HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/14/1989, 1 - APPEAL OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APPROVAL OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE ON A SENSITIVE SITE MEEMNG Dare:
�����i�i►�Illll��p j C1ty Of San WI S OBI SPO 11- 1q -N9
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ONGs ITW NUMBER
FROM: Randy Ross' Interim Community Development Director,
By Davibran, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Appeal of Architectural Review Commission approval of a new single family
house on a sensitive site between Sydney and Bishop Streets on La Vineda.
CAO RECOMMENDATION
The City Council should adopt Draft Resolution No. 1 to deny the appeal and uphold
the decision of the Architectural Review Commission.
INTRODUCTION
On September 12, 1989, the interim Community Development Director granted final
architectural approval for a new single family dwelling at 1673 La Vineda. The project
was considered "minor and incidental", which means that a staff level review was
appropriate as allowed by Section 2.48.170 of the municipal code. A neighboring property
owner, Mr. Phil Ashley, appealed this approval to the Architectural Review Commission
because he felt the house was too close to the riparian vegetation bordering the minor
creek which separates his property from the subject property. His concern was that the
location of the house did not afford adequate separation between human activities and
the native and non-native bird species which frequent the area (see appellant's statement,
attached).
At its meeting of October 3, 1989, the Architectural Review Commission voted 4-1 to
deny the appeal and approve the plans for the house with conditions relating to drainage,
fencing, landscaping, and subject to the dedication of a permanent open space easement
over the portion of the site occupied by riparian vegetation and the minor creek (the
letter of approval which states the conditions is attached). This action has been appealed
to the council.
SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
Individual houses are categorically exempt from environmental review. However, the
appellant feels that the location of the house as approved by the ARC could adversely
affect the nesting and roosting behavior of the bird species which frequent the riparian
corridor between his property and the subject property. Staff and the ARC feel the
building location, in conjunction with the open space dedication requirement, provide
adequate mitigation of this potential impact.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT TAKING THE RECOMMENDED ACTION
If the appeal is upheld, the owners of the lot at 1673 La Vineda will have to redesign
the house consistent with whatever direction or conditions given by the council.
�,�w�i ►��IIIII�II�i�u�u►q�l�ll city of San IDIS OBISpo
di;% COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
1673 La Vineda 2
ARC 89-80
Data Summaly
Address: 1673 La Vineda
Applicant: Mac Short and Mike Hernandez
Representative: Steve Pults and Associates
Appellant: Phil Ashley
Zoning: R-1
General Plan: Low density residential
Environmental Status: This project is categorically exempt.
Site Description
The 20,460 square foot site is irregularly shaped and slopes away from the street at
approximately 15%. A minor creek tributary traverses the southerly portion of the site
which is lined with mature riparian vegetation, mostly willows but also live oaks. A 15
foot drainage and utilities easement also traverses the southerly boundary of the site in
the same general area as the creek. Surrounding land uses include new and recently built
single family homes and vacant residential lots.
Evaluation
1. Reason For The Appeal — The owners want to build a single family residence on
this nearly one-half acre site. The plans which were approved by the Director and
ARC show a 3190 square foot (including garage) split level house located roughly
in the middle of the lot. The house is setback about 30 feet from the street and
is designed with the main living area on the upper floor to maximise views and
minimize the use of stairs. The house satisfies city standards for height, setbacks
and driveway slope.
The appellant feels that the house as approved is too close to the riparian habitat
along the southerly portion of the site and does not provide an adequate buffer
between human activities and the creek vegetation which is an important resource
for native and non-native bird species.
2. Background — The subject property is Lot 5 of Tract 1304, which was approved
in 1985 as the first of a series of infill subdivision in this area. When the
subdivision was approved, none of the lots were designated "sensitive sites"
requiring architectural approval. However, a condition of approval required that
a note be placed on the final map which says "all existing riparian vegetation shall
not be removed".
The original plans submitted for building permit review showed the footprint of
the house approximately 47 feet from the street property line about midway down
the slope. Because of the questionable reliability of the sewer line in the easement ^\�
which crosses the lower half of the site, the house was designed to be served from
crty of San Luis OBISp0
OftZa COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
1673 La Vineda 3
ARC 89-80
the new sewer line in La Vineda. However, in order to provide adequate gravity
flow to the sewer line, the floors of the house needed to be at such a height that
the house exceeded the 25 foot maximum height allowed in the R-1 zone by four
feet (29 feet where 25 feet allowed). The applicant subsequently applied for an
administrative use permit to allow the taller house.
Staff had supported this request because:
The apparent height of the house as measured from the curb elevation on
La Vineda would be about 16 feet. Therefore, the appearance of the house
from the street would be in scale with surrounding houses.
Moving the house forward on the lot so that the sewer could be served
from La Vineda and so that the height did not exceed 25 feet would have
a more adverse impact on views from existing houses on the La Vineda cul-
de-sac.
-- At the time, the Public Works Department would not allow the applicant
to use the sewer line in the easement along the southerly boundary of the
site.
Many of the neighbors on the cul-de-sac testified at the hearing that the proposed
exceedence of the 25 foot height limit would diminish views from their homes. On
August 19, 1988, the hearing officer denied the height exception based on the
concerns of the neighbors which he felt could be mitigated if the design of the
house incorporated features required for hillside development, such as stepping the
floors of the house down the slope to avoid the use of large stem walls (see
Alternatives, below). He felt the house should be redesigned so that a height
exception would not be needed.
Several months later, the applicant again applied for a height exception with
revised plans showing the house to be slightly lower than before (28 feet) and with
revisions to the elevations which were intended to provide visual relief from the
mass and verticality of the house, particularly as seen from adjacent properties.
However, these plans presented the same problems with view blockage to the
neighbors on the La Vineda cul-de-sac. The testimony of the neighbors in
opposition to the exception, in conjunction with further evaluation of the alternate
sewer line which revealed that the house could now be served through this line,
persuaded the hearing officer that a solution could be easily found which did not
require a height exception. For these reasons, the hearing officer again denied
the height exception request. It was also at this hearing that Mr. Ashley (the
appellant) voiced his concern about the proximity of the house to the riparian
vegetation.
�-3
tv
l c� of san tins osispo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
1673 La Vineda 4
ARC 89-80
Since the sewer line in the easement could now be used, design flexibility was
gained. The applicant revised the plans by moving the house further down the
slope toward the willows along the lower portion of the site. The revised plans
satisfied building height and setback requirements, but the new location placed
the house. so that portions of the upper floor would be well within the willows
along the creek. A closer field inspection by the Open Space planner supported
the neighbor's contention that the habitat resources on this site were significant
and could be jeopardized by this design. For this reason, the Director declared
that the site was "sensitive" and that the new house would require architectural
approval.
.On September 12, 1989, the interim Director granted final architectural approval
for the new house subject to the condition that the owners dedicate a permanent
open space easement over the creek tributary which would include all of the
riparian vegetation traversing the site. Mr. Ashley appealed this decision to the
ARC who voted 4-1 (two members absent) to deny the appeal and approve the
house with the open space dedication requirement, as well as other conditions
intended to protect the creek during construction. The plans approved through this
action showed a setback from the riparian vegetation which varied from about 1
foot for the northeasterly comer of the house to as much. as 45 feet for the
southeasterly comer, as the riparian corridor bends away from the footprint of the
house. This approval is being appealed to the council.
3. The Riparian Setback — When a project is proposed adjacent to a creek within
the city, it is the administrative policy of the community development department
to require a minimum 20 foot setback from the physical top of bank. This is to
insure protection of riparian habitat and, in some cases, to accommodate a future
trail system It is also an administrative policy of the city to require the dedication
of permanent open space easements which include the entire drainage channel
crossing a site, as well as the 20 foot setback from the top of bank, or in some
cases, the edge of vegetation, whichever is greater. In the subject case, there is an
additional requirement imposed by the subdivision approval which prohibits the
removal of any riparian vegetation. This requirement is being satisfied by the
approved plans.
The plans approved by the Director and ARC show the southeast comer of the
house to be approximately 6 feet from the nearest edge of the willow canopy. A
deck above this comer projects slightly over the canopy of the willows, while the
remaining portions of the house are as much as 40 feet away. The appellant is
concerned that the setback for the deck will not provide an adequate buffer
between human activity and nesting areas for birds, and feels the problem could
be solved by enforcing the city's policy of requiring a 20 foot setback from the
top-of-bank or edge of vegetation for all parts of the house.
A city of san tui s osi spo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
1673 La Vineda 5
ARC 89-80
Staff and the Director can support a creek setback which is less than 20 feet in
this case because:
— The existing tract condition prohibits the removal of any riparian vegetation.
Since the 20 foot creek setback is a department administrative policy and
not an ordinance requirement, it affords the director sufficient latitude so
that conflicts between the goals of creek protection and those of a given
property can be minimized.
The average creek setback is about 15 feet, with a minimum of about 1
foot and maximum of about 45 feet.
A condition of architectural approval (see letter, attached) is that the entire
portion of the creek tributary which crosses the site including all the
riparian vegetation be dedicated as a permanent open space easement. In
this way, all of the riparian habitat on the site will be permanently
protected.
— The applicant/property owner agrees with this approach and will be a
willing participant in the open space easement dedication.
Without the application for the house, there would be no open space
dedication requirement.
In sum, staff feels that flexibility in this case will allow the applicant to build the
house to suit his needs while affording ample protection of the creek and its
habitat.
4. Design Alternatives — The property owners want to have the main living area on
the upper floor of the proposed house to minimi .e the use of stairs. Given the
slope and shape of the lot, the design solution chosen results in a house which is
massive, necessitating the use of stem walls, and one which is difficult to fit on
this lot in a manner which meets the height and setback standards, including the
20 foot creek setback desired by the appellant. If the design of the house were
not dependant on having a large main living space on a single upper floor, one
solution which would minimize these concerns would be to apply the Hillside
Planning Criteria contained in the land use element (see attached). These
standards require a hillside house to be built in steps down the slope to reduce
its mass and visual prominence and eliminate the need for stem walls. Application
of the hillside planning standards in this case would have the following beneficial
effects:
— If the house were stepped down the slope, it could more easily meet the
- height and setback requirements and minimize view blockage.
Il�nu��►►�(VIIIIIp��I�� ����Ulll city of San LUIS OBISPO
=Nimrod COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
1673 La Vineda 6
ARC 89-80
— The same floor area could be built while providing a 20 foot setback from
the edge of riparian vegetation.
Sewer service could be provided from La Vineda, thus avoiding the use of
the sewer line in the easement.
ALTERNATIVES
1. The council may adopt Draft Resolution No. 1 to deny the appeal and approve
the plans for the house as submitted and subject to conditions recommended by
the ARC.
2. The council may adopt Draft Resolution No. 2 to uphold the appeal, denying the
plans for the house.
3. You may continue review.
OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW
The Public Works Department is confident that the problems with the sewer line within i
the easement have been resolved so that the house can be served in this manner.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff and the ARC feel the tradeoff between the setback and open space easement is
equitable in this case and will allow the applicant to build the style house that he wants
while at the same time affording maximum protection of the sensitive habitat on the site.
For these reasons, staff recommends the council adopt Draft Resolution No. 1 to deny
the appeal and approve the house subject to findings and conditions.
Attachments: Vicinity map
Draft Resolution No. 1 (deny the appeal)
Draft Resolution No. 2 (uphold the appeal)
Appellant's statement
Hillside planning criteria
Letter of project approval
I
4,` o \ s
\ ,��ri � , :D f L"N Ii7�• �/7 t
00
e 'J
�6' � :�:'.:::;.;::':':::::.;}yam( �.�:'::�.�::;;_::•::.::::. ...... . I
�q
i 4 ten()
ft ft.. C % a
z
6 .I
49tz �' _'\ I pyo J 1 •
•
•
,\ '. of= Y�•�VJ S` � '� y° \�J
.. .5• O' r � O ' w
019 _(1
O �� Al j
Draft Resolution No. 1
RESOLUTION NO. (1989 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
DENYING AN APPEAL FROM THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
APPROVING A HOUSE ON A SENSITIVE SITE AT 1673 LA VINEDA
(ARC 89-90)
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission on October 2, 1989,
considered the application by Mac Short and Mike Hernandez for a new house on a
sensitive site at 1673 La Vineda and approved the request with conditions; and
WHEREAS, that decision has been appealed to the City Council, the
council has considered the testimony and statements of the applicant, the appellant, .
records of the Architectural Review Commission's actions, and the evaluation and
recommendation of staff; and
WHEREAS, the council determines that the action of the Architectural
Review Commission was appropriate;
NOW, .THEREFORE, the council resolves to deny the appeal and
affirm the action of the Architectural Review Commission.
On motion of seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
—O
Resolution No. (1989 Series)
89-90, 1673 La Vineda
Page 2
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of
1989.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED:
City A ` ' trative Officer
tKe F-fiam
y)tto ei
Community Development Director
�- 9
r
Draft Resolution No. Z
RESOLUTION NO. (1989 SERIES) -�
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
UPHOLDING AN APPEAL FROM THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
AND DENYING PLANS FOR A HOUSE ON A SENSITIVE
SITE AT 1673 LA VINEDA (89-90)
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission on October 2, 1989,
considered the application by Mac Short and Mike Hernandez for a new house on a
sensitive site at 1673 La Vineda and approved the request upon determining that the
house was appropriate in the porposed location subject to conditions relating to
landscvaping and open space dedication; and
WHEREAS, the that decision has been appealed to the City Council,
the council has considered the testimony and statements of the applicant, appellant,
records of the Architectural Review Commission's actions, and the evaluation and
recommendation of staff; and
WHEREAS, the council determines that the action of the Architectural
Review Commission was not appropriate and that the house is not appropriate in the
porposed location and will be detrimental to native bird species which frequent the
riparian vegetation which traverses the site.
NOW, THEREFORE, the council resolves to uphold the appeal and
deny the plans for the house.
On motion of seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
,
Resolution No. (1989 Series)
89-90, 1673 La Vineda
Page 2
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of
1989.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED:
City trative Officer
Community Development Director
� �1 i
city of sAn hues OBISPO
990 Palm Street/Post Office lox 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
I
APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL
I
In accordance with the appeals procedure as authorized by Title I .. Chapter
1 .20 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, the undersigned hereby appeals
from the decision of Architectural Review Commission rendered
on October 2, 1989 , which decision consisted of the following (i.e.
set forth factual situation and the grounds for submitting this appeal.
Use additional sheets as needed) :
The denial of my appeal to require the applicants, ir. ike :Hernandez,
contractor, and Mr. Mac Short, owner, for the proposed home for 1673 La
Vineda, to comply with the city's 20 ft. riparian setback policy. The
factual situation and the grounds for submitting this appeal are contained
in the attached letter of appeal to the city council dated October 11 , 1989.
I \ I
The undersigned discussed the decision being appealed from with:
_Planner Dave Moran on October 3, 1984
Appellant:
Phil Ashley
Name/Title
RECEIVE®
OCT 12 1989 Representative
1586 La Cita Ct., S.L.O. City 93401
CITY CLERK Address
SAN LUIS 08ISPO,CA
544-9741 (home), 756-2505 (work)
Phone
Original for City Clerk
Copy to City Attorney
Cal dare for: Copy to City Administrative Officer
Copy a fol oylidepartment(s) :
DSSi �SV�
City Clerk
Phil 'Alaley
1586 La Cita Court
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
75 2505 (wo971 rk) RECEIVED
QOctober 11, 1989
To: San Luis Obispo City Council OCr•1 2 1989
CLEAK
From: Phil Ashley S �Gatsm G
Subject: try appeal of the .Architectural Review Commission's (ARC) denial of
my appeal regarding ARC 89-90.
This letter and the attached form "Appeal to City Council" is my appeal
of the ARC's denial of my appeal to require the applicants, fdr. Mike Hernandez,
contractor, and Yr. ?ac Short, owner, for the proposed home at 1673 La Vineda,
to comply with the city's 20 ft. riparian setback policy. The factual situation
and the grounds for submitting this appeal follow.
1 . After searching nearly a year throughout this county for a site in
our price range to build a home where birds would be plentiful in a natural
wooded area, my family and I bought the lot at 1586 La Cita Court in San Luis
Obispo City. `_'his site contained a mature riparian woodland along the east
bank of a seasonal stream,which we noted native birds used heavily. The stream
bed and west bank were owned by myArear property line neighbor who was in the
process of subdividing for future homes. The developer whom I bought my lot
from told me the city had a requirement where a house could not be built closer
than 20 ft. to the riparian vegetation. This seemed like an excellent require—
Cment to protect the riparian bird habitat from development. Upon phoning the
;''city planning department, I was informed that there was a 20 ft. riparian
requirement for development. I was not told it was a law, an ordinance, a
policy or anything else, other than it was a requirement. Knowing this I assumed
both sides of the stream riparian,bird habitat would be protected equally
from development by the 20 ft. riparian setback requirement and I invested in !J
the lot. Our long search for a home 'site with protected bird habitat was over
and amazingly our site was in San Luis Obispo city and not in a rural area. I
therefore have a vested interest in protecting this bird habitat providing my
stewardship is reasonable for the birds and adjacent neighbors.
2. Regarding human encroachment associated witiv development, birds of all
species require a "safe distance" from humans, in order to go about their
birdly activities undisturbed. If humans approach-birds too closely, this safe
distance gives way to bird's "fright distance." The fright distance is the
distance between birds and humans at which birds stop their normal activities
and nervously watch approaching humans. If humans approach birds closer yet,
this fright distance gives way to bird's "flight distance." The flight distance
is the distance between birds and humans at which birds fly away fearing for their
safety, due to the closeness of humans. These distances vary for different
bird species but the left half of the applicant's proposed house is so close to
the riparian bird habitat that the fright and flight distances of some birds
will be violated, due to human activities associated with the closeness of this
proposed house. the house has a 0 ft. setback from this habitat at the upstairs
cantelever and three decks are 4 ft-, 6 ft. and 9 ft. respectively from this
bird habitat.
Besides the house and decks encroaching too closely horizontally to the
bird habitat, the decks especially encroach vertically into the birds habitat.
/�C
2
At 15 ft. high these decks areat tree canopy height. For their safety, birds
are use to being above humans—them in trees and us on the ground, as is natural.
These high decks place humans at a level that invades bird's tree-top safety
zone and this too could cause birds to fly away. Anyone who has stood on the
ground and watched birds go about their business and then began to climb the
tree only to watch the birds quickly fly off, can understand the threat of these
human-occupied, high decks. Due to the permanency of the proposed decks and
associated human activities, certain bird species may disappear from the habitat
permanently due to too frequent invasion of their flight distance by humans.
These displaced birds will eventu-ally die for reasons I have explained in
previous letters regarding this project. The city's 20 ft. riparian setback
policy,. if required for this proposed project, would provide most birds with a
safe buffer between the house, decks and associated human activity and the
riparian bird 'habitat.
ex
3. 3efore my^rear neighbors subdivision was finally approved, the city
placed a restriction on the subdivision stating "Existing riparian vegetation
shall not be removed." This restriction was recorded on the subdivison map
and available to the applicants upon the purchase of their lot. It was the
clear wording of this recorded restriction combined with the cities 20 ft.
riparian setback policy that convinced me that it was not necessary for me to
try purchasing the subject lot in ,'ebruary of 1987. : felt these two require-
ments would adequately and perranentl.y protect this riparian bird habitat with-
out my trying to purchase it for protection of the bird habitat. gut during the
brief time I analysed purchasing this lot, I determined a large house of
2,000-3,000 sq. ft. plus attached garage could be built on the approximately
6,000 sq. ft. building envelope at the front of the property away from the
riparian vegetation. This nice two stork/ house would obey all city front, side
and rear building setbacks including the 20 ft. riparian setback. It would
also obey the 25 ft. height limit. I carried my preliminary planning no
further than this, since I_ did not purchase the lot.
4. Contrary to my determinations, the professional planning team of the
applicants contends the front building envelope is too small to build an
adequate house and obey city setback requirements. However, it is obvious to me
the applicants never wanted to design a house that met the natural building
parameters of this lot. Instead, they designed from the beginning a house that
forced the lot to contend with the inappropriate degign. They designed a house
74 ft. wide. This would not fit in the front building envelope so they placed
it about 13 ft. into the riparian vegetation. This violated both the tract map
restriction prohibiting removal of riparian vegetation and the city's 20 ft.
riparian setback policy. It is difficult to believe the planning team of Mr.
Hernandez, contractor, and Steven D. Pults and Associates, architect, both
with long term planning and building experience in the city, was not aware of
these city limitations regarding the site. 'dhether they were aware of these
limitations or not, they purposely did not show the riparian vegetation or
seasonal creek on their plans. 3y not showing these critical natural features
which would affect planning decisions, city planners had no easy means for
determining the house violated city requirements. Also without stream and
riparian vegetation shown anywhere on the plans, the city could not tell that
the project was proposed in a potential creek flood zone. Whether the
applicants intentionally or unintentionally misled the city is not the point.
The point is it is the responsibility of the applicants to show critical natural
features, such as streams and riparian vegetation, that will affect important \}
planning decisions. It is not the city's responsibilty to provide this
3
topographic and natural feature information on the plans. Without this infor-
mation important city streamside planning criteria were overlooked. The net
affect was that the riparian bird habitat was inappropriately infringed on by
the proposed house.
5. Because the house was planned too far down slope to apparently connect,
with proper sewer drainage, to the front community sewer line, the applicants
elevated the house floors violating the city's 25 ft. height limit. This
elevating of floors gave better sewage drainage and better views. It is
difficult to determine if better sewage drainage or better views or both
caused the applicant's team to elevate the floors and violate the 25 ft. avera-e
height limit by 4 ft. Regardless, they questionably did this precipitating
2 public hearings dealing with the height violation.
6. I was not aware of first hearing August 19, 1988, nor was I even aware
a house was being planned for the site. At that time the city apparently was
not required to notice adjacent property owners of a public hearing of this
type. If I would have been aware of the project at that time, I would have
checked into it. '.?iti: my vested interest in protecting the riparian bird
habitat, I would have discovered that the project violated both the tract map
riaarian restriction and the city's 20 Lt. riparian setback policy. I would then
have informed the city of these two riparian violations even before the first
hei t hearing. fife applicants could thlen have been required to redesign at an
early stage to comply with these riparian restricitions. Since public notice
for the hearing is only posted at the front of the lot, far from rear neighbors
views, I was not aware of the project, and thus riparian vegetation issues were
overlooked early in planning.
7. At this first hearing the city denied the applicants request for
excessive height. This decision followed considerable protest to the excessive
height by neighbors living in front of the site who were able to easily see the
hearing notice posted at the front of the site.
8. Nearly a year later, the applicants had to go through a second public
hearin, for resubmitting plans that still violated the 25 ft. average height
limit by about 3 ft. This time the city's public notice policy was different
and adjacent property owners were noticed of the hearing by mail. This time,
after considerable research, I found that not only Vas the height limit being
violated for a second time, but that the tract map riparian restriction and the
city's 20 ft. riparian setback policy were being violated. I discussed these
riparian violations with city planning staff prior to the second height hearing
held May 12, 1989. Since hearing notices had already been mailed, it was too
late to make these riparian issues a written part of the second hearing agenda,
but I was able to testify about these riparian violations at the hearing.
9. After the second hearing, the applicants redesigned to comply with the
25 ft. average height limit. However, instead of redesigning to comply with the
riparian restrictions, as staff and I hoped they would do, they kept the same
74 ft. wide house with 15 ft. high decks nearly all the way across the back,=and
moved it even further into the riparian vegetation. Now the proposed house was
about 24 ft. into the riparian bird habitat and flood zone instead of about 13 ft.,
as before the second height hearing. It was apparently indicated by the applicant
that this move further into the riparian vegetation was to make it easier to
connect to an old community sewer line runninthe back 15 ft. of the applicant's
site. Since it is all downhill to this old sewer line, it would have been just
4 ��
as easy to connect to it by not moving further into the riparian zone, unless the
applicants wanted to use this for a reason to move even further into the esthetical
natural riparian zone.
10. At this point the applicants still had not provided the city with a
site plan showing the boundaries of the riparian vegetation and its relationship
to the proposed house site. However, after the second hearing, I provided the
city with a letter dated May 29, 1989. This letter stated my position regarding
the necessity of using the city's 20 ft. riparian setback policy to protect
the bird habitat. The letter also contained a list of 45 species of birds. I
have observed in the riparian area in less than 2 years, a substantial number in
a relatively short period. The letter also contained my riparian vegetation
site map showing the original house site about 13 ft. into the riparian vegetation.
11. Upon reviewing my vegetation and bird information and other available
information, the planning staff declared the site a sensitive site indicating
this by the Community Development Director's letter to me dated June 8, 1989. The
letter indicated the project would be reviewed for compliance with riparian set-
backs and the house would be redesig:-:ed accordingly.
12. Soon after this, the applicants provided a minor revision in their plans
showing for the first time tae perimeter pf riparian vegetation and the Rouse with
a 0 ft. riparian setback instead of ti,e 20 ft. riparian setback as per city
policy. I checked and found the perimeter of their riparian vegetation map was
incorrect and their newest proposed site was still about 7 ft. in the riparian
vegetation. Their map also showed incorrectly located willows.
13. Based on the applicant's erroneous riparian vegetation map and unwill-
ingness to redesign to comply with the city's 20 ft. riparian setback policy,
r provided a letter to planning staff dated June 27, 1989. This letter contained
a riparian vegetation map showing that up till now, and contrary to the city's
request for a redesign, the applicants had not redesigned. All they had, done
was move the house around to different locations in the riparian vegetation
and flood plain. The most current proposed site still being 7 ft. in the vege-
tation. ':y letter also indicated I would be willing to compromise and accept
a 12 £t. riparian setback instead of the city's 20 ft. riaparian setback. I
felt this would obviously not be as good for protecting the bird habitat. Still,
I hoped it would motivate the applicants to providewith their project, some
measure of protection for the bird habitat, which tiey had not yet done.
14. After reviewing all current information including my letter of June
27, planning staff decided the applicants would have to: (1 ) provide a new
riparian vegetation map, (2) redesign to move the house out of the riparian
vegetation, and (3) if the 20 ft. riparian setback policy was not met, then
agree to an open space conservation easement for the riparian area. The con-
servation easement would be recorded with the parcel for permanency.
15. The applicants agreed to the conservation easement and provided a
revised grading plan showing a new riparian vegetation perimeter with only a
0 ft. riparian setback. In the area where their riparian setback is measured
the applicant's riparian perimeter line closely corresponds to mine and confirms
that the applicant's current proposed site has a 0 ft. riparian setback. How-
ever, their riparian perimeter on the right side of the property, as shown on
the revised grading plan, is still incorrect and eliminates a considerable area
of riparian vegetation.
16. 0n September 12, the interim Community Development Director approved
Cthe applicant's plan with a 0 ft. riparian setback and their riparian conserva-
tion easement.
17. I provided a letter of appeal to the Community Development Director '
dated September 18, 1989, stating my case for appealing to the Architectural
Review Commission (ARC) the planning department's approval of the applicant's
project. As the letter indicated, i appealed the approval on 5 issues. First,
(1 ), I appealed that the 0 ft. riparian setback was unacceptable to me for pro-
tecting the bird habitat. I also felt that at the area of 0 ft. riparian set-
back, vegetation would be destroyed by the residents to provide a rear walkway
around'their house, conservation easement notwithstanding. They are obviously
not going to crawl around their house at this area. Second (2), I appealed
that the riparian vegetation needed to be accurately drawn by a professional.
Iy appeal letter provided a map showing the large discrepancy on the right side
of the lot between my riparian vegetation perimeter and the applicant's shown
on the revised grading plan. Third (3), i appealed that the applicants connect
their sewer to the new community sewer line in front of the lot. The applicant's
proposed sewer line hookup to the old unreliable community sewer line in the
rear easement would destroy a large willow tree and the only bay laurel tree.
it would also increase the possibility of repeated failure of this old line,
which would cause habitat destruction with each sewer repair due to digging; and
vegetation cutting. Fourth (4), I appealed that the 15 ft. i-ligr_ decks 4 ft.,
6 ft., and 9 ft. away from the riparian habitat were too close for the birds
safety. I also appealed that the deck shown as 4 ft. away from the riparian
vegetation. on the revised grading plan was shown as 0 ft. away elsewhere in the
plan set and this discrepancy needed clarification. Fifth (5), there are measure-
ment discrepancies between the revised grading plan and older site plan regarding
setbacks, house measurements and house siting (the site plan still shows the
house well into the riparian vegetation). I appealed that these discrepancies
be eliminated so measurement and grading errors do not occur during construction
t%at accidentally lead to riparian vegetation destruction.
The summary of m�
ARC appeal letter stated the responsibility for providing critical stream and
riparian data on the plan set rests with the applicants and not the city. That
the applicants omitted information required to make good planning decisions does
not excuse them from the decisions that likely would have been made if the appli-
cants had supplied the information. Therefore, i appealed to the ARC to require
the applicants to comply with the city's 20 ft. ripirian setback policy.
18. At the earliest possible date, Thursday, September 28, I acquired
from the planning departhent the staff report to ARC regarding my appeal.
19. On October 29 I attended the ARC hearing on my appeal. Dr. Randy Rossi
presented the staff report recommending denial of my appeal. During his presenta-
tion he used a projector showing the staff were using the applicant's incorrect
riparian vegetation map. This map gave to the ARC members the incorrect im-
pression that the middle and right half of the proposed house is further from
the riparian vegetation than it actually is. Aside from that, he gave a
balanced presentation from my point of view (other than again recommending
denial of my appeal). Concerns over use of the rear sewer line were also brought
up. Dr. Rossi summarized by indicating staff felt that the tradeoff between the
lack of riparian setback and the open space easement was equitable.
( 20. The architect gave the applicant's presentation and indicated it now
looked like they would be able to use the front sewer line.
21. During my testimony I presented my five issues of appeal since the
staff report only clearly indicated I was appealing lack of the city's 20 ft. -�
riparian setback. Furthermore, I indicated that the superior way to protect
the riparian bird habitat was with the city's 20 ft. riparian setback policy
combined with the tract map restriction prohibiting removing any riparian ve-
getation, instead of the approved 0 ft. setback combined with the riparian con-
servation easement. I indicated the tract map. restriction already protected
the riparian vegetation, and the conservation easement, in this case, was some-
what duplicate protection. Proof of the effectiveness of the tract map restric-
tion for protecting the riparian habitat is the city used the restriction to
require the applicants to move their proposed house out of the riparian
vegetation, and the applicants complied. In other words, for the priviledge
of building with a 0 ft. riparian setback, the applicant was not having to pro-
vide any real mitigation. The tract map restriction, which applied even before
they bought their lot, already protected the riparian vegetation from any removal
without the conservation easement. The applicants no doubt saw that this was an
excellent way to get what they wanted (a 72 ft. wide house with a 0 ft. riparian
setback) without having to provide any meaningful mitigation (a respectable
20 LU riparian setback buffer to provide birds in their habitat a sense of
security from human intrusion).
I also stated that the riparian conservation easement limitation that
allowed up to 400 sq. ft. of hardscape within it contradicted the tract reap
restriction prohibiting removal of riparian vegetation, since it would be
impossible to install hardscape without removing some riparian vegetation.
I also showed my ARC appeal letter riparian vegetation map indicating the
discrepancy between my riparian vegetaion perimeter and the applicants. I did
not birng the following point up at the AIC hearing but the applicant builder, J
Ternandez, told me by phone earlier in the day that 7r. Rossi disagreed
with my riparian vegetation map because it included Coyote bush, Baccharis
pilularis var. cor_san,-uinea. ".;r. Tiernardez said Or. Rossi said this was a weed
and could be excluded from the riparian map. !?egardless of who said what, the
area of riparian vegetation disagreed on, is a mixture of willow and coyote
bush and not just the latter. Furthermore, and more importantly, coyote bush
is a native plant common in our area and found along streams as a member of
naturally occuring riparian plant communities. It is heavily used by many
species of birds for food (insects and seeds) and cover. I have observed over
20 of the 45 species of birds on my backyard riparian bird list utilizing this
local, native riparian shrub. The Vascular Plants Of San Luis Obispo Countv
(Hoover, 1970] describes coyote bush as "Very common on mostly northfac ng hills
and sand-dunes near coast, occasional inland in canyon-bottoms and along dry
stream-courses as far east as the hills between Salinas River and La Panza Range."
In this native context coyote bush cannot be described as a weed and thus
randomly or arbitrkily eliminated from the native riparian flora (vegetation)
for the sake of drawing riparian vegetation on dev-3opement site maps. It is
a natural part of the riparian plant community, used considerably by wildlife
and, therefore, must be included in any vegetational mapping in any riparian
area where it occurs.
I did not bring this technical issue up at the ARC hearing because I did
not know until hours before the hearing the reason for the discrepancy between
my riparian map and the applicant's. Because I was at work all day, I just did
not have time to logically work it into my testimony. If this riparian vegetation
discrepancy is not reconciled soon, I will discuss it at the city council hear-
ing.
earing.
7
I also brought up at the ARC hearing various plans of compromise all in—
volving riparian setbacks of less than 20-ft. These proposed compromises on my
part were not effective with either the applicant or most of the ARC members.
This was so even though my bottom line compromise was a 6 ft. riparian setback,
for the house combined with narrowing 2 decks by 2 ft. each giving an additional
effective setback of 8 ft. for these 2 decks, since it is the closeness of the
extensive decks to the bird habitat that I am most concerned about. People on
I
he decks will be a considerably greater threat to birds' perception of safety
than people inside the house. This reduced riparian setback of 6 ft. for the
house and 12 ft., 12 ft., and 17 ft. for the three closest decks is obviously
not as good for protecting the birds as a 20 ft. riparian setback for the house.
However, every additional amount of buffer between birds and humans helps and
the suggested reduced buffer is certainly better than the existing 0 £t. for the
house and 4 ft., 6 ft., and 9 ft. for the decks. I further indicated that if the
city's 20 ft. riparian setback was compromised, then the riparian conservation
easement should be retained as part of the compromise.
Another reason for my suacesting movinw the house 6 ft. away from the vege—
tation instead of the appropriate 20 ft. is that it would require only minor
modification of the existing house plan including a sli-ht narrowing of the 72 ft.
house width to comply with side setbacks. Unfortunately the applicants were not
interested in any form of compromise suggested by me at either the :=.? hearing
or in any of the compromises listed in ::V three letters to the planning depart-
ment prior to the Air; hearing. ".'his is too bad because I think compromise is
in order considering the applicant's planning record on the building height issue
and the riparian bird habitat issue.
Another one of my failed suggestions at the ARILS hearing was for me to buy
- the riparian zone from the owner so they would have more money to redesign and
build with. I only '.mentioned this to the applicants t_`_e day of the hearing a.^d
again at the nearing but that is as far as it weht,since they did not respond.
22. ^he decision of 4 out of 5 members of the lk?C was to deny ;may appeal
and accept the applicant's proposed project of G ft. riparian setbac:c with a con—
servation easement wit,: several conditions. If I understood the A• C conditions
correctly they are as follows. One (1 ), eliminate the 400 sq. ft. of ihardscape
associated with the riaarian easement, that is, no hardscape will be allowed.
Two (2), hook the sewer to the front community sewe£ line. If the applicants
cannot hook to the fro_ht sewer line, then they are to cause minimal damage to the
riparian vegetation hooking to the rear sewer line. Three (3), provide permanent
drainage and erosion control resulting from the project. And four (4), fence
the riparian drip line during construction.
23. Based on the ARC approval of the applicant's proposed project with
the 0 ft. riparian setoack and the conservation easement with the stated condi—
tions, my 5 appeal issues to the ARC stand as follows.
If the riparian drip line is fenced as conditioned, including the coyote
bush—willow area which is not shown on the applicant's riparian vegetation
map, then my ARC appeal issue about discrepancies in plan :measurements possibly
leading to riparian vegetation destruction during construction becomes a non—
issue. The fence would eliminate any damage due to careless measurements and
grading.
i
However, the other 4 issues I appealed to the ARC were not resolved, so I
• �`, 8
am appealing to the city council the following 4 unresolved ARC appeal issues.
One (1 )9 I appeal to the council that a professional botanist be used to map the
entire riparian vegetation. There is unresolved differences between my vegetation
map and the applicants. This is allegedly due to coyote bush and willows inter-
spersed with it being arbitrarily eliminated from the riparian plant community.
This has no biological basis. Coyote bush could be termed a weed, like any other
native or non native plant, if it is growing in areas where it is not wanted by
humans. But the native coyote bush on the site is an inte—gral part of the riparian
community and is used considerably by birds and must be included in any map of the
riparian community.
Two (2), since the ARC sewer condition only recommended that the applicant
hook to the front sewer line but did not require it, I appeal to the city council
to require the Ipplicants to hook to the front sewer line. If the applicants de—
cide to hook to%Arear sewer line, this places one more customer on an old, failing
sewer line. This will increase the chance the old line will periodically fail.
Each time it fails some damage will be done to the riparian zone during repairs.
This is not conjecture. It failed (plugged up) this summer disrupting service to
Flora Street sewer customers for several days causing potential health-hazards and
causing some damage to the riparian habitat by city workers digging and cutting
during repairs. It would be simple to connect to the front sewer line if they move
their house forward and upslope on. the lot away from the riparian vegetation, as
is being appealed herein.
Three (3), ' appeal to the council that the 15 ft. high decks that are 4 ft. ,
6 ft., and 9 ft. from the riparian habitat are too close for the protection of birds.
These decks need to be eliminated or sited further from the bird habitat. It also
needs to be clarified in the plan set if the left—most (east) deck is 6 ft. wide
placing it 4 ft. from the riparian vegetation (as shown on the revised grading plan)
or if it is 10 ft. wide placing it 0 ft. from the vegetation (as shown elsewhere
in the plan set).
And four (4)9 I appeal to the city council that the 0 ft. riparian setback for
the Douse is not adeouate to protect most bird species in their habitat. I ask that
the city council enforce its 20 ft. riparian setback policy.
:With the house and decks, as now situated, too close to the bird habitat, we
are protecting the vegetation but not the birds. As the saying goes, a house is not
a home without people. Likewise, vegetation is not bird habitat without birds. You
can have nice native vegetation without birds if pegple are too close. I submit to
you that a house in one area only 0 ft. fro. the riparian vegetation with extensive
tree—top high decks 4 ft., 6 ft., and 9 ft. away from the vegetation, places humans
imminently too close to birds in their normally most secure retreat, tree tops. she
result will likely be that most of the birds on my list of 45 observed riparian
species will fly away, if these extensive decks are occupied regularlylas I must
assume, else why are they beim built.
Contrary to what the applicants have stated, a very nice, large home can be
built in the logical 6000 ft. plus building envelope at the front portion of the lot.
And the home can be designed to abide by all setbacks including the 20 ft. riparian
setback and the 25 ft. height limit.l just built a house with about 2100 sq. ft. of
living space and an attached 2—car garage on a S.L.O. city lot 45' wide by 100' long.
As the applicant's lot, zine had a similar 131, front to rear slope to contend with
and I had no problem running my sewer line from the back half of the house forward
to connect to the sewer line in front of the lot.(Also, unlike the applicants claim
with their project, I 'had no problem meeting driveway slope requirements even though
my attached garage had the minimum 20 ft. front setback.) And I did not have to raise
the floors and height of my house above the 25 ft. height limit to do this, as the appli—
cants maintained was necessary on their proposed house during the first two public hearings.
9 -
However, of course it was necessary for them to raise the height of their house.
�.' They were building too far down slope in the riparian vegetation flood zone to
connect to the frm tsewer line, without raising the floor and house height
levels beyond the maximum allowed.
The applicants planning team has shown a strategy from the start that has
tried to mold the site to their design (an overly wide, too tall house, infring-
ing on the riparian vegetation flood zone in the lower part of the lot), rather
than mold their design to the site. They created their own problems through
the height violation hearings. And they have created their own problems through
the ARC and upcoming city council hearinrsby not providing critical stream and
riparian information on their plan set for the planning department to make early
critical decisions on the city's 20 ft. riparian setback policy. At the ARC
hearing I asked the applicants to provide documentation snowing they had sub-
mitted preliminary riparian vegetation site plans or drawings to the city
planners for review. I stated that if they had submitted this type of critical
paperwork and the city failed to tell them of the 20 ft. riparian setback
policy, then my case was against the city and not the applicant and I would drop
ray appeal. They did not respond to this.
"he 0 ft. riparian house setback with extensive decks too close to the bird
habitat combined with the conservation easement is considerably inferior for
protecting riparian bird habitat to the city's 20 ft. riparian setback policy
combined with the tract map restriction prohibiting removal of riparian vegeta-
tion. This is the major reason I am appealing the AR: decision. I believe
that over more than a years time, the applicants, through various means of
persistance wore down an otherwise very capable planning staff. ^he applicants
protested that they repeatediy had to redesign. They did have to redesign
after each of the height hearings. :But that was their fault for disrupting the
surrounding neighbors with requests for excessive buildin% heights. The
builder and architect are both lon-y-term city developers. They sure!;, ]mow
one of the fastest ways to create community unrest is to _propose excessive
buildinz heights. This affects neighbors views and possibly property values
and will almost always be challenged at a public hearing.
'owever, regarding the riparian vegetation issue, they did little to re-
design. They situated the apparently unredesigned house 3 different places in
the riparian vegetation. Ultimately they did a ,mi!ir redesi n when they moved
to a 0 ft. riparian setback. They narrowed the house about 2 ft. (from about
74 ft. wide to 72 ft. wide), changed a 90 degree corner toa45 degree corner and,
I think, changed stem wall heights. There may be a few other minor changes
associated with this move to a 0 ft. riparian setback. 3ut they never redesigned
the house to comply with riparian setback issues as the Cob-munity Development
Director's letter of June S, 1959, said they would.
If this lot were so small as to disallow the applicants a 20 ft. riparian
setback, I would be among the first to accept less than 20 ft. however, I feel
abuilding envelope of about 6,000 sq. ft. is more than adequate to allow the
owners the type of house they want (albeit not 74 ft, wide) if a little creativity
is applied by an apparently very experienced S.L.O. city builder-architect team.
Therefore, I ask that the city council, where it is possible, and in this
case it is, apply the city's 20 ft. riparian setback policy equally among
neighbors so we know what to expect. If one neighbor, as -myself, buys property
thinking the 20 ft. riparian setback policy applies equally to all neighbors,
only to find out it applies less to neighbors skilled at searching out loopholes,
�ro�
10
then only confusion ensues.
But I submit to you here that a loophole did not exist. The applicants
failed, purposely or not, to provide the necessary riparian vegetation and
preliminary plans. Without this critical information
stream Features on their pr Y
city planning staff could not reasonably be expected to tell the applicants of
the city's 20 ft. riparian setback policy. The decision not to show the rioarian
and stream features was that of the applicants. Moreover, the applicant's
design team is very experienced with S.L.O. city building. MT. Hernandez indicates
he was as architecture student at ^•al Dole and has had over 15 years local build—
ing experience. The architecture fir. of Steven D. Pults and Associates has had
about 10 years of local and city designing experience. This leads me to Believe
they should have !ahown of the city's 20 ft. riparian setbac': policy. And they
should i:avc applied their experience and creativity from the start to desir- the
owner's house iih the front buildii . enveloae where the views are best and the
sewer can easily be connected to the front sewer line.
ft-
..or +ratever reason, the applicants failed to observe the city's 7_0 ft.
A t;,e fail-u, t'� .),I-ovide city .)la ..ers with U.
riparian setbac.: poli c, a::^ " 1
critical riparian :for ati�_: upon v.ic:_ tae p1a L^.ers could .ave raouestec
com-0l1
iance .^_t_. ti'e polic;,, 0), a lot l.l:iat is 1ar;le enou�;a t0 meet CO' 1 laT1Ce.
''Or L':cse reaS Oi'1S _ ask t}iat t!ht Clt� COi1;.Ci1 llV]i014 ;:1�' a07e31 allG re�uir9 ti:C
aOni icl�ts to .-::bice by t::e 20 .t, setbac:<
;iishC=rely f
t ?1e.
F"'i; '.s
N
. _l5
d• n 1L Plannine Areas: The location of each hillside planning
area is generally described in this section of the Land Use Element
and mapped on large scale aerial photographs on file in the Community
Development Department and incorporated into this Land Use Element by
reference.
C. ati n.d Buil in IL=. All building sites must be located
totally within the urban reserve line. Lot lines for individual
parcels may cross the urban reserve-line to meet dimension and arca
requirements of the city's subdivision regulations.
i
The Community Development Director may grant minor variations to this
provision based on more precise analysis of the area's topography
when a subdivision map or precise development plan is submitted to
the city.
f. n itiv .L,=- When this section designates all or a portion of a (I
planning area as a 'sensitive site' as defined by the city's
Architectural Review Commission Guidelines and Municipal Code Section
95002.E., the plans for development shall require the approval of the '
Architectural Review Commission.
Housing plans shall be reviewed according to the following criteria: i
(1) Houses should be built in stepped levels to conform to the slope
of the hill and keep a low profile. The use of prominent stem
V walls and foundation piers should be avoided.
(2) Grading on individual lots should be minimized. Houses should
generally be built close to the street. The grading of visible
driveways should be minimized.
I
(3) Landscaping which is visually compatible with the existing i
hillside vegetation should be used to screen building i
foundations and provide a landscaped transition between housing
areas and adjacent open space.
(4) The color and texture of building materials should blend as much
as possible with the natural landscape and avoid the creation of
high-contrast situations. f
8• Qoen SDacc Proerams: Prior to or concurrent with any further '
subdivision or development of commonly held land inside the urban
reserve, the city will require that land beyond the urban reserve be
secured as permanent open space. The city will consider a wide range
of mechanisms for establishing permanent open areas including, but
not limited.to.
(1) Scenic or open space casements
(2) Parkland dedications
(3) Dedications with the possibility for tax relief
25
A.1
� I: yUfSAI IS OBISPO
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo. CA 93403.8100
October 6, 1989
Mr. Mike Hernandez
404 Lawrence Drive
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Subject: ARC 89-90: 1673 La Vineda
Appeal of director's approval of a new house on a sensitive site
Dear Mr. Hernandez:
The Architectural Review Commission, at its meeting of October 2, 1989, denied an
appeal and upheld the Community Development Director's minor and incidental
approval of a new house on a sensitive site Subject to the followinu conditions:
C
1. Landscaping in accordance with a plan approved by the Ct)llllllLlllitV
Development Department shall be installed in the front yard prior to
occupancy. As an alternative, a landscaping plan for the front yard shall be
approved by the Community Development Department and installation shall be
secured by a bond of an amount not to exceed 51500.00.
17 A permanent open space easement shall be dedicated to the city for the area
generally shown on Exhibit "A" (attached) and subject to the approval of the
CommunityDevelopment Director and City Attorney prior to occupancy. The
I
open space easement shall run with the land and shall be delineated by a
survey prepared by a licensed surveyor or registered civil engineer. The
easement shall be for the purpose of protecting sensitive riparian habitat and
shall provide the following limitations on land use or alternations:
0
a. No structures or solid fencing shall be placed on or within said premises.
b. No advertising of any kind shall be located within said premises.
C. The general topography of the easement area shall be preserved
Cp
substantially in its existing condition. No grading shall he allowed except
grading
as permitted by the Community Development Director.
d. No removal of vegetation except for fire protection or other hazards or
C)
elimination of diseased growth its approved by the Community
Development Director.
.. a n� - m a .i . •• - •• .Y a, i .L ,
r-
Mr Mike Hernandez
October 6, 1989
Page 2 _
e. Any landscaping done within the casement shall be native species and to
the approval of the Community Development Director.
3. Fencing at the drip line to minimize habitat disturbances during construction
shall be required.
4. Downspouts to direct roof drainage in a non-erosive manner across the site to
a point of adequate disposal to the satisfaction of the Community Development
Director.
5. Sewer lateral should be routed to LaVineda if at all possible. If not feasible,
the sewer lateral to the sewer at the rear of the site should he located so as to
cause minimal damage to trees or riparian habitat.
Please note that Architectural Review Commission approval expires after one year if
construction has not started, unless the commission designated a different time period.
On request, the Community Development Director may grant. an extension of up to
one year, but not greater than two years, beyond the original date of ARC approval.
The decision of the commission is Final unless appealed to the City Clerk within ten
days of the action. An appeal may he filed by any person aggrieved by a decision of
the commission.
Surplus plans for this project may he picked up at the Community Development
Department. Plans not claimed within thirty days will be discarded.
Minutes of this meeting will he sent to you as they are available.
If ,you have any questions, please contact David Moran at 54()-7175-
Sincerely.
Ken Bruce
Senior Planner
cc: Phil Ashley
Brent Weise, Pults &. Associates
MEETING AGENDA
DATE //-/ - (TEM #
C RECEIVE®
November 15, 1989 NOV 1 4 1988
CITY CLERK 0
City Council SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA
City of San Luis Obispo
P. O. Box 8100
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
This letter is being written in support of the applicant, Mr. Phil Ashley, and against staff
recommendation to allow the proposed house at 1673 La Vineda to be built within the riparian
setback area.
After reading the Council.agenda report and supporting information, I have found no sound basis
for staff recommendation.
I feel the Interim Community Development Director is trying to show a trade-off between the
proposed location of the house and protection of the riparian vegetation. It appears he is willing
for the house to be built within the setback limitations because the owner is willing to participate
in an open space easement dedication. This dedication would prohibit the cutting of riparian
habitat and allow an easement for a future trail system An existing tract condition already
prohibits any removal of riparian habitat and one of the conditions of this agreement'is that there
will be no hardscape allowed in this area. Therefore a trail system could not be cut into this area.
Providing access to a single lot in a tract where a trail system cannot be cut is not any benefit to
U the city.
An item not mentioned in the agenda report is that if the Fire Department feels there is a fire
hazard in this area because it is too close to the house, they can order the vegetation to be cut and
removed. If this were to happen it would permanently destroy the riparian habitat and defeat the
purpose of the existing policy to protect it.
In the past, staff has enforced riparian setbacks and preservation on two sides of this lot, and
now is willing to let this house encroach into the protected area. This certainly does not seem
fair to the people who have had to comply, nor is it consistent with their past actions.
Because this site was declared sensitive by the Planning Director, and because the open space
planner felt this design could jeopardize the habitat resources, the existing riparian setback policy
should be enforced along with the other city requirements that the rest of the homes in the area
have had to adhere to.
I feel that there are many design alternatives that would be acceptable to all the parties involved.
Respectfully submitted,
A concerned neighbor
k Denotes action by Lead Person
pond by:
council
e�AO
""'ity Atty.
O
3Jerk' 0
�. 7Co55(
HT1
p�Frr.E
i
�i►►� �{f� II�II���� �iKn�i C of sAn 1115 oBispo�ty �.
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
i
APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL I
In accordance with the appeals procedure as authorized by Title I. Chapter
1 .20 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, the undersigned hereby appeals
from the decision of Architectural Review Commission rendered
on - October-29 1989 . which decision consisted of the following (i.e.
set forth factual situation and the grounds for submitting this appeal.
Use additional sheets as needed) :
The denial of my appeal to require the applicants, Mr. Mike Hernandez,
contractor, and Mr. Mac Short, owner, for the proposed home for 1673 La
Vineda, to comply with the city's 20 ft. riparian setback policy. The
factual situation and the grounds for submitting this appeal are contained
in the attached letter of appeal to the city council dated October 11 , 1989.
The undersigned discussed the decision being appealed from with:
Planner Dave Moran on . (l�tober 3, 198q
Appellant:
Phil Ashley
Name/Title
RECEIVIEID"
Representative
OCT 1 2 1989 1586 La Cita Ct., S.L.O. City 93401
CITY CLERK Address
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA
524-9741 (home), 756-2505 (work)
Phone
Original for City Clerk
Copy to City Attorney
Cale dare for: �' Copy to City Administrative Officer
Copy �ge fol ,1111 department(s) :
DSS/f
City Clerk
Phi3hley
- 1586--La Cita Court
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
544-9741 (home)
756-2505 (work) RECEIVED
October 11, 1989
To: San Luis Obispo City Council Oct 12 1989
From: Phil Ashley C1"CLEERK
-SAN LUIS OBSM CA
Subject: My appeal of the Architectural Review Commission's (ARC) denial of
my appeal regarding ARC 89-90.
This letter and the attached form "Appeal to City Council" is my appeal
of the ARC's denial of my appeal to require the applicants, Mr. Mike Hernandez,
contractor, and Mr. Mac Short, owner, for the proposed home at 1673 La Vineda,
to comply with the city's 20 ft. riparian setback policy. The factual situation
and the grounds for submitting this appeal follow.
1 . After searching nearly a year throughout this county for a site in
our price range to build a home where birds would be plentiful in a natural
wooded area, my family and I bought the lot at 1586 La Cita Court in San Luis
Obispo City. This site contained a mature riparian woodland along the east
bank of a seasonal stream,which we noted native birds used heavily. The stream
bed and west bank were owned by myrear property line neighbor who was in the
process of subdividing for future homes. The developer whom I bought my lot
from told me the city had a requirement where a house could not be built closer
than 20 ft. to the riparian vegetation. This seemed like an excellent require-
ment to protect the riparian bird habitat from development. Upon phoning the
city planning department, I was informed that there was a 20 ft. riparian
requirement for development. I was not told it was a law, an ordinance, a
policy or anything else, other than it was a requirement. Knowing this I assumed
both sides of the stream riparian bird habitat would be protected equally
from development by the 20 ft. riparian setback requirement and I invested in
the lot. Our long search for a home site with protected bird habitat was over
and amazingly our site was in San Luis Obispo city and not in a rural area. I
therefore have a vested interest in protecting this bird habitat providing my
stewardship is reasonable for the birds and adjacent neighbors.
2. Regarding human encroachment associated with development, birds of all
species require a "safe distance" from humans, in order to go about their
birdly activities undisturbed. If humans approach birds too closely, this safe
distance gives way to bird's "fright distance." The fright distance is the
distance between birds and humans at which birds stop their normal activities
and nervously watch approaching humans. If humans approach birds closer yet,
this fright distance gives way to bird's "flight distance." The flight distance
is the distance between birds and humans at which birds fly away fearing for their
safety, due to the closeness of humans. These distances vary for different
bird species but the left half of the applicant's proposed house is so close to
the riparian bird habitat that the fright and flight distances of some birds
will be violated, due to human activities associated with the closeness of this
proposed house. The house has a 0 ft. setback from this habitat at the upstairs
cantelever and three decks are 4 ft., 6 ft. and 9 ft. respectively from this
bird habitat.
Besides the house and decks encroaching too closely horizontally to the
bird habitat, the decks especially encroach vertically into the birds habitat.
2 -
At 15 ft. high these decks areat tree canopy height. For their safety, birds
are use to being above humans—them in trees and us on the ground, as is natural.
These high decks place humans at a level that invades bird's tree-top safety
zone and this too could cause birds to fly away. Anyone who has stood on the
ground and watched birds go about their business and then began to climb the
tree only to watch the birds quickly fly off, can understand the threat of these
human-occupied, high decks. Due to the permanency of the proposed decks and
associated human activities, certain bird species may disappear from the habitat
permanently due to too frequent invasion of their flight distance by humans.
These displaced birds will eventutally die for reasons I have explained in
previous letters regarding this project. The city's 20 ft. riparian setback
policy, if required for this proposed project, would provide most birds with a
safe buffer between the house, decks and associated human activity and the
riparian bird habitat.
ex
3. Before my^rear neighbors subdivision was finally approved, the city
placed a restriction on the subdivision stating "Existing riparian vegetation
shall not be removed." This restriction was recorded on the subdivison map
and available to the applicants upon the purchase of their lot. It was the
clear wording of this recorded restriction combined with the cities 20 ft.
riparian setback policy that convinced me that it was not necessary for me to
try purchasing the subject lot in February of 1987. I felt these two require-
ments would adequately and permanently protect this riparian bird habitat with-
out my trying to purchase it for protection of the bird habitat. But during the
brief time I analysed purchasing this lot, I determined a large house of
2,000-3,000 sq. ft. plus attached garage could be built on the approximately
6,000 sq. ft. building envelope at the front of the property away from the
riparian vegetation. This nice two story house would obey all city front, side
and rear building setbacks including the 20 ft, riparian setback. It would
also obey the 25 ft. height limit. I carried my preliminary planning no
further than this, since I did not purchase the lot.
4. Contrary to my determinations the professional planning team of the
applicants contends the front building envelope is too small to build an
adequate house and obey city setback requirements. However, it is obvious to me
the applicants never wanted to design a house that met the natural building
parameters of this lot. Instead, they designed from the beginning a house that
forced the lot to contend with the inappropriate design. They designed a house
74 ft. wide. This would not fit in the front building envelope so they placed
it about 13 ft. into the riparian vegetation. This violated both the tract map
restriction prohibiting removal of riparian vegetation and the city's 20 ft.
riparian setback policy. It is difficult to believe the planning team of Mr.
Hernandez, contractor, and Steven D. Pults and Associates, architect, both
with long term planning and building experience in the city, was not aware of
these city limitations regarding the site. Whether they were aware of these
limitations or not, they purposely did not show the riparian vegetation or
seasonal creek on their plans. By not showing these critical natural features
which would affect planning decisions, city planners had no easy means for
determining the house violated city requirements. Also without stream and
riparian vegetation shownanywhere on the plans, the city could not tell that
the project was proposed in a potential creek flood zone. Whether the
applicants intentionally or unintentionally misled the city is not the point.
The point is it is the responsibility of the applicants to show critical natural
features, such as streams and riparian vegetation, that will affect important
planning decisions. It is not the city's responsibilty to provide this
0
3
topographic and natural feature information on the plans. Without this infor—
mation important city streamside planning criteria were overlooked. The net
affect was that the riparian bird habitat was inappropriately infringed on by
the proposed house.
5. Because the house was planned too far down slope to apparently connect,
with proper sewer drainage, to the front community sewer line, the applicants
elevated the house floors violating the city's 25 ft. height limit. This
elevating of floors gave better sewage drainage and better views. It is
difficult to determine if better sewage drainage or better views or both
caused the applicant's team to elevate the floors and violate the 25 ft. average
height limit by 4 ft. Regardless, they questionably did this precipitating
2 public hearings dealing with the height violation.
the
6. I was not aware of^first hearing August 19, 1988, nor was I even aware
a house was being planned for the site. At that time the city apparently was
not required to notice adjacent property owners of a public hearing of this
type. If I would have been aware of the project at that time, I would have
checked into it. With my vested interest in protecting the riparian bird
habitat, I would have discovered that the project violated both the tract map
riparian restriction and the city's 20 ft. riparian setback policy. I would then
have informed the city of these two riparian violations even before the first
height hearing. The applicants could then have been required to redesign at an
early stage to comply with these riparian restricitions. Since public notice
for the hearing is only posted at the front of the lot, far from rear neighbors
views, I was not aware of the project, and thus riparian vegetation issues were
overlooked early in planning.
7. At this first hearing the city denied the applicant's request for
excessive height. This decision followed considerable protest to the excessive
height by neighbors living in front of the site who were able to easily see the
hearing notice posted at the front of the site.
8a Nearly a year later, the applicants had to go through a second public
hearing for resubmitting plans that still violated the 25 ft. average height
limit by about 3 ft. This time the city's public notice policy was different
and adjacent property owners were noticed of the hearing by mail. This time,
after considerable research, I found that not only was the height limit being
violated for a second time, but that the tract map riparian restriction and the
city's 20 ft. riparian setback policy were being violated. I discussed these
riparian violations with city planning staff prior to the second height hearing
held May 12, 1989. Since hearing notices had already been mailed, it was too
late to make these riparian issues a written part of the second hearing agenda,
but I was able to testify about these riparian violations at the hearing.
9. After the second hearing, the applicants redesigned to comply with the
25 ft. average height limit. However, instead of redesigning to comply with the
riparian restrictions, as staff and I hoped they would do, they kept the same
74 ft. wide house with 15 ft. high decks nearly all the way across the back,=and
moved it even further into the riparian vegetation. Now the propos6d`-hoase was
about 24 ft. into the riparian bird habitat and flood zone instead of about 13 ft.,
as before the second height hearing. it was apparently indicated by the applicant
that this move further into the riparian vegetation was to make it easier to
connect to an old community sewer line runnings the back 15 ft. of the applicant's
site. Since it is all downhill to this old sewer line, it would have been just
4
as easy to connect to it by not moving further into the riparian zone, unless the
applicants wanted to use this for a reason to move even further into the esthetical
natural riparian zone.
10. At this point the applicants still had not provided the city with a
site plan showing the boundaries of the riparian vegetation and its relationship
to the proposed house site. However, after the second hearing, I provided the
city with a letter dated P-lay 29, 1989. This letter stated my position regarding
the necessity of using the city's 20 ft. riparian setback policy to protect
the bird habitat. The letter also contained a list of 45 species of birds.I
have observed in the riparian area in less than 2 years, a substantial number in
a relatively short period. The letter also contained my riparian vegetation
site map showing the original house site about 13 ft. into the riparian vegetation.
11 . Upon reviewing my vegetation and bird information and other available
information, the planning staff declared the site a sensitive site indicating
this by the Community Development Director's letter to me dated June 8, 1989. The
letter indicated the project would be reviewed for compliance with riparian set-
backs and the house would be redesigned accordingly.
12. Soon after this, the applicants provided a minor revision in their plans
showing for the first time..the perimeter of riparian vegetation and the house with
a 0 ft. riparian setback instead of the 20 ft. riparian setback as per city
policy. I checked and found the perimeter of their riparian vegetation map was
incorrect and their newest proposed site was still about 7 ft. in the riparian
vegetation.`: Their map also showed incorrectly located willows.
13. Based on the applicant's erroneous riparian vegetation map and unwill-
ingness to redesign to comply with the city's 20 ft. riparian setback policy,
I provided a letter to planning staff dated June 27, 1989. This letter contained
a riparian vegetation map showing that up till now, and contrary to the city's
request for a redesign-l- the applicants had not redesigned. All they had done
was move the house around to different locations in the riparian vegetation
and flood plain. The most current proposed site still being 7 ft. in the vege-
tation. My letter also indicated I would be willing to compromise and accept
a 12 ft. riparian setback instead of the city's 20 £t. riaparian setback. I
felt this would obviously not be as good for protecting the bird habitat. Still,
I hoped it would motivate the applicants to provide, with their project, some
measure of protection for the bird habitat, which they had not yet done.
14. After reviewing all current information including my letter of June
27, planning staff decided the applicants would have to: (1 ) provide a new
riparian vegetation map, (2) redesign to move the house out of the riparian
vegetation, and (3) if the 20 ft. riparian setback policy was not met, then
agree to an open space conservation easement for the riparian area. The con-
servation easement would be recorded with the parcel for permanency.
15. The applicants agreed to the conservation easement and provided a
revised grading plan showing a new riparian vegetation perimeter with only a
0 ft. riparian setback. In the area where their riparian setback is measured
the applicant's riparian perimeter line closely corresponds to mine and confirms
that the applicant's current proposed site has a 0 ft. riparian setback. How-
ever, their riparian perimeter on the right side of the property, as shown on
the revised grading plan, is still incorrect and eliminates a considerable area
of riparian vegetation.
5
16. On September 12, the interim Community Development Director approved
the applicant's plan with a 0 ft. riparian setback and their riparian conserva-
tion easement.
17. I provided a letter of appeal to the Community Development Director
dated September 18, 1989, stating my case for appealing to the Architectural
Review Commission (ARC) the planning department's approval of the applicant's
project. As the letter indicated, I appealed the approval on 5 issues. First,
(1 ), I appealed that the 0 ft. riparian setback was unacceptable to me for pro-
tecting the bird habitat. I also felt that at the area of 0 ft. riparian set-
back, vegetation would be destroyed by the residents to provide a rear walkway
around their house, conservation easement notwithstanding. They are obviously
not going to crawl around their house at this area. Second. (2), I appealed
that the riparian vegetation needed to be accurately drawn by a professional.
My appeal letter provided a map showing the large discrepancy on the right side
of the lot between my riparian vegetation perimeter and the applicant's shown
on the revised grading plan. Third' (3),; I appealed that the applicants connect
their sewer to the new community sewer line in front of the lot. The applicant's
proposed sewer line hookup to the old unreliable community sewer line in the
rear easement would destroy a large willow tree and the only bay laurel tree.
It would also increase the possibility of repeated failure of this old line,
which would cause habitat destruction with each sewer repair due to digging and
vegetation cutting. Fourth (4), I appealed that the 15 ft. high decks 4 ft.,
6 ft., and 9 ft. away from the riparian habitat were too close for the birds
safety. I also appealed that the deck shown as 4 ft. away from the riparian
vegetation on the revised grading plan was shown as 0 ft. away elsewhere in the
plan set and this discrepancy needed clarification. Fifth (5), there are measure-
ment discrepancies between the revised grading plan and older site plan regarding
setbacks, house measurements and house siting (the site plan still shows the
house well into the riparian vegetation). I appealed that these discrepancies
be eliminated so measurement and grading errors do not occur during construction
that accidentally lead to riparian vegetation destruction. The summary of my
ARC appeal letter stated the responsibility for providing critical stream and
riparian data on the plan set rests with the applicants and not the city. That
the applicants omitted information required to make good planning decisions does
not excuse them from the decisions that likely would have been made if the appli-
cants had supplied the information. Therefore, I appealed to the ARC to require
the applicants to comply with the city's 20 ft. riparian setback policy.
18: At the earliest possible date, Thursday, September 28, I acquired
from the planning departent the staff report to ARC regarding my appeal.
19. On October 2, I attended the ARC hearing on my appeal. Dr. Randy Rossi
presented the staff report recommending denial of my appeal. During his presenta-
tion he used a projector showing the staff were using the applicant's incorrect
riparian vegetation map. This map gave to the ARC members the incorrect im-
pression that the middle and right half of the proposed house is further from
the riparian vegetation than it actually: is. Aside from. that, he gave a
balanced presentation from my point of view (other than again recommending
denial of my appeal). Concerns over use of the rear sewer line were also brought
up. Dr. Rossi summarized by indicating staff felt that the tradeoff between the
lack of riparian setback and the open space easement was equitable.
20. The architect gave the applicant's presentation and indicated it now
looked like they would be able to use the front sewer line.
6
21 . During my testimony I presented my five issues of appeal since the
staff report only clearly indicated I was appealing lack of the city's 20 ft.
riparian setback. Furthermore, I indicated that the superior way to protect
the riparian bird habitat was with the city's 20 ft. riparian setback policy
combined with the tract map restriction prohibiting removing any riparianve-
getation, instead of the approved 0 ft. setback combined with the riparian con-
servation easement. I indicated the tract map restriction already protected
the riparian vegetation, and the conservation easement, in this case, was some-
what duplicate protection. Proof of the effectiveness of the tract map restric-
tion for protecting the riparian habitat is the city used the restriction to
require the applicants to move their proposed house out of the riparian
vegetation, and the applicants complied. In other words, for the priviledge
of building with a 0 ft. riparian setback, the applicant was not having to pro-
vide any real mitigation. The tract map restriction, which applied even before
they bought their lot, already protected the riparian vegetation from any removal
without the conservation easement. The applicants no doubt saw that this was an
excellent way to get what they wanted (a 72 ft. wide house with a 0 ft. riparian
setback) without having to provide any meaningful mitigation (a respectable
20 ft. riparian setback buffer to provide birds in their habitat a sense of
security from human intrusion).
I also stated that the riparian conservation easement limitation that
allowed up to 400 sq. ft. of hardscape within it contradicted the tract map
restriction prohibiting removal of riparian vegetation, since it would be
impossible to install hardscape without removing some riparian vegetation.
I also showed my ARC appeal letter riparian vegetation map indicating the
discrepancy between my riparian vegetaion perimeter and the applicants. I did
not birng the following point up at the ARC hearing but the applicant builder,
Nike Hernandez, told me by phone earlier in the day that Dr. Rossi disagreed
with my riparian vegetation map because it included Coyote bush, Baccharis
pilularis var. consanuinea. lair. Hernandez said Dr. Rossi said this was a weed
and could be excluded from the riparian map. Regardless of who said what, the
area of riparian vegetation disagreed on, is a mixture of willow and coyote
bush and not just the latter. Furthermore, and more importantly, coyote bush
is a native plant common in our area and found along streams as a member of
naturally occuring riparian plant communities. It is heavily used by many
species of birds for food (insects and seeds) and cover. I have observed over
20 of the 45 species of birds on my backyard riparian bird list utilizing this
local, native riparian shrub. The Vascular Plants Of San Luis Obispo Count
(Hoover, 1970] describes coyote bush as "Very common on mostly northfacing hills
and sand-dunes near coast, occasional inland-cin canyon-bottoms and along dry
stream-courses as far east as the hills between Salinas River and La Panza Range."
In this native context coyote bush cannot be described as a weed and thus
randomly or arbitrarily eliminated from the native riparian flora (vegetation)
for the sake of drawing riparian vegetation on de%elopement site maps. It is
a natural part of the riparian plant community, used considerably by wildlife
and, therefore, must be included in any vegetational_mapping<in any riparian
area where it occurs.
I did not bring this technical issue up at the ARC hearing because I did
not know until hours before the hearing the reason for the discrepancy between
my riparian map and the applicant's. Because I was at work all day, I just did
not have time to logically work it into my testimony. If this riparian vegetation
discrepancy is not reconciled soon, I will discuss it at the city council hear-
ing.
I also brought up at the ARC hearing various plans of compromise all in-
volving riparian setbacks of less than 20 ft. These proposed compromises on my
part were not effective with either the applicant or most of the ARC members.
This was so even though my bottom line compromise was a 6 ft. riparian setback
for the house combined with narrowing 2 decks by 2 ft. each giving an additional.
effective setback of 8 ft. for these 2 decks, since it is the closeness of the
extensive decks to the bird habitat that I am most concerned about. People on
the decks will be a considerably greater threat to birds' perception of safety
than people inside the house. This reduced riparian setback of 6 £t. for the
house and 12 ft., 12 ft., and 17 ft. for the three closest decks is obviously
not as good for protecting the birds as a 20 ft. riparian setback for the house.
However, every additional amount of buffer between birds and humans helps and
the suggested reduced buffer is certainly better than the existing 0 ft. for the
house and 4 ft., 6 ft., and 9 ft. for the decks. I further indicated that if the
city's 20 ft. riparian setback was compromised, then the riparian conservation
easement should be retained as part of the compromise.
Another reason for my suggesting moving the house 6 ft. away from the vege-
tation instead of the appropriate 20 ft. is that it would require only minor
modification of the existing house plan including a slight narrowing of the 72 ft.
house width to comply with side setbacks. Unfortunately the applicants were not
interested in any form of compromise suggested by me at either the ARC hearing
or in any of the compromises listed in my three letters to the planning depart-
ment prior to the ARC hearing. This is too bad because I think compromise is
in order considering the applicant's planning record on the building height issue
and the riparian bird habitat issue.
Another one of my failed suggestions at the ARC hearing was for me to buy
the riparian zone from the owner so they would have more money to redesign and
build with. I only mentioned this to the applicants the day of the hearing and
again at the hearing but that is as far as it went,since they did not respond.
22. The decision of 4 out of 5 members of the ARC was to deny my appeal
and accept the applicant's proposed project of 0 ft. riparian setback with a con-
servation easement with several conditions. If I understood the ARC conditions
correctly they are as follows. One (1 ), eliminate the 400 sq. ft. of hardscape
associated with the riparian easement, that is, no hardscape will be allowed.
Two (2), hook the sewer to the front community sewer line. If the applicants
cannot hook to the front sewer line, then they are to cause minimal damage to the
riparian vegetation hooking to the rear sewer line. Three (3), provide permanent
drainage and erosion control resulting from the project. And four (4), fence
the riparian drip line during construction.
X23. Based on the ARC approval of the applicant's proposed project with
the 0 ft. riparian setback and the conservation easement with the stated condi-
tions, my 5 appeal issues to the ARC stand as follows.
if the riparian drip line is fenced as conditioned, including the coyote
bush-willow area which is not shown on the applicant's riparian vegetation
map, then my ARC appeal issue about discrepancies in plan measurements possibly
leading to riparian vegetation destruction during construction becomes a non-
issue. The fence would eliminate any damage due to careless measurements and
grading.
However, the other 4 issues I appealed to the ARC were not resolved, so I
8
am appealing to the city council the following 4 unresolved ARC appeal issues.
One (1 ), I appeal to the council that a professional botanist be used to map the
entire riparian vegetation. There is unresolved differences between my vegetation
map and the applicant's. This is allegedly due to coyote bush and willows inter-
spersed with it being arbitrarily eliminated from the riparian plant community.
This has no biological basis. Coyote bush could be termed a weed, like any other
native or non native plant, if it is growing in areas where it is not wanted by
humans. But the native coyote bush on the site is an integral part of the riparian
community and is used considerably by birds and must be included in any map of the
riparian community.
Two (2)2 since the ARC sewer condition only recommended that the applicant
hook to the front sewer line but did not require it, I appeal to the city council
to require the,,�g�pplicants to hook to the front sewer line. If the applicants de-
cide to hook td'Arear sewer line, this places one more customer on an old, failing
sewer line. This will increase the chance the old line will periodically fail.
Each time it fails some damage will be done to the riparian zone during repairs.
This is not conjecture. It failed (plugged up) this summer disrupting service to
Flora Street sewer customers for several days causing potential health-hazards and
causing some damage to the riparian habitat by city workers digging and cutting
during repairs. It would be simple to connect to the front sewer line if they move
their house forward and upslope on the lot away from the riparian vegetation, as
is being appealed herein.
Three (3), I appeal to the council that the 15 ft. high decks that are 4 ft.,
6 ft., and 9 ft. from the riparian habitat are too close for the protection of birds.
These decks need to be eliminated or sited further from the bird habitat. It also
needs to be clarified in the plan set if the left-most (east) deck is 6 ft. wide
placing it 4 ft. from the riparian vegetation (as shown on the revised grading plan)
or if it is 10 ft. wide placing it 0 ft. from the vegetation (as shown elsewhere
in the plan set).
And four (4)9 I appeal to the city council that the 0 ft. riparian setback for
the house is not adequate to protect most bird species in their habitat. I ask that
the city council enforce its 20 ft. riparian setback policy.
With the house and decks, as now situated, too close to the bird habitat, we
are protecting the vegetation but not the birds. As the saying goes, a house is not
a home without people. Likewise, vegetation is not bird habitat without birds. You
can have nice native vegetation without birds if people are too close. I submit to
you that a house in one area only 0 ft. from the riparian vegetation with extensive
tree-top high decks 4 ft., 6 ft., and 9 ft. away from the vegetation, places humans
imminently too close to birds in their normally most secure retreat, tree tops. The
result will likely be that most of the birds on my list of 45 observed riparian
species will fly away, if these extensive decks are occupied regularlylas I must
assume, else why are they being built.
Contrary to what the applicants have stated, a very nice, large home can be
built in the logical 6000 ft. plus building envelope at the front portion o£ the_lot.
And the home can be designed to abide by all setbacks including the 20 ft. riparian
setback and the 25 ft. height limit.Z just built a house with about 2100 sq. ft. of
living space and an attached 2-car garage on a S.L.O. city lot 45' wide by 100f long.
As the applicant's lot, mire had a similar 13%12front to rear slope to contend with
and I had no problem running my sewer line from the back half of the house forward
to connect to the sewer line in front of the lot.(Also, unlike the applicants claim
with their project, I had no problem meeting driveway slope requirements even though
my attached garage had the minimum 20 ft. front setback.) And I did not have to raise
the floors and height of my house above the 25 ft. height limit to do this, as the appli-
cants maintained was necessary on their proposed house during the first two public hearings.
9
However, of course it was necessary for them to raise the height of their house.
They were building too far down slope in the riparian vegetation flood zone to
connect to the froA sewer line, without raising the floor and house height
levels beyond the maximum allowed.
The applicants planning team has shown a strategy from the start that has
tried to mold the site to their design (an overly wide, too tall house, infring-
ing on the riparian vegetation flood zone in the lower part of the lot), rather
than mold their design to the site. They created their own problems through
the height violation hearings. And they have created their own problems through
the ARC and upcoming city council hearingsby not providing critical stream and
riparian information on their plan set for the planning department to make early
critical decisions on the city's 20 ft. riparian setback policy. At the ARC
hearing I asked the applicants to provide documentation showing they had sub-
mitted preliminary riparian vegetation site plans or drawings to the city
planners for review. I stated that if they had submitted this type of critical
paperwork and the city failed to tell them of the 20 ft. riparian setback
policy, then my case was against the city and not the applicant and I would drop
my appeal. They did not respond to this.
The 0 ft. riparian house setback with extensive decks too close to the bird
habitat combined with the conservation easement is considerably inferior for
protecting riparian bird habitat to the city's 20 ft. riparian setback policy
combined with the tract map restriction prohibiting removal of riparian vegeta-
tion. This is the major reason I am appealing the ARC decision. I believe
that over more than a years time, the applicants, through various means of
persistance wore down an otherwise very capable planning staff. The applicants
protested that they repeatedly had to redesign. They did have to redesign
after each of the height hearings. But that was their fault for disrupting the
surrounding neighbors with requests for excessive building heights. The
builder and architect are both long-term city developers. They surely know
one of the fastest ways to create community unrest is to propose excessive
building heights. This affects neighbors views and possibly property values
and will almost always be challenged at a public hearing.
However, regarding the riparian vegetation issue, they did little to re-
design. They situated the apparently unredesigned house 3 different places in
the riparian vegetation. Ultimately they did a minor redesign when they moved
to a 0 ft. riparian setback. They narrowed the house about 2 ft. (from about
74 ft. wide to 72 ft. wide), changed a 90 degree corner toa45 degree corner and,
I think, changed stem wall heights. There may be a few other minor changes
associated with this move to a 0 ft. riparian setback. But they never redesigned
the house to comply with riparian setback issues as the Community Development
Director's letter of June 8, 1989, said they would.
If this lot were so small as to disallow the applicants a 20 ft. riparian
setback, I would be among the first to accept less than 20 ft. However, 1--feel
a building envelope of about 63000 sq. ft. is more than adequate to allow the
owners the type of house they want (albeit not 74 ft. wide) if a little creativity
is applied by an apparently very experienced S.L.O. city builder-architect team.
Therefore, I ask that the city council, where it is possible, and in this
case it is, apply the city's 20 ft. riparian setback policy equally among
neighbors so we know what to expect. If one neighbor, as myself, buys property
thinking the 20 ft. riparian setback policy applies equally to all neighbors,
only to find out it applies less to neighbors skilled at searching out loopholes,
10
then only confusion ensues.
But I submit to you here that a loophole did not exist. The applicants
failed, purposely or not, to provide the necessary riparian vegetation and
stream features on their preliminary plans. Without this critical information
city planning staff could not reasonably be expected to tell the applicants of
the city's 20 ft. riparian setback policy. The decision not to show the riparian
and stream features was that of the applicants. Noreover� the applicant's
design team is very experienced with S.L.O. city building. ?sir. Hernandez indicates
he was an architecture student at Cal Poly and has had over 15 years local build—
ing experience. The architecture firm of Steven D. Pults and Associates has had
about 10 years of local and city designing experience. This leads me to believe
they should have known of the city's 20 ft. riparian setback policy. And they
should have applied their experience and creativity from the start to design the
owner's house in the front building envelope where the views are best and the
sewer can easily be connected to the front sewer line.
For whatever reason, the applicants failed to observe the city's 20 ft.
riparian setback policy and they failed to provide city planners with the
cr*t bariparian information upon which the planners could have requested
compliance with the policy on a lot that is large enough to meet compliance.
For these reasons I ask that the city council uphold my appeal and require the
applicants to abide by the 20 ft. setback policy..
Sincerely,
Phil Ashley