DOCSLIB.ORG

City of San Clemente Lcp Amendment No. 1-16 (Lcp-5

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
City of San Clemente Lcp Amendment No. 1-16 (Lcp-5 STATE OF CALIFORNIA - NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., GOVERNOR CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION South Coast Area Office 200 Oceangate, Suite 1000 Long Beach, CA 90802-4302 (562) 590-5071 Th19a CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE LCP AMENDMENT NO. 1-16 (LCP-5-SCL-16-0012-1 COMPREHENSIVE LUP UPDATE) DECEMBER 14, 2017 EXHIBITS Exhibit 1 – Suggested Modifications Exhibit 2 – City of San Clemente Land Use Plan (LUP) Submittal Exhibit 3 – LUP Reference Table Exhibit 4 –General Plan Changes Map Book and Index CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM LAND USE PLAN February 2, 2016 Exhibit 1 Staff Suggested Modifications Page 1 of 274 LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM LAND USE PLAN CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE Community Development Department 910 Calle Negocio, Suite 100 San Clemente, CA 92673 (949) 361-6100 Exhibit 1 Staff Suggested Modifications Page 2 of 274 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1: Introduction 1.1 The Coastal Act 1.2 Local Coastal Program 1.2.1 Local Coastal Program Components 1.2.2 General Goals and Objectives 1.2.3 Coastal Development Permit Authority 1.3 How to Use This Plan CHAPTER 2: Land Use 2.1. Introduction 2.2. Coastal Act Policies 2.3. Land Use Designations 2.3.1. Land Use Designations 2.3.2. City Overlays 2.3.3. Focus Areas and Marblehead Costal Plan Area 2.4. Land Use and New Development Policies 2.4.1. Residential Development Policy 2.4.2. Commercial Development Policy 2.4.3. Mixed Use Development Policies 2.4.4. Industrial Development Policies 2.4.5. Open Space Development Policies 2.4.6. Public Development Policies 2.4.7. Visitor Serving Land Use Development Policies 2.4.8. Conservation and Sustainability 2.4.9. Focus Areas and Marblehead Coastal Area CHAPTER 3: Public Access and Recreation 3.1. Introduction 3.1.1. Mobility 3.1.2. Shoreline Access 3.1.3. California Coastal Trail 3.1.4. Recreational Opportunities and Amenities 3.2. Coastal Act Policies 3.3. Goals & Policies 3.3.1. Mobility 3.3.2. Shoreline Access 3.3.3. California Coastal Trail Exhibit 1 Staff Suggested Modifications Page 3 of 274 3.3.4. Recreational Opportunities and Amenities CHAPTER 4: Marine and Land Resources 4.1. Introduction 4.1.1. Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas 4.1.2. Marine Environment 4.1.3. Water Quality 4.1.4. Coastal Canyons and Bluffs 4.2. Coastal Act Policies 4.3. Goals & Policies 4.3.1. Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas 4.3.2. Marine Resources 4.3.3. Wetlands 4.3.4. Water Quality 4.3.5. Other Biological Resources CHAPTER 5: Hazards & Shoreline/Bluff/Canyon Development 5.1. Introduction 5.1.1. Coastal Bluffs and Coastal Canyons 5.2. Coastal Act Policies 5.3. Goals & Policies 5.3.1. Coastal Bluff and Shoreline Development 5.3.2. Coastal Canyon Development 5.3.3. Hazard Area Development 5.3.4. Sand Replenishment/Beach Management 5.3.5. Sea Level Rise 5.3.6. Development in Flood Hazard Areas 5.3.7. Emergency CDP Actions CHAPTER 6: Visual and Historic Resources 6.1. Introduction 6.1.1. Historic and Cultural Resources 6.1.2. Community Character 6.1.3. Bulk and Height Limits 6.1.4. Paleontological and Archaeological Resources 6.2. Coastal Act Policies 6.3. Goals & Policies 6.3.1. Viewpoints & Scenic Corridors 6.3.2. Historic and Cultural Resources Exhibit 1 Staff Suggested Modifications Page 4 of 274 CHAPTER 7: Definitions LIST OF TABLES Table 1-1: Land Use Plan Organization Matrix Table 2-1: Coastal Land Use Designations Table 2-2: Hotels, Motels and Inns within the Coastal Zone Table 3-1: Beach Access, Amenities, and Parking LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1: Coastal Zone Boundaries Figures 2-1a-d: Coastal Land Use Map Figures 2-1e-f: Land Use Coastal Zone Overlays Figure 2-2: Focus Area Locations Map Figure 3-1: Road, Bus, and Rail Routes Figure 3-2: Bike and Pedestrian Trails Figure 3-3: Coastal Access Points Figure 3-4: Poche Figure 3-5: North Beach Figure 3-6: Dije Court Figure 3-7: El Portal Figure 3-8: Mariposa Figure 3-9: Linda Lane Park Figure 3-10: Corto Park Figure 3-11: Municipal Pier Figure 3-12: Trafalgar Canyon Figure 3-13: T-Street Exhibit 1 Staff Suggested Modifications Page 5 of 274 Figure 3-14: Boca Del Canon Figure 3-15: Lost Winds Figure 3-16: Riviera Figure 3-17: Montalvo Figure 3-18: Avenida Calafia Figure 3-19: San Clemente State Beach Figure 3-20: Avenida de las Palmeras Figure 3-21: Calle Ariana Figure 3-22: Pochè Public and Private Beach Areas Figure 4-1: Coastal Canyons General Location Map Figure 4-2a-d: Potential Habitat Study Areas Figure 4-3: Coastal Reefs Figure 4-4 Watershed and Outfall Locations Figure 6-1: Public View Corridors Figure 6-2: Scenic Roadway Corridors Figure 7-1: Coastal Canyon and Bluff Graphic APPENDICES Appendix A: Biological Inventory Appendix B: Beach Amenities Appendix C: Overnight Accommodations Maps Appendix D: Affordable Overnight Accommodations Analysis Exhibit 1 Staff Suggested Modifications Page 6 of 274 Plain Text and Plain Bold Text Headings= City proposed LUP language Underlined Text = CCC Suggested Modification, Inserted Language StrikeOut Text = CCC Suggested Modification, Deleted Language CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION San Clemente’s coastline provides many benefits. It is the main influence on the community’s identity and beach culture, it creates a desirable climate and living environment, it provides stunning scenery and recreational opportunities, it attracts tourists and businesses, and provides diverse marine and shore habitats that are home to many plant and animal species. San Clemente is unique as it is one of the last small town beach communities in southern California. Coastline protection and land use often involve competing interests and needs. These interests must be carefully balanced to ensure long-term protection of San Clemente’s unique coastal resources and character. 1.1 The Coastal Act In October 1972, the United States Congress passed Title 16 U.S.C. 1451-1464, which established a federal coastal zone management policy and created a federal coastal zone. By that legislation, the Congress declared a national interest in the effective management, beneficial use, protection and development of the coastal zone in order to balance the nation’s natural, environmental and aesthetic resource needs with commercial-economic growth. The Congress found and declared that it was a national policy “to encourage and assist the states to exercise effectively their responsibilities in the coastal zone through the development and implementation of management programs to achieve wise use of the land and water resources of the coastal zone giving full consideration to ecological, cultural, historic, and aesthetic values as well as to the need for economic development (16 U.S.C. 1452b)”. As a result of that federal enactment, coastal states were provided a policy and source of funding for the implementation of federal goals. The California Coastal Zone Conservation Act of 1972 (Proposition 20) was a temporary measure passed by the voters of the State as a ballot initiative. It set up temporary regional coastal commissions with permit authority and a directive to prepare a comprehensive coastal plan. The coastal commissions under Proposition 20 lacked the authority to implement the Coastal Plan but were required to submit the Plan to the legislature for “adoption and implementation”. The California Coastal Act of 1976 is the enacting law approved by the State Legislature which succeeds the California Coastal Zone Conservation Act of 1972. The Coastal Act established a State Commission and multiple regional commissions (though these regional commissions have since been abolished) to provide for comprehensive regulation and planning of responsible development along the entirety of the California coast a different set of policies, a different boundary line, and different permitting procedures than Proposition 20. Further, it provides for the transfer of permitting authority, form with certain limitations reserved for the State to local Exhibit 1 Staff Suggested Modifications Page 7 of 274 governments upon through adoption and certification of a Local Coastal Program by the local government and certification thereof by the California Coastal Commission. 1.2 Local Coastal Program Land use planning and development standards in the City of San Clemente’s coastal zone are governed by this Local Coastal Program (LCP), which in turn must be consistent with the policies and standards found within the California Coastal Act of 1976 as amended and contained in the California Public Resources Code (Section 30000 et seq.). The Coastal Act directs “[each] local government lying, in whole or in part, within the coastal zone” to prepare an Local Coastal Program (LCP) for its portion of the California coastal zone (Public Resources Code Section 30500(a)). The purpose of the LCP is to carry out the resource protection policies of the California Coastal Act of 1976 within the City of San Clemente. The LCP is a comprehensive long- term planning blueprint governing development in the City of San Clemente’s coastal zone. The coastal zone is a distinct geographic area of land and water defined by the California Coastal Act that extends along the coastline. The approximate boundaries of the City’s coastal zone are depicted in Figure 1-1, Coastal Zone Boundaries. “Development” includes construction of physical improvements, as well as changes in the use of land or water, as specifically defined within Chapter 7 (Definitions) herein. Any activity that meets the definition of development within the coastal zone requires a Coastal Development Permit unless the development is categorically excluded, exempt, or permit
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Placer Vineyards Specific Plan Placer County, California
    Placer Vineyards Specific Plan Placer County, California Appendix B: Recommended Plant List Amended January 2015 Approved July 2007 R mECOm ENDED PlANt liSt APPENDIX B: RECOMMENDED PLANT LIST The list of plants below are recommended for use in Placer Vineyards within the design of its open space areas, landscape buffer corridors, streetscapes, gateways and parks. Plants similar to those listed in the table may also be substituted at the discretion of the County. OPEN SPACE Botanical Name Common Name Distribution Percentage Upland-Savanna TREES Aesculus californica California Buckeye 15% Quercus douglasii Blue Oak 15% Quercus lobata Valley Oak 40% Quercus wislizenii Interior Live Oak 15% Umbellularia california California Laurel 15% 100% SHRUBS Arctostaphylos sp Manzanita 15% Artemisia californica California Sagebrush 10% Ceanothus gloriosus Point Reyes Creeper 30% Ceanothus sp. California Lilac 10% Heteromeles arbutifolia Toyon 20% Rhamnus ilicifolia Hollyleaf Redberry 15% 100% GROUNDCOVER Bromus carinatus California Brome 15% Hordeum brachyantherum Meadow Barley 15% Muhlenbergia rigens Deergrass 40% Nassella pulchra Purple Needlegrass 15% Lupinus polyphyllus Blue Lupine 15% 100% January 2015 Placer Vineyards Specific Plan B-1 R mECOm ENDED PlANt liSt OPEN SPACE Botanical Name Common Name Distribution Percentage Riparian Woodland (2- to 5-year event creek flow) TREES Acer negundo Boxelder 5% Alnus rhombifolia White Alder 5% Fraxinus latifolia Oregon Ash 10% Populus fremontii Fremont Cottonwood 25% Quercus lobata Valley Oak 5% Salix gooddingii
    [Show full text]
  • Platanus Racemosa Nutt., CALIFORNIA SYCAMORE, WESTERN SYCAMORE, ALISO. Tree, Winter-Deciduous, with 1-Several Thick Trunks
    Platanus racemosa Nutt., CALIFORNIA SYCAMORE, WESTERN SYCAMORE, ALISO. Tree, winter-deciduous, with 1−several thick trunks, trunks ascending to reclining, branching somewhat open, in range 8–20+ m tall; monoecious; shoots with emerging leaves and young axes densely tomentose and covered with branched (dendritic) hairs, having a distinctive smell when crushed; bark on large branches and trunk smooth = mosaic of chalky white to dark gray patches, peeling in stiff flakes (exfoliating), on very old trunks cracked and not exfoliating. Stems: cylindric, somewhat zigzagged and knobby with projecting leaf buttresses, on young shoots olive to brown, becoming glabrescent, with encircling stipular scars; axillary buds conic; cataphylls strigose with golden, unbranched hairs. Leaves: helically alternate, palmately lobed with 3 or 5(7) lobes, petiolate, with stipules; stipules 1, leafy, sheathing stem, round with encircling blade lobes touching or shortly fused when immature, 20−60 mm wide, toothed or not, deciduous or sometimes persisting dead on winter stems; petiole 20–80 mm wide with dilated, hollow base covering axillary bud; blade ± round, 90–300 mm, truncate to cordate at base, lobes long- triangular with sinuses 1/3−2/3 blade length, entire or with various-sized, widely spaced teeth on lobe margins, acute at tip, palmately 3-veined from base or pseudopalmately veined with 1 vein at base hen branched palmately above, velveteen tomentose with light brown hairs on expanding surfaces, upper surface becoming glabrescent, lower surface remaining
    [Show full text]
  • Master Landscape Plan for Scenic Corridors
    C~tyof San Clemente Master Landscape Plan for Scenlc Corrrdors Adopted by the San Clemente C~tyCouncll October 18, 1989 (Rewsed May 1992) Table of Contents Page L MTRODUCFION - LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR SCMIC CORRIDORS . .. .. ... ........ 1 Purpose Intent. Project Descnptlon Goals and Object~eS Desmphon of Terms Approach/Methodology IL SCENIC CORRIDOR CONCEPTS . .. .... 9 Major Comdon Avemda Vlsta Hermosa - 'The Vlsta Comdor" Avemda La Pata - 'The Sycamore Comdor" Avemda Plco - 'The Eucalyptus Comdor" Vlsual Opportumhes Map hhor Corridors El Cammo Real - "Palm Tree Comdor" Carmno de 10s MaresICamo de Estrella - 'The Gateway Comdor" Carmno Vera Cruz - "Inland Crossmg" Carmno del RIO - 'Trans~tlonalComdof' Calle del Cerro - "Mediterranean Comdor" Avemda Vsta Montana - "Internal Valley Comdor" Avemda Talega - 'The Woodland Comdor" Cnstlamtos Road - "Oak Tree Comdor" V~sualOpportumhes Map Entrances and Intersect~ons Pnmary City Entnes - Freeway Interchanges Pnmary C~tyEntry - Coastal Edge Secondary C~tyEntnes Key Intersections Project Entry Statement Gmdehes Slope Plantmg Guidehes Urban Comdor - Coastal Urban Comdor - Inland Recreahon Comdor - Inland (Natural Edge) Rdgelme Plantmg Guldehes Table of Contents able of Contents - Installatlon Costs Pnmary C~tyEntrances Secondary C~tyEntrances Key Intersections Installatlon Responsibhtles Mamtenance Responsibhtles IV. MEDIAN AND PARKWAY DESIGN Medlan Des~gn Parkway Des~gn Table of Coat~nts Tltk Study Area Scemc Comdor I-herarchy Avemda Vlsta Hermosa - Urban Comdor - Conceptual Plan Avemda V~taHermosa
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix C: Plant Palette
    appendix c: plant pallete plant palette The Plant Palette identifies shade, understory and small trees, shrubs, groundover, perennials and ornamental grasses appropriate for the projects identified within the Urban Greening Plan and consistent with the policy direction defined by the Urban Greening objectives. The Plants defined as part of this plant palette do not represent an exhaustive list of appropriate or approved plants; they were developed to identify context- sensitive plant recommendations for El Cerrito’s streets, parks, and open spaces. This palette may be used to provide plant guidance to private projects interested in achieving the benefits identified by this Plan. This Palette is a living document and may be updated over time to better reflect changing environmental conditions. If the Plant Palette and the City’s current Master Tree List are in conflict, the current Master Tree List will take precedence. SHADE TREES Edible Native Evergreen Evergreen Water Use Water Litter Type Pollinators Deciduous/ Root Damage Landscape Use Creek Interpret Creek Drought Tolerant Drought Desirable Wildlife Biofiltration Planter Scientific Name Common Name Biogenic Emissions Acer macrophyllum Big Leaf Maple ü ü ü ü D M Riparian M High Dry Alnus rhombifolia White Alder ü ü D H Riparian ü High Dry Alnus rubra* Red Alder ü D H Riparian - ü High Dry Betula jaquemontii Birch D H Riparian - ü Mod Dry Screen, Carpinus betulus 'Fastigiata' Fastigiate Hornbeam D M Hedged Low Dry Castanea sativa European Chestnut ü D - - Low Dry Screen, Geijera parvifolia
    [Show full text]
  • Valley Oak Interior Live Oak
    Welcome to Vacaville’s California Native Tree and Shrub Demonstration Garden In spring 2016, Solano Resource Conservation District (RCD) and the City of Vacaville created a small demonstration garden in the southwest corner of the Irene Larsen Ballfield Park (located at 1800 Alamo Drive in Vacaville). The 10 species of trees and shrubs featured are native to California and are adapted to our dry climate. Once established, they require very little water to survive and thrive. They also provide excellent habitat and food resources for local wildlife species, and many do quite well in Vacaville’s heavy clay soils. This flyer provides information on each species planted in the Demonstration Garden. Please use the key below to quickly determine favorable features of these plants and visit the Demonstration Garden to see what they look like. Solano RCD holds workshops for Solano County residents on how to use native plants in the landscape, reducing irrigation needs and improving wildlife habitat. Please contact us at 707-678-1655 x101 for more information. The Larsen Demonstration Garden was funded by the California Natural Resources Agency with an Urban Greening grant and Proposition 84 bond funds. Attracts Hummingbirds Suitable under oaks Attracts Songbirds Fragrant Attracts Butterflies Slope stabilizer Valley oak Interior live oak Quercus lobata Quercus wislizeni © 1998 Charles Webber - • 40’-100’ H x 40’-100’ W • 30’-75’ H x 20’-65’ W California Academy of Sciences • Growth rate - moderate • Growth rate - moderate • Part to full sun • Full to part sun © 1995 Br. Alfred Brousseau, Saint Mary's College This evergreen oak can This deciduous oak has a live to be more than 200 broad rounded crown years old.
    [Show full text]
  • Evolution of Endosperm Developmental Patterns Among Basal Flowering Plants
    Int. J. Plant Sci. 161(6 Suppl.):S57–S81. 2000. ᭧ 2000 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved. 1058-5893/2000/16106S-0005$03.00 EVOLUTION OF ENDOSPERM DEVELOPMENTAL PATTERNS AMONG BASAL FLOWERING PLANTS Sandra K. Floyd1 and William E. Friedman Department of Environmental, Population, and Organismic Biology, CB 334, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309, U.S.A. A phylogenetically based comparative investigation of endosperm development was undertaken in a sample of 13 basal angiosperm taxa. The specific goals were to (1) provide a full developmental analysis of all aspects of endosperm in each species, (2) compare patterns among taxa to determine phylogenetic character distri- bution, (3) reconstruct the ancestral developmental pattern for angiosperms, and (4) explore scenarios of ontogenetic evolution that occurred during the early radiation of flowering plants. Five taxa, Acorus calamus, Cabomba caroliniana, Ceratophyllum demersum, Drimys winteri, and Platanus racemosa, are described in detail. Data from an additional eight taxa were analyzed and compared with these five. Endosperm ontogeny can be conceived of as a series of stages (characters) during which differential patterns of development occur among taxa (character states). We discovered that differential developmental fate of chalazal and micropylar domains is a common pattern among the endosperms of all basal angiosperm taxa and suggest that this may be a feature of endosperm development in all angiosperms. Differential development of chalazal and micropylar domains in endosperm in basal angiosperms also bears a marked similarity to what occurs in angiosperm embryos. This may have implications for understanding the evolutionary origin of endosperm. Basal angio- sperms also exhibit variable endosperm developmental characters, indicating that significant ontogenetic trans- formation occurred during the early radiation of the clade, although magnoliid taxa exhibit a high degree of conservation in endosperm characters.
    [Show full text]
  • ABSTRACT the First Through Fifth Instars of the Gypsy Moth Were Tested for Development to Adults on 326 Species of Dicotyledonous Plants in Laboratory Feeding Trials
    LABORATORY FEEDING TESTS ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF GYPSY MOTH LARVAE WITH REFERENCE TO PLANT TAXA AND ALLELOCHEMICALS JEFFREY C. MILLER and PAUL E. HANSON DEPARTMENT OF ENTOMOLOGY, OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY, CORVALLIS, OREGON 97331 ABSTRACT The first through fifth instars of the gypsy moth were tested for development to adults on 326 species of dicotyledonous plants in laboratory feeding trials. Among accepted plants, differences in suitability were documented by measuring female pupal weights. The majority of accepted plants belong to the subclasses Dilleniidae, Hamamelidae, and Rosidae. Species of oak, maple, alder, madrone, eucalyptus, poplar, and sumac were highly suitable. Plants belonging to the Asteridae, Caryophyllidae, and Magnoliidae were mostly rejected. Foliage type, new or old, and instar influenced host plant suitability. Larvae of various instars were able to pupate after feeding on foliage of 147 plant species. Of these, 1.01 were accepted by first instars. Larvae from the first through fifth instar failed to molt on foliage of 151 species. Minor feeding occurred on 67 of these species. In general, larvae accepted new foliage on evergreen species more readily than old foliage. The results of these trials were combined with results from three previous studies to provide data on feeding responses of gypsy moth larvae on a total of 658 species, 286 genera, and 106 families of dicots. Allelochemic compositions of these plants were tabulated from available literature and compared with acceptance or rejection by gypsy moth. Plants accepted by gypsy moth generally contain tannins, but lack alkaloids, iridoid monoterpenes, sesquiterpenoids, diterpenoids, and glucosinolates. 2 PREFACE This research was funded through grants from USDA Forest Service cooperative agreement no.
    [Show full text]
  • County of Riverside Friendly Plant List
    ATTACHMENT A COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE CALIFORNIA FRIENDLY PLANT LIST PLANT LIST KEY WUCOLS III (Water Use Classification of Landscape Species) WUCOLS Region Sunset Zones 1 2,3,14,15,16,17 2 8,9 3 22,23,24 4 18,19,20,21 511 613 WUCOLS III Water Usage/ Average Plant Factor Key H-High (0.8) M-Medium (0.5) L-Low (.2) VL-Very Low (0.1) * Water use for this plant material was not listed in WUCOLS III, but assumed in comparison to plants of similar species ** Zones for this plant material were not listed in Sunset, but assumed in comparison to plants of similar species *** Zones based on USDA zones ‡ The California Friendly Plant List is provided to serve as a general guide for plant material. Riverside County has multiple Sunset Zones as well as microclimates within those zones which can affect plant viability and mature size. As such, plants and use categories listed herein are not exhaustive, nor do they constitute automatic approval; all proposed plant material is subject to review by the County. In some cases where a broad genus or species is called out within the list, there may be multiple species or cultivars that may (or may not) be appropriate. The specific water needs and sizes of cultivars should be verified by the designer. Site specific conditions should be taken into consideration in determining appropriate plant material. This includes, but is not limited to, verifying soil conditions affecting erosion, site specific and Fire Department requirements or restrictions affecting plans for fuel modifications zones, and site specific conditions near MSHCP areas.
    [Show full text]
  • Checklist of the Vascular Plants of San Diego County 5Th Edition
    cHeckliSt of tHe vaScUlaR PlaNtS of SaN DieGo coUNty 5th edition Pinus torreyana subsp. torreyana Downingia concolor var. brevior Thermopsis californica var. semota Pogogyne abramsii Hulsea californica Cylindropuntia fosbergii Dudleya brevifolia Chorizanthe orcuttiana Astragalus deanei by Jon P. Rebman and Michael G. Simpson San Diego Natural History Museum and San Diego State University examples of checklist taxa: SPecieS SPecieS iNfRaSPecieS iNfRaSPecieS NaMe aUtHoR RaNk & NaMe aUtHoR Eriodictyon trichocalyx A. Heller var. lanatum (Brand) Jepson {SD 135251} [E. t. subsp. l. (Brand) Munz] Hairy yerba Santa SyNoNyM SyMBol foR NoN-NATIVE, NATURaliZeD PlaNt *Erodium cicutarium (L.) Aiton {SD 122398} red-Stem Filaree/StorkSbill HeRBaRiUM SPeciMeN coMMoN DocUMeNTATION NaMe SyMBol foR PlaNt Not liSteD iN THE JEPSON MANUAL †Rhus aromatica Aiton var. simplicifolia (Greene) Conquist {SD 118139} Single-leaF SkunkbruSH SyMBol foR StRict eNDeMic TO SaN DieGo coUNty §§Dudleya brevifolia (Moran) Moran {SD 130030} SHort-leaF dudleya [D. blochmaniae (Eastw.) Moran subsp. brevifolia Moran] 1B.1 S1.1 G2t1 ce SyMBol foR NeaR eNDeMic TO SaN DieGo coUNty §Nolina interrata Gentry {SD 79876} deHeSa nolina 1B.1 S2 G2 ce eNviRoNMeNTAL liStiNG SyMBol foR MiSiDeNtifieD PlaNt, Not occURRiNG iN coUNty (Note: this symbol used in appendix 1 only.) ?Cirsium brevistylum Cronq. indian tHiStle i checklist of the vascular plants of san Diego county 5th edition by Jon p. rebman and Michael g. simpson san Diego natural history Museum and san Diego state university publication of: san Diego natural history Museum san Diego, california ii Copyright © 2014 by Jon P. Rebman and Michael G. Simpson Fifth edition 2014. isBn 0-918969-08-5 Copyright © 2006 by Jon P.
    [Show full text]
  • A California-Friendly Guide to Native and Drought Tolerant Gardens
    A California-Friendly Guide to Native and Drought Tolerant Gardens 1 Scale: 1/4” = 1’ 2 WELCOME to our newest edition of “A California-Friendly Guide to Native and Drought Tolerant Gardens”, a collection of plants featured in our customer newsletter, The Current Flow, plus useful information. This publication is intended to help beginning and experienced gardeners become familiar with the different varieties of plants that can help reduce water usage while providing a pleasing and attractive landscape. Native and drought tolerant plants are important for this region, not just because they are water efficient, but because they are the cornerstone of biological diversity and the foundations of the native ecosystems in our local Santa Monica Mountains environment. Using “California-friendly” plants for everything from backyard gardens to wide scale re-vegetation is a positive practice that will benefit the local habitat and all residents who live here. With our current climate conditions of increasing warmth and less moisture, more and more Californians are becoming interested in replacing high-maintenance, lawns that require a lot of water and fertilizers, with water-conserving plants. These can be anything from ground covers to a field of meadow flowers to stately oak trees – they all provide the benefits of lower water needs, reduced maintenance requirements, restored soil health, increased diversity that attracts birds and butterflies, as well as the aesthetic beauty of blending in with the natural landscapes. Visit www.LVMWD.com for conservation information including irrigation tips, how to obtain and use Community Compost, rebate programs, how to register for landscape and garden classes, controlling urban runoff, and more.
    [Show full text]
  • Hybridization Between Native and Non-Native Plant Species in the Riparian Ecosystem Project Information
    Hybridization between native and non-native plant species in the riparian ecosystem Project Information 1. Proposal Title: Hybridization between native and non-native plant species in the riparian ecosystem 2. Proposal applicants: Kristina Schierenbeck, California State University, Chico 3. Corresponding Contact Person: Kristina Schierenbeck Calif. State Univ. Chico Dept. of Biological Sciences Chico, CA 95929-0515 530 898-6410 [email protected] 4. Project Keywords: At-risk species, plants Genetic Conservation and Engineering Nonnative Invasive Species 5. Type of project: Research 6. Does the project involve land acquisition, either in fee or through a conservation easement? No 7. Topic Area: Non-Native Invasive Species 8. Type of applicant: University 9. Location - GIS coordinates: Latitude: 40.0 Longitude: -121.5 Datum: Describe project location using information such as water bodies, river miles, road intersections, landmarks, and size in acres. in riparian corridors along Sacramento River and its tributaries 10. Location - Ecozone: 3.3 Chico Landing to Colusa, 4.1 Clear Creek, 7.3 Mill Creek, 7.4 Deer Creek, 7.5 Big Chico Creek, 7.6 Butte Creek, 8.1 Feather River, 9.2 Lower American River, 10.1 Cache Creek, 10.2 Putah Creek 11. Location - County: Butte, Colusa, Glenn, Plumas, Tehama, Yolo 12. Location - City: Does your project fall within a city jurisdiction? Yes If yes, please list the city: Chico 13. Location - Tribal Lands: Does your project fall on or adjacent to tribal lands? No 14. Location - Congressional District: second 15. Location: California State Senate District Number: 1 California Assembly District Number: 3 16. How many years of funding are you requesting? 3 17.
    [Show full text]
  • 2. Existing Conditions
    2. EXISTING CONDITIONS FINAL BIDWELL PARK MASTER MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS 2.1 PARK ZONES For the purpose of this Master Management Plan Update, Bidwell Park has been divided into three primary use zones referred to as Lower Park, Middle Park, and Upper Park (Exhibit 1.1.1-2). This section describes the three main park planning zones as well as specific planning areas that are addressed as part of this planning effort. 2.1.1 LOWER PARK Lower Park, located between the historic Bidwell Mansion in downtown Chico and Manzanita Avenue in downtown Chico, can be characterized as a narrow, predominantly oak/sycamore dominated riparian corridor along Big Chico Creek. Lower Park’s valley oak population is one of the largest in the state, representing a habitat type that was once prevalent in the Sacramento and San Joaquin valleys before the arrival of modern agriculture. Lower Park’s flat terrain and thick canopy of trees provide ample shade for visitors. Facilities in Lower Park are shown in Exhibit 2.1.1.1. Lower Park has easy vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian access to numerous park facilities including playgrounds, a swimming pool, and a visitor center. Several streets pass through the park. Lower Park’s woodlands, alluvial meadows, multiple-use trails, and turf areas constitute a 400 acre “back yard” for the community, subject to high intensity recreational use. One-Mile Recreation Area, a few blocks from downtown, is a park activity hub that accommodates special events, playing fields, a playground, parking, and restrooms. Of special interest at One-Mile is Sycamore Pool, a concrete pool that was constructed within Big Chico Creek in 1923–24.
    [Show full text]