HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/01/1997, 4 - HILLSIDE HOUSE REPLACEMENT POLICY counaL 4 -1 - 97
j agenda REpoRt
C I T Y O F SAN LUIS O B I S P O
FROM: Arnold B. Jonas, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Glen Matteson, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Hillside house replacement policy
CAO RECOMMENDATION
1. Conceptually approve a negative declaration of environmental impact and an amendment to
the General Plan Land Use Element text, to allow replacement of nonconforming hillside
dwellings on parcels which lie entirely outside the development limit line, subject to
hillside design standards.
2. Direct staff to aggregate the attached draft resolution of approval with other proposed
General Plan Amendment actions for adoption by a single motion at the end of this meeting.
DISCUSSION
Background
The General Plan Land Use Element says hillside development must be entirely within the
development limit line or urban reserve line (policy 6.2.2.A). These are mapped lines which
are based on water service elevation, access, slope, geologic and fire hazards, and scenic and
sensitive resources. Development is defined to include buildings, driveways, and graded yards.
A house in the city limits was built on a parcel which is entirely outside the urban reserve line
(1900 Woodland Drive, owned by Neil T. Maloney,.et. al.). The house was built before the
current policy was adopted. This house is a legal nonconforming structure. It can be
maintained indefinitely. It can be sold without limitation. Limited additions and remodeling
can be done. However, if the house were to be heavily damaged or destroyed, the City could
not approve any further use of the site which would need a building, such as a replacement
house. This particular four-acre parcel is zoned Conservation/Open Space, with a 40-acre
minimum parcel size. Considering the site's zoning, size, slope, soils, and surroundings, the
site probably could not support an agricultural or open space use that would be sufficiently
intensive to be a reasonable economic use. A review of land use information has revealed no
other houses in this situation in the city, at this time. To accommodate continued reasonable
use of sites like 1900 Woodland Drive, staff suggested an amendment to the Land Use Element
text. The amendment would allow a replacement dwelling, subject to the design standards that
apply to new hillside houses on parcels where some development is allowed.
The house at 1900 Woodland Drive was controversial when it was developed in 1978, mainly
due to its appearance on an undeveloped hillside. Since then, trees in the area have grown so
it is hard to see the house from beyond the immediate vicinity. Heavy rains in spring 1995
triggered soil movement above the house, posing a long-term threat to its stability.
Council Agenda Report- hillside house replacement policy
Page 2
The alternative of moving the urban reserve line to include the existing house, or any part of
the parcel, would not be consistent with policies for urban reserve line location, or with the
location of the urban reserve line on properties in the vicinity. Therefore, staff does not
recommend moving the line for the Woodland Drive site, as was done in 1995 for the level
part of a site in a somewhat similar situation, on the South Street Hills near Bridge Street.
The amendment is recommended to avoid the potential for a taking requiring compensation,
which could occur in the future if the house were destroyed. While the amendment has been
proposed in consideration of 1900 Woodland Drive, it would apply to any other house in the
same situation. None are known to exist within the city limits at this time. Additional parcels
and houses could become subject to the City's hillside planning policies if they are annexed. A
few houses above the city limits in the Johnson Avenue area could become subject to the
policy under consideration. The policy to be revised has very limited application (one known
parcel, at present). The change would not allow more development on vacant parcels than is
now allowed. It would require any replacement houses in areas which may become subject to
City jurisdiction to meet hillside design standards, which are intended to minimize
environmental impacts. The actual replacement of a house on a hillside site within the City
would be subject to its own environmental determination, and architectural review.
Environmental Determination
The Community Development Director approved a negative declaration for public review on
April 26, 1996. No comments have been received. The City Council must make an
environmental determination before adopting the amendment. The initial study is attached.
Action Deadline
State law does not set a deadline for this legislative act.
Advisory Body Review
All General Plan amendments require a hearing by the Planning Commission. On June 26,
1996, the Planning Commission voted seven to none to recommend this text amendment.
Public Comment
No testimony from the general public was presented at the Planning Commission hearing. The
owner of 1900 Woodland Drive said he had no objection to the proposed amendment. No
correspondence has been received.
FISCAL IMPACT
There are no fiscal impacts associated with the recommended action.
�-a
Council Agenda Report- hillside house replacement policy
Page 3
CONCURRENCES
No City Departments have objected to the proposed amendment.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Concerning the environmental determination, the Council may request more information,
in the form of an expanded initial study or an environmental impact report. This would
result in continuance.
2. The Council may continue action for reasons other than environmental information.
3. The Council may decide to not approve the amendment.
4. The Council may approve an amendment which differs from the recommendation.
However, a policy which is not consistent with the rest of the General Plan would require
further amendments to maintain the General Plan's internal consistency. A substantially
different amendment may need additional environmental review before the Council acts.
Attachments
Resolution approving Land Use Element text amendment
Resolution denying Land Use Element text amendment
Initial environmental study
Vicinity map of affected site
hilhouse-=44
A/-3
RESOLUTION NO. (1997 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT TEXT CONCERNING
REPLACEMENT OF HILLSIDE HOUSES
(GP 54-96)
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on April 1, 1997, and has
considered testimony of interested parties, the records of the Planning Commission hearing and
action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the draft Negative Declaration of
environmental impact as prepared by staff and reviewed by the Planning Commission (ER 54-
96).
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Environmental Determination. The City Council finds and determines that
the project's Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential significant environmental
impacts of the proposed text amendment, and reflects the independent judgment of the City
Council. The Council determines that the amendment of the Land Use Element text will not
result in any significant impacts, and that no mitigation measures are necessary. The Council
hereby adopts said Negative Declaration.
SECTION 2. Findinizs. That this Council, after consideration of a General Plan Land
Use Element text amendment concerning replacement of hillside houses in limited situations
(GP 54-96) and the Planning Commission's recommendations, staff recommendations, public
testimony, and reports thereof, makes the following finding:
A. The proposed text amendment is consistent with other policies of the General Plan.
SECTION 3. Approval. The request for approval of the Land Use Element
amendment GP 54-96, as shown in the attached Exhibit A, is hereby approved.
SECTION 3. The Community Development Director shall cause the amendment to be
reflected in documents which are on display in City Hall and which are available for public
use.
Resolution No.
Page 2
SECTION 4: This amendment shall take affect at the expiration of 30 days following
approval.
On motion of , seconded by
and on.the following roil call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was adopted this_day of. 1997.
Mayor Allen K:. Settle
.ATTEST:
City. Clerk Bonnie Gawf
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ity orn 7e org sen
hilhous-ccres
RESOLUTION NO. (1997 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBLSPO
DENYING AN AMENDMENT OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT TEXT
CONCERNING REPLACEMENT OF HILLSIDE HOUSES
(GP 54-96)
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on April 1, 1997, and has
considered testimony of interested parties, the records of the Planning Commission hearing and
action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the draft Negative Declaration of
environmental impact as prepared by staff and reviewed by the Planning Commission (ER 54-
96).
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of a General Plan Land
Use Element text amendment concerning replacement of hillside houses in limited situations
(GP 54-96) and the Planning Commission's recommendations, staff recommendations, public
testimony, and reports thereof, makes the following finding:
A. The proposed text amendment is not consistent with policies of the General Plan.
SECTION 2. Denial. The request for approval of the Land Use Element amendment
GP 54-96 is hereby denied.
Upon motion of , seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was adopted this_day of 11997.
44
Resolution No.
Page 2
Mayor Allen K. Settle
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
AAA
ty om
hilhousdny-cores
44
►►���►�h►�►►►►�►i►III►I�IIIIIIIIh1°""" ►► II
city of sAn tuis oBispo
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1 . Project Title: Hillside House Replacement Policy (ER 54-96)
2. Lead Agency: City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street -
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Glen Matteson; 805 781-7165
4. Project Location: San Luis Obispo
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: same as lead agency
6. General Plan Designation: not applicable
7. Zoning: not applicable
8. Description of the Project:
The City's General Plan Land Use Element says hillside development must be
entirely within the development limit Fine or urban reserve line (policy 6.2.2.A).
These are mapped lines which are based on water service elevation, access,
slope, geologic and fire hazards, and scenic and sensitive resources.
Development is defined to include buildings, driveways, and graded yard areas.
An existing house within the City was built on a parcel which is entirely outside
the urban reserve line (1900 Woodland Drive). The house was built before the
current policy was adopted. This house is a legal nonconforming structure. It
can be maintained indefinitely. It can be sold without limitation. Limited
additions and remodeling can be done. However, if the house were to be
destroyed, the City could not approve any further use of the site which would
need a building, such as a replacement house. The four-acre parcel is zoned
Conservation/Open Space, with a 40-acre minimum parcel size. Considering the
site's zoning, size, slope, soils, and surroundings, the site probably could not
support an agricultural or open space use that would be sufficiently intensive to
be a reasonable economic use. A review of land use information has not
revealed other houses in this situation.
I F- I Tho city of San I ni< flhicnn is mmmittod to inrlude the disahled in all of its services_ nmarams Anel nHivitios
To accommodate continued reasonable use of sites like 1900 Woodland Drive,
the City proposes to amend the Land Use Element text. The text amendment
would allow a replacement dwelling, subject to the design standards that apply to
new hillside houses on parcels where some development is now allowed. The
alternative of moving the urban reserve line to include the existing house, or any
part of the parcel, would not be consistent with policies for urban reserve line
location, or the location of the urban reserve line on properties in the vicinity.
The text change is shown below, with shading to highlight the added words:
6.2 Hillside Policies
6.2.2 Development Standards Development --including buildings, driveways,
fences and graded yard areas-- on hillside parcels shall:
A. Be entirely within the urban reserve line or development limit line, whichever
is more restrictive (though parcel boundaries may extend beyond these lines
when necessary to meet minimum parcel-size standards), exee:pt" Fi!eta
:::.;::.f•,.:.,.. ::h:.....:.:::::.::{::::;:x r<::.: +:+.:!:.p:::.;;y:ro.;1;:::,:,:..::;:;;..r A':.::::;:.�.�: .:;n'':::.:::,,.:::;......,
Ie.9.61 bui.t d,...ef. ng.ex.sts on.:a..parcel whJch is.enUCely outs�de.xhe ur6eri
reserve.lrne.ordevelopment GmEt.Cine, a replacement dw.ellm.g.maybe
Co .structe subject to..5ta:O.M. s,B,th augh i i below
B. Keep a low profile and conform to the natural slopes;
C. Avoid large, continuous walls or roof surfaces, or prominent foundation
walls, poles, or columns;
D. Minimize grading of roads;
E. Minimize grading on individual lots; generally, locate houses close to the
street; minimize the grading of visible driveways;
F. Include planting which is compatible with native hillside vegetation and
which provides a visual transition from developed to open areas;
G. Use materials, colors, and textures which blend with the natural landscape
and avoid high contrasts;'
H. Minimize exterior lighting.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
While the amendment has been proposed in consideration of 1900 Woodland
Drive, described above, it would apply to any houses in the same situation.
None are known to exist within the city limits. Additional parcels and houses
could become subject to the City's hillside planning policies if they are annexed.
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (such as permits, financing
approval, or participation agreement): none �f
2 "
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.
X Land use and Planning Biological Resources Aesthetics
Population and Housing Energy and Mineral Cultural Resources .
Resources
Geological Problems Hazards Recreation
Water Noise Mandatory Findings of
Significance
Air Quality Public Services
Transportation and Utilities and Service
Circulation Systems
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and X
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
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 the mitigation measures described on an
attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATIVE 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 significant effect(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, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially
Significant Unless Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must
analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
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 all potentially significant effects (1) have
been analyzed in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (2) have been avoided or
mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR,including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed
upon the proposed project.
3 �-/l�
T
Signature: Date:
an 'Hie, Long Range Planning Manager For: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Dir.
Yoh M
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 parentheses following each question.
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.
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 (3) (D).
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. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals
contacted should be cited in the discussion.
4 4-!/
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? X
The policy to be revised has very limited application (one known parcel, at present). The change would not allow
more development on vacant parcels than is now allowed. It would require any replacement house in areas which
may become subject to City jurisdiction to meet hillside design standards, which are intended to minimize
environmental impacts. A replacement house on a hillside site would be subject to its own environmental
determination, and architectural review.
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies X
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project?
See item "a" above.
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? X .
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impact to X
soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land
uses)?
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an X
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)?
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population X
projections?
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or X
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or
major infrastructure?
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? X
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? I X
5 �1-ia
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
b) Seismic ground shaking? X
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? X
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? X
e) Landslides-or mudflows? X
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions X
from excavation, grading or fill?
g) Subsidence of the land? X
h) Expansive soils? X
1) Unique geologic or physical features? X
4. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the X
rate and amount of surface runoff?
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards X
such as flooding?
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of X
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen
or turbidity?
6
Issues and Supporting Information Sources sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water X
body?
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water X
movements?
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through X
direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of
an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial
loss of groundwater recharge capability?
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? X
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? X
1) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater X
otherwise available for public water supplies?
5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an X
existing or projected air quality violation (Compliance with
APCD Environmental Guidelines)?
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? X
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause X
any change in climate?
d) Create objectionable odors? X
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? X
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves X
or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g.
farm equipment)?
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? X
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? X
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? X
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative X
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts (e.g. compatibility X
with San Luis Obispo Co. Airport Land Use Plan)?
7. 'BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats X
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals
or birds)?
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? X
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, x
coastal habitat, etc.)?
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool? X
8 Al-/S
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? X
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? X
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient X
manner?
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral X
resource that would be of future value to the region and
the residents of the State?
9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous X
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)?
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or X
emergency evacuation plan?
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health X
hazard?
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health X
hazards?
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass X
or trees?
9
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increase in existing noise levels? X
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? X
11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered
government services in any of the following areas:
a) Fre protection? X
b) Police protection? XI
c) Schools? X
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? X
e) Other governmental services? X
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or
substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? X
b) Communications systems? X
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? X
I
d) Sewer or septic tanks? X
e) Storm water drainage? / / X
4
10 ,/ 7
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
f) Solid waste disposal? X
g) Local or regional water supplies? X
13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? X
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? X
c) Create light or glare? X
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? X
b) Disturb archaeological resources? X
c) Affect historical resources? X
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which X
would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the X
potential impact area?
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
15. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks X
or other recreational facilities?
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? X
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality X
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?
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, X
to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals?
c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, X
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)
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will X
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
12 -/9
17. 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. Section 15063 (3) (D). In this case a discussion should
identify the following items:
a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
There is no relevant earlier analysis.
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.
Not applicable.
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.
Not applicable.
Authority: Public Resources Code Sections 21083 and 21087.
Reference: Public Resources Code Sections 21080 (c), 21080.1, 21080.3, 21082.1, 21083, 21083.3,.21093, 321094,
21151; Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino, 202 Cal. App. 3d 296 (1988);Leonofff v. Monterey Board of Supervisors, 222
Cal. App. 3d 1337 (1990).
18. SOURCE REFERENCES
None.
19. MITIGATION MEASURES/MONITORING PROGRAM
None required.
HILHOUSE.IES GM 419-96
13 ��
VICINITY Mk-. , 0
SITE AFFECTED BY GP 54-96 o i00o
(1900 Woodland Drive) f£V-T SP
r
JJJ �J
I
(j a
R-1-SP `-R<
R-1- SP
f
SET I
OQ
WOODLAND
O < O O
1 ° � .
° o ° �. ° 4 C/ -40
o •A R-1 �� SITE✓
{
° s� o int, j ° .° % ` / ,Or i
���. j, o jay ,
:ooZ o
° - ° go -
- - o - �- -- ■ -
° Q66� O.L�avJ i O rO \�I ��� CLOS -40
o ,
6 — /
/• O
0.0
R-1 ,
\
i
f � � R-1
O ,
°+ ♦ 4'
PF
COJINTY
� >