HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-23-2015 PC Item 1 - 159 Broad Street (AP-PC 32-14)
Meeting Date: September 23, 2015
Item Number: 1
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Appeal of the Director’s decision approving the subdivision of a 14-acre parcel into
four parcels and a 13.2-acre remainder parcel
ADDRESS: 159 Broad, San Luis Obispo BY: Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner
FILE: AP-PC 32-14 Phone: 781-7593
e-mail: woetzell@slocity.org
FROM: Michael Codron, Director
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution (Attachment 1), denying the appeal, adopting a
Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, and upholding the Director’s approval of the
subdivision.
SUMMARY
Appellant Cheryl McLean
Representative Andrew Christie, Director,
Santa Lucia Chapter of the
Sierra Club
General Plan Open Space;
Low-Density Residential
Zoning Conservation / Open Space
(C/OS-20);
Low-Density Residential (R-1)
Appeal Date April 23, 2015
Environmental
Status
Negative Declaration prepared
The Subdivision Hearing Officer approved an application, filed by Michael Morris, of Andre,
Morris & Buttery, to subdivide a 14-acre parcel into 4 parcels and a remainder parcel
(Attachment 4). The subdivision will create four new small residential parcels, each surrounding
one of four existing residences on Bressi Place, and a remainder parcel measuring just over 13
acres in area.
MS 32-14 (159 Broad)
Page 2
On April 23, 2015 an appeal of the Hearing Officer’s decision was timely filed by Cheryl
McLean, who is represented by Andrew Christie, Director of the Santa Lucia Chapter of the
Sierra Club. The reason for the appeal is described as follows:
Lack of Open Space easement; protection required due to potential future
development facilitated by subdivision.
The item was previously agendized for the August 12, 2015 Planning Commission hearing but
due to a noticing error the item was continued to a date uncertain. The appeal hearing has been
appropriately noticed with a published notification in the Tribune (Saturday, September 12th),
mailed notice to residents and owners within 300 feet of the property boundary, and notices
posted on both the Broad Street and Serrano Drive frontages.
COMMISSION PURVIEW
Pursuant to § 16.10.140 of the City’s Subdivision Regulations (SLOMC Title 16), the Planning
Commission may sustain, modify, reject, or overrule any ruling of the Director on a tentative
map and may make such findings consistent with the Subdivision Regulations, the Subdivision
Map Act, or any other applicable regulations.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Site Information and Setting
The project site is an irregularly shaped parcel, just under 14 acres in size, west of Broad Street
and south of Serrano Drive. Access to the site is taken from Broad Street, between 153 and 181
Broad, by a common driveway shared with 161 Broad. Access is also taken from Serrano Road
by Bressi Place, a private street.
Table 1: Site Data – Original Parcel
Site Dimensions
(approx.)
Area: 602,980 square feet (about 13.85 acres)
Width: varies; about 250 to 750 feet
Depth: varies; extends about 1400 feet (north-south)
Street Frontage: ±40 ft. (Serrano); ±90 ft. (Broad)
Present Use &
Development
Four single-family dwellings (Bressi Pl)
Single-family residence, barn, accessory structures (159 Broad St)
Topography Elevation: Min. ±250 ft.; Max. ±445 ft.
Slope: Gentle, increasing to moderate in a southwest direction, toward
Cerro San Luis
Natural Features: Two unnamed creeks; open space
Access From Broad Street, by common driveway south of 153 Broad
From Serrano Drive, by Bressi Place (a private street), east of 641 Serrano
Surrounding Uses North & East: Low-Density Residential (R-1); Single-family residences
South & West: Open Space (C/OS-20); Northeast flank of Cerro San Luis
PC1 - 2
MS 32-14 (159 Broad)
Page 3
Most of the subject parcel lies outside the Urban Reserve Line within an area designated Open
Space north and east of Cerro San Luis. An unnamed creek travels in an easterly direction across
the middle of the property toward a culvert near the common driveway entrance on Broad Street.
The northerly portion of the property is within a Low-Density Residential area. Within this
portion, at 159 Broad, is a house built in the late 1920s, a barn, and several associated accessory
structures, all accessed by the common driveway from Broad Street. In the early 1950s, 4 single-
family residences were built on Bressi Place, near Serrano Drive (114, 115, 122, and 123 Bressi).
The area is characterized by substantial open space to the southwest, around Cerro San Luis, and
low-density residential neighborhoods to the north and east along the periphery of the open
space.
Minor Subdivision
The subject parcel is proposed to be subdivided into four smaller parcels1 and a large remainder
parcel via a parcel map. The result will be to create a parcel around each of the four existing
residences on Bressi Place. The total area of the four parcels being created is less than 5% of the
total area of the original parcel. Each of the proposed lots is fully developed. No physical
development is proposed with this project, apart from minor modifications to portions of the
existing residences on Bressi Place and limited improvements along Bressi Place for
conformance to current Engineering Standards (as described in the conditions of approval within
the draft resolution, Attachment 1).
Table 2: Parcel Information
Area (sq. ft.) Width (ft.) Depth (ft.)
Parcel 1 (114 Bressi) 6,290 57.5 109
Parcel 2 (122 Bressi) 6,112 55.5 110
Parcel 3 (123 Bressi) 6,348 57.8 110
Parcel 4 (115 Bressi) 6,244 57.5 109
Remainder Parcel 577, 986
(13.27 ac)
Subdivisions are evaluated for conformance with the Subdivision Map Act and to the City’s
Subdivision Regulations, which were adopted to promote public health, safety, and welfare,
orderly development, resource protection, and enhancement of land values (§16.02.020). As
discussed in the original staff report considered by the Community Development Director on
April 15, 2015 (Attachment 6), the subdivision was found to be consistent with the policies and
standards of the City’s General Plan, Zoning Regulations, Community Design Guidelines, and
1 Pursuant to Government Code section 66424.6(a)(1), a “designated remainder shall not be counted as a parcel for
the purpose of determining whether a parcel or final map is required.”
PC1 - 3
MS 32-14 (159 Broad)
Page 4
Engineering Standards, and was approved, subject to several conditions. These conditions have
been incorporated into the draft resolution proposed for adoption (Attachment 1).
Remainder Parcels
As noted in the footnote above, a designated “Remainder Parcel” is not counted as a parcel for
determining whether a parcel map or a tentative and final map is required. Originally, remainder
parcels were often used to retain the “homestead,” that is, portions of the family farm would be
subdivided and sold and the remainder would be retained by the family. The Subdivision Map
Act has statutorily limited what conditions or other regulations can be imposed on a remainder
parcel. For example, Government Code section 66424.6(a)(2), (b) prohibits local agencies from
requiring construction of improvements or payment of fees for improvements on a remainder
parcel until a permit or other approval for development is issued for the remainder. The only
exception is if the construction of such improvements is necessary for public health and safety or
if such improvements are necessary for the orderly development of the surrounding area, in
which case such improvements may only be required after a reasonable time following approval
of the parcel map. Moreover, Government Code section 66424.6(d) specifically authorizes
remainder parcels to be sold, leased or financed without a further parcel or tentative map,
although a certificate of compliance may be required.
For purposes of this project, the applicant has a designated remainder parcel which is a 1920’s
single family residence, a barn and several accessory structures. The property is served by public
utilities and there is an easement for ingress and egress and emergency access. No further
improvements or fees are necessary for public health and safety reasons or to ensure the orderly
development of the surrounding area. If the remainder parcel is subsequently developed or
further subdivided, conditions or approval will be imposed.
EVALUATION OF APPEAL
The appellant raises concern about the absence of an easement dedicating land within the
subdivision to be preserved as open space. She contends that this minor subdivision of the
property facilitates future development, making an easement necessary to protect open space.
Staff believes that this minor subdivision does not facilitate future development, and notes that
apart from the minor improvements to existing structures and facilities discussed above, no
development of the property is proposed with this application. As this subdivision involves no
additional development, it has no impact on open space resources. The burden of dedicating land
for open space would substantially outweigh any impacts to open space resources that could
result from this minor subdivision. Thus, it is not appropriate to require dedication of land
through an “open space easement” as a condition of approval of this minor subdivision, and such
a requirement would be inconsistent with the standard of “rough proportionality” established by
case law.2 If, in the future, development is proposed on the remainder parcel, full map conditions
will be applied in accordance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and the City’s
Subdivision regulations.
2 See CEQA Guidelines § 15041; Dolan v. City of Tigard, (1994) 512 U.S. 374, Ehrlich v. City of Culver City,
(1996) 12 Cal. 4th 854.
PC1 - 4
MS 32-14 (159 Broad)
Page 5
Furthermore, the City has clear policies in place for the preservation of open space resources and
programs to support implementation of those policies. When development of the property is
proposed, the impact of that development on the physical environment will be assessed and
appropriate conditions, exactions, dedications, and environmental mitigations will be developed
to ensure orderly development and protection of natural assets, including open space resources.
Protected open space
Open Space designation. Growth Management Policies in the General Plan call for permanent
protection of open space resources. The Open Space land use designation provides for the
protection and preservation of the community’s natural and historical resources.3 The southerly
portion of the original parcel (roughly 2/3 of its area) is currently protected as open space by its
designation as Open Space in the General Plan (Conservation/Open Space Zone), and by its
location within the City’s Greenbelt and beyond the Urban Reserve Line (see Attachment 5).
Developable area
Low-Density Residential. The northerly third of the property is designated for Low Density
Residential use, and is within the Urban Reserve Line. Opportunity for open space protection
within this area is limited to the protection of natural resource areas deemed worthy of
permanent protection, such as wildlife habitat and habitat corridors,4 and creeks that provide
wildlife habitat, backyard retreats, and viewing pleasures.5 Such resources may exist on this
property (see Attachment 8), but will not be impacted in any way by this minor subdivision,
since no development is proposed with, or permitted by, the subdivision. Construction activity
related to the project is limited to the minor treatment to exterior walls of two of the existing
residences; improvement to an existing curb-cut at the northerly edge of the property on a paved
public right-of-way; and establishment of a parking space in front of each residence, on an
existing improved accessway.
No development approvals or facilitation. The Hearing Officer’s decision to approve a minor
subdivision of the parcel grants no approval to further develop the property, and does not alter or
affect the restrictions under which development may occur on the property. All of the property
outside of the four lots created around the existing houses on Bressi Place is designated as a
remainder parcel in this minor subdivision. As such, the subdivider may not further divide the
property by way of a minor subdivision (illegal “quartering” or “4 by 4”). Any entitlements
requested would trigger the map conditions for a full subdivision, and development of the
southerly two-thirds of the property remains restricted by its designation as Open Space.
Open space protection upon development of property. Further division of the property, or
proposals to build structures on the property, would require City review through a subdivision
application, a process that involves environmental review of the site and surroundings, and
consideration of required improvements, dedications, impact fees, and other appropriate
conditions of project approval. It is within the context of processing applications for further
3 General Plan (May, 2015) Land Use Element, pg. 1-31 and Policy 1.8.1, pg. 1-35
4 General Plan (May, 2015) Land Use Element, Policy 6.2.2, and 6.3.1
5 General Plan (May, 2015) Land Use Element, § 6.6
PC1 - 5
MS 32-14 (159 Broad)
Page 6
subdivision or development of the property, and analysis of the environmental impacts of
proposed development, that consideration of the dedication of land for open space is appropriate.
At that time the impacts of development of the property on open space resources will be assessed
and mitigation measures for open space protection that are properly connected and roughly
proportional to that impact can be developed. Under the direction of the City’s Natural
Resources Manager appropriate action will be taken to protect open space resources against
impacts from any future development proposed for this property.
CONCLUSION
The Land Use Element of the City’s General Plan identifies the City’s natural setting as its
greatest strength, and the community strongly supports the acquisition and maintenance of open
space.6 The City takes various actions to protect open space, including the acquisition of land for
open space, setting conditions of subdivision and development approvals consistent with General
Plan goals and policies, and obtaining dedications of fee ownership or easements.
Requiring dedication of land for use as open space as a condition of approval of this minor
subdivision is not appropriate because such a requirement is excessive, given that the minor
subdivision effectively only creates property lines around existing residences, which has no
physical impact on open space resources. As such, imposing a condition of approval for the
dedication of land for open space is not “roughly proportional” to the impacts of this minor
subdivision.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Community Development Department conducted an initial study of the potential
environmental effects of the project (Attachment 7) and determined that the project would not
have a significant effect on the environment. A Negative Declaration was prepared on August
20th, 2015 and circulated for public review, along with a Notice of Intent to adopt a Negative
Declaration, according to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
The tentative map and associated exhibits were forwarded to several City departments (Building
& Safety, Fire, Public Works, Utilities, Natural Resources) for review. Comments received from
these departments were incorporated into recommended conditions of approval.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on this evaluation, staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny this appeal,
adopt the Negative Declaration prepared for the project, and uphold the decision of the Hearing
Officer approving the minor subdivision, based on the findings set forth in the attached draft
resolution.
6 As indicated by responses to the Quality of Life and Future Development Survey conducted by the City in 2012
PC1 - 6
MS 32-14 (159 Broad)
Page 7
ALTERNATIVES
1. Continue consideration of the application to a future hearing date, with direction to the
applicant and staff on pertinent issues.
2. Deny the appeal, but modify the decision of the Subdivision Hearing Officer and approve
the minor subdivision based on modified findings and conditions of approval.
3. Grant the appeal and deny the minor subdivision based on findings of inconsistency with
the Subdivision Regulations, Subdivision Map Act, General Plan, Zoning Regulations, or
Community Design Guidelines. This action is not recommended, because staff finds that
the subdivision, as conditioned, is consistent with applicable policies and standards and
that a requirement to dedicate land for preservation as open space is not consistent with
the standard of “rough proportionality” between required dedications and project impacts.
No new development is proposed or facilitated by the subdivision, so the subdivision
would have no impact on open space resources. Furthermore, open space resources are
protected by the current designation of most of the property as Open Space in the General
Plan, and by General Plan policies and programs that will preserve and protect open
space resources against the impacts that future development of the property may have.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Resolution
2. Vicinity Map
3. Assessor’s Parcel Map
4. Tentative Parcel Map
5. Aerial photograph
6. Minor Subdivision Hearing Agenda Report
7. Initial Study (Environmental Review)
8. General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element Maps
PC1 - 7
RESOLUTION NO. PC-####-15
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING AN APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE
DECISION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR TO APPROVE A
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP FOR THE MINOR SUBDIVISION OF ONE PARCEL
INTO FOUR PARCELS WITH ONE REMAINDER PARCEL, AND ADOPTION OF A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR THE PROJECT,
AS REPRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED
SEPTEMBER 23, 2015 (159 BROAD, AP-PC 32-14)
WHEREAS, on April 15, 2015 the Community Development Director of the City of San
Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm
Street, San Luis Obispo, California, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under application
MS 32-14, Michael Morris of Andre, Morris & Buttery, applicant; and
WHEREAS, on April 23, 2015, Cheryl McLean, a resident of Mission Lane in San Luis
Obispo, represented by Andrew Christie, Director of the Santa Lucia Chapter of the Sierra Club,
filed an appeal of the Community Development Director’s Decision approving the tentative map;
and
WHEREAS, on September 23, 2015, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis
Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San
Luis Obispo, California, for the purpose of considering the appeal of the decision of the
Community Development Director approving the tentative map, reviewing an initial study of
potential environmental effects of the project, and considering the adoption of a Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impact prepared for the project; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered all evidence, including the
testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and evaluation and recommendations by staff
presented at said hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of
San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Commission makes the
following findings:
1. That the above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by
reference.
2. The proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and
improvement, is consistent with the General Plan, including compatibility with
ATTACHMENT 1
PC1 - 8
Resolution No. PC ####-15 Page 2
AP-PC 32-14 (159 Broad)
the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in the General
Plan.
3. The design of the subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive or
natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision.
4. The design of the tentative map is not likely to cause serious health problems,
substantial environmental damage, or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or
wildlife or their habitat, since the subdivision will occur on a developed site
within an urbanized area.
5. The design of the subdivision will not conflict with easements for access through,
or use of property within, the proposed subdivision since required easements will
remain in place following the subdivision and will be applicable to the newly-
created parcels; and code requirements require the recordation of new easements
and the relocation of utilities wherever necessary to the satisfaction of the
Community Development Director and Public Works Department Director.
6. The proposed subdivision will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare
of those working or residing in the vicinity. The property is not subject to fault
rupture or landslide hazards. Settlement and liquefaction hazards are addressed
through site-specific investigations and site preparation, and no development is
proposed with this subdivision.
7. There are circumstances applying to the site, such as size, shape or topography,
which do not apply generally to land in the vicinity with the same zoning.
8. A variance allowing a minor relaxation of yard depth standards will not constitute
a grant of special privilege or entitlement inconsistent with the limitations upon
other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. Minor relaxation of yard
standards would be considered for property in the same vicinity and zone under
similar circumstances.
9. A variance allowing a minor relaxation of yard depth standards will not adversely
affect the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working on the
site or in the vicinity. Buildings on the site are subject to building and fire safety
standards and codes related to fire resistant construction and emergency egress.
10. The Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact prepared for this project
reflects the independent judgement and analysis of the Community Development
Department.
PC1 - 9
Resolution No. PC ####-15 Page 3
AP-PC 32-14 (159 Broad)
11. There is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant impact on
the environment. The project involves no new physical development, no new land
uses, no changes in land use, and no modifications of land use restrictions. The
project is limited to the minor subdivision of a parcel into 4 parcels around
existing single-family dwellings, with a large designated remainder parcel.
Construction activity associated with the project is limited to minor improvements
to the exterior walls of existing residences and to existing curb ramps on
improved rights-of-way. Any impacts would be “less than significant,” as
discussed in the Initial Study conducted for this project.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The Community Development Department
conducted an initial study of the potential environmental effects of this project and determined
that the project would not have a significant effect on the environment. A Negative Declaration
of Environmental Impact was prepared and circulated for public review on August 20th, 2015 and
a Notice of Intent to adopt a Negative Declaration was provided, in conformance to the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
SECTION 3. Action. The Commission hereby denies the appeal, adopts the proposed
Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for the project, and upholds the decision of the
Community Development Director approving the tentative parcel map for the subdivision of one
parcel into four parcels with a remainder parcel at 159 Broad, subject to the following
conditions:
1. Improvements to residences: Prior to the recordation of the final map, the existing
residences will be modified as necessary to comply with applicable current
building and fire safety codes, particularly those related to fire resistant
construction and emergency egress from rooms. Plans for permits to make these
improvements shall clearly show the new property lines between the existing
buildings and specify materials of construction to show compliance with building
and fire safety codes and standards.
2. Fire resistant construction: Plans submitted for improvements to residences for
compliance with building and fire safety codes will clearly demonstrate that
building exterior walls and projections comply with Table R302.1(1) of the
California Residential Code (CRC). Exterior walls less than 5 feet from property
lines will be clearly specified to be “1-Hour Fire Rated Walls.’ Details will be
shown on plans indicating the materials of construction to justify the fire rating,
including stud spacing and interior wall covering. The extent of any projections
will be clearly shown on building elevation and section drawings, and compliance
with the maximum allowed dimension into the proposed reduced yard, as set forth
in CRC Table R302.1(1) will be demonstrated. The fire rating will be clearly
detailed. No projections are allowed within 2’ of property line.
PC1 - 10
Resolution No. PC ####-15 Page 4
AP-PC 32-14 (159 Broad)
3. Emergency egress: Any windows of sleeping rooms that are replaced will
conform to current standards and requirements related to light and ventilation and
emergency egress.
4. Window and door openings: Plans submitted for improvements to residences will
clearly indicate the percentage of window and door openings along property lines.
5. Guest Parking: Prior to recordation of the final parcel map, an exhibit will be
submitted for review by the Community Development and Public Works
Departments depicting the location and dimension of guest parking spaces
required by Subdivision Regulations for flag lot subdivisions (§16.18.060(F)).
The guest parking space for each residence will be located in a logical and
consistent location, and will be improved with a surface that is in compliance with
the City’s Engineering Standards for parking areas.
6. Depth of Other yards: The relaxation of “other yard” depth standards is limited to
the yard areas between the existing residences on the proposed Parcels (1-4) and
the proposed interior lot lines between them. The minimum depth required is
reduced to the distance between the existing building walls and the proposed
interior lot lines, where the distance is less than 5 feet, as depicted on the tentative
map.
7. The subdivision shall be recorded with a parcel map. The parcel map preparation
and documentation shall be in accordance with the City’s Subdivision
Regulations, Engineering Standards, and the Subdivision Map Act. The parcel
map shall use U.S. Customary Units in accordance with the current City
Engineering Standards.
8. A separate subdivision improvement plan submittal is not required. The building
plan submittal may be used to show all required public and private subdivision
improvements. Improvements located within the public right-of-way will require
a separate encroachment permit and associated inspection fees based on the fee
schedule in effect at the time of permit issuance. A separate subdivision base
improvement plan review fee and map check fee will be required for the review of
subdivision improvements in accordance with the most current fee resolution.
9. Final lot line locations and building setbacks shall consider building allowable
area analysis, exterior wall protection, projections, exiting, and the location of
building service equipment in accordance with the uniform codes and to the
satisfaction of the Building Official. Any necessary analysis and/or exhibits shall
be submitted for review and shall be approved prior to recordation of the map.
PC1 - 11
Resolution No. PC ####-15 Page 5
AP-PC 32-14 (159 Broad)
10. The building plan submittal shall include the bearings and distances for all
property lines in accordance with the map. The final map shall show and label all
survey monuments located on the property. The plan shall show and label all
existing and proposed public and private easements along with any Public Utility
Easements (PUE’s) in the favor of the several wire utilities (PGE, ATT, &
Charter, etc.) and the Gas Company.
11. A separate building permit is required for any parking, access, utility, site, or
drainage improvements. The building plan submittal shall show all existing public
and private utilities and improvements shall be approved to the satisfaction of the
Community Development Director and Public Works Director prior to
recordation of the parcel map. Unless otherwise waived or deferred, the site and
utility plans shall include drainage and circulation improvements, water, sewer,
storm drains, gas, electricity, telephone, cable TV, and any utility company meters
for each parcel if applicable. Any utility relocations, demolitions, and/or other on-
site work shall be completed with proper building permits and receive final
inspection approvals prior to recordation of the parcel map. Otherwise, easements
shall be prepared and recorded to the satisfaction of the Community Development
Director, Public Works Director, and the serving utility companies. Easements
may be recorded separately or as blanket easements
12. Any easements including but not limited to provisions for all public and private
utilities, access, grading, drainage, slope banks, construction, common driveways,
bridge structures, common utilities, and common drainage improvements shall be
shown and referenced on the final map and shall be recorded prior to or
concurrent with the map recordation if applicable. Said easements may be
provided for in part or in total as blanket easements. Maintenance agreements
shall be recorded for any common facilities prior to or concurrent with the map
recordation.
13. The building plan submittal shall show the Bressi Place and Serrano Drive street
name signs to be upgraded per City Standard #7250. The standard requires a
reverse of the sign colors between the public Serrano Drive and private Bressi
Place street name signs.
14. A new curb ramp shall be required on the east corner of the entrance to Bressi
Place. The building plan submittal shall show the new curb ramp on the Bressi
Place intersection with Serrano Drive in accordance with City Engineering
Standard #4440. The driveway entrance may need to be narrowed to
accommodate the ramp construction. The existing westerly curb ramp shall be
shown to comply with current City and ADA Standards or shall be upgraded
and/or replaced to comply.
PC1 - 12
Resolution No. PC ####-15 Page 6
AP-PC 32-14 (159 Broad)
15. The City’s Subdivision Regulations normally require complete frontage
improvements (curb, gutter, and sidewalk, etc.) as a condition of subdivision. The
City supports the deferral of said improvements along the Broad Street frontage.
A covenant agreement shall be recorded for the deferral of the Broad Street
frontage improvements in a format provided by the City concurrent with or prior
to final map recordation.
16. If additional parking spaces at the dead end of Bressi Place are needed to satisfy
parking requirements, or are proposed to provide additional parking, a parking
easement shall be recorded prior to or concurrent with the final map for the. The
parking easement shall be recorded on the Remainder parcel in favor of Parcels 1,
2, 3, and 4.
17. The informal parking area at the end of Bressi Place, and located partially within
the remainder parcel shall be fenced off, landscaped, or otherwise delineated to
preclude its use as a parking area.
18. The final map, additional map sheet, and building plan submittals shall show the
existing encroachments from adjoining parcels, including the fence along the east
side of the Bressi Street entrance and the common fence along the northerly
property line of Parcel 1.
19. The final map shall show the correct street widths for Serrano Drive and Bressi
Place and shall reference the associated offers of dedication, including the Grant
Deed recorded in Volume 1122, Page 419 of Official Records of the County of
San Luis Obispo.
20. The building plan submittal shall include a topographic survey and shall include
the existing grading and drainage for the undeveloped upslope areas, developed
parcels and private street for reference. The plan shall show any existing or
proposed drainage improvements, swales, pipes, inlets, etc. The plan shall show
and reference any areas of historic run-on or run-off. The plan shall show and
reference the location of the existing sump/low point(s) on Bressi Street and shall
include any required improvements and easements needed to maintain historic
base flow and safe overflow areas.
21. The building plan submittal shall include a complete site utility plan for reference.
The plan shall show and label all public and private utilities, overhead wire
utilities, appurtenances, and utility company meters.
22. The building plan submittal shall show all water meters to be upgraded by adding
a concrete collar in accordance with City Engineering Standard #6210.
PC1 - 13
Resolution No. PC ####-15 Page 7
AP-PC 32-14 (159 Broad)
23. The building plan submittal shall show the relocation of the electrical and telecom
wiring drops to Parcel 1 to eliminate the encroachment across proposed Parcel 4.
If a mid-span drop is not authorized by the serving utility companies, an
additional joint utility pole or undergrounding may be required. All work shall be
completed to the satisfaction of the respective utility companies and the Public
Works Department.
24. The building plan submittal shall show all existing and proposed tree plantings for
reference. The plan shall include the species and diameter of each tree. The
building plan submittal shall show street trees along the private street as a
condition of the subdivision. Street trees are generally required at a rate of one 15
gallon street tree for each 35 linear feet of frontage. One additional street tree
shall be planted in the front yard planting area on Parcels 1, 3, and 4. Tree species
and planting requirements shall be approved to the satisfaction of the City
Arborist.
25. Each existing sewer lateral(s) serving the four existing residences to the point of
connection at the City main must pass a video inspection, including repair or
replacement, as part of the proposed subdivision project. The CCTV inspection
shall be submitted for review and approval by the Utilities Department and any
necessary repairs shall be made prior to recordation of the proposed subdivision.
26. Public utility easements shall be maintained across proposed residential parcels. A
private utility easement shall be established for the private sewer lateral from 161
Broad (Assessor’s Parcel Number 001-016-001).
On motion by Commissioner ___________, seconded by Commissioner _____________,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
REFRAIN:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 23rd day of September, 2015.
_____________________________
Doug Davidson, Secretary
Planning Commission
PC1 - 14
R-1
C/OS-20
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1-PD R-1
R-1
R-1 R-1
R-1
R-1
R-4-PD
R-1-S
R-1
R-1 R-4R-1 R-4-PD
R-1
BR
O
A
D
SERRANO
LUNETA
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
MURRAY
PE
N
M
A
N
A
L
M
O
N
D
B
R
E
S
S
I
PA
L
O
M
A
R
HI
L
L
BE
N
T
O
N
MISSION
VICINITY MAP File No. MS 32-14& VAR-0688-2014159 Broad ¯
ATTACHMENT 2
PC1 - 15
ATTACHMENT 3
PC1 - 16
ATTACHMENT 4
PC1 - 17
PC1 - 18
Low Density Residential
Open Space
BR
O
A
D
SERRANO
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
B
R
E
S
S
I
R-1
C/OS-20
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1R-1 R-1-PD
R-1
141
156
108
112699655
122
114
770730 780
671667
235
160
148
132
164
228
205
629
211
219
223
249
207
141
137
129
785725743755777
191
161
159
595 605 623 641
115
123
650580
704
672668
217
130
172
180
153
181
185
624616608
203
159 Broad
Urban Reserve Line
Creeks
ATTACHMENT 5
PC1 - 19
Meeting Date: April 15, 2015
Item Number: 1
MINOR SUBDIVISION HEARING AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Subdivision of a 14-acre parcel into 4 parcels and a 13.2-acre remainder parcel;
reduction in the required depth of “other yards.”
ADDRESS: 159 Broad BY: Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner
Phone: 781-7593
e-mail: woetzell@slocity.org
FILE #: MS 32-14 & VAR-0688-2014 FROM: Doug Davidson, Deputy Director
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution (Attachment 3), approving the tentative parcel
map, based on findings, and subject to conditions.
SUMMARY
Applicant Mike Morris;
Andre, Morris & Buttery
Representative Steve Webster;
RRM Design Group
General Plan Open Space;
Low-Density Residential
Zoning Conservation / Open Space
(C/OS-20);
Low-Density Residential (R-1)
Site Area 606,896 sq. ft. (13.93 ac.)
Submittal Date Feb 21, 2014 (MS)
Dec 9, 2014 (VAR)
Complete Date Mar 23, 2014 (MS)
Mar 19, 2015 (VAR)
Environmental
Status
Categorically Exempt
(CEQA Guidelines §15315:
Minor Land Divisions)
Mike Morris, of Andre, Morris & Buttery, has filed an application to subdivide a large parcel of
land in the northwest portion of the City, near the intersection of Broad Street and Serrano Drive.
The subdivision will create four parcels, each surrounding one of four existing residences on
Bressi Place, and a remainder parcel just over 13 acres in area.
An application was also filed to request a variance from minimum depth requirements for “other
yards” between two houses. Because they were built less than ten feet apart from each other, the
depth of the yards between them are slightly less than current minimum standards.
ATTACHMENT 6
PC1 - 20
MS 32-14 & VAR-0688-2015 (159 Broad)
Page 2
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This project is subject to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). It
is a minor division of land, a class of project that does not have a significant effect on the
environment. It is categorically exempt from the requirement for the preparation of
environmental documents as described in CEQA Guidelines §15315 (Minor Land Division).
The property to be divided is located within an urbanized area zoned for residential use. As
discussed in this report, the subdivision is in conformance with the General Plan and zoning. No
variances or exceptions are required,1 services and access are available to the parcel, and the
parcel has an average slope under 20%. The parcel was not involved in any recent subdivision.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Site Information and Setting
The project site is an irregularly shaped parcel, just under 14 acres in size, west of Broad Street
and south of Serrano Drive. Access to the site is taken from Broad Street, between 181 and 153
Broad, by a common driveway shared with 161 Broad. Access is also taken from Serrano Road
by Bressi Place, a private street.
Table 1: Site Data – Original Parcel
Site Dimensions
(approx.)
Area: 602,980 square feet (about 13.85 acres)
Width: varies; about 250 to 750 feet
Depth: varies; extends about 1400 feet (north-south)
Street Frontage: ±40 ft. (Serrano); ±90 ft. (Broad)
Present Use &
Development
Four single-family dwellings (Bressi Pl)
Single-family residence, barn, accessory structures (159 Broad St)
Topography Elevation: Min. ±250 ft.; Max. ±445 ft.
Slope: Gentle, increasing to moderate in a southwest direction, toward
Cerro San Luis
Natural Features: Two unnamed creeks; open space
Access From Broad Street, by common driveway south of 153 Broad
From Serrano Road, by Bressi Place (a private street), east of 641 Serrano
Surrounding Uses North & East: Low-Density Residential (R-1); Single-family residences
South & West: Open Space (C/OS-20); Northeast flank of Cerro San Luis
Most of the parcel lies within an open space area north and east of Cerro San Luis. An unnamed
creek travels in an easterly direction across the middle of this open space toward a culvert near
the common driveway entrance on Broad Street.
1 The associated variance request pertains to a minor relaxation of development standards applicable to the existing
residences, as allowed by Chapter 17.60 of the City’s Zoning Regulations. This project does not require any
variances or exceptions in order to result in conforming parcels.
PC1 - 21
MS 32-14 & VAR-0688-2015 (159 Broad)
Page 3
The northerly portion of the property is within a Low-Density Residential area. It contains, at
159 Broad, a house built in the late 1920s, a barn, and several associated accessory structures, all
accessed by the common driveway from Broad Street. In the early 1950s 4 single-family
residences were built on Bressi Place, near Serrano Drive. Another unnamed creek runs across
this portion of the property, underneath Bressi Place in a closed conduit.
The area is characterized by substantial open space to the southwest, around Cerro San Luis, and
low-density residential neighborhoods to the north and east along the periphery of the open
space.
Project Description
The project consists of the subdivision of a parcel into four smaller parcels and a large remainder
parcel, and modifications to the walls and windows of two houses on Bressi Place to provide fire
protection and emergency egress in compliance with current building codes. The result of the
project will be to create a parcel around each of the four existing residences on Bressi Place. No
further development is proposed with this project.
Table 2: Parcel Information
Area (sq. ft.) Width (ft.) Depth (ft.)
Minimum (R-1): 6,000 50 90
Parcel 1 (114 Bressi) 6,290 57.5 109
Parcel 2 (122 Bressi) 6,112 55.5 110
Parcel 3 (123 Bressi) 6,348 57.8 110
Parcel 4 (115 Bressi) 6,244 57.5 109
Remainder 577, 986
(13.27 ac)
EVALUATION
Subdivisions are evaluated for conformance to the City’s Subdivision Regulations, which
implement the state’s Subdivision Map Act. These regulations were adopted for several purposes
related to public health, safety, and welfare, orderly development, resource protection, and
enhancement of land values (§16.02.020). Subdivision of land must be consistent with the
policies and standards of the City’s General Plan, Zoning Regulations, Community Design
Guidelines, and Engineering Standards.
General Plan
This project is consistent with the policies and programs set forth in the elements of the City’s
General Plan. The parcel to be divided lies within an Open Space area and a Low Density
Residential area. The portion within the Open Space area is part of the remainder parcel, and will
continue to be used as open space. The four new lots being created lie within the Low Density
Residential area and are already developed with four single-family residences. This portion of
PC1 - 22
MS 32-14 & VAR-0688-2015 (159 Broad)
Page 4
the property will continue to be used for residential purposes. No further development is
proposed, except for minor modifications to two of the residences to meet building code
standards for fire safety and emergency egress from sleeping rooms.
The property is not subject to fault rupture or landslide hazards. Settlement and liquefaction
hazards are addressed through site-specific investigations and site preparation, and no
development is proposed with this subdivision. The property is not located within a fire hazard
severity zone or a flood hazard zone, and is well outside any airport hazard area. As no
development is proposed, nor any changes to the open space lands, the subdivision will not
impact natural, scenic, or cultural resources. With no change in the intensity of residential
development, no additional demand is generated for water, sewer, parks, police, fire, or other
public services and facilities.
Subdivision Regulations
The Community Development Director reviews tentative maps for minor subdivisions
(§16.04.030). The resulting parcels must conform to the design and improvement standards set
forth Chapters 16.18 and 16.20 of the Subdivision Regulations. New parcels are to be compatible
with existing neighborhoods, the natural environment, and the health and safety of City residents
(§16.18.010).
General design requirements: General design requirements are intended to ensure that lots are
practical for their intended use, natural contours are preserved, and new subdivisions are
integrated with existing subdivisions. The four parcels resulting from this subdivision will
surround existing homes that are integrated into the adjacent neighborhood along Serrano Drive.
Natural contours will be preserved, as no grading or retaining walls are proposed as part of this
project.
Flag lots: The new lots front on Bressi Place, which is a private street. The result is a “flag lot”
arrangement in which the lots are situated behind other lots, with access to Serrano Drive
provided by an access easement over Bressi Place. Standards for flag lots are described in
§16.18.060.
For compliance with these standards, Bressi Place will be owned in fee by Parcel 4, the lot
farthest from the street. Other lots will use Bressi place as an accessway by means of the
proposed access easement. The accessway is 205 feet long and more than 40 feet wide, satisfying
the minimum required 20 foot width. The frontage along Serrano is 40 feet; wide enough to
accommodate the accessway while also meeting the required 20 foot street frontage for the
original lot, as required by §16.18.060(B).
Street yards along Bressi are at least 20 feet deep and provide adequate area for any necessary
screening shrubs or trees between the accessway and the residences. An additional off-street
parking space is provided in front of each residence, as depicted in a separate parking layout
exhibit (Attachment 2). The parking layout should be revised to place a guest space in a logical
and consistent location in front of each house prior to recordation of the final map (Condition
#5).
PC1 - 23
MS 32-14 & VAR-0688-2015 (159 Broad)
Page 5
Lot dimensions and location: As shown in Table 2 above, each lot created by this subdivision
meets minimum area and dimension standards applicable to the Low Density Residential (R-1)
Zone. The lots are about twice as deep as they are wide, with a ratio of length to width around
2:1. Lot lines are oriented perpendicular to Bressi Place. Each lot has more than 50 feet of
frontage along the Bressi Street access easement.
Natural resource preservation and creeks: As discussed in the project description, two unnamed
creeks pass through this property. No development is proposed with this project, so the project
will not introduce any impacts to the creeks.
Physical Improvements: The City’s Public Works Department has reviewed the project plans and
identified required physical improvements to the property. These requirements have been
incorporated into conditions of the subdivision approval.
Zoning Regulations
The subdivision conforms to the design standards and use limitations described in the City’s
Zoning Regulations. Single-family dwellings will occupy the parcels within the Low-Density
Residential (R-1) portion of the property. The remainder parcel contains the portion of the
property within the Conservation/ Open Space (C/OS-20) Zone, and this portion will continue to
be used as open space. While the area of the parcel within the open space area is less than 20
acres, and the yards between two of the houses in the residential area are 1 foot shallower than
current requirements, the Zoning Regulations allow for the reasonable use of nonconforming
lots, and contain provisions allowing the minor relaxation of standards related to the minimum
depth of yards.
Lot area and dimension: Most of the original parcel is within the Conservation/Open Space Zone
(C/OS-20), a zone applied to areas that are most suitable for open space to protect natural
resources from disruptive alterations. Within this zone, a minimum parcel size of 20 acres is
required (§17.32.020(B)). The original parcel is less than 20 acres in area, but is considered a
“nonconforming lot”, as described in §17.12.010. At this time, the opportunity does not exist to
merge parcels, as adjacent property is not held under common ownership with the subject parcel.
Furthermore, the total land area within the C/OS Zone is not reduced, and no development is
proposed within the zone.
Division of the property occurs along the northern edge of the parcel, within the Low-Density
Residential (R-1) Zone, and as described above (Subdivision Regulations—Lot dimensions), the
four new parcels exceed the area and dimension requirements applicable to that zone.
Yards: Street yards are provided, and they are deeper than the 20 foot minimum depth required
in the zone. Because the existing houses were built less than 10 feet apart from each other, the
resulting depth of the “other yards” between each house and the interior lot lines between them is
less than the current standard (5 feet) in the R-1 Zone.
PC1 - 24
MS 32-14 & VAR-0688-2015 (159 Broad)
Page 6
Table 3: Other yard depth
Depth(ft.)
mix/max
Max. Variance
(from 5ft.)
Parcel 1 (114 Bressi) 3.8 to 4.0 1.2 ft.
Parcel 2 (122 Bressi) 4.8 to 4.9 0.2 ft.
Parcel 3 (123 Bressi) 4.8 to 4.9 0.2 ft.
Parcel 4 (115 Bressi) 3.6 to 4.0 1.5 ft.
The Community Development Director can relax yard requirements through the variance
procedure (§17.60.020), and such a variance has been requested. The existence of four single-
family residences on the same parcel is an uncommon circumstance in a Low-Density
Residential Zone. Similarly situated property in this zone would be given the same consideration
for such a relaxation of the “other yard” depth standard, where appropriate. Therefore, a minor
relaxation of this standard for this property is not a grant of special privilege. Given the minor
nature of the variance and the fact that the residences have been safely occupied since their
construction, the variance would not adversely affect public health, safety, or welfare.
Certain modifications will need to be made to the residences to meet building code standards
related to fire safety and emergency egress. Any approval granted to this tentative parcel map
should be subject to the condition that these modifications be made before the final map may be
recorded (Conditions #1-4).
Coverage: Each house is about 900 square feet in area, resulting in lot coverage of less than 20%
on each lot, well below the maximum 40% limit applicable to the R-1 Zone.
Parking: Sufficient parking is available. The houses were built with single-car garages. Because
additions are not being made to the houses, this is a legal non-conforming situation and the
Zoning Regulations do not require that additional parking spaces be provided. It should be noted
that, as a practical matter, the driveway area leading to the garage spaces is available for informal
use as parking, consistent with Front Yard Parking regulations (§17.17.055). Additional parking
will also be available in the guest spaces that are provided as required for “flag lot” subdivisions.
Community Design Guidelines
The City’s Community Design Guidelines describe the expectations and preferences for the
quality and character of new development. The applicability of these guidelines is limited, since
the project involves only four small residential parcels and no new development. The subdivision
is consistent with these guidelines in that it is in scale with, and integrated into, the surrounding
neighborhood.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
The tentative map was forwarded to several City departments (Building & Safety, Fire, Public
Works, Utilities, Natural Resources) for review. Comments received from these departments
have been incorporated into recommended conditions of approval for this project.
PC1 - 25
MS 32-14 & VAR-0688-2015 (159 Broad)
Page 7
RECOMMENDATION
Based on this evaluation, staff recommends that the Community Development Director grant a
variance relaxing the required minimum other yard depth standard, and approve the tentative
parcel map, based on certain findings and subject to several conditions of approval, as set forth in
the attached draft resolution.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Continue consideration of the application to a future hearing date, with direction to the
applicant and staff on pertinent issues.
2. Deny the project based on findings of inconsistency with the Subdivision Regulations,
General Plan, Zoning Regulations, or Community Design Guidelines.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Vicinity Map
2. Parking Exhibit and Map Detail
3. Draft Resolution
PC1 - 26
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 1 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
Application #MS 32-14
1. Project Title: Tentative Parcel Map SLO 13-0046
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of San Luis Obispo
Community Development Department
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Project Planner: Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner (805) 781-7593
Doug Davidson, Deputy Director (805) 781-7177
4. Project Location: 159 Broad Street
5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:
Mike Morris
Andre, Morris & Buttery
1102 Laurel Lane
San Luis Obispo CA 93401
6. General Plan Designation: Open Space and Low Density Residential
7. Zoning: Conservation/Open Space (C/OS-20) and Low-Density Residential (R-1)
8. Description of the Project:
The proposed project is the subdivision of a 13.93 acre parcel into 4 parcels arranged in a flag lot
configuration, with 1 remainder parcel. Each of the new parcels measures between 6,000 and
6,500 square feet in area, and surrounds an existing single-family dwelling on the 100 block of
Bressi Place (114, 115, 122, and 123 Bressi). A 13.27 acre portion of the original parcel south of
these residences is designated as a remainder parcel, as described in Government Code section
66424.6, and is developed with one single-family residence, a barn, a shed, and a water tower.
Area (sq. ft.) Width (ft.) Depth (ft.)
Parcel 1 (114 Bressi) 6,290 57.5 109
Parcel 2 (122 Bressi) 6,112 55.5 110
Parcel 3 (123 Bressi) 6,348 57.8 110
Parcel 4 (115 Bressi) 6,244 57.5 109
Remainder Parcel 577, 986
(13.27 ac)
ATTACHMENT 7
PC1 - 27
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 2 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
The project includes a variance request for minor relaxation of minimum depth requirements for
“other yards” between the existing residences, where the residences are located less than 5 feet
from interior lot lines resulting from this subdivision. Minor improvements to exterior walls of
these residences will be made to comply with building safety codes related to fire resistance for
walls closer than 5 feet from a property line. These improvements involve the application of
additional cement plaster or drywall material to the walls in order to achieve adequate fire
resistance.
A new curb ramp at Bressi Place and Serrano Drive will be installed for compliance with
accessibility standards. A new guest parking space will be established in front of each residence
on Bressi Place, in conformance to the requirements of the City’s Subdivision Regulations
related to flag lot configurations (§ 16.18.060(F)). No additional physical development is
proposed with this project or depicted on the tentative parcel map included with this application.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings:
North: Low-Density Residential
South: Open Space and Low-Density Residential
East: Low-Density Residential
West: Open Space and Low-Density Residential
10. Project Entitlements Requested: The project requires the approval of a tentative parcel map
through the Minor Subdivision process (Subd. Regs. § 16.10.090(C)), and minor relaxation of
standards related to minimum yard depth requirements through the Variance process described in
Chapter 17.60 of the City’s Zoning Regulations.
11. Other public agencies whose approval is required: None
PC1 - 28
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 3 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Figure 1: Project Location
Project Location
PC1 - 29
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 4 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Figure 2: Tentative Parcel Map
PC1 - 30
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 5 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Figure 3: Parcel Map Detail
PC1 - 31
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 6 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following
pages.
Aesthetics Greenhouse Gas Emissions Population / Housing
Agriculture Hazards & Hazardous
Materials Public Services
Air Quality Hydrology / Water Quality Recreation
Biological Resources Land Use / Planning Transportation / Traffic
Cultural Resources Mineral Resources Utilities / Service Systems
Geology / Soils Noise Mandatory Findings of
Significance
FISH AND GAME FEES
X
There is no evidence before the Department that the project will have any potential adverse effects on fish
and wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. As such, the project qualifies for a
no effect determination from Fish and Game.
The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish
and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code. This initial study has
been circulated to the California Department of Fish and Game for review and comment.
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more
State agencies (e.g. CalTrans, California Department of Fish and Game, Department of Housing and
Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines
15073(a)).
PC1 - 32
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 7 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been
made, or the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet(s) have been added and
agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant” impact(s) or “potentially
significant unless mitigated” impact(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed
I find that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment, because
all potentially significant effects have been analyzed adequately in an earlier NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, nothing further is required.
Signature Date
Kim Murry, For: Derek Johnson,
Deputy Director Community Development Director
Long Range Planning
PC1 - 33
8-20-15
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 8 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the
information sources a lead agency cites in the analysis in each section. A “No Impact” answer is adequately
supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one
involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is
based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to
pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well
as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. The explanation of each
issue should identify the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question.
3. "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are
one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has
reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must
describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level
(mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced).
5. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D) of the California Code of
Regulations. Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential
impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should,
where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted
should be cited in the discussion. In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope
of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state
whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures
Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier
document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
PC1 - 34
CEQA Initial Study Checklist
MS 32-14 (159 Broad)
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 9 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
1. AESTHETICS
Would the project: Source
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 2e X
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, open space, and historic
buildings within a local or state scenic highway?
2e X
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality
of the site and its surroundings? 2a, 7 X
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 9b X
Evaluation
a-d) The project involves no new physical development. The proposed land division creates property
lines around existing residential development in an urbanized area. Minor improvements associated
with the project are limited to enhancing fire resistiveness of walls on four existing structures and
driveway access improvements located on Serrano Drive, involving no expansion of the size or extent
of those improvements.
Conclusion: The project will have no impact on the aesthetic quality of the physical environment.
2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES
Would the project: Source
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
2e,
11 X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a
Williamson Act contract? 2e X
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due
to their location or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland to non-agricultural use?
2e X
Evaluation
a-c) The project site is comprised of areas categorized as “Urban and Built-Up Land” and “Grazing
Land” on the California Important Farmland Finder, does not include any Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, and is not subject to a Williamson Act contract. The
project does not involve new development or any change in land uses. Therefore, the project will not
have any effect on agricultural resources.
Conclusion: The project will have no impact on agricultural resources.
PC1 - 35
CEQA Initial Study Checklist
MS 32-14 (159 Broad)
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 10 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
3. AIR QUALITY
Would the project: Source
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
2e,
14 X
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to
an existing or projected air quality violation? 14a X
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -
attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed
qualitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
14a X
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations? 3 X
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of
people? X
Evaluation
a) and b) The San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) is a responsible agency
for reviewing and commenting on projects that have the potential to cause adverse impacts to air
quality. The adopted Clean Air Plan for San Luis Obispo County is a comprehensive planning
document designed to reduce emissions from traditional industrial and commercial sources and motor
vehicle use. The City helps the APCD implement the Clean Air Plan in order to achieve and maintain
air quality that supports health and enjoyment for those who live or work in the City and for visitors.
The APCD developed the CEQA Handbook to assist with CEQA reviews, providing information on
significance thresholds for determining potential air quality impacts from proposed residential and
commercial development and recommendations on the level of mitigation necessary to reduce those
impacts. The CEQA Handbook includes general screening criteria used by the APCD to determine
the type and scope of projects requiring an air quality assessment or mitigation. These criteria are
based on project size in an urban setting and are designed to identify those projects with the potential
to exceed the APCD’s significance thresholds.
The project involves no new physical development, and only minor improvements to existing
buildings and site work. As such, the project size is well below the criteria indicating the requirement
for an air quality assessment or mitigation.
c) Activities associated with constructing new curb cuts, improving portions of the accessway surface
to accommodate guest parking, and the modification of building walls have the potential to create
impacts from dust and emissions from construction vehicles that could exceed air quality standards
for temporary and intermediate periods. Such activity will be subject to dust control measures set
forth in the City’s Construction & Fire Codes to avoid significant impacts, and special mitigation
measures are not necessary.
d) and e) The project includes no new physical development, and so will not expose sensitive
receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations or that create objectionable odors.
Conclusion: The project will have a “less than significant” impact on air quality. It is not of a size that is
large enough to generate significant increases in criteria pollutants. Activities associated with constructing
new curb cuts, improving portions of the accessway surface to accommodate guest parking, and the
PC1 - 36
CEQA Initial Study Checklist
MS 32-14 (159 Broad)
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 11 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
modification of building walls may generate impacts from dust and emissions from construction vehicles, but
conformance to construction codes during construction will keep these impacts to a level that is less than
significant.
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project Source
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or indirectly
or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as
a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
2e X
b) Have a substantial adverse effect, on any riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
2e X
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on Federally protected
wetlands as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marshes, vernal pools, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
2e X
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of wildlife nursery sites?
2e X
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
2e, 8b X
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or
other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation
plan?
2e X
Evaluation
a) The project site is identified in Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE) maps as a location
of the Miles' Milk-vetch plant, a Species of Local Concern (COSE Figure 2). Minor construction
activities related to modification of existing building walls, improvement of an existing paved
accessway to provide guest parking, and replacement of curb cuts are limited to existing developed
infrastructure where Miles' Milk-vetch is absent and will have no impact on plant habitat on the site.
b) and c) The project site is shown in Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE) maps to include
grassland and riparian habitat (COSE Figure 7) along with wetland habitats and creeks (COSE
Figure 9). Minor construction activities related to modification of existing building walls,
improvement of an existing paved accessway to provide guest parking, and replacement of curb cuts
are limited to existing developed infrastructure and will have no impact on these resources where they
occur on the site. Neither the residences nor the accessway are within the grassland, riparian, wetland,
or creek areas depicted in the maps. Curb cuts to be replaced are along the edge of Serrano Drive,
outside of the nearby creek channel.
PC1 - 37
CEQA Initial Study Checklist
MS 32-14 (159 Broad)
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 12 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
d) The project site is shown to be within a Wildlife Corridor (COSE Figure 3). Minor construction
activities related to modification of existing building walls, improvement of an existing paved
accessway to provide guest parking, and replacement of curb cuts are limited to existing developed
infrastructure that is at the edge of corridors depicted on this map. Conditions after completion of the
project and its associated minor improvements will be the same as those existing before the project,
and will have no impact on wildlife corridors on the site.
e) and f) The project involves no new physical development, no alteration or removal of any
biological resource, and no changes to land uses, or to land use limitations applicable to the property.
As such, it has no potential to conflict with policies or ordinances for the protection or biological
resources or with adopted conservation plans. Minor construction activities related to modification of
existing building walls, improvement of an existing paved accessway to provide guest parking, and
replacement of curb cuts are limited to existing developed infrastructure, which is not located within
any conservation plan area.
Conclusion: The project will not have any significant impact on biological resources.
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project: Source
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historic resource? (See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5) 2e, 5 X
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource? (See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5) 2e, 4 X
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature? 2e X
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside
of formal cemeteries? 2e X
Evaluation
a-d) The project involves no new physical development. Minor improvements associated with the
project are limited to existing structures and improvements, involving no expansion of the size or
extent of those improvements. Therefore, the project does not have the potential to disturb, or change
the significance of, any cultural or archaeological resource.
Conclusion: The project will not have any significant impact on cultural resources.
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project: Source
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
effects, including risk of loss, injury or death involving:
I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated in the
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area, or based on
other substantial evidence of a known fault?
2d X
PC1 - 38
CEQA Initial Study Checklist
MS 32-14 (159 Broad)
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 13 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
II. Strong seismic ground shaking? 2d X
III. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 2d X
IV. Landslides or mudflows? 2d X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that
would become unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on or off site landslides, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
2d X
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1-B of
the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks
to life or property?
2d X
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where
sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
X
Evaluation
a) No known faults exist on the project site or in the immediate vicinity. The City of San Luis Obispo
is in a seismically active region subject to strong ground motion during a large seismic event.
However, the project includes no new physical development. Minor improvements associated with
the project are limited to existing structures and improvements, involving no expansion of the size or
extent of those improvements. These minor improvements are subject to engineering standards and
building codes that set minimum design and construction methods for structures to resist seismic
shaking, and will be reviewed for conformance with these standards and codes before construction
permits will be issued.
b) The project includes no new physical development. Minor construction activities related to
modification of existing building walls, improvement of an existing paved accessway to provide guest
parking, and replacement of curb cuts are limited to existing developed infrastructure. Drainage from
these areas is directed to existing stormwater collection facilities, and the project will not increase
runoff in a manner that would be expected to result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil.
c) The portion of the project site encompassing the existing residences and proposed lot lines is not
within an area susceptible to landslides or mudflows. The remainder of the site is within an area
identified as having “Moderate landslide potential.” This area is designated as open space, and no
development is proposed in this area. Therefore, this project will not introduce any impacts related to
geologic or soil instability, and does not have any potential to result in landslides, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse.
d) The project site is subject to expansive soils. No new physical development is proposed with this
project and minor improvements associated with the project are limited to existing structures and
improvements, involving no expansion of the size or extent of those improvements. These
improvements are subject to site-specific investigations and design proposals by qualified
professionals to address expansive soils, as required by building codes and engineering standards.
e) Waste water from the existing residences is disposed into the City’s sanitary sewer system. The project
does not involve new physical development, and uses no septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal
systems.
Conclusion: The project will not have any significant impacts related to geology and soils. The property
involved in this minor subdivision is subject to seismic shaking and expansive soils, but no new physical
development is proposed with this project. Minor improvements associated with the project are subject to site-
PC1 - 39
CEQA Initial Study Checklist
MS 32-14 (159 Broad)
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 14 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
specific investigations and design proposals by qualified professionals before they are constructed. Land
subject to moderate landslide potential is designated as open space, and no development is proposed by this
project within this area.
7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the project: Source
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly,
that may have a significant impact on the environment? 14a X
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted
for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. 14 X
Evaluation
a-b) The San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) adopted the Clean Air Plan
for San Luis Obispo County, a comprehensive planning document designed to reduce emissions from
traditional industrial and commercial sources and motor vehicle use and developed the CEQA
Handbook to assist with CEQA reviews, providing information on significance thresholds for
determining potential air quality impacts from proposed residential and commercial development and
recommendations on the level of mitigation necessary to reduce those impacts.
The CEQA Handbook includes general screening criteria used by the APCD to determine the type
and scope of projects requiring an air quality assessment or mitigation. These criteria are based on
project size in an urban setting and are designed to identify those projects with the potential to exceed
the APCD’s significance thresholds.
Activities associated with constructing new curb cuts, improving portions of the accessway surface to
accommodate guest parking, and the modification of building walls have the potential to create
impacts from greenhouse gas emissions by construction vehicles for temporary and intermediate
periods. However, the project involves no new physical development, and only minor improvements
to existing improvements, and the project size is well below the criteria indicating the requirement for
an air quality assessment or mitigation. Therefore the project would not be expected to exceed
thresholds of significance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG) and Ozone Precursor Emissions, and
the impacts due to construction activities are considered less than significant.
Conclusion: The project has the potential to generate “less than significant” impacts related to greenhouse gas
emissions for temporary and intermediate periods from minor construction activities associated with the
project.
8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project: Source
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
2d,
12, 13 X
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
2d,
12, 13 X
PC1 - 40
CEQA Initial Study Checklist
MS 32-14 (159 Broad)
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 15 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
X
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment?
12, 13 X
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of
a public airport or public use airport, would the project result
in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the
project area?
2d X
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would
the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
X
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
2d X
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
2d X
Evaluation
a-c) The project, with no new physical development and only minor improvements to existing
structures, does not involve the transport, use, emission, or disposal of hazardous materials. Pacheco
Elementary School and Cornerstone School are located about 1/3 of a mile from the project site,
however, no hazardous materials are associated with the project.
d) The project site is not included in the State Water Resources Control Board’s Geotracker database
of cleanup sites or Department of Toxic Substances Control’s EnviroStor database of hazardous waste
and substances sites.
e), f) The project site is not within the Airport Land Use Planning Area defined by the Airport Land
Use Commission of San Luis Obispo County, and not within two miles of the San Luis Obispo
County Regional Airport, nor is it within the vicinity of a private airstrip.
g), h) The project does not include any new physical development, and is located adjacent to a
Moderate Fire Hazard Severity Zone. The project conditions of approval include addressing fire
resistive construction of the existing residences, thereby improving the structures’ ability to resist fire
damage. City’s roadway policies and standards have been determined to provide adequate
opportunities for evacuation and emergency access from the existing residences.
Conclusion: The project does not have the potential to introduce significant impacts related to hazards and
hazardous materials.
9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project: Source
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
10,
13 X
PC1 - 41
CEQA Initial Study Checklist
MS 32-14 (159 Broad)
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 16 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would
be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g. the production rate of pre-
existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not
support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits
have been granted)?
2e, 2g X
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream
or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion
or siltation on or off site?
10 X
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream
or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface
runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off
site?
10 X
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems
or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
10 X
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped
on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate
Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
15 X
h) Expose people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury
or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of
the failure of a levee or dam?
2d X
i) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 2d X
Evaluation
The City regulates the design, construction, and operation of private facilities to ensure they will not
have adverse effect on water quality. The City’s Waterways Management Plan was prepared as a
comprehensive, watershed-based management plan for San Luis Obispo Creek, to identify and
develop programs to address flooding, erosion, water quality, and ecological issues in the San Luis
Obispo Creek Watershed. It was adopted for the purpose of ensuring water quality and proper
drainage within the creek’s watershed.
a), b), f) This project is not expected to violate water quality standards or waste water discharge
requirements, or substantially degrade water quality. It involves no new physical development, and
minor improvements are limited to existing facilities, with no expansion of the size or extent of tho se
facilities. These minor improvements must be constructed in compliance with the City’s Waterway
Management Plan Drainage Design Manual, Engineering Standards, and adopted building and
grading codes requiring analysis of water quantity and quality.
The property includes existing residential development (four single family residences) that conforms
to the use limitations of the Land Use Element, and receives water service from the City of San Luis
Obispo. No well is present on site or proposed with this project.
c-e) The project involves no new physical development, and only minor improvements to existing
facilities. As such, it will have no effect on drainage patterns or the amount or quality of runoff.
PC1 - 42
CEQA Initial Study Checklist
MS 32-14 (159 Broad)
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 17 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
g-i) The project site is not located within any flood hazard zone, nor within a flood area. San Luis
Obispo is not subject to flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam, nor is it subject to
inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.
Conclusion: The project has no potential to impact hydrology and water quality. Minor
improvements associated with this project are subject to review by the Public Works Department.
These minor improvements must be constructed in compliance with the City’s Waterway
Management Plan Drainage Design Manual, Engineering Standards, and adopted building and
grading codes requiring analysis of water quantity and quality.
10. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project: Source
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of
an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
2a, 2e X
b) Physically divide an established community? X
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation plans? 2e X
Evaluation
a) The project has been found to be consistent with the City’s General Plan, Subdivision Regulations,
and Zoning Regulations. These plans, policies, and regulations are intended to guide development in a
manner that avoids adverse effects on the environment. The Community Development Director may,
according to Zoning Regulations section 17.16.020, relax standards related to required yards. Such a
relaxation in the depth of “other yards” proposed with this project was found to be appropriate given
the site’s unique circumstances, developed with four single-family residences built together on the
same parcel, and the minor nature of the variance, which reduced the required depth of interior side
yards between houses by no more than one foot.
b) The project site is situated at the western edge of the City, with low-density residential
development adjacent to open space. The project creates lot lines around existing residences, which
does not divide any community.
c) The project is not included within any habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation
plan area. The remainder parcel, which contains acreage designated as Open Space, is not proposed
for development.
Conclusion: The project has no potential to introduce impacts related to land use and planning.
11. NOISE
Would the project result in Source
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Exposure of people to or generation of “unacceptable” noise
levels as defined by the San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise
Element, or general noise levels in excess of standards
established in the Noise Ordinance?
2c,
8a X
PC1 - 43
CEQA Initial Study Checklist
MS 32-14 (159 Broad)
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 18 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
b) A substantial temporary, periodic, or permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project?
2c X
c) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? X
d) For a project located within an airport land use plan, or
within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
1 X
Evaluation
a-c) The project site is located below the 60 dB CNEL noise contour threshold related to
transportation sources (including aircraft operations) depicted in the General Plan. There are no
stationary noise sources in the vicinity that would affect the project. The project involves no new
physical development or land uses, and so is not expected to produce noise, groundborne vibration, or
groundborne noise.
d) The project site is not within the Airport Land Use Planning Area defined by the Airport Land Use
Commission of San Luis Obispo County, or within two miles of the San Luis Obispo County
Regional Airport or other public use airport.
Conclusion: The project has no potential to result in noise impacts.
12. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project: Source
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly
(for example by proposing new homes or businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
2a, 2b X
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
X
Evaluation
a), b) The property is located in a developed portion of the City that is served by existing roads and
infrastructure. The project involves no new physical development, nor does it increase development
potential. Minor improvements are limited to existing facilities, with no expansion in the size or
extent of those facilities. Therefore, the project does not induce population growth directly or
indirectly. Existing residences will remain, therefore the project does not displace housing or people.
Conclusion: The project has no potential to generate impacts to population or housing.
PC1 - 44
CEQA Initial Study Checklist
MS 32-14 (159 Broad)
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 19 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
13. PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision, or need, of new or physically
altered government facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
Source
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Fire protection? 2a X
b) Police protection? 2a X
c) Schools? 2a X
d) Parks? 2f X
e) Roads and other transportation infrastructure? 2b X
f) Other public facilities? 2 X
Evaluation
a-f) The property is developed with four existing single-family residences, and no development is
proposed on the area proposed to be designated as a remainder parcel. The existing development is of
a scale and intensity that is consistent with General Plan policies for the Low-Density Residential (R-
1) Zone. The project involves no new land uses or structures, therefore, the project requires no
construction of new facilities in order to maintain acceptable service levels.
Conclusion: The project has no potential to introduce impacts to public services.
14. RECREATION
Would the project: Source
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
2a, 2f X
b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
2a, 2f X
Evaluation
a), b) The property includes existing residential development (four residences) that is of a scale and
intensity that is consistent with General Plan policies for the Low-Density Residential (R-1) Zone.
This project involves no new structures or land uses. Therefore, the project will not cause the
deterioration of existing recreational facilities or require any expansion of such facilities.
Conclusion: The project has no potential to introduce impacts related to recreational facilities.
PC1 - 45
CEQA Initial Study Checklist
MS 32-14 (159 Broad)
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 20 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
Would the project: Source
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy
establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of
the circulation system, taking into account all modes of
transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel
and relevant components of the circulation system, including
but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and
freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
2a, 2b X
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program,
including, but not limited to level of service standards and
travel demand measures, or other standards established by the
county congestion management agency for designated roads or
highways?
2b X
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks?
X
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)?
X
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 2d X
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding
public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise
decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?
2b X
Evaluation
a-b) The property includes existing residential development (four single family residences) that is of a
scale and intensity that is consistent with General Plan policies for the Low-Density Residential (R-1)
Zone. The existing development is served by existing public transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities
on Broad Street. This project involves no new physical development, and so will not conflict with
circulation system or congestion management plans.
c) The project is located outside of the Airport Land Use Planning Area defined by the Airport Land
Use Commission of San Luis Obispo County, and has no potential to result in a change in air traffic
patterns.
d) No potential for increased hazard due to design features or inadequate emergency access has been
identified. The project includes no new land uses or structures and minor improvements to the Bressi
Place accessway to Serrano will enhance safe access to the project site.
e) and f) The project been reviewed by the Fire Marshal and Public Works for consistency with
standards applicable to site access, including emergency access.
Conclusion: The project has no potential to introduce impacts related to transportation or traffic.
PC1 - 46
CEQA Initial Study Checklist
MS 32-14 (159 Broad)
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 21 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project: Source
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control Board? 2g X
b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new
water treatment, wastewater treatment, water quality control,
or storm drainage facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
2a,
2g X
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
2a,
2g X
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project
from existing entitlements and resources, or are new and
expanded entitlements needed?
2a,
2g X
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in
addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
2a,
2g X
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? 2a, 2e X
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations
related to solid waste? X
Evaluation
a-e) The property includes existing residential development (four single family residences) that
conforms to the use limitations of the Land Use Element, and that is served by existing storm water,
sewer, and wastewater treatment facilities. The City is sole water purveyor within the City limits and
has an adequate water supply to serve the community’s existing and future water needs, as defined by
the General Plan. No new land uses or structures are proposed with this project, resulting in no
increase in demand for these services, requiring no new or expanded facilities.
f) and g) The project involves no new physical development, and thus will have no impact on solid
waste disposal. Existing solid waste statutes are being met.
Conclusion: The project has no potential to introduce impacts related to utilities and service systems.
17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Source
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of
the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of
a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
2e, 5 X
PC1 - 47
CEQA Initial Study Checklist
MS 32-14 (159 Broad)
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 22 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of the past
projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)
X
c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
X
Evaluation
a-c) The project is limited to the minor subdivision of a parcel into 4 parcels around existing single-
family dwellings, with a large designated remainder parcel (13.27 acres). Construction activity
associated with the project is limited to minor improvements to the exterior walls of existing
residences and to curb ramps at the intersection of Serrano Drive and Bressi Place. As the project
involves no new physical development, no new land uses, no changes in land use, and no
modifications of land use restrictions, it has no potential to degrade the quality of the environment,
affect plant, fish, or wildlife population or habitat, eliminate historic or cultural resources, or cause
adverse effects on human beings. Any impacts would be “less than significant,” as discussed in the
above checklist, and limited to the minor improvements described. Thus, these impacts would not be
cumulatively considerable, in connection with the effects of past or future probably projects.
Conclusion: The project does not have the potential to introduce a significant effect on the
environment which would require preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for the project.
18. EARLIER ANALYSES
Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more
effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration (CEQA Guidelines
§15063(c)(3)(D).
a) Earlier analysis used:
Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed:
Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an
earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation measures:
For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures
which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -
specific conditions of the project.
Discussion:
a-c) No earlier analyses were used in the evaluation of this project’s potential environmental impacts,
and no effects from the above checklist were within the scope of earlier analyses or documents. No
mitigation measures from earlier analyses or documents were incorporated into this project.
PC1 - 48
CEQA Initial Study Checklist
MS 32-14 (159 Broad)
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 23 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
19. SOURCE REFERENCES
1. The Airport Land Use Commission of San Luis Obispo County. Airport Land Use Plan for the
San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport (May 2005).
2. City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development Department. General Plan (April 2007).
a. Land Use Element
b. Circulation Element
c. Noise Element
d. Safety Element
e. Conservation and Open Space Element
f. Parks and Recreation Element
g. Water & Wastewater Element
3. City of San Luis Obispo. 2013 Construction & Fire Codes (January 2014).
4. City of San Luis Obispo. Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines (October
2009).
5. City of San Luis Obispo, Cultural Heritage Committee. Historic Preservation Program
Guidelines (November 2010).
6. City of San Luis Obispo. Citywide Historic Context Statement (September 30, 2013), prepared by
Historic Resources Group.
7. City of San Luis Obispo. Community Design Guidelines (June 2010)
8. City of San Luis Obispo. Municipal Code.
a. Noise Control (Ch. 9.12)
b. Tree Regulations (Ch. 12.24)
c. Historic Preservation Ordinance (Ch. 14.01)
9. City of San Luis Obispo. Zoning Regulations (SLO Municipal Code Title 17)
a. Zoning Map (§17.06.020)
b. Night Sky Preservation Regulations (Ch. 17.23)
10. City of San Luis Obispo, Public Works Department, and County of San Luis Obispo, Flood
Control District – Zone 9. Waterways Management Plan (March 2003).
11. State of California, Department of Conservation. California Important Farmland Finder.
ONLINE: http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/ciff/ciff.html [14 Aug 2015].
12. State of California, Department of Toxic Substances Control. EnviroStor Database. ONLINE:
http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/ [14 Aug 2015]
13. State of California, State Water Resources Control Board. GeoTracker. ONLINE:
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/ [14 Aug 2015]
14. San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District. CEQA Air Quality Handbook, A Guide
for Assessing the Air Quality Impacts for Projects Subject to CEQA Review. (April, 2012).
a. Table 1-1: Screening Criteria for Project Air Quality Analysis
15. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood
Insurance Rate Map, San Luis Obispo County, California – Panel 1066 (November 2012).
ONLINE: http://msc.fema.gov/ [14 Aug 2015]
PC1 - 49
ATTACHMENT 8
4 maps on following pages
PC1 - 50
Conservation and Open Space Element
Page6-37
µ
0
1
2
3
0.
5
Mi
l
e
s
4
2
2
8
6
8
11
45
16
14
14
28
24
12
53
15
18
37
17
22
30
33
14
26
14
15
1
32
20
4
47
25
25
14
32
31
20
17
17
44
5
2
35
17
10
20
20
20
30
32
30
32
30
9
19
51
32
13
36
21
5 5
5
2
1
1
9
25
17
54
17
20
14
49
40
22
30
36
50
18
28
18
18
51
5
25
49
50
2
29
25
44
49
34
25
25 25
18
19
28
34
5
49
5
21
44
27
5 5
7
7
5
12
42
44
49
25
4
49
40
14
50
44
49
44
7
28
49
7
7
44
44
44
44
44
5
7
25
49
44
7
44
7
27
4
25
25
28
43
25
25
3
5
25
7
52
5
5
5
33
8
6
4
7
7
25
25
5
33
25
25
25
6
25
4
41
43
25
25
50
48
43
25
38
44
23
41
49
44
49
49
49
44
49
49
49
5
4
25
4
4
4
4
44
25
5
5
28
Hwy 1
0
1
BROAD
HIGU
E
R
A
TA
N
K
F
A
R
M
FO
O
T
H
I
L
L
JOHNS
O
N
SANT
A
R
O
S
A
M
A
D
O
N
N
A
PR
A
D
O
LOS O
S
O
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
M
O
N
T
E
R
E
Y
EDNA
Fi
g
u
r
e
2
:
Sp
e
c
i
e
s
o
f
L
o
c
a
l
C
o
n
c
e
r
n
Ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
N
a
t
u
r
a
l
D
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
D
a
t
a
b
a
s
e
Ci
t
y
L
i
m
i
t
Gr
e
e
n
b
e
l
t
35
.
N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n
I
n
t
e
r
i
o
r
C
y
p
r
e
s
s
F
o
r
e
s
t
36
.
S
e
r
p
e
n
t
i
n
e
B
u
n
c
h
g
r
a
s
s
33
.
C
e
n
t
r
a
l
M
a
r
i
t
i
m
e
C
h
a
p
a
r
r
a
l
34
.
C
o
a
s
t
a
l
a
n
d
V
a
l
l
e
y
F
r
e
s
h
w
a
t
e
r
M
a
r
s
h
40
.
M
o
n
a
r
c
h
B
u
t
t
e
r
f
l
y
41
.
M
o
r
r
o
S
h
o
u
l
d
e
r
b
a
n
d
S
n
a
i
l
37
.
A
t
a
s
c
a
d
e
r
o
J
u
n
e
B
e
e
t
l
e
38
.
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
L
i
n
d
e
r
i
e
l
l
a
39
.
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
B
r
a
c
k
i
s
h
w
a
t
e
r
S
n
a
i
l
42
.
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
H
o
r
n
e
d
L
a
r
k
43
.
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
H
o
r
n
e
d
L
i
z
a
r
d
44
.
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
R
e
d
-
l
e
g
g
e
d
F
r
o
g
45
.
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
T
i
g
e
r
S
a
l
a
m
a
n
d
e
r
46
.
C
o
o
p
e
r
'
s
H
a
w
k
47
.
M
o
r
r
o
B
a
y
K
a
n
g
a
r
o
o
R
a
t
48
.
S
i
l
v
e
r
y
L
e
g
l
e
s
s
L
i
z
a
r
d
49
.
S
o
u
t
h
w
e
s
t
e
r
n
P
o
n
d
T
u
r
t
l
e
50
.
S
t
e
e
l
h
e
a
d
51
.
T
i
d
e
w
a
t
e
r
G
o
b
y
52
.
T
r
i
c
o
l
o
r
e
d
B
l
a
c
k
b
i
r
d
54
.
W
h
i
t
e
-
t
a
i
l
e
d
K
i
t
e
53
.
W
e
s
t
e
r
n
Y
e
l
l
o
w
-
b
i
l
l
e
d
C
u
c
k
o
o
In
s
e
c
t
a
n
d
M
o
l
l
u
s
k
An
i
m
a
l
Pl
a
n
t
Pl
a
n
t
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
17
.
M
o
s
t
B
e
a
u
t
i
f
u
l
J
e
w
e
l
-
f
l
o
w
e
r
18
.
O
b
i
s
p
o
I
n
d
i
a
n
P
a
i
n
t
b
r
u
s
h
19
.
O
s
o
M
a
n
z
a
n
i
t
a
20
.
P
e
c
h
o
M
a
n
z
a
n
i
t
a
21
.
P
i
s
m
o
C
l
a
r
k
i
a
22
.
R
a
y
l
e
s
s
R
a
g
w
o
r
t
23
.
S
a
l
i
n
e
C
l
o
v
e
r
24
.
S
a
n
B
e
n
i
t
o
F
r
i
t
i
l
l
a
r
y
25
.
S
a
n
L
u
i
s
M
a
r
i
p
o
s
a
L
i
l
y
26
.
S
a
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
M
o
n
a
r
d
e
l
l
a
27
.
S
a
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
C
o
u
n
t
y
L
u
p
i
n
e
28
.
S
a
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
S
e
d
g
e
29
.
S
a
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
S
e
r
p
e
n
t
i
n
e
D
u
d
l
e
y
a
30
.
S
a
n
t
a
L
u
c
i
a
M
a
n
z
a
n
i
t
a
31
.
S
a
n
t
a
M
a
r
g
a
r
i
t
a
M
a
n
z
a
n
i
t
a
32
.
W
e
l
l
s
'
M
a
n
z
a
n
i
t
a
1.
A
d
o
b
e
S
a
n
i
c
l
e
2.
A
r
r
o
y
o
d
e
l
a
C
r
u
z
M
a
n
z
a
n
i
t
a
3.
B
l
a
c
k
-
f
l
o
w
e
r
e
d
F
i
g
w
o
r
t
4.
B
l
o
c
h
m
a
n
'
s
D
u
d
l
e
y
a
5.
B
r
e
w
e
r
'
s
S
p
i
n
e
f
l
o
w
e
r
6.
C
a
m
b
r
i
a
M
o
r
n
i
n
g
-
g
l
o
r
y
7.
C
h
o
r
r
o
C
r
e
e
k
B
o
g
T
h
i
s
t
l
e
8.
C
o
n
g
d
o
n
'
s
T
a
r
p
l
a
n
t
9.
C
u
e
s
t
a
P
a
s
s
C
h
e
c
k
e
r
b
l
o
o
m
10
.
D
a
c
i
t
e
M
a
n
z
a
n
i
t
a
11
.
D
u
n
e
L
a
r
k
s
p
u
r
12
.
D
w
a
r
f
S
o
a
p
r
o
o
t
13
.
I
n
d
i
a
n
K
n
o
b
M
o
u
n
t
a
i
n
b
a
l
m
14
.
J
o
n
e
s
'
L
a
y
i
a
15
.
M
i
l
e
s
'
M
i
l
k
-
v
e
t
c
h
16
.
M
o
r
r
o
M
a
n
z
a
n
i
t
a
PC1 - 51
Project Site
Chapter 6
Page6-40
BU
C
K
L
E
Y
HWY
1
HWY 101
L A GUNA
LAK E
HWY 101
BROAD
F
O
O
T
H
I
L
L
PR
A
D
O
LO
S
O
S
O
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
TA
N
K
F
A
R
M
Ci
t
y
L
i
m
i
t
Gr
e
e
n
b
e
l
t
Cr
e
e
k
s
Wi
l
d
l
i
f
e
Z
o
n
e
s
Fi
g
u
r
e
3
:
Wi
l
d
l
i
f
e
C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
s
Wi
l
d
l
i
f
e
C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
s
Wi
l
d
l
i
f
e
C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
Li
n
e
a
r
B
a
r
r
i
e
r
Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
W
i
l
d
l
i
f
e
C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
0
1
2
3
Mi
l
e
s
PC1 - 52
Project Site
Chapter 6
Page6-52
Fi
g
u
r
e
7
:
Ha
b
i
t
a
t
T
y
p
e
s
µ
0
1
2
3
0.
5
Mi
l
e
s
Ci
t
y
L
i
m
i
t
Gr
e
e
n
b
e
l
t
Gr
a
s
s
l
a
n
d
H
a
b
i
t
a
t
s
Ch
a
p
a
r
r
a
l
H
a
b
i
t
a
t
s
Ri
p
a
r
i
a
n
H
a
b
i
t
a
t
s
Sc
r
u
b
H
a
b
i
t
a
t
s
Wo
o
d
l
a
n
d
H
a
b
i
t
a
t
s
We
t
l
a
n
d
H
a
b
i
t
a
t
s
Ag
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
/
D
i
s
t
u
r
b
e
d
H
a
b
i
t
a
t
s
De
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
H
a
b
i
t
a
t
s
PC1 - 53
Project Site
Chapter 6
Page6-56
F
O
O
T
H
I
L
L
SANTA RO
S
A
TA
N
K
F
A
R
M
LOS O
S
O
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
M
A
D
O
N
N
A
BROAD
SO
U
T
H
CALIFO
R
N
I
A
HIGUERA
JOHNS
O
N
P
A
L
M
FO
O
T
H
I
L
L
L A G UNALAKE
Fi
g
u
r
e
9:
Cr
e
e
k
s
a
n
d
W
e
t
l
a
n
d
s
0.
5
0
0.
5
1
0.
2
5
Mi
l
e
s
Ci
t
y
L
i
m
i
t
Ri
p
a
r
i
a
n
H
a
b
i
t
a
t
s
We
t
l
a
n
d
H
a
b
i
t
a
t
s
Cr
e
e
k
s
Pe
r
e
n
n
i
a
l
c
r
e
e
k
w
i
t
h
g
o
o
d
r
i
p
a
r
i
a
n
c
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
In
t
e
r
m
i
t
t
e
n
t
c
r
e
e
k
w
i
t
h
g
o
o
d
r
i
p
a
r
i
a
n
c
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
Pe
r
e
n
n
i
a
l
c
r
e
e
k
w
i
t
h
d
e
g
r
a
d
e
d
c
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
b
u
t
a
b
l
e
t
o
b
e
re
s
t
o
r
e
d
o
r
r
e
p
a
i
r
e
d
In
t
e
r
m
i
t
t
e
n
t
c
r
e
e
k
w
i
t
h
d
e
g
r
a
d
e
d
c
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
b
u
t
a
b
l
e
to
b
e
r
e
s
t
o
r
e
d
o
r
r
e
p
a
i
r
e
d
Pe
r
e
n
n
i
a
l
c
r
e
e
k
w
i
t
h
d
e
g
r
a
d
e
d
c
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
,
h
i
g
h
en
c
r
o
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
,
a
n
d
d
i
f
f
i
c
u
l
t
y
i
n
r
e
s
t
o
r
i
n
g
Wa
t
e
r
w
a
y
s
Dr
a
i
n
a
g
e
d
i
t
c
h
Op
e
n
c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
s
w
a
l
e
o
r
c
h
a
n
n
e
l
Un
d
e
r
g
r
o
u
n
d
c
u
l
v
e
r
t
o
r
m
a
j
o
r
b
r
i
d
g
e
PC1 - 54
Project Site