Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/16/1996, 5 - BUSINESS TAX VERIFICATION PROGRAM MEETING ATE: city of San LUIS OBISPO ,.d11h,11ii% COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER: FROM: Bill Statler, Director of Finance VIS li Prepared by: Linda Asprion, Revenue Manager,*10" SUBJECT: BUSINESS TAX VERIFICATION PROGRAM // CAO RECOMMENDATION Authorize City staff to meet with the business community to discuss a proposed business tax verification program. DISCUSSION Overview In accordance with the program objective set forth in the 1995-97 Financial Plan, we are considering the implementation of an ongoing business tax verification program effective with the 1996-97 renewal process. As directed by the Council last June, we are requesting Council authorization at this time to discuss the proposed program with the business community before returning to Council for formal approval to begin implementing the program. Accordingly, while a draft program has been developed as a starting point for discussion with the business community, no formal Council action approving the program is being requested at this time; this will not occur until we have had an opportunity to review the workscope and timing with the business community, and based on the results of that review, prepare a formal recommendation for the Council's consideration. Background In October, 1991 the Council adopted a revised business tax ordinance that was consistent with recommendations from various Council adopted financial documents and community groups. Specifically, the Business Tax Advisory Committee (BTAC) was formed with the intent of having a business peer group review the business tax ordinance, become familiar with the general options and elements involved in restructuring an ordinance, and develop an overall philosophy which became the basis for the revised ordinance. One of the key recommendations of the BTAC was that once the revised ordinance was fully implemented and understood by businesses, the City should take a proactive enforcement approach and implement an audit program. Several steps were necessary to accomplish before implementing a pro-active business tax verification program: first, to successfully implement the revised ordinance through the renewal process; and following that, to design a reasonable business tax review program that would not require additional resources and would not be unduly burdensome to the business community. Following two renewal years (1992-93 and 1993-94), one of the key program objectives set in the 1993-95 Financial Plan was the implementation of a business tax verification program in 1994-95. s— '1►m14111111c� ty Of San �ais OBISPO a COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT In May of 1995, the Council was informed (through Council Notes) that staff was implementing a business tax verification program and was provided with an overview of the program. At that time the Council requested that the verification program be postponed and brought back for Council's review during the 1995-96 fiscal year. Accordingly, staff is now returning requesting authorization from the Council to discuss the proposed business tax verification program with the business community and then to return to the Council with the results of those discussions and a formal recommendation regarding implementation of the program. Why is the Business Tax Verification Program a Good Idea? Business Tax Management No one likes to pay taxes. However, certain taxes paid locally are essential in order to provide vital public services -- services which directly benefit local residents and businesses. The City's business tax is one such example. Money from this tax is used to provide municipal services to residents and businesses such as police and fire protection, street and sidewalk maintenance, parks, recreation programs, environmental protection, and economic development. It is important that taxes are paid fairly and equitably -- not only for the taxing agency, but for the taxpayer as well. This is because most taxpayers pay their "fair share", and they need to be assured that others are also doing their share. In the long run, collecting the appropriate level of taxes from those who may be paying less than they should helps keep taxes down for everyone. In order to assure that taxes are paid fairly, most taxes are subject to some type of review, verification or audit process, including local taxes. However, the City has never had a proactive business tax review program. The proposed business tax verification program would provide this evaluation. Revenue Generation Although additional revenue cannot be guaranteed, it is likely that some increase in revenue will result from this effort. As such, given the City's current financial position and the serious challenges facing us in the future, we should not overlook the opportunity to improve our fiscal health by more effectively managing our existing revenue sources. For example, if the program results in an ongoing revenue increase of just 15%, this will increase General Fund revenue by $127,000 every year. Do Other Cities Perform Business Tax Verifications? Staff contacted all the cities within San Luis Obispo County along with the twelve cities we commonly use for comparison purposes. The information provided is as follows: �Z ����n� ►►u�►IIIIUIIP° IIUIU city or San to . S OBISpo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Name of City Basis for Verification Program Business Tax Palm Springs Flat Tax None required. San Juan Capistrano Flat Tax None required. Petaluma Gross Receipts Not at this time. Visalia Gross Receipts Not at this time. Davis Gross Receipts Request business to recheck gross receipts if appear incorrect. Santa Barbara Gross Receipts 10 yrs ago verified gross receipts of 700 businesses in Parking District only. Businesses fairly cooperative. Camarillo Gross Receipts In 1994 requested verification of gross receipts from 4 businesses. Did not pursue program because of problem with 1 business. i Santa Maria Flat Fee None required. Ventura Gross Receipts Computer program calculates percentage difference in gross receipts between last & current year. If variance over 35% request business to reverify gross receipts. Santa Cruz Flat Fee None required. Napa Gross Receipts 5 yrs ago verified gross receipts by having businesses mail in tax statements. Most businesses complied. Not significant increase in tax revenue but did influence accuracy of gross receipts on renewal forms. Monterey Gross Receipts Businesses required to provide tax statements every three years. Indicated significant revenue from this verification process. Arroyo Grande Flat Fee None required. Atascadero Flat Fee None required. Grover Beach Flat Fee None required. Paso Robles Flat Fee None required. Pismo Beach Gross Receipts Not at this time. Morro Bay Flat Fee None required. jcity of San _.AIS OBISp0 COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Those cities whose business tax is a flat fee have no reason to verify business's gross receipts as there is no correlation between the business revenue and the business tax paid. However, of the nine cities with gross receipts as the basis for the business tax, six cities have some sort of review/verification process. Draft Business Tax Verification Program The proposed objectives, goal, plan, and program of the business tax verification plan are provided an an Exhibit. It is important to note that this is a draft program to serve as a starting point for discussion with the business community; it is likely that there will be modifications to it based on the results of our review with the business community. The purpose of this program is three-fold: ■ Ensure that the business tax ordinance is administered in a fair and equitable manner. ■ Ensure that each business owner pays the amount of tax that is appropriately owed. ■ Bring business owners who do not pay their tax into full compliance with the business tax ordinance. Under this program, it is our intent to verify gross receipts for each business at least once every five years, with the selection of businesses for audit in any given year based on a variety of criteria, including: ■ Reasonable groupings of similar businesses by type when there are economies of scale in auditing by type at one time. ■ Reasonable groupings by area when there are economies of scale in auditing by business location at one time. ■ Potential for understatement of revenues based on business type. ■ Date last audited. ■ Information has come to our attention than an audit is warranted. ■ Random selection by date opened or alphabetical. One of two notices regarding the verification program will be sent to all businesses as an enclosure with the business tax renewal forms: approximately 1,200 businesses will be chosen for the verification program during this first year and will receive a notification letter providing a general overview of the program and that they have been selected for the current year; the balance of City businesses (about 5,000) will receive a general notification letter explaining the verification program. Review Process As noted in the Overview, we will be discussing the purpose and scope of this audit program with the Chamber of Commerce, BIA, Manufacturer's Association, and other business groups. Staff will then return to the Council with the comments, suggestions, and recommendations of the business community along with a formal staff recommendation regarding the program. �►�►H���Nllulllllllpp ��ll city Of San i OBISPO COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT FISCAL IMPACT No additional resources will be required to initiate this program; one of the key criteria in developing the draft program was to ensure that it could be implemented within current resources. As noted above, it is not possible to quantify the affect on revenues; however, given that no additional resources are required to implement this program, the fiscal impact will be a positive one. Based on the experience of other communities who have implemented similar programs, an increase in revenues of 10% to 15% would not be unusual; if this occurred, we would see annual revenue increases of $85,000 to $127,000. However, while revenue generation is a desirable outcome, we believe that the primary benefits of this program are improved equity and fairness for taxpayers. ALTERNATIVES ■ Do not implement a verification program at all. The City has never had a pro-active program for verifying the gross receipts of businesses, and perhaps such a program is not needed now. However, the equity issue between businesses who pay correctly and those who do not remains unresolved for the business community. While they may ultimately not be supportive of such a program, the business community may appreciate having the opportunity to at least discuss it, which this option would not allow. Additionally, the potential to improve the City's fiscal position by more effectively managing our existing resource base is also not addressed with this option. ■ Defer consideration of a business tax verification program. While recognizing that the verification program is conceptually a good idea, this option suggests that perhaps this is not the right time for one. The drawback to this option is determining when such an approach would be more favorably received. As such, if this alternative is chosen, staff requests direction from Council on when to bring this program back for consideration. ■ Go forward now without discussion with the business community. The business tax verification program can be implemented as currently designed during the 1995-96 renewal period, and notification to businesses can be sent as part of the renewal process. However, we believe that this will be a more effective program if business community input and participation is solicited prior to implementation. EDITS Draft business tax verification program CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FINANCE DEPARTMENT BUSINESS TAX VERIFICATION PROGRAM I. Overall Objectives A. Ensure that the business tax ordinance is administered in a fair and equitable manner. B. Ensure that each business owner pays the amount of tax that is appropriately owed. C. Bring business owners who do not pay their tax into full compliance with the business tax ordinance. II. Goal Verify the gross receipts of each business at least once every five years. III. Plan A. Schedule each business for verification of gross receipts at least once every five years. Selection of businesses for verification in any given year will be based on a variety of criteria, including: 1. Reasonable groupings of similar businesses by type when there are economies of scale in auditing by type at one time. 2. Reasonable groupings by area when there are economies of scale in auditing by business location at one time. 3. Potential for understatement of revenues based on business type. 4. Date last reviewed. 5. Information has come to our attention that a review is warranted. 6. Random selection by date opened or alphabetical. B. Prepare and implement program. See Section IV below. C. Provide information regarding objectives, goals, and program to the business community. Solicit business community's comments, suggestions, and recommendations regarding program implementation. D. Return to Council with business community input and formal staff recommendation. S� � N. Program A. Beginning in June of 1996, mail letter to businesses undergoing review(estimated at 1,200) requesting verification of gross receipts that are provided on business tax renewal form or to schedule an on-site review. 1. Business principally located in San Luis Obispo will provide verification of gross receipts by providing one of the following: a. Copy of IRS form for prior fiscal year indicating gross business receipts (IRS Form 1040 Schedule C for privately owned businesses or Schedule E for privately owned property rentals, IRS Form 1120 for corporations, or other applicable schedules). b. For businesses whose sales are entirely subject to sales or use tax, copies of quarterly business sales tax submissions to the State Board of Equalization during prior fiscal year. C. Audit prepared by an independent Certified Public Accountant (C.P.A.) expressing an opinion on the fairness and accuracy of the financial statements that verifies gross business receipts from prior fiscal year or a letter from an independent C.P.A. verifying the amount of gross receipts for the business. d. Other methods proposed in writing by the business that will verify gross receipts for the company; acceptance of this proposal is subject to approval by the Director of Finance. e. On-site review as requested by customer. 2. Businesses with other locations outside of San Luis Obispo must provide similar external reports as discussed above as well as supporting documentation for apportionment of gross receipts between San Luis Obispo and other locations. B. Confirm gross receipts submitted on verification documentation is the same as gross receipts reported on business tax renewal form. 1. If gross receipts match, file verification documentation with renewal form. 2. If gross receipts reported on business tax renewal are higher than on verification documentation, prepare refund request for amount of overpayment. 3. If gross receipts reported on business tax renewal are less than on verification form: a. Request verification documentation for prior two years and match gross receipts reported on renewal form with verification documentation S� 7 b. Bill for additional business tax due plus interest in the amount of 8% from the date the tax was due plus penalty in the amount of the business tax due. This payment of business tax, interest, and penalty is due within 10 days of notification. 4. Run computer program that compares current year gross receipts with prior year gross receipts. Businesses that exceed a reasonable percentage increase in gross receipts(approximately 35%) may be contacted for prior years verification documentation of gross receipts. C. Send notification of process with business tax renewal form (mailed annually in June) to all businesses not undergoing review (estimated at 5,000) in June of 1996. S�� ' ..�� .� i I n& A I I Idpo �LWJ YA 9 M Mirod.� NOWAI 7071 r i 1 � l� I ,� > don'tz"am®r", .f/ e ��/, t , I q- -,3 . . t jv_V A` VNN' k N Qa�_ weL.6t$ w tAlb01. IA1!)po-- %-19•' � r Q Lf Er 2 � I IO11� � I II I � II _ II �I 1� II • MEETIN" AGENDA DATE -Z6 ITEM # RICHARD SCHMIDT 112 Bro is O CA 93405 (805) 544-4247 @�CAOr DU UIR I ❑ FIN DIR e- all:rrschmld®oboe.aix.calpoy.edu V'ACAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF TiORNEI' ❑ PW DIR April 9, 1996 Pl CLERWORIG ❑ POLICE CHF ❑ MGMT TEAM ❑ REC DIR Re: Creek Setback Ordinance 1 ❑ C READ FILE ❑ UTIL DIR � F�LE ❑ PERS DIR To the City Council.• y- -= - Xr, FuK I have been part of the local creek protection community for more than 24 years: a stewardship- minded creek owner since 1972, a member of the city's Waterways Planning Board from 1973 to 1980 (in which capacity I had a role in authoring the current 20-foot setback ordinance), a member of the ad hoc committee which began work six years ago on the present ordinance. To say that a setback ordinance that will protect our creeks is something that I have desired and worked hard to obtain is an understatement! It Is very sad, therefore,to see that the ordinance which Is finally coming before the Council Is one that I cannot support. I cannot support It for the simple reason that It has devolved Into something that uses the rhetoric of preservation to promote creek destruction. The staff report makes this point as cogently as I can. On Pages 6-7, note the following statement: "[T]he draft ordinance would do little to achieve continuous corridors through the city wider than the channels themselves, since it averages existing setbacks, has no requirement in the Central Commercial zone, and allows replacement of nonconforming structures... Space riparian corridors in much of the city probably will continue to decline. . . consistent with the proposed setbacks." [Emphasis mine.] There are many serious problems with the ordinance, and many more minor ones. I encourage you to focus on the serious ones, to wit: 1. The use of"averaging" as a permissive determinant of setback distance. (Section C.3.) While averaging has been used in the past, it has always been used secondarily to a primary determination that there is some good reason ("hardship"for a property owner) why the prescriptive setbacks will not work for a particular property. In other words, a property owner showed it was impossible to make reasonable use of a property while observing a 20-foot setback, then averaging (taking into consideration how nearby properties have dealt with similar problems) was used to arrive at a fair setback for this particular case. That's the way it has been in the past. Under the proposed ordinance, however, a property owner automatically acquires a "right"to average simply due to the fact that his neighbors have intruded into creek corridors. The bad case becomes the norm. This is a recipe for degradation of creek corridors. Further, in the proposed ordinance there is absolutely no nexus between a DDM to have a smaller setback and the rias to have a smaller setback. To show how this would work in the real world, let me give an example from my own block of single-family creekside properties. In my block there are RECEIVED Schmidt, Creek Setbacks, Page 1 APR 1 21996 CITY COUNCIL SAN ' ¢ OBISPO.CA a number of one-acre lots, as well as a number of sub-standard (undersized) creekside lots. Using the proposed ordinance's averaging provision, and given the types of ancient abuses that have occurred on the small lots, people building on an acre could "average"to avoid the prescriptive setback when they have plenty of room to keep a 50' setback. That makes no sense. It allows intrusions where they are neither necessary nor desirable, and incrementally degrades the creeks for all time. 2. The ordinance purports to establish protective setbacks, but in fact doesn't, for there's a .� "menu"of exceptions for almost everythina. (Section 2.) Just make your pick from the menu, and you've got your exception. The most shamelessly inexcusable exceptions are those for specific plans, planned developments, and other large land planning areas, which are the very places most able to provide generous setbacks because their land planning starts from a blank r slate. (Section 2.c.) V 3. The ordinance grants a blanket exemption that allows all past structural intrusions to be made i per e�tual by granting the right to reuse old footprints that intrude into waterways and their \; corridors. (Remember the Soda Works? This ordinance would perpetuate flood-season V\ headaches like that. If the Soda Works weren't in the creek, you wouldn't have had to worry about its falling in.) This represents a turnaround in the City's long-time policy towards buildings that intrude into the creek zone. In the past, the policy has been to seek to pull buildings back ra4�dually, to create a clear zone, for the good of the creek and for the good of the community. Even Mr. Romero, the new-found champion of"property rights" (according to the newspaper, at least) vigorously advanced this policy when he was City Engineer-- vigorously advanced it against those who claimed it was their property and their business, not the City's. The old policy envisions a time in the future -- perhaps in a century--when the creekways can once again be free of intrusions; this is a vision of slow, incremental progress. The proposed ordinance, on the other hand, promotes continued waterways degradation by its shift in policy on this matter; this is a vision of rapid, incremental degradation. 4. The blanket exemption from setback for the downtown is not only blatantly discriminatory towards property owners elsewhere, it reverses long-standing city policies (including numerous ones in the recently updated General Plan elements) that call for further freeing up of the creek in the downtown. This change eliminates the one tool we've had to set downtown buildings back far enough to provide creekside walkways, plazas and green space. If this rule had been in effect, the walkway behind Tom's Toys etc. could never have been built! Nor would there be the plaza behind the yogurt shop, etc. all the way down to Broad Street! The creek at Mission Plaza -- instead of being a park-like place -- would have a wall of buildings right up to the edge of the creek opposite the Mission. Is that what you want? This is just plain stupid planning. Setback rules must apply downtown just as elsewhere. 5. The ordinance treats the small guy unfairly. Joe Schmo who wants to build a gazebo in his backyard would have to spend hundreds of dollars on a permit,while Joe Developer, masterplanning 500 acres of to-be-annexed land can apply for an exemption from the setbacks for all 500 acres at NO COST WHATSOEVER! That is the effect of saying that projects not requiring other permits will have to get use permits, while projects requiring other permits can process exemptions as part of the other permit. This is no way to reassure wary homeowners! Of course, however, this is how things are typically weighted at our better-than-ever"business- friendly" City Hall. Schmidt,Creek Setbacks, Page 2 6. The ordinance would distribute responsibility for setback exceptions all over the place, and nobody would be in charge or have the whole picture of what's happening. Some could be granted by staff over the counter;some in administrative hearings; some by the Planning Commission; some by the ARC. It is certain that there will be many different standards applied, and you will have an inequitable, uncontrollable mess subject to various manipulations depending only upon the wiliness of"the applicant, and the Council will be out of the loop and have no idea what is happening. This, of course, makes political sense if it is the object is to distance the Council from having responsibility for or knowledge of the creek desecration that is taking place. However, that shouldn't be: If the Council passes such a messy ordinance, morally you must not hide from its effects. You should be hearing these exception requests yourselves so that you. in the public spotlight. can publicly preside over the degradation of creeks that will follow • After so many years of work, It Is very sad to see such an ordinance being the one brought to the Council for consideration. Here are some thoughts about the rationale for a better ordinance. A protective ordinance would, first of all, acknowledge that we have made lots of past mistakes, and that we, as a community, have been poor stewards of our streams' The purpose would be to correct past mistakes even as it prevents their replication in the future. In order to do that, there must be minimum setbacks sufficient to offer protection, and that are "excepted"only in cases of genuine hardship (for example, when an entire property, like mine, would be unbuildable without some sort of exception). There must be recognition that progress, though slow,will take place over time as old mistakes are tom down, and replaced by new buildings that don't intrude. Given a century under such an enlightened policy, we could restore portions of our creeks that are now degraded by intrusions. This was the approach that was used in the city's original setback ordinance/policy put into effect after the 1973 flood, and it worked well. The City Council, despite being badly battered by misdirected public anger following a bad flood, had the guts to pass that original ordinance. That policy had a minimum 20' setback except in hardship cases, and prohibited rebuilding on a footprint that encroached closer than that. I know these facts, for I helped write the policy and ordinance. The 20' setback they enshrined was not picked because of any special merit to 20', but rather as a compromise between those who wanted more, and those who wanted none. At the time, it was also widely acknowledged that while 20' was a reasonable political compromise within the developed city, it was less than should be sought in undeveloped areas where wider setbacks could be accommodated. Unfortunately, there was never any follow-through on creating a wider setback for undeveloped areas. (The effort to create wider setbacks in such areas is the main positive aspect of the proposed ordinance, yet note that the provision is Five years ago, I made a presentation on urban stream preservation--based on the SLO experience-- at an international planning conference. When I began work on my talk, I was upbeat,for I thought that all the work I and others had put into SLO creek preservation had paid off. However, as I put together my show from slides I had taken over a 20 year period, I was horrified and depressed:the evidence was inescapable,that despite our best efforts, our creeks were far worse off in 1991 than they had been in 1970. If the current ordinance is adopted, our creeks will be far worse off in 2016 than in 1996. Is that what you want? I would love to show Council members these slides, to make the point, but of course cannot in the three-minute Procrustean time slice allotted at a meeting. If any of you would like to see them outside of a meeting, let me know. Schmidt, Creek Setbacks, Page 3 meaningless because of the exception "menu's" alternative offerings.) In my judgment, the ordinance being forwarded to you by the staff and Planning Commission should not be enacted. It Is so bad for the creeks that It Is worse than no ordinance at all. If It Is the best that can be obtained, I'd prefer to continue to operate under the present ordinance and administrative policy. However, a group of citizens, of whom I am a member, have presented you with an alternative. It Is a "streamlined" version of the official ordinance which responds to each of the six major problems listed above. It Is an ordinance that has progressive faith In our ability to preserve and improve our creek corridors for the future, instead of, as staff has so well put it, surrendering to allowing creek corridors to "continue to decline... consistent with the proposed setbacks." Finally, since the strategy of the anti-environment faction is to drag out"property rights" arguments to oppose any setback ordinance, I feel something must be said on that subject. I believe there are three factions advancing these arguments: 1. A small ideological group who would advance this argument as the reason for and against everything. They are a tiny though loud minority. 2. A faction of land developers/speculators for whom the argument is a convenient fig leaf for other issues. 3. A sizable group of homeowners who are honestly scared because they've been stirred up by the first two groups (This is fact, not hyperbole; I can name names, but see no reason to.). There's not much to say to the first two groups, but to the third I can say: I'm one of you. I, too, am nervous about the possible implications of a setback ordinance. I have attached a diagram of my own property, and it shows that I could be totally wiped out if the setbacks were rigidly enforced. However, under the "streamlined" ordinance, there are ample homeowner protections -- including the guarantee that I will not have to pay hundreds of dollars for a permit to build my otherwise permitless gazebo. Given the current state of the law, I know it is inevitable that the city would have to allow me to rebuild or expand my premises (or else purchase my property). It is indeed an "infringement'of sorts to have to make a case to city officials to justify why I should be allowed to intrude within the setback, but under the streamlined ordinance I feel the situation would be handled fairly. I am willing to make this much sacrifice of convenience for a greater good -- to protect the integrity of the asset which is the whole reason why I'm willing to put up with traffic noise, the possibility of flooding and the other nuisances in my neighborhood in order to be so privileged as to habitate such a beautiful piece of land. So, again, please give us a good setback ordinance, or else none. Sincerely, Poe." <�c ichard Schmidt Attachment: "My Lot" Schmidt, Creek Setbacks, Page 4 o• r Af • afiee-4 r 4 . ItA-7-� Z-L I�COUNCIL dCD�GtRL I. TING AGENDA EGO �/6'9/cSTEM # / ❑ FlN DIR '�ACAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF ' DAT [�ATTOP.NeY ❑ PW DIR Ir I a'cLERwoRIc ❑ POLICE CHF.; STREAMLINED CREEK SETBACK ORDINANCE '-'MT TEAM O REC DIR L/AEAD FILE ❑ UTIL PIR gtigRd y the City Creeks Coalition,a group of actively concerned citizens �K RECEIVED April 9, 1996 APR ? U 1996 To the City Council: CITY COUNCIL SAN I s OBISPO.CA We are herewith submitting a streamlined version of the creek setback ordinance that is coming to you via staff. We feel our streamlined ordinance has superior merit, and urge you to adopt it as the city's setback ordinance. In "streamlining" the proposed ordinance, we have had three goals: 1. To eliminate excess, confusing, complicated administrative detail that does little to protect creek corridors, and which we fear could do much to thwart their protection. 2- To clarify and strengthen the focus on creek protection, which is the stated purpose of the ordinance. 3. To respond to the justifiable fears of many homeowners that they may be unjustly impacted by the ordinance. (Many of the sponsors of this streamlined ordinance are themselves creek owners or creekside residents.) Key features of this response include a clear description of the exception procedures, enumeration of exception criteria (in the form of "findings"), a limit on application fees that may be charged for excepting minor homeowner-type projects, elimination of the biological study requirement for minor homeowner-type projects, and making the Council the final arbiter of how the ordinance is enforced. Where we feel some amplification of our intent beyond the simple wording changes themselves is desirable, we have included editorial notes within the ordinance text. These are for Council benefit only, not for inclusion within the ordinance. Such comments are included within square brackets "[...p' and are in a contrasting typeface. We feel our streamlined ordinance is a good one that will usher in an era of genuine protection for our city's wonderful and valuable creeks. We believe our streamlined ordinance is vastly superior to the confusing staff draft in accomplishing this purpose. We have two specific requests to make of the Council: 1. We urge the Council to enact the streamlined ordinance in its entirety. 2. We urge the Council, if it decides to amend the Open Space Element Creeks Map, to do so not by replacing the present map (which was not included in your agenda packet), which is information-rich compared to the proposed replacement, but by adding a second "Encroachment Map" to supplement the existing Creeks Map. Further, we have concerns about the usability of the Encroachment Map since distinguishing creek status depends upon color which does not reproduce by photo-copy. We believe this graphic device is a very poor one to use for an official document which must be frequently reproduced. (Sponsors of this letter and the "streamlined" ordinance listed on following page) Some sponsors of the streamlined setback ordinance: Dr. Richard Krejsa, Emeritus Professor of Fisheries Biology; former 5th District County Supervisor Phil Ashley, Fish and Wildlife Biologist Dr. Les Bowker, Professor of Ecology,Cal Poly Rose Bowker, Cal Poly Biological Sciences Department Dr. David Chipping, Geologist; Conservation Chair of the California Native Plant Society Linda Chipping, Director, Coastal San Luis Resource Conservation District Charmagne Gallagher, Marine Biologist; Member San Luis Obispo County Planning Commission Dr. Roger Gambs, Professor of Zoology,Cal Poly Dr. David Keil, Professor of Botany,Cal Poly Richard Kranzdorf, member Santa Lucia Chapter Sierra Club Executive Committee Steven Marx, Professor of English, Cal Poly; immediate past member Santa Lucia Chapter Sierra Club Executive Committee Dr. Royden Nakamura, Professor of Fisheries Biology,Cal Poly Judy Neuhauser, founder Creek Consciousness, local affiliate of the Urban Creeks Council; former long-time city creekside resident Dr. Tim O'Keefe, Professor of Forestry,Cal Poly Dominic Perello, Professor of Economics, Cal Poly; immediate past member Santa Lucia Chapter Sierra Club Executive Committee and Sierra Club editor Dr. Tom Richards, Wildlife Ecologist Richard Schmidt, member of the former City Waterways Planning Board and the ad hoc committee on creek setback ordinance; former city Planning Commissioner; 24-year city creek property owner LaVerne Schneider, member of the former City Waterways Planning Board; former city Planning Commissioner Donald I. Smith, retired engineer; Member County Water Advisory Committee Dr. Dirk Walters, Professor of Botany,Cal Poly Judy Whitmire, Biologist and Wildlife Rescue Ira Winn, Professor Emeritus of Urban Studies, CSU Northridge; city creekside resident Legend Regular text means from staff draft Underlined text means addition "H m means deletion [Bracketed text/contrasting typeface: Editorial notes, not a part of ordinance] 17.16.025 Creek Setbacks A. Purpose and Application. 1. Purpose. Creek setbacks are intended to: a. Protect scenic creek resources, water quality and natural creekside habitat, including opportunities for wildlife rest. habitation. migration and other movement. b. Make possible the restoration of damaged or degraded habitat, especially where restoration would advance the long-range goal of creating a continuous stretch of habitat along a creek. c. Allow for natural changes that may occur within the creek corridor. d. Help avoid damage to development from erosion and flooding. The setback may extend beyond the channel needed to accommodate a flow of the frequency provided in the City's Flood Management Policy, to accomplish all of its purposes. e. Enable implementation of adopted City plans. 2. Application. Creek setback requirements shall apply to all "creeks" as defined in the Open Space Element and shown on that element's "Creeks Map." B. Measurement of Creek Setbacks (See Figure 4.1.) 1. Creek setbacks shall be measured from whichever of the following is farther from the creek flow line: (a) the top of bank, (b) the dripline of native riparian vegetation farthest from the creek flow line, or (c) the future top of bank resulting from creek widening proposed in a City-adopted plan. The location of top of bank and of the dripline shall be shown on project plans. The location of these features is subject to confirmation by the Community Development Director, based on observation of actual conditions and, if additionally needed, the conclusions of persons with expertise in hydrology, biology, or geology. 2. Where the dripline's distance from the top of bank varies greatly in a short length along the creek, in a way unrelated to topography, the Community Development Director may determine that a setback which substantially follows the predominant pattern of native riparian vegetation in the area is consistent with this ordinance, as shown in Figure 4.1. "Streamlined,"Page 1 C. Creek Setback Dimensions. Required setbacks shall correspond with a creek's degree of encroachment as shown by the General Plan Open Space Element "Creeks Encroachment Map. [Editorial Note: We propose that the OSE be amended not by replacing the current creeks map with the new map, but by adding a new "encroachment"map. The two maps convey different information, and are complementary. ] 1. Along creeks classified as "encroached"the minimum creek setback shall be 20 feet, except as provided in parts 3,T, eF 6 below, or in part E. 2. Along creeks not classified as "encroached"the minimum creek setback shall be 50 feet, except as provided in part 3.3 below, or in part E. B. BetbaekeyeFeging. (See Figuice 4.2.) 1, n bank,struetwFes within 199 feet ef a pFepesed s4wetufe is less theR 20 feet, !he FequiFed setbaek shall be the avelFage setbeek ef these eAsting s4wetuices, but iget less than ten feet. eFeek banks (Met &S a MENUS !FeFfl all peFts el the buildiRg). The setbeek shall be ffleaftffed te d'Y'ded by , Y Y de netinelude wells. [Editorial note: This "averaging" section is terrible policy; it should be deleted. Averaging is all wrong because it takes the worst case and makes it the norm. Further, there is no need or hardship established as the reason for doing averaging; the right to a lesser setback is granted even if there is no need or hardship to justify it. The whole idea of establishing setbacks is to avoid repeating mistakes we have made in the past, and then, over time, as buildings are replaced, regaining some of what was once lost. Our proposals are progressive, offering hope for a better future for our creeks; the staff proposals for averaging and the automatic right to reuse an existing footprint (E.1•a below) promote continued, on-going, incremental degradation, the cumulative effects of which will be to destroy our creeks as both natural and scenic assets.] [Note 2:We are sensitive to hardship cases involving small or tight lots; therefore, we include a clear discretionary exception process and a set of augmented findings which describe both the public and private interests to be met by the exception process.] "Streamlined,"Page 2 [Editorial note: not requiring a setback in the CC zone means everyone can build to the top of bank. This is not only contrary to the General Plan, it is dumb. The land between the rear of the Higuera stores and the creek through Mission Plaza could be built upon (it is private, not public), and the public open space now enjoyed there could be eliminated; the forested creek area adjacent to the former Santa Barbara Savings office on Marsh Street could be built upon, right to top of bank. Surely this is not the sort of downtown "creek protection" the community wants!] r 3. Setbacks larger than required by parts 1 thFeugh and 2 above, or further limitations on types of encroaching features, may be required as mitigation for potentially significant environmental impacts, or to enable implementation of adopted City plans. D. Items Regulated Within Setbacks. 1. Impervious Surfaces. No impervious surface and Fie deck eYeF 89 `nehe shall be placed or constructed within a creek setback, except as provided in part E below. Impervious surface means: a roof or a floor, whether supported directly from below or cantilevered; solid decks: asphalt or concrete slab paving; impervious plastic sheeting; oil-treated soil or gravel; outdoor areas in nonresidential zones, regardless of ground surface material, which are used or intended to be used for storing or working on vehicles, equipment, or materials. 2. Pervious Surfaces. Pervious constructed items shall comply with the following, except as provided in part E below. Pervious constructed items include: trellises; decks with spaced surface members no more than 30 inches off the ground; open stairs no more than 30 inches off the ground; steps, landings, or walkways of any material, which are three feet or less in width; storage sheds, play structures, or aaz pbos, systems eaeh less than 20 squaFe feet; unmortared brick or concrete paving blocks having no concrete or impervious plastic underlayment. [Editorial note: a deck doesn't become "impervious"because of its height. Public utility pads can and should be placed elsewhere. The emphasis of the "pervious" section should be to alleviate justifiable concerns of homeowners on small creekside lots.] Pervious constructed items shall: a. In total, occupy not more than ene-hal one-fifth of the setback area on any development site; b. Not extend beyond the top of bank in the direction of the flow line; c. Not cause the removal of native riparian vegetation or other native vegetation within the rioarian zone. 3. Walls or fences shall comply with the following, except as provided in part E below: a. In combination with buildings, enclose not more than one-half of the setback area on any development site; "Streamlined,"Page 3 b. Not extend beyond the top of bank in the direction, of the flow line; c. Not cause the removal of native riparian vegetation or other native vegetation within the riparian zone. d. Not reduce any overbank flooding capacity pursuant to the City's Flood Damage Prevention Regulations, as determined by the City Engineer. E. Exceptions To Creek Setbacks. 1. Exceptions Property+s May Be Entitled To - Replacement Structures. [Editorial Note:Title wording change is consistent with zoning code language, original is inconsistent -- see cited section.] Where a structure lawfully existed upon [the effective date of this chapter] within a creek setback required by this chapter: a. Any structure built in replacement of such a structure may occupy the same footprint, within the creek setback, as the previous structure provided the previous structure was set back at least ten feet from the top of bank If the setback was less than ten feet from top of bank. a ,quest for a replacement structure closer than ten feet shall be treated as a discretionary exception. Such replacement structure shall not create more floor area within the setback than previously existed (for example, by having more stories). (See also part 17.16.020.E.1.d) [Editorial note: The city's policy till very recently has always been clearly on the side of pulling buildings back from the creek when new development replaces old. Many old buildings intrude to the top of bank, and even beyond. To make such footprints perpetual is not in the best interests of the creek or the community. You would not have had your potential disaster headaches with the old Soda Works building last winter had it not been built into the creek. Having a replacement setback is the only way we can protect and reopen our waterways over time. We believe this traditional policy needs restating here. We believe our five-foot compromise has merit.] b. Additional floor area shall not be added to the encroaching part of the structure (for example, by adding stories). c. The part of a structure which is nonconforming due solely to the creek setback encroachment may be remodeled without regard to the limits of parts 17.14.020.6 and C of this title. 2. Discretionary Exceptions. a. Discretionary exceptions to creek setback standards are intended to allow reasonable use of sites which are subject to creek setbacks, where there is no practicable alternative to the exception. Discretionary exceptions are also intended to accommodate items needed for public health or safety, or which provide substantial public benefit in conformance with the City's goals for its creeks. Exceptions to the creek setback standards should be few rare and minor in nature. The burden of proof for exceptions shall be on the petitioner to demonstrate "Streamlined,"Page 4 there are no practicable alternatives to the plan proposed which better meet the intent of this ordinance. [Editorial note: an ordinance which includes all of the enumerated exceptions deleted below is not a creek protection ordinance, it is an ordinance that proactively licenses the destruction of creek corridors. Exceptions should be justified whenever sought, not written into law in the form of an exception "checklist." Most of the deleted exceptions are of benefit mainly to major developments, which also have the greatest flexibility to avoid creek impacts. The greatest potential for injustice from this ordinance comes from how it affects homeowners, not developers. Our changes in this section are designed to do three things: 1. protect creek corridors better than the staff proposal; 2. level the exception playing field between big and small players; and 3. provide protection for the small guy by limiting fees which can be charged for small projects requiring exceptions.] e- b. Discretionary Exception Permit Procedures. An application for a discretionary exception to creek setback standards shall be made on forms provided by the city. The application shall include at least the followina information: i. A description of the feature or features proposed for exception and the extent of the proposed exception: ii. A listing of possible design modifications for the project which could eliminate the need for an exception: iii. Reasons why an exception.is deemed necessary by the applicant: iv. Mitigations proposed to offset any harmful effects of the exception, Discretionary exceptions to creek setback standards may only be approved by the City Council: except that the Council may approve a list of types of minor discretionary exceptions which would not otherwise require a development permit which may be handled by staff hrouah an administrativeep rmit process, provided in staff's judgment such projects haye "Streamlined,"Page 5 minor and mitigable impacts_ Exception application permit fees. if any. for minor Projects requiring no other development permit shall be limited to no more than 20% of the cost of the pro*ect requiring -exception in order torep vent permit application fees from being disproportionate to the value of the project. [Editorial note: The staff proposal would impose fees of hundreds of dollars for permits for$50 projects. Community buy-in mandates fair fees.] extent ef the . [Editorial note:public notice has not been eliminated; it has been elevated to its own paragraph, 3, below.] e-o, A discretionary exception shall be subject to each of the following findings: L The location and design of the feature receiving the exception will minimize impacts to scenic creek resources. water quality and riparian habitat, including opportunities for wildlife movement, rest and habitation; ii. The exception will not limit the City's design options for providing flood control measures that are needed to achieve adopted City flood policies; iii. The exception will not prevent the implementation of City-adopted plans, nor increase the adverse environmental effects of implementing such plans. iv. There are circumstances applying to the site, such as size, shape, or topography, which do not apply generally to land in the vicinity with the same zoning, that would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity with the same zoning; v. The exception will not constitute.a grant of special privilege -- an entitlement inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. vi The exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the area of the project or downstream, f- d. A biological survey by a qualified, independent person shall be required for each discretionary exception request, to provide the basis for making finding "0" above. Ibis requirement may be waived for minor discretionary excel2ion requests under Part b above that are determined by staff to have impacts so minor as to make this requirement an undue burden upon the applicant, 3. Public Notice. a. All setback exception requests and proceedings shall receive public notice. Such notice shall include a description of the feature or features proposed for exception and the extent of the Proposed exception. [Editorial note: Public notice is so important, its requirement should be where it can be easily found, not buried within a paragraph about something else.] "Streamlined,"Page 6 MEET7 AGENDA DATL''�' 6 ITEM # MEMORANDUM YCOUNDIL .. !' C�CAO ❑ RN DIR [9 ACAO ❑ fIREGHIEF ErATTORNEY P6V DIR DATE: April 11, 1996 ? �LERKIORIG ❑ POLICE CHF ❑ MGMTTEAM ❑ REC DIR ,7 TO: City Council ❑ C READ FILE ❑ LITIL DIR r ❑ PEns DIRT VIA: John Dunn, City Administrative Officer ,-y` FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director O -Alm)h 1&L BY: John Mandeville, Long-Range Planning Manag cc: Mike McCluskey, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Creek Setback Ordinance Relationship to Flood Protection In an article about the Council's upcoming hearings on the Creek Setback Ordinance in the Telegram Tribune, Councilman Romero was quoted as saying that he was not in support of the draft ordinance contained in the agenda packets. This was Councilman Romero's position on the initial version of the ordinance that was being reviewed by the Planning Commission as they were conducting public workshops a year ago. Last May, Councilman Romero prepared a memo describing that he was opposed to the ordinance because it was not a more comprehensive "creek program" that addressed community flood protection. To clarify the origin and purpose of the Creek Setback Ordinance that was being reviewed at the public workshops, staff responded with a memo later that month. Because the recent quote may raise questions regarding the issues previously discussed, staff felt it might be informative to recirculate the previous memos. The draft ordinance that has emerged from the workshop and Planning Commission review process is still not the comprehensive "creek program" described in Councilman Romero's earlier memo. The draft ordinance does create a setback from creeks, similar to street and side yard setbacks, thereby implementing one aspect of an overall flood protection program. The draft ordinance also references future creek widening projects as factors in the determination of the required setbacks. In this way it implements the setback ordinance content described in the Open Space and Land Use Elements. It should be viewed as a component of the City's overall creek management program. Community-wide flood protection also involves the capacity and flood characteristics of the many creek segments in the City. Managing these aspects of the City's creeks is the purview of the City's Public Works Department. The Public Works Department is currently x involved in updating the City's Flood Management Policy document, and addressing the issue of flood capacity flood hazard mitigation. Community Development and Public Works staffs have worked together to see that the Creek Setback Ordinance and future flood protection plans and activities will be consistent and compatible. MEMORANDUM DATE: May 23, 1995 TO: John Dunn, City Administrative Officer 0 VIA: Arnold Jon ommunity Development Director FROM: John Mandevi le, Long-Range Planning Manag rq SUBJECT: Creek Setback Ordinance-Response to Council member Romero's Concerns Council member Romero, in the attached memo dated May 1, 1995, described his disappointment that the draft creek setback ordinance currently being reviewed in public workshops before the Planning Commission does not contain more provisions for flood protection. This memo is intended to address Council member Romero's concern by explaining: 1) how the content of the draft creek setback ordinance was determined; 2) how the draft ordinance is designed and required by the general plan to work in concert with other flood protection components of a comprehensive flood protection program; and 3) that if it is the Council's desire to create or update the City's flood protection program, it would best be done by updating or adopting other policy documents and/or Municipal Code sections. Staff is currently working on preparing a draft creek setback ordinance in response to previous Council goals and in implementation of the Land Use and Open Space Elements. Adopting a creek setback ordinance has been a stated City goal since at least 1991. Both the Land Use Element and Open Space Element contain implementation programs calling for the adoption of a creek setback ordinance. Recently, the goal of adopting a creek setback ordinance, establishing adequate provisions for habitat and flood protection was included as a Major City Goal in the priorities the Council . established for the 1995-97 Financial Plan. Another goal, No. G.15, to select and construct improvement projects which will help protect downtown from flooding was also established by the Council. In 1991, the City convened an ad hoc advisory committee for the purpose of providing input to creating a creek setback ordinance to replace the administrative creek policy used by the Community Development Department since 1988 for the review of development proposals adjacent to creeks. One of the reasons for replacing the administrative policy with an ordinance is that administrative policies do not have the same legal standing as adopted ordinances. For example, the City Code _ enforcement officer could not enforce an encroachment into a setback established via the administrative policy as a code violation whereas a setback established by ordinance could be enforced as a code violation and would be subject to well established penalties. A preliminary draft setback ordinance was prepared in 1991, but subsequent work was made a secondary priority to completing the Open Space Element update. The Open Space Element update was completed in January 1994. It contained direction for completing the creek setback ordinance. The Open Space Element defines what a "creek setback" is and what should be addressed in the setback ordinance (see Exhibit B). Essentially, it says the creek setback is the minimum distance development must be located away from riparian vegetation or the top of bank. The Open Space Element directs that the setback must consider future natural changes to the top of bank and the top of bank that would result from a creek alteration necessary for flood protection purposes. The Open Space Element has a separate chapter addressing hazards, including flood hazards. In early 1994 the Land Use Element (LUE) update was nearing completion. Because it contained a policy on creek setbacks, it was decided to resume work on the setback ordinance after the LUE was adopted. The LUE update was adopted in August 1994. An excerpt of the LUE creek setback policy is provided in Exhibit C. The LUE has a separate policy addressing flood hazard reduction which is also provided as Exhibit D. In late 1994 staff resumed work on the creek setback ordinance. A preliminary draft was prepared based on the previous work and the policy direction contained in the recently adopted Open Space and Land Use Element updates. This preliminary draft was taken to the ARC for comments, and is being reviewed in public workshops before the Planning Commission for additional comments and Planning Commission direction prior to taking a draft ordinance forward for environmental review and adoption. As a setback regulation, the current draft ordinance would amend the Property Development Standards section of the Zoning Regulations (Municipal Code 17.16). This is the same code section that addresses other setbacks including front, side, and rear yard setbacks. The draft creek setbacks focus on the distance structures must locate away from the creeks. This type of setback serves flood protection by helping avoid damage to development from erosion and flood damage. The draft ordinance works in concert with other city flood protection ordinances by anticipating that there will be creek alterations for flood control purposes and establishing that the line from which the setback is measured would be the top of bank resulting from the creek alteration, if applicable. The creek setback will work in concert with Section 15.04.030 (Permits in Flood Areas and Adjacent to Waterways) and Chapter 17.84 (Flood Damage Prevention Regulations) of the Municipal Code. By working in concert with these other code provisions, it does not preclude the City from pursuing future flood protection options. The setback ordinance is not and should not be the only tool the City'uses to reduce flood hazards. By itself, it only stipulates how far structures must locate away from waterways. This can be an effective flood damage prevention strategy in undeveloped areas, but because most of the City is developed, it is primarily existing structures that are exposed to flood hazards. Using setbacks to eliminate flood hazards would render a large number of existing structures non-conforming and result in many parcels along city waterways undevelopable. In addition, it would disrupt the City's established development pattern. Much work has gone into the current draft to minimize the inevitable need for exceptions and the inconvenience exceptions cause property owners. Thus, by itself, the creek setback ordinance accomplishes more for habitat protecton than for flood protection. The setback, however, will be the primary mechanism for protecting riparian habitat. Other components of the City's flood protection program include: maintaining the waterways free of obstructions • constructing or requiring detention facilities • channel capacity enhancement projects that eliminate "bottlenecks" that cause flood waters to spill over creek banks • permit requirements to apply design and construction standards that reduce or eliminate damage to structures that are located within a known floodplain and that may experience occasional inundation. The setback ordinance does not establish plan lines showing the banks of future creek alterations. However, should the City develop these plan lines, the setback ordinance would require that the setback be measured from the banks that would result. Currently, evaluating the need to alter natural creek banks for flood protection is addressed under Section 15.04.030.C. of the Municipal Code. This section requires review, primarily on a case by case basis, for any building or grading activity on land designated "flooded", "flood prone", or on land within 20 feet of the top of bank of a designated waterway. During the public workshops held to date on the draft creek setback ordinance, a significant amount of testimony has been given requesting that the City do something to control erosion along the creek banks and minimize flood hazards to individual property owners. In 1990, the City Council reviewed proposals to update the City's Flood Management Policy, including proposals to construct detention facilities and widen the creek channel is designated "tight spots". The Council took no action on those proposals. Should the Council consider a plan for creek alterations in the future that involves plan lines for future capacity enhancement projects, these plan lines could be adopted and referred to in the City's development regulations either generally or individually in the Municipal Code. An appropriate location would be either an existing section addressing flood control (15.04) or in a new section (17.75?). These plan lines would then become the points from which the creek setbacks would be measured. In summary, flood protection is an important issue, especially after the March storms. Because the setback hearings involve the larger subject of creeks, we have been receiving testimony that there is a need for the City to do something about protecting creekside property from flood damage. However, flood protection was not the key issue associated with the creek setback ordinance as described in the Open Space or Land Use Elements. The draft creek setback ordinance is designed to work hand in hand with the City's existing flood protection ordinances and policies, and well as with future programs. While the creek setbacks will not by themselves make a dramatic change in the flood characteristics of the City's waterways, it will provide improved protection for riparian habitat adjacent to creeks. To the extent that it results in structures locating farther away from creekside areas that will experience erosion in the future it will accomplish some flood damage prevention purposes. I hope that this information proves useful. Please let me know if I can provide any further information or explanation. Attachments: Exhibit A - May 1, 1995 Memo of Council member Romero Exhibit B - Open Space Element Creek Setback Direction Exhibit C - Land Use Element Creek Setback Policy Exhibit D - Flood Hazard Reduction Policy c: Mike McCluskey, Public Works Director jm/L:crekmemo EXHIBIT A May 1, 1995 MEMORANDUM At:vsw�•?..::.i;.?ey^`.��`„'�r<' s.:•c2:i�.:>n'"�.�.�du�.h<ts"`^x:.. J':'?.�� :g:>i�:"t.i^f.'io-'M'h',+'.. •;:^ ;i.: .,aT.'.:�.. :. :'k .w::s;:... :S ':°Yt.S<::s:c. . ?`�2�;.,,��.,`.i . ::{�.,.. .:,`,.....�"¢':::.n.^:+• c.ww$?:e�. ..:?nkc .. > ':< :'A�<in..: :.:a::`; y:c.;:2x::x:3<:v.4�'d;;l�e ':'g3�N.:ni!K'�.�x.,•7,.:;%:.�? :,u:.^,a v'.i;:::.'G�, >£� a��' <N �N KY;:�.`,$:e:,„^w�.,$:$ x:.w7!�'. ?� 'kiLi.•r.:�. �:s.+ii S. `. a:.rs`*:^��#�f' <::?....,y:,.i.::^.�•s;:.. :.w :w uy.„ l�..s:�:�j:$iaii�<;e:. x: us e`'::s:xa.;E�k�sw�'•:::8�6i.:wfiY'o£otiL:�•k�r.°�:�'.o��3R * .u..,::GSc.Cs'�tfisibk: 2:fiC�K�.:wofi#>.7 R� ^.'':'a�„L9fiWw.`yt b,t�vwti.swa3ru:3:sfi+,c�f�c�:w}si2s::^u TO: John Dunn FROM: Dave Romero SUBJECT: CREEK ORDINANCE During goal-setting I put forth as a priority the adoption of a creek program which would provide for flood protection for the community. It was subsequently modified to include an environmental element. I have recently read the Creek Program prepared by staff for consideration by the Planning Commission and find that it virtually ignores the flood protection aspects and is oriented almost entirely.around environmental protection. It had been my intention that flood protection and environmental protection work hand in hand and should be given equal emphasis. As presently. drafted I will be unable to support the creek ordinance and will, in fact, actively work against it's adoption. DR:ss c: City Council i EXHIBIT B Open Space Element OPEN SPACE-ELEMENT CREEK SETBACK PROGRAM C. Manage creek corridorvegetation to minimize flooding dangers, while providing riparian Brian vegetation to minimize channel erosion. New plantings .within creek corridors.should be (5) California native plants (trees, shrubs and groundcover) normally found in creek corridors. tus New plantings should be provided in natural appearing or random clusters. idors D. Require major creek maintenance projects in highly visible areas (such as Mission.Plaza) to have review .and approval by the agency deemed most appropriate by,. the Community :door.. Development Director. Policies Within the Greenbelt and the Outer Planning Area 1. Encourage the County and the State to-protect creek corridors and riparian vegetation. .,consistent with the City's policies within the Urban Reserve Line. County and State creek protection policies should recognize the. needs of agriculturalists while still attempting to protect creeks and wetlands. such . Programs within the QV Limit Line the Urban Reserve Line' the Greenbelt and the Outer )cher Planning Area .eas and 1. The City should: yeas : off A. Assess all City-owned or.controlled creeks to determine the level of creek restoration necessary.. Once creek restoration needs have been assessed, the City should .obtain monies (through grants and other means) to restore targeted creeks. The portions of Old Garden Creek that have been paved should be studied to determine the feasibility of restoring portions of this creek. . or lth B�. Adopt an ordinance that establishes standardized creek setbacks, as well as allowed and prohibited uses within creeks. . Prohibited uses should include both motorized and non- motorized off-road vehicles. This .ordinance should establish that the creek corridor at should not be utilized in determining site density and. should address, to the extent a feasible, .riparian tights as they relate to creek protection. Exceptions for. existing n . structures made nonconforming by the adoption of this ordinance.shall be included in the e ordinance and other City regulations regarding nonconforming structures consistent with Policy.I.e. of this Section. C. Amend the Land Use Element and zoning map to designate all creek corridors as open space (excluding creeks that are paved or culverted)...Designate undeveloped flood prone areas adjacent to creeks asopen space, interim open space, or parkland where it would be costly for the City to provide flood control or where major creek alterations would Pdcs]Llcmeks . -27- 12122!93 EXHIBIT C LAND USE ELEMENT 74. CREEK SETBACK POLICY 6.4.5 Open Channels All.open channels should be kept open and clear of structures in or over their banks. When necessary, the City may approve structures within creek channels under the limited situations described in the Open Space Element.- 6.4.6 Creek Setbacks A. The City should establish creek setbacks, consistent with the Open Space Element, to include: an appropriate separation from the physical top of bank; the appropriate floodway, as identified in the Flood Management Policy; native riparian plants or wildlife habitat; space for paths called for by any.City-adopted plan. (See the Open Space Element for additional standards.) B. The following items should be'no closer to the wetland or creek than the setback line: buildings, streets, driveways, parking lots, above-ground utilities, - and outdoor commercial storage or work areas. C: Development approvals should respect the separation from creek banks and protection of floodways and natural features identified in part A above, whether or not the setback line has been established. D: The features which normally would be outside She creek setback may be permitted to encroach where there is no practicable alternative, to allow reasonable development of a parcel, consistent with the Open Space Element. E. Existing bridges may be replaced or widened, consistent with the criteria of the Open Space Element. Removal of any existing bridge or restoration of a channel to more natural conditions will provide for traffic circulation, access,utilities, and reasonable use of adjacent properties: 6.4.7 Porous Paving The City encourage's the use of porous paving to facilitate rainwater percolation. Parking lots and paved outdoor storage areas shall, where practical, use one or more of the following measures to reduce surface water runoff and aid in groundwater recharge: porous paving; ample landscaped areas which receive.surface drainage and which are maintained to facilitate percolation; drainage detention basins with:soils that facilitate percolation. '6.5 Creeks and Flooding'Programs 6.5.1 Previously Developed Areas To limit the potential for increased flood damage in previously developed areas; the City wilt: A. Ensure'that infill, remodel,.and replacement projects: (1) Do not displace more flood water than previous structures on a site; EXHIBIT D LAND USE ELEMENT FLOOD HAZARD REDUCTION POLICY 6.4.3 Flood,Hazard Reduction ; A. The City will develop and carry out environmentally sensitive programs to reduce or eliminate the potential.for flooding in previously developed, flood-prone areas of the City: B. The City should allow flood waters to move through natural channels.-Flow should.be' 'accommodated by removing debris.and man-made'obstructions._ .The City recognizes, that natural. channels generally cannot contain runoff from a, storm of the intensity expected once in 100 years ('100-year'storrrr'). : . 1 C. No new building or fill should encroach beyond;or extend over,the top-of-bank of any creek. D. 'Within, predominantly developed areas (such as downtown) infll, remodel, and replacement projects_should not displace more flood water than previous structures on. j the site or in the vicinity. Commercial buildings may be flood-proofed,where providing floor levels above the 10Q-year storm now is not appropriate 'due to adjacent improvements. New infill buildings may be required to have greater-setbacks than their older neighbors. . E.' Within new development areas, such as.the potential expansion areas.shown in Figure 2, substantial displacement of flood waters should be avoided by: (1) Keeping a substantial space- amount of flood-prone land.in the vicinity as open sgace; (2) Enlarging man-made bottlenecks, such as culverts, which contribute to flood wagers backing up from them; y (3) Accommodating in such places uses which have relatively low ratios of building coverage to site area, for which shallow flooding of parking and landscape areas Would cause minimum damage- .. (4) Requiring new buildings to be constructed above the 100-year flood level, F: Creek alterations shall be considered only if there is no practicable alternative,.consistent... . with the Open Space Element~ } '5.4.4 "enifies and Access New public or private developments adjacent to the lake, creeks, and wetlands must respect the natural environment and incorporate the natural features as project amenities, provided doing so does not diminish•natural values. .Developments along creeks should include public access across the deveidpment site to the creek and along the creek, provided that wildlife habitat, public safety, and ,reasonable privacy and security of the development can be maintained, consistent with the Open Space Element. 1 MEtTf, AGENDA Di3_:R DATE /6 -96 ITEM # Gl�'( �Ctt- CAO C ' �.1.I�C� I ' 1 CAO ❑ FIN DIR �N-Cotj5- e'ACAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF lGg6' I ��` T -?qD P�.NL d - � ATTORNEY 0 PO DIR :5w LL.tIS CJDL5FU a Q�OI tg3go �{ CLERK/ORIG ❑ POLICE CHF-; Hyl ❑ MGMTTEAKl ❑ RED DIR Lf'(dW RECEIVED ❑ 9 FJFAD FILE ❑ UTIL DIR APR 1 21996 ° �`�Gos _ A,, �ctE CITY SCOU IL 4 " � � PO CA C( Nr.0 ry � DF Mc!WAAAAW1r5 0M 7Lff �- PLF�� PRvv�D�C�PtivS tro 1, ?I,A�9r�r►�G Dr,W tL N( ,B�es : .Z• IU TLtR�kL S. CrTYArcwEY A-rmc, Am 5aFFO1e71tt.66 ft -50' F�'l: 5 n '--K FI�oM CR1=F RtPARc V aE17t'rtE�'U IN VjJWCBOM- tF�.ofz L455URB�'(�b r-r erUr. �u lcw 6 or Com' ^ F - 5ET&VX FMA CgEEx qJ PAJZJW vWIaWta) IN JE;jczoo&� og ujWM34z�Eb CF TRE ICATL--,. -Fttm bocu�m s1-mNwe -,z'pfvjT-, wo ori 6mb scj an}A XtEVL 5CWP-5 P6 IWEA51L6 A GrLs F-COkMUC N2b EC5t,6Gt6N" 'Vytu, e7 TM C17Y5 c � Sa ACyC (n� C o� Es yLsttc c� n(E-5E vPME-:- 55TBACK 14tFFM XST%\9- Fo WELE} T FMN-Cgii r\ KpFOU W Ve6F-a MjW blt J?r,VvP fsF BPc Y, AN lrVf rxT�P5 I"AZ�� BWKL Tqf FIR5r pDCUPU-T 15 n-Tc'�"URZPou CXM�� �.a�GTcA� q�D M�sr'L-� xPiPrtll75 8/fx116.cC�L ><t�9b 6TH GtrNy-(r-lG P-E501, R E u t'�5 -FOR A 5G FT 36r5O�C� Ih9 A CtgY FPDM TKE CEEF-K p-t PPi2j1dJt01�1- I 1 15 GA�L`e 2:1 PprGE6 I &s td..p I i4OPE. You REAP A 1.1-- (5[-- !-r I �iF- WL(t'�r k!k'ICkI lSTiT�� �` (�t,28RN Cxr-��:l.��r �V�T/tll�TcoN't i5 R-L50 VF�'�`� MW( r A10 IF Ya l 5k t AA IT, `Cool 4 5E.E IT b t` 165E PrNI� SUAMPL -:Y5 ,j�9Mf 0 �rtfE �606�Y(CkL PTD F-COr�Nt(,C B�9EFtT5 DF GR K PSD + ' IN av,pl * -rRE NF4%51prw IMA OcWFf�9,) Cl, ) EKA sLM OF 1� CPQ TWIN tT s sP 5 i1:tC 5fX,6VJC5 PP.OP,PcF,I�� 655X6 tT t5 A 5L((�tfT�Y r2 Ki Testi► I ltd f tF.iNtf�C6 IZ l- PSP- FSM L-DCAL PR£>F€ iG N�f3iB1G 5�3 AVb FJJVtfZ J&AlA9TPcL oRc-AA,)IS-rtOA-05 AtL :9TATi�56 T-c+F-A9EEb F Mb 5uPPorzmf C A Z �:T DWEWPMWT5erMCK IN T-HE L�R6AO[20 M.EA CSF tE l.CTS. I tt F- S i(9Ff�l[9P.1 Tl-E�U T� T�tE Ct1`t tf,�'�t{ '-J, lggo5 &kT 7HE�(p AAF, A5 VAAELv MOW A5'r tiW I,vF-f'.E TNE1:� For,aPi.�i&) -FRE B 0W6tUtL? Wr*VWL66LCAl-� AA3b O` f-fEZ gEA5u-s F62 PRz5VLDlW5 A ?O FT SETBACK P AA R1 PFt2i �r'f�SE Gf-�Tf�.S l�f£ STt1lr �U�ll� IN THF CITY A5 Nj 1MRV2T BrPD 'OF PW/unJ'A'6 bCa4 11FA 7 &L7" ft Gl2X.t1.� cLW-JWtJVCiH 'VTt AAr-- TO t_oCM-P- 7—f� I eftE- PRDvLDJ,--D T fMt HME Ft�cftlR caJurJtr-k-XE. Awc -ForL d:�atjz, . wrovEomk5te WA lz 5A&F— cf0l a7 i Mk? I tfAVV,- unbEPJ.rME:Z THE Pars to t..O� DaftPlJ-X<77 i cvCM TM NEED AO ML�WtEAPATL/k5 FokTffE CITY PR0VL.> Jam, A 2D P's RLPMW 5ET5PCaC 10 T-HE-G A&W C.tTc( AREA. p rrp4Ho Iq wvjvtwT-5 Mr-g�ct' e, t Pm-r U*fper THS (tel Gll.. r�1 A P�ePo2T fl`e n?eM5 AT Tl4F-MP OF PACE 7 �€G DIiJ6 tT L5 C DS t�STf{$1-15 D� SYRh9DPrRD GSD asf- Polar au CA-t-jF-OWLA -F0 U5F- A ;ZD FT. g(PPdZIW CREEK SET5P<C4 14) uRBfi 56M K&S ANA Pr 0 FT ai PN:,.i AKS CZEE:.5FT-8A6K I Ai kE -55 a p.Bfw Af-�a5 Pry UJ19f FlGt{ D Ok Fu VP,.F jVJ/UFX)rT`C0/L, AP_EAS. Fuje�tEv,MaRE 7 PP6E 10 OF 774E STS ins DftM 5TrATP,5 TRPT noPpL&D eF Tt fe5E W) FT POD 50 FT- CIEEK 5erspc c 5m)? PP,b5 V%W_ K)Orl- If & T KfA. A5 1. ft:S pl4W*I% C6titAAOA9 5W5E- L5 fi`•PPG-jam- cc_.C- rOf, 5Atv',F &cCfl �TA-FF ft.Am/w/%6 A0 jz&>rLoPcNay-) i"HE LA.5E dP ;zO FT r-D FT. /ZIPPcfZi tlJ CP-P�, 5J:�1'5Pkcp�5 7D 3 E'C K50M1G SANf}�uR�L— LMtvl�t;��T�'. So L/ u9 TbOrzo� hT- P tit�i/�C� 6MA155LO,u T�tfl�" 5nc'D ;N lS P(zoC,F55 oN IT-5 Rekb PRLu ON tl G 501/1 A1� cc iC To 7-tkE ?_0 FT wD 50 FT- 5E�TBACIC5�I RA fE PRDPo D ��Di��c� is ic9or�sE 'T Tir,- P#Wl3LE tF rLCAl IM, �DM Nts�R.ATi U� � � Pou cY�s/��FoP� M>UtNkA'FE-ce PROTPC� ?R,FF 2a PPdZI RIS CPZEEK C®2►21D©(� , l''�S DNS tc9ttO P�� A4,TT tE Pj,ANt,�i rv(� �n�wt�55 iE�ti W�02)4:25 Nt5P5 W> i EA Q1 v5 iN C4R51% cJ d85FRvED 6c9HK HA-PPa2P TD S�klap E-yU {f tD X15' aq:5p+,:�5A9P5 Wb E-tSTQA YSj PyA"VI 56 Akl� L-5F� StTPrFF/fes kM c�W tt� y`l Wj--- Tb >0 'TF4f,: WMPl-aE RE-5EAfnr , 03 VNO �" U5E JU.51-1 FtCAT C BAC K D W6E5 t ? TD � P*Z YNR JC.j,ST;�CCA'T(oV Fee-TENSE..5E TBAC<D 12STAA5aS f%QF 1�f6T TP►KIky (.SFR X[5'rcA ill- S P..DS. &w4T-H M PpW tj W6 6Pz I AL 5VWT Cyst,( -,b aEkZR `' AMC&aATr-- '-f' E Iz R9�[TtEa'�S Qtv ?D : Pr1C?� 5Z ��YBACI<S �1'�fF iN 7Nf FSA t C� eef r,)M75 ©R oehtu i ' A-T' tiE WOORKfiOP5 Pd�DGU�iFN- OUT-rRV5E Cp1TtCP,1, 5SAfF DP'LOLM5)TPE MCF,55 u�a5 VUP6 E TD T1405E (,c HL SY�I�I—�' Y�S�F� "FtfE S�TTP�CKS i c9 pc 'TCtl� " P�'T aif, tf•EPs�,) At&,5F. AST A HALF LO�SFti PEOPiF- TB6r[r-ija) '�H15 U.D?6 NOT CWvG A "TAKL1 -6 BUT !HOv U9erzF,601&.6 To SUX--T&4E CCTL' IF TrS SE 5�'iBAGKS P2E)pq, ,ED, TWDT5 DA cAtU4lz EEFFCT PSD f 'tif �c,�Y Cit�14c15 � > � T r ip►�N«Y 6c9NkMlSe- CD/v �tq> Caw IN • AUD AL-'�E�U6l� fly Tiff,�5 _ ON AfsD BL; TRE V2ffl,?(v PcAbtjjk6 r,�MM L55(�JK9 E{A�Jkyu7� `}TFC tMD As/UE l sCxxtL�tf n. TG Mt'�K n AA'Sb L�GPc 1- Pc12!:�ckq f�T ' �rt _ :�` FY. P►i�� 5D Ff" i2r Pf 1Pd•9 SBCBP�GK 5+ 1lyDftP.�S Uj `-off. r-iM cL P!.AMk)jN6 &MMf55LCW .5TAF1= I _ & Tj ►4E5: >REC OIJ OF A BFI-F�V-P-P-F� PdOD Uoocg fD R-mut* 651�&115510t) "fu� �a51C�LLc1 pP.iv lbe I THL sc OPPL*k (c Dt•�s Tp&- � PUAMsT�El> Pis, )�-O MrTI-tr-- r-t"RL , St:�Jf!'-�i C .Mt55Mf�5 MPrDF LTPA r4CA'5WETD ::5r� 7RF- PF.dDuc r oxo 7E) -7-RF- COwWJL. PW&a6 A&kb N JBuT A5 THF- Dc55 T��G �MNLL55i�1.9E(Z STP (PAC-f- 12 AF's CadcU. f-WPA T,+f Pfz P,,.,C��cCl`pf w-, �D 5pCK ET F-v CepTv*3)1•t5[ ALA /JOT IMPIEAFvY M)E-0UAS 5r-v b tC-K. 5. 56 U t Ri" Af' Pci!- OF 7NCF5E CCF-P�tdl.75 i N T� P1�U1 tib (a►15- SIDR95 PP.�"Pt9�F� CCK J�RGK`�YC�P�.f��� U� rw►N�tticE ? �-wr 'rMj ;2D f7-, Al�� fT CR K S PEGS fat; ° 2. spec LFt , P^5 3, Nawmar f f s it. I_pt� D t5oj ,5, U51r PQM.cr 6. ARcit nT,- L RE-vlE46 -7. PSN Fop, pu&,-1G FAuurcfs T�G U3KAT 15 ►.F�`INA*:►TEPI A j4,TftF--5E r,-XCF-Fj-t0k!',5 . EjP [CA 4I e 5au11=GF I?e (/��i I�Pd.3G ` a=WAOiEO RtfF6 PfPE W�PT fv'LkT fll�7HF F!',i�'.OP►}O KP-P6Q1,c�r�W fin P,-, A B1G fxCfPt tE�Jv7s:�. � D�vE1,aPM�T Ne-i6-�Kw25t�+�% Ifo T4e- PPS; is 1TTt_i W ICS FT. of—Rf-W�iCA�7S PPL`' ��P I/�U •`'f'I`� �#:JT. �G F- (k✓�-�i i l KI�yO(G Tiff `�oy,2) Reek.6 Ito THs P� CS S PSD UR'T�-TD Pr?oi THF cn. K {fR�[TRTM&a rfF-cvLtrDu sr��r sn u- M�G►�-�T�2�� saw B ate) r r&3 LT. r)Rce �ftvE:-R CrL-a.� �j gPc�iC �i2Ar► CE l� 6►.� At/ERp6toEE kf F,JUST 6eiV\�G T5 I � WttAT OE- tf.PrUE- t WF- INS pp6T • pLfp6E� LETS LU51-60 aACK, `-D T-t{E pm>e x-MATtG k>mI M L3T ATi VE 62E:F-K &PI1t�A1�C��!(9tf tC�t a-j5p5 -j--o7FC MAk)y HPe5�, -- ou-rNOgEtUkYo wKET�WXZ55 ap,5c � cif— UPOULD E- PNF— U9 LTH ALS.-TEEr6E LUC E.xGEP` ofti6. Jr, 5Av� CAti BWL-D A FamR icoob RSotir�i.E Fj2tJF.i r :!nMtLpaTo I.Csfft'cT Tti 1[Z A1�t6tf&�25 ff f�U�A � �r`T-TI;{FSPrN4E 'T[ME cc m pw W t rH TttE 2D F� R-t Pmfru GZEJEK 5ErBfCic cN EA5- cpcAcAc "s46 Hvj THEY 5HoW-DI REC-A f'Df, 5 DFGUt{ff-aTuP- ML64456R > E f m DWE 10 TRE HT1 ESPFL[pa�-' 5ffixF-7RE i W&014 s pR�� De ►moi P�DF�uA�I-`r �2DV�i '�r�� C�J�• �'f �5 PflvrS�- Wc5E Wj> PFxw;> FwwSk Tb TI+IOK TRP T Cf3E PX15ECI AKu096 �f�l�l-TttP�T PRDVCD�s P�1�9 �D�c� 2tPP�RiA-►J C�� 5 '� DeEs NaT iN Twu5 P26�'�DE ���c 1=�c�T E�cc�c�l- �iz5 t�►uE SD (.f 9 lDE r-D ht OXc&A CREEZ r tV LTH P i PF�'i[tti VE6ETATccyU TAT PRbVLDFS A 20 PT 9-(.PPd &/J S MCJ<, ulttW 5L4PWW\5t) yes pc WT,- PwvtDF-s A CLW SWUCT�P�� I-oP,sMPtJ- M(�2AT�2`� VCLD 50Il56 13t2D5 Tb 5IDP 6VEJZ Ilii FO P,.PZS T Pd)D F�Dt►:�'� DU�i1�G THEfH 21-06 P'�'��S M(U r�TCDti. I T ccs(ll. N�� 6E Ba:C-DU,5& H-A.8i TRT hr6K TSE (,c9t t_D j?>LRDS BSE Ao2-0 FT. �L PPdz1 W Spm t5 WT-t45aA6N pR6VcDE wxE pl W-vr WD Y6G(l,!r, 'fit tPC�S GC9 tf1:2E`i 56 �`t P�w ars S acK cin 5 coo Ppote? ! Pdux THE 2& pr SarT�K ©►s A StN(�LE I21�FfP`1f CPEFK5LDE GDT- D0E:5 PP.OVLDE POW61 OF A iiA LTAT FDP- 5AAN-L, ftD&U:F AA[6P.ATM` 15ta5 TD. [IY Ft OfT.5• IT i 5 11�,PDf�FtiJT 5�P DUF.2�-Prf3iTP�T TU BEST p�ND (�-F/.ZEG- EGLEft1l�C1�; K[f�6 iN5Fna5 OFF THE f?-[PM M UFPt5 aoE 44 ft5 BkF- ,M E6 Ao 5�D5) F-0PLA F� H 5 L bPS B�-Fo T�t�c[►.;� D Pei ` P-p cam; iIR Nt[l�tzR�tDtl�• W� f� C 35WS�oe 7H-F SrfDwEb �L. Imo[-Y 821 [TttDLdC9Y P124F�555DIZ �Rl. P�CI� C LP67 PP6 E OF P�Tr�{MWT5) L$T'6F 56 B[2D'SPEE LF-5 I ifRVE 5EW IN T14 P�LPF�2iPcfv :Rn�E_ 4F M4e BACK YK-b 6to 0487 &),ja W LTH A ?-0 ':`I • [uPR121M S��K�'�fD H IT ZftS JUS t ori,. Roe,-tjm7Hw wp..- SEN CITY PDLl.GY mr Tow TtME), FW_57A ID TAT L5 w Imck Kf- W,%ABEZ or, E5lw TD IIS TRE 6TIF. BOTHpf ApwF� lT LAPIS WE 'TD A MINIWtL-`(` PrDFq UWE 20 FT (UPftP4W 5�K W)kkElNFD 40 LTH THE�t5Tft�4F R'P'IMPaU 6+p6a-Ptf- a3 M4e 1_�, I ljfte :5EDti Miz-FUER BLRD 5PECAFS Ito YttF�EXonC, 000A"&49P C VE6FTR WfJ bF MY kE &tfP./J6 BPC< gper> I•f_� S4e5rrPAA Prrc CfIuY r �E t Vp�> THE U f Il VIE R.LPfduw wLuow.5 F- °Tcc 5ifWZ-S pf '59A BADS Dcb NCS[F tGw E u9[TEt T � TtC. pLA*T 5f r< Fs AND DU MT - Nl .['till P� SP�I=E HAU75(kS TIfEY DD^l�[P�'JPdu tlEc�E ''►� W Cp) DU.r&&y, r Nft2 M.i6 ATOtiS . )6 ( 6ET-71415 �E SBM 6F WWb BIRD 5PEGiE57 AND NL4" NE-64W2(5�5 FftP-- Ff�c9E�2�PEC1�5 LAITY MD.S _CFMEM bEI EfCCfiL6j 'P#tPfPt63/. 7ffaMAAl T6-WRNT1 Md2..p_ PE5Xee SPP.GCE5 ft5 g6CMk)&f p,,b I 5GZU8 )A`C j STP+r'-t 11 � �F-tDER_5 13LAC&P4A� �t4 E I�oC.E ttfX,tSE SPft�'J Ut PtAS� C�fJL4' R F E'TffE{'_S. AtjD tiLo51-OF Iff_ PE:5K5e5PECtE5 TrF0 '1'O H��s5 THE 5n�[ftu ML&kAZP,` so�ec�-cs� 8u i T�t�r FwD PrZ,1�c�v� CDUET-_ PC. p�cc FMt k TtiIS PE5K`C tfflf+'S5Mr--UT I!J THETf tCKbL'►a&425 Rip OrK�(= p tPRRi RFS U'. lc Vt6EMTV3 OF LDS. 7i E POWT- t 5, St t LOT �vtb115& & ?& 2aPPtRtA SE7BRCIC GAS PRDVtD� A MUC�c reDF,D T,V,-PDPZA h 5PtOCTa M.l62ADK�JT B1&7 "05,WpGP,NO`F A PcCF.1�`+ L DPS {-�PrVE Dd/ SE LI K�uy LSE IT r�nn,► 5 No SfS Vo/z, bbI<5 tr 5r-p-Va Tft Ci tis (V%WAL Pt.P.�j 60AL ,�f-G Aug V0as 4F -r+tf- OPEO SPRcF-- "D 4" l� jf,�jr To Pt'-0'-� PLLPPcIZI rtJ cP�JC CoRAADRs AUb '� AbpPi R C Ez:j< 5f�t3A-C;i C)[4> iNf lzr— fop, T+15 Rd-m5E�TD PROVLDF. 51-f zo w, L ?i. djM A* ffNA aoD C6LcA-I� iU,5`-tfI CAV OM W THJE: F1N 6mmts510N ASD Cr, J�PuT 64uuUL. 5rW (?mss I SU PPBRT OFT .2D � Prob 5D F't: ��BACK GDA16 0kwee To ,VjW pjWtAA3b AoD JIrSVVP-�`� ��� 6opd..5 PdUD R�o1uPLG. X0127 N1 WirH, a Cox 5EMAcx Exce rt6P OOIAl ArJcE. M poem C,Lly 5TWF Pi,� T© CA.Agr-- A UJ EB 5 LTE TD 51 b Ir OUT-(W TttE rly'fMn9ET FoR T-i� U�p Ta 5M t��`' wRAi R Mru9i cr PaI.17Y M A5T,NoV"DD to ri'A8ij5klW PIOTt-rcTVE uZE4c CMPJDOk SETBAOK5 8K U.s1a9G t75 ou90XCX�W mRbt�Rn9CE RS TffE ExA�tP OF tAJ►thrn9oT ,� DO. Jif L5 O&Jlob HF-W oTt4gR ct rE5 ASD OUAMr:::s tV 1—�tE FuLT c� Bc cr IT sures ltukrs Fog A Lak-)& TME Ta mMF- UgH6.r �W t4j[5 6 b po Ccr&e tp TD Wo HtA SFJ TillMG 73 LO M Ftorr-(.::J- tT5 K WR tJb0Z5 A5 'CAL, GITLr �M�vcTres. Fop TRt5 9F-A5o&) I ArO mAddY OP4025 Iry "4 HE GtT� ptSK TkEoUjjC t� Tb ft>, I Tiff FPA Sok S� beptNRwFpwvtDF.D io c6u G( DNESD�(. lT EuM�NFt S Ti+f I,DN6 { tCA� p2Y u5-r BP 5XCEPTOMS) WA Ul '5-RLL PRDIRNOG A L�tCA L FXC, -PV oA PRocF,55 ` lP-oUf H I-RF, ¢tScZF-rowA2Y xc�Prio►� toN• LT Mft►G�s T �N� 5±pek9G 1 ?o 'FT WD 56 P" R1pA?jPN c JZK 8 S CIS I,c�tttLE pRovjDuZ PRopM ocC4p65(*J F2)9 Dt5CRZTWA'Alzt7 R THW DFl5TW6'(f Y-2 Vw cWwY oFTt-- CejL< nuc DTA ?fts s Tp(f pry posEb ME iAJ 7HE 5VkEF 0EPORT, 1c9W01 MPrK�S TEtE fi�Fd�f PoVD SVR �J�f DF TttE D2D1�(7R�C,E f�C�P'fl.GK95T0 -� Cm's Ca6,M�Y TH%i a RT xcT fa�D rx �usn r-tom �o�: b 5z) Fl: cgm< cor=DDi2 SEMAC 5. I URGE`RYTt{E GWW.U- SUPMRr W> VoT£ �RTHe i,6cc�. S uMb Cox 5MACK(59PIMffiXE PWD fWT-THE PROFM- D Gar, 5�JTACK F-'K CEPM'j 601timcE. T EAE A-PS, Mores C6wc,E=5 I U(9,kMTTD f512EF�cr DlSCEtZ- FR.5r, THE DPE1J S cE nor Ca:f�lrSkit> 00 Pf6E, -9, � �• PRsnAoTP- R-EMMK LOM OF NAV?4W Vf6ETATOtJ 012 CR5EK GARRIlof TH-go. GH WpT-l6k9 6F A CR1Er:IC 6RDlfJPt9Gr-. � l J") T1.� BfjCAL6E :jTW 15 PRoVLDw6 6U.�k wlTH W ftJ aR CCMPW-eK hoD C kWa5Lk16 CRp-VK oeIxl5h"CEI taE'• lro TFt- Mf 3? ampru As5l TTWF(-., _PROVI>e C'dxwc4L_ DULTH A1<9IRRAT16� AR6ilmw'rW -MF- 5PIuf RzfokT _ rep M5T C�h�tP1-Yu�G lotTN TVd5 JMPBRTN--Y" DPEu SPS F� r PROC�RP�A CB�tL. l/J TFM S'rr pzftrZT P2 mbeb IJ 10 POLE-. DN PACE It GWD GRPtDtn9G� FlU lruC u Pg*M A tT) N F MAs<t5 A B55LI5 e dF Af '-1� ft5 TSE Ph2MY ��RfS NG�NE1`R5, G4uF Dir 6F RsK+ Com, AO (2r:610,W>_ OT-9Z Trr �ns�eL DaAgjb (15A3W w CA5rS 6F 5 P4 PM W ACRES m2Morzr)7 U9cu..PRoia�Y TRj5 R.lPfdelW Vfi�j �Tro ) Fc512 7K CITY fo T-fE 6kEEK U�G�Np+n1G� 1.99T PtDDRESb lT 70e5p p6wuE5 t-r vE Il9Ei/ER F�� A uXSE cb6 .6F aAA aT=CS P4f' ? NJ CBMPDP5. 7V(F- (zEArl- 7Y OF $kPFikVv) FGCti9D W7 Ao 1.66L5TLG PW5056 5un:t�Cc�9�11 TtfESE F " '5T A�9CIE5 ►vMAKZ tT1MR959AE- �bIZ Ttf�Nl YY� �r Qum' -le P2aTE:Cr TttE WAL P-LPMW 6 �RP1Lb2 V' Ym►�9 OF &tJZ C4TY D2 ft?Y 6TR2 CZte IU 6�J F A)4 n�cS LE r.E� (per-rpt p6ue5 pfAVF W.F-r us u9trN is WrM(FE5T IN wELI-DoCVMWTRDi 564 WtFIC jkCCouA3T5 6F oMLY AM,a- Ib'7o OF THE RlflPOPOJ VE6VMW 'rNfl'�"dl�C€F-�CtS��� �fi'� S,u,Z,5x L:5T[I� Y6bp&. 1 jri5 t5 Co►�PFtf ABS E -Z-rt'E Std �� wDc ►�C� w PP E t4 TRP,T w ourz-owo 5b-MLLES OF Cry snapims, WaT c?0S &FTW:5 DtsT W9 F,W6 BEW -5Ma)5W DF RADRD w[atbtnyG 1 was 5mppet> of WPMM ) VE60WRM• tffE5E BTFtE2 q{9F.NCaE5 F82 a9tfATjWER pPr�BN NodfF�tr/�T�EE c�il�7o PR-EVEW- I-RL5 .5ER[oc cs DEGr�nON Ta PPPAa� VfGkTPrTZ4f 'D f,tTRM 6p P, -1!�T s lzv� op- wa R 6TIe awEj-, fl 5T F Y45z)5 TR TVfESE P6aQuZ >6 W(ZLY c) P/zo�"rlY-e) f-LPPoecAX) V A'�IDN IN YE{� rhCE6F Mft�2 LW-LO I>PVELOPri� W'i". Tt Et t AD �uF1�9 P� Gr.�ftSE j9B OIU ThE MW4r kAOM SAAKZL DEVa&F1 �r PRA)vO3 A6 t1UE5 fly &WETtDN5 gacAaSE TAY M W7-w1oE ► A9E5�M tG th.9D St�hfF P-ESor.( FS 'fc� WvF�2 Prtl.� r o�1� "WCC13. PWb AV6T DtS�� of - T E{�tVE^/�TOTEK T& AD u9rrt TftE 2W�AD\Jkj, OF 1UPft]Z W V66MTDh3 BY T SE uul47 1&3 J j p. p- c t sn k9& PrW>ECTS. Hhvl= ce6 VVJ RfRE cm EXftMPbp OF NHao THE f.PFcWW MCS T(f/3 u9A5 gavojo 6VM-VTME WM VJE RlP+-i W C&M L02 `cam A3 t> T&T%U& p.EPIACED W vel L� �tTP�VAUAF, PzcDTiG ate , pWt> t k96 U E&ETA-T W- 7Kf1Z.E MIZE MAAW EXWFIt ES RMcA5b 'Q'��t91�9 �� �9(;�MF. D(,l5 YO QtSC,G(55 tfiERE. �cc.T C.1- `� T t�E (DPW ��P r cN DFD MR THE &a5C DaloWcE MTre ME�s f TSE GLS To T4�I-CHZE OF rf15 Da5fEeqE PRD6LEf A,Wt 5MFF t5C� D/E-�57�PP«?G VtUZ � 1MA9R� MT P� > up<.6 �.1'f[55(.,. T*jf- jr� MU5T ER"*jZ-Ptt)DP-p55 TELE t>SL R L _ pR�T I bl� OF P4PP�2f PtN V F.�ETATid/`7 IN TE4 t5 1 10 001OW C.E, P6 Tm opw 6pfcz FEL T,5Acr516P-TRE 6r-r mus i TO j mmEDi ff -Y START u,04Rx W / TH9Z o&NAO%)f -iZ PRS P-�PRiuf� v Ew'�fDA3 W TM (UPHUNJ C4 WR-7 5r� T PpoR)5� ©alk** E G fu-&9W Mmo.T WPMW vee&'�fv W -rM 5tTBPK-K Pd?E i V3j+L6H (5 §qMEojfAT-(P-CAYC g 'RPXAU-`e tuPf'dzJP�.9 1tF�ETP�([DfJ t51 Ll�9 T4E SETBACK &WA OUT MffH lZ LN THE CRF-eK 6D=1>09. PAGE tf DF T4E SrtFE gr=PoRz'SPft45 RJPPIP. w Vf6ermou REmovffit. cou 1, BE 4hf-9M -5D W A D' r 6OwAko4F- —rttw Tits CRs�K 5mwicx op. tkwxE J :z (F,res L5 77-W-Aff MACA TM cmc- u9w�75 TZ) Vim, Tf(w Irmw6rsrpTZ ronj THF,MFuS VATIVE- VEGr--TMf 100 RE MAL, 61ebtA.5FrW-.F- RZ +T AusAfe-M 'PgEVWr e�-r.s^ OUAL x.055 OF THL5 jf�r�T r�L_&MZZ 6W AAA. 9LT`F. THE 5E�WjD CONCEW HAS R) tO tOLTH Pt RNJ"Lh9Co 155CUS l 1�kk e4PS FULL-Y vvR5Eb 60,EUT A PkOJE C1t 1. FROM A MVELoPM a9t*O MP-6 LtVD C® jW—A5LP- EXPEIPJWCE IN R,loU bIA36 lW.P :RaN44r COWS $P�ut6ttT'MY k u ` t5 PRoBi�M UJW3S5Dhckw66tr. TE -dP 9 SPAT =6.EME 1 01� PACES P03D X7 uuDtCR 6)aLNMaCf- CAf9 Be &-Ul-rbFk-K TZ> TF}E• SAME NDNC %)FORMlA9G FwrPWNT• Tvioc*14 1-HL5 PRbvistDN �0E5 WT MEET-71-tE CREEK PR rrzx-E0N (NTWT OF �ri+F 6�.MK <eTva oojtoft►3cr-- ) iT60A5 bar f6 A fk l WE55 L55UE.To pwfErcY 6u oms. &JT- I ba WI-TRIMK fWME M,EAk)l-FDR 11tl5 PROVL5(01J TZO �O P)t 1 M6 6uT PRDvLD� FftLRNE55 To TENSE PRbP��ou�uE�. (TU9� nx9T Mr-WrTo PUTTttf- f'�T �5 FZLSK aR EI,tI�tNPtT� 6rttEeC�� GL-Y PALE6. IT WPfAP6 TtW C,• of PK-,E (p ow-Tfe PR6po5a L9e-0tNAI�GECior:5 U3L 6V;e6ti-D OttkTTttE OPS SPAM F4& r-%O 11' oxr (tL.} oto o6 STRU.CTLkf-'; 76 $F, RJEW IL:Tlb 1-+tE FwITQ UST x 11 F�clSnn�G Si1z000'fUpE5 MPrDENc3k3CWFMtutfN('`BYTFfE CREFJC 6ollopom. Tf+F-u.%w, ( u-mm mb IT IN THE OPw 57PAt7-: T u(9A5 IF SvlE)mE ugrooTb T6 B04b A NES dti Tfm FwT- PpiOr of w o�D Dl1APi t>NTED :5rw=tm Tffw COW oD- o2 IF 5atTaz ha&Cvpt5 DES�� W p:GM olz rAfZMquW-�;: TffSY Cox ub &W b T ,ESL,b FWTMOT. �PdVl LT DM W rMAKt- s5F Z16tt�dF Tw wncq Tpem CRV8( 'PPOY 00 6ON6 OPTHE G �ccc ORD,A9P4U(�1 TH)6rTOA5 WtthTG(w-Wc©mr(YtTEb A) E TPS A PAtRkT6S ISSUE. lT GoP6 WT DDME Tb fi MWAM MRER CXD Cf�flE. EXAMPLE W FRA W-b !;Mb Rf-TEtU3X5 Zt- : MMroN E.- 1. c. L* Tw PIm5eD CR-EEa<leer LK UKDtjfw-qE 0 N&O,�orkc6 W :5W/ 5 fiX15Ytk)6r 5rRv-cnt4ES MADE r19w- c®Rs ORJ)[N cm 2Eew1 .b To A1= pR1►�r U9tT �-R.E6Ad�,D `� WMIT5 OF PRIZ� "5 �Z.1�F.o?b. � t�ND C is f�t.l.ou�tl.)G �xt.57jtiY 5�"Wz�S T�t�`f��2E gIzEP►Ktlx, 6�� �YY bAi�St Pts��� i�5� Tc� ��RtC��T PSD B -MW /AM A6614 10t+W THEEY Rz&ulb Tm TEW- rwTPRINT IN TRE GRE-r-,K 65rMC c. F;1z 5xvnf,pw of, BC,t wx. R3 PrWECr TW?T-WA5 W W FX(5W U AWF- COaLb GbNI R.&fr � PoUD Bwl b r N�r1r i ce-+ fl "ins`�ttE Kz �m ' 6 D I FIV W STRRRl�� �QTr-tT MY F��D TftW5 TFAT- S DF-am Pwmsa CREK 5aMOK OaWPA CIS r5 P955[BLY r5aw W° X06,IIU W AREA 6F TRE 07-( fT tS Mgi_ UROMUI LT cs0Ttuc c � PppW TftE PRDvtStoA3 of� 6ar-L rZ.rpt.d2o B sD G WDF T�Ar 5W5 N6I1 WVr-&RM 06 TRKAZE>"Eb 7'HW _ADZ GaW4T f�—P BW Lr BACK kWWl-.) M2MIW Buz MU5r m P.MAIL-7-�o 600FOrK.Ttt�nmE f,3/2zPw- 5VaO5 TRE cLr--R� tz&ir,o-FTffi5 COM . l3cLTS'ttco006 THE LEXxc 6�e B�;l5ld1£55 J u5T AS *ELL LP MOT-AOM r 5 HE D F A f-OM0174AT 69T5 bAMP6E�D W2E TW14119 54 to FROM CkEx FtOOD(A.0 iJK1=L. 5aFMAK& T1t15 DPd 6 10 7RFE FfR5r PIAC£ O6fPV,5E t i (5 &4a-T60 Cl*e)5ET0 Tf-w- CREEKintU5 :5A( R::2 TH-6 E 00 LffiRC %Z7"£EC A5E rr V5 MaXa9 agM1W, i!91T-ff 7RE &Eec ErbP4< C2b[OW6E. Mat) TRLS Pw,)EGT aoNE2 6 W-WL4C 6OW5 T4 Tl+kEWM TRE C,(Tce For, CA�451( T FZ�D � IN 5omE u9A;', G3i LT-7RF- To Klao THaA Td OWLb SACK IA)7RE 5AUE SR T to AAST(CtPAT7DX9 (5F u9(�c �(Asca ftkWW(Ar-:7 ALL OV" A6ftIM- I5 Tris agifArim (W-WDr;l> tt9RW V,9F- OtvLY WTr4bEb MWESS Td 5F- 5 uta' LAM1� CREW 5ErMU< 6,TZD(A)PMCE rN RESP'To TtkE C RY LS5,UF-. TRE Otw :5P[<E aFMEI r Dub w'Ir5w AA95rTff m YP P t6u-r �-_w Q ttilknU6 C©bE 5ecrldW 17. /�.62D 8 Ppb C YJ THS GMK mac�. Ir bt b rsoTSAY �+ �[-� f�crrt+�(, T�CES�r1el5K Fi�NI Fly rWrC&Jr li.UE 70 5u5TAIA9 TT4t5E A TE4E�{ WK9T(WJX- II m WA3cc&%VRMIts iC9l" m6ZEEK, S 6w[uw�. AfD TEtE OpEw5vtE aaMAwr t> D morw TrAT-rxr-- Cox SE ZQTtr) Td AUDLO OWu, Vt6L&TU)k15 ID 69fS 7WE-Z E3E �TEO IA) TRE GMW,5EJ$kXARS. ,�[�XE I RAVE tW"bc5a65M>TEfI5 OM4 .%W&2 ffAb TME-Tb PE�5Eqw: t LT-M4i Ri�sb PdUI 13Rat�JKY t7`Ul' BP6 D 6yV 7ztEDaF-LD PEV5 PKM}E CN.J.� -0 MF.1 TH-6 W &.,40T DE WTI M cl."aemcr. 5.T t7" L5 Pc 56Q Lf:t -EMO F4 155th TTIA7 IT NEM5 T8 gE A�bM��b Blew mr Tu -6. tw *C&HT5 F{£ 121tv.:p VA37HE dmt�)Akka. ':o, Br5LDE: Tcs 2 KtP6E N:Dbe 65 W THF- 1-WAPikig TOE IMMEPiPFm tXED TD bFAj- G[9 cM V� TI+E CZMCA)„ Pw&tm x PUPP P43 Vf6ETkTm Awoml- r-_ f E210 T t1.5 I�Dt Il9 e2 Pdl STFIi OM M M 5TI M tW 4FDi&(W-, Ak tD P(ZR53E 5t:cFfM-WE 54W4WOri4b r13ACK �RD(119ft/ / 1D N6TQ�f 5'fpt PEPDRr � x xc�P«t���Al�PdtY T� KYat. CAL POLY SXNLUrs OBISPO URBAN CREEKWAY PROTECTION Urban Forestry Note No. BY Dr. Tim O'Keefe, Professor* Natural Resource Management Department Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo April 1992 The information in this note reflects the view of the author alone. It is not intended to be an expression of policy for the NRM Department, or any other agency. URBAN CREEKWAY PROTECTION Recent research on urban creekway habitat has made mantis people vers' concerned about the condition and protection of Urban Creeks. For example, a sampling of trees along Atascadero urban creekways in 1990 indicates that about 40"o of the trees seem to be in a state of decline. It is clear that over time there has been significant damage to riparian vegetation and trees; creekway banks and wildlife habitat along these creeks. Recently, the California Fish and Game Department strongly recommended, among other things, that cities establish a permanent, creekway setback of at least 50 feet from the upland edge of the riparian corridor, in order to provide a minimum level of creekway protection. This minimum 50 feet setback would function as a much needed threshold or management baseline. Further, a threshold setback would provide the immediate protection needed to maintain creekway habitat and riparian values, along these urban creekways. It is important to note that many city tree ordinances provide no protection for riparian trees. Clearly, this lack of tree/habitat protection can contribute to the destruction of riparian vegetation. The loss of vegetation results in depleted wildlife habitat and destruction of creekway banks. In addition, poor creekway protection can cause: 1. stream pollution 2. erosion and siltation problems downstream, which can be very expensive to correct. 3. loss of sensitive species of riparian plants and wildlife 4. loss of visual and recreation values in creekway areas. Construction activity and poor land-use, including excessive use of pesticides and herbicides on land adjacent to creekways can also reduce wildlife habitat and pollute streams. On an individual, plot by plot basis such activity may seem to be minor, but on a total, cumulative basis, the full impact of all such activities can convert a beautiful stream,way into an open sewage ditch. In addition, over time the cumulative impacts of this damage is a critical element, which becomes more difficult to correct. Recent recommendations from the California Fish and Game Department indicates that a full study of riparian habitat must be conducted to determine the number, species, and location of all wildlife. This type of detailed inventory is especially important in the riparian zones. However, a complete wildlife study would require additional time and considerable funds to meet not only the letter, but the spirit of wildlife management in our riparian corridors. Recent Forest Service research indicates that riparian zones are 40% to 60% more wildlife productive than any other type of habitat. In addition, other research has shown that the ecotone (edge between two different vegetation types) area is also a most productive habitat and requires special protection. Urban forestry studies have also demonstrated the important role of creekway riparian zones as critical wildlife transit corridors. These riparian corridors allow wildlife movement and gene pool transfer, that in effect link small "habitat islands," which alone would be inadequate to maintain a viable wildlife population. The maintenance of a few spectacular'species of wildlife, or large specimen trees is not adequate management for biodiversity. Single or spectacular species management is only a variation of _y zoological management. Sound urban wildlife management requires full, riparian habitat protection. Full riparian habitat management by establishment of the minimum recommended 50 feet setback from the upland edge of the riparian corridor is essential, in order to: 1. protect and maintain existing riparian wildlife habitat, 2. prevent further riparian vegetation damage, from livestock and ATV use, 3. control stream pollution, 4. eliminate stream bank destruction and the resulting erosion/siltation, S. monitor and enhance existing visual and recreation values in the riparian areas and 6. minimize the negative impacts of future construction in this sensitive riparian zone. Urban riparian habitat represents a valuable community resource. Careful management and protection is essential to maintain and improve the quality of this resource. The question of private property rights along the riparian creekway must be considered, but only within the context of the larger bundle of community rights. Riparian creekway management is a critical problem that each city/county government must solve in a timely manner. Delay in dealing with this riparian management problem will lead to continued deterioration of the urban creekway habitat and values, both tangible and intangible. For more information about urban creekway management, contact the local office of the Cooperative Extension Service, The California Department of Forestry, or the Natural Resource Management Department, at Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo (805-756- 2021). by Dr. Tim O'Keefe April 1992. References 1. O`Keefe, T. G. Ph.D., Preliminary ReEort of Atascadero Urban Creekway Hardwood Vigor Study, 1990. 2. Hanson, M. Ph.D., Wildlife Species Designated of Special Concern in the City of Atascadero, 1991. I California Department of Fish and Game, Response to Atascadero Draft EIR, Land-Use, Conservation, Open Space Element-General Plan 1991. 4. Norse, Rosenbaum, Wilcore, Wilcox and Romme, Conserving Biological Diversfty 1986. 5. Weber, L. J., The Social Responsibility of Land Ownership,Journal-of Forestry, 1991. . 6. Wille and Harper, Mystery of the Missing Migrants, AFA Journal, 1990. 7. Arnold, Carol, Wildlife Corridors, California Coast and Ocean, 1990. 8. Harris, L. D., and Gallagher, P. B., New Initiatives for Wildlife Conservation, Florida Agriculture Experiment Station, 1990. 9. Dickson, J. and Huntley, J. Riparian Zones and Wildlife. 1987. SUMMARY URBAN FORESTRY INFORMATION NOTE URBAN CREEKWAY REVITALIZATION By Dr. Tim O'Keefe Natural Resources Management Department California Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo, California February, 1990 URBAN CREEKWAY REVITALIZATION By Dr. Tim O'Keefe INTRODUCTION: Throughout the country and in many parts of California, small creeks are an undervalued and often a neglected community resource. Just as urban trees are finally beginning to be recognized as a significant value to a growing community, there is also increased direct understanding that urban creeks are a very valuable community resource that do require care and, in some cases, urgent revitalization. In many urban communities today, there is an urgent need to evaluate the creekside resource and to develop sound urban creekway management plans. The purpose of this note is to provide interested citizens with some fundamental information about the steps necessary to develop a comprehensive community creekway management plan. A comprehensive creekway management plan can be developed in five planning phases, as follows: 1. Creekway ecology 2. Preliminary creekway evaluation and public information 3. Resource inventory 4. Creekway action planning 5. Implementation, maintenance, and evaluation DEVELOPING THE CREEKWAY MANAGEMENT PLAN: The first step in developing a comprehensive creekway management plan is to understand the dynamics of creekway ecology. In a natural condition, a creek is a dynamic complex of physical environment interacting with a web of living plants and animals. On a seasonal basis, most creeks follow an annual rhythm of high and low water from wet spring to dry summer conditions, and in addition there is usually a longer cycle of high water, flood conditions resulting from very wet years interspersed with low water flow during drought periods. In a natural condition, the major components of a creekway ecosystem include the following elements: A. Abiotic Elements 1. creek bed 2. creek banks (often most fragile part of the total creekway ecosystem) 3. soil and parent material underlining streambed.and creek banks 4. floodway and floodplane associated with excess water during peak flow periods B. Biotic Factors 1. creekside riparian vegetation 2. birds and creekway wildlife 3. insects, earthworms, and other similar organisms In many urban creekway systems, the major causes of damage include the following: 1. Garbage dumping 2. Stream pollution due to industrial or domestic residue dumping, as well as streetside runoff 3. Stream bank erosion, due to riparian vegetation removal 4. Stream bank erosion and water pollution, due to domestic livestock 5. Building construction along the creek bank and in the flood plane 6. Creekway channelization and over-paving To a greater or lesser degree, all of these problems have contributed to the deteriorated condition of many urban creekway ecosystems. Therefore, sound creekway management requires a full understanding of the complete ecosystem as well as the cultural or socio-economic impacts of human activity. The next step in organizing a sound creekway management plan requires development of a full creekway resource inventory. A creekway resource inventory can be constructed on the basis of either a random sample system or a full 100% system sample, depending upon the time and money available for the inventory. Usually, a full creekway resource inventory would include the following types of data: 1. Detailed maps, showing creekway location and topography 2. Creekway ownership pattern 3. Vegetation and trees, by species, height, and dbh* 4. Wildlife habitat, indications of creekside use by various species of mammals and birds, as well as evidence of reptile and fish populations in the creek 5. Domestic animal use indications 6. Soil and streambank stability and composition 7. Human activity, such as home development, recreation and creekside use, garbage or sewage disposal. Action planning is the next phase in developing a comprehensive creekside management plan. A creekside action plan is the essential core of the full dbh = diameter breast high (4-1/2 feet above ground) 2 management plan. The action plan is intended to provide the framework for creekway maintenance, improvement, and rehabilitation, as necessary. The final step in developing a comprehensive creekway management plan is to formulate implementation procedures. Implementing a comprehensive urban creekway management plan usually rests on obtaining political support in the form of a creekway ordinance, which is specifically tied to the general plan for the city and the area. For example, it is generally agreed that a creekway management zone requires approximately 50 feet on each side of the creek bank, except of course in floodplain areas which requires a great deal more area. Ultimately, effective creekway management requires a management zone that is clearly defined by lay. Of course, as part of the implementation actions, it is important to find some opportunity for public participation and public hearings for open discussions. CONCLUSIONS: A creekway management plan is a vital tool in maintaining and improving urban creekway habitat. A systematic approach to developing.a creekway management plan will provide a logical framework to maintain, enhance, and where necessary, rehabilitate the valuable urban creekway resource. In many local situations, urban creekway management is urgently needed now. In some situations, any further delay in development and implementation of a sound urban creekway management plan could lead to irreparable damage to the creekway resource. At times, effective creekway management may require a city, or other government organization, to exercise eminent domain when the purchase of some private property along the creek is in the best community interest. In such situations, it is clearly a question of community rights taking precedent over individual private property rights, where the interest of the community as a whole must be considered before the profit of any single individual. Without question, sound urban creekway management planning is not .cheap. However, similar to many other city expenses, sound creekway management planning should be considered as a "community investment". It is an investment that will yield dividends many times greater than the cost, such as: A. Biological 1. Increased streambank stability and lower erosion rate 2. Improved community water quality 3. Improved wildlife habitat 4. Improved public understanding about raparian ecology B. Economic 1. Increased private property values 3 2. Increased community property value 3. Improved community appearance or aesthetic values 4. Increased recreation values and aesthetics For more information about the process of creekside management planning, contact Dr. Tim O'Keefe, Natural Resources Management Department, Cal Poly State University, San Luis Obispo, California 93407, phone: 805/756-2021. 4 STATE OF CALIFORNIA—TME RESOURCES AGENCY' S�EGf7mEYmtdFpEOI Gowmor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND .FAME 2201 GARDEN ROAD MONTEREY, CA 93940 (408) 6494870 - Ktl:tl YL_ JUN 1? 1991 June 13, 1991 City°'San Luis ow,,. 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, Ban 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 Communit Development Director a letter expressing our oncern about the lack oT ri ar or oiec he sensitivity of this type of habitat and our recommendation that exceptions to this setback begranted only under raordinary 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, Associ 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 Wore 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, Assnciate 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 grow:: 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�c a—be redesigned to remain outside the twenty foot bufferent gjyt, us complying wl c1 v Do is es= 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, . � �?��-u- Brian Hunter U Regional Manager Region 3 cc: Worcester KW:KRA/ts 3 r ' STATE Of-CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY PETE w1i"ON. Go"'.0, DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAmE 2201 GARDEN ROAD MONTEREY. CA 939/0 U -.&U, 649 2670 February 28 , 1992 Ms. Judy Lautner, Associate Planner City of San Luis Obispo P.O. Box 8100 San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100 Dear Ms. Lautner: RE: Appeal of Riparian Setback Requirement for Project at 1673 La Vineda, City of San Luis Obispo It is our understanding that on March 3, 1992, the City Council... will hear an appeal of ,the �Ylan setback requirement for a single-family home project it 167'3 IA--Vineda in the City of San Luis Obispo. In our letters to the Citi of San_ Luis Obispo on February 26, 1990 ,and June 13, 1991, the De artment of Fish and Game stron 1 advocated the retention o e - oo ri arian set ck for this _ect pursuan o elty pol.1clel. TeRe-consicer Tne content of_these .letters in the Council 's deliberation and action on subject _appeal. In our o inie. perpetuation of wildlife habitat and sensitive wildlife ",pedes withinri a r i a n corridors is greatl dependent upon compliance with established protective setback requirements. - Theproposed Iro ect should not encroac u on he 2 - oo setback defined in__,he v s Administrate a Cree "- o i If you have questions regarding these comnants, please contact Ms. Karen Worcester, Area Fishery Biologist, P.O. Box 1535, Morro Bay, CA 93443 ; telephone (805) 772-4122 . Sincere/ley, G' Brian Hunter Regional Manager Region 3 KRA/dcm cc: Ms. Karen Worceste r San Luis Obispo City Council Dr. David J_ Keil 990 Palm Street Professor of Botany Post Office Box 8100 Biological Sciences Dept. San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100 Cal Poly University San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 21 April 1992 Dear Council Members: I understand that 17 March 1992, the Cit uncil overruled the_-City_'s 20 ft. riparian setback permitting a house to encroach._ Wisely on riparian habitat at" 1-573'-1A T1ned9---'I'n-past letters BF-n- this project I providea "my cre n is s, qualifications and biological opinions. In my letter 5 March 1991, I explained in detail the ecolog- ical importance of riparian areas as habitat for plants and animals. I also explained how this riparian habitat has been drastically reduced to about 10% of what it once was in Califor= nia primarily resulting from the cumulative adverse impacts of numerous streamside projects. In my letter 10 June 1991, I explained the__intagral_ relatbetween riparian plants-annaanimals indicating an adequate riparian set ac ufT-er-from�eveIo'- Y or plants as it is for animals. - pment --i-s- is_ as important Fn7- t. an other riparian projects in the City,.setbacks_ of less than 20 ft_ are ecologically inadequate. re is no other mit jm_ on t at can compensate for":t-he'el urination of the City-s protective 20_ "r ft, rjparan act a�k.,mitiga£ion�romu�ated through theicty-s.py-m-Administrative .Creek _Policyl., `�At�e-upoming hearing on this project, ease reverse your as action for a lesser setbac�y .. -qure the 20 ft.. riparian tback as the appropriate mitigation. Sincerely, David J. Keil Copy: Ms. Judy Lautner, Project Planner - MtCE►v�_ Dr. David J . Keil JUN 121991 : Profemeor of Botany Biology Department Cay°'San LUIS 00'07 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 Me. Lautner: I provided Mr. Ashley the attached letter of b .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 i.mpress'ion the City would notify him and others of. the project before the court ordered Environmental analysis was made so important biologioal 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 lnitial Study has been oompletgd recommending a Negative Declaration be issued for tho same project that the court nullified. For these reasons I am now providing my March�5_�pro3eot letter to the City as part of these comments on e n is Stu y epor . The letter describes the biological sitgnificance --of- riparian-y-on- tatioln nd the adverseUnmitigated or inadequate) mita develo men have d, rLripar_ian has it_� a orn a n oee y. en as now I recommend the it follow thei _20-loot ----------- r1mrian set ac icy. conservation easement without a rio& ITK-"u ter may appear to proteot the vegetation ' 1n real ty o . Riparian egvo ve tegraTIY Pro -riP�flan ajTrmals. just an animals rel on Anor necessities as o•od. a tacover t &S-C0-IY...QP— r4.iM .IJL --nPc_ss t as as po ination seed dispersal, zin and prunina. There re ar an set at is necessary for preventing adverse im cts e animal iia ca„�► fleein� ae or permanents emIgrat nA from. tbe site so is necessary for revenIina $versa impacts' to `npa-rlan ve e a ltrine-txom. e$ :o.f�nS�ren en��+ w _ rvent cr-"contally si e Ave impct�r*A._' oc arian egos a ems. each dove; ruht,�roiect , small or le b yy_ E 0-foot _riparian setback. he City's Environmental 'v3�e this critical riparian setback and without it a . Negative Deolara= tion should not be issued. Sincerely, Attachment David J. Keil �tVtly�_ 497 Lilac Drive JUN 1219Q1 Los Osos, CA 93402 5 March 1991 Cnr M S,1 Luis Oor- Mr. Phil Ashley 1586 La Cita Court San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Dear Phil: 7be information pn5=d below includes a summary o my rofessional views of the value and_ipaportance of riarianve etation. I ve added my ev uation 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 Taxonorny2 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 hills turn golden and then a dusty brown. 7be 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. 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. 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. D c rnia's ri arian h bitat h b eciallv severe. T of Me orlpial riparian ve etation o_ ornia remains.7 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. LbeL-needles§ alei destruction that occurre sitHation is an egregious example of 0 o e aIne situaUon e sily could have been avoided had c o owe e - prescribedUn-its.-t vm_ Xdniffil�—� s-native reek Policy. I am concerned that own environmen if San 1.1iiS, bi5pn .cautlCl.. !«.roue to occur. However, tne court's decision in the case of Phil Ashley vs. tie ity 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 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 er�vironment9jgs Crions.= — f�i`as'a o QQt setback. We cannot afford the continued incremental destruction of�• riparian habitat. _ _ Sincerely, David J. Keil Morro Coast Audubon Society, Inc. A Mon-Pmlft Organisation HECtivt., JUN 141991 rAy m Son Lw 00M Mr. Arqf6ld B. 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 chosep to den 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. California 93442 Roc Zachary Ktt;tiv�_ Fri As of Salinas River 1800 Traffic Way Atascadero, Ca. 93422 JUN 17 1991 ca,ms"La00= June 15 , 1991 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. K1&&inq the eco- system " in tack" is very important because muc of this community has rea y een in rine , upgn art. = esroyed. Presently, I 'm involved in a newly formed group called "Friends of Sal- as River" . Our objective is to preserve the Salinas River and its _tibutaries. We are emphasizing the importance of preserving the Sal- inas River watershed, its wildlife and natural resources. �Preserins. 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 polic . 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 smal er cree si a 2roaU is a ]acent to critical riparian a 5 . Consider the adverse long term effects of this project to wildlife and its habitat. 2z *meminvades ecosystems without un4aratandiac� hisg, actions-.L eservin rian habitats will in the long term benef ' a inte rit -f the natural an - Please const er my points. Sincerely, "--}� ac� O K�Roger Zachary�ry Friends of Salinas River zc-ez Fw _..Ae. of SA�l4`IAS .2t��tz Sc.#4&ao , CA cr 3V Z? Ae^_#, 10 �%qc l M LL,;:g &6%CVv ICA G 34 U 3 Act 6"nv�. Jor.�l�5 ; VemejLNQe'^ , q "- %pW'9C�� '" ��i tuJ�. 1 ,�cvssAvY � v�, la �. $� cif Audi ReLow�w-e�� A l�t�l �M� iy� �.Jl- c � 0015 &V-4z N AG 1 Cl 01, PCS. �o L L 2. e�� �6A (s WN LA %l t SL AL �.cr t,,,,.p t?'-'tl��C -Few '�1ne U��It�La��s2 P►� wl,.,.tC� l�' Su�7Ja1 J's CAL POLY CALIFORNIA POLYTECHNIC STATE L]NIVmmy SAN Luis OBISPO. CA 91407, BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES DtPARTMENT (80517��-2 96 City Council Members and Eric V. Johnson, Ph. D. Mr. Arnold Jonas, Communtiy Professor of Biology Development Director Biological Sciences Dept. 990 Palm Street 20 April 1992 P. 0. Box 8100 San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100 Dear Council Members and Mr. Jonas: A public notice in the Telegram Tribune April 3, indicated that on March 17, the City Council upheld an appeal for a ripar- ian setback of less than 20 ft. for a proposed house at 1673 La Vineda. As indicated in my previous letters on this protect June 9, 1991, and March 26, 1991, I am a biology professor at Cal Poly teaching courses in ornithology and endangered species among others. The public notice does not indicate how much closer the hoqpq;��wllto Is built to the riparian ve etat on than 20 ft. , which is bus as Weillsince e e ree o e esser se a o e !BBue The L;1tY s 20 t. se backs thoug_ exem�pla�r��is a modest o ect veuffer_}:q,r- &fir-d speQlog to eog�n with. Anyt g lessF`an '°�t. is inadequate mitigation or sin s n ng qual� y r e easement the City is rgcggimjnUr3g_in. lieu of a 20 ft. riparian setback is also nade u�t��itigation. 11-may protect r par an veg a on, ut for wildlife oes no pr�V2Zle-'the necessary pro ec ve u eretw'een� r� ripari nnibita a ..Cr.-.evelo$8ent. The minimum 20 ft. setback in the City"s Admini- _ B ra ve ree Policy prov es s ne c rY' bu f - ina wit a esser setback where iis not a hardship case rRS inindicatea here Ey pro3e3records, quickly undermines 'TEenen o the .Aq1m1nYA_CLreejrPolicy to pro ec cree_ wi ife habitat. �ffae _aeain I urge that the Cit�v _cl��adhexe to its minimum 20 ftri a tback li actions to the contrsry wi timatel eliminate many wildlife s ecies, including those of birds, from our i�ty.�n L 'gum _y�wour cons sten app cation o the 20 ft. r r an setback can—The ity main ain its r par an a,a or diversified wildlife population. SiJncce/r'ely, Eric V. Johnson, Ph. D. Professor of Biology Biological Sciences Dept. TNI CAL110M , A l l Ktl:ttr�_ CALPOLY JUN 141991 City of Son Lens 00WX �nr :•v h�IM� CALIFOR\:A POLYTECHNIC STATE Lim VERSITY G. Lt ls 08:src. CA 0 BIOLOCKAL Siavm DErARTnI£VT 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 ex_p i_ n ed in the attached letterthe I�it�a�.. +d and roposed egative *T �'nAAPnLR*P vitho++t_ n T�_= M_O er. �frA�r rficien- -IrArccan be ed by the City requiring com liar_c Wi t.L, r,P 2�t t. riparian set-bac m is ag tion nre6cribed in. thgir in'atrative_ GreekPolicy W , ^aide.ti re.ly.�-ificant_adverse 'i>�acts associated with riparian house projects in the_ Y an jacent areas. If the City's 20 ft. riparian -back mitigation is incorpo- rate nto ea�r _ ativ ation wo`-uld�6e appro _e oIierwise an IR ..should be done to discuss the pros and cons°,q .„ "unmitigated adverse impacts onriparian -wildllfe.�' Sincerely, Eric V. Johnson, Ph. D. Professor. of Biology Biological Sciences DePt- TM! C.ALIFdR%IA STATE I.%:%1ER%:7% Stream Consciousness Local Affillate, Urban Creeks Council 531 Highland Dr., Los Osos, CA 93402. October 30, 1991 Dear Commissioners; I would like to ur a vour Comr�SSiQ= the conditions of the ' i ed egatrve eclara i n for the ro'ect at 1 'concerns'—'n the 2p toot se a i n and the fencing of the riparian zone during construction As noted in the Negative Declaration, a 20 foot setback In this case is con both with the CU's a0ministrat AudFALand with the other houses in the subdivision. The applicant hass own no need to deviate from this policy, and therefore it would be wise to apply the polity, especially in.light otthe 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 Dement of Fish nd Mamah �e arc a►e desirable wherever feasible. Numerous Iolog�stshave gQmmente Ion the need to maintain a u er TMM Ine vegetation for wildlife m erat_ns i I wnLld_neta that the Citv is currently engaged in develooment of a Crank �rdmance designed in part to trangthenprotection of craake and their wildlife value. d wou a shame to weaken the amlication of the Dresant.. ami ' QoliQ iW this time by W1—owing-ao-Imnecessary incursion intg the n arian I would ask that your Commission have the wisdom to accept e mitigations recommended by Staff for this project, thereby continuing the clear, precedent of allowing buffers for riparian habitat. Sincerely, Judy Neuhauser I I tawsa STREAM CONSCIOUSNESS LOCAL AFFILIATE OF TOE URBAN CREEKS COUNCIL 531 Highland Dr. Los Osos, CA 93402 Arnold Jonas RECEIvr. . community Development Director city nl San Luis Obispo JUN 131991 Palm St. utyofUnLuis omw San Luis Obispo. CA 93401 June 12. 1991 Dear Air. Jonas; We would like to take this opportunity to comment on the Negative Declaration and mitigation measures for the project at 1673 La Vineda 'ER 6- 9 J i. We have reviewed most if not all of the pertinent documents s und' this project. a would cal your attention to the fact that the Ca1ii1?i>aiil< Department of Fish and Game. Dr. David I;eil, and Dr. Eric Johnson all stron lv se recommen maintaining a ful tback o 20 feet from the riparian_ vegetation. a concur wit 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 Policy 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 progress 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 wr__ 'tten a s there would not be a need for such an ordinance. It is exceptions such as th"W..yAoer consideration that make the nee or 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 anv tree branches within 20 feet ora structure. Thus may result in the si ;cant loss of willow corer along portions of the corridor. When a structure is setWo—se to the ri ar'an habitat (int iis case as close as 1 not), the issue Oflmpan on the habitat becomes an ongoing issue. The stage becomes set for continuing maintenance and ,2runing of the trees since they are growing so close to the living- quarters. With a greater setback oP the house—JEoM treesd house—Jthe need for continual pruning and impact decreases substantially. A rjparian corn or sould be an amenity Tor housing. providing the occupants with an ooaortunit' y to— observe wildlife. By crow ding the two together,we suspect that the huMa anwildlife needs will continue to collide. Setbacks allow the buffer to alleviate ese stresses. V ere the structure to be moved 20 feet from?.,_ vegetation. these would no longer be issues. _While removal or disturbance of habitat near onesingle_iamily dv.�ellin may not appear to have much impact upon the habitat. one must look at the cumulative impaci-gf many gu l iects One must also look at the precedent rune is sesi;al ter [uture 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. Khcerely. Judy Neuhauser SIERRA CLUB w SANTA LUCIA CliAPTf:R rsu.nte e-eggs June lr�, 1191 San Luis Obispo City Council Member s: 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,Egj _ is —its riparian setback is 1 foot vs. the 20 your guidelines recommend. While-we understand that tholir 13rnLrl DCY.g e ` 10 17 ► A� deviation from them as significant as this pro sal merits el E1R,We th _ IM—at the ml iaa Ions ; • SIERRA CLUB %w SANTA L uC1A CHAPTER 1281 17th Street ,CYYC,D t. ssgl Los Osos, CA 93402 Q April 20, 1992 Mr. Arnold B. Jonas, Director Community Development City of San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Dear Mr. Jonas: I am writing in regard to the proposed negative declaration BR 6-91 for con- struction at 1673 La Vineda. The Surra Club continues to oppose etron¢ly any exemption of the guideline 20 foot riparian se as we noted previously__ -in o r ietter of June 15, 1991. The city's Administrative Creek Policy is quite clear about the allowable reasons for a lesser setback, and it is equally clear that none of these rea- sons is applicable to the present proposal. The riparija setback wan b- lished for sound ecological re .Prp_v.,idinR p ant and " a rotection 'M sensitive env ronmen It is noted in the staff report for the 17 - appea that the applicant simply does not wish to comply with city policies, with staff recommendation, and with the ARC approved 20 foot setback. This is not an acceptable reason for providing an exemption. Rxemptions for no reason simply encourage further appeals and further exemp- tions. In that case, why bother having policies at all? e Sierra Club requests that the City of San Luis Obis uphold its_establish- and his negative gativee declaration oar an exemption toto 'Z foot riparian setback. For the Conservation Committee: Sincerely, Randall D. Knight, Ph.D. Conservation Chair cc: City Council Judith Lautner To ezplorr, nnor, and prosrrr the nation's srentr rrsourres . . THE .,ALIFORNIA NATIVE PLS .T 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 UVineda 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. Thee-California Native Plant SociM concurs with the sense of all of these letters in so much as we strongly o lett to the violation of the 2ft�' k reaturement creeisarid nRoan zonC1, We feel that the setbark is RMed to conserve the rote of Me zones,and to avoid especi conI future fire safeven greatex �rrimd2rlv ob'ect to thew is 'n A ends Re rt tha sim 1 setback i is vI ere is a reaso t v albeit administrative,and that is that n an comm_untn_es awe ing increasingly rare, an at ey are concery to e. We note also or the same Voarea lor the house could be built without setwelc vlotatioi n ere ore we we see nqliqui-ification to policy violation in-Ms particular case. Sincerely /� Dr. David H. Chipping DEDICATED TO THE PRESERVATION OF CALIFORNIA NATIVE FLORA DATA 51y Y� ITEM THE CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY RECEIVED APER 2 7 1992 April 22, 1991 CITY OF S4N Luis Oz;S:o '.OWU%'tTy MIEL ophr'AT To: Mr. Arnold Jonas Community Development Director City of San Luis Obispo Froin: David H. Chipping Conservation Co-Chair San Luis Obispo Chapter California Native Plant Sociery 999 Pismo Ave, Los Osos, CA 93402 Re: Project ER 6-91, 1673 LaVineda Protest of Environmental Determination TheCalifornia Native Plant S i d With an reduction of the.24ft i 'sez�rem-�o ent rom tile Council A genda K220171 y u er to Council that ecru ex= Qmmrssion considered a �ZOIL set to not o v oossrble, but to factual reca=mendeed.� n er a east -damaging aaternative Should be the c osen ternavve, unless there is an offsetting consideration that should be tagged with suitable mitigation. It is clear that an alternative ro.ec is-deemed ssible and has been the recommendation of SO AKC an fanning Stan. The 20 ft buffer has an ecolo *cal function that twill be violated by the reduced an ,Inac2quaie set5acK. I he question o ag THMInvan zone not been addressed by MeNegative Declaration.The ecedential treatment given this ro L oumer will open- the way for further violations of setbagLW9u&Lout the itv. Is it City policy to allow an exemption to established environmental safeguards on the basis Of the applicants not wishing to comply Mth the conditions? We are sure that a urtiversal application of this criteria will lead to a total breakdoum of zoning for environmental - protection. We are also concerned that the Notice Of Environmental Determination does not present its findings in the form of setback requirement and distance, as this was the issue specifically raised in previous objection to the project Instead,setback is referenced by elevation contour, which would require possession of a grading/site plan for interpretation. Sincerely LJ DESwalmiAdim 0 F17 A �y, cam O tai.t� Dr. David-H. Chipping Ate' 0 FWMX mtui0R1a. O PM=C3-L idtE+tT nw ❑ Rm Dm .D FEE 0_'�/G,1JnL� DEDICATED TO THE PRESERVATION OF CALIFORNIA NATIVE FLORA G� , OTHER VERTEBQATES I HAVE OBSERVED IN THE PJPMIAN PONE.• 6otwwiulifeovid0449(&=Pther6s) ((�NE la SEVER Q: BirdsAI Have Obsorved in the Backyard I FOX Riparian Vegetation at Hy House (1586 La 0P0 GRA`((F-6 Cita Ct.) and the Applicant's House Site 3 RACCOON SSCAM (1673 is Vineda) From August 1987 to May 1991 3 SACC QABbIT s BLACK 1-A 11,0 JMXMMIT 6.POCKET GOPHER T. KING SNAKE S.wE5TERN F&�XA LIAW 9 50.AiiEM/IWGATZP UZARD 10.PAU FI C TREa FRLU II. WESTERN TDO 12.uN1DE1jTtFIa BATS 1. Western tanager 23. Yellow warbler 13. MuL.E PEER 2. House once 24. Rufous-aided towhee I't WESTEl�1 POt�tDTWZTLJt 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 8. Mourning dove 30. Chestnut-backed chickadee 9. American crow 31. Hutton'a vireo ' 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) 150 r"5lropean starling 37. Bullock's northern oriole 16. American goldfinch 38. Red-winjed blackbird NATIVESNRI.l�S$TREES 17. Nuttal's woodpecker 39. Black-headed grosbeak IN THIS AIPAPJANjWNE 18. Belted kingfisher 40. Say's phoebe 1.wla t)(sat ix SPO . 19. Turkey vultures 41. Great horned owl ZCAUg/I F Y{Aq�H1, ld�n Pularia) 20. Red-shouldered hawk 42. Rock dove (domestic pigeon)* cal;FIAM 21. billow flycatcher 43. Stellesi jay IconsTi.NEg4KKeQueszusa fa)i 22. Wilson's warbler 44. House sparrow y:CA�plar nA r§4E mosW M 45. Purple finch T HOLLY-MAVED CMSIW(PrwU %. AshtOTw'ed Flycatner- Oicifolia) f T Oroo..%�gqe-crowned warbler 6.9UX MFRA9.A Y(!axribu I8. RuFoulS lv.ami bind mexicana) .9 7. CA14F.COFF'Eg-1 Mer(Qt+omrws 49. Nashville warbler coliFornica) 3O. C.OMrWriyCilowthront 8. POISCNOAK(TozlC MdrOn diYersllo6� 9.COYOTE Bkr,�Sr((Baccharis pit 1W arls) 10. Pius VAR1otL5HERS 5 * 11.SHOWBr1GtY{55yrnpl+orig-or}�S al All birdslexcept those marked with an asterisk, were observed in the (YRUN71 NATIVE riparian vegetation. Those marked with an asterisk were observed flying over .S11RU85VTT= the riparian area. I. CA UP F'FM Tri (SchinLAS malle z.AftOOT(Prun, Armenia=) 3.VicrbgiAN-Bax, (Pit�o5�ugctlrTi 'rF. PRIVET (L;9uftm jopanirum) MEETING AGENDA DATE_416 ITEM # Honorable Mayor,City Council of San Luis Obispo and Editor Telegram Tribune San Luis Obispo is recognized for our Old Mission with plaza and for our parks with flowers focusing on our creeks. Now we are considering a fifty foot setback along each creek. What can be done wwith this area? Will it be left to weeds,or 9f will deprived owners be forced to maintain it at more expense?A 75 ft.wide lot would-lose 3,750 square feet of useable space at current high price of city lots.If made into a street for public access to the creek,owners will start considering a second front and hope to clutter with ma�rimum buildings. With the creeks kept as the focus, offices and houses can be built partially over or above the creek,making the settings attractive. Let us not hsve more laws restricting the unforseeable firture,but consider individual buildings as they come. Respectfully submitted, i / n Rose McKeen Riley 1309 Richard Street San Luis Obispo,Ca. k 11 B-COUNCIL �M-MD DIR i 9-CA0 ❑ FIN DIR B-ACA0 ❑ FIRE CHIEF 1:1-4T-iORNEY G--PW DIR 0-CLERK+ORIC, ❑ POLICE CHF RECEIVED ❑ MGMTTEAM ❑ REC DIR ❑ C D FILE ❑ UTIL DIR APR 15 1*6 rf ❑ PErs DIR CITY COUNCIL 6AN naMPO. CA ME` 'G AGENDA DATE -Z'/b' b ITEM # 208JPartnership April 12, 1996 The Honorable Allen K. Settle Councilwoman Dodie Williams City of San Luis Obispo City of San Luis Obispo City Hall City Hall 990 Palm Street 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo,California 93401 San Luis Obispo,California 93401 Councilman William Roalman Councilwoman Kathy Smith City of San Luis Obispo City of San Luis Obispo City Hall City Hall 990 Palm Street 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, California 93401 San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Councilman David Romero City of San Luis Obispo � .. . _.. City Hall 8'COUNCIL Cf cDUDIR 990 Palm Street ;' CAO ❑ FIN DiR IeACAO ❑ FIRE CHISan Luis Obispo, California 93401 fIATTORNEY GI-PW DIR B'CLERKJORIC ❑ POLICE Re: Proposed Creek Setback Ordinance ❑ MGMTTEAM ❑ REC DIR •` ❑ C READ FILE ❑ UTIL DIR Dear Honorable Mayor and Distinguished Council Members: of d ❑ PERS DIR .' Thank you for your quick response to my letter dated March 27, 1996. I met with Glen Matteson and Neil Havlik of the City of San Luis Obispo on Tuesday, April 2, 1996. We discussed the procedure by which channels are designated within the City of San Luis Obispo. Both Glen Matteson and Neil Havlik agreed that the original path of the creek has been changed both on the Von's property and the Derrel's Mini Storage parcel. The path through Derrel's Mini Storage now consist of a concrete drain including a covered tunnel across the front of Derrel's property. Both gentlemen mentioned the ability to re-route the path of the channel on our property to enhance the drain flows and enhance the development of the property. Options are all we are asking. The ordinance has options of smaller setbacks, outright exemptions and discretionary exemptions. Due to the prior movement of the swail and the severe detriment upon any future development on our property, we would like the property to be marked as an outright exemption. Page 2 There should be no discrimination between commercial properties in the downtown area and the commercial properties throughout the rest of the city. Therefore, please confirm that our parcel is exempt from the proposed creek setback ordinance. Truly yours, Garry Holdgrafer II Managing Gener P r G e atteson Neil Havlik 3592 Broad Street San Luis Obispo,Calfornia 93401 (805)543-2682, Fax(805)543-0447 X00 stia�,e,eQ� ME,..ING _ AGENDA VGN39V MOM OeL April 15, 1996 San Luis Obispo City Council 990 Palm Street San T,uis Obispo,. CA 93401 He: Creek Setback Ordinance Dear I iembers: Because we cannot attend the City Council meeting to- morrow, we are writing to express our concerns. We own property at 522-24 Dana Street which borders Stenner Creek. The two-story building at the creek end of the property is built at about 10-15 feet from the top of' the bank. It has been there for years. We pay for flood insurance yearly because the property is in a flood plain. Our concern is that if the building were damaged beyond repair (fire, flood, earthquake) , would we be able to. re- build in the same site?? We will appreciate your addressing this issue and inform us .inwriting of its resolution. Sincerely, imer H. .B,:iz.own, Jr. nne M. Brown -4�C!.; !CEL ❑� :n ..:..h ICAO ❑ R111 DiR r ❑ FIRE CHIEF RECEIVED ❑ POLICE Cii,; APR 1 5 1996 ❑ �Z;all'?EH79' ❑ REC Dir,, iD C UT!L 0; �i CITY COUNCIL CAN nrncon CA en z.Q AGENDA ; `'D o-9 ITEM # ' , Ak �ry�y�K vo A //a T Z? 7rc /4470- COUNCIL ✓ AO ❑ FIN DIR IrYACAO ❑�FIRE CHIEF v— GYdrORNEY II/PW DIR 0eCLERK'OR!C ❑ POLICE CHF ❑ MGMT TEAM ❑ REC DIR ❑ C READ FILE ❑ UTIL DIR 7 f L. '4r 'ons {,W, YV ❑, .F,AE.�Y,�NUs I� �o EIR / A4h lqr-exta/ � 1/- AY.f/A �4 'ox /AT Ce J'. "-I'leo U/0CI 1L�E ECEIVED sM .APR l g mu CITY COUNCIL $/ppb I "^OBISPO, CA Gerard L Parsons &Betty 5o Parsons 848 Venable Street 0 San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 • 805-543-9202 WARREN A.Sw«IMEaIII SINSHEIMER, SCHIEBELHUT& BAGGETl ROBERT K.SCHEEBELHU'P A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION STREET ADDRESS K.ROBIN BAGGER 10 I O PEACH STREET MARTIN J.TANGEMAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW THOMAS M.DUGGAN FACSM41LE "kRTIN P.MOROSKI POST OFFICE BOX 31 ID A JUHNKE 805-541.2802 WEN J ADAMSKI SAN LUIS OBISPO,CALIFORNIA 93406.0031 THOMAS D.GREEN 805-541-2800 M.SLMANNE FRYER ROY E OGDEN THOMAS J.MADDEN In _ CLIENT: SUSAN S.WAAG MICHELLE A.ROSSETTI CHANLeY April 16, 1996 MARIA L. MEETING AGENDA MARIA L.HUTKIN p RYAN S.BEZER A KC=( .V0VE DATE -/ 961 ITEIy # APR 1 ? 1996 CITY COUNCIL WN V, c OIBISPO-CA Accu aclLN R 2-CAO Romero, Council Member 'CAo ❑ FIN DiR HAND-DELIVEREDDELIVERED City of San Luis Obispo CACAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF H City Hall CYATTORNEY B-InDIR 1 990 Palm Street C9'1E%ERK1OR!G ❑ POLICE CHF San Luis Obispo, California 93401 [3 MGMT TEAM ❑ REC DIRFI;_ ❑ C READ-r c ❑ UTIL DIR rY ._ ❑ pr!.;s DiR Re: Creek Setback Ordinance Dear Councilmember Romero:'` This law firm represents Alex Madonna. We have been asked by Mr. Madonna to comment on the proposed Creek Setback Ordinance under consideration at your City Council meeting on April 16, 1996. Mr. Madonna is opposed to the Creek Setback Ordinance as it is presently written. He owns real property in three distinctly different areas,all of which would be adversely affected by the Creek Setback Ordinance, including: (1) unimproved residential lots at the terminus of San Luis Drive; (2) property between lower Higuera and Highway 101 which serves as the location for Madonna Construction Company; and (3)property adjacent to Los Osos Valley Road, including the"Gap" property and the Froom Ranch. It is our understanding that the Creek Setback Ordinance is designed to replace an administrative policy previously in effect. The new Ordinance purports to codify setback dimensions of 20 feet for most previously developed areas (which would apparently include the Madonna Construction Company property) and 50 feet for most areas yet to be developed (which would apparently include the other properties mentioned above). As noted in the Council Agenda Report, a fundamental issue of fairness and effectiveness necessarily revolves around the"measuring points"from which the setbacks are determined. The Report states that: "Fairness could be reduced, and compliance effort could be made excessive, if measuring points are vague or inconsistent." Unfortunately, the Creek Setback Ordinance as presently written suffers from both infirmities. The measuring points established by the Ordinance Dave Romero, Council Member April 16, 1996 Page 2 include either the"Top of bank"or the outside"Dripline" of"Native riparian vegetation". Weare concerned that some of the"creeks"which have been identified,or which might be identified in the future, are nothing more than"swales"which have operated to carry water. The primary distinction between a swale and a creek is the absence of a clearly defined "Top of bank". In that case, the proposed Ordinance would too easily allow an overly expansive interpretation of the"edge"of the "creek", thereby, allowing for inconsistent and excessive application of setback requirements. Likewise, "Native riparian vegetation"is not clearly or adequately defined in the Ordinance,which allows the Community Development Director to define those plants which are "native" and "characteristic of creeks [or] their edges". It is not difficult to imagine a scenario in which these "definitions"are very broadly applied to substantially expand the outside borders of"creeks"well beyond any meaning presently intended by this or any other City Council. Of course, the Council Agenda Report recognizes that the Ordinance could constitute a "taking"by depriving an owner of all reasonable uses of his property. However,that is not the only consideration which should apply. For example, Mr. Madonna's lots on San Luis Drive include unimproved lots between that road and Highway 101, which area is also shared by a creek. The application of the Creek Setback Ordinance could easily deprive Mr. Madonna of all reasonable use of those lots or,alternatively, could result in the deprivation of most but not all of the value of those lots by allowing some use of the property in a much more limited manner than presently contemplated, i.e., something less than a total "taking" but still amounting to a substantial deprivation of property rights. There is no recognition of such a possibility in the Creek Setback Ordinance,nor any clearly defined remedy. Of course,Mr. Madonna surely is not the only property owner in San Luis Obispo who could be adversely affected in this manner. Likewise, because his property on San Luis Drive is, in most cases, located more than 100 feet away from previously improved properties, it is presumed that the 50-feet setback would apply to his lots, whereas a much smaller setback applies to virtually every other lot on San Luis Drive adjacent to the creek. This is an inconsistent and discriminatory application of the Ordinance as to his lots, but appears to be expressly allowed by the Ordinance. Other similar problems and arguments can be asserted with regard to the Madonna Construction Company property off of lower Higuera, and the unimproved properties on both sides of Los Osos Valley Road. Dave Romero, Council Member April 16, 1996 Page 3 Accordingly, Mr. Madonna urges you to vote no on the Creek Setback Ordinance, at least until these deficiencies can be more adequately addressed and remedied. Thank you for your consideration of these issues. Very truly yours, SINSHE SC BELHUT&BAGGETT �V T T GEM AN MJT:tIg g:/Itr/madoma/14romero.416 cc: Councilmember Bill Roalman Councilmember Kathy Smith Councilmember Dodie Williams f�c M 71 W �- W F„ � CAO FIW..D ---�- f -- ACAA--- - AT?ORItiEY I DI / , /CLERXI-013 1GgCF!'�I P-J L l> L ;/ K MGNTTEAM i REC IR C READ FP-C- U :L L4 CIA IF ti� rr /LA.cl) a , rn m r- fcJ i F c - I _�-7 f ILEE I _ r U 'i tiJ � L) 4AJ 82 Ina # �vTN ' ��NN �A4.r r L_.UNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISR ob HEALTH AGENCY Susan G. Zeped Director 2191 Johnson Avenue •P.O. Box 1489 Gregory Thomas,M.D., M.P.H. San Luis Obispo, California 93406 Health Officer (805) 781-5500 December 7, 1994 ASV Mayor Allen K. Settle --T �a� v S V5ZCGc (aAJC r City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 • RE: HOMELESS ENCAMPMENTS Concerned citizens have requested that this Department conduct an investigation of the homeless encampments within the City of San Luis Obispo. We have completed our investigation and would like to forward our findings to your office. C 'I As you are aware, the accumulation and improper storage of refuse 1� violation of the City's Solid Waste Ordinance. The accumu- lation of refuse will undoubtedly help support a significant rodent and insect population in the areas surrounding encampments . If rodent populations significantly increase within the City, a potential public health threat may surface. 'It is u likely that the public will come into direct contact with refuse as encampment populations are protective of "their turf" and discourage visitors. The accumulation of refuse is primarily a potential health threat to the population of the encampment at this time. There has also been concern expressed with open latrines near the encampments. Public health could be at risk with the possibility of direct or indirect contact with human waste. Direct contact is not likely a there appears to be a personal safety issue with being in the immediate vicinity of the encampments. The potential for indirect contact is most probable through deposition or trans- port of fecal matter into surface water. The majority of the encampment latrines were located far above the seasonal high water marks of the creek. These open latrines will pose a significant health hazard only to the encampment population. However, j according to Police reports , there was an open latrine observed on / or near the creek bank which would spill into the creek during a rainstorm. The existence of this type - of condition would ; rd1 potentially put the general public at risk as children often play' in San Luis Creek near the Mission area and the outfall at Avila. There are other factors related to the encampments that are less of a public health issue; however, they appear to be of significant public concern. According to Police Department representatives and � � members of the homeless population, there is b:1briminal element and Mayor Allen K. Settle December 7, 1994 RE: Homeless Encampments Page 2 `substance abuse problem.associated with some of the individuals in . fA( the encampments. The safety of the public and some of the homeless people is jeopardized in the vicinity of the encampments': This ; personal safety factor and the accumulation of solid waste negate the use and enjoyment of a natural recreation area. A long term solution to problems associated with these encampments is sensitive and complex. In my capacity as local Health Officer, I have asked Jerry LeMoine, Environmental Health Director, to assist city officials with the potential public health aspects of this problem. I believe it is appropriate for city police to . periodically survey known encampments and to contact Environmental Health whenever a question of public health concern arises. Staff from Environmental Health will provide consultation and guidance on proper mitigation. GREGORY W. THOMAS, M. D. , M.P.H. Health Officer cc: Jerry LeMoine, Director, Environmental Health John Troutner 1C y%H0MCL-"-SLO mi 12194 ETING AGENDA DATE 4 -/6-216 ITEM # April 16, 1996 _7: e"COUN-CIL C3 7111 0 0 FIN D f�CAID 0 FIRE CHIEF City of San Luis Obispo TTOPINFYDIR Mayor Settle and Council Members CLERKIDRIC. V10,LICE CHFr: 900 Palm Street 0 IVIGIMT TEAM 0 REC OIR San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 L-3 C READ F1:_7 0 UT;L DIR RE: Proposed Parking District for the Parkview neighborhood (La Entrada/Del Norte/Del Sur/Ramona) Dear Mayor Settle and Council Members: My husband and I are property owners and residents of property located at 189 Del Norte Way. We have been informed that the City is pursuing a parking district in our neighborhood, which will include our street. The purpose of the parking district is to limit the number of vehicles allowed to park on the street in the public right-of-way. The intention of the parking district is to limit the number of unrelated(student) renters allowed to reside in a single-family residence. We have lived at the above address for the last three years. Since living here, it has been our experience that there are limited occasions where there is an abundance of on-street parking being used by rental residents. This is not a severe or continuous occurrence. The real problem appears to be a communication breakdown between the long term property owners/residents and the transient, rental occupants. Students do tend to have more social gatherings,studying sessions,and general automobile traffic. We feel that this is non-nal in a college town. When neighbors,regardless of their residential tenure,are disruptive and perhaps annoying, it should be up to the individual(s) being bothered by the behavior, to discuss(with respect),the problem(s) with the offenders. The aovenu-nent should not be held responsible to regulate courtesy issues and neighborly coniniunication. If laws are being broken, then the police,or other responsible agency should be contacted. Instituting a regulation to control occasional parking disputes will not address the social issues between property owners and renters,communication will. As property owners who will be affected by the proposed parking district, we do not support the proposed parking district. Finally,residents complain about the quantity of traffic that drives in the neighborhood. Traffic congestion is not a problem for this area. Given the number of vehicles that travel on the streets, the street widths,and the lack of any vehicular impediments,such as a lot of on-street parking, the level of service is easily LOS A. A more noticeable problem is the speed at which cars drive in the neighborhood. We would strongly support the installation of speed bumps in our neighborhood. We appreciate your consideration of these matters,and recommend that you do not implement a parking district, and that you do install speed bumps. Sincerely, vL p- C Susan K. Clark RECEIVED APR 161996 CITY COUNCIL ORISPO. CA E ING 6 -91 AGENDA DAT � �.---ITEM # Alec Gough 964 Chorro St.; San Luis Obispo CA 93401 (805) 549-8526 4/15/96 To: The mayor and city council members From: Alex Gough RE: Proposed parking limitation on Del Norte 1 would suggest that you vote against the proposal to limit parking after 10 p.m. on Del Norte Way, for a number of reasons: 1.) Most of these homes have single car garages and are not adequate in size for today's cars; also, the driveways do not permit much additional parking. 2.) The proposed ban from 10 o'clock is unreasonable and an infringement on the property rights of homeowners in the area. ie,x Gough r�CcowfufL �i�cti��Lrr;`�, i�'� FZ FFR�Q 91:P i �!E fXU=NW WIAIRW I ®mmol ¢n FNRVJFA 'a cmwesa r®IdFt iLlbm f RECEIVED APR 1 6 1996 CITY COUNCIL SAN -01Con CA P 0 MEETING AGENDA DATE ITEM # . DATE:4/16/96 TO: Honorable Mayor Allen Settle and City Council FROM Denise Fourie and Mike Multari RE: Proposed Park View Parking Permit District This letter is in response to the April 3 letter we received asking for public input on the proposed Park View Homes Residential Parking Pennit District. Because we are leaving for vacation,we are unable to attend the hearing,but are strongly against this proposal as described and want to share our concerns with you. We have lived at 83 LA Entrada for 91/2 years. This is a pleasant,quiet,neighborly area,with ample on-street parking. Our house is the first house outside the proposed district. While the adjacent streets of San Jose Court,Ramona,Del Norte,and Del S do have smaller lots and a seemingly higher population since some are student rentals,we have never observed a parking Last night at about 10:00 pan.,a quick survey of available,on-street parking spots for the street of Del Norte only,revealed over 40 empty spaces. Both Cuesta and Cal Poly are now in session,so this should be a typical evening scenario. Since our house is just beyond the proposed parking permit district boundaries,we are very concerned about the effect it will have on our block iFthis permitting does occur. Will we be forced to park on another block as a result? We oppose the district on several grounds: 1) Need has not sufficiently been established 2) Inadequate study of the effect of a district on adjacent streets 3)Overregulation of private lives by government Having lived in both Santa Monica and Berkeley—sties with real residential parking probleaLs— this proposed approach strikes us as overkill. This approach seems like a big city answer to a small-town issue which will result in overregulation We would be glad to work with the city and our neighbors on some alternative,more appropriate solutions. D Fouri 544-5427 (w) Mr1c� (w) 83 La trada Ave. San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 COUNCIL ❑ CL'J uirl1 . � 0 CAO ❑ FIN DIR fq e�J AO ❑ FIRE CHIEF E SATTTORNEY VPW DIR ❑ CLERwoRIG VPOUCECHF RECEIVED ❑ MGMTTEANI ❑ REC DIP r ❑ C READ FILL- ❑ UT!L DIP APR 16 1996 --- ❑ °tris DIR I CITY CLERK SAN LUIS OBISPO.CA RQN It Residents for Quality Neighborhoods P.O. Box 12604 •San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 MEETIN��� 9l� AGENDA 3 DATE. _ITEM # April 8, 1996 Mayor and City Council City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 RE: 671 Park Street-High Occupancy Use Permit Appeal Dear Mayor and City Council, R.Q.N. is asking you to affirm the decisions of the Hearing Officer and the Planning Commission by denying a High Occupancy Use Permit at the above address. The permit application is fundamentally flawed because it seeks to establish three parking spaces in the street yard setback and tandem parking of four vehicles. The City's performance standards for High Occupancy Use Permits allow only one required parking space to be located in the streetyard setback. The performance standards for these permits are designed to soften the impacts that large groups of unrelated adults might otherwise create in single family neighborhoods like the Phillips addition. Applicants who cannot meet the standards are acknowledging that they are trying to obtain more from their real estate investment than they could reasonably expect. Homeowners and tenants in the Phillips Addition have stood in uniform opposition to this permit request throughout the entire application and appeal process. Residents For Quality Neighborhoods respectfWly request that you endorse the efforts of the residents to protest the Phillips Addition by denying the appeal. Sincerely, Larry Allen Batcheldor 8' OUNCIL D DIR Secretary �`1 &twAO ❑ FIN DIR RECEIVED C!-CAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF ❑-Al`ORNEY ❑ PW DIR APR `;° 1996 E-CLERKIORIG ❑ POLICE CHF s ❑ MGMT TEAM ❑ REC DIR Clay COUNCIL ❑ C q ILE ❑ UTIL DIR SAN ' S OBISPo.CA �' 0 PERS DIR / r • • 1► 1 �/ �ar I 71, mom i 11ir P' AN M MMO xx / ASS 17t4 mEETING AGENDA y/ DATE _y1 ITEM# v� 1� ll�ZV -�4� Al2 �cEI VE D AP�t 1 1 lyya t?GOUNCI G'a ❑ FIN D;R y n-{CAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF i 6%riiORNEY ❑ PN DIR $'CLERK/ORIG ❑ POLICE CHFF ❑ MGMT TEAM ❑ RTEC DIR LDR-E ❑ U _C R RQ PERS MEETI APPEAL FOR HIGH OCCUPANCY PEI Dff, AG A E # 671 PARK STREET BACKGROUND INFORMATION: We purchased house at 671 Park Street in July 1995. We have two daughters, Nicole and Tonya who attend Cal Poly and this seemed to be the easiest way financially for us to house our daughters. (There are approximately 2173 beds at Cal Poly and approximately 16,000 students) We wanted a break even situation with rent coming from all six girls, we put in our fair share as their parents. • Regarding WHY we feel there was a complaint: On date, Sept. 2, 1995, while we were cleaning/fixing up the property the neighbors young girl (age 12) from across the street told us her mother did not want us to park in front of our house because she couldn't make u-turns. My daughter and her friend decided to talk with the neighbor. As they started across the street, the little girl meet them and said "Oh! mother forgot the street is public parking. "Also, there is a very active homeowners association and evidently there has been previous problems in this area with a fraternity house, etc. • I instructed the girls to try to park in the driveway when all the girls did arrive. • All six girls moved in on Sept . 14, 1995 • A complaint was filed on Sept. 15, 1995 - See enclosed • Approximate date of Sept 20 or 26, 1995 Rob Bryn visited 671 Park Street and talked to my daughter, Tonya. • I then called Rob Bryn and he suggested we submit a High Occupancy Permit, which we did. • February 2, 1996 we had the first hearing regarding our permit request with Ron Whisenand residing. His decision was: parking design is inconsistent with city regulation. Therefore, he rejected the application. • February 28, 1996 we went through the appeal process before the Planning Commission. Their finding was that there was no hardship that they could see and upheld the rejection. • April 16, 1996 we will appeal before the City Council We would like the City Council to approve our High Occupancy Permit for the following reasons: 1. Good residents, good neighbors. 2. No noise complaints (verified by the police department) 3. Many residents stated at the two previous hearings "no problems with these girls". 4. Girls park inside garages and in parking spaces in driveway. 5. With 6 girls livingin the house there will NOT be more tha° OUNCIL ❑ I ;a AJ FIN DIR 6. With 5 girlsliving in the house there will be 5 cars. ❑ Acao ❑ FIRE CHIEF 1 7. No increase in traffic with 6 girls versus 5 ❑ ATTORN ❑ PW D p' ❑ CLEF�K/ORIC ❑ p • ICEC'HF' ❑ MGKATTEAAI ,❑ REC DIR Q.-C READ F�z.E ❑ UM DIR -yr7 0 FERS DIR C a . . LL LL ., 0000 , ■ ■ e by-..�T.\. ��-.?. -l..•.�t L v_ y \ i•y,MFS+ i• ._t..��� '�_ • _ Y i%.�•�i1'N�r`�.f�`+_ice,. .\ �S.•Vii( •L,: ,.��,vt,r-'}y{ ��Id►►►►�►►��Ih illllllllll�l����111° ►►►'� 11 Cl of SAn WIS OBISPO 990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100 09/28/95 BAGGETT RICHARD S & MARY N 3517 COOLHEIGHTS RANCHO PALOS VERDES,CA 90274- SUBJECT: Notice of Code Violation 671 PARK Dear Mr. & Mrs. Baggett: On 09/26/95, Community Development Department staff inspected property you occupy at 671 PARK. Staff noted that six occupants were residing at the above address. Please be aware that the situation described above does not meet zoning ordinance regulations, and appears to violate San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Sections(s) : M.C. 17. 04.222 High Occupancy Residential Use We request that you take action to comply with this ordinance requirement(s) by decreasing the number of occupants to five adults or obtaining a high occupancy residential use permit from the planning department. Your property will be reinspected on or about 10/13/95 to determine if further enforcement action is necessary. If you have questions, please call me at (805) 781-7186. Sinc y, 44 Ro Br Neighborhood Services Manager The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to including the disabled in all of its services,programs and activities. 11 I Teln.v.rnrn„nira}inn<novicp for the Deaf(805)781-7410. Richard S. & Mary Baggett 3517 Coolheights Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 October 8, 1995 City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street PO Box 8100 San Luis Obispo, CA 93403 Attn: Mr Rob Bryn Dear Mr. Bryn, We have received your letter of September 28, 1995 informing us of a possible violation of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code- Section 17.04.022 High Occupancy Residential Use at 671 Park Ave. We are writing this letter to request the longest extension of any enforcement action while we take action to comply with the ordinance by decreasing the number of occupants or obtaining a High Occupancy Residential use permit from the planning department. Some of the girls that live at 671 Park Ave would like to talk to you and see how they can help the situation. One of my daughters,Tonya or Nicole will contact you this week. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, ea8ge"tt Mary ✓//� ����►►� ��►►►►��� AlII`h Cl of SAn MIS OBISPO �AMl 990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo,CA 93403-8100 10/16/95 MARY BAGGETT 3517 COOLHEIGHTS DRIVE RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275 SUBJECT: High Occupancy Residential Use Regulations Dear Mrs. Baggett: As you have been previously informed, the property which you own located at 671 PARK, does not comply with the High Occupancy Residential Use Regulations (San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Section 17.93.010) . In view of the fact you have applied for an extension for relocation of a tenant, this office will grant you an extension of 90 days in which to bring your property into compliance with the High Occupancy Residential Use Regulations. We will be conducting an inspection of your property shortly after the expiration of the time extension on or about 02-19-96, to ensure compliance with those regulations. In granting you this extension of time, the City expects your cooperation in reducing the neighborhood problems associated with high occupancy use. If we receive additional complaints from your neighbors regarding unlawful parking or excessive noise problems, we will have to reevaluate this extension. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me at 781-7 86. Sinc e , Rob n Zoning Investigator The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to including the disabled in all of its services,programs and activities. Il I Telemmmunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. STATEMENT We are filing a request for a High Occupancy Residential Use Permit for 671 Park Street, San Luis Obispo to allow six college students to occupy this home. The six (6) adults who are living in this home are full time students (five at Cal Poly, one at Cuesta College). Two of these residents, Tonya and Nicole Baggett are the homeowner's twin daughters. To comply with the High Occupancy Residential Use Permit, we submit the following: • Site plan , drawn to scale. This plan shows there is an average of 337 square feet of floor space for each occupant. The dwelling contains 2022 square feet of habitable floor space, not counting the two car garage. • Five (5) off street, paved parking spaces are provided. • Two (2) full size bathrooms are provided. Furthermore, to verify the six adults living at 671 Park Street have not caused any legal problems there is an attached statement from the San Luis Police Department. Officer Daniel R. Blanke (San Luis Obispo Police Dept.) has stated there have been NO complaints of noise or parking violations since the purchase, of the home, and occupancy of these six adults(see attached letter). There are several compelling reasons to issue the permit: • It is imperative, to help reduce our financial burden of college housing cost, to have six students occupy the home. • The attached letter from the city of San Luis Obispo states one student MUST move out by February 15, 1996. The one students would have to be one of our daughters, since the other four resident girls have a signed lease agreement. Thus, by having to rent an apartment for one of our daughters this would further impact us financially. • We are requesting a permit for six adults with five or less cars to enable us to kept our daughters in Cal Poly. • Any further help or information, please contact us. Signed Date: ) 1f j .n n e �o h V C a V U U �y tl O o p 0. O n c In o � � a W 99. E z m vQ a .9.►f ao I H 28 '- a 1 aCr. N hCN h O N N C 'z 0 1 A 1 z a � O J I m a V SIG, � to m c e Z m Isla, IV Ir � a y � z � C6 d z 0 o Q�+ s loo 1650 PHILLIPS T%T TTT T TD C T AMP A% S /C °4`\` so ' 04, • fib, P r `� /cf o / T / LO y 19 13 15 17 4 \ 0 L7.2T O fL6S No e, Y We T PL. ° rn HILLCRES o wL Inr .J.Jl'IO'f. ti sol lA wsr w•r so "Zo 640 !O �i.7! r Y loo ,., h 2n ° 1010 , I' I ` , 10 O1 I J ' 9 All a 7 b 19 4 3 v .ear •.. ;Q• 'oo a. ♦ O. A 75 II 12 Q Z©' 14 15 ZISo4 15 O a r. � ° _ _ _ Y♦ J 2 N Z IJOAO FR.I 7S z n fp wr• ure w•n w °J �� 170 — li•p rN•a tl�/O�C. ' LANE // ( 1 PHILLIPS Irn ry llo °,I 2 '3 ° O • I.O ' I JJ JC 1 - '\ war a .5 ?S • '� ! .e J 1 33 !O O I i II ' D < i °I I i 6 c z E I I X C / O O2,f 25 N lO O ZI I I ? I no ` RI O l 23 4 1 3 1@2 2 20 S _ ��Ve10 13 8 S7 .26 7 26 1 6 1 I ar y ° 1 10 I S Q � x 1138 I''n r I p v ' O cY D Ln !o n0 < so I ss n wo rM wrr wrr w[a ,p u.a .0 .o r• •r S -�c T ST a y t MILL o a D 0 m Z o c 9 % t �2�s in _ J _ 9 +G ,o o v O 0) �•..�. ,� Mary. r 3 r�r - __ �� ��•7 : �f 1 _ 1 I -t F t.l ` l _ 1 , •m t �IIBn811nlll�Hlll���;�� �IIIIIIIIlIIII O SAnMIS OBISPO 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 12/04/95 BAGGETT RICHARD S & MARY N 3517 COOLHEIGHTS RANCHO PALOS VERDES,CA 90274— SUBJECT: Notice of Code Violation 671 PARK Dear Mr. & Mrs. Baggett: This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter dated November 13, 1995. We have received only one complaint regarding the unlawful parking at 671 Park. If you would like information about any noise complaints that have been received, you must contact the San Luis Police Department. If I can be of any further assistance, please feel free to contact me at (805) 781-7186. Since y Rob Br Neighborhood Services Manager /.1 oZ1,2 F11915-- W7- 19S/77— I WAX 40.6,eeW DANIEL R. BLANKE /0- <r Lievown BM = City Of san tuts OBISPO Poke Depsivnent•(805)781-7317 •EMWONCll 911 1042 Walnut SL • Box 1926• Sat Luis OO1sp0.G 98408-1328 The cGty o1 san Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. UTelecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. FROM CITY OF SLD 04. 02. 199 16:26 P. it "Mill HI Ind citySan luis omq3% 900 Palm Street, San Luis Map, CA 93401-3249 March 1996 PDat 4t•Fax Note 7671 . 4• q 1. 1 To!] From r Richer . Sherman and IVlary Baggett CoJDept. Co. 3517 C olhaights Drive hone# Phones cis '1st-1 Rancho:Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Fax 4 t o Fax« so s 18 SUBJECT: A 13-96' 671 Park Avenue Appeal of the Hearing Officer's denial of an Administrative Use Permit to allow six adult residents in a dwelling and tandem parking in the street yard; R-1 zone; R. J Sherman and M. Baggett; applicants. , Dear 14. and Mrs. Baggett: The Plgrning Commission, at its meeting of February 28, 1996, denied the appeal based on the following findings and established March 31, 1996 as the date for compliance with the zoning ordinanpe, which allows no more than five adult residents at the above address: Y. The parking design is inconsistent with City regulations and inappropriate for the use, because it includes three parking spaces within the street yard, where one is normally , allowed, and four spaces in tandem, which creates significant potential for conflict, No specific circumstances exist which justify granting an exception to the parking standards established in the zoning regulations for high-occupancy residential uses. The decision ofthe Planning Commission is final unless appealed to the City Council within ten days ofthe action. An appeal may be filed with the City Clerk by any person aggrieved by a decision of the Co4mission, If you i*ve any questions, please contact Judith Lautner 781-7166, Sincere , Ron d Whi and Develo meet Review Manager Attachr6ent: Resolution.5177-96 L.VoU 3 6.pa Th} Ity of Son Luis Obispo Is oommitted to Include the disabled In all of its servloes. programs and activities. 11.LJ TTO'l 00000mmunioations DeWce for the Deaf(805) 781.7410. MEETING AGENDA 73 DATE - - ITEM # — 4847 Village Gardens Drive Sarasota, FL 34234 April 9, 1996 City of San Luis Obispo City Council 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 -3249 Dear Sirs: I am responding to the notice I received from your office regarding Appeal--671 Park Avenue which will be heard on April 16, 1996. I live in Florida and just returned from a visit to San Luis Obispo. I was there to see about improvements to be made to my rental house at 657 Park Avenue and to make inquiries about this appeal. Maybe because this is my only rental house, I am very proud of it, and I want to be sure that my renters are as comfortable living in my house as possible. I am not sure that I would like to live in my house because of the parking situation on the street. I am deeply concerned that six adults are allowed to live in the residence next door to my house. As you know, the 600 block of Park Avenue is limited at both ends. In other words, that part of Park Avenue is one block long. There are already many high occupancy residences around this block. Each time one of these high occupancy residences has been added to this area, it has added parking problems and certainly greatly increased noise and traffic. It must also be remembered that it is not just that the six adults in the residence at 671 Park Avenue have vehicles that require parking space (some on proper parking areas on the 671 property, of course, and the rest which park on the street) . There are additionally the vehicles owned by their visitors -- friends and relatives. And there are service providers and delivery personnel who require space to park. Thank you for letting me know about this appeal as early as you did. I 'm sorry that I cannot attend the meeting. Sincerely yours, _ n L3'C6J GIR ❑ FIN DA 0-AC710 ❑ FIRE CHIEF Evelyn Guy 't RNEY ❑ PW DIA ❑'Z�LERK/ORIC ❑ POLICE CHF ❑ MGMTTEAM ❑ RECDIR RECEIVED. r❑ C READFILE ❑ UTIL DIR r- : — o PERS DIR APR 1 1 1996 CITY COUNCIL SAN ^ rA �.... .., -.�... VVVYVYl/GV Y-17-�0 �•14A1♦1 XUL MUNItCITO- 805 781 7109# 1/ 1 i LIEETING AGENDA DATE ITEM #3 78/- 1154 Charnel Drive Santa Barbara,Ca.93108 414-96 i San Luis Obispo City Council 990 Palm St. San Luis Obispo, Calif. 93403249 Dear City Council members: I In reference to the appeal to allow six adults at 671 Park Street, we are very upset that someone wants to put so many people in a small property. We own the property at 730 Park and on the corner at 1708 Mill. We have always kept our rentals on that little street to one or two tenants. This large number will be hard on the other people living in the nearby houses, and will create bad parking problems and noise. It will also set a bad example for the rest of San Luis Obispo. In new housing at that address,would it permit enough bedrooms for so many? As adjacent property owners, this letter is to let youknow that we oppose the large number of people, cars and noise that this will bring to a quiet residential street Cordially, Daniel C and Judith P. Chase APR 15 1996 �� d.. UNCIL �- U;R CITY CLERK i.j "' CAO ❑ FIN DIR SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA Y� CAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF L3 ATTORNEY ❑ PW DIR leCLERKIORIG ❑ POLICE CHF ❑ MGMT TEAM ❑ REC DIA ❑ C R FILE ❑ UTIL DIR 0 ?ERS DiR VSEr-TING AGENDA DATE -11-16- 9L-- ITEM # 3 April i i, 1996 Dear City Council: I wish to express my support for the Residential Parking Permit District Proposed for Park View Homes area. I have lived on Del Norte Way for close to ten years now, and I have seen a steady increase in the number of cars, traffic, noise, and congestion. I can't attend the meeting on Tuesday, but I have signed the petition, and I strongly support this measure. The majority of the resident in my neighborhood want a quiet, orderly place to live. By passing this measure You can insure that our streets do not become parking lots after hours. I encourage you to listen to the Neighborhood Group who has introduced this measure. They are thoughtful citizens who have already met many times to think through and draft this proposal with great care and consideration. Please pass this measure. It is a sane and fair policy, Sincerely, Robert Inchausti Professor of English at Cal Poly 114 Del Norte Way San Luis Obispo, CA. 93405 5-COu,4CIL 6�'Jj U;F; h O-CAO ❑ FIN DIA I ❑SAO C3 FIRE CHIEF [j❑�KMRNEY ❑ PW OIR MG, =�n HF ❑ MTTEAM REC DIR RECEIVED !' 0FILE ❑ LITILR APR 15 1996 CITY COUNCIL SAN eA MEETING AGENDA DATE-LZ�- , �ITEM # S April 15, 1996 Dear City Council Member, I am writing this to ask you to vote against the residential parking ordinance that is proposed for the Park View Homes area. I do not believe that establishing parking restrictions will be conducive to developing a sense of community in our neighborhood. I believe that communication and creative thinking will go much farther to establishing positive relations in the Park View Homes area. Last February I bought a home on Del Sur Way. As a single parent, who works two jobs to support two teenage sons, I was quite proud of this accomplishment. I have spent the last year painting, pruning and polishing my home because of the pride I take in it. I have gotten to know my neighbors and enjoy friendly chats on the sidewalk and waves from passing cars. I really enjoy the mix in ages as I believe that this diversity adds to the community. Several months after I moved into the neighborhood I was invited to attend a neighborhood meeting that was planned by homeowners in this area. I was aware that there were some frustrations and concerns in our neighborhood and I wanted to see if we could work together to ease some of the problems. During the meeting many long time homeowners expressed their unhappiness that their once"family neighborhood"had turned into student housing. Parties, parking, cursing, and all the other problems associated with student housing were discussed. The general feeling at the meeting, as I saw it, was to come up with a plan that would make our neighborhood undesirable for students to rent in. An attorney, who lives in the neighborhood, said the only recourse we had was to enact a parking ordinance. It was quickly agreed upon by those in attendance to pursue this avenue. I left the meeting feeling very uncomfortable. First of all, the homeowners had not invited anyone but homeowners to the meeting. No one had thought to include those members of our community who were perceived as the"troublemakers", to hear our concerns and frustrations. Secondly, it did not seem that those in attendance were concerned with clearing up our neighborhood problem but rather they wanted to eliminate the student population in general. A few days after that meeting I invited the students that five around me to meet at my house and discuss what was going on. Most of them were not aware of what the homeowners were planning. Out of our meeting we decided to call a meeting for all members of our community and have an open discussion regarding neighborhood frustrations and concern. I have attached the invitation and letters from members of our neighborhood inviting everyone to our community meeting. I have also included a summary of what took place at the meeting. Please, take a few minutes and read these as I think it is important that you have this information before you vote on this proposal. LJ COUNCIL cap Slg �Our.tommunity meeting many positive changes have taken place. There has been a )D"�a0 cle°cNikIIR the number of parties and in the level of noise. There has been an increase in U ORIUEY ❑ pI,v c)DIR IEF U!ER'QORIG RECEIVED ❑ NIGUTTEAM ❑ RECIDIRCRFI APR i 5 1996 R T E n UTIL 1) 0 FE;JS CITY COUNCIU = c —- , SAN - naman.CA communication between neighbors. And their has been a development of mutual respect: towards one another. Please, please, I urge you to vote against the parking ordinance. I do not believe enacting restrictions and laws is the way to solve problems in our neighborhood. I believe open communication and mutual respect wiU go much farther to developing the sense of community we all desire in our neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration on this matter: Sincerely, Judi Carscaden f concerned residen' invite you to a COMMUNITY MEETING to discuss concerns about our neighborhood. Place: 15(6 Del Sur Date/Time: Sund ya , September 17, 4:00 p.m. Also, a representative from the San Luis Obispo Police Department will be in attendance to answer questions about our options Lets communicate to bring peace to this great neighborhood. t o�c�r1 cho.�r a� �J I� D OD �V @O o � Sin cf- we. wa o-Z4 our nel�hbors v� �2 Cd1�SlC�-va�2� w2 nuc( dM do � �R- s�icc�c�5 G�v� !n v�'f'iHg Gts �a a. nea�Gr6Qr�+,00c�. fin 1 ur vew � a&�d . ►77cA _ DNc �/� �o Q fru! � L see,' G�6c,-Gcoa� �L Dear Neighbors, I attended the first meeting of homeowners in our neighborhood which was called to address the frustrations and concerns connected with the student population. Although I shared many of those frustrations and concerns, I left the meeting feeling uncomfortable. After some thought I realized my discomfort was because I had not had the opportunity to share, in group, my feelings with the students. In response to those feelings I chose to meet with the students living near me and to share with them the feelings of many people in the neighborhood. Approximately 15 people attended the . meeting and I found every one of them to be delightful human beings. Many of the students shared the same frustrations and concerns as the home owners. They also shared some of their own frustrations and concerns. I believe it is important that T members of our community meet and have the opportunity to share our feelings. I believe that mutual respect is the answer to our problems. I believe it is possible to develop this respect. I encourage all members of our community, home owners in residence, tenants, and landlords, to attend the meeting scheduled for Sunday, September 17th at 4:00 p.m. so that we may begin the process of positive communication. Sincerely, Judi Carscaden 156 Del Sur 547-9008 Beth Anderson 155 Del Sur Way San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 September 14, 1995 To the fellow residents of my neighborhood: It has come to my attention recently that the homeowners of this community are more than a little unhappy with the current state of this neighborhood. As a home renter of this community for the past 4 years I have noticed some changes too. The noise level has definitely increased, people do speed down my street and once Cal Poly begins, I have found it much more difficult to park in front of my own house. For the most part, however, I feel that with a little direct communication between neighbors that the majority of these problems can be solved. I, personally, have had to enlighten some of my immediate neighbors about the noise level they are generating and have received a positive response. I do not want to oversimplify the situation, I just would like to establish a forum for communication before involving the law or implementing extreme parking restrictions. Believe it or not I do care what happens to this neighborhood and I want to resolve the current problems we are having before it gets completely out of control. I have been informed that the majority of the homeowners of this community(51% and more) have signed a petition which supports the establishment of a parking restriction from 10 PM to 7 AM for non-permitted vehicles. I was also told that each house would be allotted 2 parking permits if this becomes effective. Presently, 2 parking permits would not accommodate my household. We live in a 4.bedroom/4 automobile household with a small driveway. Two cars will not reasonably fit in our driveway without a vehicle sticking out into the middle of the street, hence, if someone wanted to inform the police, I am sure someone in our house would be ticketed. I understand that you want to drive the "group rentals" out of this neighborhood to protect your own personal property, however, I am beginning to feel I am being discriminated against because of the extreme actions of others, unfamiliar to me, who live in rental homes that have disrupted the normal living conditions of this neighborhood. I really hope that the two factions of this community can come together to discuss some of our problems in an attempt to come up with a reasonable solution. Thank You, Beth Anderson �`� September 14, 1995 Dear Fellow Renters, DID YOU KNOWM That many of the permanent residents of the surrounding neighborhood have signed and submitted a petition to the city that would, in effect: - Restrict parking between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. by levying fines to non permitted vehicles - Allow only two parking permits per household. - Place ugly signs up and down the streets with the regulations dearly marked. Also, these residents are extremely organized and have already implemented a "phone tree" that would basically put an immediate stop to any noise that one person would find offensive. The police would be called and have no qualms about showing up at your house to end the disturbance. These people have already had at least four organizational meetings (that no renters were invited to) to discuss these problems. These problems include: irresponsibility (M), noise, speeding on streets, violence at parties, messy yards, etc... Clearly, the goal of the permanent residents is to limit the flow of people onto "their' streets, and in doing so, hope to make this an undesirable place for students to live. SO- If you care about what is going on like many of the renters on Del Sur do, get involved. You can do so by attending the meeting on Sunday. -Thanks Demae Tillotson 155 Del Sur Way San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 September 14, 1995 Dear Neighbors, I am relatively new to the neighborhood and have just been made aware of the tension between residents and students. I am a full time student who works part time. I am not home much, but I am willing to find the time to help solve these problems. I feel the key here is communication. If we let each other know our concerns and just get to know each other this will greatly dissolve our tension. I believe we , the students, deserve a chance before we are judged based on past reputations. The complaints regarding speeding and noise levels are completely valid and can be taken care of by letting us know that we are driving to fast or talking to loud. I understand parking can be a nightmare in our community as well but this can also be solved by communication. This parking measure allowing only two permits per household is unfair to those of us who pay our monthly rent and would like to be able to park in front of our house. I don't want to worry about finding a place to park a mile away from home and have to walk late at night or wont' about my car being broken into all to avoid a ten dollar parking ticket. I would be more then happy to talk with residents to work this out and come to a compromise. I think you'll find that we are not unreasonable and we deserve a chance to prove that. Thank You, Demae Tillotson 173 Dtl 3ule :gear �e;�hh�ro Uteri (IN i w A U�\� I i i\.o �t �7Z IL,oy �\�r We .�..il are a^A,. ha:'e liVe'f J , thls mi r4 .^..:\+T c'.irrent t-Ne ' to^.^��+� they n3t•g e:rer had. ' Idu 3To ����o�pQ r_3 .t.�: �N U: .�.�Q.ci�'. par"ir:b i.�..e_a W. r:,nd-rs tthe t::'v par::inb Yer;^i�$ .�_.::.�.. r:.'il : ree.�.. thpm ho t..::ee^ the ho'�rs Qi• 1(h PkfAYm '4 7 :(.A..nl.�.m. ^^.y .ether cars '.:'ill I.Nalle to .~.= 1:: the L'ur ar t ^y :e�tiv vhat is the ^al We h3v not J b..I hoito.i. tQ the In h+h,,..rhood ,V-Vi '. i I I :'^v::. A I + ^b:' the grape:rine we have hea r.�.. th3t the ^^al :.c. t� orre�.t.ual :y r:A. the . t.'.dei;tr. ummm veca',:s� :jam se�.a tai i::.rv..;de^tc :':hich a'. T\ICteT[rC �� \v✓• heca"cre IA. .I..V i1Vt i\�vil' iv~e Telt hp Je pveiitJ „yJ ayJ v aii O "\ +ga A ... > +b. I"i I .c.,t..\.:r1.ent...o.!r tors "'t 'V (INw WAII AJUI Q ulII a I.L. HC)I.,t. wi lNlf,w . d.ter nt her stI>�ents .+.i .^rm ,,-I n,g 1I- tC .1acartt K't, � •,L' Sh0',:;d t3i:: 3::C ;Ohn•• - h� ' is^.d;ords. ::e are ,;uSt people try ^b to '0et h� Voc Sono 'f J '.i ci rvry 4- U, 1 \r h'\t sv me V 'u c. A. ^ot ::le Al ^^.t +Kii :: t::vt .rn\u `a:a tv i�tert.r\�al ly mvi'e i z\.res hoTheT ti��e.ror thic. :ciea Ii l it A Tectiy h'.:rts the Y •'b r •• " All st::dy '.::.t i l l ) am lire ,� sn.. \ i �::e many others > Q i i::e tc harre `'Ti en us aiiu re iat�'.reo er ' tho'.a I.Ip Noel +Nat +a- a neig',N r N- a cc." I .=i": ha:'e enougn respect towards others to to I17 -_ the Tec Ther tc ar;d/or to l:: tv tN—I i: iai:di oro. .ae:rera t:i is 1c. a avilpflp -0- I U(A I 0-IU(A1 1Q the urea .n.I: studer.t.c. ic.. l i::e try i.:b t.". s:aeep the forest it j'.\at comes .~.ae::. ::lo :eel that jrn.'.\.r• coc:pla iia.c. ai:d "_.vi:eei::.c.. Ne N the 1 a:,4l..rds > :.�v I U, I n"f the yl ttt �aip lam` Haft h\lllp Ten„ uiiu i'��'viv � y��e t!; na T.` TpaT +y ln 'Uld l •: e to say t.^.an::s vor ready^,g this rya. unrI -I Uo,' W7 p Me. o i nr�pr September 13, 1995 Dear Neighbors, Another school year is upon us as we continue our education at Cal Poly. Unfortunately, the beginning of the school year has brought about an unnecessary situation that has pitted neighbor against neighbor. We have lived on Del Sur for 15 months, and we plan on living here until our schooling is complete. We love this neighborhood, its surrounding views, and the friendliness of the people that is characteristic of San Luis Obispo. First of all, use would like to make note of the petitions currently circulating through this neighborhood. We do not appreciate the fact that we were informed of this only four days ago. It seems that the petition drive is actively seeking to discriminate against students, or those living in "Group Rental" houses. I saw a map along with a petition for parking permits, and none of these group rental houses had been marked with a name or phone number. It looked like no attempt had been made to make contact with these people. In fact, I wasn't even directly approached, I had to call out and ask to see what was going on. Finally, instead of bickering and sneaking petitions around behind the backs of "Group Rentals," why can't we all talk about this in a rational sense, and get to the real problems now affecting this community. If people are concerned with noise, parking, or even violence, these concerns should be heard and respected. Lets face it; Cal Poly is continuing to grow tremendously, and housing is going to be necessary for students in this city. Compromises can and should be made between neighbors. All we have to do is get to know each other, and talk about the problems that face this college town. We are people too, and care about the state of this wonderful neighborhood. Thank you, Steve Enders, Doug Bedell, Chris Ott, Mike McGovern 138 Del Sur 1. Neighborhood Meeting. 256 Del Sur September 17, 1995 4:00 P.M. This is an attempt at a summary of the meeting for those who missed the meeting and for those who were there. No minutes were taken, so this is best-of-memory and is open to correction. Judi Carscaden welcomed us all to her front yard and expressed appreciation to all for taking time to build community,which was the express purpose of the meeting. Judi lifted up the value of communication and mutual respect in building healthy relationships with young people and all people. To acknowledge what has been transpiring in our neighborhood over the past few weeks, Judi invited four speakers to represent four different viewpoints: parking permit proponents, homeowners against the parking restriction, group housing residents, and landlords. Also Officer Jim Hays from the San Luis Obispo Police Department was invited to speak Bill Geiger spoke for the neighbors who have initiated the parking restrictions [though he actually voted against it in its present form at the last neighborhood meeting.] Bill reviewed the process where neighbors met at his house because their concerns about behavior in the neighborhood had come to a head with two recent incidents of violence. Two actions came out of this meeting. One was to draft a letter for all residents, especially new ones,that both welcomed them to the neighborhood and outlined some expectations. (Many of those in attendance had not seen this letter yet Contact Bill at 543-1382 to receive a copy.) The other was to approach the city about making this a parking-restricted neighborhood,with each house receiving two on-street permits. This was solely to address the perceived parking over-crowding,a symptom of the perceived housing overcrowding, in the neighborhood. (Later it evolved in the minds of many into a tactic to prevent parties,but that was not the original intent.) Mark Yousef was one of the first students to speak. He mentioned that he is a senior now, studies hard, and treasures a quiet neighborhood with a family atmosphere and fewer restrictions,which feels more like home. He mentioned that talking to students directly would be appropriate and that many students want to cooperate and contribute to their neighborhoods. He volunteered to be an intermediary if older adults feel they have trouble communicating with the younger generation. Ryan Stout spoke presenting the frustration many students feel at being left out of this process,both in the meetings and in the petition-signing. Hardships at not being able to park cars at residences where they live and pay rent were mentioned(in the event of a parking restriction.) Many young people mentioned that they would appreciate the opportunity to respond when neighbors have a concern,instead of having them fume to each other and pass restrictive laws. Many expressed frustration at being lumped with all students into a category of nuisances. Carrie Harmon spoke for young adults who are graduates now and work full time,but still live in a group situation. They shared the same frustrations as others in the neighborhood at inappropriate,inconsiderate behavior and feel the parking restriction directly punishes them,though they are completely innocent Adrienne spoke from the standpoint of homeowners who do not want the parking restriction. Her points were that this is a divisive measure, not an example of inclusive problem solving, and would be a hardship for several families in the neighborhood She presented the suggestion that ongoing interaction and relationship-building would be more effective to solve the problems of the neighborhood than a parking restriction. Keith Dills eventually spoke representing landlords. He loses money each month on his house, so he does not feel he is charging exorbitant rent He considers his tenants his guests and is concerned with their behavior in the house and in the neighborhood. Judi mentioned two other landlords who are against the parking restriction,but who are making accommodations to help the neighborhood, whether it be charging low-enough rent that a family can afford to live there or making the driveway double to accommodate off-street parking. Officer Hays told us all about the laws and ordinances that are already in place to help neighborhoods deal with disruptive behavior. He explained the noise ordinance. To be enforced, it requires a complaint call. The noise has to be continuous and unreasonable and able to be heard fifty feet from the house(unless its after 10:00 p.m., when it is a violation if heard over the property line.) He stressed how it has to be continuous and unreasonable. He told us about the recourse citizens have when they are bothered by a parry in their neighborhood. At the first call,a liaison-group of Poly students and the police called SNAP respond and issue a DAC, some sort of card which counts legally as a police response, or the police might come themselves. Usually that is all it takes. A second call for the same party would cause the hosts of the party to be sued for expenses of the police in answering the call, approximately 5300. A second call within 28 days also initiates this suit. A third call within 28 days causes the landlord to be sued for this amount. Police may ticket a party,which includes a fine, on the first call depending mostly on whether they encounter an uncooperative attitude. Parties can be very expensive for hosts who are issued a ticket and are sued for expenses. Officer Hays stressed to students how unsafe it is to allow people who are not invited to come to a party. Both incidents of violence in this neighborhood were committed by persons unknown to the hosts. These party crashers have no care or interest in the well-being of the hosts,in their responsibilities or consequences. Hosts can call the police to assist them in resisting the presence of these parry-crashers. The police will allow the invited guests to stay. A question was asked by Miles Clark about speeding. The officer said residents can report the time of day speeding is a problem and a police car will park and ticket speeders. [I notice we have a speed-check machine parked here on Del Norte just two days after the meeting.] Officer Hays told us not to hesitate to call the police if we need help. He stressed the importance of not trying to deal with problems ourselves during parties or when alcohol is involved. He gave the impression that we had the tools to deal with disturbances quickly and efficiently by calling on the police force. This meeting provided a forum for many varied opinions, concerns,questions, and suggestions. Everyone who wanted to speak was given a tum and was not to be interrupted Mentioning all viewpoints is beyond the scope of this summary. However, POSITIVE SUGGESTIONS will be summarized: I. Neighborhood meetings once a quarter to keep in contact,develop friendships and understanding. (By the way, residents on San Jose Court would be invited. They were inadvertently left out because the meeting-planners were going by the map that has been circulating,which does not include them. The intention was to invite everyone.) 2. Phone numbers and names for X11 residents. 3. Learn to know the people of the neighborhood, even the ones who are different from ourselves in age, lifestyle,or in any other way. This enriches everyone's lives. 4. Be considerate of others. This goes for young and old alike and includes friendly greetings. 5. Don't wait until you are beside yourself with rage and intolerance to call the police for help with a problem. 6. If someone has had a noisy party,talk to them the next day. (When confronting someone,remember it's always better to listen first and speak later.) 7. Keep neighbors informed about what's happening, about plans and needs that might affect them. Give neighbors the opportunity to respond to needs. (Irene Quinlan pointed out that if the parking restriction goes into effect,there are those who would gladly share their permits with residents that need more. This type of neighborliness is appreciated!) 8. Mutual respect is the goal. One has to giy,respect in order to gcl respect. This applies to older folks respecting young people as well as young people respecting older people. 9. Block barbecues or parties. After the meeting,conversation shed some doubt on the parking restriction as a party control devise. Officers responding to parties will probably not take time to ticket cars as well as shut down the party, so the parking restriction may not really be an issue in party control. Officers can respond to complaints about parties and do not need parking restrictions to be effective in this task. A suggestion to deal with parking as it relates to group rentals was made by Joan Merson after the meeting was over. Why not look into an ordinance that requires landlords to 1 provide enough off-street parking to accommodate tenants'automobiles without using more than two spots on the street? This would directly address the problem without affecting all families in the area with such a broad stroke. Another suggestion was to delay submitting the parking restriction petitions for three months to see if this meeting might actually solve some of the problems to such an extent that a parking restriction is not necessary. Quite a lot of good communication and new understanding of how others feel in the neighborhood took place. It would be much more exciting to all be working together than to be divided into distrustful camps. I heard from Jon,a student on Del Sur that all five vehicles at his house have conscientiously been parked in the driveway since the meeting(which everyone in his house attended)and that he noticed the guy down the street quit parking on his lawn. WE HAVE A GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY TO ENJOY THE POWER OF A UNIFIED SPIRIT. DONT BLOW IT BY STUBBORNLY INSISTING ON PURSUING AN AUTHORITARIAN APPROACH WHICH ALIENATES PEOPLE. (That last in caps was my own personal summary.) Submitted by Adrienne Dickinson. Reviewed by Judi Carscaden,Bill Geiger,Beth Anderson, and Carrie Harmon. September 20, 1995 P.S. By the time Bill reviewed this summary, he had discovered that the petitions had already been submitted to the city. The City Council will review the matter. The date of the meeting when this matter is considered will be announced in the Telegram Tribune and will also be announced to every household by the committee that drafted it,Parkview Home Residence Group. All interested persons are invited to attend this meeting and will have the opportunity to speak. Larry and Laurie Borello 657 Park Ave San Luis Obispo CA We are against my use permit which allows more than 5 adults to live in the residence at 671 Park Ave. By allowing the use permit, we believe that this adversely affect5the environment and safety of the otherwise quiet neighborhood. Safety is a major concern in our neighborhood. The petitioner's have requested tandem parking. There is a blind curve within a car-length or so of their property. There is no sidewalk around the turn. As it is now,pedestrians are at risk negotiating the turn. Allowing cars to park in tandem by the turn would farther force pedestrian traffic into the street. In addition to the pedestrian risk, traffic would be forced to tum wider into the street creating a collision hazard. �r5 VR�,the residents of the neighborhood, feel we have been duly patient with this situation. There is an ordinance that clearly outlines acceptable use; this is in direct violation of the ordinance. It is unclear to us why there is a continuing debate on this topic. The ordinance and common safety do not support their request. 1� 4/15/96 City of San Luis Obispo Council Meeting 4/16/96 671 Park Ave Appeal Ladies and Gentlemen of The Board: We apologize for not being able to attend this very important meeting but we would like to express our wishes on this matter. Please accept this request for denial of the high occupancy use permit on behalf of my wife and myself. We bare no personal wish of difficulty for the Baggett family and sincerely hope they will join us in our most unique neighborhood but the addition of another individual in this property and the attending "baggage" is not, in our opinion, in the best interest of the area. Very truly yours, Dennis Howland Carol Howland 1690 Hillcrest PI SLO, CA 93401 April 16, 1996 Good evening! My name is Harry Fierstine, living at 640 Park Avenue roughly across the street from 671 Park. I want to express my opposition to Mr. Baggett's desire to have 6 adults inhabiting his house. I firmly support the regulation that no more than 5 adults shall occupy a dwelling in a R-1 zone and believe in this case or in any other, the quality of a residential neighborhood will deteriorate if an Administrative Use Permit for High Occupancy Residential Use is granted. Homes in our neighborhood are vulnerable to high occupancy, therefore I ask you to follow the recommendations of your Planning Department and Planning Commission and protect us from this behavior. Personally, I think 5 adults, whether they are nuns, professors, college students or council members, are a generous number. I would have second thoughts opposing this permit if it came from a single family household, but it comes from a landlord. Please deny Mr. Baggett's request for a high occupancy use permit. April 16, 1996 To the Mayor and Members of the City Council: My name is Arline Fierstine and live at 640 Park Ave., across the street from 671 Park Avenue. I am appealing to you to support the denial of an Administrative Use Permit to allow six adult residents in an R-1 Zone. This appeal was denied by the Administrative Hearing Officer on Feb. 2, and again by the Planning Commission on Feb. 28. I ask you to support the neighbors in this lovely R-1 neighborhood and the Planning Commission and Hearing Officer by again refusing Mr. Baggett's request to allow six adults to occupy the residence at 671 Park Ave. Attached is a copy of a letter I read on Feb. 28, at the Planning Commission Hearing. Thank you for supporting our neighborhoods. Sincerely, Arline Fierstine 640 Park Avenue San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Attach. February 28, 1996 My name is Arline Fierstine. I live at 640 Park Avenue across the street from 671 Park Ave. and I would like to address Mr. Baggett's financial plea Mr. Baggett's claim of financial need to defray or cover his mortgage payments by having his two daughters and four additional students (paying tenants) occupy the home should not be an issue to this appeal. Most of the neighbors have mortgages, are supporting small children, with both parents working and they additionally have child care expenses.. Some are single parents with young children with all the aforementioned expenses and some people, like ourselves, are retired and on fixed incomes—all of us paying mortgages without complaint in order to live in a quality R-1 neighborhood. None of us feel we should crowd as many people as possible into our homes to defray our expenses. For Mr. Baggett to expect to buy in a residential neighborhood and ask for zoning changes to pay his expenses is ludicrous. If the city would allow this kind of appeal to defray costs, we would all be land barons or slum landlords. Th'ank/�you. Arline Fierstine 640 Park Avenue San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 C S o - J_�_�-v G3„t-f��J.G—��1—CL_�2_a►S_t►�C�. VIEM A DA APPEAL FOR HIGH OCCUPANCY PEI ', E # 671 PARK STREET Z�W� BACKGROUND INFORMATION: We purchased house at 671 Park Street in July 1995. We have two daughters, Nicole and Tonya who attend Cal Poly and this seemed to be the easiest way financially for us to house our daughters. (There are approximately 2173 beds at Cal Poly and approximately 16,000 students) We wanted a break even situation with rent coming from all six girls, we put in our fair share as their parents. • Regarding WHY we feel there was a complaint: On date, Sept. 2, 1995, while we were cleaning/fixing up the property the neighbors young girl (age 12)from across the street told us her mother did not want us to park in front of our house because she couldn't make u-turns. My daughter and her friend decided to talk with the neighbor. As they started across the street, the little girl meet them and said "Oh! mother forgot the street is public parking. "Also, there is a very active homeowners association and evidently there has been previous problems in this area with a fraternity house, etc. • I instructed the girls to try to park in the driveway when all the girls did arrive. • All six girls moved in on Sept. 14, 1995 • A complaint was filed on Sept. 15, 1995- See enclosed • Approximate date of Sept 20 or 26, 1995 Rob Bryn visited 671 Park Street and talked to my daughter,Tonya. • I then called Rob Bryn and he suggested we submit a High Occupancy Permit, which we did. • February 2, 1996 we had the fust hearing regarding our permit request with Ron Whisenand residing. His decision was: parking design is inconsistent with city regulation. Therefore, he rejected the application. • February 28, 1996 we went through the appeal process before the Planning Commission. Their finding was that there was no hardship that they could see and upheld the rejection. • April 16, 1996 we will appeal before the City Council We would like the City Council to approve our High Occupancy Permit for the following reasons: 1. Good residents, good neighbors. 2. No noise complaints (verified by the police department) 3. Many residents stated at the two previous hearings "no problems with these girls". 4. Girls park inside garages and in parking spaces in driveway. —_._ ❑ ouN IL ❑ , DI 5. With 6 girls living in the house there will NOT be more thag ark. FIN DIR 6. With 5 girls living in the house there will be 5 cars. ❑ ACAo ❑ FIRE CHIEF 7. No increase in traffic with 6 girls versus 5 ❑ Arr°RN ❑ P',v� ❑ CLE RIG,- ❑ P CEICHF ❑ Mr TEAM �7 REC DIR II G READ f�ltE% ❑ UTAL DIR ❑ 0 TCERSDIR C • _ i • • V • • ti• IN J4 Al . t t'IU�t�. ���a��ni18111111111111�I1II�1°►°�►►�II CityO SAn luiS OBISPO 990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo,CA 93403-8100 09/28/95 BAGGETT RICHARD S & MARY N 3517 COOLHEIGHTS RANCHO PALOS VERDES,CA 90274- SUBJECT: Notice of Code Violation 671 PARK Dear Mr. & Mrs. Baggett: On 09/26/95, Community Development Department staff inspected property you occupy at 671 PARK. Staff noted that six occupants were residing at the above address. Please be aware that the situation described above does not meet zoning ordinance regulations, and appears to violate San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Sections(s) : M.C. 17.04.222 High Occupancy Residential Use We request that you take action to comply with this ordinance requirement(s) by decreasing the number of occupants to five adults or obtaining a high occupancy residential use permit from the planning department. Your property will be reinspected on or about 10/13/95 to determine if further enforcement action is necessary. If you have questions, please call me at (805) 781-7186. Sinc y, 44 Ro Br Neighborhood Services Manager OThe City of San Luis Obispo is committed to including the disabled in all of its services,programs and activities. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. Richard S. & Mary Baggett 3517 Coolheights Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 October 8, 1995 City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street PO Box 8100 San Luis Obispo,CA 93403 Ann: Mr Rob Bryn Dear Mr. Bryn, We have received your letter of September 28, 1995 informing us of a possible violation of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code- Section 17.04.022 High Occupancy Residential Use at 671 Paris Ave. We are writing this letter to request the longest extension of any enforcement action while we take action to comply with the ordinance by decreasing the number of occupants or obtaining a High Occupancy Residential use permit from the planning department. Some of the girls that live at 671 Park Ave would like to talk to you and see how they can help the situation. One of my daughters,Tonya or Nicole will contact you this week. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Mary Baggett ��II0111111II f� I I���Ill�l�l�l,�li!II!!I!II, I,I Of SM WIS OBISNdoeftak in CI 990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo,CA 93403.8100 10/16/95 MARY BAGGETT 3517 COOLHEIGHTS DRIVE RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275 SUBJECT: High Occupancy Residential Use Regulations Dear Mrs. Baggett: As you have been previously informed, the property which you own located at 671 PARK, does not comply with the High Occupancy Residential Use Regulations (San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Section 17.93.010) . In view of the fact you have applied for an extension for relocation of a tenant, this office will grant you an extension of 90 days in which to bring your property into compliance with the High Occupancy Residential Use Regulations. We will be conducting an inspection of your property shortly after the expiration of the time extension on or about 02-19-96, to ensure compliance with those regulations. In granting you this extension of time, the City expects your cooperation in reducing the neighborhood problems associated with high occupancy use. If we receive additional complaints from your neighbors regarding unlawful parking or excessive noise problems, we will have to reevaluate this extension. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me at 781-7 86. Sinc e , Rob Zoning Investigator The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to including the disabled in all of its services,programs and activities. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. STATEMENT We are filing a request for a High Occupancy Residential Use Permit for 671 Park Street, San Luis Obispo to allow six college students to occupy this home. The six (6) adults who are living in this home are full time students (five at Cal Poly, one at Cuesta College). Two of these residents, Tonya and Nicole Baggett are the homeowner's twin daughters. To comply with the High Occupancy Residential Use Permit, we submit the following: • Site plan , drawn to scale. This plan shows there is an average of 337 square feet of floor space for each occupant. The dwelling contains 2022 square feet of habitable floor space, not counting the two car garage. • Five(5)off street,paved parking spaces are provided. • Two (2)full size bathrooms are provided. Furthermore, to verify the six adults living at 671 Park Street have not caused any legal problems there is an attached statement from the San Luis Police Department. Officer Daniel R. Blanke (San Luis Obispo Police Dept.)has stated there have been NO complaints of noise or parking violations since the purchase, of the home, and occupancy of these six adults(see attached letter). There are several compelling reasons to issue the permit: • It is imperative, to help reduce our financial burden of college housing cost, to have six students occupy the home. • The attached letter from the city of San Luis Obispo states one student MUST move out by February 15, 1996. The one students would have to be one of our daughters, since the other four resident girls have a signed lease agreement. Thus, by having to rent an apartment for one of our daughters this would further impact us financially. • We are requesting a permit for six adults with five or less cars to enable us to kept our daughters in Cal Poly. • Any further help or information, please contact us. Signed Date: h . u Q U y �D a ar 7 V a o a o � � a o �• � e E m o OS 1 W �pQN a 8WC r s b � tY is,ir Is,u- < a 8 31 d l Gn y m 3 e C w g&1y o 9 �o a 100 1650 PHILLIPS PHILLIPS LANE �O•. Q S X01 �, +` \ ' �e� ' }' N \ `�J � � • � �q t p�t J. /B O ° / �' J s °+/off \\11 �Q Tf / / '4e r •P \ 7 �' 4 64 N O/ "•p O � rs r ?o i ` f/4 "• 9 19 V IN 11 r2 l3 l4 so .r rs " _ s�' \ 0 so Iva 614 g- 62A 171 ; NILLCREST wsr ,/.fJ'I. .. WIDOia, An lost •EL I so 9f 7° 60 1l W } 100 so 14 Is 2 100 � t' " l� x d a ® i a 1 10 _ a ° a O O4 4 7 S �° � 19 V c ` ro to j A 7s I I X621D Q` 14 15 21 w T.d Vl \ g 4 \o ori m Ch`s �n � \ 17 O t v 18 e r `15 + FR.Z � r ° so rno fo 7s lore Mad vmo u O J r!e .� LANE — o PHILLIPSon id w o 1 7S 30 ° •525 3 . 1 I r II � i E of i u m H I I I B c z 6 I >r C 24 25 iO O i1 t I A 'n ° q m to31192 10 13 8 O7 26 I 5 154 1 1 r , 10 1 ly •Ziv/ ar. 1138 r a a D — Z so � /O u. m fi .i ♦ T C � y wa°. .N wr. wn wr. lo.° ST S nD- N y R MILL 7 p O Z v r, D ° ` J s _ cn2 n .G O m ''•, �i oo, z V o i0 fn • _ r' F -- F' 1• • _� 7C �fl�n����iii�Ilillllllllll�11H111°� 1111 lois OBISPOc� o san 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 12/04/95 BAGGETT RICHARD S & MARY N 3517 COOLHEIGHTS RANCHO PALOS VERDES,CA 90274- SUBJECT: Notice of Code Violation 671 PARK Dear Mr. & Mrs. Baggett: This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter dated November 13, 1995. We have received only one complaint regarding the unlawful parking at 671 Park. If you would like information about any noise complaints that have been received, you must contact the San Luis Police Department. If I can be of any further assistance, please feel free to contact me at (805) 781-7186. Sincer y Rob B Neighborhood Services Manager io2-1Q CnNEl'-'to �NpiC-97—E4' /UO /I/ei�Ey �dcr.ocip�NT� /tT /x,ct' vrG,p.QE.Ss' ��TLn/�.✓ ��Si yE.�R. DANIEL R. BLANKE Liisttmtlint City of �� san LUIS owpo poin DoW term • (8W 791-7817• Emwq@rW 911 1042 WWmrt St • eon t S2S.• Santu4 ohtspw CA ti8401141926' UThe Gity of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services,programs and activities. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)751-7410. FROM CITY OF SLO 04.02. 1996 16126 P. 1 Mill . , city oSm Isms OBISPO 900 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 83401.3249 y Post r Fax Note 7671 Dirk Lk•;.°I6 11 :L March , 1996 r Ric Sherman and;Mary Baggett CoAkV` tiD' 3517 C olheights Drive "0"°« X1018« sos 8t-'� t`► Rsacho:Palos Verdes, CA 90275 ax" j SURYEtT:. A 13-96.' 671 Park Avenue 1 Appeal of the Hearing Officer's denial of an Administrative Use Permit to allow six adult residents in a dwelling and tandem parking in the street yard; R-1 zone; R. i Sherman and M. Baggett, applicants. , Dear Nt. and Mrs. Baggett: The Planning Commission, at its meeting of February 28, 1996, denied the appeal based on the following findings and established March 31, 1996 as the date for compliance with the zoning ordinanpe, which allows no more than five adult residents at the above address: r. The parking design is inconsistent with City regulations and inappropriate fbr the use, because it includes three parking spaces within the street yard, where one is normally allowed, and four spaces in tandem, which creates significant potential for conflict, 2. No specific circumstances exist which justify granting an exception to the parking standards established in the zoning regulations for high-occupancy residential uses. The decision ofthe Planning Commission is final unless appealed to the City Council within ten days of the action. An appeal may be filed with the City Clerk by any person aggrieved by a decision of the Co4mission. If you l*ve any questions, please contact Judith Lautner 781-7166, Sincerer, Ro d . Whi and Develo meet Review Manager Attachtjent: Resolution 5177-96 - a 1,.*%l+po ® Th' City o1 San Luis Ob apo Is committed to Include the disabled In all of Its services, programa Bind activities. 1161�commueloatione Deka for the Deaf(806)781.7410.