The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutItem 3.23.2 Town of Los Altos Hills April 5, 2007 Staff Report to the Plannine Commission RE: PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT CONSERVATION ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN REGARDING WILDLIFE SPECIES AND HABITAT FROM: Leslie Hopper, AICP, Project Planner -P APPROVED BY: Debbie Pedro, AICP, Planning Directol--,>C -RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission: Recommend approval of the Open Space Committee's proposed revisions to the Wildlife Species and Habitat Section of the Draft Conservation Element with any modifications deemed appropriate. BACKGROUND On February 1, 2007 the Planning Commission reviewed proposed amendments to the General Plan including an updated Introduction, Conservation Element, and Open Space and Recreation Element. The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council adopt the updated portions of the General Plan with the changes presented in Attachment 2, which also includes the recommendations of the General Plan Committee. The minutes of the February 1, 2007 meeting of the Planning Commission are included as Attachment 3. The updated General Plan documents will be reviewed on April 26, 2007 by the City Council. The Council will also consider the Planning Commission and General Plan Committee recommendations at that time. WILDLIFE REVISIONS The draft Conservation Element presented to the Planning Commission on February 1, 2007 included policies and programs to identify and protect wildlife corridors as recommended by the Open Space Committee (Attachment 4). The Planning Commission recommended that these policies and programs be deleted because the concept of wildlife corridors has not been fully developed and needs further study before it is included in the General Plan. As an alternative, the Open Space Committee developed the revisions presented in Attachment 1. The proposed revisions do not address wildlife corridors and fencing issues, and are summarized as follows: • Paragraph 315 states the need for protection and conservation of wildlife, and planning for the natural movement of wildlife. • Programs 3.2 and 3.3 call for further study to inventory wildlife species and habitat areas and to assess the potential for development patterns to fragment and isolate significant wildlife habitats. Planning Commission April 5, 2007 Page 2 of 2 Program 3.4 gives staff the discretion to require (but does not mandate) the professional evaluation of potential impacts on wildlife when reviewing proposed development. SUGGESTED MODIFICATION Staff suggests that the language of Programs 3.2 and 3.3 be modified by deleting the reference to the State of California General Plan Guidelines because the same statement could be made for many programs in the General Plan and is unnecessary. PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED No comments have been received to date. ATTACHMENTS - 1. Proposed revisions to wildlife section of the Draft Conservation Element 2. Recommendations of the Planning Commission and the General Plan Committee 3. Planning Commission Minutes of February 1, 2007 (excerpt) 4. Wildlife section of the Draft Conservation Element presented to the Planning Commission on February 1, 2007 Revisions Recommended by Open Space Committee -4/5/07 ATTACHMENT I Revisions are shown in blue. WILDLIFE SPECIES AND HABITAT — Conservation Element 312. The open space areas in and around Los Altos Hills provide habitat for a wide range of wildlife, including matntnals, birds, amphibians, reptiles, and insects. Some of the most common mammals include the cottontail rabbit, hare, black -tail deer, western gray squirrel, opossum, red fox, gray fox, raccoon, coyote, and bobcat Common birds include the red -shouldered hawk, barn owl, acorn woodpecker, western scrub -jay, turkey vulture, and California quail. 313. A number of species have been identified by federal and state governments as endangered, threatened, or sensitive and may be present in the Los Altos Hills planning area. These include the California Red -legged Frog, the Northwestern Pond Turtle, and Cooper's Hawk. 314. In the past, development occurred with little conscious regard for impacts on wildlife habitat sometimes with the result that natural species were driven out. Today the open space areas in and around Los Altos Hills are relatively undisturbed and serve as habitat for a diverse wildlife population. Conservation of this habitat is not only important for the protection of wildlife, but also for the conservation of the semi -rural atmosphere of the community. To protect areas of significant wildlife habitat, such as creeks and riparian corridors, the dedication of conservation/open space easements should be encouraged. 315. There is a need for planning to provide for effective protection and conservation of the Town's wildlife heritage, while continuing to allow appropriate development and land use. Planning for natural movement of wildlife can help to avoid, minimize and compensate for serious negative impacts on wildlife and humans. Areas that link wildlife habitat have become vital because native animals such as deer, fox, bobcat and coyote are prevented by roads, fences, homes, and other development from moving freely as they once did. 316. Wildlife move through the planning area along natural passageways, particularly along creeks and riparian areas that provide sources of food, water and shelter. Many of these are already Open Space Conservation Areas that protect wildlife and ecologically significant habitat. GOAL Maintain and enhance the integrity of wildlife habitat. Policy 3.1 Maintain and protect creeks and riparian corridors for wildlife that use this resource for food, shelter, migration and breeding. Program 3.1 Continue to require open space easements along creeks and riparian corridors. Program 3.2 Inventory wildlife habitat areas and the suite of animals in those areas, as recommended by the State of California General Plan Guidelines. Program 3.3 Assess the potential for development patterns to fragment and isolate significant wildlife habitats, as recommended by the State of California General Plan Guidelines. Program 3.4 In reviewing proposed development that might affect areas of significant wildlife habitat, such as creeks and riparian corridors, consider requiring a wildlife ecologist or other qualified professional to assess the potential effects of the project on wildlife habitat. ATTACHMENTZ Recommendations of the Planning Commission and the General Plan Committee Planning Commission recommendations of 2/01/07 are shown in red. General Plan Committee recommendations of 2/07/07 are shown in blue. CATEGORY 1—POLICIES AND PROGRAMS THAT ARE ALREADY BEING IMPLEMENTED PER CITY COUNCIL'S DIRECTION WATER RESOURCES—Conservation Element Program 5.3 Work with ° iet water purveyors to inform homeowners of their potential water usage in new landscape projects and to recognize the benefits of water efficient landscapes without undue significant burden to the homeowners. Program 5.4 Consider incentives for property owners meeting certain water conservation criteria and incentives to encourage water retention ponds, water reuse and recycling, vegetated swales and other approved methods of mnoff control. ENERGY CONSERVATION—Conservation Element Policy 8.1 Promote the incorporation of energy conservation measures in new construction. Policy 8.2 Encourage active and passive solar energy design in building and site development. Policy 8.3 Expand the use of alternative fuels for Town vehicles by purchasing hybrids and other fuel-efficient vehicles. Pnw_r-am-94--k nta., _ t -+de -h+-3 tw conservation till'-allitffm+ k:: Program 8.21 Incorporate energy efficiency measures in new Town facilities. P?k)g 1!114-- 'ntiuue to wain nera,C.i ... ov Ike nimalkr4o+�ay-.,stems. 5s telo, Pruwxua s-�� ant „-te o,evwatien Program 8.2 Continue to develop and offer incentives for energy conservation. Recommendations of the Planning Commission and the General Plan Committee February 7, 2007 Page 1 Policy 9.1 Promote source reduction and recycling throughout the community. Program 9.1 Continue to implement the Town's 1994 Source Reduction and Recycling Element. Program 9.2 In Town purchasing, encourage the purchase of products that minimize packaging, contain recycled materials, and can be reused or recycled. Program 9.3 Consider supporting new ideas and innovative proposals that will promote recycling and other environmentally sound practices. Program 9.4 Continue to work with Los Altos Garbage Company to implement single -stream recycling and other ways to encourage waste reduction and recycling. RECREATION AREAS AND FACILITIES—Open Space & Recreation Element Policy 2.8 The acquisition and development of new parks and recreation areas shall he pursued when necessary to meet the recreational needs and interests of Town residents. Program 2.4 Study and establish mechanisms for funding and maintaining new park acquisitions. Program 2.5 Consider acquisition of parkland under any of the following conditions: • Where community need or use demands. • Where the acquisition can provide greenbelt connections between open spaces. • When acquisition opportunities arise. Program 3.1 Continue to implement and update the Strategic Action Plan. CATEGORY 2—POLICIES AND PROGRAMS INTRODUCED BY TOWN COMMITTEES CREEKS AND RIPARIAN CORRIDORS—Conservation Element Program 1.4 Develop a comprehensive riparian policy that compiles and clarifies all relevant requirements for affected property owners. .t,lt idais-cam . e Recommendations of the Planning Commission and the General Plan Committee February 7, 2007 Page 2 TREES AND PLANTS—Conservation Element Policy 2.5 Encourage the removal and prevention of the spreading of aggressive exotics such as Pampasgras, Italian thistle, stinkweed, acacia, yellow star thistle, French broom, Scotch broom and eucalyptus. Policy 2.6 Encourage the removal of poison oak where allowed by law. Program 2.7 Devclop a program to manage and control invasive species within PF'I'Pal particularly along creeks and their associated riparian corridors (e.g., ""—...a ad fe Creek). WILDLIFE SPECIES AND HABITAT—Conservation Element 315. Wildlife move through the planning area along natural passageways, particularly in riparian areas that provide sources of food, water and shelter. Most wildlife corridors are located in areas designated as Open Space Conservation Areas. 1- - _ on e"AfleF, Is r ent e#-wtltP:l6 _ _._.. _ �mm mm�� it - — —fsn.-.mor ts, n w exrythasis+a+frroteeting the hablit 1 a art endangered speeie obsfructgi1d{ife-aecestn-imparnt-wW r, k e.(1,-a*igetrt tion and,, Ft areed«tg-aceac lio�gvmn i I - FFruiidelTegiu og it h.).aey-Feporr,.prep !(,-d e+rniae-if pttr-v;..1 J ('on1ulae ha -en.:.. :baa C�n';:e die foo,d-nine 91 (31 ,mdn e tluouik oo e,� tiaroopen!;pace Policy 3.1 Maintain and protect creeks and riparian corridors for wildlife that use this resource for food, shelter, migration and breeding. Piogram 3.1 Continue to require open space easements along creeks and riparian corridors. Recommendations of the Planning Commission and the General Plan Committee February 7, 2007 Page 3 ATTACHMENT Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED 3/1/2007 February 1, 2007 Page 13 Leslie Hopper continued with the second part of the discussion on the General Plan Update. In category 1 there were new programs under Water Resources. Program 5.3 states "the Town will work with Puriss ma Hills Water District to inform homeowners of their potential water usage in new landscape projects and recognize the benefit of water efficient landscapes without undue burden to the homeowners". Program 5.4 states "consider incentives for property owners meeting certain water conservation criteria". Both statements are word for word from the City Council resolutions recently adopted. Commissioner Carey wanted the wording in Program 5.3 to say, "work with water districts" since the Town is also serviced by California Water Service. Leslie Hopper summarized the new items. The changes regarding Energy Conservation reflected the actions the City Council had taken over the past year regarding solar installation incentives and were consistent with the programs, especially 8.3 and 8.4. The general statements in Waste Reduction and Recycling reflect commitments that the City Council had made and already were being implemented. Changes under Recreation Areas and Facilities in the Open Space and Recreation Element concern the acquisition and development of new parks and recreation areas. Program 3.1 was pointed out because of it refers to a "comprehensive recreation plan". This was a mistake and was intended to reference the strategic action plan, which was adopted in 2014. The more appropriate program would be to "continue to implement and update the strategic action plan." Category 2 included policies and programs introduced by the committees that participated in the update process. Regarding Creeks and Riparian Corridors, Program 1.4 is to develop a comprehensive riparian policy that compiles and clarifies all relevant requirements for affected / property owners. Program 1.5 is to develop a program to manage and control invasive species within critical riparian corridors. Under Wildlife Species and Habitat, the main proposal is to identify wildlife corridors and restrict fencing in the corridors so the movement of wildlife is not obstructed. Another program requires biology reports for certain site development applications. It was pointed out that a handout summarizing the new policies and programs was available to the audience. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Roger Spreen, Open Space Committee, said that the Town had changed physically and what people understand about responsible stewardship, what preservation means and how to support a rural environment had also gone through change. The Open Space Committee had tried in updating the details to validate the planning process and back up what the planning department is already doing. The planners take into account wildlife and stream riparian issues when a project is submitted but do not have the full, coherent support of the General Plan. The Open Space Committee's goal was to give the planning department a coherent set of roles and framework by which to work. They also wanted to document the relevant issues that they hoped the council would address over the next 10 years. He felt the Conservation Element would contain the ideas that might be considered controversial. He reiterated that the State guidelines for General Plans Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED 3/1/2007 February 1, 2007 Page 14 had been followed, which direct that an inventory of animals and habitats be included. These guidelines require that assessment be done on the potential effect of development on the continuity of plants and wildlife habitat and how development will fragment habitat. He stated that the Open Space Committee is concerned with the protection of the riparian areas for wildlife, esthetics and recreation reasons and felt a separate area in the General Plan was needed. The committee would like the General Plan to line up with what the ordinances already state and tie together fencing, preservation, conservation and habitat Elements. Commissioner Carey asked about the status of a wildlife corridor map and the definition of a wildlife corridor. Roger Spreen replied that the map was in its final stages of completion. Wildlife corridors are significant areas of migration or movement of wildlife to key food sources, water sources and territories they tend to roam. He continued to say that in the same way that the pathways map was drawn up, people would have ample opportunity to provide input. The vision was for the wildlife corridor map to join the set of planning tools available to the planners, such as the open space conservation area map or pathways map, to protect areas during development, negotiated and understood. Commissioner Clow asked Mr. Spreen his opinion on what wildlife was relevant to fencing policies. Mr. Spreen replied that there was not a significant list and wildlife populations are different in different areas of Town. Commissioner Harpoothan asked if it was possible to have a Planning Commissioner involved with the map process. He referenced the language in the General Plan about the confusing requirements and restrictions from various agencies facing homeowners with property that intersects a creek or riparian corridor. Was the Open Space Committee proposing to create a replacement document? Roger Spreen answered that progress in creek development or flood protection had been very difficult and unsuccessful because of the different agencies involved. The Committee would like to see the Town have a say in any projects not just residents up against the agencies. He has no illusions about solving the problem of having so many groups involved in the issue. Paul Heiple, Chairman of the Portola Valley Conservation Committee and California Native Plant Society representative for the San Mateo County Weed Management Area, commended the Open Space Committee for including invasive plants in the General Plan. He felt that in addition to encouragement of getting rid of invasive species, education about them is also important. He spoke on issues related to invasive plants and the problems connected with the plants spreading to other locations. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Collins focused this time on the Water Resource programs. Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED 3/1/2007 February 1, 2007 Page 19 Sue Welch, Open Space Committee, stated that poison oak is a native plant and not an aggressive exotic. She felt it would be a mistake to mix it in the statement regarding invasive plants because it behaves very differently. Aggressive exotics have a pattern of moving into an area and completely wiping out other plants. She felt poison oak could be addressed under another section but shouldn't be included in a section protecting native trees and plants. Added to the list should be Italian thistle and stinkweed. Chairman Collins agreed that poison oak should not be included in policy 2.5. Commissioner Carey suggested creating policy 2.6 and with Commissioner Clow suggested language to state "encourage removal of poison oak where permitted by law". CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING MOTION SECONDED, AMMENDED AND FAILED: Motion by Commissioner Carey and seconded by Commissioner Harpootlian to recommend to City Council in regard to Trees and Plants to approve policy 2.5 with the addition of Italian thistle and stinkweed and add a new policy 2.6 to encourage removal of poison oak where allowed by law. MOTION SECONDED, AMMENDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Carey and seconded by Commissioner Clow and passed unanimously to recommend to City Council in regard to Trees and Plants to approve policy 2.5 with the addition of Italian thistle and stinkweed. AYES: Chairman Collins, Commissioners Carey, Clow, Cottrell and Harpootlian NOES: None MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE: Motion by Commissioner Carey and seconded by Commissioner Clow to recommend to City Council in regard to Trees and. Plants to add policy 2.6 to encourage the removal of poison oak where legally allowed. AYES: Commissioners Carey, Clow, Cottrell and Harpomlian NOES: Chairman Collins OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Collins focused this time on Wildlife Species and Habitat. Alan Epstein, Ravensbury Avenue, noted that only about 25 people were in the audience and felt the issue was about property rights for landowners. He felt more input was needed before a decision could be made. He felt wildlife was doing just fine. The deer eat his roses and the rabbits eat his vegetables and seem to find their way around fences. He thought the issue was about taking away the rights of homeowners to put up fences to protect their property and provide safety and the issue should be advertised as such. He felt more people would attend meetings if they realized the actual issue involved. Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED 3/1/2007 February 1, 2007 Page 20 _ Resident, felt the proposal to identify wildlife corridors and prohibit fencing is vague. Wildlife is defined in the dictionary as wild animals and vegetation especially animals living in a natural, undomesticated state. That definition would include rats, gophers, mice, squirrels and birds of any kind. Fences actually don't affect a lot of wildlife and much more wildlife is unaffected by fences than wildlife that is affected by fences. He sees no hard evidence based on biological study that increased fencing by property owners is blocking the movement of wildlife or forcing it into detrimental movement patterns. He doesn't think that any of the policies or programs specified under section 3.1 and 3.2 is something that should be included in the document. Roger Spreen, Open Space Committee, claimed there was plenty of evidence to show that fencing has had a huge affect on patterns of wildlife, habitats of wildlife and ecological systems. That is what the State of California in the General Plan guidelines talks about in understanding fragmentation pattern development. The fencing ordinance already prevents fencing off of wildlife corridors. This is not just a fencing change under the guise of a wildlife issue. Fencing has many other Elements that are not just open space or wildlife issues that involve the character of the Town, the rural environment and the community. Sandy Humphries, Environmental Design Committee, stated allowing wildlife to flow freely over the land was written up in the original General Plan. This is not different except to give residents and the planning department information on where the normal pathways for wildlife are located. The paths are usually along creeks and conservation areas. It is important to allow the free flow of wildlife to prevent wildlife jumping into yards. In the last four years excessive fencing has been installed because of a change of the setback rule and backups and turnarounds are allowed in the setbacks. Mary Davey, La Cresta Drive and representative to the Mid -Peninsula Regional Open Space District, stated that this is a progressive and important suggestion for the General Plan. She encouraged the audience to go along with the suggestions heard and take them as part of the General Plan as an important concern for the environment. Jitze Couperus, Page Mill Road, said the wildlife corridors are not currently identified. It is needed to know where the wildlife exists and the areas where it can thrive without interaction with people. David Hughes, La Loma Drive, suggested a survey be mailed to all residents to gather opinions on the wildlife corridor and fencing issue. Dot Schriener, Saddle Mountain Drive, reported the following percentage responses to the 2001 community survey question "Should the Town develop a program to identify and protect wildlife habitat?" Of the respondents 23 percent replied "Not important", 29 percent replied "Somewhat important", 22 percent replied "Important" and 19 percent replied "Very Important". Nancy Couperus, Page Mill Road, talked about the wildlife survey sent December 2005 and the responses received. She felt that many residents we interested in learning about the wildlife in the Town. Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED 3/1/2007 February 1, 2007 Page 21 David Hughes, La Loma Drive, appreciated the surveys that had been done. He felt that people would feel differently if they knew that supporting wildlife would prevent them from building a fence. Brian Legates, Magdalena Avenue, would like the option to build a fence if he wanted on his property. He felt safety was a reason to consider fencing. He respects wildlife but would like the choice to do what be feels is safest for his family. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Carey thanked the Open Space Committee for the work they had done. He stated that wildlife corridors had not been identified and suggested more study was needed to develop the concept before putting it into the General Plan. Chairman Collins felt that the wildlife corridor wording in the Conservation Element was ready to be added to the General Plan. Discussion ensued among the Commissioners regarding the Conservation Element, wildlife corridors and the fence ordinance. Debbie Pedro, Planning Director, suggested using alternative language in the Conservation Element of the General Plan. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE: Motion by Commissioner Carey and seconded by Commissioner Cottrell that under Wildlife Species and Habitat of the Conservation Element to recommend to City Council the language as suggested by staff in revisions of 315 and related policies. AYES: Commissioners Carey, Clow, Cottrell and Harpoothan NOES: Chairman Collins OLD BUSINESS -none NEW BUSINESS -none 6. REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING 6.1 Planning Commission Representative for Jan. 1 P° -Commissioner Carey 6.2 Planning Commission Representative for ]an. 25" -Cancelled 6.3 Planning Commission Representative for Feb. 8'" -Chairman Collins 6.4 Planning Commission Representative for Feb. 22"d -Commissioner Clow Chairman Collins suggested review of the City Council meetings for the next Planning Commission meeting. its Public Review Draft January 2007 ATTACHMENT 4 WILDLIFE SPECIES AND HABITAT 312. The open space areas in and around Los Altos Hills provide habitat for a wide range of wildlife, including mammals, birds, amphibians, reptiles, and insects. Some of the most common mammals include the cottontail rabbit, hare, black -tail deer, western gray squirrel, opossum, red fox, gray fox, raccoon, coyote, and bobcat. Common birds include the red -shouldered hawk, acorn woodpecker, western scrub jay, turkey vulture, and California quail. 313. A number of species that have been identified by the federal and state governments as either endangered or threatened may possibly be present in the Los Altos Hills planning area. These include the California Red -legged Frog, the Northwestern Pond Turtle, and Cooper's Hawk. 314. In the past, development occurred with little conscious regard for impacts on wildlife habitat, sometimes with the result that natural species were driven out. Today the open space areas in and around Los Altos Hills are relatively undisturbed and serve as habitat for a diverse wildlife population. Conservation of this habitat is not only important for the protection of wildlife, but also for the conservation of the rural atmosphere of the community. 315. Wildlife move through the planning area along natural passageways, particularly in riparian areas that provide sources of food, water and shelter. Most wildlife corridors are located in areas designated as Open Space Conservation Areas. However, increased fencing by property owners is blocking the movement of wildlife and forcing them into detrimental movement patterns. Wildlife corridors should be identified and fencing should not be allowed to restrict the movement of wildlife through these corridors. GOAL Maintain and enhance the integrity of wildlife habitat. Policy 3.1 Ensure that in the design and construction of public and private developments, wildlife habitat will be protected to the maximum extent feasible, with special emphasis on protecting the habitat of any endangered species. Policy 3.2 Review all subdivision and site development proposals to ensure that they do not obstruct wildlife access to important water, food, migration and breeding areas. Program 3.1 Consider requiring a biology report, prepared by a qualified biologist, to determine if wildlife habitat (particularly of endangered species) will be encroached upon by any proposed public or private project on parcels over 8 acres in size where such encroachment appears likely. Program 3.2 Continue to enforce the fence ordinance, which requires that fencing be located and constructed to allow the movement of wildlife through conservationlopen space easements and wildlife corridors. Program 3.3 Identify and map important wildlife condors for use in land use planning and permitting and the protection of wildlife habitat. Conservation Element Los Altos Hills General Plan Page 6