HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/16/1993, 3 - ARC 162-92: APPEAL OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION'S ACTION GRANTING SCHEMATIC APPROVAL TO A NEW CHURCH ON THE EAST SIDE OF JOHNSON AVENUE, JUST NORTH OF GENERAL HOSPITAL. III�IyIIII�IIIIIIIIII.II�III r MEETING DATE:
cityo san Is oBIspo 2,L,;
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER:
0
FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Developmentt, Director
BY: Judith Lautn , Associate Planner :.__.
SUBJECT: ARC 162-92 : Appeal of Architectural Review Commission's
action granting schematic approval to a new church on the
east side of Johnson Avenue, just north of General
Hospital.
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution denying the appeal, thereby upholding the
Architectural Review Commission's action.
DISCUSSION
Background
The Architectural Review Commission reviewed this project on two
occasions, and on January 19 , 1993 , granted schematic approval.
Phil Ashley appealed the approval, based on concerns about the
proposed setback of the building and parking lots from the riparian
vegetation. Appeals of Architectural Review Commission actions are
heard by the Council.
Data Summary
Address: 2070 Fixlini Street
Applicant/property owner: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day
Saints
Representative: Studio Design Group (David Brannon)
Appellant: Phil Ashley
Zoning: R-1
General plan: Low-density residential
Environmental status: Negative declaration, with mitigation,
granted January 12, 1993 .
Project action deadline: May 21, 1993
Site description
The lot is a 4 . 65-acre sloping site, on the easterly side of
Johnson Avenue, just north of County General Hospital. Numerous
trees exist on the site, mostly near the southerly and easterly
property lines. A natural spring near the northeasterly corner of
the site was diverted several years ago. A pipe now channels water
from the spring to the southeasterly portion of the site, where it
runs downhill, creating a waterway lined by riparian growth.
Additional non-riparian trees have been planted near the waterway
over the years.
The site is downhill from General Hospital, and shares the creek
channel with the hospital site. To the north is a residential
city of san 1 s oBispo
COUNCIL. AGENDA REPORT
ARC 162-92
2070 Fixlini Street
Page 2
neighborhood, containing low-density housing, with some apartments
close to Johnson Avenue. Johnson Avenue is an arterial street that
moves traffic between the north and south ends of the city. It is
therefore heavily used on weekdays, less so on weekends. The site
is across from the Johnson Avenue Baptist Church, two apartments,
and a small office.
Project description
The project is a two-level, 18, 200-square-foot church to be built
approximately in the center of the site, about 150' back from the
street property line. Parking is to be provided both near the
street (set back about 35' from the property line) and behind the
building. The average height of the church is about 321 , which
means. it is higher than 32 ' where it faces Johnson Avenue (about
44' at worst) and lower (about 281 ) at the rear.
Access is to be provided from a driveway off Johnson Avenue.
Emergency and pedestrian access is available from Fixlini Street.
EVALUATION
1. The review process. The request requires:
I
* environmental review. The Community Development Director
has granted a negative declaration of environmental
impact. The final action on the environmental study will
be taken by the Architectural Review Commission, at the
time it grants final approval. Final architectural
review is scheduled to follow Planning commission use
permit review, so that the two commissions' decisions are
consistent.
* architectural review. The architectural review process
is in two steps: schematic and final. Schematic
approval is not a formal approval. It is an
acknowledgment by the Commission that the basic site
planning and footprint of the building is acceptable.
* planning commission review. Churches require a Planning
Commission use permit in the R-1 zone. Use permit review
assures that access is from a major street and site
planning issues are resolved.
The Architectural Review Commission has reviewed the project
twice. The Planning commission has not yet seen the project.
That review is tentatively scheduled for March 10, 1993 .
������HituifilllUlpa �@�N city of San ' Is OBIspo
MOMIM
aonow COUNCIL AGENDA REPM T
ARC 162-92
2070 Fixlini Street
Page 3
2 . The appeal. The appellant has not objected to the use or any
other aspect of the project. The appeal is concerned solely
with the setback from riparian vegetation.
The proposed setback varies from 0' to 60' from the riparian
vegetation, averaging about 201 . The appellant wants to see
a minimum 20' setback from the riparian vegetation. The
appellant also asks if the concept of "average" setback was
justification for the approval of the proposed variable
setback. The answer is no. The determination that the
proposed setback was adequate was based on several factors,
discussed further below.
3 . The creek policy. The. City Council adopted an administrative
creek policy a few years ago. A copy of the policy is attached
to this report. The environmental initial study (also
attached) includes an evaluation of this creek in relation to
the policy, and concludes that the proposed setback from the
riparian habitat is acceptable.
The creek policy says:
New structures, including parking lots, should generally
be set back at least 20' from the top of bank. "Top of
bank" means the physical top of bank (ie: where the more
steeply eroded bank begins to flatten to conform with the
terrain not cut by the water flow) . If the bank is
terraced, the highest step is the top of bank, not any
intermediate step. (In some cases, the top of bank will
not be apparent; the Director, Principal Planner or
Long-range Planner should be consulted to help determine
a reasonable line,considering such variables as the top
of bank on the other side of the creek, the extent of
riparian vegetation and the 100-year flood line. )
The policy goes on to say that greater setbacks may be
required if significant riparian vegetation extends beyond the
20-foot line. It also notes cases where a lesser setback may
be allowed.
In this case, the channel itself is narrow, only a few feet
wide, and shallow. All structures and parking lots are set
back more than 20' from the top of bank. Because of the rich
riparian vegetation existing on the southwestern corner of the
site, a greater than 20' setback from the top of bank seems
appropriate. In the present case, the setback ranges from
about 25' to about 60' from the top of bank. Staff concluded,
in the initial study, that this setback is adequate to protect
+��H��y►I►�IIIIIIUIp°�1°�����I city of San l - s OBISpo
i COUNCIL. AGENDA REPSORT
ARC 162-92
2070 Fix1ini Street
Page 4
existing vegetation and allow infill vegetation to develop,
thereby providing a vegetative buffer from the creek itself.
This buffer , area can be a home to many birds and small
animals. It is unlikely that this creek can serve as part of
a significant corridor for larger animals, such as deer, since
it is interrupted by a major street, and culverted directly
across that street. If, in the future, that culvert were to
be removed and the channel opened; then it may be used by
migratory riparian birds and those small animals willing to
cross the street.
The creek policy is not an ordinance. It was deliberately
written with flexibility in it, because of the unique nature
of creeks and the need to evaluate each case on its own
merits. In this case, the development leaves a large portion
of the site untouched. This portion includes the entire
riparian corridor plus the uphill part of the site, which
includes a row of eucalyptus trees. Excluding setbacks, 22%
of the site is devoted to existing and new plants.
Modifications requested by the ARC, including narrowing the
driveway to 25' where possible, will increase planting areas
further. The landscape plan shows additional plantings of
California sycamores and Coast live oaks, along with
compatible shrubs, thereby increasing the riparian habitat
area. If mitigation is needed for a lesser setback, this
additional planting will serve.
The Council should look at the development as a whole, rather
than only the portion between the creek center and the
improvements, to determine if the natural creek habitat is
being degraded or enhanced by this project. The development
will result in an improved habitat from that which currently
exists, in spite of the increased intensity of use.
ALTERNATIVES
The Council may adopt a resolution approving the appeal, thereby
reversing the Architectural Review Commission's action, based on
finding that a minimum 20' setback from the riparian vegetation at
all points is needed for this project. The initial study will be
revised to reflect this action, and the Architectural Review
Commission and Planning Commission will be informed of the need to
maintain that setback, during their subsequent reviews.
The Council may continue action on the appeal, with direction to
staff and the applicants.
�u►►�i��►�IUIIIIII�IpiIlUlll city of san s osispo
ni6 COUNCIL AGENDA RET
ARC 162-92
2070 Fixlini Street
Page 5
OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
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.
Attached:
Vicinity map
Draft resolutions
Architectural Review Commission report for January 19, 1993
Initial study
Administrative creek policy
Draft minutes of January 19, 1993 ARC meeting
Appeal statement
Response from applicant's representative
I
<� O O O ,NO OR i
O
0 0 0@ o ° o C/ -40
° o �a 0 O ° 0 0 p$ ° R-1
4 0
°
O ° ��� O •" � n �Z � /
0 ��,y 0 � , R-1
J0
2 ° , ° ° °
o
0 �0 ��` 0��'• 0 0 C/OS-40
o
.� 0 _
t0 1 O �► O - - olih
}
O -
_ _ _
O -
- 1
w � ,
i
v
\
,
�'•ti4
R-1
r „
♦�
t "
PF
OUNTY
o sz.' - HOSPI-rAL
° O iJN-
iA r S 1L
O •�♦ Y•.
PF-
0 � c
y .•• 00
o
VICINITY MAP ARC162-92 NORTH
2070 FIXLINI
Denying Appeal
RESOLUTION NO. (1993 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 SCHEMATICALLY A CHURCH ON A LARGE SITE,
ON THE EAST SIDE OF JOHNSON AVENUE,
NORTH OF GENERAL HOSPITAL
(ARC 162-92)
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 church (ARC 162-92), the
Architectural Review Commission's action, staff recommendations and reports thereon,
makes the following findings:
1. The proposed project will 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
project, 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.
3. There is no substantial evidence that approval of this project will have the
cumulative environmental effect of setting a precedent of failing to abide by
the Administrative Creek Policy, for these reasons:
First, this project falls within the lesser setback criteria of the Administrative
creek Policy because: (1) the channel in question has been degraded
downstream and is not judged to be a significant riparian corridor; 2)
adequate buffer area has been provided for those portions of the creek corridor
where riparian vegetative growth is immature and has good potential to
expand; and (3) the lot is an infill site where an irregular pattern of setbacks
has been established. ,
Second, the Administrative Creek Policy expressly recognizes that the Policy
is to be a guideline which can be departed from when the intent can be met
through alternative approaches. In this case, the varying setback provided and
the additional planting on the site with native, riparian species, is such an
Resolution No. (1993 Series)
ARC 162-92: 2070 Fixlini Street
Page 2
alternative approach. Therefore, the Administrative Creek Policy has been
followed.
4. The existence of a public controversy over the environmental effects of the
project does not require the preparation of an environmental impact report
because there is no substantial evidence before this Council that the project
may have a significant effect on the environment.
Moreover, those opposing the project have expressed a general desire for strict
adherence to creek setback policies in general, but they have failed to
adequately analyze this particular Administrative Creek Policy. Therefore, the
opponents' fears and desires about this project lack an objective basis for
challenge and do not rise to the level of a serious public controversy. (Perley,
supra, 137 Ca1.App.3d at 436; Newberry Springs v. San Bernardino (1984),
150 Cal.App.3d 740, 749, 198 Cal.Rptr. 100, 105.)
5. The proposed church's setback from the creek and from the riparian vegetation
is consistent with other creek setbacks approved by the City in the vicinity.
SECTION 2. Appeal denied. The appeal of the Architectural Review
Commission's action is hereby denied, and the church is schematically approved with
direction as given by the Architectural Review Commission.
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 1993.
'2
Resolution No. (1993 Series)
ARC 162-92: 2070 Fixlini Street
Page 3
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED:
City dministrative Officer
it AttorVey
Community Develo nt Director
Approving Appeal
RESOLUTION N0. (1993 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
APPROVING AN APPEAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
COMMISSION'S ACTION, THEREBY REQUIRING A 20' MINIMUM SETBACK
FROM THE EDGE OF RIPARIAN VEGETATION, FOR A CHURCH
ON THE EAST SIDE OF JOHNSON AVENUE,
NORTH OF GENERAL HOSPITAL (ARC 162-92)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findinzs. That this council, after consideration of public
testimony, the applicant's appeal, and the Architectural Review Commission's action;
staff recommendations and reports thereon, makes the following findings:
1. The proposed church, as amended by the additional mitigation noted below,
will not harm the health, safety, or welfare of persons in the vicinity.
2. There is no substantial evidence that the proposed church, as amended by the
additional mitigation noted below, will have a significant effect on the
environment and hereby is granted a negative declaration of environmental
impact.
SECTION 2. The environmental initial study is hereby amended by the
replacement of mitigation measure no. 6 with the following:
6. All parking lots and buildings must be set back a minimum of 20' from the
edge of riparian vegetation, as it existed January 29, 1993.
SECTION 3. The appeal is hereby approved and the proposed church is
approved as amended by the above mitigation measure.
Resolution no. (1993 Series)
2070 Fixlini Street: ARC 162-92
Page 2
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 , 1993.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED:
City A ministrative Officer
,Cit Atto ey
Community Devel ent Director
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ITEM x 2
BY: Judith Lautner, Associate Planner MEETING DATE: January 19, 1993
FILE NUMBER: ARC 162-92
PROJECT ADDRESS: 2070 Fixlini Street
SUBJECT: Removal of house and construction of church on a large lot on the east side of Johnson
Avenue, just north of General Hospital.
SUINEMARY RECONSI[ENDATION
Grant schematic approval, with direction on bicycle spaces and lockers, the pedestrian gate on Fixlini,
a pedestrian pathway from Johnson Avenue, and any other areas of concern to the Commission.
BACKGROUNI)
Situation
The applicants want to build a large church on a large lot, just below General Hospital. Approvals
needed are:
* Environmental review;
....Planning-Commission.use permit.to allow..a.church in.the-R-1 zone;:and.to allow.a,32:'=high building:-.
where 25' is the normal height limit;
zchiEectural:Review�. : .:}, :.r,
::., ..
The ARC first reviewed the project on November 9, 1992, and continued it with direction on several
items. The 21-day review period for the environmental initial study has not yet elapsed. Planning
Commission review is scheduled to follow the ARC's schematic review.
Data summary
Address: 2070 Fixlini Street
Applicant/property owner: Church of Jesus Christ of. Latter-Day Saints
Representative: Studio Design Group (David Brannon)
Zoning: R-1
�.. General"plan:= Low�deitsity iesiderrtial` °h ... .a., . .,_: .,,;:.�:.. .. r:::,. s.. :.�..- J.
Environmental status: Negative declaration, with mitigation, granted January 12, 1993.
Project action deadline: May 21, 1993
Site description
The lot is a 4.65-acre sloping site, on the easterly side of Johnson Avenue,just north of County General
Hospital. Numerous trees exist on the site, mostly near the southerly and easterly property lines. A
natural spring near the northeasterly corner of the site was diverted several years ago. A pipe now
channels water from the spring to the southeasterly portion of the site, where it runs downhill, creating
e /�
ARC 162.92
2070 Fixlini Street
Page 2
a waterway lined by riparian growth. Additional non-riparian trees have been planted near the
waterway over the years.
The site is downhill from General Hospital, and shares the creek channel with the hospital site. To the
north is a residential neighborhood, containing low-density housing, with some apartments close to
Johnson Avenue. Johnson Avenue is an arterial street that moves traffic between the north and south
ends of the city. It is therefore heavily used on weekdays, less so on weekends. The site is across
from the Johnson Avenue Baptist Church, two apartments, and a small office.
Project description
The project is a two-level, 18,200-square-foot church to be built approximately in the center of the site,
about 150' back from the street property line. Parkins is to be provided both near the street (set back
about 35' from the property line) and behind the building. The average height of the church is about
32', which means it is higher than 32' where it faces Johnson Avenue (about 44' at %worst) and lower
(about.28').at,the.rear.
Access is to be provided from a driveway off Johnson Avenue. Emergency and pedestrian access is
available from Fixlini Street. Additional project information is provided in the mo letters from the
representative, attached.
PREVIOUS REVIEW_
,!.i..'..:....I....y.r�, •..'..T:-i ':Iu ..•i C.'.`-.a;.9� ....V .. .. n1fw .. 1'....�.ir.
The ARC reviewed this on November 9, 1992, and continued it. The continuance was with direction
to "re-examine pedestrian prolilem§ look:af night lighting and1Johnson Avenue access consider moving. .
fhe driveway�a'way'frorn adjomi ing homes, iirther step the'massing of the building on the'do;ril ill side;
look at relocating the entry, break up the long roof line, and shift the building to the south."
The plans' have been revised to respond to this direction. The following paragraphs explain what
changes have been made and why others have not.
EVALUATION
1. Pedestrian problems. Several neighbors spoke at the November meeting. Some were concerned
that.high school students,attending early monung seminaries, may.walk from,the church to school
along Fixlini Street. They said their primary concern is that there are no sidewalks on Fixlini, and
;.:.,:.. ....,...:.:..this,influx...of..pede4trians..coulA,..be.:hazardous.- :Qther.-,neighbors-thought:pedestrian:access�from
Fixlini is desirable.
The church estimates. 35 students. will attend seminary from 6:30 to 7:30 a.m. .each .weekday
morning. Some of these students will drive to the church, and therefore would drive down Johnson
to the school. It is likely that the remainder would indeed walk down Fixlini, as it is the easiest
path to the school.
Staff agrees that a large number of students heading down Fixlini could be an annoyance for the
neighbors and would require residents to back vehicles on the street more carefully. However, the
students would be on the street for ten to fifteen minutes each day, or less, and the number of
students using this route would not be expected to exceed 25 on any one day. On balance, the
• . 3-/3
ARC 162-92
2070 Fixlini Street
Page 3
safety problem does not seem large. Requiring a sidewalk off-site would not be within the purview
of this Commission, but may be considered by the Planning Commission in its review of the use
permit.
The environmental initial study requires that Fixlini Street be available for pedestrian and bicycle
traffic to the site, as a method to encourage walking and bicycling for those who live near the
church. Staff believes the benefits of keeping Fixlini open for pedestrians and bicyclists outweigh
the disadvantages.
2. Night lighting. The Commission and neighbors expressed concern about possible glare from lights,
if the church is to be lit all night. The applicant plans to install timers on all outdoor lights. so that
they will turn off at about 10:30 at night, except when a special event requires that they remain on
longer. Landscaping and fencing should eliminate glare from headlights. A miti_a:ion measure of
the initial study requires that the lights be timed as proposed by the applicant. The combination of
landscape screening and timed lighting should eliminate any concerns about night lighting.
3. Johnson Avenue access. Neighbors and some members of the Commission were concerned about
the proposed vehicle access to the church from Johnson Avenue, saying that left turns would be
difficult and more accidents may happen because of the speed of vehicles travelling on Johnson.
Neighbors, staff, and the applicant feel that access from Fixlini is inappropriate, since it would draw
cars through that narrow residential street. The only other alternative is to have access by way of
Bishop Street, through County-ownedproperty (the General Hospital site). The County is unwilling
to pfovide that access, since the fate of the hospital and future plans for the site are as yet unknown.
Therefore, the only available access is Johnson Avenue. The City cannot force an applicant to
provide access that is not possible to obtain.
The question then becomes, where on the Johnson frontage is the best location for a driveway?
Northbound (downhill) traffic, which is faster, approaches the site after cresting the hill at the
Bishop Street intersection. A driver's ability to see is impaired while on top of the hill, and
improves as she continues downhill. Therefore, the best location for a driveway, from a safety
standpoint, is the farthest location from the Bishop Street intersection. The driveway is located near ..
the northerly property line, and hence is located appropriately from this point of view.
A related concern is left-turns into the site from the southbound lane. Since the site is opposite the
Johnson Avenue Baptist Church, there are likely to be persons turning left into both driveways at
approximately the same time. Because of the speed of traffic on Johnson, turns from the left lane
•- . - can..behazardous..
The City's traffic engineer says that a left-turn lane can be created between the two churches, with
removal of some parking and narrowing of.traffic lanes.. To assist in creating a left-turn lane, one
mitigation measure of the environmental study requires the applicant to fund the cost of restriping.
The timing of the restriping would be left to the City, so that it will be done when it is determined
to be justified.
Another mitigation measure calls for scheduling Sunday services so that members do not arrive or
leave at the same time as members of the Baptist church. The applicant offered this solution, which
should minimize conflicts.
ARC 162-92
2070 Fixlini Street
Page 4
4. Driveway movement. The driveway was previously located as close as five feet from the northerly
property line. The Commission and neighbors felt that vehicles driving in and out of the site,
especially at night, could create noise and headlight problems for the nearest residents. Some
residents and Commissioners suggested moving the driveway to the southerly (uphill) side of the
site, to be as far as possible from residences. Placing a driveway on the opposite side of the site
would require removal of some significant trees and would essentially destroy the existing riparian
habitat. The City's long-range planner has reviewed this suggestion and strongly opposes it
(comments attached). Further, such a location would be more hazardous from a traffic safety point
of view.
The representative has changed the plans to show a driveway that would be maintain a twelve-foot
U istance from the property line, where it is adjacent to homes. This is an increase of seven feet,
and is an adequate area to plant sizable trees. A six-foot-high wooden fence is also proposed to
be built along the property line, where fencing does not now exist. The combination of planting and
fencing, and the distance from the driveway to the homes, should be adequate to protect these
residents from headlight glare and engine noise.
5. Building shift. The ARC asked the applicant to shift the building to the south and relocate the
entry, to limit noise that would reach neighbors. The applicant has moved the building a few feet
to the south. Staff would oppose any further movement in that direction, unless the building were
moved uphill, because a southerly shift would cause the building to intrude into the riparian area.
As it now sits, the building is about 70' from the nearest residence, and the closest doorway is about
85''from that residence. The primary entry doors are 110 feet from the residence. This distance
is about the same as the width of two typical residential lots, and should provide adequate noise
buffeting: :.
•...:,,+ +a: . :,.:T.'.'p.•.: .q: �.�il•.. ;w.:i•4+.'4-.%s°'�;'.�:,i..ew:1.;...� C. "� ;• w+..�.°!
6. Building design modifications. The Commission directed the applicant to "further step the massing
of the building on the downhill side and break up the long roof line". These changes have not been
made. The Johnson Avenue elevation has been "softened" by the development of a patio with a wall
in front of the three lower arched windows. Planters should further reduce the impact of this
elevation. ..
Staff concurs.that the building is large, especially when viewed from Johnson Avenue. However,
it is set back from the street at least 150'. Staff feels the elevations give the impression that the
building will look.larger.than it really will.- Sections through the site and adjoining sites:showthe..
relationship of this building to nearby residences and to the hospital. Existing and proposed
..,... . .:. vegetation.:will..also screen large,portions:o€the.building.from.ft-street.. S.taff•continues.,.Io.believe..: .::. .
the building is in proportion to the site.
One Commissioner expressed a concern that the building is not designed for a.hillside location.; It.
appears to be a building designed for a flat site, fitted to a sloping site. The site is surrounded by
homes and public buildings, many of which are higher in elevation than the proposed church, and
few of which are "hillside designs". The site is sloping, but does not meet the definition of "hillside
site" as discussed in the City's land use element.
Staff agrees that a design that is more harmonious with the slope and the vegetation may be
preferable for the viewer. But the proposal is compatible with surrounding buildings, and therefore
staff is hesitant to recommend radical chanes.
ARC: 162-92
2070 Fixlini Street
Page 5
7. Landscaping. The landscape design changes were not complete at the time this report was being
written. The intent of the changes is to provide a dense screen along the northerly property line,
and to blend with and complement the existing riparian vegetation. The landscape plans will be
brought to the meeting by the applicant's representative. Commissioners whould review these plans
and point out any concerns to the representative.
8. The drainage question. Many neighbors were concerned that the presence of underground springs
on property in this area, and specifically those on this site, would mean greater drainage problems
for them if this project is built. The short answer to this question is that the City's building codes
require soils reports to assure that foundations are designed correctly, and require that there be no
increase in drainage from the site to surrounding properties. The proposed changes are expected
to improve drainage from the site, lessening some of the impacts on neighbors. It is not the ARC•s
purview to review drainage plans.
9. Walkway and bike spaces. To encourage walking and bicycling to the church, the initial study
calls for the addition of 20 bicycle parking spaces and lockable storage for four bicycles_. It also
requires a pedestrian pathway from Johnson. These items should be shown on final plans.
OTHER DEPARTMENT CONEMENTS
The Fire and Public Works Departments note that water pressure is not adequate for the use. New
_ water lines and additional hydrants will be required. One of these hydrants is expected to be placed on
the southerly eh odrj x iai`Street, where it will benefit existing development on this street, as well as
the new building. The Engineering staff finds the driveway location acceptable. Other comments will
be addressed through the building permit process; and will not affect the design of the project.
�y+': .. ')� :.�.r.yY•....,1.i'i�t' " .. .. i•'itf:. . V'.:?y.� - • .:i .�.>:�.� .:.r:-.. ., :.+;v:..:::� t:i. a.�+i .a'. .'.tif..•. :.J.:': `T...r � ....
ALTERNATIVES
The Commission may continue consideration, if it has significant concerns with site planning.
.
The Commission may den project, if it finds that it.is incompatible with architectural. guidelines,
and cannot reasonably be modified to meet those guidelines.
The Commission may not grant final approval, until the review period for the environmental study has
passed and.a Rlanning Commission.use.permit.approved.
Attached'
vicinity map
reduced. site plan .-.
environmental initial study
letter from David Brannon - December 14, 1992
list of church activities
memorandum from long-range planner
Cit/ O� San IUiS OBISPO
A INITIAL STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
SITE LOCATION . 2070 Fixllni Street APPLICATION NO. 162-92
PROJECT DESCRIPTION Demolition Or removal of a one-story house and
construction of a two-story, 10 , 000-square-foot church on a 4 . 65-acre
lot on the easterly side of Johnson Avenue, north of County Hospital.
APPLICANT Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
aT..rF nECCM.m,_NDATION:
NEGATIVE DECLARATION: M?TIGATION NCLUDED
EXPANDED INITIAL STUDY ?EOL"RED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REQU!RE'D
FFEP=,603X- Judith L-nutner, AssOC_iate Planner D;-_ Dec. 24 , 1992
% 1
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S ACTION' DATE .
��. 1 lL7'r`l�'� l�•MG:3"'1�ly�. �',� � L=\'r-� � v 1J
SUMMARY OF INITIAL StUDY FINDINGS
I. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
II:POTENTIAL IMPACT REVIEWPOSSIBLE ADVERSE-EFFECTS .
-:}. •.Y yY.._ +�:... y .. .�.. :•_";t:.= .'a'..-. z. � ;ih., �•�,:�r:: !.�:.r....`• rte.' _
�..:�. ..,ri..:... :� r...p-....•x, ..i•s+ . 'n+i;:';' . .. ?'.:.�-:4� . :^:i'�v;.f: .: �y:;S�:L�iB rS.•'�:�� .•�.xi.-.... .
. V
•� ,C. COMMUNITY PLANS AND GOALS .. . . :. . . . . . . . . . .•. . . . . . . .. . .. .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .
B. POPULATION DISTRIBUTION AND GROWTH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NONE
C. LAND USE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . NONE
L
'.,i. =.l'n..Vvry I...IiC':Y1,.r .V VLI+.I�.j'V . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . YES*
E. .PUBLIC SERVICES .............:. . ....... ..a.,_. YES*
F. U T ILITIES . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ITONE
G. NOISE LEVELS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . .: .: . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . NONE -
H. GEOLOGIC&SEISMIC HAZARDS&TOPOGRAPHIC MODIFICATIONS , ..,.... .:. . .:. ... . .. . . NONE.*
I. AIR QUALITY AND WIND CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . YES*
.T "SURFA'CE .':. . . . . ... :'.':'. . . ..:: �:;:. .' a .:i:+u•::s
r. Fi'SYt:
K. PLAINT LIFE . . . . . . . . . . :. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . YES*
L. ANIMAL LIFE............. . .... .......... . ... ....... . .. .. ... . . .... .. . ... . . . . .. . .. . . . NO*
M. ARCHAEOLOGICAL/HISTORICAL . . . .. . . . . . ........ . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NONF.
N. AESTHETIC . ... . . . . . . . .... . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . NnNF.*
O. ENERGYIRESOURCEUSE . . . .. . . .. . . .... . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . ...... ... . . .. . ... . . .. . ... . . . NnNF*
P. OTHER . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .... . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . ORS*
III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
•SEE Al IACnED REPORT == -c
ER 162-92
2070 Fixlini
New church on sloping site
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The applicant proposes the construction of a two-story, 15, 000-
square foot (+/-) church building on a 4 . 65-acre site. The sloping
site is located on the easterly side of Johnson Avenue, just north
of County General Hospital . The building is to be placed
approximately in the center of the site, with parking lots both in
front of and behind it. The development will also involve the
demolition of a residence that presently exists en the site .
Numnarous trees exist on the site, primarily along the scut erly and,
easterly property lines. A natural spring near the northeasterly
corner of the site was diverted several years ago . pipe now
channels water from the spring to the southeasterly portion, of the
site, where it runs downhill, creating a waterway lined by riparian
growth . Additional non-riparian trees have been planted near the
waterway over the years.
The site is downhill from General Hospital, and shares the creek
charnel with the hospital site. To the north is a residential
neighborhood, containing low-density housing, with some apartments
_..:. ..close..:.to ..Johnson...A.venue.... .:,.,.
Johnson Avenue is an arterial street that moves traffic between the
north. 'an"d soUth':end i' of the' city:'.-.''It ' is therefore heavily used on
... ..--�-:•,:.WeekeYays :..,].�ssT'�n"vri 't�e2k'e7i�s':'� "•I'tre�s'ite>i�^ai'c'ros��.f�"om''the'�'onn's'bYf:�„� . •.
Avenue Baptist Church, two apartments, and a small office.
POTENTIAL IMPACTS
Co:a.;iunity Plans and Goals
Land Use Elehent: The Land Use Element (LUE) of the City' s genera l
plan says that "nonresidential uses which serve neighborhood needs
(.ofhveiiience shopping, schools , parks, day care centers , churches,
lodges, and similar public or semipublic facilities) should. . . be
considered - conditionally 'compatible with -residential environs;
subject to evaluation of site development plans . ” (Section C. 2 .g)
A ' PianiliingCommission use permit iso required to allow this~ use.11.
This review process is adequate 'to address site development and
compatibility issues.
Conclusion: Consistent.
Transportation and Circulation
The church will have access from a driveway on Johnson Avenue, at
the northerly end of the site. Emergency access will be available
ER 162-92
2070 Fixlini
Page 2
also through Fixlini Street, where crash gates are to be installed.
Therefore, Fixlini will not be available for everyday automobile
access to the site. Pedestrian use may be available.
Turning movements: Because the site is across from another church,
it is possible that automobiles will be entering and leaving both
driveways at about the same time on Sundays. The proposed driveway
location is approximately opposite the Baptist church driveway.
Traffic at that time, then, is expected to increase and left turns
may be more difficult . Tf services at both churches are !--__Id at
the Same time, left lames could be blocked for a period G_ blue.
If the services are staggered twenty minutes or - ^1P.
movements would not be expected to be a major concern,.
Conclusion: MTav be sicnificant .
Recommended mitigation:
' 1 ?•?-.e nC.: church S'-all sc'-=_dule Services G:J L:.a .. � :`. d.0 i.Cly
star-" or end at the sauce time as those of the Baptist C%urch.
•:...�.,:., :. Traffic. .increase: . ...This -portion.=of. .John son.: .Avenue. car'ries,:about..r:::•:..
20, 000 automobiles per weekday, according to 1989 traffic counts.
The project is expected to generate about 730 trips on Sundays, and
-=.about . 190 .trips: per day the :othe'r 'days :o€ 'the week. This'%s'�art
increase of less than one percent on weekdays. Sunday counts are
not available, but observation indicates that average traffic on
Sundays is well below the weekday load . Therefore, the traffic
increase generated by this project on Sundays will be a larger
percentage of the total , but the total will still be well be_lo::
average
Because of incremental increases in traffic on Johnson Avenue,
including traffic from this project, a traffic signal will need. to ,
be installed at the Ella Street intersection in the near future.
The signal will regulate traffic so that vehicles will be driving
at a lower speed and turning movements are easier to make. '
Conclusion:. Cumulatively,.. sign fi,cant.
Recommended mitigation:
2 : The project developers will be required to share in the cost
of the Ella Street intersection signal installation. The
appropriate share will be determined by the City Engineer, and
will be payable upon building permit issuance.
3 . To encourage car- and vanpooling, walking, and bicycling, the
plans shall be revised to include the following:
ER 162-92
2070 Fixlini
Page 3
* Ten spaces in the parking lot, near the entrance, shall
be marked for the use of vanpools or carpools of three or
more persons.
* A gate or other opening shall be provided at the Fixlini
Street barricade, to allow pedestrians and bicyclists to
enter and leave the site.
* Spaces for a minimum of twenty bicycles shall be
provided , near the entrance to the church. In addition,
leo::able stcray-e for at _east your bicic-es -i- ; - . e
allocated, free of charge, to active u,en,Zers .
* A pedestrian path shall extend from Johnson �iven.ue to the
church entrance. Such path may tLake the =or- of an
alternative paving strip along the southerly side of the .
driveway, if necessary.
The applicant shall pay the cost of restriping Johnscn _.venue
to provide a center left-turn lane to the City prier to
building permit issuance. (estimate: $500)
Parkina.:......,The.,.chur..ch...is... expected;.;to-b.aue.. .a .,congregation... gf:...,alaqu
1, 000 persons, divided into three "wards" . Two of the wards will
contain 400 to 500 persons each, while the third, comprised
.. - •�primarly:.of �Ce1> Poly-=st.udeiit's, :=wi�I;: contain':,�about •:.20'0-:%persons r.'=•'..:
Members of each ward are required to attend services at a specific
time each Sunday, and may remain for other activities for a total
of three hours . The church estimates that about 500 of the members
will attend services each week. Therefore, about 200 to 250
r._-hers are expected to attend the first and third services , while
1-00 -e^,hers are anticipated to attend the second service,
which overlaps the o.ther. two. It is possible then, that up to. 350
members will be at the church at any one time on a Sunday. if
parking is not adequate for the use, members will park on nearby
streets, impacting the adjoining residential'' neighborhood. '. Fizliiii `
would likely be the street most affected. There are no sidewalks
on Fixlini Street. Additional cars parked on this street :could''be
a noise and safety concern for the residents.
In anticipation of a recent church expansion in Arroyo Grande, a
parking study was conducted at an existing LDS church there (Heath,
1991) , which is incorporated into this report by reference. The
conclusion of the study .was that a parking space rate of 0. 4 spaces .:... .:
per seat would be adequate to meet parking needs. Since all LDS
churches are operated in a similar manner, the conclusion of this
study can be applied to this new church.
,JA
ER 162-92
2070 Fixlini
Page 4
The proposed church contains 278 fixed seats . Therefore, according
to the parking study,
278 X 0. 4 = 111 spaces
should be adequate for the use. In anticipation of some growth in
the future, and in recognition of the possible differences in the
college ward' s use of automobiles, the church is proposing to
provide 158 spaces. This number should be more than adequate for
the use. The City' s zoning regulations require one space per four
fixed sea �n this case
�
� •n� cr. ro•,.�.•'. ^ear �''c%� ;0 sYsca:., . e
proposal far exceeds City requirements .
Conclusion: Not significant.
Public services
Fire-flora: Existing fire hydrant density is inadequate for this
use. The b-Uilding is also 'sore than 300 feet fron, a water sl z�_"..i•_v
or public street. Three hundred feet is the average distance a
fireperson can pull a hose. Therefore, fire suppression water
supplies existing in the area would not be adequate to suppress a
-..:•-:....•::.:.. f�re..:�n,,::t�►e,:_proposed:..�uildzr}.g..,.. -.;::a.:_::.....��....:.,.... -..•: .:.. .:..:... ...... .. _ ,. . ..,:,. .:•...�. ..
The City's Fire Department Development Guide requires that, to
condition,= two: additicna.l hydrants be..installed -al.orig
Johnson Avenue, and an additional hydrant be installed on-site.
Fire sprinklers are also required within the building.
The Public Works Department confirms that the fireflow is not
adequate to serve the fire suppression needs of this use . Instead
of installing an on-site hydrant, hoT.;over, Public j•,Cr:-:s suggests
installation of a new main from the undersized 6" main in Johnson
Avenue to the deadend main in Fixlini, to make a looped water"
system. ' A public hydrant could then be installed at the southerly
end of 'Fixlini , and would be available to serve the neighborhood as
well as the project site.
Since it would be difficult and expensive to attain required flows
in....a private hydrant (including monthly ,.assessment..fees) , the new
main and 'publEd— hydrant would likely be preferable from both an
economic and service standpoint.
:.: Conclusion:. With the..above requirements. -for additional hydrants.: .
met through the building permit process, the fire-flow capacity
impacts will be reduced to an insignificant level.
Fire access: Parts of the building will be set back more than 300'
from the street. If the driveway from Johnson should become
ER 162-92
2070 Fixlini
Page 5
blocked during an emergency, it would be difficult for emergency
personnel to reach the building in a timely fashion.
Conclusion: May be significant.
Recommended mitigation:
5 . The applicants must attempt to secure access easements over
the two 25 . 5'-wide parcels at the end of Fixlini. Such
easements shall make access from Fixlini Street available to
e-erg�nCy vehicles ::lien other access is not available.
Sewer: There is currently no public sewer within the property's
Johnson avenue frontage ( it ends north of the property boundaries) .
To connect to the Johnson Avenue sewer, the applicant will reed to
extend the City's sewer main. If the applicant chooses instead to
connect to the Fixlini main, a private sewer pur.,p will be required.
Either way, the project can be accommodated by the existing sewer
system.
conclusion: Not significant.
....Geological.,and.:,seismic.:Ila zards,..,and;.topcgraphic..,modif.ications.-;.=_;•t-..n;„>:' ..;..
The .project is on a sloping site. The preliminary grading plan
indicates•:, that ,.'the' driveway : wial be :raised•'up to -four €eek- lir.==
parts. The parking lots will conform closely to the existing
terrain and the building will be primarily on one level. There
will be a lower level, dug partly into the hillside, that will
function as a study area for members of the church, with a family
history roam, a seminary, and s?nali offices. There are large areas
on this level designated as "basement” only, to be converted to
other uses as the need arises.
A soils engineering report for a prior residential development
proposed for the site' was completed 'in 1989 (Pacific Geosciencej : '
rive borings were taken at different locations, including one
location approximately where the center of the church is' proposed.
The soils engineer found expansive soils and springs on the site.
The report, _ which-,Js .
.incorpc.rated..in q. .the_ report _ by • Zefeerenge,�:.
concluded that each building site would need to be studied prior to
completion of foundation designs . Special techniques are co*.imonly
required for building on expansive soils. These techniques include
pre-saturation of sub-slab soils or use of non-expansive material .
between the slab and the native soil. If any springs are
encountered during grading, drains would be required to be
installed. According to the report, the site is suitable for
development, but a project-specific soils study should be
undertaken prior to final design of the foundation. Soils reports
are always required with building permit applications. This
ER 162-92
2070 Fixlini
Page 6
requirement will mitigate any possible hazards that might otherwise
arise from these conditions.
Conclusion: Not significant.
Air quality and wind conditions
Additional traffic generated by the new use will incrementally add
contaminants to the air. over a period of time, the pollution from
this project and others in the city will worsen air quality.
Conclusion: Cumulatively, significa.-t.
Recommended mitigation: Same as 0 3 , above.
Surface water flow. and. quality
Fixlini Creek flows along the southerly property line, curving in
a northerly direction near Johnson z entre . The Creek. originates
from so,:Le underground springs just uphill , near the Sunny Acres
building, and connects with Lizzie Creek farther West. The natural
flow was diverted several years ago by way of a pipe from the
the . jor h.easterly , .korner. . .of,.,:the..:.,site...._.
(identified as number 10 on the site plan) to the southeasterly
edge of the property. The channel is small, but supports riparian
,,:,.:. .:: ;...; v.ege.tation;:_ gspec ally::.l.near. 3ahnson •Avenue: :..Zt:tends to ;remairi-•Wet---
year=round.
The city's Administrative Creek Policy provides guidelines for
determining appropriate setbacks from creeks. The guidelines call
for new structures to be set back at least 20 feet from the too of
bark or edge of riparian vegetation of open cre_ : channels.
Greater or lesser setbacks may be required or allowed if certain
conditions exist.
The plans show the flow line'of the creek, but do not show the top'
of bank. The channel is narrow, in some cases only about one foot
in width. .. Therefore, the.-top of: bank on- both sides is close to. ,the
flow line. Willows line the waterway near Johnson Avenue, but
riparian vegetation diminishes to almost none .. uphill... Seyerai .
trees have bee '
n plan'Ee bytEi
; e"•owners of the existing house on the
site, which are non-riparian and surrounded by grass . Willows end
and non-natives take over approximately in the area where the new
church is to.. be . built. . ... .
The building and parking areas are located at least twenty feet
from the top of bank, except for a small area where the creek
begins, where the parking lot is about ten feet from the top of
bank. Setbacks from the top of bank average 40' to 501 . The
building and parking areas are not twenty feet beyond the riparian
�-2 3
ER 162-92
2070 Fixlini
Page 7
edge, however. A corner of the building and portions of the
parking areas are within a twenty-foot setback from the edge of the
riparian corridor.
According to the creek policy, lesser setbacks may be allowed when:
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;
Comment: The Cannel itself is narrow, alth ugh It CarriES a
lot of :Fater in rainstor;�is . T:
ER 162-92
2070 Fixlini
Page 8
Recommended mitigation:
6 . All buildings and parking lots shall maintain the setbacks
shown on the revised plans, submitted to the Community
Development Department December 14 , 1992 . This setback ranges
from 0' in a few places, to about 60' .
7 . Temporary fencing shall be installed along the edge of
vegetation during construction only. The location of this
_arOiry is t0 be S?70wn O.1 bullding plans , to the appro7 al o�
the Ccr.umunity De.
elopment Director.
Plant and animal life
The site is home to small animals and birds, especially within the
riparian corridor. Construction of a church on the site will cause
some of the ground-dwelling and foraging animals to relocate
elsewhere. Additional persons in the vicinity may affect the
habitat value of the riparian area.
There is no evidence that any of the plants or animals in the area
are.:rare...or: end angered..,::3iowev.er, .:Serpentine-deriued._s.oils:-ire;,the�.:4
general area are known to support Brewer's spine flower, a rare and
endangered plant that is found only in San Luis Obispo. Because
: the -.f16wdr:'blooms -in:" the: spring, with' May: being: a::..t p ca7 :,gea?c:
month, it is difficult to determine its presence on the site at
this time (December 1992) . Because the serpentine bedrock is deep
on this site, and the site was grazed continuously for a long
period of time, it is unlikely that the spine flower occurs here.
The project is designed to remove as few trees as possible. Five
are intended to be removed, including two. peppers, a. eucal.yptus, , a . . .
magnolia, and a }loquat. None of these trees is considered'
significant individually or as a species, and none are riparian..
conclusion: May be significant.
Recommended mitigation:
The site shall be inspected by a qualified botanist during the
spring, to determine if any rare or endangered plants exist on
the site. Such investigation shall occur prior to any grading
or removal of vegetation. If any such plants do exist on ,the
site, then a) if not in a construction area, they shall be
protected by fencing during construction, or b) if they grow
in an area proposed for construction,. seeds shall be obtained
from the plants and replanted in an appropriate uphill area by
a qualified botanist.
ER 162-92
2070 Fixlini
Page 9
Aesthetic
The building is large, about 44 ' high on the Johnson Avenue
elevation (32 ' average height) , and is sited so that its longest
side is the most visible. Since it is located halfway up a
hillside, its height is well above most other buildings on Johnson.
It may appear large and out of place, and may block views of the
hillsides to the east.
There are mitigating factors affecting the appearance of the
,building from below. Existing trees, which will remain, now screen
views of about half Of the site. While these trees Won't
completely block views of the building, they are expected to lessen
exposure of the building to views from cars and pedestrians on
Johnson Avenue. Additional Coast live oak trees are to be planted
near the existing ones, which eventually will also serve to screen
views. The distance of the project from the street - about 180 ' at
the nearest point - also will result in a lessening of impacts .
Long-range views of the project may be r:,ore difficult to screen,
especially from Terrace Hill and other viewpoints .
..::: 4.nclu*ion.:.. fMc .. :..significant.: ._. :... .:....... .:. ,... ._.,..:,.._....;_..
Recommended mitigation: None. The project is subject to review by
Architectural°. Retrew.:,.Commissoh. Massing acid .vieca =;
blockage are purviews of that commission. If determined necessary,
conditions will be imposed on the project to mitigate these
concerns. The process reduces impacts to insignificant.
Resource use
Water: The project, once occupied, is expected to generate use. of
about 2 . 8 acre-feet of water per year. The City's Water Allocation
Regulations allow water to be allocated to new development only .
when such water allocation does not affect the city"s supply. This
can happen only if the new use replaces a similar use of a similar
size on-the same site,' or if water is provided by some other means"
to replace that used. One method, allowed by the regulations, to
obtain .additional; water .is:to, retrofit .exis.ting. plumbing f.ixture4.;..; .,. ,. ... .
. .•...::.. • . ; .•: .. w::. ...
The City allows 'a developer to replace fixtures in other homes,
churches, or businesses, to save approximately twice as much water
as the new development is expected. to use.
With these regulations in force, water allocated to new development
will not have a detrimental effect on the available supply.
conclusion: Not significant.
W �_2/
ER 162-92
2070 Fixlini
Page 10
other impacts
Licht and glare: Churches are typically lit at night, and large
parking lots need to be lit for use at night. Pole and flood
lights can cause glare and create a nuisance for the neighborhood.
The applicant' s representative indicates that parking lot lighting
is proposed to be on poles, approximately 15' high, with shielded
_ fixtures directed so that light levels will be low at the property
lines. . .to spot lights are proposed for the building, and safety
lighting will be soffit downlights or 42" Bollard lights .
Conclusion: In spite of these precautions , lighting may become a
nuisance if left on all nicht. Im_nacts on the neiahbor;.00d may be
significant. y
Recommended mitigation:
9 . Outdoor lighting shall be tined to be shut off every evening
by 10 : 30 , except for special events when a church activity is
taking place after that time.
The project is not expected to have a significant impact on any
other aspect of the environment.
RECOMMENDATION
Grant a negative declaration of environmental impact, with the
following
Mitigation measures:
1. The new church shall schedule services so that they do not
start or end at the same time as those of the Baptist .Church.. .
Monitoring: Staff will recommend that this measure' be made- 6
condition of approval of the Planning Commission use permit.
2 . The project developers will be required to share in the cost
of the Ella Street intersection signal installation. The
appropriate share will be determined by the City Engineer, and
will be payable upon building permit issuance.
3 . To encourage car- and vanpooling, walking, and bicycling, the
plans shall be revised to include the following:
ER 162-92
2070 Fixlini
Page 11
* Ten spaces in the parking lot, near the entrance, shall
be marked for the use of vanpools or carpools of three or
more persons.
* A gate or other opening shall be provided at the Fixlini
Street barricade, to allow pedestrians and bicyclists to
enter and leave the site.
* Spaces for a minimum of twenty bicycles shall be
provided, near the entrance to the church. In addition,
lockable storage for at least four bicycles shall he
allocated, free of charge, to active me-tubers .
* A pedestrian path shall extend from Johnson Avenue to the
church entrance. Such path may take the form of an
alternative paving strip along the southerly side of the
driveway, if necessary.
4 . The applicant shall pay the cost of restriping Johnson =_venue
to. provide a center left-turn lane to the City prior to
building permit issuance. (esti-mate: $500)
,.: ...5-.., .:...The. ,.applicants: m'4st....atteanp.t,:.to,:A.ecure...access. easements.. omer..
the two 25. 5'-wide parcels at the end of Fixlini. Such
easements shall make access from Fixlini Street available to
emergency..vehicles,when other"access-.is: 4hot .availabl'e: ' .
Monitoring: Planning staff will check building plans and
ensure that easements are obtained and recorded prior to
building permit issuance, and that funds for restriping are
received. If the applicant is unable to obtain the access
easements, alternative mitigation will be determined by the
Community Development Director.
6 . All buildings and parking lots shall maintain the setbacks
shown on the revised ''plans', submitted to the Community
Development Department December 14 , 1992 . This setback ranges
.from 0' in a few places,-, to 'about 6,01' . .. ... •.
7 . Temporary . fencing shall,...be . installed. . along..; the....edge,.
.of
,:•,,...
,.:
vegetation during construction only. The ] ocation of this
fencing is to be shown on building plans, to the approval of
the Community Development Director.
Monitoring: Building plans shall be checked for these
measures.
8 . The site shall be inspected by a qualified botanist during the
spring, to determine if any rare or endangered plants exist on
the site. Such investigation shall occur prior to any grading
�'O O
ER 162-92
2070 Fixlini
Page 12
or removal of vegetation. If any such plants do exist on the
site, then 'a) if not in a construction area, they shall be
protected by fencing during construction, or b) if they grow
in an area proposed for construction, seeds shall be obtained
from the plants and replanted in an appropriate uphill area by
a qualified botanist.
Monitoring: The applicant will be required to submit the
completed biological survey report prior to building permit
issuance.
9 . Outdoor lighting shall be timed to be shut off every evening
by 10: 30, except for special events when a church activity is
taking place after that time.
Monitoring: Staff will recommend that this mitigation measure
become a condition of approval of the Planning Commission use
permit.
�':.,,.�a../`�•c�a�P��i w.y].:...'• J('..f S:a.-�.olT +•.*'.•/1•. . 4-. .,�a• •r: r.ny:. • 1:..M1�.' ..�r:f►. . .i _'ly;f: ;.:.. .
`3-�9
ADMINISTRATIVE CREEK POLICY
Note: the following are guidelines, not strict standards, and may be departed from when
the planner, with the Director's concurrence, judges that the intent can be met through
alternative approaches. They do not replace, but are in addition to, other existing
policies, standards and ordinances.
1. When reviewing any development proposal, all unlined, open drainage channels should
be evaluated as potential sensitive habitat areas (ie: riparian corridors to be preserved
or enhanced).
In general, such channels should not be culverted, filled or encroached into.
Exceptions could include:
a. Minor drainage channels (guideline: less than three feet across);
b. Short (guideline: 200 feet or less) sections of channels which tie together lined
or culverted drains;
c. Improvements necessary for erosion control, flood protection or circulation,
reviewed and approved pursuant to existing adopted policy.
r..... ...:.
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 ;Departme.nt•of-Fishand Gaaie'.thould Abe consulted,`fao: `..'.''_.
. .. -• ' � .. ... — .:` • e O �.L- .. . . "�•:�. • :'�..Y�: •fey: ' � •,:. .. : ..4'e.- �.]I•:7 i. :rr.:.n
2. New structures, including parking lots, should generally be set back at least 20 feet
from the top of bank. "Top of bank" means the physical top of bank (ie: where the more
steeply eroded bank begins to flatten to conform with the terrain not cut by the water
flow). If the bank is terraced, the highest step is the top of bank, not any
intermediate step. (In some cases, the top of bank will not be apparent; the Director,
Principal Planner or Long-range Planner should be consulted to help determine a
reasonable line, considering such variables as the top of bank on the other side of the
creek, the extent of riparian vegetation and the 100-year flood line.)
A. Greater setbacks may be required if
1. significant riparian vegetation extends beyond the 20-Coot line;
2.a setback line which'is fai:ther 'from'the bank' has 'be'en ado ted'or -" �
p 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;
�U
Draft Creek Policy
Page 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 thv setback should:be dedicated in'an open space'easeraent as a coriditiori
of approval of any discretionary permit.
5: If'thc.coriidor has been de�raded'a'.restoratioa pggrain..Rjay,be
condittion"of approval•;tyor*atiy"discr' ionary'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
are not met, then the project should be referred to the ARC with a recommendation that
the guidelines.be followed.
,3 3 l
ARC Minutes
January 19, 1993
Page 1
2. ARC 162-92: 2070 Fixlini Street. A request for schematic review of plans to
construct a new church; R-1 zone; Church of Jesus Christ Latter Day Saints,
applicants.
Greg Smith, Associate Planner, presented the staff report recommending that the
commission grant schematic approval with direction on bicycle spaces and lockers, the
pedestrian gate on Fixlini, a pedestrian pathway from Johnson Avenue, and any other
areas of concern to the Commission.
David Brannon, architect, responded to the staff report and noted that a major redesign
of the project was not appropriate, but that he had tried to mitigate the concerns raised
at the last meeting. He felt this was a good use of the site and provided a transition to
the hospital. He noted that this would not be the highest structure on the hillside and
complies with the grading ordinance and hillside standards because the structure would
blend in with the natural contours of the hillside. He indicated that the riparian
vegetation would be enhanced. He noted that less of the site was covered with building
and paying than .if a residential.structure was .built on-the site. -He -noted:that-traffic was.:-.
--not•a=major--preblernr•:-Hefelt:.that•the=floor-pianworld.-not.-funcdon for.-the:ownerst- -- -
needs with more level changes and that the plan already differs from the standard floor
plan. He noted that residential-type materials, forms, and colors would be used. He felt
that providing pedestrian accept to Fixlini would be a plus and would provide better fire
flows and emergency access. He felt this was a good site and a good plan for it and that
the building would blend well with the site and not appear massive. He agreed to use a
slightly darker stucco for the lower level. He noted that an elevator was not required
according to the Ciry's Building staff. He noted the slope difficulty with the driveway at
the southerly side of the site. He noted that no light would shine on adjacent sites.
Mary Beth Schroeder, 2055 Wilding Lane, had concerns with the noise and unstable
ground. She felt the project w-as too massive and that Johnson Avenue was too busy to
support the project. She' noted that the LDS church has more activities than typical
churches.
Jack Henson, 2061 Fixlini, did not object to the project but wanted to see the structure
shifted away from his house. He noted that the church would be 32 to 44 feet higher
than his house. He discussed site plan alternatives. He noted that his bedroom window
was only 42 feet from the driveway. He felt that Fixlini Street needed a cul-de-sac and
was concerned that the Fixlini pedestrian access would generate parking. He felt that a
ARC Minutes
January 19, 1993
Page 2
fire hydrant would take away from that parking. He had concerns with drainage. He
wanted some site lighting maintained at night for security purposes. He wanted the
views kept open to the south.
Norma Frey, 2014 Fixlini, appreciated the church meeting with the neighbors. She asked
if landscaping could be installed prior to construction of the church and whether the
church could close off the pedestrian access if future problems occur. She felt that the
"not a through street" sign was too far back.
Steve Nelson, 1580 Lizzie, church member, indicated he supported the pedestrian access.
He noted that the downstairs level functions separate from the Sunday activities.
Larry Gav, 1992 Johnson, church member, felt that the changes were good. He thought
that most youths would drive or walk on Johnson Avenue to get to the church. He felt
that providing 20 bicycle spaces was excessive since only two bike spaces were used at
the existing location. He felt the bike lockers were unsightly.
David Brannon indicated that a turnaround could be done off-site. He indicated that the
church could comply with a no off-site parking program.
:Cbin�ir:4-Gates fel't the•landscaping-planKww.*help€ui:--ShB-auggestedintegrating the�towet:: ._-
closer to the building. She liked the idea of a low-level security night light. She felt that
more details of the building were needed. She felt there should be more done to
discourage vehicle use on Fixlini. She felt that an elevator was needed for handicapped
employees and members, and families with small children.
Commr. Cooper noted the neighbors' concerns and encouraged drop-off traffic at the
front entrance. He also suggested having an on-site driveway speed limit to prevent
injury to skateboarders. He felt that large plants were needed in the planter boxes and
that larger trees than.jacaranda were.needed. He liked the idea of landscape screen
planting prior to building construction. He suggested moving the bell tower closer to the
building or attaching it. He asked if a sidewalk bond was needed.
Commr. Combrink concurred with Commr. Cooper's comments. He felt that the project
had not been adequately changed and could not support approval. He felt it was too
massive for the site and not consistent with the hillside design criteria.
Chairman Underwood felt the project was well-designed but very large for the
neighborhood scale. He felt that the proposed landscaping and site model did help. He
was concerned with the potential noise problem with the driveway. He noted that the
ARC Minutes
January 19, 1993
Page 3
columns were not in proportion with the tower. He felt that jacarandas were a poor
choice of tree because they were too small and messy. He felt that bicycle parking was
needed on both levels. He thought the courtyard enclosure was good. He wanted to see
landscaping details, including plant types, and density, along with lighting. He also
wanted to see a drop-off location provided, as well as an elevator.
Commr. Gates suggested reducing the number of parking spaces to increase the
landscape buffer or make the driveway narrower.
Commr. Cooper moved to grant schematic approval with direction to reduce the
driveway to 25 feet where possible, restudy the tower detail, add larger-scale trees in the
downhill areas and larger-scale plants at the planter, use a darker tan color for the
stucco at the lower level, modify the driveway to reduce traffic speed, provide a drop-off
area at the westside of the building, change the paving materials for the pedestrian walk
to Johnson Avenue, maintain a pedestrian gate at Fixlini Street, and provide a color
rendering, signing, building and lighting details.
Commr. Gates seconded the motion.
�3.Y,�' �o� ,r•,�Tates,:Litldecwe d ,� y, ,�, -.�.:
,�+y::�ti�+.:sf• •s+aPt,a I�?-t 4. s;a,r�.ar�.+'asr.�u�ri=¢+•,.�•-.-r..:.�.:+n: .. ea,. .:_
NOES: Combrink
ABSENT: Homer, Illingworth, Sievertson
The motion passed.
Nis CityOf SAn luis OBISPO
990 Palm Street/Post Office BOx 8100 •San Luis Obispo, CA 83403-8100
APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL
In accordance with the appeals procedure as authorized by Title I, Chapter 1.20 of the San Luis Obispo
Municipal Code,the undersigned herebyappealsfromthedectlslonot
rendered on . Ig!, which decision consisted Of the following (Le. set forth factual
situation and the grounds for submitting this appeal. Use additional sheets as needed):
l �_.Vim.,,,} �` ,.. — —./'- K. -•_ !'i X//,/`1 '_��, r._[_ ct _•i./ �-. ' �-. _. , ':
_ ,a ',r rJj_ _'L. _ r \, __ ,' is� "1 , , � •_' — ' _ .— — ' —
The understghad discussed the d i d.,
edjsion being appealed with'
on
DATE &TIME-APPEAL RE IVED: Appellant:
Name/TW9
E >"e iG ��3 y �
C. E E �i Representative
JAN 2 8 1993
rasa
CITY CLERK �
SAN.LUIS OBISPO.CA One
Original to City Clerk
Calerufared for. ,� a City Attorney
(� Copy to Adrnh strative Officer
Copy to the-following department(s):
UTT
SDG
t o u n I r. C C u t c r
February 2, 1993
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
c/o Diane Gladwell, City Clerk
City of San Luis Obispo
P. O. Box 8100
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
RE: Appeal of the ARC Schematic Approval of
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
Johnson Avenue
Dear Council Members:
I am writing to briefly demonstrate that the comments by Phil Ashley in his appeal of
the ARC schematic approval of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints are
ill founded and highly inaccurate.
I must begin by pointing out that Mr. Ashley was not present at the ARC meeting, has
never made any effort to contact me to discuss his concerns, and obviously does not
begin to comprehend the implications that his arbitrary twenty foot setback would
have on the overall desirability of this project.
Studio Design Group began designing this site several months before we actually
made application for any formal review. We had meetings with all pertinent city
departments to integrate their requirements. Included in this process were the
Planning, Building, Public Works, Parks, Police and Fire departments. Each
department submitted their particular concerns, and we all worked together to
develop this single plan that best met all of the various requirements.
After the formal submittal, this process of refining the project continued with the ARC,
and will continue further with our appearance before the Planning Commission. Mr.
Ashley, on the other hand, has identified only one issue after a cursory glance at the
project, and seems to expect everything else to subordinate to that issue.
The Administrative Creek Policy starts out with a note which states in part, "The
following are guidelines, not strict standards, and may be departed from when the
Planner, with the Director's concurrence, judge that the intent can be met through
A13 LA JO CI (- i'
Appeal of the ARC Scl atic Approval of
The Church of Jesus Crinst of Latter-Day Saints
Johnson Avenue
February 2, 1993
Page 2
alternative approaches". This is precisely the process we have followed. The
conclusion of the environmental document and the staff report, with the concurrence
of the Planning Director is, ". . . The development will result in an improved habitat
from that which currently exists, . . .". We recognized the aesthetic and ecological
value of the riparian growth from the very beginning of the design process. That is
why we designed the site to maintain and enhance 100% of the riparian growth. Not
one single tree within the entire riparian corridor will be removed.
4
The growth is actually a combination of creek type vegetation such as willows, which
have grown in and around the oaks, and hillside type plants existing prior to the
channeling of the run-off water. The growth corridor is inundated throughout its
length with non-native and inappropriate plants such as ivy and a palm tree. This is
not an example of a pristine, undisturbed riparian habitat.
The site is large, but there are concerns on all sides of the property that constrain the
building area. The riparian corridor on the south property line is the most obvious.
Mr. Ashley is incorrect when he states that this is an example of creek riparian
habitat growth in an undisturbed condition. This "creek" did not exist until about 30
years ago when the existing house was built. At that time, a drainage swale was
built on the east (uphill) side of the house to intercept surface flow rain water run-off
from uphill, and channel it over to the south property line. At the same time, a drain
pipe from a spring in the northeast corner of the site was installed to control the
spring drainage. This pipe added the spring water to the swale on the south
property line. All of the creekside type vegetation has grown since that time.
Mr. Ashley infers in his statement that we have a zero foot setback from the riparian
growth. In fact, out of three hundred fifty feet of riparian corridor, we are at zero feet
in one place for only twenty feet. The edge of the riparian corridor is extremely
irregular, zigging in and out throughout its length. We parallel the drainage channel
with our construction, allowing enhancement of the riparian growth where it is most
needed. At no time are we closer than forty feet to the drainage channel itself.
All sides of the site have some special consideration that affect the design of the site.
To the east, on the uphill side of the site, we encounter a grove of mature pepper,
oak, elm and eucalyptus trees extending across the width of the site. We want to
maintain this grove as a backdrop to the project. Also, we want to comply with the
guidelines of the Hillside Planning Policy which encourages development to
maintain natural features and concentrate building to the lower portions of the site.
Both of these items have the effect of compressing our building envelope and
limiting development to the portion of the site nearest Johnson Avenue.
On the north side we devoted considerable concern to the existing residential
neighborhood. Through a series of pre-application meetings, two ARC meetings
and a neighborhood meeting we were encouraged to increase the buffer between
our project and the existing houses to its current width of seventeen feet of heavily
landscaped area. The result of this increased landscaping space was to move the
development toward the south property line.
A13 LA JO CI
327
Appeal of the ARC S,, ; -:vatic Approval of
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
Johnson Avenue
February 2, 1993
Page 3
All of these issues, combined with the technical requirements of driveway and
parking slopes, fire and emergency access, aesthetic sensibilities and our own
building program have been integrated to produce the best possible design for this
site. All of the professionals on the city staff, and our private consultants working
together for the past eight months have developed this excellent project that
conforms to and exceeds all of the city's guidelines and ordinances. Redesigning
the site to conform to Mr. Ashley's single setback issue is an interruption of the
design endorsement by all of the professionals concerned, and would compromise
the overall success of the project.
Sincerely,
STUDIO DESIGN GROUP
on
Project Architect
JDB/mjs
A13 LA JO CI
Pete Wilson
srae of CAMA ray-THE RESOMCES AGE....
DEPARTMENT OF ISH AND GAME
not cQRDEN ROAD
MONTM . a %V40
(48) a92Uo
KEl;tl Yc_
JUN i"71991
June 13, 1991
Ms. Judy Lautner, Associate Planner
City of San Luis Obispo
P.O. Box 8100
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
Dear Ms. Lautner:
Initial Study on 1673 La Vineda, Ban Luis Obispo
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the initial study for
the subject project, which includes construction of a single-family
home on a 20,460 square-foot site. The site slopes from the street
down to Acacia Creek, which supports mature riparian vegetation
and associated wildlife.
On February 26, 19901 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
�� olzoR6
Ms. Judy Lautner, Ass.....Late 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
C
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
f are no longer present anyway. We disagree with this conclusion.
I 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, Assn 'ite Planner June 13. 1991
ten feet or four feet, the original setback. We agree that both
setbacks are inadequate, and as such neither may accomplish the
desired buffering effect. However, particularly if vegetation
may at some point be cleared for fire control purposes, a ten
foot buffer is definitely more desireable than a four foot
buffer, and we do not understand why the City deleted this
mitigation measure.
It is our understanding that a condition of the subdivision tract
map was that existing riparian vegetation was not to be removed.
City administrative policy also requires dedication of open space
easements which include the entire drainage. channel as well as a 20
foot setback. Mitigation recommended in the Initial Study
Findings for this specific project state that the property owner
shall grant the City an easement for the riparian area only, and
that vegetation may not be removed except for fire protection or
other hazards, or for the elimination of diseased growth with
approval from the Community Development Director. Therefore, it
appears that mitigation measures proposed to offset the impacts
of the project are less protective than those already in place
for buildings outside the '20 foot buffer. In order to truly
offset impacts, it would be appropriate for the owner to
additionally create and maintain riparian habitat elsewhere on
the drainage, if development must occur within the twenty
foot setback. However, the most desireable form of mitigation is
avoidance, and we therefore recommend that the structure be
redesigned to remain outside the twenty foot buffer entirely,
thus complying with city policies.
If you have questions regarding these comments, please contact
Karen Worcester, Fishery Biologist, P.O. Box 1535, Morro Bay, CA
93443; telephone (805) 772-4122.
Sincerely,
Brian Hunter
Regional Manager
Region 3
cc: Worcester
KW:KRA/ts
3
SEP 17 '90 08:58 Y(Of "ZLLE F3- r.c
VAfF OF GSA—%X 0E30003 ACOCY
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
roar ow-0 ou o
February 26. 199
j •
wire hike Multari
Community Development Director
i c4ty of San •kuis• Obispo
Pa as. Box •8100''• .. '
San Luis bblapo, CA :r93403=8100
Dear Kr, Kidtaria ,
Department of Fish and Came staff have recently bien contacted by
homeownerWorcester, In the L& VIneda area otacen
Pichery Biologist, met onsits tosdiscussea ss. used
home to be built at 1673 La Vineda and to evaluate riparian
bitat in the area. ed
We understand that this site has been declared a Sensitive Area
and a condition of the permit was that all existing riparian
habitat be dedicated as a permanent open apace easement. We agree
that specs are appropriate measures for development of this site,
although riparian vegetation was already protected as a condition
of the subdivision approval.
However, we are concerned that the house designed for the site
does not permit an adequate setback from the vegetation. It is
our understanding that the city88administrative policy is to
require a 20-toot creek setback from the top of bank.
Administrative policy also requires the dedication of permanent
open apace easements which include the entire drainage channel
crossing the site, as well 'as the 20-foot setback from the top of.
bank. in this• case, the northeast portion of the house will be
essentially adjacent- to the -ripartan corridor, and a deck will
cantilever slightly over the willow canopy. An oven space
easement does not guarantee preservation of habitat quality, if
human encroachment such as. this is permitted,
f, 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.
Enclosed
hundred thirty-nine species are listed, and for 30 of these,
*t SEF 1. 'SLi l"t=�':
y'
Mr. Mike Multari -2- February 26, 1990
riparian ;vegetation.. eprosents.,critical habitat. -Without well
, .developed.; �und•i•sturb.4d-.'.corrldora, the ingre • sensitive. °apeciea: on.
.
this at will no longer •tie' found in urbaniced argap'p-: For this
reason, we feel that exceptions to your setback policy should be
mode only under extraordinary circumstances. Given the also 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
•
a Sensitive Sites are to be reviewed are that 1) they generally
i be built close to the street, and 2) they be built in stepped
levels to• conform to the slope of the hill.
Applying those
I criteria may help.edoure that an adequate setbaek. t i the
ripariah to pbssiblo. .
We have met with City planners in the past and have encouraged .
" them to work with us on sensitive projects, particularly where
a creek buffet's 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. It you have questions about our
comments, please contact Karen Worcester at (805) 927-8590.
Sincerely,
Original Signed by
BRIAN HUNTER
' Tian Bunter
Regional Manager
KV/def Region 3
Enclosure '
fc t Vftceatei 8 Bentb��i� L�a�YrCouncil
W'0*A?E`1WCAW0W4 A—iME R60URCES AGWCY PET! WILSON, Governer
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
P.O. Box 1535
Morro Bap, CA 93443
( 805 ) 772-4122
22 April 1992
Ms. Judy Lautner
Community Development Department
990 Palm Street
P.O. Box 8100
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
Dear Ms. Lautner:
1673 La Vineda Court, San Luis Obispo
As you are aware, in several letters to your Department we have
expressed our concern regarding maintenance of a twenty foot —
riparian setback for the subject single-family residence on Acacia
Creek in San Luis Obispo. Recently, in spite of staff and ARC
recommendations to preserve this setback, your city council voted
to uphold the applicant ' s appeal of the 20 ' setback requirement. Of
particular concern is the precedent setting nature of such a
decision and its impact on creek policy citywide. As far as we can
discern, the setback could readily have been met on the lot; we
believe that exceptions to such setback requirements should be made
only when no viable alternatives exist. We strongly advocate the
�concept of creek setbacks as a means of ensuring the long-term
maintenance of our sensitive resources and still maintain that this
is the most appropriate form of mitigation for such a project.
If the City is to adopt the subject Negative Declaration with
inadequate setbacks, he recommend that it only do so with
accompanying mitigation measures to offset the loss of this buffer.
As we mentioned in our letter of 6/13/91 , creation and maintenance
of additional riparian habitat elsewhere on the drainage could
serve as an appropriate means to mitigate this loss. The
mitigation site should preferably be on the parcel , and should not
currently have substantial habitat value. We recommend that an
area at least twice the size of the encroachment be vegetated with
willow, sycamore , blackberry,* and other appropriate riparian
species on at least 4-foot centers, and that this area be
.maintained through irrigation until well-established. Unsuccessful
plantings should be replaced to ensure a minimum of 80% survival at
the end of three years. We further recommend that a monitoring
report, including photographs of the site, be submitted annually
for three years to ensure its success . AB 3180 requires that
whenever an agency adopts mitigation measures as part of a Negative
Jjr. V
Declaration or EIR, that agency must also adopt a reporting and
monitoring plan to e11sure compiiance with such mitigation measures.
We still support maintenance of the 20 foot setback as the most
desirable form of mitigation. However, we hope the City will
ensure that if this buffer is to be Compromised, it does not occur
without appropriate mitigation. If you have questions please
C ontact me at ( 805 ) 772-4122 .
Sincerely,
Karen Worcester
Associate Fishery Biologist
cc: Mr. Keith Anderson, Mr. Phil Ashley
�TrF3GtI MF 3T 2
CPL POLY,
CALIFORNIA POLYTECHNIC STATE UNIVERSITY
SAN Luis OBISPO,CA 93107
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 UNIVERSITY
The riparian habitats within the city also serve as
travel corridors for wildlife, connecting pieces of
appropriate habitat with well-watered native shrubbery and
small trees. Loss of these corridors can lead to severe
fragmentation of populations, and in the long run can be
expected to result in the extirpation of many native species
from the local scene. San Luis Obispo is at present in the
fortunate position of retaining much of its native birdlife,
but destruction or disturbance of the riparian systems could
well leave us with a typical urban assemblage of such
nuisance species as Starlings, House Sparrows, and Rock
Doves, with only a sprinkling of what few native species can
survive in the "suburban woodland" .
The City of San Luis Obispo has been far-sighted enough
to value its riparian habitat and to require that structures
honor an appropriate set-back, both to avoid flood damage
and to preserve this vanishing habitat. I think the city is
aware that destruction of riparian habitat and compaction of
the soil by human and domestic animal intrusion is a major
cause of flooding (too much run-off when the area has been
so disturbed) . Keeping human activity away from these
corridors is also important to wildlife, since constant
disturbance by both people and domestic animals can make
this habitat useless for native species.
I commend Mr. Ashley for his persistence and endurance
in pursuing his case against the City of San Luis Obispo. He
has helped preserve a habitat critical to many of our native
species , and has thus contributed directly to maintaining
the biological diversity of the city which so many people
enjoy, and which sets this city apart from other urban areas
in southern California.
Sincerely,
All
Eric V. Johnson, Ph. D.
Professor of Biology
Biological Sciences Dept.
pr. David J . Keil
: Profemeor :of Botany
Biology Department
° Cal Poly University
Ms. Judy Lautner San Luis Obispo► Ca 93402
Project Planner 10 June 1991
Comittunity Development Department
Post�Office Box 8100
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-81.00
Dear Ms. Lautner: ,
. I provided Mr. Ashley the attached letter of b .Mareh 1991s
on the proposed 1673 La Vineda house project ,adjace6t 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 eburt
ordered Environmental analysis was made so important biologioal
information could be included In 'the proJect: as the necessity of
. a riparian setback. Apparently this coordination was overlooked'
by the City and the Environmontal Initial Study has .been completed
recommending a Negative Declaration be issued for tho same project
that the court nullified.
For these reasons I am now providing my Maroh 5 project letter
to the City as part . of these oomments on the Initial Study Report.
The letter describes they biological significance of riparian vege-
. tation and the adverse Impaots unmitigated or inadequately miti-.
. gated developments have had on riparian habitat in California and
locally. Th(5n, as now, .1 recommend the City follow their 20-foot
riparian setback. policy_ A conservation easement without a ripa� -
ian buffer may appear to proteot the vegetation; but in reality
It does not. Riparian plants have evolved integrally with riparian
animals. Just as animals rely on Plante for necessities as food, .
cover, and breeding habitat, plants rely on animals for necessities
as pollination , seed dispersal, fertili.zi.ng, and pruning. Therefore,
a riparian setback that is necessary for preventing adverse impacts
. to wildlife (animals periodically fleeing or permanently emigrating
. from the site) , also is necessary for preventink adverse impacts. to
riparian vegetation, resulting from the lora o£ interdependent
wildlife.
To prevent incremr,nte.l.ly significant adverse impacts from
oeeuring to riparian ecosyeteme, each development project, small
or lerae, should abide by the City' s 20-foot riparian setback.
The City's Environmental Initial Study Report does not provide
this critical riparian setback and without, it a . Neaetive Declara-
tion should not be issued.
Sincerely,
Attachment
David J. Keil
KtI:tIVL_
CALOLY JUN 14 �gg�
City of San Luis 00ispo
[4Yeln^�
CALIFORNIA POLYTECHNIC STATE UNIVERSITY -+muniw
SAN Ll-1s Owsro, CA 9340
NoLOGICAL SCIENCES DEPARTMENT
0905) 7i6-2788
Mr. Arnold B. Jonas Eric V. Johnson, Ph. D.
Community Development Professor of Biology
Director Biological Sciences Dept.
990 Palm Street 9 June 1991
Post Office Box 8100
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
Subject: Environmental Initial Study Check List and Report of
the proposed 1673 La Vineda house project in the City
of San Luis Obispo.
Dear Mr. Jonas:
Earlier this year Mr. Ashley asked if I would provide my
opinion on this project regarding the importance of riparian
habitat to birds and other wildlife. I have attached my letter
of comment dated 26 March 1991. At that time Mr. Ashley told me
the City would inform California Department of Fish and Game,
neighbors, and him when the City was ready to begin the
Environmental Initial Study and he would then give my letter to
the City for early input. Mr. Ashley now explains that the
Environmental Initial Study has been completed without this early
public coordination.
I note that the current project is the same as before the
court action and a set-back has still not been provided to protect
the riparian wildlife habitat. For the biological reasons explained
in the attached letter, the Initial Study and proposed Negative
Declaration are inadequate without a riparian buffer. This deficien-
cy can be corrected by the City requiring compliance with the 20
ft. riparian set-back mitigation prescribed in their Administrative
Creek Policy. This will avoid the cumulatively significant adverse
impacts associated with riparian house projects in the City and ad-
jacent areas.
If the City's 20 ft. riparian set-back mitigation is incorpo-
rated into the project, a Negative Declaration would be appropriate,
otherwise an EIR should be done to discuss the pros and cons of
unmitigated adverse impacts on riparian wildlife.
Sincersly,
Eric V. Johnson, Ph. D.
Pro£essor. o£ Biology
Biological Sciences Dept.
THE CALIFORNIA "TATE L NIVERSITY
Pete Wilson
STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY Govemcr
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME -
2201 GARDEN ROAD
MONTEREY, CA 93940
(aoe) 649-2870 KEl;tivl:_
JUN 1? 1991
June 13 1991 COO'San WsooSpr
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-_ _.ate Planner June 13, 1991
ten feet or four feet, the original setback. We agree that both
setbacks are inadequate, and .as such neither may accomplish the
desired buffering effect. However, particularly if vegetation
may at some point be cleared for fire control purposes, a ten
foot buffer is definitely more desireable than a four foot
buffer, and we do not understand why the City deleted this
mitigation measure.
It is our understanding that a condition of the subdivision tract
map was that existing riparian vegetation was not to be removed.
City administrative policy also requires dedication of open space
easements which include the entire drainage channel as well as a 20
foot setback. Mitigation recommended in the Initial Study
Findings for this specific project state that the property owner
shall grant the City an easement for the riparian area only, and
that vegetation may not be removed except for fire protection or
other hazards, or for the elimination of diseased growth with
approval from the Community Development Director. Therefore, it
appears that mitigation measures proposed to offset the impacts
of the project are less protective than those already in place
for buildings outside the 20 foot buffer. In order to truly
offset impacts, it would be appropriate for the owner to
additionally create and maintain riparian habitat elsewhere on
the drainage, if development must occur within the twenty
foot setback. However, the most desireable form of mitigation is
avoidance, and we therefore recommend that the structure be
redesigned to remain outside the twenty foot buffer entirely,
thus complying with city policies.
If you have questions regarding these comments, please contact
Karen Worcester, Fishery Biologist, P.O. Box 1535, Morro Bay, CA
93443; telephone (805) 772-4122.
Sincerely,
"'Xe
Brian Hunter
Regional Manager
Region 3
cc: Worcester
KW:KRA/ts
3
dif ..
4n4F7 y
STREAM CONSCIOUSNESS
LOCAL AFFILIATE OF THE URBAN CREEKS COUNCIL
531 Highland Dr.
Los Osos, CA 93402
Arnold ,Jonas RECENrL.
Communing Development Director
City of San Luis Obispo JUN 131991
Calm St. Gty of Sen Luis Obispo
San Luis Obispo. CA 93401 -
,lune 12, 1991
Dear Mr. Jonas;
We mould like to take this opportunity to comment on the Negative
Declaration and mitigation measures for the project at 1673 La Vineda IER 6-
91 J.
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 Police was devised to set guidelines for treatment of riparian corridors
under consideration for development. While it does not have the force of
law that an ordinance has, it can be a useful tool to protect the integrity of
the riparian habitat if it is used consistently.
The Administrative Creek Policy allows exceptions to the 20 foot set-back
and is quite explicit in the criteria that should exist before an exception is
granted. The project in question meets none of the criteria for reduced
setbacks. In fact, it appears that the project could easily be moved forward
on the lot to avoid encroaching upon and impacting the habitat. A re-design
of the project could accomplish all goals for the project. This seems far
preferable to reducing the allowable riparian setback to I loot.
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 ZO feet
of a structure. This may result in the significant loss of willow cover along
portions of the corridor. When a structure is set close to the riparian habitat
(in this case as close as 1 foot), the issue of impact on the habitat becomes an
ongoing issue. The stage becomes set for continuing maintenance and
pruning of the trees since they are growing so close to the living quarters.
With a greater setback of the house from trees, the need for continual
pruning and impact decreases substantially. A riparian corridor should be
an amenity for housing. providing the occupants with an opportunity to
observe 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. Were 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
V
ger Zachary
K�l:tiv�_ riends of Salinas River
1800 Traffic Way
JUN 17 1991 Atascadero, Ca. 93422
.Gty of San Luia oo,SDc June 15 ,19 91
Mr. Arnold B. Jonas
Director of Community Development
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93403
Dear Mr. Jonas:
I am commenting on the 1673 La Vineda project with regards to the impor-
tance of preserving the riparian habitat along Acacia Creek in San Luis
Obispo.
I have a B.A. degree from Long Beach State University ( 1970) and pre-
sently teach Biology and Earth Science at Atascadero High School . I am
an active member in North Cuesta Audubon Society and spend much time ob-
serving Avian life in S.L.O. Co. I 've helped the city of Atascadero
with their creekway project by being a member of their Creek Planning
and Mapping Committee. Preserving what is left of .our riparian habitat
is a goal of which I 'm personally committed. Keeping the riparian eco-
system "in tack" is very important because much of this community has
already been infringed upon and destroyed.
Presently, I 'm involved in a newly formed group called "Friends of Sal-
inas River" . Our objective is to preserve. the Salinas River and its
tributaries. We are emphasizing the importance of preserving the Sal-
inas River watershed, its wildlife and natural resources. Preserving
the habitat is the first step in preserving the organisms that are a
part of it.
Concerning the 1673 La Vineda project , I recommend:
1 . Adhere to the city's established 20 ft. riparian set-back policy.
2. The conservation easement needs to be maintained as to no reduction
of riparian vegetation.
3. That the city address the biological questions in the "Environmen-
tal Initial Study Checklist" under "K and L" about the impacts upon
plant and animal life.
4. The city should consider the cumulative significant impacts for
smaller creekside projects adjacent to critical riparian habitat.
5 . Consider the adverse long term effects of this project to wildlife
and its habitat.
Sometimes man invades ecosystems without understanding his actions.
Preserving riparian habitats will in the long term benefit the integrity
of the natural and man-made worlds. Please consider my points.
Sincerely,
Roger Zachary
Friends of Salinas River
Morro Coast Audubon Society, Inc.
A Mon-Profit Organization
RECEIvt,.
JUN 141991
Gtr of San Luis Obtw
Mr. rdB. Jonas Community Development Director
990 Palm St. P.O. Box 8100
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
Dear Mr. Jonas,
It has been recently brought to my attention (Mr. Phil
Ashley) that a proposed home site development at 1673 La Vineda
in SLO will have signifcant impact upon a riparian habitat since
the city' s own 20 foot riparian setback policy is being
circumvented. Having returned from vacation, I have learned of
this matter only lately and wish to make my comments brief since
I have little time to comment more fully. This should not
suggest that I am any less concerned.
Others (Drs. Eric Johnson and David Keil) have written of
the value of the riparian area and I wish to concur with them.
The riparian habitat is sensitive and endangered.
The real issue is why the city has chosen to deny its own
policy on riparian setback and allow this project to proceed with
only a 1' setback and no adequate mitigation. The alternatives
show how a home of similar design can be built on the existing
lot while maintaining a 20 ' setback. This setback would help to
protect sensitive riparian species.
As an organization committed to the protection of organisms
and their. habitats and we strongly suggest that you reconsider
this issue and elect to protect this valuable habitat. Thank you
for your consideration in this matter.
Ron M. Ruppert
President
Post Office Box 160 • Morro Bay, California 93442
4
THE CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY
June 15, 1991
To: Mr. Mike Multari
Community Development Director
City of San Luis Obispo
From: David H. Chipping
Conservation Co-Chair
San Luis Obispo Chapter
California Native Plant Society
999 Pismo Ave, Los Osos, CA 93402
Re: Project ER 6-91, 1673 LaVineda
The California Native Plant Society has reviewed the check list for environmental initial
study,the environmental initial study, and subsequent study reviews of this project, and
also the mitigated negative declaration for the project.
Mr. Ashley has provided us with copies of letters from Drs. Johnson and Keil,and from
the Dept. of Fish and Game. The California Native Plant Society concurs with the sense of
all of these letters, in so much as we strongly object to the violation of the 20 ft. setback
requirement for creeks and riparian zones. We feel that the setback is needed to conserve
the integrity of the zones,and to avoid intrusion of disturbance into the zone. We are
especially concerned that future fire safety requirements may lead to even greater incursion.
We particularly object to the comments in Council Agenda Report that, simply because
setback policy is administrative rather than an ordinance requirement, the policy can be
violated. There is a reason for the policy, albeit administrative, and that is that r-narian
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/�g/
Dr. David H. Chipping
DEDICATED TO THE PRESERVATION OF CALIFORNIA NATIVE FLORA
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 Creek in San Luis Obispo,
Before proceeding with this discussion I will give my
qualifications to comment on this matter. I ant Professor of Botany in
the Biological Sciences Department at California Polytechnic State
University in San Luis Obispo, .I have been ori the stetff at Cal Poly since
1976. I am a plant taxonomist, ecologist, and biogeographer with
expertise on the vegetation and flora of California and much field
experience, I am co-author of CaIL fornfa Vegetatlonl and Vascular
Plant Taxonorny2 and a major contributor and Asteraceae•family editor
for the new Jepson Manual 3. 1 have.prepared numerous botanical
surveys and inventories for the County of San Luis Obispo and various
other public. and private agencies and individuals.
Water in California is a valuable resource, In this driest of
drought years all Californians are being made aware of the critical role
of water in our lives. Water is no less critical as a resource for the
vegetation axtd 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
ye2rs 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 drles up and
water becomes scarce. During this annual drought water remains
IV.. 1,, Holland and D. L Kell. 1990. Callforria Vegetatlon, 4th ed. EI Corrol
Bookstore, San Luis Obispo.
21), R. Walters and D. J. Kell. 1988, Vascular Plant Taxonomy, 3rd ed. Kendall
Hunt Publ. Co., Dubuque, Iowa,
31. C. Hickman, cd. The Jepson Mammal. projected 1992.' University of
California Press, Berkeley. This is an identificatlon manual for the wild plants
of California.
2
available only in small portions of the landscape. Riparian areas—the
narrow bands of moist ground along streams and other wetlands--
become critical sources of water to the thirsty animal life of the state.
Because streams and rivers cut across the landscape. riparian
areas have generally been accessible to wildlife of adjacent hills,
valleys, and plains. 'That Is, until the current century began. Dam
construction, stream diversion, and pumping of groundwater have all
contributed to the drying of California streams. Flood control projects
and canals now divert streams from their original course to the sea.
The remaining riparian areas are now that much more important as
water sources to wildlife,
Riparian areas are also very important as wildlife habitats.4 The
multilayered canopy provided by the assorted trees, shrubs and herbs
proldes a diversity of nesting and feeding sites for birds and
mammals. Riparian areas are productive habitats, especially at tittles
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 'lmportant in
stream ecology. The vegetation is an important component of the
habitat for fish and other aquatic animals.
Biotic interactions in riparian systems are complex, Involving
many types of organisms. Riparian vegetation is especially important
in determining the structure and function of stream ecosystems.$ A
wide variety of animals use riparian areas as habitat. Most of these are
non-game species. About 83 % of the amphibian species (frogs, newts,
etc.) and 40 % of the reptiles use riparian areas as habitat.e Many
kinds of birds use riparian vegetation for food or living space.
Mammalian species include those visiting stream habitats for water as
well as those resident in the area. Corridors of riparian vegetation are
particularly important as routes for movement of animals.
The wooded corridor that characterizes much riparian
vegetation Is Important in another fashion—erosion control. When
streams flow rapidly after storms, they carry the potential of massive
erosion. Running water is capable of much de'structlon. Riparian
vegetation has the ability to stabilize banks and floodplains, reducing
4 This paragraph Is quoted from Cal(forn(a Vesetatlon, 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. Hendrix (eds.),
Californla Riparian Systema. Ecology, Conservation, and Productive
Management. University of California Press, Berkeley.
6i. M, Brode and R. B. Bury. 1964. The importance of riparian systems to
amphibians and reptiles. Pp. 30-36 to R. E. Warner and K. M. Hendrix, ibid.
i
3
the erosive forces of the flowing water. Removal of the woody
vegetation along California streams has often led to tncre-ased erosion.
Destruction of California's riparian habitat has been especially
severe. Less than ten percent of the original riparian vegetation of
California remains.? Over much of the state the trees have been
logged, the streams have been dammed or enclosed in concrete, and
the landscape has been converted to other uses. Where towns and
cities have grown up along streams or rivers, the riparian vegetation
has often been eliminated or highly modified. Much of the loss has
been incremental—a small band of willows destroyed here, some
cottonwoods out down there, a section of once lush woodland
vegetation diverted into a culvert. Many individual projects, such as
residential construction, eliminate their own little sections of riparian
habitat. No one of these by itself is seen as a significant loss, but
collectively these changes bring about a reduction or elimination of
habitat values.
The destruction of riparian vegetation caused by the preliminary
grading for a house at 1673 La Vineda along Acacia Creek in Sart 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, 1 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
P0117 gone auTy. The situation easily could have been avoided had the
city ollowed the 20-foot riparian setback prescribed in Its own
Administrative Creek Policy.
I am concerned that similar deliberate violations of its own
environmental policies by the City of San Luis Obispo could continue to
occur. However, the court's decision in the case of Phil Ashley vs, the
City of San Luis Obispo is a clear indication that such policies should
not continue. As a result of the decision, the city should now be more
A. Starker Leopold. 2984. Forward. Pp. xxi-xaii fn R. E. Warner and K. M.
Nendrlx , ibid.
4 i
S
diligent in carrying out environmental responsibilities under its own
rules and policies and those of the California Environmental Policy Act.
As :indicated above, there are sound ecological reasons for having
environmental restrictions on development--such as a 20-foot riparian
setback. We cannot afford the continued incremental, destruction of
riparian habitat.
Sincerely,
David J. Keil
. i
t
®
city o f san tuis omspo "�M 2-
Shrus COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MM a
FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Develoviiiont Director
BY: Judith Lautner, Associate Planner 4L
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 Vmeda, east of Johnson Avenue.
CAO RECONIIVIENDATION
Adopt a resolution denying the appeal, thereby upholding the ARCS 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 Of flee). A revised initial study was finally
completed in October, which includedi measure regn�uopt a MY sdit&from
h pariah vegetation This requirement was based on finding cummlative impacts would result-
%om continued lessening of the creek setback required by the administrative creek policy,
where none of the listed lesser-setback criteria are met. Allowing alesser setback than is.
normally required, in this case, may create a precedent that further erodes the
ad*+ lnmt*Ative creek policy. The applicants did not agree to the mitigation measure
requiring the 20' setback from riparian vegetation. -
The applicants returned to the ARC on November 4, 1991, asking for approval of virtually
the same design as was presented to and approved by the ARC in 1989. The commission
continued the request, with direction to pull the southeast house corner away from the
creekside vegetation to provide as close to a 20-foot riparian setback as possible.
The plans were revised, and now the closest part of the house is about ten feet from the
edge of riparian habitat The applicants requested approval by the ARC of this modified
dedIA 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
A - tCy of san L.-is owpo
WbZi 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 CObIIVIE M
The Fire Department's comments are attached to the initial study. Other departments have
no opinion on this request.
FISCAL EWPAC73
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 ' the applicant, or another distance as determined
aPpmp�tff the j .__ ,
Counal can that no. wffi 'S%K 4 s
O '. ti �S� �� 411 ..I
actIOB. Speafi'Ca']ly,flue Crnm l neo a --S
immirm"M
oammen s e Confimu+'}��� .��.^"'�_'.`T_-y5'-S�Y'F�•bas_�i_afpi�ovi�d S resolnt3on.
2. The request may be continued, with direction to staff or the applicant.
�iV1�1TDATION .
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: C�PRC report for February 3, 1992
raft resolution
Vicinity map
initial study
ARC Nov. 49 1991 minutes
ARC Feb. 3, 1992 draft minutes MACO M3)
Administrative creek policy
Letters from citizens supporting 20' setback, received at 2/3/92 meeting
Applicant's letter of appeal
Plans, packet of letters from citizens are available in Council Off lee
for review.
0"8 _ A .. ww (`
'$TGR'O G{/0�lEA..nE SOS Afi@IC PM WRWK Oewiw
DRAUMENT OF FISH AND GAME
P.O. Box 1535
Morro Bay, CA 93443
1805 ) 772-4122
22 April 1992
Ms. Judy Lautner
Community Development Department
990 Pals Street
P.O. Box 8100
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
Dear Ms. Lautner:
1673 La Vineda Court, San Luis Obispo
As you are aware, in several letters to your Department we have
�. expressed our concern regarding maintenance of a twenty foot
riparian setback for the subject single-family residence on Acacia
Creek in San Luis Obispo. Recently, in spite of staff and ARC
recommendations to preserve this setback, your city council voted
to uphold the applicant' s appeal of the 20 ' setback requirement. Of
particular concern is the precedent setting nature of such a
decision and its impact on creek policy citywide. As far as we can
discern, the setback could readily have been met on the lot; we
believe that exceptions to such setback requirements should be made
only when no viable alternatives exist. We strongly advocate the
concept of creek setbacks as a means of ensuring the long-term
maintenance of our sensitive resources and still maintain that this
is the most appropriate form of mitigation for such a project.
If the City is to adopt the subject Negative Declaration with
inadequate setbacks, we recommend that it only do so with
accompanying mitigation measures to offset the loss of this buffer.
As we mentioned in our letter of 6/13/91 , creation and maintenance
of additional riparian habitat elsewhere on the drainage could
serve as an appropriate means to mitigate this loss. The
mitigation site should preferably be on the parcel, and should not
currently have substantial habitat value. We recommend that an
area at least twice the size of the encroachment be vegetated with
Willow, sycamore, blackberry,- and other appropriate riparian
species on at least 4-foot centers, and that this area be
.maintained through irrigation until well-established. Unsuccessful
Plantings should be replaced to ensure a minimum of 80% survival at
the end of three years. We further recommend that a monitoring
report, including photographs of the site, be submitted annually
for three years to ensure its success. AB 3180 requires that
whenever an agency adopts mitigation measures as part of a Negative
Declaration or EIR, that agency must also adopt a reporting and
monitoring plan to ensure compliance with such mitigation measures.
We still support maintenance of the 20 foot setback as the most
desirable form of mitigation. However, we hope the City will
ensure that if this buffer is to be Compromised, it does not occur
without appropriate mitigation. If you have questions please
contact me at ( 805 ) 772-4122 .
Sincerely,
Karen Worcester
Associate Fishery Biologist
cc: Mr. Keith Anderson, Mr. Phil Ashley
'•:` .
'y : 1. '90 68:58 YGU t7 LE FS-
SEP r.c
STAV OF C 100W= A004a
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME �saw
POST Wa
� . . CAWOIMM S1lov
: ,y• ,',:- ' : °«` February 26. 199
1
!!r. Alke Multari
Community Development Dictator
i C;ty of San •L•uis• Obispo
P. Co. Box •8100'-
San Luis bblapo. rA -. 9'34b3-4200-
Dear Uri hultarit =
I Department of Fish and Came staff have recently been contacted by
homeowners in the La Vineda area of Son Luis Obispo. Hs. Daren
Worcester, Fishery Biologist, met onsite to discuss a proposed
j home to be built at 2673 La Vineda and to evaluate riparian
habitat in the area.
We understand that this sits has been declared a Sensitive Area
and a condition of the permit was that all existing riparian
habitat be dedicated as a permanent open space easement, We agree
that these are appropriate measures for development of this site,
although riparian vegetation was already protected as a condition
Of the subdivision ,approval.
Aowever, we are concerned that the house designed for the site
does not permit an adequate setback from the vegetation. It is
our understanditig that the City8s administrative policy is to
require a 20-toot creek setback from the top of bank.
Administrative policy also requires the dedication of permanent
open space eaaemeTfts which include the %entire drainage channel
Crossing the site, as well *as the 20-foot setback from the top of.
bank. In this case, the northeast portion of the house will be
essentially adjacent- to thi -riparian corridor, and a deck will
cantilever slightly over the willow canopy. An open space
easement does not guarantee preservation of habitat quality, if
human encroachment such as this is permitted.
/Adequate setback from vegetation is critical if riparian corridors
j are to continue to support their existing diversity of wildlife.
Enclosed is a list of species in San Luis Obispo County which
l utilize riparian vegetation for some portion of their life cycle.
,One hundred thirty-nine speclts are listed, and for 30 of these,
Mr. Mike Multari -2- February 26, 1990
C. ;;riparian,:vegetation. represents..crities I habitat. ..Without well
�� :• developed. :und'i'oturb.gd-;corrld( the inose ' sensit'iva. :species: on
this list' will no longey •iia• found in urbanised aryap'r,' For this"
reason, we feel that exceptions to your setback policy should be
made onik' under extraordinary circumstances. Given the also of
the lot, it appears that alternatives may be available which would
I not impact this area as such as the current design. Two of the
Architectural Review Commission criteria with which housing plans
on Sensitive Sites are to ba reviewed are that 1) they generally
be built close to the street. and 2) they be built in stepped
levels Ca- conform to the slope of the hill. • Applying these
t criteria may help..edsurs that an adequate setback- from the
Viperish to possible.
%•ate have met with City planners in the past and have encouraged
them to vork with us on sensitive projects, partieularl•y where
• creek buffers may be encroached upon. Given that, the area has
i 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. It you have questions about.our
comments, please contact Karen Worcester at (805) 927-8590.
Sincerely,
Original Signed by
BRiA1a! HUNTER
' rian Hunter
Regional Manaqer
KV/def Region 3
Enclosure '
•
OSP Aorcesie=s 8eat��Qn°, t�i��YrgCouncil
9. to provide the people of the State with clean air and water, enjoyment
of aesthetic, natural, 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
"` 1i'easible Altern8 ves aril 1Vlitigationr
» "s stantive aspect`of t found - :
21002.`bkp&Gon forbids agencies b` � b c urcesCode section_
pacts PP
when f r - srg� adverse
easibayle alterniti_ves�or easi�ie°�ag on ,
Lessen sttch isrpacfs: Citizens for uali ly
rowth v. Cit of M unt Shasta (3d Dist.
12/This Policy statement has been interpreted not to create a cause of action uirin
disapprove projects unless-they can guarantee the survival create
rare or ender g agencies to
393 398-399].)erre Club v Glrov Citv Council(6th Dist. 1990)222 Cal-App-3d 30,41.42(271 Call.RpteCtBd by rr.
8
i
November 1991 California Planning & Development Report 5
ECIAL REPORT: 1991 LEGISLATIVE SESSION
Bill-by-Bill Summary of Legislative Action �
� � S�
Signed Into Law QF
SB 1019(L. Greene):Requires local housing elerr"As to include"as of
Air Quality right"sites for multifamily projects,and also requires that low-income
SB 124 McCo housing get first rail on limited water and sewer rapacity. Chapter 889.
( muodale):Creates new,eight-county San Joaquin Valley Statutes of 1991.
Air Quality Management District with city representatives as well as
county reps on the governing board.Chapter 1203•Statutes of 1991. Infrastructure Finance
AS 2061(McCorquodale):Requires air pollution control districts in large AS 143(O'Connell):Clarifies use of Mello-Roos lav for toxic cleanup
counties to undertake socio-economic impact analyses of their air quality purposes.Chapter 29,Statutes of 1991.
plans_Requires districts to hire independent consultants to assess
methods used in these studies.Chapter 794,Statutes of 1991. AS 1001(Brown):Allows cities and counties to use local general-
obligation bonds to pay for seismic safety improvements to private
Airport Land Use Commissions buildings.Chapter 658,Statutes of 1991.
SB 532(Bergeson):Extends deadline for creation of airport land use SB 682(Mello):Among other things,makes it easier for localities to
plans until June 30,1992,for counties that have made*substantial establish`mother"Mello-Roos districts to which•new territory can be
progress'in preparing those plans.Chapter 140•Statutes of 1991. easily added later on.Chapter 1110,Statutes of 1991_
Annexations/Incorporations Open Space and Parks
AS 328(Peace):Permits Calipatria and Crescent City to annex state A8 59(H ll):Facilitates creation of L.A.County Regional Open Space
correctional facilities,boosting their population for tax distribution District and allows benefit assessment districts in this area to be formed
Purposes.Previous bills have given similar permission to Susanville• with majority voter approval. Chapter 823,Statutes of 1991.
Soledad,and Blythe.AB 944,still pending in Assembly Local
Government Commitee,would grant the same permission to Chowchilla AS 1152(Friedmanj.Prohibits certain developers it the San Fernando
and Coalinga. Chapter 244,Statutes of 1991. Valle from connecting their projects to the dirt
Y 9 p !e portion of Mulholland
SB 43(Davis):Sets timelines for counties to move incorporation efforts Drive with a paved road through certain state park lands.Affects
Mulholland Park,ir Tarzana project being developed by Harland Lee&
forward.This bill is a response,in part,to the lengthy process involved in
Associates.Requires payment of equivalent funds
the incorporation of Malibu in LA.County. Chapter 37,Statutes of 1991. L.A.County
Transportation Commission for traffic mitigation. Chaptera�xuer 875.Statutes of
CEQA 1991.
AS 1642(Sher):Clarifies that environmental impact reports must reflect Planning, Zoning,& Development Law
the independent judgment of the lead agency:that is,they may not be
Prepared completely by applicants'consultants.This bill came partly in AS 234(Kelley):Clarifies that building permits issued counties are still
response to the Friends of La Vina case,which challenged L.A.County's valid newly incorporated cities and newly annexed areas.t similar bill
practice of permitting developers'consuftants to prepare draft EIRs. was vetoed last year by Gov.Deukmejian. Chapter 348,Statutes of
(CP&DR.September 1991).Chapter 905, Statutes of 1991. 1991.
AS B69(Farr):Requires discussion of hazardous waste impact in AS 266(Hauser):Permits community services district board members in
Mendocino County to serve on area planning commLssions. Chapter 970.
environmental impact reports,and prohibits use of a categorical
exemption when project is proposed on property listed on the state's Statutes of 1991.
"Cortese Gtr of hazardous waste sites. Chapter 1212,Statutes of 1991.
Public Real Estate Development
Conservation AS 865(Brulte):Allows San Bernardino County Flood Control District to
AS 2172(Kelley):Establishes a legal framework for Natural Community develop property for uses unrelated to flood control purposes.Similar
Conservation Plans,Gov.Wilson's concept of providing broad-based power was granted to counties in tat Governor Deukmejian vetoed a
S
conservation ptannirtg to protect rare species before they are declared similar bill last year.Chapter 834,StatGovernor
of 1991.
endangered.Establishes the Coastal Sage Scrub habitat in Southern
California as a pilot program.Chapter 765•Statutes of 1991. Redevelopment
AS 315(Friedman):Makes it more difficult for local governments to avoid
SB 317(Davis):Gives cease-and-desist authority to State Lands 200/6 housing setaside requirement.Provisions to increase the
Commission and Coastal Commission.Chapter 761,Statutes of 1991. percentage of redevelopment funds set aside for horsing were dropped.
Chapter 872,Statutes of 1991.
SB 906(, rEsJaDGshes the Calfornia Riparian Habitat Conservation
Program to preserve and restore riparian habitats around the state. AS 1026(Marks):Authorizes San Francisco Redevelopment Agency to
Chapter 762.Statutes of 1991. develop transitional housing projects,but prohibits use of 20%setaside
to do so. Chapter 1192,Statutes of 1991.
General Plans School Fees
SS 755(L Greene).Requires local planning agencies to notify schools SB 1094(Vuich):Exempts housing financed by the office of Migrant
distrf s of proposed general plan amendments.Chapter 804,Statutes of Services from school fees. Chapter 536.Statutes of 1991.
1991.
Subdivision Map Act
Housing AS 749(Hauser):Extends until 19%the expiration d a state law
AS 1929(Hughes).Requires replacement of low-income housing within clarifying that final maps approved by counties are still valid in newly
four years of removal. Chapter 730,Statutes of 1991. incorporated cities.Chapter 354,Statutes of 1991.
r CarulnurJ wi largr M
{-. 0B SIDO
C 7$ox bf 5a.
-�.�.,--, .•�_' :. `*� -' $frr�5treet,' 54;0 �r.r � _ t:'�.. •=.�:-* .�
:{<'"2.i :vf :i;L`�' :. • h.. �l[i.:y � •'�{� rL Zi t' �' 6 � ':� .h• �t:.
..�,.• �%�^.:• {'�, •_?h'+.7 i•�f�'' 1 I. a :�,p '•� .•`S•a •t f:,,57( � �•'•�i:ia:�:'� -'i f:•-�..:
- _ .C.:. .:. :i" • p L ••J. -1••. / 1lF' )•. �. 7 Ste'
• x1988 f^.Nl. %� J• .r. , t a�f•• r'...':.
November .10 r.:. e'?�'.. ur..
Date: _.. ._ •' ,.�t �:>; =: ;, o:_. �1r.M::.•� r�lr s -
Planning Commisston-.and ARC. ►� �:�z; .. iS
To: ;_,
From : Community Aevclopmcat;,Pireeto�,'
Ur may! �rr.x(!f:'_ .z�.i•..;.. , .ti.-!)'-
Sub'ect: Administrative.Poticiei Cor.Staff';�Leco eadatio.ns,on?Projects near CrceksF3_•
l r t> �7{!J� y. c t L J'
Al
J� ..r ',.�_'.`_-(17.41-��.:• ':�j�r••%"tj�'- TXda Za+ir. -
y -lee Vie- 1lnP 1\ Jr1.L .a.
For' past fe�v Yea c:have.al[�eea wo"rkiug op�ard evolving -toward?) a;mort.:
P
rotective treatment of creeks.when;{evuwiag proiecc.proposals� T�tis,.is reClecEedya f�: '.;:�_
;, r
the staff.rccommendacions;and;decisions by theA G'�and.Putfas:W+cl�as�those oCthe City y
Council):�::Raady.Rossi,wiIi`be work -0a`a:set o dri6p, cas!Yo creekrpolicies as
.of-:the
Open'Space:.Element:updatcLJnilLthatr�!oticisr omple`teT.I,amLpropostng th �t�3� �,
� .
,�. to •. r h.
folloTs'ing'admjnistrative 9olicy'b- mplaycd)b.Wmq Taft whea�r4viewiag ro�ecupcar , !
- iag tir osc''js to piotec 1t crcoks`�-andnnereasctbusrstency-=¢il:s�taff
-creeks'- D P �c,r
recommendations:: =:,�..i.-: .r_,v-=%r!� 1�..'a~iC: ..F•%'.T :.l'.•:R�v.�Y,ri�1 r•. :.y::: r:.�r.''C:.(::`-�•- }%ire•-
' •vim '._ -. .�`} 4r itr -.r...;_:-: t=�,_-Mtl"_:^- _ ,
v6-ill-not work N;;CWualessat;is ge_aerallysupportcd.by;thc:t. o`,,• ,.,.,
Clcarl}•, this policy :.r.
commissions involvcd'smosi;in project'revs{w�yeasef�re4w this a d give,me your.
CommCn ts.-Th3nk�you: �' �� -; �,�`.a `_ "y zn
_..>-� :r-'l' `1x4.""-a�•• �Y":-"F •• -''
... :'tib::•lea''-"ttir='t 'TL�.r
n Dunne -
Dave Romero
•ii.:Ync Peterson •-. _ �l' 'T.`i� :�Liav:4•�-i�.�',-r. :iw i�':'.= .-i r .. .
Jim Stockton
Cu v Council
'.�:- a •--,.1:. _ �.:• ''_i x,`15::.::•:•.i:�::'. r..1''•Planners
.•/. ':+ .�J�(' L'i�c �•..�,f r. t-'Jre-'.•••li'•it'�y'},n,::.'... :'.r 1•j-..:.• _ ^S^��,.�-,_
__- - _ :.�Wiwi G^•�""1 r_' •:r. �.r ��y�:�:�- '�- F : ���j.� �=:�1:L%f 'Y...
L _ _ ..•yy":)y3-:�1dY.r�,.' :��%7_L'v�.h7:1rGY"''1'7^:'.�.?;al;r• _"°-'..l`.4= -.�_ _
V -
.
-- _'p'.`•�""Y'F,..:- ' �'y:< .)Y-:'....3'.. - '� -'tee.:_ •�'r:.a -
41
- -�J. �%. :'I- _:f�''�✓�+.-�,.r� QTS'\•�1
-_ ,4... :�:- _ ::� �'t'�:ti:: :k�a' .,\-Jy�•+l�•_.•. a M� Jay: :�).+..Fr i[��, - - .. -_
!' :.•;:-..Vin?.. -- •.•.E,• -3 rr:r •-: _./• YV1"� 0'4'�:a-}(�?Z..'vr.:!'
'!_r ''i.'L= ''J''': :' t•.i. „Lt � •ten,1r). '.a. Ly..;..�•i. y .i. .s.- .f.
•f~ pi•'.:�_f �!^.,7� +l�Cr -�T••Y-w10.v-•cam _ t '.�'�s��..r_-.•"��.;���a.' _
VL
7.
' - _ .r�lrJ:T..Lt."1..rs,,J"s�fir_ - ^� 1..���•.1-,,.+..N...l. � _
'. . _ - - - - '-�. .f�`]lr•\1r.��_�.:�..��'ti<'� .:i:i:'_e: r is :11'.
— •Y-.. �`t�_;" J�y Cf�.�.. +;��•Cr.VtV I • '. .rte. _ ..
_ ;r:)_ .��" `."-'rte:1z:�,.•�'�:' ,
l +:
•fir j.Y(:• _ ir,.],•.:_
VIM. r..
_ `t -� ' „'• . •.:�.-^(,i.:F L7iy�r(�,;_yv� �.�n-f.?� _ - 'L.a1'�/)- .
_. ` �l 'T `(''�.: 'ts'C`:r�.��:f'y`y t'�.. ' �""rrBBi, ♦ J(tit Y'r�:1y '. � . �r l• _
v
1 \
ADI IINISTRATIVE CREEK POLICY
Not L 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 n t 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); r
b. Short (guideline: 200 feet or less) sections of channels which tie together lined
or culverted drains;
c. Improvements necessary for erosion control, flood protection or circulation,
reviewed and approved pursuant to existing adopted policy. ,.
In all cases, the Director, Principal Planner or Long-range Planner should be consulted
before a channel is determined not to be a sensitive habitat area; if there is any
significant doubt, the Department of Fish and Game should bdconsulted, too.
2. New structures;including parking lots, should generally-be set back at-least 20 feet
from the top of bank. Top of bank' means the physical top of bank (ie: where the morc.
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. (n some cases, thetop of bank will not be apparent; the Director,
Principal Planner or Long-range Planner should be consulted to help determine a
reasonable line, considering such variables as the top of bank on the other side of the
creek, the extent of riparian vegetation-and the 100-year flood line.)
A. Greater setbacks may be required if
1. significant riparian vegetation extends beyond the 20-Coot line; i
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;
00184
C
! J:a;'; t::cel, I' ;;��•.
P ..
S�
'. 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.
Notc: in determining if a channel is minor or if a riparian corridor is significant,
the staff should consider variables such as size, arca drained, volume/capacity,
topography, context (urbanized or open), soils and hydrology, relation to other crcck
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. ti
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.
3. All areas in the setback should be dedicated in an open space casement as a condition
of approval of any discretionary permit.
3. 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 arc met; if they
arc not met, then the project should be referred to the ARC with a recommendation that
the guidelines be followed-..'
;i
Y
,a
00185
MEETING AGENDA
DATE /d'RS ITEM #
VEGETATION SURVEY OF RIPARIAN ZONTE-- .
CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF THE LATTER-DAY SAINTS
JOHNSON AVENUE, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA.
PREPARED FOR
SDG
641 Higuera St.
Suite 200
San Luis Obispo,CA. 93401
lb'
V. L. Holland, PhD.
Plant Ecologist
1697 El Cerrito Ct.
San Luis Obispo, CA. 93401
COPIES To:
�O•Denotes AcUm ❑ FYI
Co md1 Q CDD DM
AO FN.DM
ld/ACAO ❑ FME CHIEF
VATroRrrEr O Fw DIR.
cLEt� N%mc. ❑ FcucE cn
❑ MCMT.TFAN4 U r.Ec.DIR. �-
❑ F11LE (3 .
UfIL DIR
��READ� ❑ February 14, 1992 FEB 1 6 1993
/.2: -2Sr-7" .
CITY CLERK
SAN LUIS OBISPO.CA
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION .............................................................................3
SURVEYMETHODS...........................................................................3
DESCRIPTION OF THE RIPARIAN ZONE..........................................3
RARE AND ENDANGERED SPECIES.................................................4
IMPACTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................4
REFERENCES..................................................................................5
Il nR.ODUCTION
The subject lot is a parcel located on Johnson Avenue immediately
north of General Hospital in San Luis Obispo, California. The parcel has
the shape of a rectangle with an existing home on the back that is accessed
via Fixilini St. There is a riparian woodland along the southern boundary
of the parcel that separates the subject site from General Hospital. The
purpose of this study is to evaluate the riparian area and the impact of the
proposed development on it.
SURVEY METHODS
A field reconnaissance of the proposed disturbance areas was carried
out in February 1993. The field survey consisted of canvassing the riparian
woodland on the property as well as areas on all sides of the woodland
immediately adjacent to the site. The plant species found in identifiable
condition were noted and listed to make sure no rare plants occurred.
However, it is important to note that this is not a complete list of the plants
present on the site. Plant species composition, especially herbaceous cover,
varies seasonally and annually. During my on-site survey in February
1993, most herbaceous plant species were not present in identifiable
condition. These plants were mostly represented by the dry remains of last
year's standing crop or immature seedlings. Most of the trees and shrubs
are identifiable from vegetative features and are listed in the discussion
below.
DESCRiP'I'ION OF THE RIPARIAN ZONE
Riparian communities are common along waterways such as
drainage channels, streams, lakes and marshes. These waterways,
drainage channels and areas of high water tables often have a striking
influence on natural vegetation of the area. Many of the plant species found
in riparian habitats are restricted to the flood plain, banks of streams,
drainage channels and other areas where they have access to a shallow
water table.
In the case of the study site, the riparian woodland occurs along a
seasonal drainage channel that drains the upper sections of the property
and immediately surrounding areas and passes under Johnson Avenue
through a culvert. The dominant plant is Salix lasiolepis (arroyo willows)
trees, which forms a dense thicket with a sparse understory of aquatic and
semi-aquatic shrubs and herbs such as Rubus ursinus (blackberry),
Baccharis pilularis (coyote bush), Toxicodendron.diversilobum (poison oak),
Foenculum vulgare (sweet fennel), Juncus spp:'(rushes) and Carex spp.
(sedges). There are also a few scattered Quercus agrifolia (coast live oak)
and Heteromeles arbutifolia (toyon). Along the Johnson Avenue frontage,
several large coast live oaks occur near the creek.
Survey of Riparian Woodland,Mormon Church,Johnson Ave, SLO 2
Several ornamental plants have either been planted or have naturally
become established in the riparian area. These include Schinus Molle
(pepper tree), Eucalyptus globulus (blue gum), palm trees, pyracanthas,
pampas grass and bottle brush.
In order to determine the extent of the riparian vegetation in the area,
I examined the areas both upstream and downstream from the riparian
area on site. I found that the riparian area is restricted to the area along
the drainage on the northern boundary of the parcel and has no connection
to a riparian woodland vegetation immediately upstream or downstream
from the site. That is, it is not part of a large continuous riparian corridor.
In addition, a parking lot on the General Hospital side (south of the study
site) has been constructed along bank of the drainage channel and of the
riparian woodland. Willow trees come to the margin of the parking lot in
this area.
RARE AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
No rare and endangered species were found on the site. Because of the
conditions during the on site survey, I cannot state with certainty that no
rare plants occur. However, judging from the current highly disturbed
habitat conditions, I would not expect any rare plants to be found within the
boundaries of the subject property.
EVIPACTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The current plans include a church and parking lot that will be
immediately adjacent to the riparian area on the site. The plans provided
by SDG Architecture of San Luis Obispo show that the building and parking
lot will have a setback from the canopy of the riparian woodland that varies
from about 5 feet to about 60 feet. No riparian trees will be removed and no
modification in the drainage will occur.
The landscape plans include enhancing the riparian woodland by
planting several Platanus racemosa (sycamores) in the buffer zone between
the buildings and parking lot and the creek. In addition, coast live oaks
will be planted along the Johnson Avenue frontage to add to those already
present and create a natural looking vegetation screen. These measures
will add diversity to the riparian area on site.
Consideration should be given to removing the exotic plants such as
the blue gums, palms, pampas grass and pepper trees from the riparian
area and replacing them with native trees such as Platanus racemosa
(sycamore), Populus trichocarpa (black cottonwood), Salix spp. (willows),
Quercus agrifolia (coast live oak), Mryica californica (wax-myrtle),
Umbellularia californica (California bay-laurel), Sambucus mexicana
(elderberry) and Acer negundo (box-elder). Native tree plantings along the
Survey of Riparian Woodland,Mormon Church,Johnson Ave, SLO 3
creek will diversify and enhance the beauty and habitat value of the
riparian zone. Trees planted along the creek should be native, indigenous
plants to the area such as those listed above. Periodically the creek should
be checked to make sure no other exotics invade and become established to
the detriment of the native trees and shrubs.
Run-off from the project into the waterway should be carefully
evaluated. Corrective measures should be taken to assure that no erosion
from the upland portion of the site occurs and that no pollutants such as oil,
petroleum distillates, herbicides, pesticides, etc. enter the water. Current
plans call for the water from the site to be diverted to the street and not into
the creek.
The riparian woodland should not be disturbed in anyway other than
removal of exotics and planting natives. It should be used only for passive
recreations such as bird watching and access to the creek should not be
encouraged. If these and the other recommendations are followed, the
project should not have a significant impact on the vegetation of the
riparian habitat.
Development of the open, grassy areas away from the creek and buffer
zone of the subject property will have an insignificant impact on native
vegetation because most disturbed nature of the vegetation on the site.
REFERENCES
California Department of Fish and Game. 1988. Natural Diversity
Data Base. Special Plants. 58 pp.
California Department of Fish and Game. 1989. Designated
Endangered, Threatened or Rare Plants. Summary list from Section 1904
Fish and Game Code (Native Plant Protection Act). Sacramento: State of
California Resources Agencies.
Capelli, M. H., and S. J. Stanley. 1984. Preserving Riparian
Vegetation along California's South Central Coast. pp. 673-686 in E. E.
Warner and K. M. Hendrix (eds.), California Riparian Systems: Ecology,
Conservation and Productive Management. University of California Press,
Berkeley.
Holland, Robert F. 1986. Preliminary Description of Terrestrial
Natural Communities of California. State of California, The Resources
Agency, Department of Fish an Game.
Holland, V. L. and D. Keil. 1990. California Vegetation. El Corral
Publications. 318 pp.
Hoover, R. F. 1970. The Vascular Plants of San Luis Obispo County,
California. U. C. Press, Berkeley, CA.
Survey of Riparian Woodland,Mormon Church,Johnson Ave,SLO 4
Munz, P. A. 1968. Supplement to A California Flora. University of
California Press, Berkeley.
Munz, P. A., and D. D. Keck. 1959. A California Flora. University of
California Press, Berkeley.
Smith, J. P., and Ken Berg. 1988. California Native Plant Society's
Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California.
California Native Plant Society, Special Publication No. 1, Sacramento.
United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.
1990. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of Plant
Taxa for Listing as Endangered or Threatened Species; Federal Register 55
(35):6184-6229.
Warner, R. E. and K. M. Hendrix (eds.). 1984. California riparian
systems. Ecology, Conservation and Productive Management. U. C. Press,
Berkeley. 1035 pp.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY PETE WILSON, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
San Luis Obispo wildlife Unit
I Office Box 6360
..,rs Osos, CA 93412-6360
(805) 528-0782
February 9, 1993
Mr. David Brannon
Project Architect
Studio Design Group
641 Higuera Street, Suite 200
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Johnson Avenue Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter-Day Saints
Dear Mr. Brannon:
Thank you for the opportunity to visit the site of the proposed project and to comment
on the riparian setback concerns.
After viewing the site, discussing with you and your landscape architect, Ms. Carol
Florence of Oasis Associates, I believe that the site layout as it is currently proposed is
appropriate and fully meets the objectives of the Department of Fish and Game.
I base this opinion on several factors.
1. The Church is proposing to add additional tree and shrub landscap-
ing with native species around the Sanctuary and parking lots.
Some of this shrub landscaping will consist of California blackberry,
which will preclude human access to the riparian corridor.
2. The Church is proposing to remove the English Ivy now growing
throughout much of the existing riparian habitat. This removal will
enhance the quality of the riparian habitat by removing an invasive
exotic that has virtually no benefit for native wildlife. It will also
assist the survival of the seedling coast live oaks that area present in
many spots throughout the riparian zone by reducing competition
with this extremely aggressive vine.
3. The Church is proposing to develop the spring on the upper portion
of the property to use for water for landscape maintenance and
development of additional permanent wetland and riparian habitat.
Since these comments are based on our conversations and draft landscape plans, I
reserve final Department comment until I have received and reviewed final construction-
level plans for landscaping, drainage and grading. At that time, I will provide our final
input for this project.
If I can be of further assistance, please feel free to call on me. I can be reached at the
letterhead address.
Thank you again for the opportunity to review and comment upon this proposed project.
James L. Lidberg
Associate Wildlife Biologist
San Luis Obispo Wildlife Unit
cc: DFG files