-91.:
Page 1, paragraph 1, sentence 2: Consider changing domicile to home. But
much more importantly this sentence overlooks cumulatively significant envi-
ronmental impacts. It does not matter that this is the last home to be built
by this riparian area. It has the same responsibility to protect the riparian
wetland as the first homes built. If the idea is that the last project built
does not have to mitigate for its share of cumulatively significant impacts,
then in time this last-is-excluded concept can be used as a precedent for all
other projects, no matter when they are built, justifying they too should be
excluded from adequately mitigating.
Also, this sentence seems to indicate the consultant may not be aware of
the concept in CEQA of mitigating for cumulatively significant impacts. But
I am not sure where one would find the concept more applicable than on small
house projects along endangered riparian wetlands. The adjacent houses up,
down, and across Acacia Creek have complied with the 20 ft. riparian setback
policy. Each one has done its share to avoid cumulatively significant ripa-
rian impacts. It is only environmentally sound that this house also comply
with the 20 ft. riparian setback to help avoid its share of cumulatively
significant impacts.
Page 1, paragraph 1, sentence 3: The periodic adverse impact of birds and
other wildlife having to escape (as the consultant notes) from human distur-
bance due to siting the house, with several decks and an overlookging nook, 1
ft. from the vegetation, is exactly the cumulatively significant impact that
should be avoided by mitigation. The consultant indicates that he does not
believe the adverse impacts of wildlife having to periodically escape are
being mitigated by the easement conditions with no riparian setback. This
adverse impact of fright, flight, and escape by wildlife could be adequately
mitigated if the City requires redesign to comply with its 20 ft. riparian
setback.
Page 1, paragraph 1, second to last sentence: I do not consider a 40-ft.
expanse of this house containing 3 decks (6"x10", 4'x6', and 9"x12" ), 9
windows, 3 deck doors, and an overlooking nook, all within 1 to 14 feet of
the riparian habitat, to be compatible with the statement "The house comes
close to the riparian zone in a small place,".
The rest of this sentence stating "probably not enough to be significan-
tly disruptive on a large scale, and somewhat disruptive--mainly to birds
that may be frightened when humans are using the deck--on a small scale.", is
a statement of unmitigated, cumulatively significant adverse impacts that
will occur from this project. If we allow this same type of unmitigated
impact to occur on riparian creekside projects around town, this incremental
adverse impact compounds. There are sound biological reasons to mitigate to
8
avoid these incrementally significant adverse impacts. In the spring and
summer, breeding birds are feeding young as well as themselves and if their
nestlings are to survive, we cannot allow the type of impact to occur that
continually frightens birds from their food gathering and nesting areas, as
here. Also, during the semiannual migrations of birds .t} eir.eger�; nee e
high. During these times they need undisturbed rest and teecTin9?agie
insure a successful migration, else migration mortality can be high. The 20
ft. riparian setback will help avoid these adverse impacts and should be
incorporated into this project.
Page 1, second paragraph: The sentence "This riparian zone is a valuable
wildlife corridor, and needs to be maintained with all the riparian vegeta-
tion protected." indicates everything reasonable (to include redesign) should
be done to protect this "valuable wildlife corridor". An easement that does
not provide a riparian setback wildlife buffer does not adequately protect
the habitat value of this important wildlife corridor. For this reason the
City should require redesign of the project to comply with their 20 ft.
riparian setback policy.
Page 2, paragraph 3: Fencing at the 360 ft. contour line during construction
does nothing to protect the riparian habitat once construction is finished.
The closeness of the house to the vegetation precludes an adequate backyard.
In turn the riparian vegetation will be subject to removal to increase the
size of the yard for sheds, play area, swings, gardens, a hot tub, clothes
lines, etc. Also due to the unnecessary closeness of the house to the
riparian vegetion, residents will want to remove the poison oak that is very
important ground cover for various wildlife (birds, foxes, opossum, lizards,
rodents, etc. ). To avoid these inevitable disturbances (proven by the con-
tractors removal of about 2000 sq. ft. of this vegetation last July, although
most future habitat destruction will likely not be this dramatic, but instead
will nickel-and-dime the habitat away) the City should require a redesign to
comply with their 20 ft. riparian setback policy.
Page 2, paragraph 4: Please consider following though with your consultants
recommendation by contacting the Wildlife Federation, CDFG, and the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service for this type of public education information to distri-
bute to creekside residents and others on a city-wide basis.
Page 2, paragraph 1, first 4 sentences: Although I do not agree wih the
consultant that there is no difference in placing a deck 10 ft. or 4 ft. from
the habitat in terms of wildlife disturbance (obviously 10 ft. would be
better to prevent disturbance), I do agree with him on the significant issue
here. And that significant issue is, as the consultant suggests, since the
significant damage to wildlife habitat value has already been done by placing
the house so close to the riparian habitat, moving one deck from 4" to 10"
away will not significantly mitigate the overall damage done due to the
adverse siting of the house. Therefore, to adequately mitigate the signifi-
cant adverse impacts associated with the house location, I recommend that the
City require a redesign to comply with their 20 ft. riparian setback policy.
Page 2, paragraph 1, last 2 sentences: I have already addressed the window
problem in my comments on the I.S. Check List (section "P.l_") and the ER 6-
91 (Page 3, no. "2." )_ My same opposition to one-way windows applies here.
The controversy surrounding what type of windows to use for the nook to avoid
wildlife disturbance and unnecessary neighborhood glare could easily be
avoided if the City requires a redesign to comply with their 20 ft. riparian
9
1
setback policy.
Page 2, paragraph 2, first sentence: I do not agree with the consultants
support of the easement conditions for the reasons previously explained in
these comments. It not only duplicates the tract map riparian conservation
easement, but it diminishes the value of the tract map easement by now
allowing removal of riparian vegetation for various reasons--fire, hazard
disease--that are not allowed by the tract map conditions. The need for the
removal of sensitive, endangered riparian wetland habitat to reduce the
City's exposure to liability is unjustified and unnecessary. This periodic
destruction of habitat can easily be avoided if the City requires a redesign
to comply with their 20 ft. riparian setback policy and utilizes the tract
map condition instead of their proposed habitat damaging easement.
Page 2, paragraph 2, seco�►l and third sentences: The benefit or harm a
fence at the riparian ed�eanls only being discussed in these 2 sentences
because the house is being proposed so close to the edge of the riparian
habitat that the "edge effect" value of the habitat is already being adverse-
ly effected by the proximity of the house to it. The needless controversy
over a fence is easily eliminated if the City requires redesign of the
project to comply with their 20 ft. riparian setback policy.
MY SUMMARY
As I mentioned, it appears the City's decision to date is not supported by
the overwhelming biological evidence in the file which instead recommends
that the City comply with its own 20 ft. riparian setback policy. One
"rational" for the city ignoring the obvious evidence is if the City can
justify the same project again, then the court decision accomplished little
and no important biological or legal benefit was bestowed on the public.
Without this public benefit there can be no grounds for attorneys fees. If
this is the reason for the current planning decision, the City seems to be
sacrificing good planning to achieve a legal goal. But as the court said,
the City should look at the substantial biological evidence and base its
findings on that evidence to bridge the analytical gap between the evidence
and the ultimate decision. There is considerable biological evidence in the
file recommending that you use your 20 ft. riparian setback policy as mitiga-
tion. Even your consultant-s Review does more to support, than oppose, the
need for your 20 ft. riparian setback. Conversely there is almost a total
lack of evidence supporting your decision to issue a Negative Declaration
without a riparian setback wildlife buffer.
Given these facts I recommend that you deny the Negative Declaration on
this sensitive riparian site, and require a redesign complying with the City's
20 ft. riparian setback and eliminating your habitat -destructive easement.
If this is not done, then I recommend that you do an EIR to discuss the pros
and cons of proposing approval of an inadequately mitigated project on a City
declared sensitive site containing over 12,000 sq. ft. of endangered riparian
habitat and numerous species of wildlife and plants relying on that habitat.
Sincerely,
10
1 City OF San LUIS OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
1673 La vneda 5
ARC 89-80
Staff and the Director can support a creek setback which is less than 20 feet in
this case because:
The existing tract condition prohibits the removal of any riparian vegetation.
Since the 20 foot creek setback is a department administrative policy and
not an ordinance requirement, it affords the director sufficient latitude so
that conflicts between the goals of creek protection and those of a given
property can be minimized. I
The average creek setback is. about 15 feet, with a minimum of about 1 I
foot and maximum of about 45 feet.
A condition of architectural approval (see letter, attached) is that the entire
portion of the creek tributary which crosses the site including all the
riparian vegetation be dedicated as a permanent open space easement. In
this way, all of the riparian habitat on the site will be permanently
protected.
The applicant/property owner agrees with this approach and will be a
willing participant in the open space easement dedication.
Without the application for the house, there would be no open space
dedication requirement.
In sum, staff feels that flexibility in this case will allow the applicant to build the
house to suit his needs while affording ample protection of the creek and its
habitat--
4.
abitat4. Design Alternatives — The property owners want to have the main living area on
the upper floor of the proposed house to minimize the use of stairs. Given the
slope and shape of the lot, the design solution chosen results in a house which is
massive, necessitating the use of stem walls, and one which is difficult to fit on
this lot in a manner which meets the height-and setback standards, including the
20 foot creek setback desired by the appellant. If the design of the house were
not dependant on having a large main living space on a single upper floor, one
solution which would minimize these concerns would be to apply the Hillside
Planning Criteria contained in the land use element (see attached These
standards require a hillside house to be built in steps down the slope to reduce
its mass and visual prominence and eliminate the need for stem walls. Application
of the hillside planning standards in this case would have the following beneficial
effects:
I
If the house were stepped down the slope, it could more easily meet the
height and setback requirements and minimize view blockage.
•
. �T City of San Lug, OBISpo
ffijiS COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
1673 La Vineda 6
ARC 89-80
— The same floor area could be built while providing a 20 foot setback from
the edge of riparian vegetation.
Sewer service could be provided from La Vineda, thus avoiding the use of
the sewer line in the easement.
ALTERNATIVES
1. The council may adopt Draft Resolution No. 1 to deny the appeal and approve
the plans for the house as submitted and subject to conditions recommended by
the ARC.
2. The council may adopt Draft Resolution No. 2 to uphold the appeal, denying the
plans for the house.
I
3. You may continue review.
OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW
The Public Works Department is confident that the problems with the sewer line within
the easement have been resolved so that the house can be served in this manner.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff and the ARC feel the tradeoff between the setback and open space easement is
equitable in this case and will allow the applicant to build the style house that he wants
while at the same time affording maximum protection of the sensitive habitat on the site.
For these reasons, staff recommends the council adopt Draft Resolution No. 1 to deny
the appeal and approve the house subject to findings and conditions.
Attachments: Vicinity map
Draft Resolution No. 1 (deny the appeal)
Draft Resolution No. 2 (uphold the appeal)
Appellant's statement
Hillside planning criteria
Letter of project approval
O NEN VKTr_MTE5
I HAVE05SEAVF-D IN
ON "
*olfier wildl;fe andplanWexcept herbs) THE 9IPMIAN1 � VER:
BirdsAI Vave Observed in the Backyard (��
Riparian Vegetation at My House (1586 La I. G( TD(SESF-MY,
Ct.) and the Applicant's House Site
(1673 la Vineda) From August 1987 to May 1991 3. P 9CCOON
4: �r?u5H EAB4I T
-6 &AEK i J EP JACKRAsbiT
6.P0C.KET Go PHE9
T. KING "KF-
8.PJE5Tr-PN
KI=8.1JESTr-PN Ff7�,M 1.1,?4W
4.5CLIMERN PIWGAMR JJ ARD
10.PAUFIC TRF F/Z�
11. WESTI=RN 7bAD
1. Western tanager 23. Yellow warbler 12.UNIDEJdT1FlED BATS
13- MU-F- DEER
2. House Pince
24. Rufous-sided towhee J'}-VF_5`1 _RK POOTURTLE-
3. mockingbird 25. Red-shafted common. flicker
4. Scrub jay 26. Audubon's yellow-rumped warbler
5. Brown towhee 27. White-crowned sparrow
6. Brewer's blackbird 28. California quail '•
7. Anna's hummingbird 29. Golden-crowned sparrow
S. Mourning dove 30. Chestnut-backed chickadee
9. American crow 31. Hutton's vireo i
10. House wren 32. American kestrel*
11. Downy woodpecker 33. American robin
12. Bushtit 34. Lesser goldfinch
13. Hooded oriole 35. Ruby crowned kinglet
14. Black phoebe 36. Cliff swallow (catching insects above creek)
15. European starling 37. Bullock's northern oriole
i6. American goldfinch 38. Red-winged blackbird NAT1vESHRI-(QS$7KE `
17• :;uttal's woodpecker 39. Black-headed grosbeak INTHI5AIPAPJANXDNE-
18. Belted kingfisher 40. Say's phoebe j.WjaOW(Sa(ix :s ") .
19. Turkey vulture* 41. Great horned owl zcC w: BPnAgf I,(umbe))ulorQ
20. Red-shouldered hawk 42. Rock dove (domestic ;igeon)= ca);Forel
21. Willow flycatcher 43. Stelle6 jay 3.CQA$ruvcg4K(Que z.Usp� gg��';Fo}iy)
22. Wilson's warbler 44. House sparrow y:CALIF"MORE,uPS4R�IM
45. Purple finch (Pleanas rac.enwsa)
5. HOI.LS'-LtAveD CHINNCY(Prari6
• As)n ►. oaW Flycatier iliciFol;a)
- _ �7. dr���+ye-crowned warbler 6.BiuF Ei�F�tB P2Y(Scn,burus
19. RuFoa% hummi"9bird mexitar>Q))
7. CAUF COFFEE-isw(I?►,a,nr,u5
If 9. Nashville warbler col;fornita.)
a POISON OHKIToxicodendncrt
diversilaw
`?.COYOTEBa,(Sy(Bacchzx 3
pl lacl aris)
10.P"' VAP GUS HEU5
* All birds, except those marked with an asterisk, were observed in the VrW7Er aft
1,�DtUNTRIV�YNgT7vL
riparian vegetation. Those marked with an asterisk were observed flying over S'hRU85S-TTMU
the riparian area.
I. CA Ur PeFFF4ZTUE
(501inu5 molle
z.6 PAI COT(Prunus
A r nern iaca)
3.YiCTOR1AN-BOX,
(P��osPxrunwldula�
qF. PRIVET
( gustrum,jo pon;rum)
YYY �(rITN�Z RECEIvt�
RANW� 15F6 rte- 61 r Cr.
CaAW N IT'-(DFVUD()AAWTC-En1TER JUN 121991 SPN W(5 6515PO 6A q.3rY
PDsT- OFFICE &Ox 8100 Cg,olSonLutsomsoc 756-- u9oRx) `t-�71(.
,5A N �l tS nb15 P3 l Cf1 /RW3 4100 -
L, AAfE. 121 1`ll?1
1,]<�� FRONt`rrhS ONE AND n Y-E
1N T-iff- FILE 5EP1 iRATE�� FPZM M►NE.j tt4N)<K>.
2. �ftvlj� KF-j PROF -:5tZR of PLAN T 1 fxDk5f�Mce A Mb
To �tf f Ig 16 be-PT. HIS i!�DM��� ��o��r
7HF— 1673 LA Vi N N�E Pt2nJEG 1 1
ptp.D FrzDpo5aD Ii i ivy DE6i 101 . 1 uUD02-S" HE IS
SEIvD1 ll� i tt �a2lGlNl y. i r1F-- 6 rY OF ,5aV LutS ��15�do
qoLVE-VER7 51 N CF- ! f f- PADU I-bf-):) Mt-:: cd,ITH (TN ef)4J-F--
- -u4
7 -u4 1
Nfo �-E I ER CF ID JUNf- 19`7/ i D 717iE. C72t MAI-i 5161Uf:z) mpg gc*"f S
1 I AND NO U-) '61 VI � 1 r To Yb L( rD Pur (10 THE PuaLl(�-e-
p( �T Tr l.-,f . WA:5 Ta De, K
�vl Ott .5 pp,oL)�T �TFIz LwT1� TrrF CITY NW c l Fl E11.1F
(As C T srAFFSjEuE>2,4�-T Mf-5 1NFORMED M1+ eu1� Ma ' A�>�e> B
Ttf ► u)oul�) A NEW HOUSE A?PMCPFl I DIS ffhb BED3 ,,s�,WMIEb
[ tt t 5 NOT 1 Ci 1196 ( ft-S 02M LS E-b IT OOLtl- TME- P1gGE EE -6-kE
tWD dUbr PsF EP` THE JA917-IflL, 677ADL Wfi5 b�>NF SD C:(T1 x.15
0-FREP, tri rl ES 601 rte I MPORDW i 1N FOIRM M-M COLD
5c),M� w PU7 i3EFo Pc =i RNA �+�t25E OF G�(01� G(�f�5
v DETIinn (M€-�)• .5110C-f- Tri t s Is 60H AT 1 bf lftS To1b 60Outb BE
�o>uF- ( U-)l t5 6O1 f-U TD 6(Uf You bR, <-E1 c=5 t-EfTf4Z A i THAT
EA K- e i N PUT PRY-E-- �J 6>W Ttf A-T MOM EN7-Utq �tA5 BU)6--T FiDR
YOUR f-)(,( 5ri 06 65LA 5E- bF ikCT10M OF UF-
5�. 12ftT[DN V[ 17-rtOU71 Ttff- C1T�5 �D� P1 pt�121Fl-1O SJEq-&'KK
1>01,1G� M Ir6A:nDQ 8F-A-Ne EbI u�,vb�Z rtav Muu�
6T-f T7D1,3 f-H E- CiTz:e WI F G1 UE To DR. {�E1 Xt262( flbF6s MY OP,
EJ-SE�5 PECDMME&V�T-LoM 4iWrc,M c ri(-p tol� 15 1N�} X,to
A Mg I 1 tE 20 � 3a F� N EF-b6 1D BE �JED TO PROTECT 01 L-bl-)FE
AN TH F--i 2 1-f A8 i TM-- &AIJU, A 1. V5WhT7oti MWvr PROMOMY. vt6MVO,u,w,csr BE
RECEIV"
Dr: David J. Keil
JUN 121991 : Profoaasor :of Botany
% Biology Department
cn_.. . �wsoosvf. Cal Poly University
Ms. Judy Lautner San Luis Obispo, Ca 93402
Project Planner 10 June 1991
Community Development Department
. Post office Box 8100
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
Dear Ms. Lautner:
I provided Mr. Ashley the attached letter of 6 .March 3.991
on the proposed 1673 La Vineda house project .adjacorit to riparian
vegetation of Acacia Creek to give to the City when .the owners
reapplied for a house. Mr. Ashley said he was under the i.mpraealon
the City would notify him and others of the project before the court
ordered Bnvironmental analysis was made so important biological
information could be included in ' the projeot, as the necessity of
. a riparian setback. Apparently this coordination was overlooked.
by the City and the Environmental Initial Study has been oompletbd
recommending a Negative Declaration be issued for the same project
that the court nullified.
For these reasons I am now providing my Manch 5 project letter
to the City as part. of these comments on the Initial Study Report.
The letter describes the biological significance of riparian vege-
tation and the adverse i.mpa.ots unmitigated or inadequately miti-.
. gated deve)opments have had on riparian habitat in California and
looelly. Than, as now, I recommend the City follow their 20-foot
riparian eotback policy. A conservation easement without a ripa*�-
ian buffer may appear to proteot the vegetation; but in reality
It does not. Riparian plants have evolved integrally with riparian
. animals. Just an animals rely on plants for neebsaities as food,
' cover, end breeding habitat, plants rely on animals for necessities
as pollination, seed dispersal , fertilizing, and pruning. Therefore,
a riparian setback that is necessary for preventing adverea impabts
. to wildlife (animals periodically fleeing' or permanently emigrating
: from the bite ) , also is necessary for preventing adverse impscts'. to
riparian vegetation, resulting from the loss of - interdependent
wildlife.
To prevent incrementally si.gnif.icant: adverse impacts from
occuring to riparian ecosystems, each development project, small
or large, should abide by the City-'.e 20-foot riparian setback.
The City's Environmental Initial Study Report does not provide
this critical riparian setback and without it a Negative Deolara'-
tion should not be issued.
Sincerely,
Attachment
David J . Keil
497 Lilac Drive
JUN 12 19 91 Los Osos, CA 93402
5 March 1991
City 01 San Wu ODce'
Mr. Phil Ashley
1586 La Cita Court
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Dear Phil:
The information presented below includes a summary of my
professional views of the value and importance of riparian vegetation. I
have added my evaluation of the importance of the riparian vegetation
along Acacia Creek in San Luis Obispo.
Before proceeding with this discussion I will give my
qualifications to comment on this matter. I am Professor of Botany in
the Biological Sciences Department at California Polytechnic State
University in San Luis Obispo. I have been on the staff at Cal Poly since
1976. I am a plant taxonomist, ecologist, and biogeographer with
expertise on the vegetation and flora of California and much field
experience. I am co-author of California Vegetationl and Vascular
Plant Taxonorny2 and a major contributor and Asteraceae family editor
for the new Jepson Manual 3. I have prepared numerous botanical
surveys and inventories for the County of San Luis Obispo and various
other public and private agencies and individuals.
Water in California is a valuable resource. In this driest of
drought years all Californians are being made aware of the critical role
of water in our lives. Water is no less critical as a resource for the
vegetation and wildlife of California. The brown hills that have
characterized the San Luis Obispo area this winter attest to the
importance of water to plant growth—and to all of the animal life that
depends directly or indirectly upon that plant growth for food and
shelter. In the prolonged absence of water, all suffer.
The dry conditions throughout the state during the past five
years have emphasized the importance of water. However. most of
California has an annual drought of six months or more duration. The
hills turn golden and then a dusty brown. The ground dries up and
water becomes scarce. During this annual drought water remains
IV. L. Holland and D. J. Keil. 1990. California Vegetation, 4th ed. EI Corral
Bookstore, San Luis Obispo.
2D. R. Walters and D. J. Keil. 1988. Vascular Plant Taxonomy. 3rd ed. Kendall
Hunt Publ. Co., Dubuque. Iowa.
3J. C. Hickman, ed. The Jepson Manual. projected 1992. University of
California Press, Berkeley. This is an identification manual for the wild plants
of California.
2
available only in small portions of the landscape. Riparian areas—the
narrow bands of moist ground along streams and other wetlands—
become critical sources of water to the thirsty animal life of the state.
Because streams and rivers cut across the landscape, riparian
areas have generally been accessible to wildlife of adjacent hills,
valleys, and plains. That is, until the current century began. Dam
construction, stream diversion, and pumping of groundwater have all
contributed to the drying of California streams. Flood control projects
and canals now divert streams from their original course to the sea.
The remaining riparian areas are now that much more important as
water sources to wildlife.
Riparian areas are also very important as wildlife habitats.4 The
multilayered canopy provided by the assorted trees, shrubs and herbs
provides a diversity of nesting and feeding sites for birds and
mammals. Riparian areas are productive habitats, especially at times
when plants of other communities are dormant. The moisture of the
stream is an important summer water source in the dry California
landscape. The nutrients added to the stream and the alternating
shaded and sunny zones of the patchy vegetation are important in
stream ecology. The vegetation is an important component of the
habitat for fish and other aquatic animals.
Biotic interactions in riparian systems are complex, involving
many types of organisms. Riparian vegetation is especially important
in determining the structure and function of stream ecosystems.5 A
wide variety of animals use riparian areas as habitat. Most of these are
non-game species. About 83 % of the amphibian species (frogs, newts,
etc.) and 40 % of the reptiles use riparian areas as habitats Many
kinds of birds use riparian vegetation for food or living space.
Mammalian species include those visiting stream habitats for water as
well as those resident in the area. Corridors of riparian vegetation are
particularly important as routes for movement of animals.
The wooded corridor that characterizes much riparian
vegetation is important in another fashion—erosion control. When
streams flow rapidly after storms, they carry the potential of massive
erosion. Running water is capable of much destruction. Riparian
vegetation has the ability to stabilize banks and floodplains, reducing
4 This paragraph is quoted from California Vegetation, ibid. p. 281.
5 A. W. Knight and R. L. Bottorff. 1984. The importance of riparian vegetation
to stream ecosystems. Pp. 160-167 in R. E. Warner and K. M. Hendrix (eds.),
California Riparian Systems. Ecology, Conservation, and Productive
Management. University of California Press, Berkeley.
6J. M. Brode and R. B. Bury. 1984. The importance of riparian systems to
amphibians and reptiles. Pp. 30-36 in R. E. Warner and K. M. Hendrix, ibid.
3
the erosive forces of the flowing water. Removal of the woody
vegetation along California streams has often led to increased erosion.
Destruction of California's riparian habitat has been especially
severe. Less than ten percent of the original riparian vegetation of
California remains.? Over much of the state the trees have been
logged, the streams have been dammed or enclosed in concrete, and
the landscape has been converted to other uses. Where towns and
cities have grown up along streams or rivers, the riparian vegetation
has often been eliminated or highly modified. Much of the loss has
been incremental—a small band of willows destroyed here, some
cottonwoods cut down there, a section of once lush woodland
vegetation diverted into a culvert. Many individual projects, such as
residential construction, eliminate their own little sections of riparian
habitat. No one of these by itself is seen as a significant loss, but
collectively these changes bring about a reduction or elimination of
habitat values.
Tia destruction of riparian vegetation caused by the preliminary
grading for a house at 1673 La Vineda along Acacia Creek in San Luis
Obispo is an example of such incremental loss of habitat. What had
been part of a shaded, willow-dominated corridor with scattered oaks
and other shrubs and trees was transformed in one day into a highly
erodible area exposed to full sun. The open ground is subject to the
invasion of weedy exotic species of low value as wildlife habitat.
In view of the importance of riparian habitat, restriction of
development to non-riparian habitats is a wise policy. When I prepare
vegetation surveys, I am particularly cognizant of the importance of
riparian habitat and I make sure that reports that I prepare note any
incursions by developers into riparian areas and the habitat values of
these areas. I note two things about the Acacia Creek development.
First, there was no survey of the site by a qualified biologist. Second, it
is evident that the City of San Luis Obispo chose to deliberately ignore
its own guidelines for development in such areas, even after the
matter was brought to their attention. The needless habitat
destruction that occurred in this situation is an egregious example of
policy gone awry. The situation easily could have been avoided had the
city followed the 20-foot riparian setback prescribed in its own
Administrative Creek Policy.
I am concerned that similar deliberate violations of its own
environmental policies by the City of San Luis Obispo could continue to
occur. However, the court's decision in the case of Phil Ashley vs. the
City of San Luis Obispo is a clear indication that such policies should
not continue. As a result of the decision, the city should now be more
7 A. Starker Leopold. 1984. Forward. Pp. xxi-xxii in R. E. Warner and K. M.
Hendrix , ibid.
4
diligent in carrying out environmental responsibilities under its own
rules and policies and those of the California Environmental Policy Act.
As indicated above, there are sound ecological reasons for having
environmental restrictions on development—such as a 20-foot riparian
setback. We cannot afford the continued incremental destruction of
riparian habitat.
Sincerely,
David J. Keil
- Pete Wilson
STATE OF CAUFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY P+BORCiEx"N6puL Goemer
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
2101 GARDEN ROAD
MONTEREY, CA 93940
(408) 649.2870 KEI.EIYL_
JUN 1? 1991
June 13, 1991 O_'''!San�W:oa":
why-pr
Ms. Judy Lautner, Associate Planner
City of San Luis Obispo
P.O. Box 8100
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
Dear Ms. Lautner:
Initial Study on 1673 La Vineda, San Luis Obispo
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the initial study for
the subject project, which includes construction of a single-family
home on a 20,460 square-foot site. The site slopes from the street
down to Acacia Creek, which supports mature riparian vegetation
and associated wildlife.
On February 26, 1990, after the City's issuance of a building
permit, the Department sent your Community Development Director a
letter expressing our concern about the lack of riparian setback
for this project, the sensitivity of this type of habitat, and our
recommendation that exceptions to this setback be granted only
under extraordinary circumstances. Since that time, the City was
sued by a concerned resident regarding inadequate compliance with
the CEQA process; since the project site had been declared a
"sensitive site", a categorical exemption was not appropriate.
The existing permit was revoked as a result of this suit. The new
project appears to be essentially identical to the old one, with
the exception that it is undergoing CEQA review.
The Initial Study checklist identifies that possible adverse
effects to plant life, animal life, and aesthetics may exist. We
are concerned however, that in the Initial Study checklist, the
project is not identified as being in conflict with adopted plans
and goals of the community and neighborhood where it is located.
It is certainly nonconforming with the City's Hillside Planning
Guidelines which if complied with, as we mentioned in our letter of
2/26/90, would allow the house to more easily meet setback
requirements. It also does not .conform with the City's
Administrative Creek Policy, which identifies that riparian
1
Ms. Judy Lautner, Associate Planner June 13, 1991
setbacks less than 20 feet may be acceptable if 1) the channel is
judged not to be a significant riparian corridor; 2) the lot is
small, and reasonable development without some exception is
impossible; or 3) the lot is a small infill site where a clear
pattern of lesser setbacks has been established on both sides of
the. lot along the creek. With respect to these three items, both
our . Department and your consultant identified the habitat onsite as
being of significant value, all neighboring houses are set back at
least twenty feet from the riparian vegetation, and the lot is
quite sizeable. It is our understanding the original rationale
for permitting the exception was that the owners were elderly and
desired a single level living area. This should be somewhat less
of a consideration now, as the lot is for sale and will
apparently not be the home of the current owners.
Item P10 of the Inital Study checklist has not been identified as
an impact, and yet this more than any other item is of concern to
our Department. This checklist item addresses those impacts
which are individually limited, but which are cumulatively
considerable. Though this is a small project, if exceptions to
setback standards were to be granted to every development on the
creek, the resultant impacts to the riparian corridor and the
sensitive species which inhabit it would be substantial. This
item should be identified as an impact.
We believe that in instances where setbacks can readily be
met, exceptions should be granted only when there is substantial
cause. In our opinion the City has not shown adequate cause to
justify this exemption. Setbacks which are designed to protect
habitat should be given at least as much consideration as those
designed to meet street and property line standards.
We are extremely concerned and disagree with the biological
conclusion drawn by your consultant, which implies that wildlife
which are disturbed by the encroaching development will simply
move, and that because of existing development sensitive species
are no longer present anyway. We disagree with this conclusion.
The species list developed by a concerned neighbor, which
includes several sensitive species, speaks for the biological
diversity of the area. The whole purpose of establishing
setbacks is to minimize disturbance to these species, perpetuate
wildlife resources in their natural habitat, and maintain
ecological diversity. Sensitive species will not remain in the
corridor if disturbed, which is the precise reason we recommend
that adequate setbacks be maintained.
In the Summary of Initial Study Findings (dated April 19, 1991) , to
protect wildlife the nearest deck was to be set back ten feet at a
minimum from the edge of the riparian area. We find it interesting
that in the second issuance of the Summary of Initial Findings
project (5/9/91) , this recommendation was actually removed,
perhaps based on the statement by your consultant that he felt
the amount of disturbance to wildlife would be the same at either
2
Ms. Judy Lautner, Associate Planner June 13, 1991
ten feet or four feet, the original 'setback. We agree that both
setbacks are inadequate, and as such neither may accomplish the
desired buffering effect. However, particularly if vegetation
may at some point be cleared for fire control purposes, a ten
foot buffer is definitely more desireable than a four foot
buffer, and we do not understand why the City deleted this
mitigation measure.
It is our understanding that a condition of the subdivision tract
map was that existing riparian vegetation was not to be removed.
City administrative policy also requires dedication of open space
easements which include the entire drainage channel as well as a 20
foot setback. Mitigation recommended in the Initial Study
Findings for this specific project state that the property owner
shall grant the City an easement for the riparian area only, and
that vegetation may not be removed except for fire protection or
other hazards, or for the elimination of diseased growth with
approval from the Community Development Director. Therefore, it
appears that mitigation measures proposed to offset the impacts
of the project are less protective than those already in place
for buildings outside the 20 foot buffer. In order to truly
offset impacts, it would be appropriate for the owner to
additionally create and maintain riparian habitat elsewhere on
the drainage, if development must occur within the twenty
foot setback. However, the most desireable form of mitigation is
avoidance, and we therefore recommend that the structure be
redesigned to remain outside the twenty foot buffer entirely,
thus complying with city policies.
If you have questions regarding these comments, please contact
Karen Worcester, Fishery Biologist, P.O. Box 1535, Morro Bay, CA
93443 ; telephone (805) 772-4122 .
Sincerely,
Brian Hunter
Regional Manager
Region 3
cc: Worcester - -
KW:KRA/ts
3
3u�Y
June 10, 1991
City of San Luis Obispo
. Attn: Judy Lautner, Planner
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 .
SUBJECT: Environmental Initial Study ER 6-91
1673 La Vineda
As stated in the study, this valuable vegetation serves as cover,
nesting areas and a food source for many small animals and birds.
This vegetative cover also provides protection from intruders and
serves as a part of a valuable wildlife corridor. -In order to
maintain this corridor and protection, this vegetation needs to
be retained and people and domestic animals discouraged from
entering the area, as stated in the study. A house within the
20-foot setback area to this vegetation will not allow the
protection this corridor currently serves. The birds and animals
that use this area cannot adjust to human intrusion by becoming
active at night, and fly for cover when humans get within 50 feet
of them.
The recommended mitigation for this development serves no purpose
to help lessen the impact of this house on riparian habitat.
Granting an easement serves no more purpose than the existing
tract conditions, but does look good on paper.
Existing setback policies already don't allow buildings or
parking lots within 20 feet.
Restricting advertising in a secluded residential creek area that
is not visible from the . street is meaningless.
Existing grading ordinances will not allow grading within this
area and because of the vegetation, grading could not take place
- unless-the vegetation was cut down. The existing tract
conditions will not allow this.
City staff required to monitor this easement would constantly be
. called- out when any violation. took place. Even when called out,
what punishment is there for a violation? The developer still
has not revegetated and the City has not levied any fines for the
damage done last year.
The location of this house would block my view of the Santa Lucia
Hills and other public vistas.
The required tinted or mirrored windows that are intended to
protect the birds and animals from human movement will reflect
the vegetation because of its close proximity and will cause the
birds to fly into it when trying to flee to cover. This will
cause great harm or death because of the lack of a buffer zone.
The city has a current creekside setback policy that is scheduled
to be adopted into an ordinance. If City staff feels strongly
enough to propose this policy to become an ordinance in order to
protect these valuable areas, then current policy should be
followed in order to keep from damaging the very areas we are
trying to protect for our future.
Even though current Fire Department policy does not require this
vegetation to be cut for setback purposes, there is no guarantee
that in a couple of years it would be required.
In order for the City to be consistent with setback requirements
imposed on the current residents, and in order to preserve this
valuable wildlife corridor, I feel this house should be
redesigned to meet all setbacks, height requirements, and
policies the City has imposed on the current residents.
Feel free to contact me if you would like to discuss any of my
concerns and please inform me of any future decisions or action
being taken on this development.
sincerely,
Richard Fisher
1691 La Vineda
c: Arnold Jonas
MEMORANDUM
TO: Arnold_T ns' mmuntty Development_:Duector_
FROM: Ken McCool, Fire Marshal
DATE: June 7, 1991
SUBJECT: 1673 La Vineda
After surveying the site at 1673 La Vineda and discussing the situation regarding the status of the
property there with you I have come up with the following requirements and recommendations.
This Department will require that all the dried grass be removed or cut to a point that I will call
the drip line of the riparian vegetation along the seasonal tributary running through the property.
The drip line will be defined as a plumb line that exists from the farthest point that the riparian
vegetation extends at any elevation toward the 360 ft. line. The drip line would include the drip
line of any low growing green vegetation that would protrude past the tree drip line. Any
vegetation extending past the 360 ft. line shall be cut. This amount of weed abatement will most
probably protect the existing dwellings in the area in the event of wildland fire.
To have an ideal situation, from a fire prevention standpoint, hazard reduction should be done in
the existing area of the seasonal tributary. Hazard reduction would consist of removing the dead
wood from the foliage and pruning the existing trees and shrubs several feet above ground level to
prevent the spread of fire into the canopy. As the situation currently exists, the amount of dead
wood in the area is sufficient to cause the destruction of the tree growth in the tributary area should
a fire occur. In surveying the site, I noticed that both properties on the same side of the tributary
adjacent to the property in question, have done and are maintaining their hazard reduction. This
would be my recommendation for this property.
A further recommendation that I will make is that when the riparian area is replanted, that fire
resistive plants be used. These types of plants would provide excellent habitat for any wildlife in
the area yet they would not be as likely to promote the spread of fire to the canopy or the existing
homes. A list of these plants can be obtained from County CDF Fire Department.
If you have any other questions regarding this matter please call.
cc: Bob Neumann, Fire Chief
Cindy Clemens, Assistant City Attorney
STREAM CONSCIOUSNESS
LOCAL AFFILIATE OF THE URBAN CREEKS COUNCIL
531 Highland Dr.
Los Osos, CA 93402
Arnold Jonas RECEIvc.,
Community Development Director
City of San Luis Obispo JUN 131991
Calm St. City of Son LutsObmw.
San Luis Obispo. CA 93401
June 12. 1991
Dear 'sir. Jonas;
We a-ould like to take this opportunity to comment on the Negative
Declaration and mitigation measures for the project at 1673 La Vineda 'ER 6-
91 ►. .
We have reviewed most if not all of the pertinent documents surrounding
this project. We would call your attention to the fact that the California
Department of Fish and Game. Dr. David Keil, and Dr. Eric Johnson all strongiv
recommend maintaining a full minimum setback of 20 feet from the riparian
vegetation. We concur with their recommendations.
The riparian corridor in question is without a doubt of significant biological
value. The width of the vegetation and the species noted in the area attest
to this. Dr. Eric Johnson eloquently outlines the reasons for maintaining the
riparian corridors in as natural a state as possible. The Administrative
Creek Police was devised to set guidelines for treatment of riparian corridors
under consideration for development. While it does not have the force of
law, that an ordinance has, it can be a useful tool to protect the integrity of
the riparian habitat if it is used consistently.
The Administrative Creek Policy allows exceptions to the 20 foot set-back
and is quite explicit in the criteria that should exist before an exception is
granted. The project in question meets none of the criteria for reduced
setbacks. In fact, it appears that the project could easily be moved forward
on the lot to avoid encroaching upon and impacting the habitat. A re-design
of the project could accomplish all goals for the project. This seems far
preferable to reducing the allowable riparian setback to 1 foot.
We would like to call your attention to the work in progfess on the drafting
of an ordinance for the protection of riparian habitat. It is the chipping
away, at habitat that must be stemmed if the habitat is to retain significant
wildlife value. If the Administrative Policy were actually enforced as
written, perhaps there would not be a need for such an ordinance. It is
exceptions such as the one under consideration that make the need for such
an ordinance apparent.
Of particular concern is the condition that states that removal of vegetation
may take place for reasons of fire protection. It is my understanding that
the Fire Chief may require the removal of any tree branches within 20 feet
of a structure. This may result in the significant loss of willow cover along
portions of the corridor. when a structure is set close to the riparian habitat
(in this case as close as 1 foot), the issue of impact on the habitat becomes an
ongoing issue. The stage becomes set for continuing maintenance and
pruning of the trees since they are growing so close to the living quarters.
With a greater setback of the house from trees, the need for continual
pruning and impact decreases substantially. A riparian corridor should be
an amenity for housing. providing the occupants with an opportunity to
observe a°ildlife. By crowding the two together, we suspect that the human
and wildlife needs will continue to collide. Setbacks allow the buffer to
alleviate these stresses. Were the structure to be moved 20 feet from the
vegetation. these would no longer be issues.
WhiJe removal or disturbance of habitat near one single family dwelling may
not appear to have much impact upon the habitat, one must look at the
cumulative impact of many such projects. One must also look at the
precedent one is setting for future development along riparian corridors. Let
us set the best of examples.
Should you have any questions, please contact me at 528-0833. Thank you
for your consideration.
Sincerely.
Judy Neuhauser
e
KEI+tIVL._
CAL POLY JUN 141991
Gty of San Luis Obispo
CALIFORNIA POLYTECHNIC STATE UNIVERSITY .n pnvN"Io^'
SAN Luis Obispo. CA 9;407
BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES DEPARTMENT
(805) 756.2788
Mr. Arnold B. Jonas Eric V. Johnson, Ph. D.
Community Development Professor of Biology
Director Biological Sciences Dept.
990 Palm Street 9 June 1991
Post Office Box 8100
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
Subject: Environmental Initial Study Check List and Report of
the proposed 1673 La Vineda house project in the City
of San Luis Obispo.
Dear Mr. Jonas:
Earlier this year Mr. Ashley asked if I would provide my
opinion on this project regarding the importance of riparian
habitat to birds and other wildlife. I have attached my letter
of comment dated 26 March 1991. At that time Mr. Ashley told me
the City would inform California Department of Fish and Game,
neighbors, and him when the City was ready to begin the
Environmental Initial Study and he would then give my letter to
the City for early input. Mr. Ashley now explains that the
Environmental Initial Study has been completed without this early
public coordination.
I note that the current project is the same as before the
court action and a set-back has still not been provided to protect
the riparian wildlife habitat. For the biological reasons explained
in the attached letter, the Initial Study and proposed Negative
Declaration are inadequate without a riparian buffer. This deficien-
cy can be corrected by the City requiring compliance with the 20
ft. riparian set-back mitigation prescribed in their Administrative
Creek Policy. This will avoid the cumulatively significant adverse
impacts associated with riparian house projects in the City and ad-
jacent areas.
If the City's 20 ft. riparian set-back mitigation is incorpo-
rated into the project, a Negative Declaration would be appropriate,
otherwise an EIR should be done to discuss the pros and cons of
unmitigated adverse impacts on riparian wildlife.
Sincerely,
Eric V. Johnson, Ph. D.
Professor of Biology
Biological Sciences Dept.
CAL -POLY
CALIFORNIA POLYTECHNIC STATE UNIVERSITY
SAN Luis Oiiisro,CA 93407
Eric V. Johnson, Ph. D_
Mr. Arnold B_ Jonas Professor of Biology
Community Development Director Biological Sciences Dept.
990 Palm Street 26 March 1991
Post Office Box 8100
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
To whom it may concern:
Mr. Phil Ashley has asked that I comment on the
biological value of riparian systems as regards his legal
action against the City of San Luis Obispo.
I have an earned Ph. D. in Wildlife Science from
Cornell University ( 1969) , and teach Ornithology, Animal
Biology, and Conservation classes at Cal Poly. I have served
the City of San Luis Obispo on its Laguna Lake study
committee, and have worked with its consultants on the
Laguna Lake management plan.
Riparian habitat in central and southern California is
an endangered habitat. Agricultural operations and
urbanization have destroyed much of what used to exist.
Because of its rarity in our essentialy arid environment, it
supports native wildlife far in excess of what one might
expect based on its area alone. San Luis Obispo is fortunate
to have a fairly undisturbed network of riparian corridors
running through the city, and it is vitally important that
these corridors be maintained in as natural a condition as
possible. If they are lost or further degraded, much of the
native birdlife that depends upon this habitat will also be
lost.
Riparian habitat within the city limits supports
resident native birds that breed here and are present
year-round; it is a heavily used "stop-over" habitat for
migrants that pass through our area in transit from breeding .
to wintering areas; and it supports a large variety of
wintering species that breed to our north. It is important
to note that most of the species found in riparian areas
cannot be supported in the "suburban woodland" that develops
with the planting of exotic ornamental trees and shrubs .
Many of these plants support little or no insect life that
can be used by native birds (e.g. eucalyptus ) , nor is the
structure of these artificial habitats appropriate for many
native species .
7L..r., C_. 1 i.,,..-,
The riparian habitats within the city also serve as
travel corridors for wildlife, connecting pieces of
appropriate habitat with well-watered native shrubbery. and
small trees. Loss of these corridors can lead to severe
fragmentation of populations, and in the long run can be
expected to result in the extirpation of many native species
from the local scene. San Luis Obispo is at present in the
fortunate position of retaining much of its native birdlife,
but destruction or disturbance of the riparian systems could
well leave us with a typical urban assemblage of such
nuisance species as Starlings, House Sparrows , and Rock
Doves, with only a sprinkling of what few native species can
survive in the "suburban woodland" .
The City of San Luis Obispo has been far-sighted enough
to value its riparian habitat and to require that structures
honor an appropriate set-back, both to avoid flood damage
and to preserve this vanishing habitat. I think the city is
aware that destruction of riparian habitat and compaction of
the soil by human and domestic animal intrusion is a major
cause of flooding (too much run-off when the area has been
so disturbed) . Keeping human activity away from these
corridors is also important to wildlife, since constant
disturbance by both people and domestic animals can make
this habitat useless for native species .
I commend Mr. Ashley for his persistence and endurance
in pursuing his case against the City of San Luis Obispo. He
has helped preserve a habitat critical to many of our native
species, and has thus contributed directly to maintaining
the biological diversity of the city which so many people
enjoy, and which sets this city apart from other urban areas
in southern California.
Sincceerely,
Eric V. Johnson,, Ph. D.
Professor of Biology
Biological Sciences Dept.
Morro Coast Audubon Society, Inc.
A Mon-Profit Organization
KECEIVtL,
JUN 14
1991
Gtr o15an Ws O"m
Mr. rdB. Jonas Community Development Director
990 Palm St. P.O. Box 8100
San Luis Obispo, .CA 93403-8100
Dear Mr. Jonas,
It has been recently brought to my attention (Mr. Phil
Ashley) that a proposed home site development at 1673 La Vineda
in SLO will have signifcant impact upon a riparian habitat since
the city' s own 20 foot riparian setback policy is being
circumvented. Having returned from vacation, I have learned of
this matter only lately and wish to make my comments brief since
I have little time to comment more fully. This should not
suggest that I am any less concerned.
Others (Drs. Eric Johnson and David Keil) have written of
the value of the riparian area and I wish to concur with them.
The riparian habitat is sensitive and endangered.
The real issue is why the city has chosen to deny its own
policy on riparian setback and allow this project to proceed with
only a 1 ' setback and no adequate mitigation. The alternatives
show how a home of similar design can be built on the existing
lot while maintaining a 20 ' setback. This setback would help to
protect sensitive riparian species.
As an organization committed to the protection of organisms
and their habitats and we strongly suggest that you reconsider
this issue and elect to protect this valuable habitat. Thank you
for your consideration in this matter.
Ron M. Ruppert
President
Post Office Box 160 • Morro Bay. Califomia 93442
THE CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY
June 15, 1991
To: Mr. Mike Multari
Community Development Director
City of San Luis Obispo
From: David H. Chipping
Conservation Co-Chair
San Luis Obispo Chapter
California Native Plant Society
999 Pismo Ave, Los Osos, CA 93402
Re: Project ER 6-91, 1673 LaVineda
The California Native Plant Society has reviewed the check list for environmental initial
study, the environmental initial study,and subsequent study reviews of this project, and
also the mitigated negative declaration for the project.
Mr. Ashley has provided us with copies of letters from Drs. Johnson and Keil, and from
the Dept. of Fish and Game. The California Native Plant Society concurs with the sense of
all of these letters, in so much as we strongly object to the violation of the 20 ft. setback
requirement for creeks and riparian zones. We feel that the setback is needed to conserve
the integrity of the zones,and to avoid intrusion of disturbance into the zone. We are
especially concerned that future fire safety requirements may lead to even greater incursion.
We particularly object to the comments in Council Agenda Report that, simply because
setback policy is administrative rather than an ordinance requirement,the policy can be
violated. There is a reason for the policy, albeit administrative,and that is that riparian
communities are becoming increasingly rare, and that they are conceived to have value. We
note also that the same floor area for the house could be built without setback violation,and
-therefore we we see no justification to policy violation in this particular case.
Sincerely
Dr. David H. Chipping
DEDICATED TO THE PRESERVATION OF CALIFORNIA NATIVE FLORA
Roger Zachary ,
n�lblvt_ Friends of Salinas River
1800 Traffic Way
JUN 1-7 1991 Atascadero, Ca. 93422
crtr of son Lm:Obispo June 15, 19 91
Mr. Arnold B. Jonas
Director of Community Development
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93403
Dear Mr. Jonas:
I am commenting on the 1673 La Vineda project with regards to the impor-
tance of preserving the riparian habitat along Acacia Creek in San Luis
Obispo.
I have a B.A. degree from Long Beach State University (1970) and pre-
sently teach Biology and Earth Science at Atascadero High School . I am
an active member in North Cuesta Audubon Society and spend much time ob-
serving Avian life in S.L.O. Co. I 've helped the city of Atascadero
with their creekway project by being a member of their Creek Planning
and Mapping Committee. Preserving what is left of our riparian habitat
is a goal of which I 'm personally committed. Keeping the riparian eco-
system "in tack" is very important because much of this community has
already been infringed upon and destroyed.
Presently, I 'm involved in a newly formed group called "Friends of Sal-
inas River" . Our objective is to preserve the Salinas River and its
tributaries. We are emphasizing the importance of preserving the Sal-
inas River watershed, its wildlife and natural resources. Preserving
the habitat is the first step in preserving the organisms that are a
part of it.
Concerning the 1673 La Vineda project , I recommend:
1 . Adhere to the city ' s established 20 ft . riparian set-back policy.
2 . The conservation easement needs to be maintained as to no reduction
of riparian vegetation.
3 . That the city address the biological questions in the "Environmen-
tal Initial Study Checklist" under "K and L" about- the impacts upon
plant and animal life.
4. The city should consider the cumulative significant impacts for
smaller creekside projects adjacent to critical riparian habitat.
5 . Consider the adverse long term effects of this project to wildlife
and its habitat.
Sometimes man invades ecosystems without understanding his actions .
Preserving riparian habitats will in the long term benefit the integrity
of the natural and man-made worlds. Please consider my points.
Sincerely,
Roq� e� �ry
Dennis and Astrid Reeves
1655 La Vineda
San Luis Obispo, CA
KECtI v��
JUN 181991
Cny m San Luis Mao,
June 18, 1991
Mr. Arnold Jonas
Community Development Director
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
Attention: Judith Lautner
Re: 1673 La Vmeda (ER 6-91)
Dear Mr. Jonas;
This letter is the submittal of my comments regarding the Negative Declaration for the
above referenced project.
The recommended Negative Declaration in the Initial Study of Environmental Impact
(I.S.) allows for removal of vegetation for fire protection. In the Review of
Environmental Initial Study ER 6-91 by Michael Hanson, he states in the second
paragraph that all riparian vegetation needs to be maintained and protected; and in
the last paragraph, 'Topography and riparian vegetation should be preserved." We are
concerned that Mr. Hanson did not consider the possible extent of vegetation removal
for fire protection. The Fire Marshall should make a determination of the necessary
clearing, and mitigation planting should be included in the Negative Declaration.
The Negative Declaration does not explore alternatives which avoid impact to the
riparian area. Proposal alternatives are usually a requirement of a lead agency for
projects which have environmental impacts. One alternative would be to apply the
Hillside Planning Policies and Standards. This would allow an alternative design
which steps down the slope, thereby reducing the height of the structure and
maintains a setback from the riparian area.
The I.S. cites view blockage from our residence. A 25 foot tall structure located 5 feet
from our property line and adjacent to our outdoor private space is not a "less than
significant" impact to us. We believe this will reduce the value and marketability of
our property. An alternative which moves the house closer to the street and steps the
house down the slope would reduce this impact.
The Environmental Check List (section P. item 10.) denies any contribution to
cumulative impacts. The I.S. discusses existing impacts to the riparian vegetation on
neighboring properties. How can that, along with additional vegetation removal by
this project not be a cumulative impact? The cumulative impact should be recognized
and mitigated.
Please consider my comments and include them in the project file.
Dennis I RL4ves
Mr. Arnold Jonas, Director Phil A.�,,ley
Community Development Center 1586 La Cita Court
990 Palm Street San ;,uis rbispo, CA 93401
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100 756-2505 (work)
544-9741 (home)
October 18, 1990
Dear Mr. Jonas:
It has come to my attention that Mr. Mike Hernandez has not complied with
the remedial items of your letter to him of August 209 1990, regarding restoration
of the riparian vegetation he destroyed July 5, 1990, at 1673 La Vineda. This
vegetation destruction violated conditions listed in your department's project
condition letter to him of November 219 1989. I understand that contrary to
your August 20 letter, Air. Hernandez did not submit a rehabilitation landscape
plan on September 28, 1990, nor has he since then. Instead, I understand that
he has requested an on-site meeting with your staff and staff of the City Fire
Department. Does Mr. Hernandez still think he did something other than violating
project conditions July 5? The project condition letter clearly indicates that
he violated conditions 2.c., d., e., and 3. Furthermore, work done under con-
ditions 2.c., d. and e. all require prior approval of the Community Developmen-.
Director. He did not have this permission. Mr. Hernandez allegedly took it
upon himself to determine what was weed, fire hazard and diseased growth and
proceeded to remove it with a bulldozer and chain saw. The project condition
letter does not give him this authority and there is nothing confusing in the
letter in this respect. They were clear condition violations so please hold him
to all the remedial items in your August 20 letter.
My suit against the city included the condition violations and remedial
revegetation plan because the city was allowing water for construction, but in
my interpretation was not allowing water for revegetation. This seemed very
unfair especially for the wildlife that lost their homes due to the habitat
destruction. I felt that items 113." and "41" of the August 20 remedial letter
indicated that water would not be provided for restoration until the drought
is over. A phone conversation with a Council member on August' 30 reinforced
my concerns on this. The Council member said.the Council has made it clear in
their action that no water will be used for landscaping on new construction un-
til the drou.aht is over. I told the Council member that this is not water for
landscaping; it is water for restoring illegally removed, protected habitat.
This reasoning did not change the opinion of the Council member who again said
that no water will be available for restoration until the drought is over. Given
the foregoing and the prospect of a drought lasting many more months, or years,
I felt the remedial plan was inadequate. From the perspective of wildlife
habitat management, a revegetation plan without a water source as part of the
plan is inadequate. This inadequacy was serious enough to merit legal action on
my part.
The judge ruled against my suit regarding the inadequacy of the remedial
plan. Perhaps,_ if he had known about the Council member's firm stance on hold-
ing back water from restoration, he would have ruled differently. -owever, I did
not use sworn testimony on this critical phone conversation, about the un-
availability of water, to hopefully keep my communication channels open with
Council members on this and other projects. As it was, he said the remedial plan
was discretionary and it appeared to him that you exercised your discretion suitably.
The judge's ruling voiding the project also apparently voids the project
conditions, too. =owever, his ruling in no way changes (1 ) the city's intent
to protect the wildlife habitat as indicated by certain project conditions and
the subdivision tract nap, and (2) Mr. Hernandez's disregard for the wildlife
habitat and his destruction of it. The remedial restoration plan should still
be fully enforceable under condition 9." of the tract map stating "Dcisting
riparian vegetation shall not be removed.", which Mr. Hernandez likewise violated.
Whatever Mr. Hernandez claims, please uphold the judge's trust in your remedial
revegetation plan and hold Mr. Hernandez firmly to it. Also, please work with
whoever is necessary in the city to insure revegetation is started soon. In my
opinion the Council's decision to not supply water to new landscaping projects
until the drought is over should not be applied to this project where existing,
protected riparian vegetation was illegally removed. Whether on-site water or
trucked water is used, planting should .begin soon to avoid further delays. It
has already been 31 months since the violation occured.
Please keep me informed on the revegetation issue and other new administra-
tive developments on this project.
Sincerely,
cc: Councilman Bill Roalman
Councilwoman Peg Pinard
_EF' 17 'cco Cr,;:fa YVLYI7VILLE F' r'..t
" STATF OF CAUFORMA—THE RESOURCES AGWC1' OEORGE OCUKMFMK 09"m r
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
POST OFFICE WX 47
YOVNMIu; CAUFORMA 94349
(M 94"300 February 26, 199
<.
Mr. Mike Multari
Community Development Director
City of San •Luis. Obispo
P., O.. Box .8,100'.
San Luis bbispo, CA :93403=8100
Dear Mr: Multarit
Department of Fish and Game staff have recently been contacted by
homeowners. in the La Vineda area of San Luis Obispo, Ms. Karen
Worcester, Fishery Biologist, met onsite to discuss a proposed
home to be built at 1673 La Vineda and to evaluate riparian
habitat in the area.
We understand that this site has been declared a Sensitive Area
and a condition of the permit was that all existing riparian
habitat be dedicated as a permanent open space easement. We agree
that these are appropriate measures for development of this site,
although riparian vegetation was already protected as a condition
of the subdivision approval.
However, we are concerned that the house designed for the site
does not permit an adequate setback from the vegetation. It is
our understanding that the city's administrative policy is to
require a 20-foot creek setback from the top of bank.
Administrative policy also requires the dedication of permanent
open space easemerrts which include the entire drainage channel
crossing the site, as well •as the 20-foot setback from the top of.
bank. In this case, the northeast portion of the house will be
essentially adlacent• to the -riparian corridor, and a deck will _
cantilever slightly over the willow canopy. An oven space
easement does not guarantee preservation of habitat_ quality, if
human encroachment such as this is permitted.
Adequate setback from vegetation is critical if riparian corridors
are to continue to support their existing diversity of wildlife.
Enclosed is a list of species in San Luis Obispo County which
utilize riparian vegetation for sone portion of their life cycle.
One hundred thirty-nine species are listed, and for 30 of these ,
c£F• '1; K' CP:---!%-Z, ,'�eVIT`.''' '.E F_'.
7
Mr. Mike Multari -2- February 26, 1990
;.;riparian :vegetation ..r.eprosents..critical habitat. . .Without well
•:'..-.d,eveloped.... undisturbed•..corridors, the inore : sensit'ive. `species: on.
this list: will no longer tie' found in urbanised areas:.* For this
reason, we feel that exceptions to your setback policy should be
made onlyunder extraordinary circumstances. Given the site of
the lot, it appears that alternatives may be available which would
not impact this area as much as the current design. Two* of the
Architectural Review Commission criteria with which housing plans
on Sensitive Sites are to be reviewed are that 1) they generally
be built close to the street, and 2) they be built in stepped
levels to' conform to the slope of the hili. Applying these
criteria may help.e4sure that an adequate setback- from the
riparians is possible.
We heve met with City planners in the past and have encouraged
them to work with us on sensitive projects, particularly where
creek buffers may be encroached upon. Given that, the area has
been designated a Sensitive Site and residents have expressed
concern over impacts to the natural resources of the drainage, we
would have welcomed an earlier opportunity to become involved in
the review process.
We look forward to working with the City on review of future
projects such as this one. if you have questions about our
comments, please contact Karen Worcester at ( 805) 927-8590.
Sincerely,
Original Signed by
BRIAN HUNTER
Tian Hunter
Regional Manaqer
Kg/def Region 3
Enclosure i i
�c:1 �7o=n reu ,s BeOb&1 L�a��rCouncil
- _
• y.'"
pLlf0icN1A OEPAPiNE11T OF f15N AND GAME V1L3lIF; AABITAT iELaTILiiE91P SYSTEM
PROGRAM BY 1REJE TIMDSSI FOR PACIFIC SAS AND ELECTRIC I'FANY
:::ahate `ierai:n: a;09!81 08: : 01
SINGLE HABITAT SPECIES DETAIL LIST PAM: I
�s:sccssszsaserszaazzzszasaaaazss ssaasasacasssasssecsaaysasesacssas:sa�szsass r-s-'ssssssc saszszasssascsasssnzssssssazz:�ssass:::
SELECTION 'CRITERIA:
Location: SAN ;AS 09ISPO COUNTY
d:bitlts:
I VALLEY-FOOTHILL RIPARIAN POLE TREE DENSE 6D-1001 f 3D Y
-------—---——--------——
STATUS
!234567
FFCCCF9 SEASON !N SEASON iW !WMTAWCE TO.........
ID SPECIES NAM ETERPSS LOCATION HABITAT REPRO COVER FEED INDEX
A007 .aLIFOMIA NOT Yearlong Yearlong N M ! N
A012 :NSAT 214A Yearlong Yearlong L L L L
A015 BLACK"ELLIED SLENDER SALAMANDER Yearlong Ye:rlonq M M N M
AM PACIFIC SLEl1OER SALAMANDER Yearlong Yearlong M N N 5
AC-32 WESTERN TOAD Yearlong Yearlcog L L L
A035 SCUTlDN:STERN TOAD Yearlong Yearlong N 1 N
A039 PACIFIC TREEFRO6 Yearlonq Yearlong L L L
A043 FOOTHILL YELLOii-LEGM M Yearlong Yearloaq L l l
Am ML FR06 Yearlong Yearlong N 1 N
BOS2. GREAT EGRET Yearlong Yearlong L l L
9053 SNOWY MVT fall-Ginter Yearlong L L L
8057 TATTLE ESM Fall-Winter Yearlong L L L
8059 6REEH-BA(KED HERON Yearlong Yearlong N N M
4059 &=-CROM WIGHT 00 Yearlcaq Yaxlong M M M
1076 NDC1 DUCK Fall-Winter rearlcnq L L L L
BOB6 EilRASIAN WIGEOIN Winter Fall-'Spring M N
9104 HOODED MERGANSER Winter Fall-Sprinq N N
B105 CC910H MER&)w Yearlong Fall-Eprieg L l
8:01 TURKEY VULTURE Yearlong Yearlong L N N
1110 OSPREY 6 Winter Spric2-411 L L L
1111 BLACK-SHDIM-DM KITE 5 Yearlong Yearlong N N M
8113 BALD EAGLE 1 3 ; Winter Yearlong M N
8115 STAMP-SHIMED HAWK Winter Yearlong M 1, M
8116 :DOPER'S 4AW Yearloeg _. Yearlong H N H H
11:4 RED-SHC .Dm HANK Yearlong Yearlong H N H N
3123 RED-TAILED HANK Yearlong Yearlong M M L N
B1x ROUSH-LEDGED 1ifi Minter Fall-Spring N M
8:26 601.00 EAGLE 56 Yearlong Yearlong L L L
9127 ANEP.ICkN KESTREL Yearlong Yearlong 5' M L N
9128 NERLIN Winter Fal!-Spring L L
91:9 PEREGRINE FALMN 1 3 5 Yearlong Spring-fail N N N
8131 PRAIRIE FALCON 6 Yearlong Yearlong L L L
1139 TURKEY Yearlong Yearlong H N n M
9140 CALIFORNIA 2UAIL Yearlong Yearlong M N M
1145 VIRGINIA RAIL Yearlong Year!onq L L
8:51 BAND-TAILED P16EDN Yearlong Yearlong L l
l
AIIFCRNIA DEP1r9TyE1lT 7
9F FISH AND S;ME Wll LIFE HABITAT FELATIONSHiP SYiTEN
PRDGRI,IIMED DY IUX TIMOSSI FOR PACIFIC SAS AND z:CT91C C MY
S:tabase Version: 04,05".808:03:24 )2123.59
SINGLE HABITAT SPEC:ES DETAIL :1S7 PAGE: -
aczarssszXan =cccz_caca saczr-azsssccsasusiesasseassas case:sza aasnas=mazz:zssseasuczasssuzc-----sszzassszessau=
STATUS
1234581
FFCCM SEASON IN SEASON ill IMPORTANCE TB.........
1D SPE:�lES TAME ETERPSS LOCATION HABITAT REPRO COYER FEED 1NDEI
8264 WESTERN SCREECH OWL Yearlong Yearlong N H N N
8265 BR.EA1 HORNED OWLYearlong Yearlong H H L H
2267 NORTHERN PY:MY OWL Yearlong Yearlong M M M N
627: LONG-SHRED OWL Yearlong Yearlong N N L N
8274 NORTHERN SA:-WHET OWL Pearl3nq Yearlong N H N N
1279 1LAC: SWIFT Spriag-Saw spring-Surer l L
2292 MHITE-THROATED SWIFT Yearlong Yearlong N N
8286 BLACK-CHINNED HU%R BIRD Spring-sasaer spring-Sa!ner L N C e
8297 ANNA'S HUMNI96BIRD Yearlong Yearlong L L L L
2242 AL.La-s :RB`.11NGP:fiD Spring-Sraeet Spring-Saw 1 L L L
8293 zELTED KINGFISHER Yearlong Yearlong e N H H
B214 LEWIS' =PECKE.R Yearlong Yearlong L L L
1!296 AM W03DKDB Yearlong Yearlong L L L L
2248 YELLON-BELLIED SAPSUCKER Winter ti otar-Sprinq N R
1249 RED-BREASTED SWSUCKER Fall-Winter Winter-Sprie1 L L L
8302 WUTSALL'S MODDPECKER Yearloeq Yearloaq A N N, N
1303 DW NDODPEMER Yearlmp Ysarlaaq L L.:. L
2304 HAIRY WOODPECKER Yearlong. blister-spriaq L . LL
2301 MORTIS FLICKER Yearlong Yearlong e N N it
8311 WESTERN WOOD-PEWE Spring-Sauer Spring-Saaser L L L L
B320 WESTERN FLYCATDER Spring-Saw Spring-Fall N N N M
8321 BLAU PHM Yearlong Yearlong L L L L
B326 ASH-THROATED FLYCATCHER Sprinq-Suw. Sprisg-Saaser N i N N
8339 TREE SYALLOW Yearlong Yearlong L L l
8341 NORTHERN ROM-NINSED SHALLOW Spring-Sauer Spring-Summer L L L
B346 STELLER'S JAY tearlonq Yearlong L N L N
VAR SCRl18 JAY Yearlong Yearlong M N N L
Bw2 TELLON-BILLED 4ASPIE Yearlong Yearlong L L l
13!3 AMERICAN CRON Yearlong Yearl"I L L L
9357 C9ESTMUT-BACAED CHICUDM Ysarlonq Yearlong L L L L
B33 PLAIN TITMOUSE Yearlong Yearlong L N N M
B340 XSSHTIT _ Yearlong Yearlong L L L L
8361 RED-BREASTED NUTHATCH - Fall-Winter Fill-Spring L L L
!::82 MNITE-BREASTED NUT-PATCH yearlong Tearlomq N N N
B:64 $RON CREEPER Yearlong F:ll-Spring L L L
9367 CANYON jREN Yearloaq Yearlong L L L _.
8368 BEWICK'S WREN Yearlong Yearlong N N N M
8389 HOUSE F'REN Yearlong Spring-F-alI H N H H
8310 WINTER WREN Yearlong Yearlono 9 N N R
8315 SOLDER-CROWNED i.INSLET Fall-Ninter Fal:-linter L L L
1376 RUBY-CRONNED KINSLET Fall-Pinter Fall-Sprinq l L L
8385 UCHSOM'S THRUSH spring-Sauer Sarisg4all N H N H
11.4 HERMIT THRUSH Fall-Winter Fall-Spring N H N
B381 9-W. ICAN ROBIN Yeariong Yearlcaq L L L
3310 YAR:ED THRUSH FalI "ter Fallipring N N M
7
:AL MMIA DEPA.4T.HENT OF :!SX 40 S;.$ 71LX!FE MEAT S7VE1
PkOEI.AIBED BY 1RE!IE TIMOSSI FOP? PAC.FIC AS FWD Ei—ECTRiC CL.NP NT
�at�a:a: 1'ersicn: .�;�8!SE 'J8:03:19 OW349
SINGLE WITAT SPECIES XTA!L LIST PAGE:
:asassszsusasaszssusuzsasszsarsssruasaassae�assasssessrassu:osssaaauszszusszsssuassszsaszassssaasa�sssarssaasuuus=r
STATUS
1231511
FF=1 SEASON IN SEASON !1 IWORTANCE TO.........
ID EFECIES SAME ETERM Lt:A710N HABITAT REPRO M-VER FEED INSET
8391 WRENTIT Yearlong Yearlong L L L
B407 CEDAR WHINING Fall-Niatar Yearlong L L L
8411 EUROPEAN STARLING Yearlong Yearlong L L L L
8415 SOLITARY 'VIREO Spring-Snsaer Spring-Saner M R L N
8417 HUTTON•S VIREO Yearlong Yearlong L N K M
141D WARBLING VIREO Spring-Saaw Spring-Fill 8 N L R
B425 DRANGE-CROk71ED MARKS Yearlong Yearlong L L L L
8430 YELLON WARBLER Spring-Snaeer Spring-Fall L N N M
84:5 YELLOW—Mm WARBLER Fsll-Wfnter Fall-Spring N N M
8437 TOW4SEND'S WARBLER Fall-Winter S:riag sad Fill N M M
1438 !ERNIT WARBLER Fall-Winter Spring and Fall L L L
1461 Mv. 1011 YELLOdTWIDAT Yearlong Yearlong L L L
8463 NILSON'S MARKS Spring-Sinner Spring-Fall N N a
8467 YELLDH-ERMTED CHAT Spring-Saner Spriag-Suser L L L L
1477 WESTEPfI TA8A6ER Fall-Minter Spriag-Saw L L L
8475 am-LEADED GROSSEK Spriag-Saaser Sprisg-Suar L L L L
SIM SON GPM" Yar1Nq Yariaeg L L L L
3151.2 DAM-EYES JUNCI Yerlaag Yearlong L N N
!S8 > awrEADE1 COam Yearlong Yearlong N d 1
1530 HOODED DRILLE Yearlong Year =9 L L l L
8532 NOF.THERM ORIOLE Spring-Saaser Spring-Sumer L L
8543 AMERICAN -ONINCH Yearlong 7earlong N L L L
MCtl VIRGINIA OPOSSUM Yearlong Yearly" e H N N
"006 ORM TE SHRES Yearlong Yarlaag M N N N
N01B 9t0AD40013 HOLE Yearlong Yearlong N N N N
HO23 YM AY071S Yearlong Yearlong N H
8015 LON-EAREB fCTIS Yearlong Yearloag M N 8 M
"026 FRIRSEB NYDTIS Yearlong Spring-9aswr R 8
11027 LONG-LESSED NYDTIS Yearlong Yearlong A N 8 N
402E CALIFORNIA NYDTIS Yearlong Yearlong N M L I
H024 9KL-FOOTED MYOTIS Yearlong Yearlong L L N N
M31 WESTERN ?IP!STRELLE Yearlong Year:oag N N
11632 ill BROWN UT - Yerlwq Yearlong H H N H
'!033 RED BAT Yearloag Yearlong N M L N
H034 HOARY BAT Yearlong Yearlong N N L M
M037 TOWNSEND'S BIG-EAP.ED BAT Yearlong Yearlong L L -
A038 PALLID BAT Yearlong Yearlong N N
B039 BRAIILIAN FREE-TAILED BAT Yearlong Yearlong M 1
AC-42 NESTERN RASTIFF BAT Yearlong Yearlong L L
!4045 PUSH RABBIT Yearlong Yearlong L L L L
H047 DESERT CTTONTAIL Yearlong Yearlong H N L N
M^b0 HER21AN'S CHI.MWK Yerlono Ier!3al L ! C L
1072 CALIFORNIA GRCIND SBJIREEL Yearlong Yearl,ng L L L L
NO.1 WESTERN ;RAY 3WIRP.EL Yearlong Yearlong N N R R
H112 BEPiVER Yearlong Yearlong a H
"AL'•FDFWIA DEFARIME7Ni OF FISH AND SAME '4ILDLIFE H961TAT, RELATIONSHIP SYSTE.4
PROGRARRED BY IRENE 'IAOSSI FOR.?4,:F1C SAS ;ND ELECTRIC CONF4MY
3atacase ''ersi6r,: D1:(lBi3B 09:05:00 0212::39
SINGLE HABITAT SPECIES DETAIL LIST* PAGE: 4
z cut zzz=sze=Buzz zzzzsz zsesassass— Zzsssszzzzazszseaczzzz zzz===zzssascc zzzza==zacszzc=sez acalrmcz czzszzaz
STATUS
1234567
FFCMFB SEASON IN SEASON II IMPORTANCE TO.........
ID SPE:IES NAME ETERPSS LOCATION HABITAT WRO COYER FEED INDEI
M113 NESTERN HARVEST MOUSE Yearlong Yearlong L L L L
.4117 )EER NDUSE Yearlong Yearlong L L L L
1119 am N(H)SE Yearlong Yearlong L L L L
A127 DUSKY-FODTED WOODRAT tearloag Yearlong L L L L
R134 CALIFORNIA VOLE Yearlong Yearlong L L L L
A139 NfISKWAT Yearlong Yearlong N H N H
11140 IL461 RAT ' Yearlong Yearlong L L L L
0142 HOUSE IONISE Yearlong Yearlong L L L L
1145 PORCUPINE Yearlong Yearlong M N R R
8146 COYOTE Yearlong Yearlong N M L H
0149 DRAT FOI Yeari:ng Yearlong L L L
N151 BLACK BEIM Yearioig Yearlong N N N N
M152 FINSTAIL S yearlong Yearlong L L L L '
HIS3 - BACCCL41 Yearlong fear long ': L L N ' N
RIS/ LOHIi-TAiLED WEASEL Yearlong Yearlong N A L N
N161 WESTERN SPOTTED Wn Yearlong Yearlong L L L L
8762 STRIPED MR Yowloag Yearlong N N L N
5165 NlKfiTAIN LION Yearlong Yearlong M 1 11 R
N166 3111CAT Yearlong Yearlopl N I L 3
M176 MILD P18 Yearlong Yearlong N N N N
MIT, ELK Yearlong Yearlong N N M
0118 FALLOW DEE! Yearlong Yearlong L N L N
M187 HLU BEER YWIDng Yearlong L N L N
Mi63 FERAL GOAT Yearlong Yaarlmq L l L
R004 NeSTERN Pm rjRTLE Yearlong Spring-Susw N H
8020 DESEFT SPINY LIZARD Yearlong Yearlong L L L L
R022 NESTE.RN FENCE LIZARD Yearlong Yearlong 5 M N .4
8036 WESTERN SKAK Yearlong Yearlong N N N N
8037 SILBERT'S SKIK Yearlong YaarIDal N R N N
0,319 WESTERN NNIPTAIL ferloog Yearlong L L L L
R040 5011TNERII ALLIGATOR LIZARD Yearlong Yearlong N N M N
P.043 CALIFORNIA LEGLESS LIZARD 'earlong Yearlong L L L L
8049- HW-TAILED SNliKE Yearlong Yearlong L L - L L
8053 CAUFOFd1IA WHIPSIAQ Yearlong Yearlong N M R R
=055 WESTEPM PATCH-NOOSED SNAKE Yearlong 'iearioeg N M R M
8057 GOPHER SAACE Yearlong Yearinal! L L L L
P.CSe E.ID1ON KIINSNAKE Yearlong Yearlong H N N H
R059 CALIFORNIA MOUNTAIN KIINS4AKE Yearlong Yearlong L L L L
R067 COL10N SUTER 91AU Yearlong Yearlong H N H H
RD63 WESTERN ARDATIC GARTER SNAKE Yearlong Yearlong H H N N
?068 WESTERN LACK-HEADED SNARE Yearlong Yearlong M M N
8071 MIGHT SNWr.E Yearlong Yearlong M M M N
1076 WESTERN RATTLESNAKE Yearlong Yearlong L - L L
1
J
-. &tus Definitions:
F�•: Federally Endangared
Federally Threatened
California Endangered
CR: California Rare
California Protected
FS: Forest Service Sensitive
BS: BLM Sensitive
- Y
L J
STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY GEORGE DEUKMUAN. Go.emor
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME -
MST 0MCE SOX 47
YOUNMUE, CAUFORNIA 94599
(707) 944.5500
December 18, 1990
Mr. Phil Ashley
1586 La Cita Court
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Dear Mr. Ashley:
Thank you for your thoughtful letter of October 30, 1990, updating the
Department and summarizing the events which have- occurred since our letter of
February 26, 1990, on the single family home proposed for 1673 La Vineda in
San Luis Obispo. In this letter, we concurred with your opinion that this
home, as planned, did not provide the 20-foot setback from sensitive riparian
habitat required by City policy. We advised the City of the necessity of
setbacks for preservation of habitat quality, and recommended that any project
which will encroach upon this setback or involve sensitive habitat be reviewed
by our Department. We hope, as a result of your efforts, the City will be
more sensitive to impacts of this nature, and that they will be in closer
contact with our Department when sensitive resources are involved.
We strongly believe that avoidance of impacts is the best form of mitigation:
We, therefore, will continue to support strict adherence to setback policies
wherever possible, and certainly would state so again if asked for biological
comment on any redesign of this project.
Citizen involvement like yours is critical- in bringing the needs of the
environment to the attention of government agencies. We congratulate you on
your successful pursuit of this matter and hope that future projects, as well,
will benefit from your efforts.
Please keep our local fishery biologist, Ms. Karen Worcester, informed of any
future developments. She can be reached at (805) 772-4122.
Sincerely,
e�lian H er
Regional Manager
Region 3
J
CAL POLY
CALIFOIWIA POLYTECHNIC STATE UNIVERSITY
SAN Luis Osisro.CA 93407
26 March 1991
To whom it may concern:
Mr. Phil Ashley has asked that I comment on the
biological value of riparian systems as regards his legal
action against the City of San Luis Obispo.
I have an earned Ph. D. in Wildlife Science from
Cornell University ( 1969) , and teach Ornithology, Animal
Biology, and Conservation classes at Cal Poly. I have served
the City of San Luis Obispo on its Laguna Lake study
committee, and have worked with its consultants on the
Laguna Lake management plan.
Riparian habitat in central and southern California is
an endangered habitat. Agricultural operations and
urbanization have destroyed much of what used to exist.
Because of its rarity in our essentialy arid environment, it
supports native wildlife far in excess of what one might
expect based on its area alone. San Luis Obispo is fortunate
to have a fairly undisturbed network -of riparian corridors
running through the city, and it is vitally important that
these corridors be maintained in as natural a condition as
possible. If they are lost or further degraded, much of the
native birdlife that depends upon this habitat will also be
lost.
Riparian habitat within the city limits supports
resident native birds that breed here and are present
year-round; it is a heavily used "stop-over" habitat for
migrants that pass through our area in transit from breeding .
to wintering areas; and it supports a large variety of
wintering species that breed to our north. It is important
to note that most of the species found in riparian areas
cannot be supported in the "suburban woodland" that develops
with the planting of exotic ornamental trees and shrubs.
Many of these plants support little or no insect life that
can be used by native birds '(e.g. eucalyptus) , nor is the
structure of . these artificial habitats appropriate for many
native species .
The riparian habitats within the city also serve as
travel corridors for wildlife, connecting pieces of
appropriate habitat with well-watered native shrubbery and
small trees. Loss of these corridors can lead to severe
fragmentation of populations, and in the long run can be
expected to result in the extirpation of many native species
from the local scene. San Luis Obispo is at present in the
fortunate position of retaining much of its native birdlife,
but destruction or disturbance of the riparian systems could
well leave us with a typical urban assemblage of such
nuisance species as Starlings, House Sparrows, and Rock
Doves, with only a sprinkling of what few native species can
survive in the "suburban woodland" .
The City of San Luis Obispo has been far-sighted enough
to value its riparian habitat and to require that structures
honor an appropriate set-back, both to avoid flood damage
and to preserve this vanishing habitat. I think the city is
aware that destruction of riparian habitat and compaction of
the soil by human and domestic animal intrusion is a major
cause of flooding (too much run-off when the area has been
so disturbed) . Keeping human activity away from these
corridors is also important to wildlife, since constant
disturbance by both people and domestic animals can make
this habitat useless for native species.
I commend Mr. Ashley for his persistence and endurance
in pursuing his case against the City of San Luis Obispo. He
has helped preserve a habitat critical to many of our native
species, and has thus contributed directly to maintaining
the biological diversity of the city which so many people
enjoy, and which sets this city apart from other urban areas
in southern California.
Sincerely/�
Eric V. Johnson, Ph.- D.
Professor of Biology
Biological Sciences Dept.
` k J•
497 Lilac Drive
Los Osos, CA 93402
5 March 1991
Mr. Phil Ashley
1586 La Cita Court
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Dear Phil:
The information presented below includes a summary of my
professional views of the value and importance of riparian vegetation. I
have added my evaluation of the importance of the riparian vegetation
along Acacia Creek in San Luis Obispo.
Before proceeding with this discussion I will give my
qualifications to comment on this matter. I am Professor of Botany in
the Biological Sciences Department at California Polytechnic State
University in San Luis Obispo. I have been on the staff at Cal Poly since
1976. Lam a plant taxonomist, ecologist, and biogeographer with
expertise on the vegetation and flora of California and much field
experience. I am co-author of California Vegetationl and Vascular
Plant Taxonomy2 and a major contributor and Asteraceae family editor
for the new Jepson Manual 3. I have prepared numerous botanical
surveys and inventories for the County of San Luis Obispo and various
other public and private agencies and individuals.
Water in California is a valuable resource. In this driest of
drought years all Californians are being made aware of the critical role
of water in our lives. Water is no less critical as a resource for the
vegetation and wildlife of California. The brown hills that have
characterized the San Luis Obispo area this winter attest to the
importance of water to plant growth—and to all of the animal life that
depends directly or indirectly upon that plant growth for food and
shelter. In the prolonged absence of water, all suffer.
The dry conditions throughout the state during the past five
years have emphasized the importance of water. However, most of
California has an annual drought of six months or more duration. The
hills turn golden and then a dusty brown. The ground dries up and
water becomes scarce. During this annual drought water remains
1 V. L. Holland and D. J. Keil. 1990. California Vegetation, 4th ed. El Corral
Bookstore, San Luis Obispo.
2D. R. Walters and D. J. Keil. 1988. Vascular Plant Taxonomy, 3rd ed. Kendall
Hunt Publ. Co., Dubuque, Iowa.
3J. C. Hickman, ed. The Jepson Manual. projected 1992. University of
California Press, Berkeley. This is an identification manual for the wild plants
of California.
7 -
2
available onlyin small portions of the landscape. Riparian areas—the
narrow bands of moist ground along streams and other wetlands—
become critical sources of water to the thirsty animal life of the state.
Because streams and rivers cut across the landscape, riparian
areas have generally been accessible to wildlife of adjacent hills,
valleys, and plains. That is, until the current century began. Dam
construction, stream diversion, and pumping of groundwater have all
contributed to the drying of California streams. Flood control projects
and canals now divert streams from their original course to the sea.
The remaining riparian areas are now that much more important as
water sources to wildlife.
Riparian areas are also very important as wildlife habitats.4 The
multilayered canopy provided by the assorted trees, shrubs and herbs
provides a diversity of nesting and feeding sites for birds and
mammals. Riparian areas are productive habitats, especially at times
when plants of other communities are dormant. The moisture of the
stream is an important summer water source in the dry California
landscape. The nutrients added to the stream and the alternating
shaded and sunny zones of the patchy vegetation are important in
stream ecology. The vegetation is an important component of the
habitat for fish and other aquatic animals.
Biotic interactions in riparian systems are complex, involving
many types of organisms. Riparian vegetation is especially important
in determining the structure and function of stream ecosystems.5 A
wide variety of animals use riparian areas as habitat. Most of these are
non-game species. About 83 % of the amphibian species (frogs, newts,
etc.) and 40 % of the reptiles use riparian areas as habitat.6 Many
kinds of birds use riparian vegetation for food or living space.
Mammalian species include those visiting stream habitats for water as
well as those resident in the area. Corridors of riparian vegetation are
particularly important as routes for movement of animals.
The wooded corridor that characterizes much riparian
vegetation is important in another fashion—erosion control. When
streams flow rapidly after storms, they carry the potential of massive
erosion. Running water is capable of much destruction. Riparian
vegetation has the ability to stabilize banks and floodplains, reducing
4 This paragraph is quoted from California Vegetaiion, ibid. p. 281.
5 A. W. Knight and R. L. Bottorff. 1984. The importance of riparian vegetation
to stream ecosystems. Pp. 160-167 in R. E. Warner and K. M. Hendrix (eds.),
California Riparian Systems. Ecology. Conservation, and Productive
Management. University of California Press, Berkeley.
6J. M. Brode and R. B. Bury. 1984. The importance of riparian systems to
amphibians and reptiles. Pp. 30-36 in R. E. Warner and K. M. Hendrix, ibid.
i 3
1
the erosive forces of the flowing water. Removal of the woody
vegetation along California streams has often led to increased erosion.
Destruction of California's riparian habitat has been especially
severe. Less than ten percent of the original riparian vegetation of
California remains.? Over much of the state the trees have been
logged, the streams have been dammed or enclosed in concrete, and
the landscape has been converted to other uses. Where towns and
cities have grown up along streams or rivers, the riparian vegetation
has often been eliminated or highly modified. Much of the loss has
been incremental—a small band of willows destroyed here, some
cottonwoods cut down there, a section of once lush woodland
vegetation diverted into a culvert. Many individual projects, such as
residential construction, eliminate their own little sections of riparian
habitat. No one of these by itself is seen as a significant loss, but
collectively these changes bring about a reduction or elimination of
habitat values.
The destruction of riparian vegetation caused by the preliminary
grading for a house at 1673 La Vineda along Acacia Creek in San Luis
Obispo is an example of such incremental loss of habitat. What had
been part of a shaded, willow-dominated corridor with scattered oaks
and other shrubs and trees was transformed in one day into a highly
erodible area exposed to full sun. The open ground is subject to the
invasion of weedy exotic species of low value as wildlife habitat.
In view of the importance of riparian habitat, restriction of
development to non-riparian habitats is a wise policy. When I prepare
vegetation surveys, I am particularly, cognizant of the importance of
riparian habitat and I make sure that reports that I prepare note any
incursions by developers into riparian areas and the habitat values of
these areas. I note two things about the Acacia Creek development.
First, there was no survey of the site by a qualified biologist. Second, it
is evident that the City of San Luis Obispo chose to deliberately ignore
its own guidelines for development in such areas, even after the
matter was brought to their attention. 'Me needless habitat
destruction that occurred in this situation is an egregious example of
policy gone awry. The.situation easily could have been avoided had the
city followed the 20-foot riparian setback prescribed in its own
Administrative Creek Policy.
I am concerned that similar deliberate violations of its own
environmental policies by the City of San Luis Obispo could continue to
occur. However, the court's decision in the case of Phil Ashley vs. the
City of San Luis Obispo is a clear indication that such policies should
not continue. As a result of the decision, the city should now be more
7 A. Starker Leopold. 1984. Forward. Pp. xxi-xxii in R. E. Warner and K. M.
Hendrix , ibid.
Awl
4
diligent in carrying out environmental responsibilities under its own
rules and policies and those of the California Environmental Policy Act.
As indicated above, there are sound ecological reasons for having
environmental restrictions on development—such as a 20-foot riparian
setback. We cannot afford the continued incremental destruction of
riparian habitat.
Sincerely,
David J. Keil