HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/03/1992, 2 - APPEAL OF ARC 89-80: 1673 LA VINEDA MARCH 3, 1992 HEARING ....EnNQ AGENDA
DATE-9z ITEM =
►IIIIIIIIIIIhII►I�� ����plll► of sAn Wis oBispocity
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
28 February 1992
TO: City Council
0
VIA: Arnold Jona , Community Developmen Director
FROM: Judith Lautner, Associate Planner ,
SUBJECT: Appeal of ARC 89-80: 1673 La Vineda
March 3 , 1992 hearing
The applicants/appellants for this project, along with interested
citizens who are opposed to the appeal, feel that the project would
be better heard at a later hearing, because discussion of the item
ahead of it in the meeting is anticipated to be lengthy. The
applicants, therefore, have agreed to removing this item from the
March 3 meeting and placing it on the March 17 agenda.
RECEIVEiD
FEBB 1992
CITY CLERK
SA^' LU'S OBISPO,CA
COPnsro:
❑•Dmwtes Adion ❑ FYI
RICAO ❑ FIN.Dix.
R'ACAO ❑ F>RECHMP
*OCALT fgEY ❑ FW Dix.
IBJ QII.K/OFW. ❑ POLiCE Cii
❑ MCMI.TEAM ❑ FXC DIX
��IIIIIIIIIIAIIUIII "J f MEN I Z.
�►����► ► InNuil ci o san �aIs oBIspo
NNIZa COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT REM NUMBEF:
FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director
BY: Judith Lautner, Associate Planner" 4
SUBJECT: ARC 89-80: Appeal of Architectural Review Commission's (ARC) action
approving,with one condition, a house on a sensitive site, on the southeasterly
side of La Vineda, east of Johnson Avenue.
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution denying the appeal, thereby upholding the ARC's action.
Report-in-brief
The project has a long history: A similar house was reviewed by the Community
Development Director, the Architectural Review Commission, and the City Council. The
Director approved the design as a "minor or incidental" project on September 12, 1989.
This action was appealed by a neighbor. The appeal was heard by the ARC and denied
on October 3, 1989. The action was appealed to the Council, and denied on November 14,
1989. The neighbor took the case to court, citing environmental concerns that were not
properly.addressed in the review process. On October 18, 1990, the Superior Court judge
set aside the Director's decision. The judge's decision was that proper environmental
procedures were not followed by the City: the Director had declared the site "sensitive"
based on environmental concerns, but the City had not made the proper findings to support
the use of a categorical exemption instead of an environmental initial study.
The applicant was required to file an application for environmental review. This was done
in February 1991. With the assistance of a biologist hired by the City, an initial study was
completed in May, and advertised in the newspaper. In response to the published notice,
the City received a large number of letters objecting to the project as designed. (Copies
of these letters are available in Council Office). A revised initial study was finally
completed in October, which included a mitigation measure requiring a 20' setback from
riparian vegetation. This requirement was based on finding cumulative impacts would result
from continued lessening of the creek setback required by the administrative creek policy,
where none of the listed lesser-setback criteria are met. Allowing a lesser setback than is
normally required, in this case, may create a precedent that further erodes the
administrative creek policy. The applicants did not agree to the mitigation measure
requiring the 20' setback from riparian vegetation.
The applicants returned to the ARC on November 4, 1991, asking for approval of virtually
the same design as was presented to and approved by the ARC in 1989. The commission
continued the request, with direction to pull the southeast house comer away from the
creekside vegetation to provide as close to a 20-foot riparian setback as possible.
The plans were revised, and now the closest part of the house is about ten feet from the
edge of riparian habitat. The applicants requested approval by the ARC of this modified
design, and concurrently asked the ARC to modify the mitigation measures required by the
initial study. The ARC approved the house, with a condition that it be set back 20' from
the edge of riparian habitat (as required by the approved mitigation), with revisions to be
�������►�►►��IIIIIIIIIl�� 1°9IUI11 MY of San OBISPO
= COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
ARC 89-80: 1673 La Vineda
Page 2
approved by staff. The applicants appealed the decision because they do not want to
comply with the condition. The appeal states that the portion of the house that is within
the 20' setback is minor, the house is compatible with the neighborhood, and the previous
design was approved (see letter of appeal).
OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
The Fire Department's comments are attached to the initial study. Other departments have
no opinion on this request.
FISCAL IMPACTS
Either an approval or a denial of the appeal would have no fiscal impact on the city.
ALTERNATIVES
1. The Council may uphold the appeal and grant a lesser setback than the required 20',
either 10' as requested by the applicant, or another distance as determined
appropriate, if the Council can find that no significant impacts will result from this
action. Specifically, the Council will need to address the issue of cumulative impacts,
as discussed in the initial study. In this case, staff recommends the Council continue
consideration of the request, to allow staff to develop findings and mitigations
consistent with Council direction. For this reason, staff has not provided a resolution
approving the appeal with this report.
2. The request may be continued, with direction to staff or the applicant.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution denying the appeal, thereby upholding the Architectural Review
Commission's approval of the request with a condition requiring the 20' setback from the
1989 riparian line.
Attached: RC report for February 3, 1992
(Dr4raft resolution
Vicinity map
initial study
ARC Nov. 4, 1991 minutes
ARC Feb. 3, 1992 draft minutes (kr+hWM1hg)
Administrative creek policy
Letters from citizens supporting 20' setback, received at 2/3/92 meeting
Applicant's letter of appeal
i
Plans, packet of letters from citizens are available in Council Office
for review.
a -a
RESOLUTION NO. (1992 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S ACTION,
THEREBY APPROVING A HOUSE ON A SENSITIVE SITE, WITH A CONDITION
REQUIRING THAT THE HOUSE BE SET BACK FARTHER FROM THE CREEK,
AT 1673 LA VINEDA (ARC 89-80)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. That this council, after
consideration of public testimony, the applicant's request for
approval of a house as submitted (ARC 89-80) , the Architectural
Review Commission's action, staff recommendations and reports
thereon, makes the following findings:
1. The proposed building, as conditioned, mill not adversely
affect the health, safety and welfare of persons living or
working at the site or in the vicinity.
2 . The Community Development Director has determined that the
proposed residence, as amended by mitigation, will not have
a significant effect on the environment and has granted a
negative declaration. The City Council hereby affirms this
action.
SECTION 2. Appeal denied. The appeal of the Architectural
Review Commission's action is hereby denied, and the residence is
approved subject to the following condition:
* The house must be set back at least 20 ' from the 1989
riparian vegetation line.
On motion of
seconded by and on the following roll
call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of
1992.
a -3
Resolution No. (1992 Series)
ARC 89-80: 1673 La Vineda
Mayor, Ron Dunin
ATTEST:
City Clerk Pam Voges
APPROVED:
City ni rat' Offi er
17Y
B --
Community Devel p ent Director
a - 4
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION STAFF REPORT rrEm#
BY: Judith Lautner, Associate Planner MEETING DATE: Feb. 3, 1992
FILE NUMBER: ARC 89-80
PROJECT ADDRESS: 1673 La Vineda
SUBJECT: Review of a house on a sensitive site, on the southeasterly side of La Vineda, a cul-
de-sac east of Johnson Avenue.
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
Continue with direction to revise plans to conform to a 20' setback from the riparian vegetation,
or grant final approval with a condition that plans be revised to conform to the 20' setback.
BACKGROUND
Situation
The proposed house has undergone review by the Community Development Director, the
Architectural Review Commission, and the City Council. The Director approved the design as
a "minor or incidental" project on September 12, 1989. This action was appealed by a neighbor.
The appeal was heard by the ARC and denied on October 3, 1989. The action was appealed
to the Council, and denied on November 14, 1989. The neighbor took the case to court, citing
environmental concerns that were not properly addressed in the review process. On October
18, 1990, the Superior Court judge set aside the Director's decision. The judge's decision was
that proper environmental procedures were not followed by the City: the Director had declared
the site °sensitive" based on environmental concerns, but the City had not made the proper
findings to support the use of a categorical exemption instead of an initial study.
The applicant was required to file an application for environmental review. This was done in
February 1991. With the assistance of a biologist hired by the City, an initial study was
completed in May, and advertised in the newspaper. In response to the published notice, the
City received a large number of letters objecting to the project as designed. A revised initial
study was finally completed in October.
The applicants returned to the ARC on November 4, 1991, asking for approval of virtually the
same design as was presented to and approved by the ARC in 1989. The commission
continued the request, with direction to pull the southeast house corner away from the creekside
vegetation to provide as close to a 20-foot riparian setback as possible.
The plans have been revised, and now the closest part of the house is about ten feet from the
edge of riparian habitat. The applicants are asking for approval of this design, and concurrently
are asking the ARC to modify the mitigation measures required by the initial study.
_S
ARC 89-80: 1673 La Vineda
Page 2
Data summary
Address: 1673 La Vineda
Applicant/Property owners: Mac and Pat Short
Representative: Steven D. Pults, AIA, & Associates (Brent Wiese)
Zoning: R-1
General plan: Low-density Residential
Environmental status: Negative declaration, with mitigation, granted by the Director on
October 10, 1991
Site description
The 20,460-square-foot site is irregularly shaped and slopes away from the street at
approximately 15%. A tributary of Acacia Creek traverses the southerly portion of the site, which
is lined with mature riparian vegetation. A 15-foot drainage and utilities easement also crosses
the southerly boundary of the site in the same general area as the creek. Surrounding.land uses
include new and recently-built single-family homes and vacant residential lots.
The majority, if not all, homes on the southeasterly side of La Vineda and the northwesterly side
of La Cita were built with 20' setbacks from the riparian vegetation, although at this time
additional growth has occurred on some of those lots, making the existin6 setback smaller.
Project description
The applicants want to build a two-story, 2843-square-foot (including garage) home on the site.
The house would be set back a minimum of 25' from the street property line, and ten feet from
previously-existing riparian vegetation (see discussion below on vegetation removal). -
EVALUATION
1. Environmental study. The primary issue in this case continues to be the nearness of the
proposed house to the riparian vegetation. The City adopted a policy of requiring buffer
areas between riparian vegetation and new building projects in 1989. In the present case,
since the riparian vegetation is mature and healthy, and since surrounding houses have
maintained a minimum 20' setback from the vegetation, the policy states that a 20'
setback should be required.
In 1989, the Director, the ARC, and the City Council (CC) all approved the siting of the
house much closer than 20' from the vegetation. The approvals were based on a
consideration.of the applicants' desire to have the primary living area on one level, the
lesser roof height that would result from its being placed farther down the hill, and the
project's compatibility with the neighborhood. The approvals were also based on the
applicant's willingness to grant an open space easement to the City, which would restrict
uses in the riparian area permanently.
A neighbor challenged the approval process. The Superior Court judge ruled that the City
had not followed proper procedures in processing this request. The judge's ruling was
that the City determined that the site was "sensitive" for environmental reasons, and
therefore it follows that either findings needed to be made to support a categorical
exemption, or an initial study had to be completed. The judge did not rule on the
appropriateness of the actions taken by the Director, ARC, or CC. In other words, he only
considered the process, not the actions.
ARC 89-80: 1673 La Vineda
Page 3
The first initial study completed for this project (in May 1991) came to the conclusion that
the house's siting near the creek would not have a significant effect on the environment.
This determination is essentially the same as that made by the Director, ARC, and CC in
approving the project in 1989.
After publishing this determination, the City received several letters objecting to this
conclusion. The letters came from various environmental groups and biologists, as well
as local citizens. The gist of most of the objections was that the effect on the environment
of siting this one house close to the creek was not significant in itself, but that it created
a precedent: allowing this house to intrude in the 20' setback without sufficient hardship
reasons may open the door to additional unjustified exceptions to the policy. (Copies of
these letters are available to review in the Community Development Department.)
The Community Development Department staff and Director, after consideration of these
objections, came to the conclusion that an exception to the 20' policy would be
inappropriate in this case, and the initial study was revised to reflect that conclusion. One
of the mitigation measures required in the initial study is a requirement to set the house
back at least 20' from the riparian vegetation line.
The applicants are unwilling to sign a statement agreeing to this mitigation measure. They
are asking the ARC to revise the initial study to conclude that the house may be sited
closer to the creek, as shown on the plans. Staff recommends that the Commission
- uphold the Director's action, requiring the 20' setback. However, if the Commission
agrees with the applicants and wants to require a lesser setback, then staff recommends
that an open space easement be required to be dedicated to the city, over that part of the
lot below the 360' elevation. These alternative mitigation measures are listed under
"Alternatives° near the end of this report.
2. Vegetation removal. In early 1990, the applicants removed vegetation along the outer
edge of the riparian area, in compliance with a Fre Department request to reduce
hazardous materials. The Director determined that riparian vegetation had been removed,
in conflict with a tract condition that requires no removal of any riparian vegetation. The
applicants were required to submit a revegetation plan and implement that plan. Because
of the drought, the City has not required installation of replacement plants as of this time.
However, because this additional vegetation did exist previously,the former vegetation line
(10/89 survey) was considered the edge of the riparian habitat in determining the 20'
setback, rather than the currently existing vegetation line, which is approximately_where
vegetation was in May 1988. The two lines are shown on the site plan (sheet C-1).
3. What has changed? The designer has modified the house by pulling back the kitchen
nook, shortening the width of the house on both sides, and moving it forward on the lot.
These changes have resulted in a minimum ten foot setback from the riparian edge. The
difficulties encountered by the designer, in modifying this house to increase the creek
setback, were in maintaining an acceptable driveway slope, and staying within the required
height and sideyard standards. It would be difficult to make further changes to this
particular design. Another design could easily fit on the site and maintain the 20' setback
from the 1989 riparian line.
a-7
ARC 89-80: 1673 La Vineda
Page 4
4. The house design. The house is to be stucco with a tile roof, similar to several others
in the vicinity. Staff finds the general design acceptable and appropriate for the area. At
the previous hearing, the Commission had no problems with design, colors, or materials.
ALTERNATIVES
* The ARC may grant final approval to the project as submitted. The Commission must
make specific findings based on evidence that the closer setback is not a significant
environmental impact, or require alternative mitigation measures that would reduce the
impacts to less than significant. Staff recommends, in this case, that at least the following
mitigation measures be imposed:
a. To mitigate the effects of placing the building close to the riparian vegetation, the
property owner shall grant to the city an easement covering the riparian area, for the
purpose of protecting sensitive riparian habitat. Conditions of the easement shall
include the following: ,
* No structures or solid fencing shall be placed on or within the easement area.
* The general topography of the easement area shall be preserved substantially in
its existing condition. No grading shall be allowed except as permitted by the
Community Development Director.
* No removal of vegetation shall be allowed, except for fire protection or other
hazards, or for the elimination of diseased growth as approved by the Community
Development Director.
* Any landscaping done within the easement shall be native species and to the
approval of the Community Development Director.
Monitoring: City staff will require the easement to be recorded prior to issuance of a
building permit.
* The Commission may grant final approval, with a condition that the house be set back a
minimum of 20' from the 1989 riparian line. This action would allow staff to approve the
final design.
* The Commission may grant schematic approval, with direction on items to return for final
review. This action, which "locks in" the building footprint on the lot, would require
changing the initial study also, as noted under the "final approval" alternative above.
* The Commission may continue the project, with direction to revise plans to meet the 20'
setback. This action would likely result in a different design for the house.
* The Commission may deny the project, if it finds it is inconsistent with the City's adopted
architectural guidelines or other City policies. Staff recommends the Commission take this
action if the applicants are not willing to change the design to conform with the 20'
setback from the riparian habitat line.
a-s
ARC 89-80: 1673 La vneda
Page 5
RECOMMENDATION
The applicants have made significant efforts to enlarge the setback from the riparian habitat line,
and have achieved half of that required by the initial study. While staff is sympathetic to the
applicants' desire to retain the building design as much as possible, we feel the potential for
setting a precedent in conflict with the City's goals for creeks is significant. Therefore, staff
recommends the Commission continue the project, with direction to revise the project to conform
with the 20' setback required by the initial study. Staff would also support final approval, with a
condition that the house be redesigned to achieve a 20' setback from the riparian line.
attached:
vicinity map
initial study
minutes of November 4, 1991 ARC meeting
administrative creek policy
• ID % t \
,,,• • 4~ � I v O
O Ch • :{:•t?;5=L4:� ::ti y;..:{:};iiILI
i:.
h 6 •'� '1 , r.:i':i '' yjam�,,� t
1
\' titer
N�
Y�
11 �
a 71• t. V
O
J r
• I •
J4 \ s, ?.�.1 r �•
O 00
\ s
be
• 1
v ' •
r. O •
O �_w5 r.0 •• p /
'S � \ w` b • p n
I ISO
w • n+ O 6 c -
`• 't �.tee' o .��e•3+ � e � \
•
1
• •
' • - O• C • � I
o • • (1
o O s• v.
tet, 1 � _ O .--, . . � t •
\/
t l 1
O
city of San lugs OBISpo
INITIAL STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
SITE LOCATION 1673 La Vineda APPLICATION NO.6-91
PROJECT DESCRIPTION Construction of a single-family house on a 20, 460-square-
foot sensitive site. The site slopes downward from the street to a creek,
which is lined with mature riparian vegetation.
APPLICANT Mike Hernandez
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
X NEGATIVE DECLARATION X MITIGATION INCLUDED
EXPANDED INITIAL STUDY REQUIRED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REOUIRED
PREPARED BY Judith Lautner, Associate Planner DATE Oct 2 , 1991
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S ACTION: n C� DATE CLE
SUMMARY OF INITIAL STUDY FINDINGS
1.DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
11.POTENTIAL IMPACT REVIEW POSSIBLE ADVERSE EFFECTS
A. COMMUNITY PLANS AND GOALS .................................................... NONE*
NONE
B. POPULATION DISTRIBUTION AND GROWTH ..........................................
C. LAND USE .......................................................................
NONE
D. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION ..............................................
NONE
E. PUBLIC SERVICES ................................................................
NONE
F. UTILITIES........................................................................
NONE
G. NOISE LEVELS ....................................... NONE
....................... ..
H. GEOLOGIC&SEISMIC HAZARDS 3 TOPOGRAPHIC MODIFICATIONS .:.................. NONE
L AIR QUAL1 Y AND WIND CONDITIONS................................................ NONE
J. SURFACE WATER FLOW AND OUALITY .......... NONE
K PLANT LIFE......................................................................
YES*
L ANIMAL LIFE....................................................... YES*
M. ARCHAEOLOGICALIHISTORICAL ................................................... NONE
N. AESTHETIC .........................................................................
*
O. ENERGY/RESOURCE USE .......... NONE*
P. OTHER ............................................................. NONE
111.STAFF RECOMMENDATION
NEGATIVE DECLARATION, WITH MITIGATION
'SEE ATTACHED REPORT seas
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY ER 6-91
1673 La Vineda
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The applicants want to build a 3 , 191-square-foot (including garage)
two-story house on a large, sloping Site. The house is to be
placed about 30 ' from the street property line, and at the rear
ranges from about one foot to about 36 ' from the dripline of
riparian vegetation that existed in November 1989, the point at
which vegetation growth had reached its highest point. (After
November 1989 , some of the vegetation was removed, as explained
below. )
The 20, 460-square-foot site is irregularly shaped and slopes down
from the street at approximately 15%. A tributary of Acacia Creek
crosses the southerly portion of the site, which is lined with
mature riparian vegetation, mostly willows, but also live oaks.
A 15 foot drainage and utilities easement also crosses the
southerly boundary of the site approximately parall€l'to the creek.
Surrounding land uses include recently built single-family homes
and vacant residential lots.
POTENTIAL IMPACTS
Community plans and goals J
Land use element - Hillside standards: The general plan land use
element (LUE) includes a section on hillside development ("Hillside
Planning Policies and Standards" - Section D of the LUE) . Included
in this section are "hillside standards" - standards for building
on hillside .lots.
The proposed house is on a sloping lot. However, it is not a
"hillside lot" as defined by the land use element. The LUE
(Section D.2) says:
THE LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS PRESENTED IN THIS SECTION ARE
APPLICABLE TO THE AREAS IDENTIFIED IN THE HILLSIDE PLANNING PROGRAM (SEE
MAP sl) . ALL SPECIFIC PLANS, SUBDIVISION MAPS, ANNEXATION APPLICATIONS
OR DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS WITHIN THESE AREAS MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH THESE
PROVISIONS.
The project site is not within the Hillside Planning Program areas,
as shown on Map fl in the LUE. Therefore, the hillside standards
do not apply to this project.
Conclusion: Not applicable, therefore not significant.
General plan safety element: The safety element addresses
potential dangers from fire, flooding, earthquakes, and other
natural and man-made hazards. Policy 2 . 0 says:
07s1A
ER 6-91; . 1673 La Vineda
Page 2
ENSURE THAT NEW DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE CITY' S PLANNING AREA IS DESIGNED
TO WITHSTAND THE EFFECTS OF NATURAL AND MAN-CAUSED HAZARDS TO ACCEPTABLE
LEVELS OF RISK, AND IS DESIGNED TO AID EMERGENCY RESPONSE.
Flooding: A portion of the site is in a "B" flood zone. The flood
zone includes the creek and extends to approximately the edge of
the riparian vegetation as it existed in November 1989. The B zone
includes those areas between limits of 100 year flooding and 500
year flooding, and areas of 100 -year flooding where depths are
less than one foot. Projects within this zone must be designed so
that finish floor elevations are above the .100 year flooding
elevation.
The project is designed to be outside the flood zone entirely.
Conclusion: Not significant.
Fire hazards: The project is designed to be as close as one foot
from the riparian vegetation. If vegetation dries out in dry
years, it may serve as fuel in fires coming from nearby hillsides
or originating within the vegetated area. The open creek corridor
represents a path for a fire to follow, if it should become dry.
According to the Fire Department, the vegetation within the
riparian area is green most of the year. Dead wood and grasses
represent the primary source of fuel. The Fire Department finds
the proposed location of the house acceptable from a fire safety
standpoint, as long as seasonal grasses are cut every year, in
accordance with weed abatement provisions .in the Municipal Code.
The attached -memorandum from the Fire Department confirms this
position.
Conclusion: Not significant.
Administrative creek policy/Cumulative impacts: The city is guided
by a written policy on development near creeks. This policy says
that "new structures, including parking lots, should generally be
set back at least 20 feet from the top of bank. " Further, the
policy says that greater setbacks may be required in certain
situations, including "if significant riparian vegetation extends
beyond the 20-foot line. "
The top of bank, in the present case, is not readily defined.
According to the administrative policy,
"TOP OF BANK" MEANS THE PHYSICAL TOP OF BANK (IE: WHERE THE MORE
STEEPLY ERODED BANK BEGINS TO FLATTEN TO CONFORM WITH THE TERRAIN NOT
CUT BY THE WATER FLOW) . IF THE BANK IS TERRACED, THE HIGHEST STEP IS
THE TOP OF BANK, NOT ANY INTERMEDIATE STEP. (IN SOME CASES, THE TOP OF
BANK WILL NOT BE APPARENT; THE DIRECTOR, PRINCIPAL PLANNER OR LONG-
RANGE PLANNER SHOULD BE CONSULTED TO HELP DETERMINE A REASONABLE LINE,
ER 6-91; 1673 La Vineda
Page 3
CONSIDERING SUCH VARIABLES AS THE TOP OF BANK ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE
CREEK THE EXTENT OF RIPARIAN VEGETATION AND THE 100-YEAR FLOOD LINE. )
In the present case, the obvious channel is a narrow ditch
approximately in the center of the vegetation. However, this ditch
carries only a small portion of flood waters. The land slopes
fairly evenly from the ditch to the sidewalk. Therefore, no steep
bank is present. The top of bank has therefore been determined by
flooding characteristics, to coincide with the vegetation line
shown on the November 1989 survey discussed above.
The proposed house sits about one foot from the defined top of
bank, at its closest point (the upper level nook) . Therefore, its
location is not consistent with the 20 ' setback guideline. The
guidelines say that a lesser setback may be acceptable if
1. the channel is minor and is not judged to be a
significant riparian corridor or likely to be part of the
urban trails system;
2 . the lot is small, and reasonable development without some
exception is impossible;
3 . the lot is a small infill site where a clear pattern of '
lesser setbacks has been established on both sides of the
lot along the creek.
The California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) has found that the
corridor is significant. The lot is large, and the house can be
redesigned to meet the administrative policy ' s 20 ' setback
standard. A clear pattern of 20 ' setbacks has been established,
at least within this subdivision. Therefore, none of these
criteria are net. Reductions in setback to 10 ' have been allowed
at other creek locations in the city where similar vegetative
characteristics exist, but criteria noted above have been present.
However, the guidelines are prefaced with:
THE FOLLOWING ARE GUIDELINES, NOT STRICT STANDARDS, AND MAY BE DEPARTED
FROM WHEN THE PLANNER, WITH THE DIRECTOR' S CONCURRENCE, JUDGES THAT THE
INTENT CAN BE MET THROUGH ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES.
The alternative in this case is the placement of the house as close
as one foot from the riparian vegetaion, plus dedication of an
easement over the riparian vegetation and creek, coupled with an
existing tract condition that prohibits removal of any riparian
vegetation. The easement would extend from the 360 ' elevation (the
elevation of the riparian vegetation closest to the proposed house
location in 1989) to the rear of the lot. In a review of an
identical project on this site in 1990, the Architectural Review
Commission and City Council determined that this alternative is
ER 6-91; • 1673 La Vineda
Page 4
acceptable, in that it provides sufficient protection of the
riparian habitat, and allows the applicants to build the one-story
design of their choice.
Conclusion: May be significant.
Recommended mitigation:
1. The building shall be setback 20 ' from the top of bank,
which has been determined to be the drip line of
vegetation as surveyed in 1989.
Monitoring: Building plans will be checked for
compliance with this measure.
Plant and animal life
Background:
Riparian vegetation has covered about half of the site. This
vegetation serves as cover, nesting areas, and food for many small
animals and birds.
A condition of approval of the subdivision that created this lot
says that no riparian vegetation may be removed. The permit
applicant removed an unspecified amount of vegetation within the
riparian area , in July 1990. The Community Development Director
required remedial action, including preparation of a landscape plan
for rehabilitation of the vegetated area.
For purposes of this report, therefore, the edge of existing
vegetation is considered to be that which was existing prior to
removal by the applicant. This edge is defined on a topographic
map prepared by General Engineering Company, showing the brush line
as of 11-10-89 .
Value of riparian habitat:
The riparian vegetation is healthy and green virtually year-round.
Vegetati.on extends from about 20 ' to about 75 ' from the center of
the channel , towards the proposed residence. This dense cover
provides protection for a wide range of species, especially birds,
but also including riparian amphibians. Among the species that
have been seen in the vicinity are the Western Pond Turtle and the
Red Legged Frog, both of which are included on the California
Department of Fish and Game ' s list of "Species of Special Concern" .
They are also candidate species for threatened or endangered
status.
The creek channel is an open corridor for most of its length, from
its beginnings in the foothills to where it flows into the east
ER 6-91; ' 1673 La Vineda
Page 5
fork of San Luis Obispo Creek. Open creek channels serve as
transportation corridors for birds and small animals, many of which
will not venture far (if at all) from the protection of the
foliage. Since this one is open, it therefore has significant
habitat value.
Potential impacts:
Temuorary: Construction activities are expected to have some
effect on wildlife in the area. People and possibly domestic
animals may intrude into the riparian area, disrupting feeding,
mating or nesting behavior. Because the house is planned to be
located as close as one foot from the defined edge of riparian
vegetation (although actually five to seven feet from currently-
existing vegetation) , construction activities are likely to damage
this vegetation, and waste materials may be thrown into it,
subsequently affecting those animals that use . it.
The heavy vegetative cover currently provides protection from
intruders, and serves as part of a valuable wildlife corridor. To
maintain this protection, the vegetation needs to be retained, and
people and domestic animals should be discouraged from entering the
area. The degree of damage to the habitat cannot be predicted. •
Conclusion: May be significant.
Recommended mitigation:
2. To preclude any activity within the riparian area,
temporary fencing at the 360-foot elevation shall be
installed prior to the start of construction, and shall
remain throughout the construction period.
Monitoring: City inspection staff will require the contractor
to stake the 360 ' elevation prior to installation of the
fence. City inspection staff will confirm that the location
is correct, and that the fencing remains in place until
occupancy is granted for the residence.
Permanent: The construction of a house on the lot will introduce
greater numbers of persons and domestic animals to the site. The
location of the house close to the riparian area will make it easy
for residents and guests to intrude into that area, or to observe
it from the balconies and kitchen nook. The use of the balconies
and nook by human observers will especially affect birds who use
the outer fringes of the habitat, causing them to fly further
inward or away from the site altogether, while humans and domestic
animals entering the creek area on foot will affect animals and
birds foraging, resting, or protecting young near the ground.
However, because the creek is already lined by housing on both
a-40
• ER 6-91; ' 1673 La Vineda
Page 6
sides, the remaining wildlife is expected to be forms that have
adjusted to human intrusion: those that are adept at hiding from
people during the day (and are active at night) , those that can
move easily to a more secluded riparian area, and those that can
escape through the trees and shrubs.
A wildlife biologist (Michael Hanson, Ph.D. ) reviewed the plans and
a draft initial study, and concluded that the intrusion of the
house into the .normally-required 20' setback would not create a
significant biological impact in this specific case. In his
comments made after reviewing letters from other biologists,
environmental groups, and citizens, Dr. Hanson reiterated his
conclusion that any harm to come to wildlife in this urban area has
already been done by the construction of housing in the vicinity.
However, Dr. Hanson also noted that the 20 ' setback is "a good
idea" in general. (Comments attached. )
Other biologists have reviewed the plans and have recommended that
the 201setback be required in this case. These biologists say that
20 ' buffers have been required of other homes built in this
subdivision, and to maintain the corridor as it now exists requires
. that this house be set back at least 20 ' also. They also state
concerns with cumulative impacts - that allowing a home to be built
close to the vegetation, where there are no hardship factors, is
setting a precedent for other development in the future along
creeks. The DFG has also raised concerns with the gradual
elimination of wetlands and surrounding buffer zones throughout
California, and recommend that buffers be required in all cases
where they can reasonably be net. (Comments received from DFG and
other biologists are on file in the Community Development
Department and available for review. )
In spite of a subdivision condition prohibiting removal of riparian
vegetation, some owners of lots in this subdivision have removed
many riparian plants. The degree to which the habitat value in
this case is degraded depends on the sensitivity with which it is
treated by the residents and guests.
Conclusion: May be significant.
Recommended mitigation:
Same as no. 1, above.
Aesthetic•
View blockage: The proposed house would not affect views of the
Santa Lucia hills to the east, from La Vineda or other public
vista, although it would likely block views of these hills from the
east windows of the house at 1655 La Vineda. If the house is
redesigned to incorporate a 20 ' setback, then it will be located
ER 6-91; ' 1673 La Vineda
Page 7
farther up the hill and therefore will be higher in elevation.
Somewhat greater view blockage for neighbors would occur, but views
from public vistas will not be significantly affected.
Public views of the riparian area on the south side of the lot will
be blocked by any house built on the site. Although attractive,
this corridor is not considered a significant scenic public
resource.
Conclusion: Less than significant.
Compatibility with neighborhood: The house design is similar to
others in this block and nearby. Since the subdivision is recent,
all homes on the block were built after 1985, and reflect current
trends and styles. The proposed house style is compatible. The
primary difference between this house and ..others in the
neighborhood is its location on the lot. All. other .homes on this
side of the street are set back approximately 20 ' from the street
property line, while the proposed house is to be set back 301 . If
the house is redesigned to incorporate the 20 ' buffer from the
creek vegetation, then it will be located closer to the street and
therefore more consistent with neighboring homes. However, it is
not unusual to have homes set back at varying distances from the •
street. Whether it is set back twenty or thirty feet, it will be
compatible.
Conclusion: Less than significant.
Effect on significant visual features: Construction of the house
could alter or degrade a significant visual feature - the riparian
area.
Conclusion: May be significant.
Recommended mitigation: Same as number 1, above.
Enemy/resource use:
Water: - The city is currently in a drought situation, and has
adopted an ordinance to control water use, both in existing
projects and in new development. The ordinance ensures that no
projects are built that worsen the load on the city ' s water supply.
The regulations will also limit issuance of building permits after
the drought period is passed, and are expected to mitigate water-
use impacts at that time.
Water use at the site is expected to increase as a result of this
request. The average water use for a single-family residence on
a lot larger than .25 acre is 0. 75 acre-feet. With a recorded
easement, which limits irrigated planting areas to 3 , 000 square
feet or less, the average annual usage can be reduced to 0. 56 acre-
' ER 6-91; 1673 La Vineda
Page 8
feet. The larger number represents about . 01% of the city's "safe
annual yield" - the amount of water that can be drawn from
reservoirs yearly, during years equal to the severest drought on
record, without running out.
Conclusion: Less than significant: the city's water
regulations will reduce impacts.
Other impacts:
The project is not expected to have significant impacts on any
other aspect of the environment.
RECOMMENDATION:
Grant a negative declaration of environmental impact, with the
following:
Mitigation measures:
. 1. The building shall be set back 20' from the top of bank, which
has been determined to be the drip line of vegetation as
surveyed in 1989 .
Monitorina: Plan checks will verify the location of the house
on the lot.
2 . To preclude any activity within the riparian area, temporary
fencing at the 360-foot elevation shall be installed prior to
the start of construction, and shall remain throughout the
construction period.
Monitoring: city inspection staff will require the contractor
to stake the 360' elevation prior to installation of the
fence. city inspection staff will confirm that the location
is correct and that the fencing remains in place until
occupancy is granted for the residence.
Attachments:
Fire Department memo - June 26, 1991
Reviews of draft initial study er 6-91, by Michael T. Hanson,
wildlife biologist
a-i 9
t^IJI s/17ll1k,1J
2995 MaNi&n Ave.,Suite 196
P.O.Bax 15359
San Luis Obispo,G 93406
805/541.1858 FAX.541-5724
May 10, 1991
MAY 14 199'.
Sa.,Luw OCn.
City of San .Luis Obispo Fire Department - -
748 Pismo Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Attn: Carrie Bassford
Re: Weed Abatement
1673 La Vineda
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
APN: 003 ,771,002
Project Environmental Study 16-91
Dear Carrie:
We are in receipt of your notice dated May 10, 1991 giving us
ten days in which to clear weeds and/or debris from the above
referenced property. On April 22, 1991 , in anticipation of this
notice, I sent a letter to you requesting some coordination and
cooperation from your department and from the Planning Department
regarding the riparian vegetation and how it affects the clearing
of the vacant property. I have not heard from your department
other than this standard notice to clear weeds.
While this may seem extreme, this project has already been
through the court system and so we are extremely careful regarding
any activity on the property. We would appreciate your cooperation
in this matter. I will contact your office to set up an
appointment with one of your representatives in the field. Again,
thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
an e Ramsay
/jr
CC:. Judy Lautner
Project Planner
wh
a-ao
,-ttl:tiv�_
MAY 0 61991
City o1 Sen Lum Obr
Review of
Environmental Initial Study ER 6-91
1673 La Vineda
by
Michael T. Hanson, Wildlife Biologist
Department of Biological Sciences
San Luis Obispo, CA 93407
a�ai
A- recommendation that the deck be setback 10 feet was
suggested. I believe the plans currently have a setback of 4 feet. To
me it seems that the additional setback would not be that
significant, that as much disturbance would occur at either distance.
Therefore, it seems unnecessary to alter this part of the original
plans of the house. I would concur that the windows of the kitchen
nook be of a glass that allows people to see out but limits the view
into the room. This would prevent birds from mistakenly flying into
the window and would reduce their disturbance by activity in the
house.
I would agree with the easement conditions. Solid fencing
would tend to isolate the riparian zone from the adjacent yard,
reducing the value of the riparian zone (also seems like it would
reduce the value of the yard). The fence would in essence block out
the edge effect of the riparian zone, a primary facto_ r that makes
this habitat so valuable to wildlife. Topography and riparian
vegetation should be preserved. A short distance toward Johnson
Avenue a section of the riparian zone has been replaced with a row
of pine trees. For most practicable purposes, that section of the
riparian zone has been destroyed. No grading or removal of
vegetation, except as permitted by the Community Development
Director, should be allowed. Landscaping within the easement
should be of species native to that riparian zone to maintain and
protect its current integrity.
47-CIA
on
City Of San IU1S OBISPO
a INITIAL STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
SITE LOCATION 1673 La Vineda APPLICATIONNO. 6-91
PROJECT DESCRIPTION Construction of a single-family house on a 20,460-square-
foot sensitive site. The site slopes downward from the street to a creek,
which is lined with mature riparian vegetation.
APPLICANT Mike Hernandez
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
X NEGATIVE DECLARATION X MITIGATION INCLUDED
EXPANDED INITIAL STUDY REOUIRED E VIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REQUIRED
PREPAREDBY Judith Lautner, Ass ciate Planneiv DATE Apr. 19, 1991
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S ACTON: I GATE kL.. 26 193
SUMMARY OF INITIAL STUDY FINDINGS
1.DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
11.POTENTIAL IMPACT REVIEW POSSIBLE ADVERSE EFFECTS
A. COMMUNITY PLANS AND GOALS ................................................... NONE
B. POPULATION DISTRIBUTION AND GROWTH.......................................... NONE
NONE
C. LAND USE .......................................................................
D. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION ............................................... NONE
E. PUBLIC SERVICES ....................... NONE
NONE
F. UTILITIES........................................................................
G. NOISE LEVELS .............................................................
... NONE
H. GEOLOGICA SEISMIC HAZARDS&TOPOGRAPHIC MODIFICATIONS ..................... NONE
I. AIR OUALITYANDWINDCONDITIONS............................................... NONE
J. SURFACE WATER FLOW AND OUALITY .............................................. NONE
K PLANT LIFE......................................................................
YES*
L ANIMAL LIFE.....................................................................
S*
M. ARCHAEOLOGICALIHISTORICAL ................................................... NONE
N. AESTHETIC ...................................................................... YES*
O. ENERGY/RESOURCE USE .........................................................
NONE*
P. OTHER ........................................................................... NONE
III.STAFF RECOMMENDATION
NEGATIVE DECLARATION, WITH MITIGATION a 73
-SEE ATTACHED REPORT seas
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY ER 6-91
1673 La Vineda
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The applicants want to build a 3191-square-foot (including garage)
two-story house on a large, sloping site. The house is to be
placed about 30' from the street property line, and ranges from
about 3 ' to about 36' from the dripline of riparian vegetation that
existed in November 1989, the point at which vegetation growth had
reached its highest point. (After November 1989, some of the
vegetation was removed, as explained below. )
The 20,460 square foot site is irregularly shaped and slopes down
from the street at approximately 15%. A minor creek tributary
crosses the southerly portion of the site, which is lined with
mature riparian vegetation, mostly willows, but also live oaks.
A 15 foot drainage and utilities easement also crosses the
southerly boundary of the site approximately parallel to the creek.
Surrounding land uses include recently built sin47:e-family homes
and vacant residential lots.
POTENTIAL IMPACTS
Plant and animal life
J
Background:
Riparian vegetation has covered about half of the site. This
vegetation serves as cover, nesting areas, and food for many small
animals and birds.
A condition of approval of the subdivision that created this lot
says that no riparian vegetation may be removed. The permit
applicant removed an .unspecified amount of vegetation within the
riparian area, in July 1990. The Community Development Director
required remedial action, including preparation of a landscape plan
for rehabilitation of the vegetated area.
For purposes of this report, therefore, the edge of existing
vegetation is considered to be that which was existing prior to
removal by the applicant. This edge is defined on a topographic
map prepared by General Engineering Company, showing the brush line
as of 11-10-89.
Potential impacts:
Temporary: Construction activities are expected to have some
effect on wildlife in the area. People and possibly domestic
animals may intrude into the, riparian area, disrupting feeding,
mating or nesting behavior. Because the house is to be located as
close as three feet from the riparian vegetation, construction
activities are likely to damage this vegetation, subsequently
ER 6-91; 1673 La Vineda
Page 2
affecting those animals that use it.
The heavy vegetative cover currently provides protection from
intruders, and serves as part of a valuable wildlife corridor. To
maintain this protection, the vegetation needs to be retained, and
people and domestic animals should be discouraged from entering the
area. The degree of damage to the habitat cannot be predicted.
conclusion: May be significant.
Recommended mitigation:
1. Temporary fencing at the November 1989 dripline, as
defined on plans prepared by Tom Baumberger and available
in the Community Development Department, shall be
installed prior to the start of construction, and shall
remain throughout the construction.. period.
Permanent: The construction of a house on the lot will introduce
greater numbers of persons and domestic animals to the site. The
location of the house close to the riparian area will make it easy
- for residents and guests to intrude into that area, or to observe
it from the balconies and kitchen nook. The use of the balconies
and nook by human observers will especially affect birds who use
the outer fringes of the habitat, causing them to fly further
inward or away from the site altogether, while humans and domestic
animals entering the creek area on foot will affect animals and
birds foraging, resting, or protecting young near the ground.
In spite of a subdivision condition prohibiting removal of riparian
vegetation, some owners of lots in this subdivision have removed
many riparian plants. The degree to which the habitat value in
this case is degraded depends on the sensitivity with which it is
treated by the residents and guests.
conclusion: May be significant.
Recommended mitigation: -
2." To avoid disturbing animals and birds near the edge of
the riparian area, the nearest balcony (the balcony off
the family room) shall be set back a minimum of ten feet,
and the windows in the kitchen nook shall be of a
material that allows persons to see out but limits views
into the room.
3 . To mitigate the effects of placing the building close to
the riparian vegetation, the property owner shall grant
to the city an easement covering the riparian area, for
the purpose of protecting sensitive riparian habitat.
Conditions of the easement shall include the following:
a-ate
ER 6-91;% 1673 La Vineda
Page 3
* No structures or solid fencing shall be placed on
or within the premises.
* No advertising of any kind shall be located within
the easement area.
* The general topography of the easement area shall
be preserved - substantially in its existing
condition. No grading shall be allowed except as
permitted by the Community Development Director.
* No removal of vegetation shall be allowed, except
for fire protection or other hazards, or for the
elimination of diseased growth as approved by the
Community Development Director.
* Any landscaping done within the easement shall be
native species and to the approval- of the Community
Development Director.
Aesthetic:
View blockage: The proposed house would not affect views of the
Santa Lucia hills to the east, from La Vineda or other public
vista, although it would likely block views of these hills from the
east windows of the house at 1655 La Vineda.
Conclusion: Less than significant.
Compatibility with neighborhood: The house design is similar to
others in this block and nearby. Since the subdivision is recent,
all homes on the block were built after 1985, and reflect current
trends and styles. The proposed house is compatible.
Conclusion: Less than significant.
Effect on significant visual features: Construction of the house
could alter or degrade a significant visual feature - the riparian
area.
Conclusion: May be significant.
Recommended mitigation: Same as numbers 2 and 3, above.
Energy/resource use:
The city is currently in a drought situation, and has adopted an
ordinance to control water use, both in existing projects and in
new development. The ordinance ensures that no projects are built
.that worsen the load on the city' s water supply. The regulations
c7%7
ER 6-91;• 1673 La Vineda
Page 4 .
will also limit issuance of building permits after the drought
period is passed, and are expected to mitigate water-use impacts
at that time.
Water use at the site is expected to increase as a result of this
request. The average water use for a single-family residence on
a lot larger than .25 acre is 0.75 acre-feet. With a recorded
easement, limiting irrigated planting areas to 3, 000 square feet
or less, the average annual usage can be reduced to 0.56 acre-
feet. The larger number represents about . 01% of the city's "safe
annual yield" - the amount of water that can be drawn from
reservoirs yearly, during years equal to the severest drought on
record, without running out.
Conclusion: Less than significant: the city' s water
regulations will reduce impacts.
Other impacts:
The project is not expected to have significant impacts on any
other aspect of the environment.
RECOMMENDATION:
Grant a negative declaration of environmental impact, with the
following:
mitigation measures:
1. Temporary fencing at the November 1989 dripline, as defined
on plans prepared by Tom Baumberger and available in the
Community Development Department, shall be installed prior to
the start of construction, and shall remain .throughout the
construction period.
2. To avoid disturbing animals and birds near the edge of the
riparian area, the nearest balcony (the balcony off the family
room) shall-be set back a minimum of ten feet, and the windows
in the kitchen nook shall be of a material that allows persons
to- see out but limits views into the room.
3 . To mitigate the effects of placing the building close to the
riparian vegetation, the property owner shall grant to the
city an easement covering the riparian area, for the purpose
of protecting sensitive riparian habitat. Conditions of the
easement shall include the following:
* . No structures or solid fencing shall be placed on
or within the premises.
No advertising of any kind shall be located within
a-a�
ER 6-91; • 1673 La Vineda
Page 5
the easement area.
* The general topography of the easement area shall
be preserved substantially in its existing
condition. No grading shall be allowed except as
permitted by the Community Development Director.
* No removal of vegetation shall be allowed, except
for fire protection or other hazards, or for the
elimination of diseased growth as approved by the
Community Development Director.
* Any landscaping done within the easement shall be
native species and to the approval of the Community
Development Director.
---Judith•Lautner-- _ . ;•- 1.7_JuiY`195
Co+imunity DeVel=ent Dzpartrrient --- _-------
City of pan Luis Obispo, CA 93403
Dear Ns. Lautner, _
1 have read most of the comments relative to the house proposed for
573 La Vineda and its possible impact to the riparian zone of Acacia Cr.-k.
y1l v` -to'-,,7-se,.ri.Js�.� o rn.m
coents I wish to address three main issues.
i. Destruction of riparian zone: Some of the comments. seem to address the
"destruction" of the riparian zone. As far as I understand, none of the
r;n-ari?'� ;Ma is to be removed or ?�y of its vegetation tal:en o;it bemuse r,-^
the oevel^^ 'tall so most of F G com, m*I11'7 seen', LV Ve jrriM al"e IGI \V l~V
I YVI .JJ VCi J. 1 i•t ya IQIIVGw�er 1.Jiu 1 yl�l VlYIC ✓VIII. •V V\I Ci LQllrlf :i V 1 ~•
J �rC Gi:: iy Gl l wl; ,
rl iVl.l„ Lc I GJ1�%I eU.
2. Disturbance to wildlife: Currently Acacia Creek is surrounded by houses.
It is difficult for me to see how this last house will be so critical to the
amour!t of diS.tumar)ce to tha: which wildlife is already subjected. People
and ? r Dets of tshe n uses vreSent requiarly conduct ac iviii?S in t"_ir
r:Gi� '�Qr'vC �11C rtVV.CieJ JVYY e i� .:G II�V UiSil�r1CC.: Q'r�aGv JI nay I�Qr•.iry
��•�. i •:� `. ber. ..ra P h.ja. /r',y �... r.i 1 �' .G ^:rn'C'r..-..
i`..✓� •: ✓ y��i:r IIa ua r1.r. lily \�i l!L lel.` �!.II 11 1\r Q:1�
'{lr. n .'' .i. •1'•.L`n. n......y-
•M.✓�. . .. W, -ay r '.Y! \.. A .v�:
i. .. r'J '.!'✓ ✓V. C r .lh 14. i I l v. �l. . .. rl .�i:l .l)j 1 1. 'i
7. .. f•I/ :3 �I l% r:�:i6 ��..n'.'1--. r vv' �i ?• .? `t .:�`:? f..IILy .
1 r.�•�., r.,+ y'vn V�rv/ +.`�: r.n' Q/1lYr lnn 1'I, �l/1
i
rv,; rvr�./
Ir!e wriote creek. i rle recommendation to nave winoowS Ihat ei t �eG�ie :C
See out but iimits the view into the room should D2 interveted to be tinted
az-B, nG: one way glass or r')irrorS Iriv var., ;S ?O1�iDDry wain tinieG _I:SS
"Gil0i4' :120G:e :rtSi(ie ule �G" t Sia "'2�1iV wh - G -n� -n-:o :�-c
V - WZ! .. I^.1c v :li f'.�.� �.��. •'. .. r�r.
1
1.1_ ^'.-�.�� 1J,;11�11ra.t!=.=G y:r.=•..V p.-!�o-,I•v .a.r.v ,�,:�r11^hirer. ., iii:l N).f l"111 r.armla
Z 'IvVd r.
(Clift ti�
JUL 1 S 1991
Cg61SWLMOfto-
a-a 9
.._f:��Ln�'Y=�:6s r_r�--�.:1-:.e?s;:r--- _...r....,�..'--_''-=_`.-=`Y`'•..r..,....�.:. _ a - _ . .- .. _ rs-.arc.,_.TZ,.
3_.. Vioiation of 20-foot setback. The 2G foot setback is a good policy and
should be adhered to whenever possible. if other houses previously built had
to abide by the 20-11'oot policy, then it seems only fair that new houses,
whenever possible, should do likewise. i am not an expert on buildings and
their sites-so whether this house could abide by this policy would have to be
determined by those more qua,;fied man 1. My comMents adcressed ne
issue of disturbance to wildlife if the proposed planS re followed.
C74
Michael T. anson, ildlife Biologist
Department of Biological Sciences
California polytechnic State University
San Luis Ga,spo, CA 934,0,7
a-3o
ARC Minutes
November 4, 1991
Page 2
of concern included paving, lighting, wall details, storage space for the ar water
heater, play equipment, benches, garage doors, and balustrades.
Steve Puglisi explained that utility meters would be screene hind covered doors.
Chairman Underwood requested a colored rendered made showing detailed planting
and paving for a typical unit and to also show ligh . g, signage, playlots, and retaining
walls.
Commr. Cooper moved to grant final a oval subject to directory signs at main project
entries; weather protection for the p gola; vegetable garden paths; manufacturer's
product information on site light' , retaining/noise wall materials and design, garage
doors, statuary, benches and itecrural masks and other details; historical marker;
outdoor storage; storage visions in garage for trash/recyclable materials; and a
rendering of a typical lding cluster showing colors and materials, paving (including
brickwork), planting es=gn, signage, and site lighting to return for commission approval.
Commr. Thin north seconded the motion.
AYE . Cooper, Illingworth, Combrink, Underwood
N S: Sievertson
/ ENT: Bradford, Gates
/The motion passes.
2. ARC 89-80: 1673 La Vineda. New house on sensitive site; R-1 zone; final
review.
Jeff Hook, Associate Planner, presented the staff report recommending the commission
grant continue the project Mth direction to revise plans to conform to a 20-foot setback
from the riparian vegetation.
Brent Wiese and Steve Pults, representatives, responded to the staff report and
explained the project and the applicant's concerns.
Mac Short, applicant, said they have done everything they could do to address the city's
concerns. He said this was his dream home and wanted the main living area on one
floor.
Commr. Sievertson felt the house could easily be revised to pull it back farther from the
creek vegetation.
a-3�
ARC Minutes
November 4, 1991
Page 4
The motion passes.
4. ARC 91-73: 948 Foothill Boulevard. Revisions to shopping center parking lot;
C-R-S zone; appeal of director's action approving with conditions as minor an
incidental.
Jeff Hook, Associate Planner, presented the staff report recommending the c 'ssion
uphold the director's action and conditionally approve the parking lot re ' ' .
Rob Strong, representative, responded to the staff report and expl ' the appeal.
Eve Vigil, representing the San Luis Obispo Tree Committee, commended against the
proposed elm tree removal, explaining that tree replacements ould be done on site.
Gil Hoffman felt that the elm tree should be saved.
Jack Brazeal, tree consultant, recommended that th ee be removed because if kept in
place, trucks may damage the tree.
Commr. Illingworth indicated be would sup p keeping the tree.
Commr. Combrink also supported keep' a the tree if additional trees were added in
front of the Mclklahan's furniture stor .
Commr. Cooper agreed with CoFnr. Combrink.
Commr. Sievertson wanted to'see the tree retained and additional trees added along the
frontage of McMahan's st efront.
Commr. Combrink in sated that with traffic issues resolved, a maximum number of
bicycle racks should .e installed. He noted problems with off-site signs.
Commr. Coope3/moved to uphold the appeal of the Community Development Director's
decision to approve parking lot revisions for the University Square Shopping Center, but
allowed the emoval of a large, mature Chinese Elm tree in return for the installation of
eight 24- Ion sized box specimen replacement trees, to the Community Development
Directo s approval.
Co . Combrink seconded the motion.
ce-�a
ADMINISTRATIVE CREEK POLICY
Note: the following are guidelines, not strict standards, and may be departed from when
the planner, with the Director's concurrence, judges that the intent can be met through
alternative approaches. They do not replace, but are in addition to, other existing
policies, standards and ordinances.
1. When reviewing any development proposal, all unlined, open drainage channels should
be evaluated as potential sensitive habitat areas (ie: riparian corridors to be preserved
or enhanced).
In general, such channels should not be culverted, filled or encroached into.
Exceptions could include:
a. Minor drainage channels (guideline: less than three feet across);
b. Short (guideline: 200 feet or less) sections of channels which tic together lined
or culverted drains;
c. Improvements necessary for erosion control, flood protection or circulation,
reviewed and approved pursuant to existing adopted policy.
In all cases, the Director, Principal Planner or Long-range Planner should be consulted
before a channel is determined not to be a sensitive habitat area; if there is any
significant doubt, the Department of Fish and Game should be consulted, too.
2. New structures, including parking lots, should generally be set back at least 20 feet
from ;he top of bank. "Top of bank" means the physical top of bank (ie: where the more
steeply eroded bank begins to flatten to conform with the terrain not cut by the water
flow). If the bank is terraced, the highest step is the top of bank, not any
intermediate step. (In some cases, the top of bank will not be apparent; the Director,
Principal Planner or Long-range Planner should be consulted to help determine a
reasonable line, considering such variables as the top of bank on the other side of the
creek, the extent of riparian vegetation and the 100-year flood line.)
A. Greater setbacks may be required if -
1. significant riparian vegetation extends beyond the 20-foot line;
2. a setback line which is farther from the bank has been adopted or proposed by
Public Works;
3. the 100-year flood plain extends beyond the 20-Coot line.
B. Lesser setbacks may be acceptable if:
1. the channel is minor and is not judged to be a significant riparian corridor
or likely to be part of the urban trails system;
a- 33
P;;��Draft Creek Policy
age 2
2. the lot is small, and reasonable development without some exception is
impossible;
3. the lot is a small infill site where a clear pattern of lesser setbacks has
been established on both sides of the lot along the creek.
Note: in determining if a channel is minor or if a riparian corridor is significant,
the staff should consider variables such as size, area drained, volume/capacity,
topography, context (urbanized or open), soils and hydrology, relation to other creek
stretches and the creek system generally, existing vegetation and potential for
restoration.
In determining what is "reasonable development", the staff should consider. comparable
uses on similar-sized lots in the area as well as the practicalness and feasibility
of smaller-than-comparable projects.
In all such cases where setbacks are to be reduced or increased, the Director and
Principal Planner or Long-range Planner should be consulted.
3. If the site is considered by the Long-range Planner to be a possible link in the
urban trails system, then an offer of dedication for public access should be required as
a condition of any discretionary permit. -
4. All areas in the setback should be dedicated in an open space easement as a condition
of approval of any discretionary permit.
5. If the corridor has been degraded, a restoration program may be required as a
condition of approval for any discretionary permit.
6. Sites with creeks are considered to be "sensitive sites' for architectural review
purposes; projects which would not otherwise need architectural review should be taken
in as minor and incidental and may be approved if the guidelines above are met; if they
arc not met, then the project should be referred to the ARC with a recommendation that
the guidelines be followed.
�-3'�f
RECEIVED
Architectural Review Commission Phil Ashley FEB 0 3
and ota i Planner Jud,, Lautner 1586 La Cita Court
990 Palm Street San Luis Obisp �DEVE[Osm
Rot•: 8100 7513-2505 (wor}�.
San Luis -bis CA y0 �UJ-U_ i i }-�i }1 ( home )
February 2, 1992
Subject: Architectural. Review Commission (ARC) hearing on
February 3. 1992, Monday, 5: 00 p.m. , for the proposed house
project. at 1673 La Vineda..
Dear Commissioners and Ms. Lautner:
1 agree with the: Staff Report to revise the hinuse plans to
=m. to the City's 20 ft . riparian sebacn policy.
The only thing that has Changed since the ARC hearing November
A . 1991 , is that the applicant has moved the house ft . . measured
from the east decr., or 10 ft . , meas-ur'ed fr'or!, Mie house nook rcCrner,
iroi, the rip'a.rian Ve9rt.ati0n. -versus t•:?? ori-ginal i ft. r'ipariar.
SE'tvaCh' . The G IL. SETT[!act.k Ir'C�m t}'iB �-ok is tne m,:)rr_ si_gn�I1=8.?ii
one since .'-uman activity .2n a deck Ilii S c1cse is more diStur'oln€; -.c•
. iL•arian wildlife -han hur,!an. ciCt_•Jvi'_•:v _.. U r:•:uSC t.h; S close . Given
tnc inn-deq1.;acy of the a Wit. SezC.ack- measur'e+". Froin the dec,R. all ri:y
previous e:njecL.i.nns To the 1>rrjects failure tcl Comply with The
City ' s 20 ft. riparian setback policy still apply. These obj:e'c-
ticriB were stated in my f�CtGbEr K. 1�'�+1 , 1?t•T•er Ii:r the !':c'vc,71y,2r•
AF( s review. these Gb;:eCt.iC:?i5 ide E a5 fo11^W5.
_ First, there were malty le:t.`.ers': In -.tie: L'ro ecz Ii1e by various
ma _ .
ari an ser -ac to �'r��. - ^T. V.T]. }.1i_F I:1 r.11e _-.v C r'.Lz:Gr 1-.i: ..O~IiT•=i T• .
Second . c8 •_ _'O 1'Ta1 OI tiir s•c Same
.iCt-..Cry G,1:_'l":'GC.i��'^ � ..�1�'- -P.Ii L:_` .'I .'i(f T. � -tt_ c a [`A' �• -' -
-'iT A%;G:.-
:ir:" Sc` •ii,2:
:'Ye ane @cr' ict t=r ?lilt L. in't n t?iC _ y 13 WCrring on mcnii
hle
21
1
- -uTa.ck prl F.-.• -•rdl n
Third. placing the house closer t.r1ar 210 It . tc. the riparian
veff t.a`i=r creates tnc� _mp.2sSib7e L----,B -T': c !-' p'r'eS.eI'Ve -ha
r-i:.riar !? �itat whii2 at the :lame time p•cr'i0 u i Calif" destroying
it by C'_lttinE, for fir's p'r'vt$Ct1C•n . Eigia' _-AeT- is no— enol.lgh
separation r'etween house 3.110 t''egFt3ti0 . esu ecial ly dry -vegeta-
tion , to avoid this ''",:,ntinual cutting. Ther= is Cc.'nsiu-erable dry
getatic;ri .now dile to the dro�wgh i- and7.he app'iicant . S illegal
removal ( allegedly for fire prDtec:t.ion ; of T:he 770-er Shrub _one .
emaval "_F this shady cc•olir±g layer of insulating shrubs has
:•:nosed the remaining trP_.F$ and newly :•:po=-gid ground. under L,
t.0 mere sl.il:•1.1?ht. . 1:']18 -IncreasesEv2p'C?r^_.i.':C..TI OI w3tPr from, -.he
i
c.rourio and transpiratlon of water from the remaining p• a.nt"
foliage. The net Effect is these plants are being c:.posed to
treater drying and dying than they wo-aid iia've been without the
illegal removal of vegetation. The applicant should not be
rewarded for this i1_egal removal of Diynts With a lesser se_tba-:ii
that• will force conz-inuai cuttJng Cf dry riparian vegetation to
Protect their house from fire . This cinntinual de'striiCT•ion c.
riparian vegetation can be avoided by complying with the 20 ft .
And fourth, the alternative in the Staff Report of a setback
of less than 20 ft. combined with an easement to protect the
riparian habitat , is not fair mitigation. The riparian habitat
is already protected by a tract map condition stating, "Existing
riparian vegetation shall not be removed" . The suggested easement
would merely duplicate the tract map condition. In fart, the
easement is worse, since one of its conditions allows for continual
cutting of dry and "diseased" riparian vegetation. And dry and
diseased vegetation are very important dying components of a con-
tinually recycling and 'healthy ripar'lan ecosystem.
I have one other comment C•n the Staff Report. On page J. r'ara-
graph 2 , it states "The gist of mist, of the objections, was that.
tate Effect on tele envir'Oriment GT siting, this one hC•USe Cl=,Se tc '::
creek was not significant in itself, but that it created a precedent :
allowing this house to intrude in the 20 ft . setback withc,ut. s.u:;_-
ficient hardship reasons may open the door to additional unjustified
exception' to the policy. These le`-lers defi.,itel'y were. gr'v=nily
concerned about• the precedent setting nature of a iess t1lanO. ft .
zetbac .. But. -.hey were as :uch COriceYne5 with `iiB rUJMu atly�? :;;
s1t,Iilfi•oBlit auv r't'_. 1mpaCt to w"' diife iiabltat of ho'.::ses not C%t 3biding
y the These not saying that
-gi_- , el,e'ar
C:ne tolls." -11 e'Ct wOii Irl ilave BiE.nif iCc.nt �ffeCt Gh .r-iparian i:a %ita.i
Instead they were saying that to avoi6 cum lat.ively signiI_.cant
adverse i_- acts t _ wiidill& habitat , Each f.Glis2 needs to do its s..=-re
by ablaing 'r_•y -he L0 ft . riparian setback. Arid. file Cali.forriia
^.Ilvlr•or�:-leraa.i Q.uailty Act ( CEQA " stresses the avoidance o: Cumu-
latl-vely sig•r:i T_1Cant, a0vers:' lmpa.Cts Oi several �•.'G�:eCt a.°i ":•iic .
as it. =dresses significant impacts of a single p r o j e c.
i r:c =•r- =Ct. %:%•n rii:i 7.i?iE.pres
...iC•�•.��le'L .a i,w :?C;' �.eY'✓ y...�: .. J
ti Jri;J. -.�F: it Ali -ef: �. ;v :uGr ,.
Circ anc)ther r,roj cc.` ::e and
_ n•_r- b.._:: .__ :p. ._ _. ^C•=1iT t% _ c _...._ _ c
F= . wi
!16i1' rl=' r'�.:.0= nE? Lr''='jgCt. . ,. .i'1"I'C'}•'C! r!'5I'•:7� . �.'.. 37 1_ _
.'•:: _ J.C... -_ie4 v1 ". l W_ �'_A
iiep•art.m`=nt C•f ^ !sn and '.,Fame Q si __na'.ed s ecicS -t spe,'_i3i CC'Il-
cern '. an.o; rig.Iiif iC&nt adverse Impa�'tS C•n them--their =::tire•&TiC•n
( --Tinct.icn.J from the .,d% acre BILe . Gut -ie did noL r'e.c,m.lnend
any m:iti?aticn t:' a'vGi ] or _ri pej-Z .B IC+r this significant
as r s e ITmlp'9iCt . This faiiar•e on his part ha.unt.e'dd m-, t«-- im';r:7
through clearings, since Arroyo Grande officials ocn-tinuec Lc
tell me ns mitigation was necessary wil.dli-f
consultant Cid riot r'e'commend any .
when I spoke to this same cc;nsl_IlLing t• i'i [:•E1SL informing .film
teat several mitigation measures were pC•ssibie_ and feasible and
that CEQA requires fea sible mitigatiGn ' _zee Attachment _ ) fnr'
significant. adverse impacts, he replied AI'IMoly 'zrande City aild
not ask him for mitigation, and as a consul-'.ant he only •'•iorrs
what he is told to do. I said that as the CEQA consult-
ing biologist he was supposed to understand his CEQ'A responsiJ Mi-
lities and supply the mitigation regardless cf what. the City told
him to do. He replied. they did not pay him enough to suppay
mitigationi said thatas the CEQA consultant it was his respon-
sibility to supply the CEQA required mitigation oven if it meant
asking for more money. The Rancho Grande hearing tapes ( I have
copies ) have testimony demonstrating this consulting biologist.
waz n.,Dt '.icwledgeable hi '..L�jii 1'dS�+CiIi3iG11iLica 6L Lllav
a_3G
time. And his work on that and this project occuifed about the
same time last year.
Regarding the 167.3 La Vineda project, it was clear to the
biologists commenting on the project, that the consultant missed
altogether the important CEQA precept of cumulative impacts. And
they strongly objected to this oversight of the importance of
cumulative impacts when he said that he did not think one house 1
ft. from the riparian habitat would be a significant impact.
At this point City staff made the correct decision in light of
ti72 overwhelminj evidence by these other biologists that this.
project, 1 ft. from the riparian habitat, would set an unaccept-
able precedent and it was an uracceptaoie cumulatively signiil-
cant averse impact to riparian wildlife . t.afl t ere fire
appropriately changed the [legative Declaration to reflect the
necessity of a 0 ft . riparian setback as mitigation.
1 bring this matter up about the problem with the wildlife
CD lt�:,t noL t•ecause 1 want• to but ecause of what• happened at
tt7F _a.6t ,R(- hearing regarding potential litigatic.n. A _GIRmlSslon2r
;d=6ered aloud if the applicant cou.id have grounds, for' Ii.t.igaz_ion
this sr'ojf-_t . The applicant ri-sponded yes. But on what grounds -'
" r'c� -h S O f. t.'7E1T` rC'+ 'Erti' _'r Lrorer'ty rig'".TB.
i_ _ i i ?7 t a i•ani,ie r p
�1a g v::= s tittle.^.';=1:•T.. mjeE`,ing re+�uired by the past. v�q�A 117.19at10-
1 �,r0••_•.:aEt� a set of dans. 1Aii..aC,Hment ) `n'OWIIl$ rlai: c iivliSe G1 ar)(- -
. V ='3. T_t . _1V1h7g. space I it7 a future bonus rocim cf another LGU sq.
f- . j . plus a _.r garage . Could be built on the 81:e complying with
r1:'arlan s-et'C:ac!i, all side_ and Trout se-,backs. T.ne •_5 ft.
aF Ei 3c.E he.Jg it limit . and thie '"ri'vewa-" stand
. for CJ :p•iyinE with t.'L7$
s-ra -i' fL 'Veragc _h2iL?t7t �iia'_L at7d .r'-V=Da,'`
t mr-.c pr. ._.ar_e,: .'3_'ic:" ' the -'.i L.ar c 7 t.'W i+.V :T ..'.]ay,d
't -^'.L _.�.-iL•�_it i�cc_ _�= �._:_c 7.172 c. sell_ in.l_-atI ice ' n
c7. _ %i= r:�tr.L cr'i: '.ii_ r:`.5;-
C.:f_ 1 - ": " n r--'G --- is= wi '__. c _ . 'r. . r 1 a.2-.i%1,_
. y;. . L;i2 .:?'1ye'n�:°i: c.l' =' .
..::ey C:"i•.=;n5r 1 '. i='inr 7.::e'sAi j.s. _,r'GDiem-. ratr•er
GTI%'N'o'r, a tak—'.':g sol property or pro_+-rt.l•
c •�::`=s '-:C`. Sc'Eiil %.G be a 12ga.l ar•cu,",'ie:i when a ho'os' of .,, ,c.uz,
1 1L, a :�-.g ar .__,..a-,_, can oe buil' o::• the r•o er%Y.
>u•.:. , a Thus? w .-LII 1 C�2 d.s _.ar"�e aS , Gr iar'ee , ' "iier 7;Guse
r ti,ar, any c.
_.i :•:-i& h'i?1817[=,Gr�'.UGi:.
Seion .. this 1s not. an 1-infair process, nrir one im osed on
e 1r12 C•C:ur'i. , and _^_oi. the City, required this new
L'rGCeF'S-. ,U L-ne ui,i1;211% nc.�'� any rB,=:JUr'�B o.gainst fife '•.i.ty .
T' $1"•i1I7g the process.
And third. that ) eaves the argument the applicant. made at the
1a t ARC, hearing t.t7at the wildlife COnSL•itaIlt did IlOt SEE this
G^E' house ciose to the riparian vegat.atic'n aS a significant adverse
wlidilfe impact. And that is why 1 brought up the problems of this
consultant 's understanding of his CEQA responsibilities during the
time he wor-'ed on this project last spring. If the applicant ' s
only legal argument is that the wildlife Consultant did not see a
significant wildlife impact resulting from this project, then they
:lave missed the point entirely , as did the con-ultani.. about the im-
pUrtance oI addressing and mit.igat•7ing ICr cumulatively significant
impacts for a CEQA project. But, aga in. the other r ,_1n1Gg1S
is did
r7'�J'..` =X7,1 thn 'M�.�.:•t??7 r'a .'r rr".Teti: a`=�-P 1 iT.:n' t--.2 and afadr Fs Seca thPT
3 a-37
in their objection letters. And staff Properly weighed the pre-
ponderance of evidence by these other biologists for the 20 ft.
riparian setback to protect riparian wildlife and changed the
Negative Declaration to reflect the 20 ft. riparian setback mitiga.-
ticn. I think if the applicant chooses to use the wildlife
consultant 's initial opinion in a legal action, they will lease
with it. Especially given the contrary evidence supplied by the
consultant in his final report (7/17/91 ) in answering all the
other biologists' objections to his first report ( 5/6/91 ) . This
contrary evidence is that the consulting biologist st.atra in his
final report that if the City has a 20 ft. riparian setback
policy, they should use it if the 'douse can be redesigned to COMPLY
witil the setback.
In fairness to the wildlife consultant, he did not know
about the City ' s ''20 ft.. riparian setback policy when he prepare-d
iris first project report. 'When tie found out about i.-L, thr'o'i:gh the
va:-Gus coriiiiient letters. he rB':OTMu'ile-ndefd fiat 1 t be used.
Also in f8irness to the wildlife cons.:it'ant , nig: pas-, ia" i C?_T
understa.n iirg of his --EQA rBSr^77iS-�J`- lit-eS ].s not 8L
?11reiy hiS own
�� _. -EQA recuireEno CEQA tiI ca.,. n r`_ _gram, -.hat I ._
of Ccns---,. nt, prelraring 1;'H:QA reports. Environmental firms
ge.".erally HnC:w what their CEN,!: ires pr.nsa:•iil` &r =ir1Cr tri
MUS- WCrk C1JSely W-tt1 CEe.A -n pr•epar-ng H h S` ihr`pr'C•biei?1 ic:
usually with indiv1'dud.i COl 'U'lTing. These
may 'be bi.Olo.,ists certified by such cert-ifying organi_.atioris nc
the Wildlife Society. Blit. t.,hai, C5r'tiilCaLlGn =i-y applies -7, o
t:1= rnir,imi;m 8l'c,ir`miC and 4:0'ri :•:t'=I'-ci':mac Standards nece£sary TGr
r'rofesSional Certification . ir,e cE'; ` i73 '_e.til_:1 l;c_;t Lr±.'.t .l;:C+1": .91 •
i. G
i .- " 1^g.:S . S __::`"'w ' a..j`r . r,.. ':B.Cr; _. . i{':''`Cn'1c!]g.2 , Gia..
_1✓��Ir1.
^CCert7.Tr Cr�,i.i frr: rla3 ,-."_;T.Yl i.1":9 T. F--T.!
�•v=t: n .:'_' i'r.L_ . :Li3 ,dpi i�7.11 .:'T"2.. ` j•. i..'='it �'i i SFS i.ae .'��i�'1 �:�
J ICM-:1r.g l r'i::'.:1 �•�"'r.l :] '-:'rl^1 i:F Y'T..' T %7 L.J 1'. i1 i.:T. _ ~: nil�'�ii a.
d �'1 r'�.�: "_'C.LT _ T�'�.•:1: i '+!� G
t:1i3t :::cCauSe GiOIOgiSLS ar'ei_:cri,iilcd unC have 0011E =•aS` .
e n'v i r'on',7:en--al --LuC!ie> ani`] r-po..r._. c _ 9S S;1l-•�.^':.t.r=1 T.QrS t,� �n�:i'T^f_.i-,mc:i'..3�
firms or agencies. does non mean they :;now what they are in inff
under (_EE-A. The 6 IJlrf!ril:•e:i.aJ. IiTmB T' =:ger.=:le5 T_.r eE1Q loll t._
3uC;�•�iltrators workeu fOr may have fall inter?Erence �ntBri�rEti`i
CE;. .4' IC•r Lhem withc.ut t:lE1_ ev81' :iaving Lear':BMJ their _;w:1 2"cSr•C:71�..-
•_iii il?S
under (_ clA T}''.iS iS e .lCl },ear clo nrob ' em that. needs
correct i on.
Lut for nc'w. now dr)es t.ne GJ.ty Know l.:i 't is eE'tfi.j-7igC.5 C:gii:al
is Is'i is:.]i tall is t-�''ot are aware of their responsibilities under C ''Q'A'.'
Until an off :Ci_i , l,PQ'-A cert.i.T] "ei.1C.r: r'rOgram lv a1'S.11able . T._"!'3 rlL.
should require eveIy C] ^QiSL :.t iS considering fr?r 1i.S. Off1C] oJ
consulting list trishow proc`f of m:inimai I...ndar•d c`i CE;b'A T.r- ning.
This training snould be a combinat_on of acceptable CEQA courses.
workshops, training sessions, eLc . This is basically what the. i ity c
requires of its Own career :'lanners who WO]"'r. with CEQA, and it
should require the same of its con .ultant,s. Cit.her.•wise. the Git.y
sh C:ui,; not allow them to be on that 'cera i.fieo" CEPA list. bec8iise
right now that Cert.i f3 Cat e GT7 only ;leans iAhrit, they meet. cent.& rl
minimal professional biologica.i standards, but, meet. Tio minima_
CEQA standards.
:] ecu vi t•1'vv� vi ..'i.4lh L..vul'c:�� nvi'iL , ',n U:'tics.:vt•:. , .T'a'i ii,i.,o
x-38
sessions, etc. , a CEQA specialist on the (City ' s staff could
review the CEQA expertise of candidate consultants. This could 'be
a review of a minimal number of CEQA documents candidate
consultants have prepared to insure the candidates are aware of
their CEQA responsibilities to ( 1 ) asses:, the. resource, i :j ) assess
the impact.. and (3) prescribe mitigation to reduce the impart to a
level of insignificance . This review of candidates ' CEA documents
should also cover reviewing their citations from, and references to .
CEQA showing their knowledge of the specific sections of 1P_XU:
deliliatiIlg their respoIlsibilities unrder .Lhe Act . U-i :U—i late1y7
insuring that consultants have had proper CEQA training, and nc:t
Just proper training andcer'i•ification in their proiessional field.
a%:nid prob-lems. as on this irO,JeCt. . And thiF in t.i)rn wi 11 .ieaa
to a more efficient, process for all , including project ap'Llicant.s.
In summarizing the suggested legal issue, there COU.id i;e: a,
pr'obiem to the applicant of putting trio much emphasis on what the
wildlife consultant initially said ahout. "can insiLrniflCaln•t. w4_i:3-
life impact re'.s;u It i n g Iro- i t r'r of e.CZ Such an ar,ument wt,u.i.d
y^ r._. �_ t .}� is+` ,..iii -'.TiN(j ?•i c
have t.. over��ome ( _ . wha � o herr t� iDlogi. _ 1, ir'.�C:l.- ._"i2. .aV
=al•'1 S:�Gu`. tale cumulative'iv s: gnificant adverse impact oI tll7 S
�.rr•,;eC:r i n'+he.-L. the wild+ ife. latfFr ;Erl .?1_.e.a
e;j. rI_ -t:e r•rr 'e..j-L COTt•1}'_ _ ii:til Lhc l•- -.y
r'_r•arlan se-,.hack polir_-y: 1 �) wil t staff iindi-Ji lgs lia've z;a,4 .
?'laCC 102 ,_Oi!lrly-;.ng with the 4:_? ft. - riparian setback
7Oc, ') v>hat- 1 have said herr' .cC'•C'ut the r.OnsL t.ant ' s _"•ast, lack C_
U(]=?-s�i.cn^.il?_E C'_T -Lis r'esponsi U'.!ides under` CEi�.A I do bc-11' eve that.
-h is O?i s'J it ir,c. iZnd.erstan-Cat? his 1..E'l.}:i
:'hey are not tf at complex �;r di_Illcu: L. to • n .
. . . _ ..
a 18 a
1--n 0!-7una7e: y l rl' s On c,U_.`.a rJ- r=•.G �'�dt_•
1- _ -}lr� rr t�� .nr:�' ,-•r r nnr_ - n.ig r
_-=f:•"!b_Ji._� __ �� _Jl e . -: _ -.. ;i8. �� r:. _._ �dr.:i._ t.e. ea
,her ommen l n,R :J1_ _ '� h Vii'
ld?
_ r'F i_;y T 1• ,l _IT
' . _
r y L c _
iE'arIlill=. C.=,ta!!'. res-,ons ii:•:iIzles.
finally, _L wa3 fileignC�•'_.`r'8 nriii II?y ,.Ii::'F?'._`.,311Q ;0 a.` ;'.iiA j.;.
•%'N rl.9 l^`TI.T -1-�� 1 -TRPS 1^Q .::VY - _.I., r-•G ,-'c- L_ll � � . .'Y_-
....0 I,._ . ..�, ..r:� _ _�:.._.__ - -._'n-_ -.%=ice._'... - - - ��_._-� _ .._ _ _ _ . _
LO a Ll% possiD1c . i"a_c Se'�CJa,.h• W. s
-L,=-11-_,ate-:% lar'ii1PC, t_i. l'!::IYLT.i.c��1 C?I,Cr's T•_ I',=• _ T,•'? `:�� =L. 1 !i F'
�' I se;. �' a]! i!"'f,tii T.liF 1 / ?.o ._. i:t Sd`-
Lr'C+L'•C_•c:d _� IL . tnac,x 1" B i,-nz w
ti2C}C vC.'_.c._j =:'n and tc$SeC. F:�y i.r?e mBJOI'1Ly C.•oaimiss_oners. lha
L Ja CR _I JUST. Iii_ . al='C:cyLaC:ie- frOlf; the standpoint CI pre.-
sBrviIig ripariar:' wildlife ha.bit'at . I will study the plans to
find a compromise g•rJ1Ut.ion mat. Will Brit. Jeopardize riparian
wildlife and hopefully satisfy the applicants and neighbors_ 1±
for some reason cG7t}'r'omii.5 + i meaning minimr-1--ty a 1 % ft.. ri.parian
setback as votr'd on by the Comirissionersi is not possible , then
I ask t1 at. the Commissioners support. t.hP Ct.aff !-e7<: rt
the house _,e redesignedto comply with the City" s '0 ft . riparian
srtbact policy.
Sincerely,
5 yO
AVACHWWT I
1991 (Fifth) Edition
Guide
to the
California
Environmental
Quality
Act
(CEQA) •
Michael H. Remy
Tina A. Thomas
James G. Moose
Solano Press Books
Point Arena, California
9. to provide the people of the State with clean air pd water, enjoyment
of aesthetic, Aatural, scenic, and historic environmental qualities, and
• freedom from excessive noise (section 21001, subd. (b));
10. to prevent the elimination of fish and wildlife species due to man's
activities, ensure that fish and wildlife populations do not drop below
self-perpetuating levels, and preserve for future generations
representations of all plant and animal communities and examples of the
major periods of California history (section 21001, subd. (c)); 12
11. to ensure that the long-term protection of the environment,
consistent with the provision of a decent home and suitable living
environment for every Californian, shall be the guiding criterion in
public decisions (section 21001, subd. (d));
12. to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can
exist in productive harmony to fulfill the social and economic
requirements of present and future generations(section 21001, subd. (e));
13. to require governmental agencies at all levels to develop standards
and procedures necessary to protect environmental quality (section
21001, subd. (f)); and
14. to require government agencies at all levels to consider qualitative
factors as well as economic and technical factors and long-term benefits
and costs, in addition to short-term benefits and costs and to consider
alternatives to proposed actions affecting the environment(section 21001,
subd. (g)).
B. SPECIFIC POLICIES
1. Feasible Alternatives and Mitigation
The most substantive aspect of CEQA is found in Public Resources Code section _
21002. That provision forbids agencies from approving projects with significant adverse
impacts when feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures can substantially
lessen such impacts. (Citizens for Quality Growth v City of Mount Shasta (3d Dist. y
12/This policy statement has been interpreted not to create a cause of action requiring agencies to
disapprove projects unlesrthey can guarantee the survival of rare or endangered species affected by such i
projects. (Sierra Club v.Gilroy City Council(6th Dist. 1990)222 Cal.App.3d 30,41-42[271 Cal.Rptr.
393, 398-399].)
8
07
��/
:4 must "consider" these proposals, it has no mandatory duty to act (m thwn, even it they
are feasible. (40 C.Q.R. section 1502.14; Robertson v, htethow Valley Citizens
Council (1989) --- U.S. ---, --- [109 S.C1. 1835, 1846].) In other words, as to those r
matters subject to their statutory discretion, federal agencies can effectively ignore the
conclusions of an EIS, even regarding alternatives and mitigation, and can take actions
causing grave environmental damage. (Vermont Yankee, u r , 435 U.S. at 558 [98
S.Ct. 1197, 1219] (narrow construction of NEPA; statute is "essentially procedural";
Robertson, jMra, --- U.S. at --- [109 S.Ct. 1835, 1846] ("[a]lthough these procedures +
are almost certain to affect the agency's substantive decision, it is now well settled that s
NEPA itself does not mandate particular results, but simply prescribes the necessary
process"); Strycker's Bay, jUra, 444 U.S. at 227-228 [100 S.Ct. 497, 500] ("[t]he
only role for the court is to ensure that the agency has considered the environmental
consequences [of its action]").)
Because CEQA was modeled on NEPA, the California courts'have generally
looked to federal cases interpreting the latter statute as "strongly persuasive" authority
as to the meaning of the former. (See Friends of Mammoth v Board of Supervisors
(1972) 8 Cal.3d 247, 261 [104 Ca1.Rptr. 761, 769-770]; Environmental Defense Fund
Inc. v. Coastside Water District (1st Dist. 1972) 27 Cal.App.3d 695, 701 [104
Cal.Rptr. 197, 200]; No Oil. Inc. v. City of Los Angedo (1975) 13 Cal.3d 68, 86, fn.
21 [118 Cal.Rptr. 34, 46); Mount Sutro Defense Committee v Regents of the
University-of California (1st Dist. 1978) 77 Ca1.App.3d 20, 35-38 [143 Cal.Rptr. 365, s
373-375].) Because the California statute is more protective of the environment,
however, it seems fair to say that NEPA cases generally set the environmental floor but
not the ceiling for interpreting CEQA. (See San Francisco Ecology enter, SUM, 48
Cal.App.3d at 590 [122 Cal.Rptr. 100, 104].) In other words, the federal cases are
persuasive authority whenever they require environmental protection on issues not yet r
reached by California courts; but the state courts may find that the federal precedents
require too little such protection, particularly when CEQA's substantive mandate is at j
issue.
b. . Substantive Provisions of CEQA
In contrast to NEPA, CEQA mquire agencies to implement feasible mitigation
measures or feasible alternatives identified in EIRs for projects that will otherwise cause
significant adverse impacts. (Sections 21002, 21081; Guidelines, sections 15002, subd.
10
a - Al
y
r,
(a)(3),. 15021, subd. (a)(2), 15091, subd. (a); Sierra Club v.-Gilroy City Coni (6th
Dist. 1990) 222 Cal.Ap�.M 30, 41 [271 Cal.Rptr. 393, 398]; Kings County Farm
Bureau v City of Hanford (5th Dist. 1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 711, 730-731 [270
Cal.Rptr. 650, 656, 668-669].) 13 Thus, in such cases an agency cannot satisfy the
statute simply by "considering" the environmental impacts of a proposed project. (5=
also Burger v. County of Mendocino (1st Dist. 1975) 45 Cal.App.3d 322 [119
Cal.Rptr. 5681.)
In order to effectuate the substantive mandate of Public Resources Code section
21002, an agency approving any project for which an EIR identified significant impacts
must make appropriate findings for each significant impact identified in an EIR.
(Citizens for Quality Growth v. City of Mount Shasta (3d Dist. 1988) 98 Cal.App.3d
433, 440 [243 Cal.Rptr. 727, 730], citing Guidelines section 15091.) Three different
findings are possible.
The first option is to find that "[c]hanges or alterations have been required in,
or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental effect . . . ." (Guidelines, section 15091, subd. (a)(1); = L15g section
21081, subd. (a).) Such a finding fully satisfies section 21002.
The second option is to find that "[s]uch changes or alterations are within the
responsibili?y and jurisdiction of another public agency," and that "[s]uch changes have
been adopted by such other agency or can or should be adopted by such agency."
(Guidelines, section 15091, subd. (a)(2); �ee also section 21081, subd. (b).) This
finding has limited application, however; agencies cannot avoid imposing conditions
within their power simply because some other agency, with subsequent permitting
authority over a project, also has the ability to impose similar or related conditions.
(Citizens for Quality Growth, g! ra, 198 Cal.App.3d at 443, fn. 8 [243 Cal.Rptr. 727,
732], citing Guidelines section 15020 (rejects agency's argument that adoption of
mitigation measures for loss of wetland was sole responsibility of Army Co1ps of
Aside from this mandate, the courts have been reluctant to find other substantive duties in CEQA.
In Sierra Club v. Gilroy City Council (6th Dist. 1990)222 Cal.App.3d 30, 4142 [271 Cal.Rptr. 393,
398-3991, the Court of Appeal rejected the argument that section 2!001, subdivision (c), prevents
agencies from approving projects unless they can guarantee the survival of rare or endangered species
affected by the projects. The Court held that the cited provision contained a mere'policy statement" that
did not supersede other statutory provisions and case law recognizing agencies'ability to approve projects
with significant environmental effects where mitigation measures and environmentally superior
alternatives have been found to be infeasible.
11
a-�
ATFACNMWr 2 S1rE MAP
11001
. � �.�j �'.-.__._rte f• `.••'r
OFi•
�� I -'""�•� v5WA..7'
1ooNo
'.ter �. "......rr. ..r...
361 :J-'- �^ THIS WME
_� _ .�•- "� IJIJE.IS THE
7rN5 AREA is ZI RIPAIVAI
1jou5e(avAx1 Asr SETE9UCun
NOOK)A1JCN?/'�EIJC
A5INCOFRECTf`YMAW
1NDICA7>rD IN7NE -- �4
REMkr
9 •` lA
}
�T
THIS DASriaulVE - _ � �%�w Z
W a AREA WD►CAMS r IDA
THF-AREA A H OUSE r%N •,3,n �d
BE BUIL F IN COMPUNG cQ DwvEwAY
WIrKcITyFrmNl`,5�D6
AND X fk1PAR/A1qSErW.W
'. _;• __.,. _._._... ... .__ 1/uW/yJl�lll�.��i�SI.�I.l�QlY�yn�s(�1,��. _. . ._ .,.., 14,
-
IS' t OQ1RV% <
li I
1 'o.
C
i
OV
cLosF-rICE
:—
'St
, w
2
LL,�
IdaCL
00 .
, ILIND
rr��
SL
4 777. 77- 7-1- "7 1. 7
O - - -T -- --- -- i -- -
_ -
ti
Ag r
__ -
j$Lao \:. .....-.
"PbURSL FLO"- -W 1922
i
i *.iz 5LOPe 40WCR ROOF
CQ
- c
°f
- -._.
cc
:..:
g
. .-::
orof
Si
—
Eg t. 1 •
i::::s.: : ::: — . ... . .. .. -- — --
�. —1 !-
Tll
. . --
TL
is , :. ...-� ----—, - ----, - '•--- -- � —----��=----. _. .. .�
I O .z — -� -. ••
12.1
a
W Z
v�
473 IA VIMPA. ME516N io ZO'Rl PfrZW 5F-T P6K okgmr-
(0/iIf/90 (GS. UE FW2 cj�,&WL.D1 t,_ -&Z To
�PA-eWIrH MVE 5co���so'&-uILPw,HE16gruMIT)
�• GAP GE F1.3Ofk, HF 6tf T(TO COMPLY 0 ( Tn rrDRVWH Srfw4W
5�MPEI% 91-W OF .bRIVWA�= L-F-Fr -SOE J ADRS .Z- 7-5 'FXnM
B�uc
OF c5IJ)E�A1-K Gfj► A&I� . p=i4 op, I>"oN i
/D.D VM CRL. CuRV F- 0.x+2'Dry P (6►v Eng
'f�.2'hb/2Lc�•ILUN(.?02o S!•oP� = Gti B�'D,2aF C�Auuc-rt r:::)
S-D' VATiCPrL. CJ1A[ZVE - O.84'DRDPCG�vEN
oZ. 0 6 ' DP6PTCTA�-AliowED
,?, 75 'bRnP Ac�y-
.?.rXo ' I OP A1,4 UiE�
.6 9 ' Tw 5TmP : . 64 ; 7= ' x -
50,AW 8311( 64')OF PILL 7Z> C TG sa!�FST 51DE 0-) OF J)eIUE oA!
UP 1=90M Ex15T11� •2.7.5' P.DP TO .2-G� 1�P fjG1Du��b
SD 600 >WGF r;-x,Q v)r .� AT TH
�. HF-i&HT H:-,�)u�E ChrJ LELl AWVE. ffivE. NAT612AL, GSE 7n
COM??-.-� W (7H uM ( T :
H ONES' �Ir.'� ��F 1�L(Cr= Nf�7. Gk� %'= • 37 1. c, '
7 ig, /,b
FP0070F Hoa5F N GHY G��THa[.C�- ,2�F : 0.69'Fu'CTD erAhaY6diTN,UrJE5L-�
,F-cn`sr r1-w2 H.l6N"
1.W'JOt5T HE&HT
S 60 z"DFl609 HE16HT
17.69'TC>7 60J-rHCUT-RCC F)
12LkR OF 1-OU-5E HE16ffTVJIIRa-AT ftF: 7601Or5TEJA6clAU allE.14 flrFF.
O'69'oF 15P -(ToP" CCMREI rr: R
�..us�c���.yy1(91TH J�Rltg�
50 1769'FRV,)T HT. j 0' 115FWM G�'HT
.?5.29�P�1k HT.
Q�3�F HE16'frOW (, : ZS• 0'- Z/ yp'= 3S/ �e�VE 2AJbn �
Tj- U5 HE6HT HDOt CAIS 2;E AEDu 371.'0'C^ J70�1,� AT F;a:�1JTC�rHXc EZ
17.69'CaT. Hr. 6017/tO�T rte}+-3.C/ CSF H T }r s71.6(a.rry�r 39 ?
of
Face of 6'ort0'inte ral IM vertical curve 8' vertical curve
curb driveway
Back of sidewalk
OB' GR. .13' 42' Floor of
BL\ r r 1 garage or
A N' 20 �20Carport
ma:
Straight grade A to C 5.0' 4'
Slope 1/4'per ft. B to C 7,5'
10.0' 2's 2'drainage slat
(slope to drain)
NOTES
I —Twenty percent(20%) maximum slope for residential uses. Ten percent (10%) maximum
slope for commercial and industrial uses. Five percent(5%) deviation allowed with
special construction tecnniques if approved ay the City Engineer.
2 — Maximum descent,and the run,shall be measured for the worst condition between the bock
of the sidewalk and the finished floor,at the garage or carport entrance. May be used
with either 6' or 8' curb.
ADOPTED BY RESOLUTION No. 4557 (1981)
APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER DATE
at PARKING E DRIVEWAY STANDARDS
REVISIONS 8Y APP 1,13ATF STANDARD
I fob DOWNWARD DRIVEWAY
2150
e+-0
January 30, 1992
TO: Architectural Review Commission
SUBJECT: 1673 La Vineda, Sensitive Site - ARC 89-80
After reviewing the initial study of Environmental Impact Report
performed by the City of San Luis Obispo, I concur with the City
staff's recommendation to require a 20' setback from the riparian
vegetation on this sensitive site. I feel the concerns of
numerous biologists, State Fish & Game, various environmental
groups and the great concern of the neighbors in this area cannot
be ignored or taken lightly.
This area is an established open corridor of riparian vegetation
that has been preserved by existing houses that were required to
set back, and it would suffer greatly if a house was permitted to
be built within this 20' buffer zone. If a dedicated easement
was granted to the City it would be of no further benefit than
the existing tract conditions that prohibits the removal of
riparian vegetation. A house built within the 20 ' setback would
affect my view of the Santa Lucia Hills and would not if the
house were moved up hill and in line with existing homes.
Now that the City has gone through the proper procedures, studied
and reviewed the concerns of this sensitive site, I feel their
findings are in line with the new creekside ordinance that is
being drafted that will make a 20' setback mandatory and not just
a policy. Allowing a home in this area would undermine the
City's recognition to preserve these valuable corridors.
I feel this is a very buildable lot where the owner can still
enjoy views and the openness of the area that the neighborhood
now shares. By redesigning a house that meets the setback and
height limitations that this neighborhood has followed up to this
point, this house will infill the last lot of this tract without
setting out of place. A redesign would preserve this valuable
wildlife corridor and blend with the existing community feeling.
This latest revision of plans still does not meet the
recommendation .of City staff, -Fish & Game, biologists and the
ARC. I feel the house should be moved back as recommended by the
ARC on November 4, 1991.
Sinc
erely,
;e�
Richard Fisher
1691 La Vineda
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
_ a-fig
Stream Consciousness
Local Affiliate, Urban Creeks Council
531 Highland Dr., Los Osos, CA 93402
October 30, 1991
Dear Commissioners;
I would like to urge your Commission to uphold the conditions of the Mitigated
Negative Declaration for the project at 1673 La Vineda, especially those
concerning the 20 foot setback from the dripline of the riparian vegetation and
the fencing of the riparian zone during construction.
As noted in the Negative Declaration, a 20 foot setback in this case is consistent
both with the City's administrative creek policy and with the other houses in the
subdivision. The applicant has shown no need to deviate from this policy, and
therefore it would be wise to apply the policy, especially in.light ot-the fact that
this riparian corridor has been maintained in a relatively undisturbed manner for
its length, as noted on pages 4-5 of the Negative Declaration.
The Department of Fish and Game has determined that buffers are desirable
wherever feasible. Numerous biologists have commented on the need to
maintain a buffer from the vegetation for wildlife considerations.
I would note that the City is currently engaged in development of a Creek
Ordinance designed in part to strengthen protection of creeks and their wildlife
value. It would be a shame to weaken the application of the present
administrative policy at this time by allowing an unnecessary incursion into the
riparian corridor. I would ask that your Commission have the wisdom to accept
the mitigations recommended by Staff for this project, thereby continuing the
clear precedent of allowing buffers for riparian habitat.
Sincerely,
Judy Neuhauser
a-�a
IP
Ansommu. noOf SAn lAs OBIW
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100•San Lula Obispo,CA 93403-8100
APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL
In accordance with the appeals procedure as authorized by Tile I, Chapter 1.20 of the San Luis Obispo
Municipal Code.the undersigned herebyappealsfrom the decision of A�w4l�l Az)�jyJjW&,
rendered on 3 197e6 12 which decision consisted of the following (I.e. set forth factual
situation and the grounds for submitting this appeal. *Use additional sheets as needed): -
+10nW w/ CW/ 71,e 4,0W-5 - Aesidvoje-0, /,(o73 Gd !/Snedk • A96 89.80
�/a`af o� toad�irlf /'2f�j�iri�cl 20 '�c�6�rc.E �rnm r�r�an ve�e��c
�S�c i9�t Guo s e.�vioVIS c/4 ,orev�d b �4,ec 4PO& c� �v-t
�/o ce dur.�.P�e.^rars
dee
�v�iea
/2sroLen cc, Gu/fi{„r /20 dro f- �tr�a . L ',?4cor,�as,/,./v'Lt A017* �u/,hbvr�jco,
4nd err`aePl- torr o/4j P ectdvres -Ioru/iaas dec, A oras )mere*, ,, Cc( zwd
a��r�ovz
The undersigned discussed the.decision being appealed with:
on
DATE&,nME.APPEAL RECEIVED, Appellant
/`9,4c
ame e
AIA Y/ i4-SRC_
R E C E P V F E;,, epresentat e
1401 #/9y�r�i
FEB 4 1992 �f- EGD
rens rr
CITY CLERK �rr✓
SAN LMS OBISPO,CA
to
C Attome City Clerk
Calendared for. y
� Copy to Administrative Officer
Copy tto))the-following department(s):
9i'•
- a-51
b"T1NG AGENDA
G tPAZ ITEM #
City Council Members Phil Ashley
990 Palm Street 1586 La Cita Court
Post Office Sox 8100 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100 756-2505 (work)
February 27, 1992
Subject: The City Council's hearing on Tuesday, 3/3/92, 7:00
p.m. , for the applicant's appeal of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration (M.N.D. ) of 10/10/91, the Architectural Review
commission's (ARC) action of 2/3/92, and the staff's Counc.if._ ` --------_,
Agenda Report of 3/3/92, all requiring a 20 ft. riparian
setback for a proposed house at 1673 La Vineda. r'Ou;�
O CDD DI
-� ❑ M Dib
❑ r7RFCH
Dear Council Members: 1' ❑ �yD�
�'•.l;'J^a: ❑ POLICEI
I support the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the ARCI-s: ..:,_ .uCDIR
decision, and staff's Council Agenda Report all requiring the 9;T UnLDIR
proposed Subject house project to comply with the City's Fid`
administrative 20 ft. riparian setback policy. Please read my
letters of October 30, 1991 (Attachment 1) , and February 2, 1992
(Attached to the 3/3/92 Council Agenda Report) , for the 2 recent
ARC hearings on this project. I do not want to recover here what
I discussed in those letters, so it is important that you read
them. They cover the biological, safety, technical, and Calif.
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) reasons it is sound decision
making to support staff and ARC actions to abide by the 20 ft.
riparian setback on this project.
Also, the applicant brought up old issues at the 2 recent
ARC hearings basically accusing the City, neighbors, and greatly
fluctuating riparian vegetation for their problems with this
project. These are mostly old arguments. I answered most of
them, except the greatly fluxuating riparian vegetation argument,
during the Administrative Process in 1989. I did this by
letters or by spoken testimony at the 1989 ARC and Council
hearings. It would again be covering old ground to write a new
letter replying to their old accusations. Therefore, I ask that
the entire Administrative Record ( including my 4 letters) and ARC
and Council transcripts for the first Administrative Process in
1988 and 1989 be incorporated into the current Administrative
Process and Record.
In brief summary, in answering their old accusations, they
initially designed their home too high (28' ) and too wide (74' )
for the configuration of the building envelope and therefore had
to place part of it in Sydney Creek. And that has been the
source of their problems ever since, and the City is not
responsible for the applicant's persistence in this matter. As
the original staff Council Agenda report of 11/14/89 stated under
Design Alternatives:
The same floor area could be built while providing a 20 foot
setback from the edge of the riparian vegetation. E.C P I 'VE
F B _ 81992
1
CITY CLERK
°A',! LI::S 06iSPO.CA
Demonstrating this I provided one of many possible house plans
complying with all City riparian and other setback, height,
and driveway slope standards. This plan is attached to my 2/3/92
ARC letter in the 3/3/92 Council Agenda Report.
Also, the applicant suggested at the last ARC hearing that
the City Fire Department was responsible for the applicant's
bulldozed destruction of about 2000 sq. ft. of riparian
vegetation on July 5, 1990. This was a new accusation since the
applicant's builder, Mike Hernandez, told me while he was
destroying the vegetation, that the then Community Development
Director, Randy Rossi, gave him a letter saying the vegetation
could be destroyed. No one I know of has ever seen this letter.
Whichever City department, is being accused by the applicant, it
is unfounded since the Council on November 14, 1989 approved
project conditions stating that no riparian vegetation could be
removed without the Planning Director's approval, which was not
granted. Again, I do not want to cover old ground in this letter
that has already been covered in past documents. I have already
answered that it was the applicant's fault for destroying this
vegetation in past letters. So I ask that all documents relating
to this riparian habitat destruction generated by the public
( including my letters) , the applicant, the City ( including the
Remedial Revegetation Plan) , or anyone else, be incorporated into
the current Administrative Process and Record. But here the main
point is those conditions, agreed to by the applicant, were very
clear about not removing the riparian vegetation without the
Planning Director's permission. The applicant ignored the condi-
tions, and they cannot accuse the City of being responsible for
this illegal habitat destruction.
Since my past letters in 1989 and 1990 have answered that
their design and vegetation destruction problems are not the
City's fault but rather the applicant's fault, that leaves just 2
issues to discuss that the applicant brought up at the recent ARC
hearings. These are also not new issues but they need rebuttle.
First, the applicant indicated that the Creek Policy changed
from an unwritten to a written policy while their project was
being processed. I guess the implication is they should not have
to comply with an in-process policy change. Two points here.
First, there was no policy change. When I designed my house
across the creek in 1986, the Planning Department told me the 20
ft. riparian setback was their policy and I gladly complied. It
was a natural resource policy the City and its citizens could
take pride in. When it became a written policy in 1988 when the
applicant was beginning to process their project, the policy
did not change, it just got written down.
The second point here is that it also has long been the .
Community Devlopment Department's procedure that any rules,
policies, etc. that change while one's project is in the official
City processing stage, must generally be complied with. This was
made clear to me by Planning, Engineering, and Building Department
staff when I built 2 houses in the City between 1986 and 1989_ I
expect that they make all applicants aware of this procedure to
comply with changing rules during processing. And the applicant's
planning team is experienced with City procedures. Anyway, no rule
or policy changed, it simply went from a verbal to a written policy.
2
The second issue the applibant brought up at the recent ARC
hearings is that a greatly fluctuating riparian vegetation line
caused their intrusion into the Creek vegetation. This is a
complex issue that needs addressing here. At the ARC hearings the
applicant referred to the differences in their November 10, 1989
riparian map compared to their May 9, 1988 riparian map to
bolster their point. They presented both of these riparian maps
for the first time just days before the November 14, 1989 Council
hearing.
The November 10, 1989 riparian map was required by Planning
staff because an acceptable riparian map had never been provided
by the applicant to staff. They supplied two riparian maps Summer
1989 but the City did not accept them as being accurate.
When the applicant supplied the November 10, 1989 riparian map,
staff rightfully agreed with it. But at this same time the
applicant supplied the May 9, 1988 riparian map that City staff
had apparently previously never seen or had any record of. I
guess the hope was that at the November 14, 1989 hearing, somehow
the Council would- agree to the May 1988 riparian map, which
showed considerably less vegetation than the November 1989 map.
But the Council correctly did not use the belated May 9, 1988 map
to establish the legal riparian vegetation line. It would not
make sense for the Council to make a critical planning decision
on a riparian map done 1 1/2 years prior by the applicant when
they, for whatever reasons (possibly it showed they were in a
creek) , apparently never provided it to staff during the planning
process.
Besides the Council correctly not using the May 9, 1988
riparian map to base their decisions on, there are several
reasons why the May 1988 map should also not be used to support
the applicant's suggestion that it helps show greatly fluctuating
riparian vegetation between 1988 and 1989 was responsible (and
not them) for their designing into the riparian vegetation.
The first reason is, even if the applicant's May 9, 1988
riparian map showing less riparian vegetation were used, they
were still designing about 10 ft. into the riparian vegetation
with their initial plan submittal. The 10 ft. riparian intrusion
can be determined by taking their belated May 1988 riparian map
and overlaying onto it their first plans (Attachment 2) _
The second reason a greatly fluctuating riparian line did
not cause the applicant's intrusion into the creek vegetation
possibly has to do with how accurate they initially measured the
riparian vegetation. This is evidenced in the two riparian maps
the applicant supplied the City Summer 1989 (Attachment 3) . As I
mentioned before, the city did not accept the accuracy of these 2
maps and required a new one which was the November 10, 1989 ripar-
ian map. Rightfully no one questioned the accuracy of the Novem-
ber 1989 map, and it was very close to the riparian map I submit-
ted to the City Summer 1989 (Attachment 3) to indicate the inac-
curacy of the applicant's 2 Summer 1989 riparian maps.
In the only phone conversation I ever had with the
applicant's builder, Mike Hernandez, late in 1989, he said their
Summer 1989 maps did not correspond to mine because they did not
include weedy bushes as coyote brush (Baccharris pilularis) at the
edge of the riparian area. My post-riparian destruction letter
3
of 7/11/90 to the City, explains the ecological significance of
coyote brush as an important outer edge component of local riparin
vegetation, and I will not cover that again here.
However, the 3 photos of the site riparian vegetation on
Attachment 4 show how this coyote brush, prior to its destruction
7/5/90, was an integral part of the riparian vegetation tucked
into the other riparian vegetation, as willows. In fact, the
coyote brush, and who knows exactly what other native riparian
vegetation (since it was never qualitatively and quantitatively
mapped by a biologist) , was so integrally tied to the other
riparian vegetation that Mr. Hernandez bulldozed out everything
at the edge zone--not just coyote brush. This is shown on
Attachment 5. Photo 1 of Attachment 5 shows some of the riparian
area destroyed between the pre-destruction riparian edge (marked
by flags corresponding to the applicant's November 10, 1989
riparian edge boundary) and the post-destruction riparian edge.
Photo 2 shows busted willow limbs. Photo 3 shows a small live
oak seedling and oak sapling that survived (but how many others
were destroyed?) . And Photo 4 shows the brush pile of destroyed
riparian vegetation. Unfortunately, riparian vegetation adjacent
to the destroyed area has continued to die at an alarming rate.
By removing the thick insulating layer of ground covering edge
riparian vegetation, the remaining riparian vegetation has been
exposed to about 2000 sq. ft. of new baking soil. This has led
to increased evaporation of water from the hot soil and plants
exposed to it causing increased drying and dying of willows.
The point here is not only did the applicant's determination
of what was and was not riparian vegetation lead to their
destroying riparian vegetation, but it likely influenced how they
mapped the riparian vegetation. Based on the fact that the
applicant on 2 occassions mapped the riparian edge in Summer 1989
considerably back from where it actually was, it is to be
expected, for the same reasons, they mapped it May 9, ,1988
considerably back from where it actually was then. The edge of
the riparian vegetation simply did not fluctuate as great as they
show between their May 1988 and November 1989 riparian maps. The
November 1989 map is accurate, since the City had them map to the
outer edge of the riparian vegetation. But it is doubtful, based
on the previous discussion, that in May 1988, the applicant
included all the edge riparian vegetation in their mapping.
The third reason greatly fluctuating riparian vegetation did
not cause them to design in the riparian vegetation is because
aerial photos do not support the idea that the riparian
vegetation was greatly fluctuating. Attachment 6 shows two
aerial photos. The first was taken 12/10/87 (by a Santa Barbara
aerial mapping firm) just 6 months before the applicant's May
1988 riparian map was drawn. The second was taken 3/21/89 (by a
competitor Oregon aerial mapping firm) , just 8 months before the
applicant's November 1989 riparian map was drawn. In other
words, they were taken roughly the same time as the applicant's 2
riparian maps were drawn. In both aerial photos the riparian
vegetation is dark green and the adjacent winter weedy grass is a
slightly lighter green. This lighter grass green on both photos
extends in front of the riparian vegetation on the applicant's
lot. As can be seen from Attachment 2, the right side of the
4
applicant's lot has a jog in it that is in line with the rear
property lines of all neighboring properties to the right (toward
Johnson Ave. ) . This rear property line shows up well as a dis-
tinct line on both photos. As a fixed frame of reference, if one
puts a straight edge on this line extending across the appli-
cant's lot, it can be seen that the riparian edge, where the
applicant's house initially intruded, is nearly the same in both
photos.
The original aerial photos are such small scale (1" = 2640' )
that magnification to that of the photos on Attachment 6 causes
loss of clarity. Plus the 1987 photo magnification is slightly
smaller scale (1" about = 236' ) than the 1989 photo magnification
( 1" about = 236' ) , but the photos are clear enough and close
enough in scale to show that the vegetation has nearly the same
boundaries in both photos. If the riparian vegetation had
fluxuated so rapidly between 1988, when the applicant started
designing their project, and Summer .1989 when they were caught
designing about 15 ft. into the riparian vegetation, that kind of
vegetation difference should show between these 2 photos.
The applicant's suggestion at the recent ARC hearings that
they did not originally design into the riparian vegetation, but
instead it just grew around their proposed house site during the
planning process, is not supported by comparing these 2 aerial
photos.
The fourth reason why the riparian vegetation did not
fluxuate enough to cause their designing into it is based on
biology. There is sound biological reason why the riparian
vegetation would not grow dramatically upslope (as they claim)
during the applicant's initial planning process in 1988-89, which
were drought years. This is an older creek with fairly stabi-
lized riparian vegetation owing its existence to the surface and
subsurface flows in the creek. It is very unlikely this fairly
old and stabilized riparian vegetation community would grow
dramatically upslope away from its depleted water source during
the drought. In fact, die-back of riparian vegetation, rather
than dramatic growth, is more likely during drought. This is what
has happened, but more on the applicant's side of the creek than
mine, since my willows are closer to the main channel than theirs.
I also watered my willows the first part of the drought 1987-88.
But even with this supplemental water, my willows only grew a few
feet; nothing like the 10 ft. of difference shown in some places
between their May 1988 and November 1989 riparian maps. It does
not seem reasonable that my willows would grow less than half of
what theirs did, when mine (1) had supplemental water, (2) were
much nearer to the creek channel, and (3) were much nearer to an
old leaky sewer line (fixed in 1991) than theirs were. The
disparity between their 1988 and 1989 riparian maps probably had
much more to do with how they measured the riparian vegetation
in May 1988 vs. November 1989 than it had to do with plant
growth.
So for all the previous reasons it is very doubtful there
was greatly fluxuating riparian vegetation causing the appli-
cant's design problems of intruding into the riparian vegetation.
The correct riparian vegetation boundary to use to measure the 20
ft. setback from is the one shown on the applicant's November 10,
5
1989 riparian map. This is the riparian boundary the Council
already used at the November 14, 1989, hearing. The Council
selected the 360 ft. contour line to set the legal boundary of
the riparian vegetation because it coincided with the November
10, 1989 riparian boundary at the point closest to the proposed
house site. And it is also the riparian boundary City staff and
CDFG staff agreed early in 1991 should be used in preparing the
CEQA report and mitigation.
Summarizing it was hot Justifiable for the applicant at the
recent ARC hearings to blame the City, neighbors, the vegetation,
etc. for their design problems. The City was required by the
court to do an environmental assessment. Based primarily on the
biological consultant's conclusion one house would not have a
significant impact on the riparian habitat, the City issued a
Negative Declaration allowing the house to remain 1 ft. from the
riparian vegetation. During the public comment period no less
than six well respected local biologists commented that the
consultant failed to assess cumulatively significant adverse
impacts, which is a requirement under CEQA. Collectively these
biologists indicated that the project would have significant
cumulative adverse impacts (due to this and other projects being
built too close to local streams) that could be avoided if the
project adhered to the City's administrative 20 ft. riparian
setback policy. Upon reviewing these professional comments, the
biological consultant modified his position indicating, as an
issue of fairness, the City should use their 20 ft. riparian
setback policy for this project. The City staff appropriately
did not overlook the preponderance of new biological evidence
resulting from the public review process. They in turn changed
the Mitigated Negative Declaration to reflect the necessity of
the City's 20 ft. riparian setback as the appropriate mitigation.
I feel that the City staff would not have, for any reason,
changed the M.N.D. to require the 20 ft. setback mitigation
without strong evidence to do so. This was not a superficial
decision, but rather one which was in all aspects seriously
analysed by City staff and one which was respected by the ARC, as
reflected in their final vote requiring the 20 ft. setback.
Regarding 'the applicant's APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL in the
Council Agenda Report the applicant correctly stated that their
previous project was denied by the court for "procedural errors" .
But in correcting the procedural errors by doing the necessary CEQA
review, the City determined on substantial evidence that compliance
with their own administrative 20 ft. riparian setback was the
correct mitigation. The applicant then incorrectly stated in their
APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL that "only a minor portion of residence
within 20 foot area" . The house is 67 ft. long and 40 ft. of it,
more than half its lenth, projects anywhere from 2 ft. to 12 ft.
(the latter measured from the closet deck, or about 10 ft.
measured from the closest wall) into the 20 ft. riparian setback
zone. That is no "minor" intrusion into the 20 ft. riparian
setback area.
Also, because the applicant has referred to the court ruling
in their APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL, I request that all the court
records on the project legal actions be incorporated into the
current Administrative Record and Process. This includes all the
6
involved attorneys' court filed documents, court transcripts, and
any other documents the City or court have on file regarding the
initial CEQA merits case (petition for writ of mandate, etc. ) and
the subsequent attorney's fees case.
I think it is important that you read all the biological
letters the City has received on this project. But only ca-
rew- biologist Judy Neuhauser's letter of October 30, 1991, is
attached to the Council Agenda Report. The others are in your
reading room, but you may not have easy access to them this week-
end, when you will likely do some of your project reading.
Therefore, I have variously attached all the others to this
letter. Botanist David Keil's letter of 3/5/91, Ornithologist
(birds) Eric Johnson's letter of 3/26/91, and CDFG's letter of
2/26/90 are all attached to my letter of October 30, 1991, which
is attached to this letter as Attachment 1. The following
biological letters are also attached to this letter, all as
Attachment 7: David Keil, 6/10/91; Eric Johnson, 6/9/91; CDFG,
6/13/91; Judy Neuhauser (Stream consciousness) , 6/12/91; Atascadero
High School biology teacher Roger Zachary (Friends of Salinas
River) , 6/15/91; Cuesta College biology instructor Ron Ruppert
(Morro Coast Audubon Society) , 6/14/91, and Cal Poly Professor
Dr. David Chipping (Calif. Native Plant Society) , 6/15/91.
The City has a very good natural resource and fire hazard
prevention policy in the 20 ft. riparian setback. It is a policy
we can all in the City be proud of, and one that will make an
excellent future ordinance that will not harm good development.
I am sure the final wording of the ordinance, which I am committed
to take part in, will make exception for the development of exist-
ing small creek81de lots so this does not become a "taking" of
land or property rights.
But in this particular project, as an ARC member said, this
is not a hardship case, since a comparable project meeting all
the applicant's needs can be built upslope complying with the 20
ft. riparian setback and all other City requirements. This is a
case of a too-wide house being designed for this lot. So if the
applicant does not wish to modify this house further, as I proved
could be done at the last ARC hearing, to comply with the 20 ft.
riparian setback policy, then it is time to design another one
that does comply.
Therefore, so all of us can get on with our lives, and so
native riparian plants and animals do not become part of the home-
less, I ask that the Council deny the applicant's appeal and
approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the staff Council
Agenda Report, and uphold the ARC's decision, each requiring that
the applicant design to comply with the City's administrative 20
ft. riparian setback policy.
Sincerely,
copies:
all City Council members
Ms. Judy Lautner, staff project planner
7
CHME )r
Phil Ashley
Architectural Review Commission 1586 La Cita Court
990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Box 8100 544-9741(home) , 756-2505(work)
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100 October 30, 1991
Subject: Architectural Review Commission (ARC) hearing on
11/4/91 , at 5:00 p.m. , regarding the proposed house project for
1673 La Vineda.
Dear ARC Commissioner
Following is my comments on the subject project in relation
to the upcoming ARC hearing. I live at the above address and
share the rear property line with the applicant.
I am writing this letter now, since the hearing is just a
few days away and the Staff Report is not yet available. However,
I expect that the Staff Report will be similar to the Mitigated
Negative Declaration (M.N.D. ) issued Oct. 10, 1991, which I have
reviewed. I support the M.N.U. and the project Staff Report (as
long as the latter reflects the mitigation of the former) , as I
will explain.
But first I believe the correct name for the associated
project creek is Sydney Creek rather than Acacia Creek as stated
in the M.N.L. . I have been at fault in the past for using the
incorrect nacre, since the name Acacia Creek appears on a sign
where the creek intersects Broad Street (Highway 227 ) . The
City"s biologist* determined during the City's recent wetland-
creeks survey that. the Engineering Department has records
referring to this creek as Sydney Creek upstream of its
confluence with Alrita Creek near Broad Street. Downstream of
this confluence it becomes Acacia Creek. For consistency it is a
. good idea to follow the Engineering Department 's precedent
referring to it as Sydney Creek above the confluence and Acacia
Creek below the confluence .
One more minor observation is that on page 4 of the M.N.D. ,
I believe the correct frog is the Pacific tree frog rather than
the red legged frog. I have seen •(and 'heard) numerous of the
former, but not the latter on Sydney Creek. Maybe the City's
biologist who gained valuable biological knowledge for the City
during the recent wetlands-creeks survey could clarify this.
* I commend the City for hiring a biologist to do its
wetlands-creeks survey. It is my hope that the very valuable
function of a City biologist will soon evolve into a permanent
staff position. This needed position will also add balance to
the City's analysis of numerous projects.
1
My support for the M.N.D. and Staff Report is connected to
supporting for this project ( 1 ) the City's excellent tract map
condition no. 3 which states "Existing riparian vegetation shall
not be removed. " and (2) the City's also excellent 20 ft.
riparian setback mitigation in its Administrative Creek Policy,
which is now the project mitigation recommended by staff in the
M.N.D. and Staff Report. The former mitigation protects the
riparian vegetation and the latter mitigation protects the
habitat value of the riparian vegetation by providing a necessary
buffer between development and wildlife in the riparian
vegetation. This contrasts to the applicant's proposal of
placing the house 1 ft. from the riparian vegetation and
providing a riparian conservation easement as mitigation.
However, the riparian conservation. easement is not bonified
mitigation since (1) it merely duplicates tract map conditon no.
3 ( "Existing riparian vegetation shall not be removed. " ) for
protecting riparian vegetation and (2) it provides no setback
buffer to protect wildlife in the riparian vegetation from
encroaching development.
The City's recommended mitigation has been successfully used
on other projects adjacent to the project site and elsewhere in the
City. The 20 ft. riparian setback is the best mitigation for
protecting riparian wildlife habitat. If all local governments
and agencies in California had this kind of effective mitigation,
riparian habitat would not now be reduced to less than 10% of
what it once was in our state. As Drs. Keil (a Cal Poly
botanist) and Johnson ( a Cal Poly ornithologist ) indicated in
their letters of 3/5/91 and 3/26/91 (Attachments 1 and 2)
regarding this project, riparian habitat in California is
endangered. These 2 letters also indicate the biological
significance and necessity of the City's 20 ft. riparian setback
policy being used for this and other riparian projects in the
City.
There are various other letters from professional career
biologists in the project file also testifying to the importance
of utilizing the City 's 20 ft. riparian setback policy for this
and ether riparian projects. For brevity I will not attach these
letters, but I hope you have time to read them before the ARC
hearing. However, I would like to refer to several of these.
Judy Neuhauser 's ( a career consulting biologist) letter of
6/12/91, besides mentioning the importance of the 20 ft. riparian
setback policy, also mentions the importance of the City
utilizing this policy for riparian projects while it is currently
in the process of changing the the policy to an ordinance. This
will avoid setting inconsistent and confusing precedent. Roger
Zachary's (a biology teacher at Atascadero High School) and Ron
Ruppert's (an environmental and conservation. biology professor at
Cuesta College) project letters of 6/15/91 and 6/14/91 also give
Professional biological perspective as to the importance of the
City's 20 ft. riparian setback to protect sensitive riparian
habitat and the wildlife in it. The California Native Plant
Society's letter of 6/15/91 is likewise very informative as to
2
the importance of the City's 20 ft. riparian setback policy for
protecting riparian zones.
Besides these letters, California Department of Fish and
Game (CDFG) has provided two project letters. The more recent
one dated 6/13/91 is in the project file. However, I am not sure
the one dated 2/26/90 is in the project file, since it was
written before the current project administrative process began
this spring. For this reason and for the reason it clearly
describes the value of the City's 20 ft. riparian setback for
providing essential wildlife buffers between development and
riparian habitat, I have attached the earlier CDFG letter
(Attachment 3) . To limit the size of your packet, I only
attached the CDFG letter and not the 5 pages attached to the
letter listing the 139 wildlife species that utilize riparian
habitat in San Luis Obispo County. However, I have attached a
list of 63 wildlife species that I have documented in the
riparian habitat of Sydney Creek in and adjacent to the project
site (Attachment 4) . I have also included in this list 11 of the
native trees and shrubs existing there. As can be seen from the
species list, the ecological diversity of this riparian zone is a
valuable natural resource for the City. And it is well worth
protecting with the City's excellent riparian mitigation
recommended for the proposed project.
Another important reason to adhere to the City's 20 ft.
riparian setback mitigation is to provide adequate fire
protection for the proposed house. At the previous City Council
hearing for this proposed project, the ex-City Fire Marshall said
willow riparian vegetation could require being out back from the
house as much as 20 ft. The present Fire Marshall has suggested
fire prevention methods that possibly could allow a house to be
Placed closer than 20 ft. to willow dominated riparian
vegetation. But these fire prevention technics require removal
of brush and dead limbs. Both of these naturally occuring
riparian elements (brush and dead limbs) are important to the
ecological diversity of the riparian habitat, reflected in the
attached list of 63 wildlife species.
It would be far better for protecting the house from fire by
utilizing the 20 ft. riparian setback. Setting the house closer
than 20 ft. to the riparian vegetation will only lead to drastic
reduction in the riparian habitat value from continual vegetation
cutting and clearing in a possibly futile attempt to protect the
house from fire. I say "possibly futile attempt" because of what.
I saw this past weekend at the site of the devastating Oakland-
Berkeley fire. I viewed and photographed some of the burned
areas and the one common denominator I saw was that hundreds of
dwellings too close to vegetation of all kinds (eucalyptus,
redwoods, pines, willows and other riparian vegetation, and
various other trees and shrubs) burned to the ground. The City's
20 ft. riparian setback will not only protect wildlife; habitat by
preventing development from encroaching too close to the-
vegetation, but the 20 ft. riparian setback will also protect the
house from potential fire.
3
One final point. I concur with paragraph 3 of page 6 of the
M.N.D. concerning cumulative impacts. None of the biologists
reviewing this project have argued that the proposed project
alone creates a significant adverse impact on the City's riparian
wildlife habitat. What nearly all have said in one way or
another in their letters, though, is that in order to avoid
cumulatively significant adverse impacts to the City's riparian
habitat by many projects, each project needs to do its share to
avoid cumulative adverse impacts. These biological letters
concur that utilizing the City 's 20 ft. riparian setback for all
projects where it is possible--as in this case (page 3, M.N.D. )--
is by far the best way to avoid cumulatively significant adverse
impacts to our City's valuable riparian resources.
In conclusion , I support the City' s Mitigated Negative
Declaration and progect :staff Report and their excellent
mitigation for this project, which includes the 20 ft. riparian
setback and a temporary fence at the 360 ft. contour to protect
the riparian habitat during construction.
Sincerely,
copies:
all ARC members
Ms. Judy Lautner, staff project planner
4
hlTJAC-tlMEtir i
497 Lilac Drive
Los Oso$, CA 93402
Mr. Arnold B. Jones g March 1991
Community Development director
. 990 Palm Street :
Post Office Box 8100
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
Dear Mr. Jones:
The information presented below includes a summary of my
Ptofessional views of the value and importance of riparian vegetation. 1'
have added my evaluation of the importance of the riparian vegetation
along Acacia Crcek in San Luis Obispo.
Before proceeding with this discussion I will gave my
qualifications to comment on this matter. 1 ani Professor of Botany in
the Biological Sciences Department at California Polytechnic State
University in San Luis Obispo. .1 have been on the stall'at Gal Poly since
1976. I ani a plant taxonomist, ecologist. and biogeographer with
expertise on the vegetation and flora of California and much field
experience, 1 am co-author of CalLromia Vegetatlonl and Vascular
Plcnt Taxonomy2 and a major contributor and Asteraceae'family editor
for the new Jepson Manual 3. I have prepared numerous botanical
surveys and inventories for the County of San Luis Obispo and various
other public and private agencies and individuals..
Water in California is a valuable resource. In this driest of
drought years all Californians are being made aware of the critical role
of water in our lives.- Water is no less critical as a resource for the
vegetation and wildlife of California. The brown hills that have
Characterized the San Luis Obispo area this winter attest to the
importance of water to plant growth—and to all of the animal life that
depends directly or indirectly upon that plant growth for food and
shelter. In the prolonged absence of water, all suffer,
The dry conditions throughout the state during the past five
ye2xs have emphasized the importance of water. However. most of
California has an annual drought of six months or more duration. The
hills turn golden and then a dusty brown. The ground dries up and
water becomes scarce. During this annual drought water remains
i V.. 1., Holland and D. )Kell. 1990. California {'egetdtloir. 4th ed. EI Condi
Bookstore. San Luis Obispo.
2D, lt. Walters and D. 1. Kell. 1988. Vascular Plant Taxonomy, 3rd'ed. Kendall.
Hunt Publ. Co., Dubuque, Iowa.
3J. :C. Hickman, ed. The Jepson Manual. projected 1992. Univerciiy of
Callfornla Press, Berkeley. This is an identification manual for the wild plants
of California.
2
available only in small portions of the landscape. Riparian areas--the
narrow bands of moist ground along streams and other wetlands—
become critical sources of water to the thirsty animal life of the state,
Because streams and rivers cut across the landscape. riparian
areas have generally been accessible to wildlife of adjacent hills,
valleys, and plains. That is, until the current century began. Dam
construction, stream diversion, and pumping of groundwater have all
contributed to the drying of California streams. Flood control projects
and canals now divert streas from their original course to the sea.
Thm
e remaining riparian areas are now that mach more important as
water sources to wildlife.
Riparian areas are also very important as wildlife habitats.4 The
multilayered canopy provided by the assorted trees, shrubs and herbs
prgvides a diversity of nesting and feeding sites for birds arid
mammals. Riparian areas are productive habitats, especially at tunes
when plants of other communities are dormant. The moisture of the
stream is an important summer water source in the dry California
landscape, The nutrients added to the stream and the alternating .
shaded and sunny zones of the patchy vegetation are'tmportant to
stream ecology. The vegetation is an important component of the
habitat for fish and other aquatic animals.
Biotic interactions in riparian systems are complex, involving
many types of organisms. Riparian vegetation is especially important
in determining the structure and function of stream ecosystems.$ A
wide variety of animals use riparian areas as habitat. Most of these are ;
non-game species. About 83 iib of the amphibian species (frogs, newts,
etc.) and 40 % of the reptiles use riparian areas as habitat.e Many
kinds of birds use riparian vegetation for food or living space.
Mdmmalian species include those visiting stream habitats for water as
well as those resident in the area. Corridors of riparian vegetation are
particularly important as routes for movement.of animals.
The wooded corridor that characterizes much riparian
vegetation is important in Another fashion--erosion control. When
streams flow rapidly after storms, they carry the potential of massive
erosion. Running water is capable of much destruction. Riparian
vegetation has the ability to stabilize banks and floodplains, reducing
4 This paragraph is quoted from Catlfornla Vegetation, ibid. p. 281.
S A. W. Knight and R. L. Bottorff. 1984. The importance of riparian vegetation
to stream ecosystems. Pp. 160.167 In R. E. Warner and K. M. Ht:narlx (eds.),
California Riparian System R. Ecology, Conservation, and Producilve
Managcrnent. University of California Press, Berkeley.
6J. M. Brode and R. B. Bury. 1984. The importance of riparian systems to
amphibians and reptiles. Pp. 30-36 fn R. E. Warner and K. M. Hendrix, ibid.
f
3
3
the erosive forces of the flowing water. Removal of the woody
vegetation along California streams has often led to increased erosion.
Destruction of California's riparian habitat has beer! especially
severe. Less than ten percent of the original riparian vegetation of
California remains.? Over much of the state the trees have been
logged, the streams have been dammed or enclosed in concrete, and
the landscape has been converted to other uses. Where towns and
cities have grown up along streams or rivers, the riparian vegetation
has often been eliminated or highly modified. Much of the loss has
been incremental—a small band of willows destroyed here, some
cottonwoods cut down there, a section of once Iush woodland
vegetation diverted into a culvert. Many individual projects, such as
residential construction, eliminate their own little sections of riparian
habitat. No one of these by itself is seen as a significant loss, but
collectively these changes bring about a reduction or elimination of
habitat values.
The destruction of riparian vegetation :caused by the preliminary
Orading for a house at 1673 La Vineda along Acacia Creek in San Luis
bispo is an example of such incremental loss of habitat.- What had
been part of a shaded, willow-dominated corridor with scattered oaks
and other shrubs and trees was transformed in one day into a highly
erodible area exposed to full sun, The open ground is subject to the
invasion of weedy exotic species of low value as wildlife habitat.
In view of the importance of riparian habitat, 'restriction of
development to non-riparian habitats is a wise policy. When I prepare
vegetation surveys, I am particularly cognizant of the importance of
riparian habitat and I make sure that reports that I prepare note any
Incursions by developers into riparian areas and the habitat values of
these areas. I note two things about the Acacia Creek development.
First, there was no survey of the site by a qualified biologist. Second, it
Is evident that the City of San Luis Obispo chose to deliberately ignore
its own guidelines for development in such areas, even after the
matter was brought to their attention. The needless habitat
destruction that occurred in this situation is an egregious example of
policy gone au7y. The situation easily could have been avoided had the
city followed the 20-foot riparian setback prescribed in its own
Administrative Creek Policy.
I am concerned that similar deliberate �dolations of its own
environmental policies by the City of San Luis Obispo could continue to
occur. However, the court's decision in the case of Phil Ashley vs, the
City of San Luis Obispo is a clear indication that such policies should
not continue. As a result of the decision, the city should now be more
9 A. 5iarker Leopold. 1984. Forward. Pp. xxi•xxil in R. E. 1 Rrntf and K. M.
l;cndrlx , )bid.
4
dill ent in
g carrying out environmental responsibilities under its own
rules and policies and those of tje California Environhiental Policy Act.
As :indicated above, there are sound ecological reasons for having
environmental restrictions on development--such as a 20-foot riparian
setback. We cannot afford the continued incremental destruction of
riparian habitat.
Sincerely,
David J. Keil
�. 4TrA(, f MF Q7r 2
C)L POLY
CALIFORNIA POLYTECHNIC STATE UNIVERSITY
SAN Luis Oeisro,CA 93407
Eric V. Johnson, Ph. D.
Mr. Arnold B. Jonas Professor of Biology
Community Development Director Biological Sciences Dept.
990 Palm Street 26 March 1991
Post Office Box 8100
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
To whom it may concern:
Mr. Phil Ashley has asked that I comment on the
biological value of riparian systems as regards his legal
action against the City of San Luis Obispo.
I have an earned Ph. D. in Wildlife Science from
Cornell University ( 1969) , and teach Ornithology, Animal
Biology, and Conservation classes at Cal Poly. I have served
the City of San Luis Obispo on its Laguna Lake study
committee, and have worked with its consultants on the
Laguna Lake management plan.
Riparian habitat in central and southern California is
an endangered habitat. Agricultural operations and
urbanization have destroyed much of what used to exist.
Because of its rarity in our essentialy arid environment, it
supports native wildlife far in excess of what one might
expect based on its area alone. San Luis Obispo is fortunate
to have a fairly undisturbed network of riparian corridors
running through the city, and it is vitally important that
these corridors be maintained in as- natural a condition as
possible. If they are lost or further degraded, much of the
native birdlife that depends upon this habitat will also be
lost.
Riparian habitat within the city limits supports
resident native birds that breed here and are present
year-round; it is a heavily used "stop-over" habitat for
migrants that pass through our area in transit from breeding
to wintering areas; and it supports a large variety of
wintering species that breed to our north. It is important
to note that most of the species found in riparian areas
cannot be supported in the "suburban woodland" that develops
with the planting of exotic ornamental trees and shrubs.
Many of these plants support little or no insect life that
can be used by native birds (e.g. eucalyptus) , nor is the
structure of these artificial habitats appropriate for many
native species.
' THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSRY
The riparian habitats within the city also serve as
travel corridors for wildlife, connecting pieces of
appropriate habitat with well-watered native shrubbery and
small trees. Loss of these corridors can lead to severe
fragmentation of populations, and in the long run can be
expected to result in the extirpation of many native species
from the local scene. San Luis Obispo is at present in the
fortunate position of retaining much of its native birdlife,
but destruction or disturbance of the riparian systems could
well leave us with a typical urban assemblage of such
nuisance species as Starlings, House Sparrows, and Rock
Doves, with only a sprinkling of what few native species can
survive in the "suburban woodland" .
The City of San Luis Obispo has been far-sighted enough
to value its riparian habitat and to require tha-t structures
honor an appropriate set-back, both to avoid flood damage
and to preserve this vanishing habitat. I think the city is
aware that destruction of riparian habitat and compaction of
the soil by human and domestic animal intrusion is a major
cause of flooding (too much run-off when the area has been
so disturbed) . Keeping human activity away from these
corridors is also important to wildlife, since constant
disturbance by both people and domestic animals can make
this habitat useless for native species.
I commend Mr. Ashley for his persistence and endurance
in pursuing his case against the City of San Luis Obispo. He
has helped preserve a habitat critical to many of our native
species, and has thus contributed directly to maintaining
the biological diversity of the city which so many people
enjoy, and which sets this city apart from other urban areas .
in southern California.
Sincceer�ely��
Eric V. Johnson, Ph. D.
Professor of Biology
Biological Sciences Dept.
=•EP 17. '9G W:EZ YOU 'LLE F3 r.c
STATE OF CAUFORNIA-TIE RESOURCES AGENCY ASA CHNI ENT „3 GEORGE oeutmUtAK 0...e�.,
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
POST OFFICE bx q MW
i TOWNILLF, uuroRNIA 943"
' vstis3o0 , _ February 26, 199
i
I
I Mr. Mike Multari
1 Community Development Director
! City of San •Luis• Obispo
P. O.. Box •8100'• '
San Luis bbiapo, CA %93403=8100
iJ Dear Mr: Maltarii ... .
Department of Fish and .Game staff have recently been contacted by
homeowners in the La Vineda area of San Luis Obispo. Ms. Karen
Worcester, Pishery Biologist, met onsite to discuss a proposed
home to be built at 1673 La Vineda and to evaluate riparian
habitat in the area.
i We understand that this site has been declared a Sensitive Area
and a condition of the permit vas that all existing riparian
habitat be dedicated as it permanent open space easement. We agree
that these are appropriate measures for development of this site,
although riparian vegetation was already protected as a condition
of the subdivision approval.
However, we are concerned that the house designed for the site
f does not permit an adequate setback from the vegetation. It is
I our understanding that the city's a dministrativo policy is to
require a 20-foot creek setback Erom the top of bank.
Administrative policy also requires the dedication of permanent
open space easemerrts which include the entire drainage channel
crossing the site, as well 'as the 7.0-foot setback from the top of.
bank. In this case, the northeast portiori of the house will be
essentially adjacent- to thea •riparian corridor, and a deck will
cantilever slightly over the willow canopy. An open space
easement does not guarantee preservation of habitat quality, if
I human encroachment such as this is permitted.
Adequate setback from vegetation is critical if riparian corridors
are to continue to support their existing diversity of wildlife.
Enclosed is a list of species in San Luis Obispo County which
utilize riparian vegetation for some portion of their life cycle.
One hundred thirty-nine speci4?s are listed, and for 30 of these,
i
SEP 17 'wi =t::�'� -4A IT
VILLE F.': P.
Mr. Mike Multari -2- February 26, 1990
;.;riparian :vegetation..r.oprosents•.critical habitat. Without well
d.evelopedi-.-.und'isturbed .'corr.idors, the inore•:'sensitive. 'speci'ee: on
"'• this list- will no longer -tie'. found in urbanised areas::' For this
reason, we feel that exceptions to your setback policy should be
made onljP under extraordinary circumstances. Given the site of
the lot, it appears that alternatives may be 'available which would
not impact this area as much as the current design. Two of the
Architectural Review Commission criteria With which housing plans
on Sensitive Sites are to be reviewed are that 1) they generally
be built close to the street, and 2) they be built in stepped
levels to' conform to the slope of the hill. . Applying these
criteria may help. edsure that an adequate setback• from the
ripariah i•s pCBsibla.
'We have met with City planners in the past and have encouraged
them to Work with us on sensitive projects, particularly where
creek buffers may be encroached upon. Given that, the area has
been designated a Sensitive Site and residents have expressed
concern over impacts to the natural resources of the drainage, we
would have welcomed an earlier opportunity to become involved in
the review process.
We look forward to working with the City on review of future
projects such as this one. If you have questions about our
comments, please contact Karen Worcester at (805) 927-8590.
Sincerely,
0621nai Signed by
BRIAN BUNTER
' Tian Hunter
Regional Manager
KW/def Region 3
Enclosure '
San
esoenhL
� OsUnC i lCetWces£ r, Se � r
or Y T GRATES
I HAVE0B5ERVED IN
THE RIPh?IAN 70141^'
#613 er wildlife and p ants(MPt herbs) (ONF. Tb SEVERIW:
BirdsAI pave Observed in the Backyard I. GfZA`(FOx
Riparian Vegetation at My House (1586 La ,�, OPOSSUMCita Ct.) and the Applicant's House Site 3 jZACGGbN
(1673 1a Vineda) From August 1987 to May 1991
it. PRUSH IZpBI51 T
S.B1AW M10 JACb MMIT
6.POCKET GOPNER
T. KING SNAM
8.Pir5TV N FITM LIAW
9.SCx.UMERN AW( MR LIZARD
b.PAU FIC TRM I`R>&
I/. WESTERN Tana
12.UNIDENTIFII:.D BATS
1. Western tanager 23. Yellow warbler 13 MLu1-E PIER
2. House fince 24. Rufous-sided towhee llt WESTPW P"TvRnE-
3. Mockingbird 25. Red-shafted common flicker
4. Scrub jay 26. Audubon's yellow-rumped warbler
5. Brown towhee 27. White-crowned sparrow
6. Brewer's blackbird 28. California quail
7. Anna's hummingbird 29. Golden-crowned sparrow
8. Mourning dove 30. Chestnut-backed chickadee
9. American crow 31. Hutton's vireo
10. House wren 32. American kestrel*
11. Downy woodpecker 33. American robin ,
12. Bushtit 34• Lesser goldfinch
13. Hooded oriole 35. Ruby crowned kinglet
14. Black phoebe 36. Cliff swallow (catching insects above creek)
15. Buropean starling 37. Bullock's northern oriole
16. American goldfinch 38. Red-winged blackbird 1qAT1VE5flKJB5$TKEES
17. Nuttal's woodpecker 39. Black-headed grosbeak INTHIS RIPARIfIN;WN F-
18. Belted kingfisher 40. Say's phoebe /,Wua0Q(5a(ix s )
19. Turkey vulture* 41. Great horned owl 2010 6RYdAGf/d1, Umba uluri�
20. Red-shouldered hawk 42. Rock dove (domestic pioeon)z COLIXOrn,
21. tL'illov flycatcher 43. SteRer'8 jay U 3.WAST WEdAi( Quercu�s��ag�-+'fo);
22. Wilson 1s warbler 44. House sparrow f CALIF*(:AMORE UPS7R+:i M
45. Purple finch (PlatanuS racimosa)
... HOLLY-LPAvED CHEAW(Prxv,
=�fo. AshOtl+rcated f lycatner i l lc i FoNa)
17. Orar%q e-c-rowvi ed warbler 6. Star ELDF,AspRlt`i'(S u
IF. RuFou% b m mi bind mexicana)
n9 7. CPl,►F.COFFEE-8l72;'(Rhxnnu5
44. Nashville warbler S. PoIla1,J OAK(Tozi=dWron
dlYersiloW 03
9.COYOTE Brdkc4{(eacchArl
10. PLUS VAPOL4SHER85
f All birdslexcept those marked with an asterisk, were observed in t SWNFM�jSSOWf1(/ A" MATM
riparian vegetation. Those marked with an asterisk were observed flying over .5}iRU85'%'T=
the riparian area.
I. CAur PEPPQZ TTcF.E
(Schinus molle
z.APWCOT(Pr s
A rmeruac,-.,
3.y�CTb1;1AN-B6X,
(P,trospazantatQuld'�
4 PRIVET
Ct;9uslrum japonicum
ED&5 ot.- vk:x71x- rr tviv f6fl1Mr.tjMF � .Z.
73 L09 v/ I✓ee62-
p
I
SCALE. : 43 m m j.../
;
... ; _
MayjqjSb
/'i ,.•�r'��, ..'.aid,. ...... .... -�•�•'�- -•- • _ •----1----
.aA
�• - ........ . .,- • pV. R
- - --.. . - . - -- 4... i4 84
-- SrTE p stto [NC P(E
INTWOO& 10`1NTa
RIPARIA
_ -.-_ O Va-M ION EVEN
----- - - rfjE APQl.I ANs
7-
VEGETA TION LINE:
-••-..........................
.. . .. ...... ..•---
-----------f'- --yam `` �.
00174
1 z .
i
v A rACHM'Vr 3 �F
`� a 2ajIQL -4
-
�
V)j <
�o LL
xx� 2 � XXL >,, I-� 1.
CL ui`O� X kX X �� �� OCQ Lu
X �
� X ~� IV) g�-
�.� llr 4:v�•
1}
`. , X�
CL* `
L
f t�
� I
- OO
Ld
• � 1 � I �04
1XX-C
� 1
0ga
2 3 u
Uj
4
=E •` L —
cn S !
80 00079 /
wl
WIN
i42
W
•
_ 7- ,ter-.r-•v = W..
1.L --
4
t $ ,
T
` •t \ f _ 1� Y Y
• .� I ► •
1
r
v
• ♦ ♦ , i
F
7
2L., 1 �. "i 7� y�-' h Y 1 p t ✓~ t y5,\�. b -1 ✓
T
1 { t I5
.b�`''; r� - t� 1.�• �, / ,r ti..- � y.�h �'
,
1 � r i•r^. � e i
1 1 • '
. . . . . ►
♦
SO
ell
r• � r
S -j• 11�e��1' r$ vP .
y it y c
.? • by �.. 4 4 {
�.1q,
i 1
1
n
I.
r . S 1 .
t
� /Y • 1 ��: r 1{
r ■ • t .I
♦ \. Aw
s
AP
A 1
♦ • /: ► /♦
1TAcNMEnli 7
VARtOU5 CAREER 13I0061575 ' PROJECT
CAMMENT =ERs F0U&O A5 RTfACHM€ M 7
CrH� Rrr� 7 �s iN �,utn�ur -r)
Sri 7 IIZs
Dr. David J . Keil
Profamrsor ;of Botany
Biology Department
: Cal Poly University
Me. Judy Lautner :. San Luis Obispo, Ca 93402
Project Planner 10 June 1991.
Community Development Department
Post'Office Box 8100
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-87.00
Dear Mo. Lautner: ,
• I provided Mr. Ashley the attached letter of b .Mareh 1.991,
on the proposed 1673 La Vineda house project ,adjacent to riparian
vegetation of Acacia Creek to give to the' City when .the owners
reapplied for a house. Mr. Ashley said he was under the i.mpreealon
the City would notify him and others of the project before the court
ordered Environmental analysis was made so important biologioal
Information could be included i.n 'the ProJeot; as the necessity of
. a riparian setback. Apparently this 000rdination .was overlooked,
by the City and the Environmental Initial Study "has .been oomplet�d
recommending a Negative Declaration be issued for the same project
that the court nullified.
For these reasons I am now providing my March 5 project letter
to the City as part . of these oomments on the Initial Study Report.
The letter describes the, biological significance of riparian vege-
tation and the adverse Impa.ots unmiti.g6ted or inadequately miti-.
. gated developments have had on riparian habitat in California and
locally. Then, as now, I recommend the City follow their 20-foot
riparian eetback. policy. A conservation basement without a rip&� -
ian buffer may appear to proteot the vegetation; but in reality ;
It does not. Riparian plants have. evolved integrally with riparian
. animals. Just an animals rely on plants for needseities as food, •
cover, and breeding habitat, plants rely on animals for necessities
as pollination, seed disper.eal , fertili.zi.ng, and pruning. Therefore,
. a riparian setback that is necessary for preventing Adverse impabts
. to wi.ldlife (animals periodically fleeing" or permanently emigrat).ng .
from the trite) , also is necessary for preventing adverse impacts. to
riparian vegetation . resulting from the loss 'of interdependent
wildlife.
To prevent incremontally si.gni.f..icant: adverse impacts from
occuring to riparian ecosystems, each development pro.iect, small,
or large, should abide by the City' s 20-toot riparian setback.
The City's Environmental Initial Study Report does not provide
this critical. riparian setback and without it a Negative Declare=
tion should not ba issued.
Sincerely,
AL'tachment
David J. Keil
&D OF LEM
KLUIVL_
C)L POLY JUN 141gg1
City of San Luis Obispo
CALIFORNIA POLYTECHNIC STATE UNIVERSITY
SAN Luis Owsro. CA 934::;
BIOLOOICAL SCIENCES DEPARTMENT
IS05) 7%-2778
Mr. Arnold B. Jonas Eric V. Johnson, Ph. D.
Community Development Professor of Biology
Director Biological Sciences Dept.
990 Palm Street 9 June 1991
Post Office Box 8100
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
Subject: Environmental Initial Study Check List and Report of
the proposed 1673 La Vineda house project in the City
of San Luis Obispo.
Dear Mr. Jonas:
Earlier this year Mr. Ashley asked if I would provide my
opinion on this project regarding the importance of riparian
habitat to birds and other wildlife. I have attached my letter
of comment dated 26 March 1991. At that time Mr. Ashley told me
the City would inform California Department of Fish and Game,
neighbors, and him when the City was ready to begin the
Environmental Initial Study and he would then give my letter to
the City for early input. Mr. Ashley now explains that the
Environmental Initial Study has been completed without this early
public coordination.
I note that the current project is the same as before the
court action and a Bet-back has still not been provided to protect
the riparian wildlife habitat. For the biological reasons explained
in the attached letter, the Initial Study and proposed Negative
Declaration are inadequate without a riparian buffer. This deficien-
cy can be corrected by the City requiring compliance with the 20
ft. riparian set-back mitigation prescribed in their Administrative
Creek Policy. Thiswill avoid the cumulatively significant adverse
impacts associated with riparian house projects in the City and ad-
jacent areas.
If the City's 20 ft. riparian set-back mitigation is incorpo-
rated into the project, a Negative Declaration would be appropriate,
otherwise an EIR should be done to discuss the pros and cons of
unmitigated adverse impacts on riparian wildlife.
Sincerely,,/
G'
L�
Eric V. Johnson, Ph. D.
Professor. of Biology
Biological Sciences Dept.
THF CALIFORNIA 5TATF L N:E'ER SIT I'
Pete Wilson
STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENC. _ ZROMIEN EM1110113ADL Go emw
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME -
2201 GARDEN ROAD u
—1 MREY, CA 93940
q 649-2870
- kEl;tivc_
JUN 1? 1991
June 13, 1991 CO w San Luis vasa
Ms. Judy Lautner, Associate Planner
City of San Luis Obispo
P.O. Box 8100
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
Dear Ms. Lautner:
Initial study on 1673 La Vineda, San Luis Obispo
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the initial study for
the subject project, which includes construction of a single-family
home on a 20,460 square-foot site. The site slopes from the street
down to Acacia Creek, which supports mature riparian vegetation
and associated wildlife.
On February 26, 1990, after the City's issuance of a building
permit, the Department sent your Community Development Director a
letter expressing our concern about the lack of riparian setback
for this project, the sensitivity of this type of habitat, and our
recommendation that exceptions to this setback be granted only
under extraordinary circumstances. Since that time, the City was
sued by a concerned resident regarding inadequate compliance with
the CEQA process; since the project site had been declared a
"sensitive site", a categorical exemption was not appropriate.
The existing permit was revoked as a result of this suit. The new
project appears to be essentially identical to the old one, with
the exception that it is undergoing CEQA review.
The Initial Study checklist identifies that possible adverse
effects to plant life, animal life, and aesthetics may exist. We
are concerned however, that in the Initial Study checklist, the
project is not identified as being in conflict with adopted plans
and goals of the community and neighborhood where it is located.
It is certainly nonconforming with the City's Hillside Planning
Guidelines which if complied with, as we mentioned in our letter of
2/26/90, would allow the house to more easily meet setback
requirements. It also does not conform with the City's
Administrative Creek Policy, which identifies that riparian
1
Ms. Judy Lautner, Associate Planner June 13, 1991
setbacks less than 20 feet may be acceptable if 1) the channel is
judged not to be a significant riparian corridor; 2) the lot is
small, and reasonable development without some exception is
impossible; or 3) the lot is a small infill site where a clear
pattern of lesser setbacks has been established on both sides of
the lot along the creek. With respect to these three items, both
our Department and your consultant identified the habitat onsite as
being of significant value, all neighboring houses are set back at
least twenty feet from the riparian vegetation, and the lot is
quite sizeable. It is our understanding the original rationale
for permitting the exception was that the owners were elderly and
desired a single level living area. This should be somewhat less
of a consideration now, as the lot is for sale and will
apparently not be the home of the current owners.
Item P10 of the Inital Study checklist has not been identified as
.an impact, and yet this more than any other item is of concern to
our Department. This checklist item addresses those impacts
which are individually limited, but which are cumulatively
considerable. Though this is a small project, if exceptions to
setback standards were to be granted to every development on the
creek, the resultant impacts to the riparian corridor and the
sensitive species which inhabit it would be substantial. This
item should be identified as an impact.
We believe that in instances where setbacks can readily be
met, exceptions should be granted only when there is substantial
cause. In our opinion the City has not shown adequate cause to
justify this exemption. Setbacks which are designed to protect
habitat should be given at least as much consideration as those
designed to meet street and property line standards.
We are extremely concerned and disagree with the biological
conclusion drawn by your consultant, which implies that wildlife
which are disturbed by the encroaching development will simply
move, and that because of existing development sensitive species
are no longer present anyway. We disagree with this conclusion.
The species list developed by a concerned neighbor, . which
includes several sensitive species, speaks for the biological
diversity of the area. The whole purpose of establishing
setbacks is to minimize disturbance to these species, perpetuate
wildlife resources in their natural habitat, and maintain
ecological diversity. Sensitive species will not remain in the
corridor if disturbed, which is the precise reason we recommend
that adequate setbacks be maintained.
In the Summary of Initial Study Findings (dated April 19, 1991) , to
protect wildlife the nearest deck was to be set back ten feet at a
minimum from the edge of the riparian area. We find it interesting
that in the second issuance of the Summary of Initial Findings
project (5/9/91) , this recommendation was actually removed,
perhaps based on the statement by your consultant that he felt
the amount of disturbance to wildlife would be the same at either
2
Ms. Judy Lautner, Ass( to Planner June 13, 1991
ten feet or four feet, the original setback. We agree .that both
.setbacks are inadequate, and as such neither may accomplish the
desired buffering effect. However, particularly if vegetation
may at some point be cleared for fire control purposes, a ten
foot buffer is definitely more desireable than a four foot
buffer, and we do not understand why the City deleted this
mitigation measure.
It is our understanding that a condition of the subdivision tract
map was that existing riparian vegetation was not to be removed.
City administrative policy also requires dedication of open space
easements which include the entire drainage. channel as well as a 20
foot setback. Mitigation recommended in the Initial Study
Findings for this specific project state that the property owner
shall grant the City an easement for .the riparian area only, and
that vegetation may not be removed except for fire protection or
other hazards, or for the eliminaticn of diseased growth with
approval from the Community Development Director. Therefore, it
appears that mitigation measures proposed to offset the impacts
of the project are less protective than those already in place
for buildings outside the 20 foot buffer. In order to truly
offset impacts, it would be appropriate for the owner to
additionally create and maintain riparian habitat elsewhere on
the drainage, if development must occur within the twenty
foot setback. However, the most desireable form of mitigation is
avoidance, and we therefore recommend that the structure be
redesigned to remain outside the twenty foot buffer entirely,
thus complying with city policies.
If you have questions regarding these comments, please contact
Karen Worcester, Fishery Biologist, P.O. Box 1535, Morro Bay, CA
93443; telephone (805) 772-4122 .
Sincerely,
h Brian Hunter
(! Regional Manager
Region 3
cc: Worcester
KW:KRA/ts
3
of z ar-S
STREAM CONSCIOUSNESS
LOCAL AFFILIATE OF THE URBAN CREEKS COUNCIL
531 Highland Dr.
Los 0sos, CA 93402
Arnold Jonas RECEIVLL.
Community Development Director
cQty of San Luis Obispo JUN 131991
Palm m St. rAy o1 Sen Luis ODispc
San Luis Obispo. CA 93401
June 12. 1991
Dear Air. Jonas;
We ,would like to take this opportunity to comment on the Negative
Declaration and mitigation measures for the project at 1673 La Vineda fER 6-
Yl.
We have reviewed most if not all of the pertinent documents surrounding
this project. We would call your attention to the fact that the California
Department of Fish and Game, Dr. David Keil, and Dr. Eric Johnson all strongly
recommend maintaining a full minimum setback of 20 feet from the riparian
vegetation. We concur with their recommendations.
The riparian corridor in question is without a doubt of significant biological
value. The width of the vegetation and the species noted in the area attest
to this. Dr. Eric Johnson eloquently outlines the reasons for maintaining the
riparian corridors in as natural a state as possible. The Administrative
Creek Polic}' was devised to set guidelines for treatment of riparian corridors
under consideration for development. Chile it does not have the force of
law that an ordinance has. it can be a useful tool to protect the integrity of
the riparian habitat if it is used consistently:
The Administrative Creek Policy allows exceptions to the 20 foot set-back
and is quite explicit in the criteria that should exist before an exception is
granted. The project in question meets none of the criteria for reduced
setbacks. In fact. it appears that the project could easily be moved forward
on the lot to avoid encroaching upon and impacting the habitat. A re-design
of the project could accomplish all goals for the project. This seems far
preferable to reducing the allowable riparian setback to 1 foot.
We would like to call your attention to the work in progress on the drafting
of an ordinance for the protection of riparian habitat. It is the chipping
away at habitat that must be stemmed if the habitat is to retain significant
wildlife value. If the Administrative Policy were actually enforced as
written, perhaps there would not be a need for such an ordinance. It is
exceptions such as the one under consideration that make the need for such
an ordinance apparent.
Of particular concern is the condition that states that removal of vegetation
may take place for reasons of fire protection. It is my understanding that
the Fire Chief may. require the removal of any tree branches within 20 feet
of a structure. This may result in the significant loss of Wiuow, cover along
portions of the corridor. When a structure is set close to the riparian habitat
(in this case as close as l foot), the issue of impact on the habitat becomes an
ongoing issue. The stage becomes set for continuing maintenance and
pruning of the trees since they are growing so close to the living quarters.
With a greater setback of the house from trees. the need for continual
pruning and impact decreases substantially. A riparian corridor should be
an amenity for housing. providing the occupants with an opportunity to
observe wildlife. By crowding the two together, we suspect that the human
and wildlife needs will continue to collide. Setbacks allow the buffer to
alleviate these stresses. Fere the structure to be moved 20 feet from the
vegetation. these would no longer be issues.
While removal or disturbance of habitat near one single family dwelling may
not appear to have much impact upon the habitat, one must look at the
cumulative impact of many such projects. One must also look at the
precedent one is setting for future development along riparian corridors. Let
us set the best of examples.
Should you have any questions, please contact me at 528-0833. Thank you
for your consideration.
Sincerely.
Judy Neuhauser
Or 7 LMW ger Zachary
KECLIVL_ eriends of Salinas River
1800 Traffic Way
JUN 17 1991 Atascadero, Ca. 93422
City o+San Luis obispc. June 15 , 19 91
-.q._. n•velD'_
Mr. Arnold B. Jonas
Director of Community Development
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93403
Dear Mr. Jonas:
I am commenting on the 1673 La Vineda project with regards to the impor-
tance of preserving the riparian habitat along Acacia Creek in San Luis
Obispo.
I have a B.A. degree from Long Beach State University (1970) and pre-
sently teach Biology and Earth Science at Atascadero High School . I am
an active member in North Cuesta Audubon Society and spend much time ob-
serving Avian life in S.L.O. Co. I 've helped the city of Atascadero
with their creekway project by being a member of their Creek Planning
and Mapping Committee. Preserving what is left of .our riparian habitat
is a goal of which I 'm personally committed. Keeping the riparian eco-
system "in tack" is very important because much of this community has
already been infringed upon and destroyed.
Presently, I 'm involved in a newly formed group called "Friends of Sal-
inas River" . Our objective is to preserve the Salinas River and its
tributaries. We are emphasizing the importance of preserving the Sal-
inas River watershed, its wildlife and natural resources. Preserving
the habitat is the first step in preserving the organisms that are a
part of it.
Concerning the 1673 La Vineda project, I recommend:
1 . Adhere to the city's established 20 ft. riparian set-back policy.
2 . The conservation easement needs to be maintained as to no reduction
of riparian vegetation.
3. That the city address the biological questions in the "Environmen-
.tal Initial Study Checklist" under "K and L" about the impacts upon
plant and animal life.
4. The city should consider the cumulative significant impacts for
smaller creekside projects adjacent to critical riparian habitat.
5 . Consider the adverse long term effects of this project to wildlife
and its habitat.
Sometimes man invades ecosystems without understanding his actions.
Preserving riparian habitats will in the long term bene.f.it the integrity
of the natural and man-made worlds. Please consider my points.
Sincerely,
er Zachary
Friends of Salinas River
aF 7 ��25
Morro Coast Audubon Society, Inc.
A Non-Profit Organization
kECEIVt4
` JUN 14
1991
Crtr of San Luis obLW
Mr. ArTOld B. Jonas Community Development Director -- -'
990 Palm St. P.O. Box 8100
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
Dear Mr. Jonas,
It has been recently brought to my attention (Mr. Phil
Ashley) that a proposed home site development at 1673 La Vineda
in SLO will have signifcant impact upon a riparian habitat since
the city' s own 20 foot riparian setback policy is being
circumvented. Having returned from vacation, I have learned of
this matter only lately and wish to make my comments brief since
I have little time to comment more fully. This should not
suggest that I am any less concerned.
Others (Drs. Eric Johnson and David Keil) have written of
the value of the riparian area and I wish to concur with them.
The riparian habitat is sensitive and endangered.
The real issue is why the city has chosen to deny its own
policy on riparian setback and allow this project to proceed with
only a 1 ' setback and no adequate mitigation. The alternatives
show how a home of similar design can be built on the existing
lot while maintaining a 20 ' setback. This setback would help to
protect sensitive riparian species.
As an organization committed to the protection of organisms
and their. habitats and we strongly suggest that you reconsider
this issue and elect to protect this valuable habitat. Thank you
for your consideration in this matter.
Ron M. Ruppert
President
Post Office Box 160 • Morro Bay, California 93442
7 OF ' L ER'EZ
THE CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY
June 15, 1991
To: Mr. Mike Multari
Community Development Director
City of San Luis Obispo
From: David H. Chipping
Conservation Co-Chair '
San Luis Obispo Chapter
California Native Plant Society
999 Pismo Ave,Los Osos, CA 93402
Re: Project ER 6-91, 1673 LaVineda
The California Native Plant Society has reviewed the check list for environmental initial
study, the environmental initial study,and subsequent study reviews of this project, and
also the mitigated negative declaration for the project.
Mr. Ashley has provided us with copies of letters from Drs. Johnson and Keil,and from
the Dept. of Fish and Game.The California Native Plant Society concurs with the sense of
all of these letters,in so much as we strongly object to the violation of the 20 ft. setback
requirement for creeks and riparian zones. We feel that the setback is needed to conserve
the integrity of the zones, and to avoid intrusion of disturbance into the zone. We are
especially concerned that future fire safety requirements may lead to even greater incursion.
We particularly object to the comments in Council Agenda Report that, simply because
setback policy is administrative rather than an ordinance requirement, the policy can be
violated. There is a reason for the policy,albeit administrative, and rbat is that riparian
communities are becoming increasingly rare, and that they are conceived to have value. We
note also that the same floor area for the house could be built without setback violation,and
therefore we we see no justification to policy violation in this particular case.
Sincerely
JA14. ` --)
Dr. David H. Chipping
DEDICATED TO THE PRESERVATION OF CALIFORNIA NATIVE FLORA