HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/23/2007, COMM - Oct 16 07 04: 47p Milt.holland & Rssociates 907 348-8550 p. 1
Communications
October 16, 2007
Andrew Carter, Council Member
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Dear Councilman Carter,
Last Saturday morning I met you on the County-owned property below Sunny Acres.
We laughed a bit about how inclement weather is relative—you being from New England
and I from Alaska- a cold day here is summertime elsewhere!
Today I am writing in regards to the four Johnson Avenue area annexations which will be
considered on October 23`d. I have been trying to get my mind around these proposals,
but none of them makes good sense to me. Why would the city to vote to annex and
rezone these properties when they all have numerous, serious exceptions to the General
Plan,the most far reaching being moving the Urban Reserve Line to higher elevation?
This is setting a precedent for all hillsides in San Luis Obispo— leaving the door open for
others to do the same. Sort of like your kid coming to you saying"Well Johnny-Joe did
it, so I should be able to do it too."
And I wonder if it is really in the city's best interest to annex these four properties and be
responsible for providing public utilities? Does the benefit j ustify the cost to the city, its
taxpayers?
In the case of the County-owned property, which has three land elements—zoned R-1
within the city and below the URL; zoned Open Space within the city but ABOVE the
URL; and proposed Open Space in land outside the city limits- I urge you to uphold the
Planning Commission's denial, uphold the currently zoned Open Space designation
within the city limit above the URL, and redirect the applicant to submit a proposal for
the R-1 zoned parcel that is below the URL and within the city limits.
For the other three properties, King, Filiponi/Twissleman, and Brown (Harmony), I
encourage you to pursue a development transfer, as defined in the General Plan Land Use
Element 2.3.4, to other property in town and use the entire area as open space dedication.
Thanks for listening! I'll see you next Tuesday evening.
Sincerely yours,
Madelyn Mil1h lland
V
FRECEIVED
June 30, 2007
00]
RED FILELARK
San Luis Obispo City Council - MEETING AGENDA
990 Palm Street DAT1E2qWkMTEM #2C
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
ATTN: City Council Members
Subject: GP/R, ANNX and TR/ER 126-06
We are writing this letter in protest against changing the General Plan for the City of San
Luis Obispo. Raising the Urban Reserve Line would take this change halfway up the
Cuesta Grade. The ramifications from this would be tremendous.
As per the attached information, we explained as thoroughly as we could the impact that
would be put upon us if this project was approved.
There is a provision in the General Plan called Development Credit Transfer(6.2.4) for
an open space/development exchange of sorts. This could benefit the applicants and the
landowners on our hillsides.
Thank you for your attention to this important matter.
Sincerely,
W LaAVL�
Garry Holdgrafer Martha Chivens
1850 Alrita Street
549-9349
Evelyn oldgrafer
1840 Alrita Street
543-3212
f
OUNCIL DD DIR
iAO FIN DIR
CAO IRE CHIEF
TTORNEY DPW DIR
LERK/ORIG POLICE CHF
❑ D PT HEADS REC DIR
UTIL DIR
/r HR DIR
5C e,+
City of San Luis Obispo Planning Commission
Presentation from 1840 and 1850 driveway extension off
Alrita Street on proposed annexation and General Plan
amendment by Filipponi and Twisselman (Fairview
Estates)
�ll
25 April 2007
City of San Luis Obispo Community Development
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
ATTN: Phil Dunsmore
City Planner
Subject: GP/R, ANNX and TR/ER 126-06
Philo
Filipponi and Twisselman in 1978 applied to San Luis Obispo County for a permit to
grade an 875 foot road.
Board of Supervisors turned down this grading permit. City Planning Director Henry
Engen said this could be "like letting the genie out of the bottle" in starting a
development San Luis Obispo doesn't want.
New application in April 2007, changing the Urban Reserve Line from 460 feet to 750
feet would definitely let the genie out of that bottle.
Vesting tentative tract 2773 easement between 1840 and 1850 Alrita Streets submitted by
Filipponi and Twisselman shows an easement of 40 feet (private road and public utilities
easement). There is only a 26 foot deeded easement.
We developed a DRIVE WAY to our homes. Our drive way has been built on the
easement by us with the drive way ending approximately 40 feet from the start of the
Filipponi and Twisselman property line. That 40 feet still belongs to us. The drive way
has a 20% or more slope and also includes a 12 foot wide bridge.
This drive way has been built and maintained by 1840 and 1850 Alita St. over 30 years
with a cost of over$60,000.00.
A Road Agreement for maintenance which includes Filipponi and Twisselman is
recorded. As of this date April 24, 2007 they have paid=0=.
Now Filipponi and Twisselman want to burden our drive way with utilities and a public
road which would be 40 feet wide adding an additional 14 feet on our 26 foot easement,
plus building 10 foot retaining walls approximately 90 feet down the easement from their
property line. This will put the retaining walls in front of what little parking area we have
and closing off the use of our garage and closes the entrance to 1850's parking area
completely.
The easement says for ingress and egress and for water pipes from my well for incidental
purposes. Incidental purposes does not mean a public road, sewer lines or city water
pipes.
We feel this project is completely out of line making lots available in an area that is
already total OPEN SPACE by allowing retaining walls, etc to be built and giving
someone the right to install sewer and water lines on our property which we own in FEE
without permission from We the landowners.
I have been in the Real Estate business in San Luis Obispo 42 years this August. I have
been involved in subdivisions, building warehouses, commercial and rental property
including being a partner of John King at one time.
In my 42 years in the Real Estate business I have never seen a more unacceptable project
than these that are being presented by King, Filipponi and Twisselman.
Fires, numerous floods, mountain lions killed, coyotes, rattlesnakes, foxes and deer by
the dozens. This is something to consider when OPEN SPACE is disturbed.
County progress: Why is the County of San Luis Obispo in the develo ment business?
Garry HoldSrafer MarthdChivens
Evelyn ldgrafer
- -- - --- - -----------..... ....
Driveway y cut wide s watt
A driveway proposed for a its• even a well-designed road Harrow, said he origt oy
house-planned-un whi71 out- Engen said city officials would invite long-term planned to recommend that
side of San Luis Obispo could are deeply worried about the problems if it opened the the county find the project
be"h&e lig the genie out proposed drive, because it way to further development. would not harm the en-
of the bottle" in starting.a would connect to a planned Engen said the county and vironment if the road were
kind of development' san . road through the Greentree the city should work with built properly. But he said
Luis Obispodoesn'twant. Tract, an old subdivision landowners to encourage Friday that he isn't sure
City Planning Director which esists on paper but -clustering of homes on flat- what to recommend in light
Henry Engen used those remains undeveloped. ter sites close to the city of the city's position.
words Friday to describe the Engen said all of the lots in limits. The city might agree
possible impact of a grading the subdivision could be to extend utility lines in
project county supervisors developed if Filipponi's return for a promise not to
will review Monday at 2:15 project is allowed. He said develop the hill,he said.
a.m. at the supervisors' much development in the
chamber in the courthouse hills would be contrary to the Engen admitted that
annex. city's general plan and to the Measure G, the city
Herb Filipponi of San Luis county's proposed Land Use initiative which requires a
Obispo has applied for a per- Element and Development public vote on all proposed
mit to grade a 875-foot road Code. annexations, might hamper
to a house site east of Ahzta Engen said it might be the city's efforts to work out
Street,near San Luis Obispo possible to design the road so such a deal.
General Hospital. Fiiip- that it didn't create undue County Environmental
poni's land is outside city safety problems.But he said Coordinator David R.
a ,
WNII
' exp �. '`� !'.:< r � yH•. 1'a'`�?= ` '',!` Meeh
,Ai ' .1< r Ia'kJ 1 ,`•r /M\, In 1 A�• ; `1a �rl '1 ` ',•. - - ....
�� Jia I ►4 � �� f. S r� r, i y�atij .� r ..p' `"'„••F
law
tip
7 I A®�'' C/A115 .�'C.' Y'.yR�.' �I tq I ` .. .isS j � p ISS " •_
+'( � •�1 P..a� � � ti -_N 7t�l,lfa'"� "� 11l :1 �;•I �, a� �. � �r�.;.
"5 �""����_ } '.- w, N.�r1 yE. �r1 •4. �. %r l � I"i71 �� r f.r-7S , ` �j
L, .••S`. y ,J�tRj'as.�' x*.�,� rr \ f � ',�a'4';1y; � �_T� y.�� _
.• }i Ss. \It�a' '�`Jr-.r '�syi_��`�s .,�s'^: �..... `�+ `" J""' .•y,j°�1y,
$ � ''• :_ �� ems/ '• � r � ` 3
Y�- I . � y�a ♦ r
iry } � v f " � -♦ SRP"
lql1
1 a �
.?r F:'p ,.�.�•�_. � t: '1F- h .� 'a. y.t.� !M�� I '��' �+., .n q � ',()• �Y �� :
k..
r
�J 4�
M'
J• .'•�dYJ C� "�..fir Yom_4 �f � .r•M" t
t
t h.y i K�1\y F^'v I♦4 J11E \ l A slit .Iw , l �„ 'y 5�4.(' !l�l n� M4F ,
L � )h A.�.b 1X \Ah"3.. • 1� �(-~' ° Yf.�. if T •'a�`� �y�i � "t x l '� 1 a _\t N� Y r'
* �. •vrS1 x� � .'�=�� �I 1R� t1 ':4�r1 ( v( � l \ ,I /`F '� ..ta. -�,r f; :.
11 Y / � a'Cw. } _:l i. s1.ld�� .a+0, v 7 ' '*1�'S`.a ..`•`!11c ,
yrs x '.:` r Y/ l •:'rf < � ..1 C A:
r ffyy�����ll „' S '!, i �1• ` 1 rr f
l��` y ! Y 1• i i
lA f\ •rl 11 ��a:t
.:
r'11 til v
�erte
a :{
.K y� I nl� 4Jry1 i \ • y - ( ,'gni �'
if 1 •u"! - " .f.� :� ��Ir Y � � t i x� If!{�i. )+ f'r,S
.a IN !
` C�L Wil \ �„ r e
� 1 {A n J
, /
� t L.r.L x A �•7 � � 3N
4 j�1
'p.
�r•F
N,
IN
IN
-7-
I
N,
N.
IN \V I
LL
N
NN
.."IN
C.
%
N\
0;304��— 1
LN
N,
N,
N, IN
IN I.
N
b'MNATPMD,tw m unuumI rA 2.Q r
PA
f
O'MAX RET�C e.
to
ywtm
m.
WA11W 5-r
(tw.)
N\
b'M.T PMP AV H'MC UMIry I
PAHAt
C
rrsPl PALMO
w4w�
%e—
f MC
77PICAL =ZT "A" . .....I
mrc
NOT, ROPE L4SWM EN75 af OKAINED AS NEEDED. PA VMC
srcRON a4sm ON 'R-mur a,sats RD-a?r AND u ova vD
15361389 OR- — 1
' 1
C/TY Of SAN 1-15 J6/SfG'•
Y �z'P5"E- �• Nz.a.N_wa.er -y - x
< Pnai �O • COUNTY OF 54N 4U/5 065ff7 `.: Jd' r
\J ` i O `� 3 l Av u=;e•Q u
T
t Ilk
�• old
IN
:oar a sz ry
�7� OI ,
c a � o � c$ �F v q� •- � -
t
\ N _k \ .@
y' N
_ a+
i cM�4w�`N9ybtpr
s
Lda 0.4,Da
4 :.09�t9 q
-�. � y�� ",n�lt.aiw•• '-' 3F7a mI$ 1 •
1 �1 \ C L � •pO W:94�i5'd+ r`rt � W
l.tt O D In •• s D I \
r�
ICA
5.�
T-
i� ° t��
w-P '2X y a A N, t f.
Co. $#41 r 1-
P > 41
2 la9N-1µ.15W ms + a419
230.04.0N.4
z $
T.
11-981636 0.R.
N Z +a
op
It
Su�VEYC7R'S GERTIFiGA"fE COuNTY PLANJilN4_COMM1gS�ON �
15 FILLED THlS �-
TWO MAP WA6 PRETARw W MI:pR ' TNVi tARCEL MAP WN .YBL4ME
F�NHING M1T9� ?.1+sEM• ,tH ELl71'. 1'L OF°A
UHDER MY DIIlEOTIOH AND 19 BAf+ED 4N pDIRfiO,IB N r � iy�g�PO, MAPS+AT PSS 1G'�
AHD COMPILED FROM Rl�ORD DKTA,lH', COMM15ilON DP OF LEONA47 LE,•iC_°SrJtt kf3a0 aL
(,p1{F0¢MANGC WrrA-NE peau1RL+IEts SUMIOP c�PDRy>7►+In�'��►�ca-_WITH r_ s J:ll:...,. E
OF TUB SUEDiVl910M MAP AGT A? TNE' THE NWmj �T.'SlRlON-1{ess�Yi1`Dl"nld fii69N•10:r —
a-IOS 1+lARTIN.AI2.JIPl M'AP/iCT/b�t7ES4'/itlD'-PRD.�6fO1M�000IIDF tM'IE
yeaualm OF THE $TATE.df CW 11, 4-
�• .sN l Ftu.b.tt y µE52//6(d/�AMA6- l9(16D/SY OF 1415
OH^neo.E6 tjgls. I WIMP(C8}ITIFY
THAT IT COHrMAO Yd' APPRDYF37 CNAIRMAH� 4ARY A,3URYB'(OF A POIV10H OF
TeH•rATIvB MAP AND` 6Zais -
� �j,_�;'
orA dei�r NO. r}
Escrow No. SLO 797263 SF pGda� a��
Loan No. DOC. NO.
OFFICIAL RECORDS
SAN LUIS OBISPO CO CAL
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: CONIPARED,UL 21976
Mr. and Mrs. Gary N. Holdgrafer VIIILLIAM E. ZIMARIK
Mr. and Mrs. Roy D. Newell COUNTY RECORDER
c/o Howard S. Franklin TIME 8 0 Q A
1305 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, California 93401 SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE
MAIL TAX STATEMENTS TO:
DOCUMENTARY TRANSFER TAX $.......U...65„..........................
.. .XXComputed ontheconsideration or value of property conveyed;OR
......Computed on the consideration or valueless liens or encumbrances
Address as above rerp��wingattimeofL-ftsa!��
�/��► €SCOW Firm JR—
For:
of Declarant or Agent determmmg x—Firm a
For: First American Title Insurance. Com an
Unincorporated GRANT D E E D
FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, LUCIUS CALVIN MARTIN and
LOURETHA MARTIN, husband and wife
hereby GRANT(S) toGARRY N. HOLDGRAFER and EVELYN L. HOLDGRAFER, husband and wife as Joint
Tenants as to an undivided one-half interest and ROY D. NEWELL and WILMA R. NEWELL,
husband and wife as Joint Tenants as to an undivided one-half interest
the real property in the RotDCX)fX unincorporated area of the- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
County of San Luis Obispo, - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - State of California, described as
Parcel 2 of Parcel Map No. COAL 74-352 in the County of San Luis Obispo, State of
California, recorded August 13, 1975 in Book 17, Page 115 of-Parcel- Maps in the office
of the County Recorder of-said County.
SUBJECT TO: an easement- for A-tigress and- egress-, water l i nes, pumps and incidental
purposes as granted to Herbert W. Filipponi and Diane Filipponi , husband and wife
and Kenneth C. Twisselman and Rosemary Twisselman, husband and wife and Darrell L.
Twisselman and Nola C. Twisselman, husband and wife by Deed dated June 14, 1975.
Dated June 14, 1976 )
L ius Ca1Vin Martin
STATE OF 0
85
COUNTY OF I ss ouret a Martin
On .,v+ne �a IF76
before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said
State, personally appeared PLUe4..6
known to me to be the person whose names MARK SCHNELE
subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged that NOTARY IMLIC - OP, n;'j
executed the same. Mr COMMISSION INNIZE5 `3`a9— AJC)
WITNESS my hand and official seat'.
— -----
Signature ��'�"-�• (This area for o'.-i:_!a� ___
Af} Y rr•• I� � ° i„� VE'Tr�y>,o° k't 'R'l.°c A Wr,. "�.. °0,�1 -q Q.F.
�1q % J � rrR F or'�jyA� e'� YA. �y0 'h o •e0 pp v�.
Vs Of
tt ggqpppp}}} •`.” Q t n{. r17^d re 0. omi e•^':� 5 (� ,p
.T�� S� 0 , N i SI �i•'_}; riyyyy e f 5 06 t ,b �e`°^C'+~"Q'•:
}� � • z ^�"F
Al a 'aa
.,?V.p 2 o er cm 4G.,�4 a� M;wr qrr
I e - lk O
00
�� PP 2{ i Aps•tt x � rw d a J `-f5
Y!?S j�i �,`h+,.7�9�}y��e9+ . +On 0 f o ° ,'° $ •S.,�t`°u
!! �€,{{��y�$RR � U y �`"4'^+ r_ k"'"'SYR• �+ � ���° @ 45 �y , °`�
q� ` 4 t � @ "° r s'T �'. . "1 r$ + 5,i.. N /A 5?° w -`, r e 3Y' n d• a�4r
Ryas y V. 2 3Vo aB d �d Y
ed
to
c $:
iw 8x r
Gn
IF
P! M
y
t ✓' e q� Fj��+y p Fn d.
4D1 a° •bo r9,
° '`d,c �r r'..., .4•v� w'°;`
8° ax .s .y r3 00
AL
�v
'° e p o ,,.°• d ., a Q�,; °
CK Iz
� RS?~ Q� "c `D�g� h.Id'`�•pp ,a 44 ,ar g1 p , - � 1°;.
e+'Q °� ° 86+0 ��y
�}�bb ink 4,�ofl� 6 t d'^a�
9^-Rs= 4 e!j qm Q Y •Q "` s' o ,f
a
�x°� � �-0��n° a � ,.��Apop�q'(��� �i o f °�9rP,�o�`Q4 6 R� t•�r �� $." " �" .R. e '�.
�• �"F., ° b'd, ��` 4r°V 6°�0 .,�e`.° ° � o _ °�P� ° opb �,> ° SP �+ b 'o ,
d
go'S:g�
0
°
__ ^�y° b¢ � �� $ o �� °000 '� �. 4 -. ` ° •�4a.t ��. 5' a»• r �1 '°`�;at
TI
7W.
ti
. .........
r-
r
� s '
df
• ! tIL
s
- r
1 �
r-^;;ff t
�R�� s
i. � 1f���
,- j "..R.. Yet'. + M1 .,-.. � f I .�
4r� 3� r !, y.- �c Y,. sy � 4!
T-}..,:t<_„ r.�,s � M� Ali, -.+•1 Jr�'7^ t:
�,� `�� a.. ���' �. .;.,.� as y yam'a'`Jp � •;±,
,r Rry1� ;�% T w d
P �g� �'-�.sus; �� -.y g � 4� h �"�'�:s,Ma.it'a$;
..t r� d ���4.'( Y M f .X }.CFS f.
� j .S Se v,, y, A w
� v'J. k #.'' �"'Z
Gi. fin.
� F'L�Hr�r"..sWyv °6y� 1Y�. �%. Ar��'j'�'"*'. x5 '31�i S � Y;y��
¢ jr' `�Y •_R} � 6� SLI
i p�e
a 5146. V' A:��1 .♦�yA�) ..Y W t�P f�. i q � 4 x�� ,
Iy�P TI r"
Y ��,�a 4
F 'NM `. ���` � t�l� $ ( .r � ` ����.
r .' � i' ppl.. � 'F i l�\.Y✓ Ir".�y.
� �Y� � G 1� r � �'T A � � � NTI-Y;
ci- .�, -}'.t.��� �fkj.�ss it �� � �:z #���
( ,� ,� is " r a.
z�' �d
�X.: s � 5i,,. V y ' �
��yq}i. °'4 til i�'r x � ¢¢yy'' yY�".�. x}�v t r.f ti �
1 - y, y� Y �• 1 {�.. tri � J � ��Ck,r
l.�Yf,,; ,t!��t _.,pyx. > ..� ��y14" r. ��. ,.�Ye F
� ••
•
•
� •
Yi•'..p'eN:
�'�s"�'{,,�y✓ �a 9 ` �,�n agq•��y ij fiL. � 2K' i i� �. ';r� 1, 4n
J
IC
`� r �.`1�5��'1k• '�j 1,viA wig? l/. 5%'•i L s ` T�:{�v}y,,,r
v�
2 JJ55 ��rrC�r; 11
jy
�F sj r i ,�.� >,Std r4 rd �„• ��.�.-,
•i� 5 j:' J Y'S�.1 Y lit�1v{�\ S r� � J P
.,Lll 1...N .( 1 0 �..'._ � .�Y J•i �.�. ......'�S`?m^I!':�...�ff�s�(:.
I
�y a• - Y ;• l ABY !;l%•• _ �,`A�'°*j
tit w 1r", a
Vli
_.r �',�sd^rY�arg c Yt:t , y777«tT cAvvx.
I�d' r
' T�c�'s �I°..$.:-.. � '"� 1, qr�+ rt• ii'1
i
14
1 L
' r , ' ;,�, ;. Law,. `"*sii'• .:,.
? N
�T� aU y E 'TI f 1'a- r �•,
i• a
M- `?
1..• 1 "k M1 yQY- � - -1•�.
M i
nor t
1 +
Y�[t+t � jJ1 � � ��t� y� r �1 1 �•_ •�f
a ,
�t
r> iY t
i!
L,� 4Mj�• YI t� 2
`c �`�$:, ,y rr <(�:a �Iv$" -1:yv �gVYfs I •` � Y ' '11gy . �
r ' ^�Y t'rw�t; ��f L` I <k� t_,. F � , :f� , � :1��1`. » Tt •.j
� � x. s �.1 R4 �f ..war is '4✓ � ;.:
d,. 'yt ry.e♦p F j � _�S 4 i Y `yIv ! 1rK�.
r .,f�...f y4. ��af.Cl�f 1 / -: a ,0� ?��,1���''!> � �11�.': 'L���:�•._.
�roC h�'� �`$ 4'�+' �.9 •kt . r- ' +a +11� l 'J._ p { 4'';.7��IE...
r
�r
r� i-• J > Nr -� L �'�'. fl `� :� �) fi r y ifyf n. fA:s
}s �.� f.• ♦fin a1- f II �, - 1 r�- Rr If�. g�)i4 tM1 )
Pt� rte' J lA= ~ �k11 ( � `[�!",. �•� f�.. � '! lj� $'S`�..5v�+::..
Y y� 1 �r f..y t• � i1 /' — �C]"'F,{Y L �tT. I T �• 4� 7„�..
r
'ta
� ty•. � r> n �� 4! T�{�. F � � j!. d y la ;��{ c FK'
1 r�� � 4' � �• , r.. t °,/ r.. � .�7��. I. ",r�•� k.� �LiG '(Y4L�i� �c A `.
ft-�� x ` :.� 4 .'t s (i.:f e ,I�P .' � •i.r' I`,F.` '�'.�e��h � .-j�
1 • e
-
r• a
r �- • J-> M f�r4 2�.
q�T/ 4+ '�Y i'�. f♦ � �fa "x•�� \ x _ _
y �q
� Pis-" � 7✓ �Qr..�-
:r
Ire
tS ...`•'G{y a_,Say` fie. F .11 `3
•��
v g5�1' ,rJ �,!?P y yy ✓ y�^� r���L"
r.. u 4 /t`°,. � f`:ll•rl ' r ' �\r 1 w'.. ������ '.1� A fw f
S 4� Ir fi.r.! � 5 ✓ �F ..
� �^ � 'fix t 1 y".• r� L
SAtt +y J j a 1 aJ�}M � lyW �
Y A X\yam ,tt` �k? Aw• +.�+ai "{
'I'sYfF� i x _^�{Sy it xA'� V y' r t'' J�'S y r• f `� --gyp ,
^ ? t+- K'#. . fRl.: ��. -'•t'� C -S mac"'
l�
�'�mn`'1� R A�
A
ry }� j✓�yrr 1 /a v'L (�" I I 1 ,t vx
�,j.'_ -'k r'f�aTR.-f' .,"'4 ?i�� if4 y 1• �-.1 l r�\� ���-1l t •, 'fib`Y.'
,w L�
ti
r
'� w n r ■l t
y4`�� e rte"�"1Prt 1 ws.aj � m
t a r H r•
z f
i
M1' f
( .rr
A r
tl i J J.ti��
i�
Ja � i Ls Yti ave.:fitR 9 r�rc 'n+..t"�ywRR o+„roan i r x� VCYiF b� sG�Y'
H ar~ Y r - 9rT R H / J,
a ra vrr nr w - � rya5..py,..evil• k � {.w, l•
r f
, pr1• a rc�^'$,`r arts` \t ,� � �� f. x '/ t `
, 1
� � s t � n� �` 3�eT' �`' f .�$�f1ge'T}'h',ya1�l ➢r '" p y�'�`,ary { j
S/ J '—
"
f ,:., .i �,, b,Fy { t itt hf}h t,�'i m.et �.�.. .4.n ��sr•r l.r r�y\h 2.b- N-'{ f l,.)t � {
��� -.y 1��_.as: •,�.dd� yrl4�,-}st �l'/,ra Y w#Vj,W,st`�T����1(;��,f�Yf'e.te.�,f a� �`��,�M r+�XC�''a�iYn�'�� ��4s�
.:\ Ta•," ,r u'c r t yiry a+, '✓L� � 74s}.w�e.l l� &'(�y"�.
a 000. e�
'
m,� b�R✓
° - � _ .-�° ��. :m °fie, _ r�ter__.• ° - �e
° a
a m
o.
°
q m o
a+ °
SO°'M...v
sM1
sa q�a °e .g se$9G °°
�, � Qa"R o. 04 ✓f P�a ,,1q ����O.IIe a E °i� '�° b OaA @(p ° °° G� °d 6 °°a� A ,
Mud, boulders down driveway,
Some of this was already cleared away
before we took pictures. 10 dump truck
loads were hauled away.
��� ® 1 sem+ • �
5 )'y" i L���.•����a,�s.. �`_-rYr .ry�♦�,t���\,,,. �„n� . l�♦� r 31 K � 14 . 1
✓ �>•G.♦�� ;� a� {. ..b✓ fy; n+ +rt n: !` �y�"y�vt�� � '1T� �i " C t r ,\\ LL
��• �jsy1}M1`�'•n.A •! i 4�� I�y'"l � �.°$'(nFI Y R7 � �S'��i_' 'yiAy F p {�r� �1 � I. I
r'¢ f.�y..+'�� '_ i.j� �•1- t b �" -'f�•,ti//1�....�`.��w S'r� '.�Ym • T :i �
,.V L�"'elY• { oil
1 r,r,n ®R!
r{ �•!. y4 rr, i1`t 1 - r a:�(i.'..
A � ri'n���v !i fS N /��1 /J ,la f' Mt '♦L F '
" ►L t�y -�. .. i -. .r. 1.
WTI.•
4 li 'Y '_�iL•, 6.Iti /1 1' �J > � r � (yay`� .� � 151
.H
1 rll 1 1:: • ley, '] l+'jl , i
fes'`- �1 � Y � ✓ %_i✓' g�, it R'`�S,
y �1. •1 � �+' _F c�F q Zl
��♦ ` � : -Ar r�-- 7i Kai ..�•1 ,r'r 4 f*J
All-
It
Me
�r Y 9n•K S ,y
_�• -_i. AV'1t E� '1y�i� �� r. .�ws��, �k 4 "/` R i r�,�4[ �.
4
•-4.' - I �t kt• �s 'a
•_ �FJByC��.yt�Af +.+', r°L� ,3 r . r }�-;:'��t�� /�!\s a If f
(,`� � Iw>, 33 !1. d >•� p�T .�ililay._ i � \4)�•� 'F3-!,y���'
Tiny+ ✓Y*y.n4 ryKl• _ �d..n r i µ� �a N' �:l\('N��'Jt
4 :,�.d.,
� .�?(".:.�:'+'arl 'Y ,err - .L ..,.-•.,. �^ �-- i '�.
•Y Y 1
_ W MFS M I �^_.� •• �
JLV auii�iu�.a��.r�.iv�,ua.u� ra�c 1 vl �
�1
Dunsmore, Phil
From: Settle, Allen
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 2:33 PM RECEIVED
I
To: Dunsmore, Phil OCT 12 7C4I
Subject: FW: SLO Hillside Development
SLO CITY CLERK .-'
From: Jim Lewellen [mailto:jclewellen@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Thu 10/4/2007 1:58 PM
To: romero@slocity.org; Settle, Allen; Carter, Andrew; Mulholland, Christine; Brown, Paul
Subject: SLO Hillside Development
Hello City Council Members,
My wife and I drove into San Luis Obispo almost by accident two years
ago.We had spent the previous day in Paso Robles,checking it out as
a possible place in which to retire.We decided that as long as we
were in the area we might as well drive on down to San Luis Obispo.
It was love at first sight.Two things seduced us:the beautiful
downtown area and.the hills.Everywhere we looked there were hills
and mountains.When we asked why there were no houses on them,we
were told that it just wasn't allowed.We realized that this was a
very special place—especially after we learned about the mild
weather,the super-friendly residents:and all the good restaurants—
and decided that this is where we wanted to live.
We sold our house and purchased one here in SLO just below the urban
reserve line.We love our new home and we especially love our view of
the mountains.Looking to the south we have a bird's eye view of
Islay Peak,Mine Hill and the mountains between SLO and the Coast,
all virtually development free. And to the north,directly across
the:street,we:get a worm's eye view of the Santa Lucia Mountains.I
have attached a foggy-morning photo taken in the spring of this year.
This is what we see from our front porch looking across Harmony Way.
You can easily understand why we were horrified to learn that there
was a move afoot to put a bunch of houses on,small lots right across
the street(and a whole lot of other places above the urban reserve
line).Not only would we lose our front-porch view,we'd lose
property value and the peace and quiet we'd hope to spend our
retirement years enjoying.But when we attended the planning
commission meeting in April,and witnessed the huge neighborhood
turnout and the subsequent thumbs-down issued by the Commission,our
earlier conviction that this was a"special place" was reaffirmed.It
left little doubt in our minds that the folks in SLO were very
serious about preserving the unique beauty of their surrounding
hillsides(unlike,I might add,what the residents and city officials
have.allowed in virtually all of our neighboring towns).
Now,as I understand it,the buck has been passed to the City
Council. I realize that it's presumptuous of me,but I remind you
anyway,that very few cities in the world—especially those with the
many advantages of San Luis Obispo—enjoy an almost 360 degree view of
undeveloped hills and mountains.For that reason alone,this truly is
a very special place.But it doesn't take a rocket scientist to
10/9/2007
�i.v ruiis�uc Lcvci�Yiiiciu rage � or �
predict that once development.starts creeping up the hillsides,it
will just keep creeping and creeping until the hills are covered with
roads,houses,water tanks and God knows what. Please don't set this
very dangerous precedent you are being asked to consider.Please,
please save our hillsides and put this ill-conceived proposal out of
its misery at your October 23rd meeting.
I know you folks are busy,thanks for taking time out to read this.
We look forward to seeing you in action on the 23rd.
Sincerely,
Jim and Carol Lewellen
1710 Southwood Drive
805-541-4558
jclewellen@sbcglobal.net
Please note that although our address is on Southwood Drive,our lot
extends from Southwood to Harmony Way and the house is actually on
Harmony Way.
10/9/2007
vuvuci cJiu r�gc�iva ra�c 1 u1 1
Dunsmore, Phil
From: Settle, Allen
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 2:35 PM RECEIVED
To: Dunsmore, Phil OCT 12 2007
Subject: FW: October 23rd Agenda
SLO CITY CLERK
From: V-L Holland [mailio;vholland@calpoly.edu]
Sent: Sun 10/7/2007 6:21 PM
To: mromero@slocity.org; cmujlholland@slocity.org; Carter, Andrew; Brown, Paul; Settle, Allen
Subject: October 23rd Agenda
To All San Luis Obispo City Council Members:
I am writing to ask you in earnest to deny the proposed hillside
developments behind General Hospital,the King Ventures Project,the
Filipponi/Twissleman Project,and the Harmony Project. Much research
has taken place by the City Planning Staff and the City Planning
Commission as well as citizens of the City who are vehemently opposed to
this project for many concrete and viable reasons. All have recommended
denying these projects because they do not follow any of the development
rules approved by the City Council as part of the General Plan for the
City.
The impact of losing hillsides whose beauty reaches across the City and
County for all to enjoy would be a loss for us all. We have reasons to
be very concerned. These reasons include the many of us who have
suffered flood damage as well as fire damage. The Las Pilitas Fire and
the Highway 41 Fire had many neighborhoods on stand-by evacuation not to
mention those families who were evacuated. We have had water,mud,and
debris sliding into our yards and creeks,which resulted in many of our
homes being flooded with mud and water. These events resulted in
termite damage and wood rot in our homes costing us thousands of
dollars. In addition,our tax money has gone to paying city staff to
clean the creeks of the sediment and debris.
The hillsides are extremely steep. One only needs to stand near the
areas of proposed development to see how incredibly dangerous it would
be to build above the current URL(460 feet),not to mention the
precedent that this would set for future development on our incredible,
scenic hillsides throughout the city. Many tourists come to our city to
enjoy the scenic open space areas on the surrounding hillsides. The
planning that is taking place at this point has already cost the
citizens of this City an unnecessary tax burden and workload on the
City staff. These projects require moving the URL well above 600 feet,
and they do not follow the rules established in the General Plan or the
hillside building constraints approved by the City Council . I
encourage all of you to deny proceeding to an EIR,which will cost the
City even more money. We are wondering why these projects have been
allowed to go this far in the planning process.
Thank you,
Janie Holland
10/9/2007
• ra�ciuii
Dunsmore, Phil
From: Settle, Allen
Sent: Tuesday, October 09,2007 2:37 PM RECEIVED
To: bunsmore, Phil OCT 12 79 1
Subject: FW: Projects derailing City General Plan
Sip CITY CLERK
From: Susan Shalit [mailto:sshalit@earthlink.net]
Sent: Tue 10/9/2007 11:14 AM
To: mromero@slocity.org; dmujholland@slocity.org; Carter, Andrew; Brown, Paul; Settle, Allen
Subject: Projects derailing City General Plan
To the Mayor and City Council:
I am new to this community. I live on upper Southwood Drive. It is the rural lifestyle,
healthy parameters to development, and desire to escape rampant greed that overshadowed
community welfare, that brought me to this community and this neighborhood.
I am writing not only as a resident and property owner in San Luis Obispo, but as a caring
person who has seen how the interests, funding and greed of developers not only destroyed
the essence of communities, but caused damage to homeowners and the city coffers when
flooding, water issues, etc., followed the actions of development on hillsides.
Please, please support the Planning Commission vote and deny any further EIRs to be
conducted regarding hillside development now on the October 23rd scheduled meeting.
I was proud of the outcome to the "Chinatown" project where it appears that a compromise is
the outcome allowing for profit without the greed that would destroy the environment:
Development is possible with restraint when money hasn't bought the decision makers.
Thank you for your time and your consideration to this matter of utmost importance to the
future of our special town.
Yours truly,
Susan Shalit
1759 Southwood Drive
SLO 93401
10/9/2007
rage i or i
Dunsmore, Phil
From: Settle, Allen
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 2:37 PM
To: Dunsmore, Phil RECEIVED
Subject: FW: October 23 meeting OCT 12 2007
SLO CITY CLERK
From: Linda Schultze [mailto:Linda@eagleenergyinc.com]
Sent: Mon 10/8/2007 4:47 PM
To: mromero@slocity.org; cmujholland@slocity.org; acarter@slocf!ty.org; pbrown@solcity.org; Settle, Allen
Subject: October 23 meeting
To all City Council Members:
I am writing as a resident and property owner in San Luis Obispo. My home is located on upper Alrita St. and I
am asking that you all please support the URL,the rules established in the General Plan and the constraints on
record for hillside building and development.
I was present at the meeting of the City Planning Commission when the City Planning staff opposed the 4 projects
being proposed—property behind General Hospital, Filipponi/Twissleman, King Ventures, and Harmony Way.
The meeting gave all parties—residents and developer representatives--ample time to express their opinions and
submit their data. In the end the Planning Commission voted all 4 projects down. The area above my home in
particular did not pass any of the requirements on record. I would again extend an invitation to all of you to come
up to our location and see the steepness and the terrain for yourselves before the meeting date. Perhaps
selfishly, I fear additional flooding and slides in the Goldtree area if an emergency access road and water line is
cut into this steep area to support two of the other projects. It would require a massive visible retaining wall as
was documented at the Planning Commission meeting. However, unselfishly I truly believe that if the existing
regulations are discarded the impact on the entire San Luis Obispo area will be devastating. Once exceptions of
this nature are made there is no turning back. Development will continue to creep up all the hillsides surrounding
us. The matter of gaining a continuous"greenbelt"of property around the entire city to stop development seem
to be the reason why some City representatives felt allowing this development to take place would be a good
trade with the property owners for all the steep property above them. I would ask you to look at the current
restrictions and hold to them which would also keep these areas undeveloped without making these concessions.
Please support the Planning Commission vote on these matters by denying any further EIRs to be conducted
regarding them. The ones on record are extensive, have been expensive;and certainly speak to the issues. A
year and a half ago when the Goldtree areas was taken into the Sphere of Influence,we residents were told it
was to our benefit because it would give us additional protection from development and erosion. Barely a year
later these projects were introduced and an EIR had been done! I would feel more trusting of the intentions of the
City and the SOI if you all backed up that claim of'additional protection rather than allow this hillside development
to progress. It is very difficult to understand why time and money is continuing to be spent on these projects
when they clearly do not fit into the General Plan and building restrictions. Thank you for yourtime and I look
forward to seeing you at the October 23 meeting.
Linda M. Schultze
1808 Alrita St.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
10/9/2007
iievempment aoove rtord Street rdgu i Ur i
Dunsmore, Phil
From: Settle,Allen
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 10:5.2 AM ��
to: Dunsmore, Phil ERECEN:/EDSubject: FW: Development above Flora Streetn RK
From: Pat McKeague [mailto:pat@mckeague.com]
Sent: Wed 10/10/2007 4:26 PM
To: Romero, Dave; Carter, Andrew; Settle, Allen; Brown, Paul; Mulholland, Christine
Cc: Pat McKeague
Subject: Development above Flora Street
Dear San Luis Obispo City Council Members,
I am writing to you about the proposed developments on the hillsides
above Flora Street.The findings of the Planning Commission were very
clear;they recommended against each and every one of the proposals.
But the developer's representative is very persistent. Don't let
them use the concerns raised by the community at the Planning
Commission meeting to say"We have listened to out neighbors and
taken their concerns to heart;"andthenask to proceed further.
Their original plans included homes for which sewage would be pumped
uphill to get to the sewer line. How does this sound?
"We listened to the community and we want to compromise;we are no
longer asking to pump sewage uphill. In return,we would like you to
compromise and at least allow us to go forward with an Environmental
Impact Report."
Say no to this process,and uphold the findings of the Planning
Commission. Don't consider any revised plans. If you allow this
process to proceed,it opens the door for any developer who wants to
build on a hillside. You are telling them that persistence is more
important than findings.
Pat McKeague
1695 El Cerrito Court
San Luis Obispo,CA 93401
(805)541-1362
10/11/2007
Dunsmore, Phil
From: Settle, Allen
Sent: Thursday, October 11,2007 10:54 AM
To: Dunsmore, Phil RECEIVED
Subject: FW: annexation OCT 12 7007
SLO CITY CLERK
From: Sue Spevack [mailto:spevack_@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thu 10/11/2007 9:12 AM
To: Settle, Allen
Subject:annexation
:tober 11, 2007
.Ilen Settle, Vice Mayor
. Settle,
m writing regarding the proposed annexation of land near the in eastern San Luis Obispo. My parents
ere both born in this county, I've lived in San Luis most of my live. I live on Johnson Ave., between
ishop Medical Plaza and Sydney St. First, let me say that I personally don't oppose high density or low
come housing, or services for the homeless. My husband and I own a business about two blocks from
e homeless shelter on Orcutt Rd. and have never experienced problems from the clients there. I strongly
pose these projects for other reasons.
[y main purpose in writing this letter is to urge you to uphold the recommendation by the Planning
ommission to deny the projects and to comment oil a few remarks made by Carol Florence of Oasis and
ssoc. at the Board of Supervisors Meeting on Sept. 25. Most vexing was her tendency to answer
zestions with statements like, "we can't know that without and EIR". There have been geologic studies
id EIRs for previous projects that failed, and extensive review of the properties for these projects that
fer ample evidence that "reveal significant problems" in the words of the staff report. During the
.anning Commission meeting, we all heard a representative for the applicants state that they "led to
;lieve"that the projects were going be approved because staff were working with them,requesting
irther information, answering questions. The implication was that time and money was spent already, it
ould be unfair to stop them at this point. Letting them go forward with an EIR would be a further waste
'money and give further ammunition, if you will.
Iso, the sphere of influence issue:Ms. Florence said something like, the city included this property in
eir sphere of influence so clearly they intended for something to be done with it. Those of you who
ayed until the end.of the Planning Commission meeting heard just the opposite of that sentiment. When
io residents and Jon Ewan said they were afraid that property owners would take"Sphere of Influence"
; a green light for development, each commissioner said that was not the intent,that it meant simply that
e city would have influence over a given parcel, period. That influence may mean the choice never to
:velop it. I urge you to use you influence, listen to you constituents. Changing the Urban Reserve Line
id the General Plan will have a huge impact on the city forever. There are safety issues to consider,
atershed and viewshed issues and this is a known wildlife corridor.
hank you for the good work that you do and for listening to my neighbors and reading the mail you've
ceived.
10/11/2007
October 10, 2007
"�C
F�To Whom It May Concern: sip OT 2007
Cp
This is not just another letter regarding the San Luis Obispo hillsides. This C"
heartfelt plea to each and every council member to do, not what is monetarily in favor of
a few when voting for the future of our city's hillsides,but what is right.
The proposed development above Johnson Avenue and Harmony Way threatens our
quality of life and safety. These projects will impose less open-space,less nature(trees,
animals,birds), less safety(more flooding, debris, fire danger, unstable soil), less beauty,
more crowding, more traffic, and most of all,more compromising. Is it right to
compromise our town's unique charm,beauty, ideals, and values? Is it right to
compromise our children's future quality of life? What do I say to my two teenage
daughters when they ask, "That doesn't make sense.........why would anyone want to do
that?"LLLLIIYes, quite simply, "Why would anyone want to do that?Please, do what is right as
our representatives. Vote to uphold the City Planning Commission's recommendation to
deny these hillside projects and any future development in this area. Please do not spend
any more money on an EIR. Every time an EIR is done......something is built.
Thank you for your time and all efforts to better our city's welfare. I hope you will
do what is right.
Sincerely,
Annette Hackman
October 11, 2007
City Council Member Dave Romero R
City of San Luis Obispo E:IC:0
VEp
990 Palm Street OCT 1®O)
San Luis Obispo CA 93401 SLO CI7
LINCI(
Re: Proposed Annexation for 4 projects above Johnson Ave.
Dear Mr. Romero,
I am writing to let you know that I am in opposition of any annexation of the land
where four projects are proposed east of Johnson Avenue. I am a home owner of 15
years living on Crestview Circle and feel any building above the urban reserve line would
be a detriment for a variety of reasons.
We already have traffic difficulties on Johnson Avenue.
We already have drainage problems due to run off.
I love the area. I love to hear the coyotes and see deer from time to time.
I love the view. Please don't move toward destroying it.
Please,
Susanne Link Valadez
1634 Crestview Cir.
San Luis Obispo CA 93401
Lynn R. Cooper
1774 Southwood Drive
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
October 15, 2007 RECEIVED
OCT 16 2007
SLO CITY COUNCIL
Mayor David Romero
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA. 93401
Re: Fairview Estates Annexation
Dear Mayor David Romero,
I understand that you will be reviewing Herb & Diane Filipponi and the
Twisselman family's project to annex to the City of San Luis Obispo at your
meeting on October 23, 2007. The Filipponi's and Twisselman's represent
responsible multi-generation families in San Luis Obispo. Because they have
been good stewards of the land in our community for many years, I want to
express my support for the project.
It is also my understanding that you will hopefully be authorizing processing of
this important project.
We live close to this project and have for some 32 years. We know how hard the
owners have worked to obtain this annexation.
Dave, I know that you will review all the facts and make the proper decision.
Thanks,
gynnkR. Cooper
cc: Filipponi
Page 1 of i
From: Nancy&Charlie Felix[delix@gte.net] Sent: Mon 10/15/2007 1:59 PM
To:
Cc:
Subject: Harmony Way Development Project
Attachments:
Dear Councilman Settile
Our neighborhood is requesting that you adopt the Planning Commissions rejection of the planned development on the Brown
property on Harmony Way and deny inclusion of this property in the SOI. In August 2005 my husband Charles Felix and Guy
Hackman met with you to discuss this matter and presented you with a pamphlet outlining the neighborhoods concerns.At the
August 23,2005 City Council meeting you voted to exclude this property from the City's SOI.
Nothing about this property has changed since that vote.Your continued support for our neighborhood on October 23 will be greatly
appreciated.
Nancy Felix
3380 Sequoia Dr
San Luis Obispo,CA 94301
5440346
RECEIVED
Nancy �z Charlie Felix 4 � n
OCT 16 207
SLO CITY CLERK
https:Hmail.slocity.org/exchange/asettle/Inbox/Harmony%20 W ay%2ODevelopment%20P... 10/16/2007
Page 1 of 1
r i ,
From: Cayse Babcock[cayseb@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Mon 10/15/2007 9:34 PM
To: Ken Schwartz; Settle,Allen;John Ewan; Christine Mulholland; Romero, Dave
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Once again I'm asking you to re-consider letting houses be built above the current lines. There are potential developments
proposed for Harmony Lane and I think you are forgetting about those of us who live"below"the line and in the traffic route. The
increased traffic ruins our property values because we are now on a "thoroughfare"with cars SPEEDING up and down Southwood
Drive. I can go on about children at play, pets etc. at risk but the increased noise and destruction of property values because of
that traffic is unfair to those of us who purchased where we did because of restrictions. Now those restrictions look like they could
go out the window in favor of cash for a very few. If it were in YOUR neighborhood,where you would have the increase in traffic
I'm sure you would not let this happen in a minute. It sets a dangerous precedent. $$$for a few, rules over General Plans and
current restrictions! Why even have those restrictions at all if you throw them out the window so a few can profit?!! It's totally
unfair to those of us"below"the lines. If you feel that it's so important for these developments to be built,then the developer
should also pay for speed bumps up and down Southwood Drive so we don't become a major thoroughfare and the speed of the
neighborhood is followed(25 mph according to SLO police dept.) I think you are setting a very dangerous precedent by even
considering this development and not looking at the cost to those of us in the proposed traffic routes. It's completely unfair to us
and moving to a new location in this town with property taxes the way they are is out of the question. Please DO NOT LET THE
DEVELOPMENT ABOVE HARMONY LANE GO THROUGH!
Sincerely,
cayse Babcock RECEIVE D
1687 Southwood Drive.
OCT 16
2007
SLO CITY CLERK
https:Hmail.slocity.org/exchange/asettle/Inbox/No%2OSubject.ENIL.?Cmd=open 10/16/2007
RECEIVED
Phil Dunsmore
OCT 16 2007
City of San Luis Obispo SLO CITY CLERK
Community Development Department
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, Ca 93401
October 15, 2007
Re: Amending the General Plan to Accommodate Residential Development at the Eastern
Boundary of the City (1925 Sydney and 1854 Sydney).
Phil:
Your public notice implied I had to identify issues with this project prior to the Oct. 23
Council Meeting. Recall that we talked in early October. I also visited the City office
with questions to another planner and your public works department,regarding the
subject project, this past Friday, October 12.
I own and live on Sydney Street on the property adjacent and west of the planned 1925
development. I have lived here 4 months. Although I have reservations about the open
space issue above my property and the current urban development line, my comments
here are more personal.
My property has two unique characteristics related to this planned project
1. The 1/i acre of my land closest to the King property is designated "Open Space" .
This land is on a steep slope of approximately 25 degrees and can be seen from
many places around town.
2. The access road to the planned development, including the entire width of the
road for a short distance goes across my property per an easement agreement
signed years ago (last updated in 1994)
The above two characteristics have led to some issues that, apparently I need to address
prior to the planned City Council Hearing on Oct. 23:
Regarding the Open Space:
• Is the city aware that I want to keep the open space portion of my land as "Open
Space"?Presumably, any development of the King property above this line
would make this, already designated viewshed, esthetically unpleasant. I prefer
that you maintain this property in the manner that you and my predecessors
agreed it would be maintained
• Any development of the King property, with presumably septic systems and rain
run-off, would almost surely damage this hillside and my property.
i
Regarding the Street
• Is the city aware that the street, that climbs to the King property, is steep (>20%)
with a blind curve near the bottom, on my property, and potentially unsafe? This
is a liability issue that I would expect the city to resolve before additional city
approved traffic is permitted on my property
• Is the city also aware that any decision about increasing the amount of traffic on
my land is a decision they will make without my permission?
• Apparently the road easement allowed unlimited access but I wonder if that
applies to changes in the use of the land above me if the city boundary is changed
and/or the use of that property changes. This is a question beyond my knowledge
and I prefer the City advise me on the legal consequences. Will all of the new
property owners be expected to enter into a new easement? Do I need to agree to
it?
• The current easement agreement states that I am responsible for my portion of the
maintenance of the street. This surely must be changed. If the land is developed
above me, I would have to insist that speed bumps, signs, and, possibly a new
locked gate be added.
• The gate was mentioned to me as my right if the road stays in my possession. It
would certainly slow traffic appropriately. Of course everyone above the gate
would have a key or combination access. Can I do this and would it affect city
services to these properties?
I have outlined some of the issues I hope the City has considered. I have not sought legal
advice and do not plan on doing so. Rather, I hope the city address the issues in the best
interests of everyone and prospectively deal with the "Open Space" and road issues
before approving the project.
Les Pennelly
1825 Sydney St.
San Luis Obispo, Ca 93401
October 15, 2007 RECEIVED
Mayor Dave Romero OCT 16 2007
City Of SLO
990 Palm Street SLO CITY CLERK
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Dear Dave,
Hope all is well with your family and you are readying for the ski season. I am
writing to you concerning the proposed hillside developments on the eastern border
of the city. My wife and I own two county parcels totaling 95 acres that border the
proposed projects. I have lived here for 15 years, and at this time have no plans to
annex into the city, but at some time we will likely sell our current home and then
build a retirement home on our larger parcel. Of course this plan could always
change and new owners might have other ideas.
The proposed projects certainly have engineering and neighborhood challenges that
need to be addressed. Without the appropriate background in geology, hydrology,
engineering and fire safety I won't try to pretend to give some sort of quasi informed
opinion to know if the current plans are feasible. From a planners perspective it
would be a good long term idea to have a hard border between the city and the city
owned greenbelt, incorporating the narrow strip of county properties.
I would also like to comment on the concept of open space. A few of my neighbors
believe that the proposed Open Space.Easements are unnecessary as it"already
exists - its free so why should we trade limited development for it."This letter is a
reminder that it is not free. The city's Greenbelt could be viewed as free (though Mr.
Statler might disagree), as well as Nature Conservancy lands, but these hillside
properties in question are owned by individuals who pay for them with mortgages,
property taxes, liability insurance and the chore of shooing away hunters, campers
and those who leave gates open, and their trash behind. We feel lucky and blessed
to have this space but it certainly isn't free.
Acquiring more open space easements and green belt properties has great support
throughout the city. Good luck in providing leadership and balance in your
deliberations on this tricky issue.
Sincerely,
gt�" e61X
Barrie Cleveland
1650 Harmony Way SLO 93401
543-1119
u�uluillillllllllill� �IIIIIIRECEIVED
Ilei, MEMt�DAAIDUH
OCT 2 21051
RED F K
MEETING AGENDA
DATE: October 19, 2007 DATE as o�ITEM #
Fn �L
TO: Mayor Romero and members of the City Council '� COUNCIL 1*CDD DIR
G,�� CAO ; 'FIN DIR
FROM: /Kim Murry, Deputy Director of Community Deve opment .p ATTORNEY le FIRE CHIEF
1+3 CLERK/ORIG Gi®'PO DIR
❑ DEPT HEADS E6 RECICE D DIR SUBJECT: Eastside Annexation request, "Fairview Estates" �
® TR✓i�.�w.c (b UTIL DIR
R HR DIR
7- cou'ut4c.
The City Council recently received a letter from an attorney representing the Filipponi and y Eap
Twisselman families in their proposal to develop the property known as the Fairview Estates or >< d 46x ,
Goldtree Vineyard Tract. The staff report for this item, in the discussion of underlying lots, does
contain an error related to the date of the Goldtree Vineyard Tract recordation. Aftdr further
review, it is apparent that Mr. Carmel is correct in stating that the document was recorded in
1893 not 1883.
County staff was consulted to more fully understand the development.potential under County
regulations given this corrected information. In order to issue entitlements for this property,
County staff indicated that they would need to evaluate whether Certificates of Compliance
could be issued. Since the document was not recorded in the Book of Maps but rather was
recorded in the Book of Surveys, there is still some question on the part of County staff as to
whether underlying lots would be recognized. Although a map in the Book of Maps may be
"post 1893" (May 8, 1893), County Counsel has previously said that in order for such maps to be
valid either: the streets were accepted by the county (i.e., it is equated with,"accepting" the map
since the streets are recognized and accepted) OR the map was approved by the Board of
Supervisors. Only between the years of 1937 to 1955 did the Board of Supervisors approve
some surveys in lieu of a tract map.
City staff is not in a position to argue the merits of whether County staff and County Counsel
have the correct interpretation of the Subdivision Map Act and subsequent court decisions. The
topic was raised in the staff report to inform the Council that Certificates of Compliance;which
indicate recognition of legal status of the underlying lots, have not been obtained for these
properties and so their development potential in the County is not clear. This information is
provided as background information only. The key topic of consideration of these requests
should be focused on whether the projects meet the General Plan policies of the City.
Filippnni Ned File Drnfl
Page 1 of 2
RECEI�
OCT 1 9 ?ppb j
Cano, Elaina
From: Cano, Elaina
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 11:27 AM
To: Cano, Elaina RED FILE
Subject: FW: Sunny Acres development plans MEETING AGENDA
DATE 188 o ITEM # Mt
From: JIMANDRE@aol.com [mailto:JIMANDRE@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 10:59 PM ICAO FIN ii COUNCIL rDIR
FIN DIR
To: Romero, Dave ¢7 ACAO FIRE CHIEF
Cc: terryandre@earthlink.net; Jeandre@tds.net 0 ATTORNEY EPW DIR
Subject: Sunny Acres development plans 10 CLERK/ORIG @ POLICE CHF
O DE
PT BEADS @ REC DIR
James M. Andre, Ph.D., MBA, CFA, CF � oIRIR
1506 North Kings Road v o"Wer
Los Angeles, CA 90069-1434 , cee,G
(323) 650-9614 FAX (323) 654-1947
E-mail: jimandre@aol.com
October 18, 2007
Mayor Dave Romero
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Re: County development plans for Sunny Acres property
Dear Mayor Romero,
I am writing to ask that if you are allowed to vote on this matter, that you reject the proposal to change
the URL (Urban Reserve Line) on the County owned Sunny Acres property. My family owns one of
the adjacent properties at 1801 Woodland Drive and we are strongly opposed to this proposed change.
It appears that the URL currently goes above our house at 1801 Woodland Drive and the Klosterman's
house only because those houses were already there when the line was drawn. Otherwise it would
have probably been below our house. It is faulty reasoning to then assume the URL should go straight
between the two highest houses on the hillside as proposed by the County. These houses are outliers
and not representative of the intent of the URL.
I believe that changing the line on this project will open the floodgates to changing the line on the
entire perimeter of the City. This is tantamount to changing the rules of the game after play has
begun. It is unfailr to the existing neighboring property owners and to the residents of the City who
value the hillside views.
10/19/2007
Page 2 of 2
I strongly urge you to support the decision of the City Planning Commission to deny approval of this
project and to require the County to revise their plans to follow the development rules and zoning
approved the the City council as part of the General Plan for the City.
Property owners and developers should confine their plans for development within the URL and not
play shell games by suggesting that they are adding to open space when the space is already open.
Thank you for your attention and consideration.
Very truly yours,
James M. Andre, Ph.D., MBA, CFA, CFP®
See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage.
10/19/2007
Page 1 of 2
Council, SloCity
From: courtney cable [courtneycable@yahoo.com] Sent: Thu 10/18/2007 12:43 PM
To: Council,SloCity
Cc:
Subject: Sydney Property, Fairview Estates, Harmony Way,Sunny Acres Estates
Attachments:
October 18, 2007
San Luis Obispo City Council
Via Hand Delivery and Email
RE: Sydney Property, Fairview Estates, Harmony Way,
Sunny Acres Estates
Dear Mayor Romero and Fellow Council Members,
There are many reasons why the above-referenced
proposed developments should not move forward, ranging
from site issues (the instability and steepness of the
slope), through the negative effects on the
neighborhood (not just this one, but all which would
have a view of the ruined hillsides cut up by massive
retaining walls), to the contravention of building
standards and ordinances which were developed for very
good reasons and after much research and effort.
These issues are fairly obvious, and, I am sure, are
being addressed by other concerned citizens.
My concern is that our City Council will opt to
postpone making a decision until after EIRs are
completed. I believe this would be a mistake.
Allowing the developers of these projects to go to the
expense of time and money required for an EIR will
serve to give the projects momentum. The more time and
money spent on them, the more tangible these projects
will become, and therefore the more difficult to deny.
Contrary to what the public and perhaps the Council
may believe about EIRs, even the discovery of numerous
negative impacts to the environment or neighboring
uses will not necessarily lead to a"No Project"
finding.The usual result is a set of Project
Alternatives and mitigations to allow the project to
continue. It almost guarantees that these projects
will be built in some form.
Studying the situation will not change the steepness
of the hillside, nor reduce the size of the retaining
walls that would be necessary to support the building
pads and road cuts. It will not remove the many
springs and seeps that exist throughout this
relatively unstable geologic formation (the Franciscan
Formation has been subsumed by coastal plate movement
https:Hmail.slocity.org/exchange/slocitycouncil/Inbox/Sydney%20Property,%20Fairview... 10/18/2007
Page 2 of 2
7
and thrust back up again, combining softer sedimentary
stone with metamorphic rock, such as the green
serpentinite so prevalent here, and the combination
does not cohere well).
What EIRs will do is give the developers more reason
to push for their projects, to justify the expense of
time and money, and more reason to bring still more
pressure to bear on their friends on the City Council.
I realize that it is hard for people to resist their
natural leanings—developers develop, after all, and
owning undeveloped land must create an itch just
begging to be scratched. But if John King, for
example, bought this property with the intent to
develop it, he already knew that City and County
standards don't allow the scope of development he now
proposes. Long-standing codes and ordinances are in
the way. Those standards were created for good
reasons, reasons that have not changed over time.
There are many grounds to justify denying these
projects. Approving them would be irresponsible.
Sending them off for EIRs is a tacit approval that
will only serve to waste time and money, and not
result in compliance with current standards that
prohibit such development of our hillsides. Please
bring this issue to a close, now.
Sincerely,
Courtney Cable
Flora Street resident
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
https:Hmail.slocity.org/exchange/slocitycounci l/Inbox/Sydney%2OProperty,%2OFairview... 10/18/2007
Page 1 of 1
Council, SloCity
From: Betty Ann Hansen [hansenba@pacbell.net] Sent: Wed 10/17/2007 2:51 PM
To: Council,SloCity
Cc:
Subject: Developments above Johnson Avenue
Attachments:
Please do not change the building height restrictions on the hills
surrounding San Luis Obispo. There are so many negative issues
involved: safety, water, beauty -- all important. The excuse that
if the city doesn't do it, the county will does not excuse poor
judgement that would affect us for years to come. Thank you. Ann
Hansen
https:Hmail.sloci ty.org/exchange/slocitycouncil/Inbox/Developments%20above%20Johns... 10/18/2007
CARMEL NACCASHA HT
ATTORNEYS at LAW
PI M'ICAL ADDRI]Sq;
TfNIOT1 n'1.CARMET.1 -110 NW611 S,I,RE1rr
ZIYAD 1.I�A(_CASI 1A 2 S:\N Lu;s OB!spo,CA 93401
iN I Icli,ul'i,N I.N lc L\I[ON
FILA MAILING A DI)Rr`S:
MEETING AGENDA P.0,BON 15729
OF COUNSELSAN LUIS Out' CA 93406
IRANNIL D.Gosh iGARLkN 3 DATE/§243 ITEM it ?A]
. r;vr:N LSIMAs Tr_l.:805.546.8755
805.546.8015
ALSO ADMI'17ED NEVADA
?,\1so Arhmi-mu)IN lu INOIS
3ALso ADMI171a)IN WASII INC'i(-1N
1ADMITT 0)IN WASIHNG-l"N October 1S, _'007
RECEIVED
OCT 19:
NLA IL&U S ?\L-�I L 20p:
�TIA E OCT 2007
S SLO C:
I CL
LO CITY CLERK
Ken Hampian
City Administrative Officer
City of San Luis Obispo ;J-COUNCIL EK CC,
990 PaLm Street Iii CAO 1JR FIN
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 CL A CAO fj�FIRE
FTTORNEY Ir PVV DIF,
RE: East Side Annexations: "Fairview Estates" LERK/oRiG R POL;r E r
J? i
Goldtree Vineyard Tract DEPT HEADS REC F%
Filipponi-T-,Aissetnian Application I 7rn&6_ J?U T I-;
i? HR
ve a-0—aw-a"C'
Dear Ken,
'W tem'
vou know, this office represents Herb and Diane Filippoili and Kenneth, Rosellial-I,
Darrell and Nola 'I'wisselrnan with respect to their application to annex 4 development lots and one
large open space lot (die "F/T Property") into the City of San Luis Obispo ("City") on its eastern
'
boundary. Specifically, citI
this letter is intended to address die statements contained in the ),s staff
report for this matter dated as of October 23, 2007 ("staff report') regarding die legality of the
Underlying lots of the Goldtree Vineyard Tract ("Goldtree Tract"). As you are aware, the Goldtree
Tract has I a long history involving the Citv, including references %vidlin the City's General Plan for
several decades, partial inclusion in the City's Sphere of Influence ('SOP) sulce at least 1954, and
City approved development of the vast majority of lots witi-6n the Goldrrec 'Fracr. It is noteworthy
that the revised F,-Lir%,Icw Estates proposal has clustered die four (4) proposed development lots
onto the two (2) parcels that have been in the City's SOI prior to the last update in January 2006.
Unfortunately, the staff report is Incorrect in its underlying facts and related anaINSIS
regarding the F/T Property. The Goldtree Tract was recorded on September 30, 1593 (not 1883 as
stated in the staff report) which is npproxinlatety five (5) month, after the State of California's
adoption of the original 1893 Subdivision Map Act ('SNLV'). For your reference, attached please
I
Fuld a copy of die Goldtree Tract Map which clearly shows this date above Isaac Goldtrec's
signature, on the notary acknowledgement and in the Coulin recording information. This small, but
critical mi stake*cornpletely changes the City's analysis regarding the legality of die Goldtree Tract,
which analysis erroneously relies on pre-1893 subdivision legal theon- (i.e. Gardner V. COLHILY Of
Sonoma .
It should also be noted that the staff report also misstates tes tile developint-tit proposal itselF (6 versus
4
proposed developmell( lots)_
Based on our review, the Goldtree-Tact Map complies in all respects with the relevant SiNLA
requirements. The Goldtree Tract Map was signed by the owner, acknowledged, recorded, and
clearly delineates the underlying lots and rights of way; die law unambiguously provides that such
maps that meet SnLA requirements create legal parcels. City staff's incorrect assertion as to die
GoIdrree Tract recordation date,and the resultant slander of title to our clients' property,particularly
it light of its inclusion in City land use documents for over fort years and substantial City approved
e\isting development in reliance on the Goldtree Tract,is troublesome and vexing.
its a result of the City's error with this basic and foundational fact, we respectfully request
that die City take appropriate corrective action and modifir its staff report and analysis accordin-h%
Please call if you have any questions or continents.
Sincerely,
CARMEL&NACCASHA LLP
unothy -arnhel
TjC/ia
attachments
cc: Herb &Diane Filiponni (w/o attachments)
Kenneth &Rosemary Twisselnhan (w/o attachments)
Darrell &Nola Twisselman (w/o attachments)
Carol M. Florence (xv/o attachments)
Christi Fry (w/o attachments)
San Luis Obispo City Council (w/o attachments)
77
44;-
��ea��'.�,,�•+��•�-� �•t.'�
f � a 11�fir•� � f` . ® t S O .�' •1
o
C: :w
3
,
bi
1 M..b4Li SC®��HYr�M+Y4Yr�/�bY Vy.YLu �
O _
.. Yiarl.:uW.eiWwtbs/bYul.vr'I�Y•
ty'
COUNOL MEMORANDUM
,41
RECEIVED
DATE: October 19, 2007 OCT 19 2007
TO: City Council SLO CITY CLERK
FROM: Ken Hampian, CAO
SUBJECT: Requests to Continue Consideration of"Eastside Annexation"
Attached are four letters representing the four different property owners involved in the
annexation applications to be considered in a public hearing set for next Tuesday evening,
October 23, 2007. Each letter asks that the respective annexation request be continued to an
indefinite time to allow the applicants to reconsider their proposals. This period of
reconsideration may or may not result in one or more of the applications being formally
withdrawn; however, in conversations with the applicants representatives, they need added time
for study and consultation before determining their best course of action.
Because the requests represent all applicants involved in the annexation requests, staff
recommends that the Council call the meeting to order on October 23rd at 7:00 p.m. as scheduled,
but only act to continue the matter to a date uncertain. While the Council could open a public
hearing on the applications, in staffs' opinion, there is little to be gained from doing so since it is
unlikely that the applications will remain in the same form, if they remain active at all. If the
applications are revised, or if entirely new applications are submitted, then such applications
would be subject to the usual process of public review and commentary, with testimony directed
to the new information and considerations they offer, and not matters that may no longer be
relevant.
Cc: Planning Commission
Staff Distribution (Dept. Heads, Davidson, Murry, Dunsmore, Havlik)
EEP
L � CDD DIR
X FIN DIR
R-PIRE CHIEF RED FILE
EY Ww DIR MEETING AGENDA
RIO POLICE EHF
ADS RSG dpDA !i�IJTIL- blq'
bR BIR
Y G�twQ�
11D CAO
,P.C�cF-
C:Mocuments and Settings\khampian\Local Settings7emporary Internet Files\OLKCAContinuing EE
LOOP
V E N TJURS
October 19, 2007
Mayor David Romero
c/o CAO Ken Hampian
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, California 93401-3249
Re: Annexation and Subdivision -VTTMap#2827;
City Application No. 4-05; Sydney Street
Mayor Romero and Mr. Hampian:
Please accept this letter as our request to table the scheduled October 23rd hearing to
a date in the future to allow us to fully respond to the Staff Report, community
correspondence and input concerning this application.
After reviewing the materials prepared for the meeting it is clear that we must more fully
address the questions raised in order to present the project as "more substantially
conforming" to San Luis Obispo's General Plan. As you can imagine, this will take some
time as we analyze the options available for the site and surrounding neighborhoods.
There is one issue that must, however, be addressed; that being the "consolidated"
processing of these four (4) applications. We do not believe it is necessary or
appropriate to consider these applications together. It is clear from the staff analysis
that if our project is modified to eliminate access and utility services beyond our lots,
there is no functional or practical reason to consider these projects under a single
Development Plan.
We look forward to the opportunity to continue working with you on our application.
r(:
ely,
J n E. King
SYDoty101907
King Ventures 285 Bridge Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 805 544-4444 805 544-5637 FAX
O A 5 1 5 1 leit/�i
LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECTURE OCT . 19 ZQQ�
AND PLANNING
City Qf S.L.C:
19 October 2007 Administration
Mr.Ken Hampian, City Administrative Officer
Mr.John Mandeville, Community Development Director
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
RE: "HARMONY WAY MINOR ANNEXATION"—GP/R,ANNX&TR/ER 142-04
1700 HARMONY WAY,EAST SLO CITY LIMITS
Gentlemen, �F
On behalf of the Roger Brown family, we respectfully request a continuance of the Tuesday,
October 23, 2007 City Council hearing. As we review our files, it becomes quite apparent that time
has not been a friend to our client's project. Of the four annexation requests, the Harmony Way
project has been in the queue since July 2004, when it was originally submitted to the City, with a
subsequent submittal of an application and payment to the Local Agency Formation Commission
("LAFCO", Annexation no. 72). This was at the very early stages of LAFCO's initiation of the
City's Sphere of Influence update process. Unfortunately, what appeared originally as a fairly
simple and staff supported request (i.e., both Neil Havlik, Natural Resources Manager and Ron
Whisenand, former Deputy Director met with us on site and considered this project to be a logical
extension of the City), has now evolved into a lengthy, confusing and contentious process. It has
created a financial and emotional strain on our clients.
We are also aware of the potential conflict of interest that the Mayor now faces regarding his ability
to vote on any of these annexation projects. Therefore,we are interested in a response from the Fair
Political Practices Commission, should the Mayor be interested in obtaining their opinion. In
addition to allowing adequate time to obtain an FPPC decision, our clients would appreciate the
opportunity to reconsider their proposal in light of our recent public outreach'meeting and the CAO
recommendation and alternatives,as stated in the 23 October 2007 staff report.
We hope that you can see the wisdom and benefit of a continuance and would appreciate your
support for our request. Thank you in advance for your consideration. Please advise us as to your
decision.
Re ectfully,
OCIATES, INC.
C.M Florence,AICP Agent
R. BROWN FAMILY TRUST
c: 03-0073
R.Brown O:(Harmony Way Subdivision lCorrespondencelregcont1.23.07CCdoc
805.541.4509
FAX 805.546.0525 -
3427 MIGUELITO CT
SAN LUIS OBISPO
CALIFORNIA 93401
mn nes•Cu%M7
O A S I S
LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECTURE
AND PLANNING
18 October 2007
Mr. Ken Hampian,City Administrative Officer
Mr.John Mandeville,Community Development Director
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 via courier
RE: PROPOSED"SUNNY ACRES ESTATES"—GP/R,ANNX and TR/ER 135-06
1600 BISHOP AND 2220 FLORA,EAST SLO CITY LIMITS
Gentlemen,
On behalf of the San Luis Obispo County Department of General Services, representing the Board
of Supervisors, we respectfully request a continuance of the special City Council hearing, scheduled
for Tuesday, October 23, 2007. Our clients have arrived at this decision based upon their evaluation
of the on-site meetings with individual City Council Members and Community Development and
Administrative Department staff. In addition, they have been influenced by public sentiment
expressed at a recent applicant-sponsored public outreach meeting.
This Sunny Acres project, initiated by the Board of Supervisors in 2003, is a very important
component of a broader effort to maintain and enhance the variety of vital services provided to a
countywide citizenry. As we worked with our consultant team and City staff to understand the
physical attributes and constraints of the property in order to determine the "best and highest use",
we were encouraged when the City Council, and ultimately the Local Agency Formation
Commission, included the balance of the County's holdings within the City's.Sphere of Influence.
Pursuant to City staff direction, the formal submittal of the Sunny Acres Estate project included a
utilities master plan for the four annexation requests. Itis unfortunate that the County's project is
being penalized for taking a comprehensive approach to this planning effort and therefore, are
unable to have Sunny Acres Estates stand on its on merits. With approval of our request for a
continuance, we hope to utilize this time to more fully analyze and consider the CAO
recommendations in the staff report and the comments from our neighborhood meeting.
Our clients would appreciate your concurrence with this request. Thank you in advance for your
consideration. We look forward to your positive response.
R pectful ,
S CIATE ,INC.
C.M r ce, AICP Agent
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES
c: 03-0073 J.Patterson K.Achadjian C.Maddalena/SLOGS
J. Lenthall B.Gibson H.Ovitt G.Rosenberger/SLOGS
805.541.4509
FAX 805.546.0525
3427 MIGUELITO CT
SAN LUIS OBISPO
CALIFORNIA 93401
au nae•Cw M7
E!M
O A S 1 5
LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECTURE
AND PLANNING
18 October 2007
Mr.Ken Hampian,City Administrative Officer
Mr.John Mandeville, Community Development Director
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 via courier
RE: PROPOSED"FAIRVIEW ESTATES"—GP/R, ANNX and TR/ER 126-06
GOLDTREE TRACT, EAST SLO CITY LIMITS
Gentlemen,
On behalf of Herb and Diane Filipponi, Kenneth and Rosemary Twisselman, and Darrel and Nola
Twisselman,we respectfully request a continuance to a date uncertain of the City Council hearing in
the above described matter, currently scheduled for Tuesday, October 23, 2007. To say that our
clients are frustrated with the process, dismayed at the misrepresentation of the facts, distraught
over some of the resultant neighborhood vitriol, and horrified at the expenditure of time and
resources to date,would be an over simplification.
While we fully realize that decisions are not made on a personal basis, we nonetheless must express
that these foundational, multi-generation San Luis Obispo families have been good stewards of the
land and given heartily of themselves to this community, have been guided by decades old
references in the City's General Plan, and in good faith, participated in well-established
governmental processes. Frankly, given the discussion and recommendations in the City's recently
issued staff report, our clients are offered little hope to work with the City in a fair and equitable
manner. We would like the opportunity to clear up the misconceptions and misunderstanding which
now surround our clients' Fairview Estates project and will need additional time to effectively do
SO.
We would appreciate your approval of our request on behalf of the Filipponi and Twisselman
families, and ask that you provide us with your response as soon as possible. Thank you for your
consideration.
Respectfully,
O OCIATES, INC.
C.M. Florence, AICP Agent
HERBERT&DIANE FILIPPONI
KENNETH&ROSEMARY TWISSELMAN
DARREL &NOLA TWISSELMAN
c: 03-0022 K&R Twisselman T.Carmel,Esq.
H&D Filipponi D&N Twisselman
805.541.4509
FAX 805.546.0525
3427 MIGUELITO CT
SAN LUIS OBISPO
CALIFORNIA 93401
mn nm.nas.w ,
4
RED FILE
RECEIVED
603 Al-Hil Drive MEETING AGENDA
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 DA
Io ITEM #/SNL( OCT 22 2007
805-544-8365 L SLO CITY CLERK
October 21, 2007
RE: Hillside Development
To: San Luis Obispo City Council
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council:
Citizens for Planning Responsibly (CPR) supports the efforts of Save Our Hillsides and
urges the City Council to turn down the development applications NOW. Among several
problems with placing homes that high on the hillside, it is above the URL.
As in our challenge to the legality of Measure J initiative, we are a volunteer group of
resident voters concerned with seeing that the County and City of San Luis Obispo
uphold the laws that have taken many years to put in place.
Sincerely,
Rosemary Wilvert -
President, Citizens for Planning Responsibly CDD DIR
�COUNCIL FIN DIR
CAO r FIRE CHIEF
* ACAO TrPW DIP
* ATTORNEY POLICE CHF
l0 CLERKIORIG REC DIP
D 9p g FADS UTIL DIP
B HR OR
,q.o
RECEIVED
San Luis Obispo City Council OCT 2 2 2007
San Luis Obispo County Supervisors
Editor—The Tribune SLO CITY CLERK
Monday, October 22,2007. Santa Anna winds are engulfing Southern California homes, causing hot
embers to ignite homes further from the fire front.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007. The San Luis Obispo City Council is scheduled to debate four subdivision
annexations along the high alluvial toes of the Santa Lucia Ridge.
Should the subdivision be approved by the City,or if not the City,by the County, who is to pay for the
added fire protection costs(a fires has swept up the ridge above County Hospital this summer and two
have swept up from the Cal Poly area—when the winds were low and the humidity was high)?
If approved,who will pay for the following;the owners of the new expensive homes or the residents of
the City and,or,County:
■ Increased precipitation runoff—flooding(roofs,massive driveways,patios and walkways replacing
absorbing ground and trees, shrubs and grasses to hold the rain waters)?
• Landslide damage repair common in California coastal hills?
■ The need for improving the Johnson Avenue railroad underpass(the completed developments could
generate up to 550 additional daily vehicle trips within the SLO area east of the railroad tracks)?
■ The loss of the esthetic beauty of our City and County with its pockets of green open space hills(as
featured in photographs on the http://www.visitslo.com/website? Terrace Hill is zoned R-1 and not
Public Facility according the zoning map on line. San Luis Peak?Bishops Peak?South Hills?Islay
Hill?Irish Hills?
City Council and,likely and eventually County Supervisors, should consider who benefits from any
approval of the four subdivisions. And should consider how the voting public will eventually react to any
approval. The requesting subdivision property owners will not be at a loss that is except for the
speculators.
Buzz Kalkowski
(2163 Augusta Court NOT TO BE PUBLISHED)
San Luis Obispo
RED FILE
MEETING AGENDA
DA lO 3 blITEM #-.�-H/
3037 Bahia Court
RECEIVED
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-4608
October 17, 2007L OCT 1 S 1007
COU CDD DIR LO CITY COUNCIL
CAO FIN DIF
Mayor David Romero: ACAO IrFIRE CHIEF
City of San Luis Obispo ATTORNEY PW DIR
990 Palm Street 9fCLERK/ORIG POLICE CHF
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 0 ° 4a EADs �'rRTC DIR
�� uTlL DIR
Jo T.Zlffi�jN['� CWHR DIR
Dear Mayor Romero: &We'
I'm writing to express my opposition for development of the hills above Johnson
Avenue_ The proposed developments not only conflict with the general plan, but
they risk robbing the City of SLO of one of its most valued treasures—beautiful,
development-free hillsides.
As a resident of the area, I'm concerned for not only the loss of views, but also
for the safety of lower lots related to possible erosion and runoff. Additionally,
the proposed developments do not correspond with the city's desire for infilling of
houses rather than expanding the sphere of development.
As a member of the health community, 1 urge,you to only consider development
that encourages more walking and biking, and less use of cars. Hillside
development discourages physical activity in the neighborhood due to the steep
inclines. With the obesity rate of our residents increasing annually, all
developments should include a plan that encourages safe and active recreation
in the immediate area.
In the past, the City Council has voted to protect the quaint nature of the city.
Your support and value of the natural beauty of the area is appreciated by me
and the vast majority of city residents. As a long term council member, you have
the opportunity to again value the beauty of our city.
Please continue to protect our city, our safety, our health, our water quality, and
our views. Do NOT allow the four proposed projects above Johnson Avenue to
go forward. Vote NO on all four projects.
Sincerely your constit ent,
v JCL
Shirley S. P rson
544-2630
shirleyspetersonna gmail.com
SLQ CUU�
October 15,2007
Mayor David Romero
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
990 Palm Street.
San Luis Obispo,CA 93401
RE: FAIRVIEW ESTATES ANNEXATION
Dear Mayor Romero,
I understand that you will be reviewing Herb&Diane Filipponi and the Twisselmaa families
project to annex to the City of San Luis Obispo at your meeting on October 23,2007.The
Filipponi's and Twisselman's represent responsible multi-generation families in San Luis Obispo.
Because they have been good stewards of land in our community for many years,I want to
express my support for their project
It is also my understanding that you will hopefully be authorizing processing of this important
project I say ugwtant,as this will provide the families with their estate planning goals and
objectives and provide the City and community at large with a substantial dedication of open
space in perpetuity.
We believe that this rather insignificant amount of development is reasonable based upon the
project's location and existing hillside development I encourage you to provide the families with
an opportunity to process this project.
��Sincerely, ��I
October 18, 2007
FR7ECENEDMayor Dave Romero San Luis Obispo City Council L
Via Hand Delivery and Email
RE: Sydney Property, Fairview Estates, Harmony Way, Sunny Acres
Estates
Dear Mayor Romero,
There are many reasons why the above-referenced proposed
developments should not move forward, ranging from site issues (the
instability and steepness of the slope), through the negative effects
on the neighborhood (not just this one, but all which would have a
view of the ruined hillsides cut up by massive retaining walls), to the
contravention of building standards and ordinances which were
developed for very good reasons and after much research and effort.
These issues are fairly obvious, and, I am sure, are being addressed
by other concerned citizens.
My concern is that our City Council will opt to postpone making a
decision until after EIRs are completed. I believe this would be a
mistake.
Allowing the developers of these projects to go to the expense of time
and money required for an EIR will serve to give the projects
momentum. The more time and money spent on them, the more
tangible these projects will become, and therefore the more difficult to
deny. Contrary to what the public and perhaps the Council may
believe about EIRs, even the discovery of numerous negative
impacts to the environment or neighboring uses will not necessarily
lead to a "No Project" finding. The usual result is a set of Project
Alternatives and mitigations to allow the project to continue. It almost
guarantees that these projects will be built in some form.
Studying the situation will not change the steepness of the hillside,
nor reduce the size of the retaining walls that would be necessary to
support the building pads and road cuts. It will not remove the many
springs and seeps that exist throughout this relatively unstable
geologic formation (the Franciscan Formation has been subsumed by
coastal plate movement and thrust back up again, combining softer
sedimentary stone with metamorphic rock, such as the green
serpentinite so prevalent here, and the combination does not cohere
well).
What EIRs will do is give the developers more reason to push for
their projects, to justify the expense of time and money, and more
reason to bring still more pressure to bear on their friends on the City
Council.
I realize that it is hard for people to resist their natural leanings —
developers develop, after all, and owning undeveloped land must
create an itch just begging to be scratched. But if John King, for
example, bought this property with the intent to develop it, he already
knew that City and County standards don't allow the scope of
development he now proposes. Long-standing codes and ordinances
are in the way. Those standards were created for good reasons,
reasons that have not changed over time.
There are many grounds to justify denying these projects. Approving
them would be irresponsible. Sending them off for EIRs is a tacit
approval that will only serve to waste time and money, and not result
in compliance with current standards that prohibit such development
of our hillsides. Please bring this issue to a dose, now.
Sincerely,
"V/
Courtney Cable
Flora Street resident
n ' �_D FILE
MEETING AGENDA
DATE 7ITEM #-FAL
1,1,enneth Rodman J
98 Country Club RECEIVEp
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
pcj 1 r NO
:Zt-eC
UNCIL ip CDD DIP, SLG OI COUNT
O GIN DIP,
AO FIRE CHIEF
TORNEY PW DIR
October 15, 2007 CLERK/ORIG 0,FC POLICE CHF
DEPT HEADS � REC DIR
Mayor David Romero F_ UTIL DIR
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO a�1R6yy� HR DIR
990 Palm Street C6ui��J
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
RE: FAIRVIEW ESTATES ANNEXATION y-
Dear Mayor Romero,
I understand that you will be reviewing Herb&Diane Filipponi and the Twisselman families
project to annex to the City of San Luis Obispo at your meeting on October 23,2007.The
Filipponi's and Twisselman's represent responsible multi-generation families in San Luis Obispo.
Because they have been good stewards of land in our community for many years,I want to
express my support for their project.
It is also my understanding that you will hopefully be authorizing processing of this important
project. I say important, as this will provide the families with their estate planning goals and
objectives and provide the City and community at large with a substantial dedication of open
space in perpetuity.
We believe that this rather insignificant amount of development is reasonable based upon the
project's location and existing hillside development. I encourage you to provide the families with
an opportunity to process this project.
Sincerely,
Kenneth Rodman
October 15,2007
CT FO
Scott and Dana Milstead O C/� 1QQJ
2040 Southwood Dr. CO(J�
San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93401 C/l
RE: HERB AND DIANE FILIPPONI'S PROPOSED ANNEXATION PROJECT
(FAIRVIEW ESTATES)
Dear Mayor Romero,
My wife and I have known the Filipponi family for years. They have been a very active
family over the years in community works and are genuinely good people.
While not sure how long, we know that Herb and Diane have owned and have been
paying property taxes on the proposed project land for ages. I'm sure that we all feel that
property owners should be able to develop their land within the proper guidelines, so we
would really like to see them get that chance.
We understand that the city will gain a huge amount of"open space" from the proposal,
and feel that this reason among others,is a great incentive for approval.
We ask for your support to allow this project to proceed,
Scott and Dana Milstead
J
October 16, 2007
City Council Member Christine Mulholland ERECEiVED
City of San Luis Obispo 2��1
990 Palm StreetSan Luis Obispo CA 93401 OUNCIL
Re: Proposed Annexation for 4 projects above Johnson Ave.
Dear Ms. Mulholland,
I am writing to let you know that I am in opposition of any annexation of the land
where four projects are proposed east of Johnson Avenue. I am a home owner of 15
years living on Crestview Circle and feel any building above the urban reserve line would
be a detriment for a variety of reasons.
We already have traffic difficulties on Johnson Avenue.
We already have drainage problems due to run off.
I love the area. I love to hear the coyotes and see deer from time to time.
I love the view.
I know you will stop the building in this area of San Luis Obispo. Thank vou.
Susanne Link Valadez
1634 Crestview Cir.
San Luis Obispo CA 9 401
Mr. Paul Brown, Council Member October t 004
City of San Luis Obispo RECEIVED
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93401 OCT 1 7 1007
Dear Mr. Brown, Regarding Council A<aenda October 23SLO CITY COUNCIL..2007
Approximately forty two thousand citizens live in San Luis Obispo, and look out upon
almost unblemished hillsides, protected now. for a number of years by an urban reserve
line. The line serves very obvious needs--most importantly, those of safety, which you
know well. A small number of houses were built in the 50s-60s, above that line, before it
was created. Most require water booster-pumps. There have also been legal issues with
erosion. A few county homes are also above the line and have their problems. It's not
clear if any would have enough water in his well to fight a wildfire and save his personal
home if put to the test. Just how costly is are helicopters hired to dump water?
Sunny Acres has a sizable portion of build-able land below the URL. I ask you to request
the county applicant to resubmit an application to develop that area within the urban
reserve line. Quality affordable housing for our work force and seniors is a fine idea. The
remaining portion above the URL must be retained as open space. The SLO General Plan
requires a ratio of one build-able acre to four acres of open space. The land above the
URL on Sunny Acres, which is already designated as 'open space', is the perfect solution
to that 'ratio'-requirement.
The other three properties. all above the URL (except a small corner of Harmony), have
plans that are ill conceived. unfeasible and inappropriate. One look at the ridiculously
steep hillsides should tell the story. And Harmony's plan does not tit in with the area. The
planning commission members voted unanimously to deny going forward because they
had considered and aureed with all the above issues.
I am asking you to follow the planning commission's recommendations. They listened
long and hard to both sides. I am also askini� you to be aware again how concerned we
citizens are who don't want law suits later from a privileged few who think they can buy
their way up the hillside.
It is time to stop this waste of tax money. There is no need for an EIR because the
proposals are so inappropriate (no consideration for safety or intrinsic values), and in
violation of the General Plan..We must maintain the URL, we are so lucky to have it.
The developers need to focus on properties they already own in the city that are build-
able. Perhaps credits can be offered to assist them.
Thank you in advance for your vote of integrity, common sense, sensitivity to your
constituents, and thoughtful consideration of SLO's unique intrinsic qualities, by denying
any further action on the current proposals.
Sin , udyJennimg
N mmd n DOA
m > > m 7 0
{*r � Cie
a_? a'+ =5 S c u S s Y 4 a s 'o n f0 CD f v a n 0
g > ' ':•' -'^r5 v 'c e$ _ — 45 i9 d� ..- =ao m r cO N O (D O
rr
cr
' :.E ,v Lp -�— Tin S� _P k^ S� N_ e7. C. � ; rZ
44
:.a -o�t �d 1 7 CD
=� _s' '_ �m fr a m cc 3 =' ;w C
FA N
iL L
CL
CD
L y c _ �� yt • -
n r j
y',g 3t
=s v
21
cr
r CD
cr Cl CD cD
0 CD
�� ���-'C - o �� L d h� C� 1•.'. � 1 J
C O � _� _ G y � S rn \ • �
a � ♦+S
- y
1
1 ..
fa m O y '� '..� CD
w m r
CD
CD
00VIn m
3
_ CD -
s'
CCD U3
CL m m I 0.ID .� 3 m
m m m
L
_ m m C = H
C O Q C y W
t�. H tD w -
�' t m
c
r'
- RED FILE RECEIVED
o A s 1 s MEETING AGENDA OCT 2 3 2007 �
L A N D 5 C A P E DATE4WbITEM #Litt
SLO CITY CLERK
ARCHITECTURE
AND PLANNING
23 October 2007 aCOUNCIL
1 CAO � CDD DIR
In ACAO . FIN DIR
fiPATTORNEY 12 FIRE CHIEF
Mr. Ken Hampian, City Administrative Officer(CAO) t PW DIR
Mr.John Mandeville, Community Development Director QPCLERK/ORIG Z POLICE CHF
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 0 DEPT HEADS Pa REC DIR
990 Palm Street 0 f�i 0 UTIL DIR
ia_:Ae E L HR DIR
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 .f [7�UA/C!G
RE: PROPOSED"SUNNY ACRES.ESTATES" GP/R,ANNX AND TR/ER 135-06 SC C 40
1660 Bishop Street and 2220 Flora Street,San Luis Obispo,CA 9340,1'
REQUEST FOR WITHDRAWAL
Gentlemen,
While we appreciate the CAD's support of the applicant's request to continue the hearing
scheduled for this evening to a date uncertain, we are troubled that the City Council may not
honor our request or the CAO's recommendation. We have expressed a number of concerns
related to the subject proposal moving forward this evening—improper notification regarding the
subject of the hearing, inaccuracies within the staff report, factual errors as it relates to the project
description, and the confusing circumstances related to the ability, or lack thereof, of certain
Council Members to fully participate in this evening's meeting.
As a reflection of the CAD's recommendation to the City Council to direct the applicants to
modify their respective projects to more closely comply with General Plan policies, and as stated
in our request for a continuance, the applicant is fully committed to analyze and consider not only
the CAO's recommendations, but also the comments expressed in our applicant-sponsored
neighborhood meeting. In order to maintain our ability to accomplish this task and to further the
County's goals and objectives given these rather unusual circumstances, we see no other
reasonable course of action than to formally request to withdraw the project.
The applicant's pursuit of this project has been based upon actions by both the City Council and
the Local Agency Formation Commission regarding modification of the City's Sphere of
Influence, a coordinated multi-department, multi-year effort with the applicant to
comprehensively plan for the eastern boundary annexations, and an interpretation and application
of the City's General Plan, Zoning and Subdivision Regulations to promote the public health,
safety and general welfare. On behalf of the applicant, our goal is to continue to apply these
principals in a conscientious and balanced manner.
Thank you for your consideration. Regardless of these unfortunate circumstances, we look
forward to working toward a mutually beneficial conclusion.
805.541.4509
FAX 805.546.0525
3427 MIGUEUTO CT
SAN LUIS OBISPO
CALIFORNIA 93401
I
OASIS ASSOCIATES,INC.
23 October 2007
SUNNY ACRES ESTATES—GP/R,ANNX&TR/ER 135-06
Page 2 of 2
Respectfully,
OASI SSOCIATES, INC.
XL
C.M. Florence,AICP Agent
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICE
c: County Board of Supervisors
G.Rosenberger,SLOGS
C.Maddalena/SLOGS
03-0073
O:HOGS-Johnson Avel Correspondencel2.3 October 2007wi1hdrawai.doc
RECEIVEDED
O A S 15 OCT 2 3 2007
LAND 5 C A P E SLO CITY CLERK
ARCHITECTURE
AND PLANNING
23 October 2007
Mr. Ken Hampian, City Administrative Officer(CAO)
Mr. John Mandeville, Community Development Director
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
RE: PROPOSED"HARMONY WAY MINOR ANNEXATION"—GP/R,ANNX AND TR/ER
142-04, 1700 Harmony Way, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
REQUEST FOR WITHDRAWAL
Gentlemen,
The applicant appreciates the CAO's support of their request to continue this evening's special
City Council hearing. Nonetheless, we are concerned that the request will be disregarded. While
we do not want to belabor the issues raised in our request for a continuance,or for that matter, our
client's ever increasing frustration with this process, we remain troubled by the apparent lack of
protocol, decorum and proper planning that has surrounded this project in the context of the other
annexation requests.
The applicant is not confident given Mayor Romero's potential conflict of interest, and now that a
similar fate has befallen yet another Council Member, that their proposal can be fairly judged. It
was our understanding that the sole item for discussion, review and subsequent approval was to
authorize preparation of an environmental impact report. This decision appears to have been
overshadowed by public sentiment and somehow purposefully removed from the discussion.
Since 2004, the applicant has faithfully followed all of staff's recommendations and requests.
They continue to be interested in working toward a proposal that will further their estate planning
goals and objectives, while considering both the City's and the public's sentiments to date. In
order to accomplish this, we respectfully request withdrawal of the application. We hope that by
taking this dramatic action, our client will be afforded an opportunity to continue to work toward
a mutually acceptable proposal.
Thank you in advance for your time and consideration of our client's withdrawal request.
tfally,
AS TES, INC.
C.M. Florence, AICP Agent
R. BROWN FAMILY TRUST
c: R. Brown
03-0014
805.541.4509 O:(SLOGS-Johnson AvelCorrespondenceU3 October 2007wiihdrmval.doc
FAX 805.546.0525
3427 MIGUELITO CT
SAN LUIS OBISPO
CALIFORNIA 93401
mw naa•c wm
Page 1 of 1
RED FILE
1_�IKIG AGENDA
From: Settle, Allen DA W 3 04 ITEM #_&_
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 3:00 PM qq"� C. RECEIVED
To: Cano, Elaina D lA it,.� " OCT 2 3 2007"
Subject: FW:Johnson Ave. Vote 'lig COUNCIL �{�r�r:
`° SLO CITY CLERK
October 23, 2007 ACAfl
ATTC CLEW
OA,G Fri .t a ..
p PT HEADS
Dear Vice Mayor Settle, ® f o�N�`- c CLEK �-
Y C F
Tonight a pivotal decision will be made concerning the very nature and future of San Luis Obispo. You are one of
four people who can now determine the quality of life for its thousands of residents and indeed the future of our
entire valley. The import of your vote tonight can not be understated.
I am certain you have been made aware of the myriad of problems with the four proposals before you tonight, and
I will not re-iterate the multitude of known issues with the development of the San Luis hills. I would simply and
respectfully suggest that it is incumbent upon you to vote for the future of all San Luis and its citizenry, rather than
support the short-sighted and self-concerned desires of a handful. I urge you to vote"no" on all four development
proposals before the council.
Property owners of Open Space land are well aware of the limitations placed upon any land in that is so
designated. They choose to own this land, with all its implications. It is therefore bewildering that they now ask to
be exempt from the General Plan, in particular with the requirements of the URL, simply for their own profit.The
General Plan is in place for the protection of all of San Luis Obispo. I would hope that this city would not bow to
the pressures of the moneyed and well-connected few to the great detriment of all. Retaining walls visible from
across the valley, large water tanks placed on prominent locations, houses and roads cut into and creeping up
hillsides, additional infrastructure demands ... this is what the applicants are asking San Luis Obispo to absorb. It
is the opposite of what San Luis Obispo is so rightly proud: combining its quaint and scenic ambiance with its
notable heritage and advant-guarde amenities. These projects will serve nothing but the applicants'themselves.
Tonight you are being asked to approve the gutting of the myriad of safeguards and protections placed and
approved into the General Plan by those who were far-sighted many years ago. To dispense with these
thoughtful, protective measures with a sweep of a pen would be.unconscionable.
My family would urge you to represent all of San Luis Obispo ...from the fathers of our past to the children of our
future ... and support the Planning Commission in voting "no"on all four projects before you tonight.
Respectfully,
Karen and Randy Allen
2490 Parkland Terrace
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
10/23/2007
Hillside Annexation/Developr---it Page 1 of 1
J
RECEIVED
From: Council, SloCity OCT 2 3 2007
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 2:49 PM SLO CITY CLERK
To: Cano, Elaina
Subject: FW: Hillside Annexation/Development
To S.L.O.City Council Members,
I urge you,I encourage you,I beg you not to approve any changes in our
urban reserve line nor annexation of hillside properties.
The reasons are myriad and,I'm certain,the Planning Commission and
community members have communicated them to you. I support their
conclusions and recommendations to deny the requests.
Please count this email in your deliberations as I can not attend the
meeting on Tuesday,23 October.
Yours truly,
Sylvia K.Drucker
1317 Cavalier Lane
San Luis Obispo,CA 93405
Spiderman 3 Spin to Win! Your chance to win$50,000&many other great
prizes!Play now! http://spiderman3.msn.com
10/23/2007
• Hillside Development Issue Page 1 of i
RECEIVED
37607
From: Council, SloCity SLO CITY CLERK
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 2:50 PM _.
To: Cano, Elaina
Subject: FW: Hillside Development Issue
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members:
The citizens of SLO who oppose Hillside Development do not deserve
"death by process!! Refuse the applicants'continuance of the
hillside issue. Vote now on the issue at the special
hearing on October 23rd. You earned the trust of this town when you won
election to represent us all. Ensure that there is a hearing on the
issue tomorrow night regardless of any maneuvers to stall.
No continuance and a definitive, loud and clear"NO"on the project.
It is an affront to our General Plan and a desecration of our beautiful
hills.Literally the future of this town is in your hands.Do the right
thing.
Jo Ann C.Wheatley
10/23/2007
ERECEIV:EDVENT URES
RED FILE
MEETING AGENDA
October 10, 2007 DATE-1U -ATEM #—P
CAO ,
Mr. Phil Dunsmore $ACAO FIRti aHEP i
ATTORNEY �rPVd e;IB t
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT •F!CLERK 0RIG F'OLiCE CHF ►
City of San Luis Obispo ❑ DEFT HEADS R C 011., !
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, California 93401-3249 T HR r'
X 7A0 ec
YCho
V- e lEe-h-
Re: Clarifications and Modifications/Amendments to Applications
For Annexation and Subdivision -VTTMap#2827;
City Application No. 4-05; Sydney Street
Dear Mr. Dunsmore:
Please accept this letter on behalf of the owners/applicants, Mr. and Mrs. King, and as
a summary of the meetings and discussions we have had since the Planning
Commission's review of the 'East Side Annexations' this past July.
We would request that your transmittal to the City Council include.a clear presentation
that we, along with the other 3 applicants, have requested the City prepare an EIR to
fully analyze the applications submitted some 3+ years ago. The submittals made and
hearing this past summer at the PC were for this very matter. Contrary to the hyperbole
offered by opponents, no annexation or approvals were under consideration, nor are
they being requested of Council. We are seeking the City's logical progression in
evaluating the pros and cons of annexation and development of the respective sites
In direct response to the Planning Commission's comments, neighborhood concerns
and issues raised by staff, we are offering the following clarifications and modifications
to the proposed annexation and subdivision of the King's property to more closely
reflect potential resolutions of these concerns:
• Modified Building Envelopes and Road Alignments are staked in the field
• Expansion of the SLO community above and beyond the 460' elevation can be
balanced with sensitive hillside development and minimum visual impacts
King Ventures 285 Bridge Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 805544-4444 805 544-5637 FAX
Donsmore Correspondence
Sydney Street Annexation-Tract 2827
October 10,2007
Page 2
• Placement of the proposed Sydney Water Reservoir is not visible from the
surrounding neighborhood
• The Sydney Water Reservoir access road meets fire and utility access standards
without encroaching in the creek channel to the west of the road alignment
• The proposed road running east-west between Sydney and Alrita Streets can be
designed to capture hillside storm water runoff and direct it to city storm systems,
reducing impacts of flooding existing residences
• Lots#11 and #12 have been consolidated in a single Lot#11, located above the
existing residence, eliminating impacts to tree clusters and the upper reaches of
drainage courses
• The road extension between Sydney and Alrita avoids fill in designated creek
channels and respects the free flow of habitat along these corridors
• Restrictive Architectural Standards (that can be refined based on Visual Analysis
conducted with an EIR) will keep new residences lower in profile and more
consistent in color and landscaping compatibility with the established neighborhood
• General Plan policy concerning road and utility connections in this area can be
better achieved through annexation and development of these lands within the City
of San Luis Obispo
• Modified Building Envelopes and Road Alignments are staked in the field
The placement of stakes on these alignments and at the centers of proposed building
pads confirm that the development has been designed to respect natural land forms by
following the natural contours of the land. An exhibit is attached that includes a
numbering system for the stakes, so it is possible to walk the proposed project while
visiting the site. This staking also confirms the suitability and placement of the modified
number of sites (11) and access road now proposed for the King subdivision. This
staking should assist in the visual analysis anticipated in an EIR.
• Expansion of the SLO community above and beyond the 460' elevation can be
balanced with sensitive hillside development and minimum visual impacts
The lowest elevation on the King property is 470' msl. The entirety of the site is above
the 460' contour limit line, which was and is the product of water service and fire fighting
limitations in this specific area. These limitations can be addressed by the new Sydney
Water Reservoir. Its placement could permit residential encroachment up the hillside to
the 650' elevation and meet water service and fire flow requirements.
We submit the expectation that city-managed growth would extend beyond the 460'
limit line was and is addressed both in the General Plan and the SOI Update of
2003-04. The balancing of visual impacts, geology, slopes, drainage and other
questions raised are supposed to be analyzed in an EIR before an informed decision
can be made on annexation and/or development approvals.
Dansmore Correspondence �J
Sydney Stmt Annexation-Tract 2827
October 10,2007
Page 3
• Placement of the proposed Sydney Water Reservoir is not visible from the
surrounding neighborhood
The reservoir plans now describe placement of the tank in a saddle occurring behind
the ridge line rolling down the upper slopes of the King tract. The vertical location of the
tank was analyzed with the objective of maximizing the number of residences within the
existing Alrita neighborhood (Zone 14) that could convert from a pressurized water
system to a gravity-fed system. We identified elevation 750' with Utilities Department
staff to achieve the optimum balance between gravity service to the most residences
possible.
The tank placement can be further improved with slight recessing of the pad site within
the hillside (through retaining walls and slopes) and additional landscaping to further
hide the tank from view. Existing trees and the natural contours make this location
suitable for this type of installation.
• The Sydney Water Reservoir access road meets fire and utility access
standards without encroaching in the creek channel to the west of the road
alignment
The access road designed for the Sydney Reservoir has a maximum slope of 20%.
This access road has been designed to eliminate any fill or encroachment into the
unnamed channel to the immediate west of this access road. This road would also
serve to provide day-today access for hikers to the open space and city buffer areas
above the King subdivision, and serve as a vital access for fire protection services
should it be needed in the future on the hillsides east of these annexation projects.
The reservoir placed at elevation 750' also supplies fire flow at 1500-2000 gpm
pressures desired by the fire and utilities departments for any structures up to and
including the 650' elevation, dramatically enhancing fire fighting capabilities in these
water zones of the community.
• The proposed road running east-west between Sydney and Alrita Streets can
be designed to capture hillside storm water runoff and direct it to city storm
systems, reducing impacts of flooding existing residences
This road can be designed to intercept some storm runoff water from the hillsides
above and redirect captured water to city storm drainage systems, reducing
downstream flooding. Runoff management for proposed residences on Lots
#1-2-3-4-10 and 11 can be directed to this road. Homes on the downhill side of the road
(Lots#5 thru #8) can direct impervious surface runoff to retention areas on site (or
sump pumps for off-site evacuation) so that flooding can be less of a concern for
neighboring residences. Impervious areas on Lot#9 (and possibly#10) can be
captured and directed to city storm systems in Sydney Street via pipes running through
their shared driveway to Sydney Street.
i
' Densmore Correspondence � J
Sydney Street Annexation-Tract 2827
October 10,2007
Page 4
• Lots #11 and #12 have been consolidated in a single Lot 011, located above
the existing residence, eliminating impacts to tree clusters and the upper
reaches of drainage courses
This consolidation of lots will eliminate impacts to existing trees in both locations, and
avoid interfering or modifying existing drainage patterns in these established areas. The
attached exhibit describes this change, resulting in an overall reduction of lots proposed
for Tract 2827 by one.
• The road extension between Sydney and Alrita avoids fill in designated creek
channels and respects the free flow of habitat along these corridors
Site visits with your Natural Resources Manager aided in identifying the areas of our
site where "creeks" governed by city policy began and end on the hillsides. The
attached exhibit describes the locations where natural vegetation, soils conditions and
surroundings identify the points at which the runoff gullies of the hillsides transition into
higher quality creek channels. The proposed crossings of the Sydney-to-Alrita road at
these 2 channels has been placed to avoid disturbance to the more established
"creeks" in these locations.
The attached exhibit describing in detail the plan and profile design proposed for the
more significant (easterly) crossing confirms that we will be able to provide a more
natural appearing fill condition (more slope banks following the contours and reducing
retaining walls) facing the lower existing neighborhood. This design provides more
opportunity to establish and maintain landscaping that will make the fill virtually invisible
to most neighbors.
• Restrictive Architectural Standards (that can be refined based on Visual
Analysis conducted with an EIR) will keep new residences lower in profile and
more consistent in color and landscaping compatibility with the established
neighborhood
We have discussed implementing special and more restrictive zoning and architectural
standards for the residences permitted on the eastern annexation areas between
Sydney and Alrita Streets as a means to further reduce visual impacts of the project as
contemplated. We see those standards including requirements along the lines of:
❖ Height limits paralleling the slope of land
❖ 25' limits above any point of natural grade
❖ 35' limits for any single elevation or building plane
❖ Overall gross building area limits unique to each lot/building envelope
❖ Reductions in upper floor building areas (reduce massing)
❖ Considerations for detached garages and structures to minimize the
feel of`compounds/clusters' and reduce site grading
Dnnsmon;Correspondence
Sydney Street Annexation-Tract 2827
October 10,2007
Page 5
❖ 6' limits on retaining walls without landscaping
❖ 12' limits on retaining walls with landscape buffering
❖ Color selections to respect hillside hues (browns and greens)
❖ Material selections to maximize fire resistance and foster
neighborhood compatibility
❖ Perimeter wildland fuel management and ornamental landscaping
standards that achieve enhanced fire protection
❖ On-site storm water detention/retention and conveyance features
❖ Prohibition on secondary/granny units
• General Plan policy concerning road and utility connections in this area can
be better achieved through annexation and development of these lands within
the City of San Luis Obispo
An undue amount of comment was made at the Planning Commission meeting
suggesting that the annexation sites should remain permanent open space, and failing
that, development in the county would serve to retard density to a greater degree than
annexation would allow. This is classic 'nimby' thinking and is contrary to the policy
direction of the General Plan in this speck instance. This thinking is also short-sighted
and, with due respect, not in the best interests of the citizens of the City of San Luis
Obispo.
Our site includes 5 subdivided parcels of record. Under County rural lands
designations, this allows 2 units per lot for a total of 10 residential dwelling units. The
proposal as modified and presented for CEQA consideration calls for eleven (11) total
residences (no secondary or second primary units would be allowed). This 10%
increase in density is very modest, and would achieve the following substantial benefits
to the city at large and the adjoining neighborhoods in particular:
1. Dedication of some 56 acres of hillside lands, at no expense to the city or
public, identified as part of the City's long range community buffer program.
2. Construction of a +/-280,000 gallon water reservoir to provide gravity water
service to the annexation sites, plus at least a dozen existing City
residences now served by mechanical pressurized systems. In the event of
power outages or backup generator failures, these homes would have no water
supply.
3. Addition of a 4-hour+ source of fire fighting capacity, improving fire
fighting capabilities up to elevation 650' (that is not subject to electrical
malfunctions) for these neighborhoods.
4. Creation of an enhanced wildland fuel management area with an emergency
vehicle access road loop between Sydney and Alrita Streets.
Dunmore Correspondence
Sydney Street Annexation-Tract 2827
October 10,2007
Page 6
5. Protection and enhancement of storm water runoff management, reducing
uncontrolled runoff and thereby reducing downstream flooding problems.
6. Most significantly — Control over development planning and implementation.
Leaving this to the County will eliminate utility connections, fire storage, certainty
over open space buffers and public stewardship of these lands, and special
design and architectural standards otherwise available within the city.
Thank you for receiving this information and sharing this with staff and Council
members prior to the October 23rd hearing.
We look forward to the opportunity to continue the analysis of these applications.
n rely,
David Watson, AICP
cc: John King
SYD&Y101007
user:l6J Lend Oes�(oo IISLOVAI&rI,IsRor I"SIII.00P9.IIOOAWGSI»Ll,M ign-LI.OR379Tm.dq fry M 10177,J 01
,
I
vitIt00007o
J / �
111� � I rp -
,I
/ \ ��
it
tr
/
! / _
I • I ' � t �� � 1r ��� x
f 7 r I i
I ++ •
z S
I '
I
\
�d !f, .
OFIZ
/ \
g e 29 q10 1 9 f 3 CONCEPTUAL ROAD & BLDG PAD LAYOUT
v o 3a':Pc� �i � 8 $ !> . 1 a3
a^ gi$"a:: €; 445; a 83 +; 44 a n
d`.3o.d:�-' 3y $<?x xpa ;1c.y --3$ "i R cc
V v o Q .3r; : ; . w:� .a. ewe pxx a sg. T FIT AND KING
o
to O ?iii ; a S8 1Se i a_ ,eve YYm' YY•S 5,$ .�
s••; �.8s_ S Qs• 3sox; "s""a; i:�:x i.l:g5 °R SYDNEY STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO
ry xoos-x\mso\u�sr+�Ys�-us•w.x'rn,c.�w�w�.*.+s+,u�.�xsoi.re wr•¢m���.mm xaw�.�+sw
s
P �
P � s
O
l
1
o �
� W
CD
� o
a
o '
d - b
n
5.
0
n
a
O O O O O
E Y Y Y Y \ \
\ ^/
Aj
Nj
E
I
r �.... I 1' ti oo I •
/
rnl
0i I I I `1 111
'S I
C I i I 1
I I I I 1
/ I
oil
a _
O � i
°
E i E i i Y i i
\ N,
I B \ \
I � �
m a I \ \
P � n
it �` I O
ag
m
I ~
I \ I
Adl !e
O
O
O
O O O O O
• Ai�I� ININS I 1�I ��j I I i ♦ �I i�' ,
♦ •ray � � ;,,'- ✓1-"�r. ���',Q� �� I II �♦ 11 .E I.��
mil► '� —� ` � `� _ •.M���L�� ���j Ii� � � II�� �� pGj�0
-ice• — -- �—,:; � •��I:.
OR "rri.y.I ♦ X110 1 �� ii
♦��i�� a - . Y� - •' ��•�.�'♦jam I� ` fi � �� II* I��i ♦♦� I
�, ,,I � .- �♦ '�!: �:('' - ----���� ���� ' II�`I�� .��Ij VIII I I�,���,�I�♦
,� -- gip.' !�., ' s��. , �`��I��ta1�j�,,: �������';`♦j��jl ��II'��'�,��%
+r'e.; .. ! , ►.�
'?s
Aa�\ :'9r + , �% '� ���OHO♦�� � , ��►�i,, •�O�,� A,�.,,��� ���: ♦ ♦♦♦ . �� ♦ �� � iii
rl
law
107
soon 'N
�' � ;_�� �,�'ray,/�������J��' �� ♦ �� �^ ` ►I-�►�I
y H
\
sORMNNA
\
11
l
-r
► ► ' -
Page 1 of 1
RED FILE
MEETING AGENDADATE RECEIVED
Hooper, Audrey
From: Hampian, Ken OCT 2 3 2097
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 12:06 PM 0 CITY CLERK
To: Hooper,Audrey; Cano, Elaina COUNCIL C�`CDD DIR
J5 CAO 2'FIN DIR
Subject FW: No Continuation on Hillside proposals J9 ACAO FLICE
E CHIEF
ATTORNEY DIB
CLERK/ORIO CHF
Redfile, please. ❑ DEPT HEADS Ci-REC.DIR
ti
--7 TIL GRIR
10
From: Alan Thomas [mailto:ajt2002@pacbell.net]
Sent:Tuesday, October 23, 2007 12:03 PM 7E eo+d r e-cee.r—
To: Mulholland, Christine; Romero, Dave; Allen Settle; Brown, Paul; Carter,Andrew
Cc: Hampian, Ken; Dietridc, Christine
Subject No Continuation on Hillside proposals
Members of the City Council:
I oppose allowing a continuation of tonight's meeting on the Hillside development proposals for the
following reasons:
• The applicants have not provided any viable reasons for the delay. The letters they submitted only
make vague complaints about the process,which they themselves have been managing.
. The neighbors have invested a lot of time,energy and money in this process with the assumption
there would be a decision made by the city council at this meeting. To ask for a continuation at
the last second is inappropriate and disrespectful of the neighbors and other interested city
residents.
. A continuation would result in a large waste of time and money spent by city staff in preparing for
this meeting.
o The applicants have not asked for more time to change the projects,so why the delay? If they
plan to make major changes,they should just withdraw these proposals.
. There has been plenty of time to review the staff report(it was issued on October 16th)
. Not agreeing with the staff report is not a valid reason for a delay. Also,the changes suggested in
the staff report have NOT been approved by the council. Until that would happen,there is no
reason to act on them,so why do they need extra time BEFORE this decision is made?
. There has been ample time for the applicants to make changes after the planning commission
meeting. The applicants were also frilly aware of all the problems with these proposals as
outlined by the planning commission and city staff,yet they decided not to make any significant
changes before bringing them directly to council. They should have to live with that decision.
. There should have been neighborhood meetings a long time ago. The fact the applicants decided
to hold these meetings at the last minute is their problem
. Asking for an FPPC ruling on Dave Romero's conflict situation is a purely political maneuver that
is inappropriate for the applicant This is a decision for Mayor Romero to make based on the city
attorney's advice. He's aheady made that decision.
I will submit this list for the record at tonight's meeting.
Thanks,
Alan Thomas
10/23/2007
W
Residents for Quality Neighborhoods
P.O. Box 12604 •San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
RED FILE RECEIVED
MEETING AGENDA o �a
DATEJ 942,3k ITEM # r TCOUNCIL CDD DIR OC I 2 ?�n7
- - `® CAO ;FIN DIR
$1 ACAO �' FIRE CHIEF SLO CITY CLERK
Z ATTORNEY COPW DIR
DATE: October 22, 2007CLERK/ORIG g'POLICE CHF
❑ DEPT HEADS Rc"C DIR
TO: San Luis Obispo City Council ,gyp U� UTIL DIR
aZ HR DIR
VIA: Hand Delivered
sr CCezK
RE: Consideration of Requests to Annex Property into the City and Amend the
General Plan Map for the Sunny Acres, Sydney Street, Fairview Estates and
Harmony Way Projects (GP/R/ER/TR 135-06, 4-05, 126-06, 142-04)
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council,
Discussion of the four development proposals in the Staff Report revealed
several constraints requiring mitigation: steep slopes (most over 20%) that require
significant grading, soil instability which requires added grading and fill with more
stable material, drainage and potential flooding and landslide problems, wildfire
concerns, access difficulty for fire vehicles, and disruption to the viewshed. Area
residents echoed these concerns, plus traffic, liability and loss of wildlife habitat.
Implied, but not stated, are the effects underground springs have on the hillsides.
Over 50 home sites are proposed for these properties. Roadways, water lines,
sewer lines, electric and gas lines must be provided to each site. That's a lot of
grading and filling on unstable soil, a substantial disruption to established drainage
patterns, and a significant replacement of permeable soils by hardscape.
Based on information contained in the staff report and observations of residents
who live adjacent to the developments being proposed, Residents for Quality
Neighborhoods recommends and requests that you take the following actions.
1. Maintain the Urban Reserve Line (URL) at its current 460-foot level.
Precedent exists in this area for development within the city limits, but slightly above
the URL; thus, proposed lots that conform to the City's General Plan Land Use
Element policies can be developed without moving the URL.
2. Deny use of a ten-foot tall retaining wall to support a roadway. Initial plans
call for a ten-foot tall, 250-foot long retaining wall to secure a proposed access road
on the Sydney Street property. The disruption to the ecosystem and the visual
impact of such a structure would be significant.
3. Sunny Acres. In accordance with Land Use Element 6.2.5, allow
development only on that portion of the property with a slope of less than 15%. If
October 22, 2007 Page 2
Re: Consideration of Requests to Annex Property into the City and Amend the
General Plan Map for the Sunny Acres, Sydney Street, Fairview Estates and Harmony
Way Projects (GP/R/ER/TR 135-06, 4-05, 126-06, 142-04)
no such parcel of sufficient size (6,000 square feet) exists, deny the project. If a
water tank is to be placed on the property, move it to a lower, more inconspicuous
location (this presumes that upper lots will be eliminated due to excessive slope).
4. Sydney Street. In accordance with Land Use Element 6.2.5, allow
development only on that portion of the property with a slope of less than 15%. If
no such parcel of sufficient size (6,000 square feet) exists, deny the project. If it is
later determined that a water tank must be placed on the property, put it in an
inconspicuous location.
5. Fairview Estates. Since none of the property has a slope of less than 15%,
deny the application and eliminate the water line proposed to traverse the property
from the Sydney Street project to the Harmony Way project. Approve further
exploration of transferring development potential to another area, one that does not
possess the development constraints of this parcel.
6. Harmony Way. Although the property is shown to have gentle slopes of less
than 15% (thus meeting this development standard), the open space allocation is
less than required and there is no on-site plan to furnish water to the residential lots.
Also, residents on the north side of Southwood Drive have expressed concerns
regarding development on this parcel: Harmony Way is an alley, not a roadway, and
there is insufficient maneuvering space for fire vehicles to drive up Sequoia Drive
and turn onto Harmony Way; during the last wildfire, fire trucks parked in tandem on
Sequoia Drive and pumped water from vehicle to vehicle in order to put water on the
fire; and, a drainage problem exists which funnels water to a property across
Southwood during heavy rains.
a. Recommend site configuration be reviewed and modified to provide better
access for firefighting (the proposed cul-de-sac may not be a safe configuration in
the event of a wildfire) and the required amount of open space be provided.
b. If the Fairview Estate project is denied, recommend the applicant be required
to provide a water tank for this project.
In summary, looking at the development policies of the City and the County, it
would appear city residents are better protected from drainage, flooding, erosion and
landslide problems and loss of wildlife habitat and viewshed by leaving these parcels
in the County.
Respectfully submitted,
J�reit?i Azlv�
Brett Cross,
Chair, RQN
c. Ken Hampian
R
RED FILE
i�i1911IIIGIIIIIi���"I ���� ebl�N�iC MEMO IV�l�M AGENDAMEETING
DATE W6L ITEM # I
October 22,2007 RECEIVED
OCT 2 3 1007
TO: Mayor Romero and City Council SLO CITY CLERK
VIA: Ken Hampian,City Administrative Ofcer rB�MTTCRNEY
UNCIL T coo oIR
C [ZFIN DIR
John Moss,Utilities Director RO FIRE CHIEF
PLN DIR
FROM: Dan Gilmore,Utilities Engineer Iff CLERK/ORIG J; POLICE CHF
❑ DEPT HEADS r,-
AEC DIR
LML
SUBJECT: Water Service Issues with the East Side Annexations ® Ti¢r�ti 4-0 Rio RR
-f ee�•.,.a,�
The following has been prepared in response to councilmember Andrew Carter's questions f e�o
regarding water service to the East Side Annexations. The responses are general in nature, and
can be made more specific to particular properties or individual projects,as needed.
Q: llrth respect to the County property, there is a water tank directly above it and neighbors on
each side of the property, within the City, above the 460'line, have public water. Also, with
respect to the County project, given the fact that there is a City water tank directly above the
project, what prevents "gravityflow"water from being provided?
A: The new Bishop Water Tank is at the same elevation as the old Bishop Water Tank.
Although it is bigger,and has significantly more storage,the pressure it provides to the area it
serves has not changed It takes about 100 feet of elevation difference to develop around 40 psi.
This is the minimum pressure we strive to provide at every water meter. The water surface
elevation of the Bishop Tank is around 550'. This results in water pressure of about 39 psi at the
460' elevation. Friction and other minor losses in the water distribution system translate into
slightly lower pressures as you move farther away from the tank. It is true that some homes exist
in this area above the 460' elevation Some of these properties are outside the City limits and the
Urban Reserve Line. Those within the City limits h1ely have City water service. Outside the
City limits,they would have their own well(s). Those on City water service have minimal water
pressure,and may or may not have private booster pumps. The Uniform Plumbing Code requires
a minimum pressure of 15 psi at the highest fixture,which sometimes dictates the need for a
booster pump. Booster pumps ane not a preferred solution, since power outages will render them
inoperative.
Q: With respect to the Harmony Way property, neighbors at approximately the same height
directly across the street have public water.
A: The Harmony Way residents all receive water service from their frontage on Southwood,
which is substantially lower than Harmony Way. Currently, there is no water main in Harmony
Way. Due to the difference in elevation, the pressure at their water meter is greater than the
Council Memorandum East Side Annexations—Water Service Issues
Page 2
water pressure in each of the homes. The proposed home sites on the north side of Harmony
Way may be possible with individual booster pumps. However, placing private booster pumps
on a system with minimal pressure has its risks. Most modem pumping equipment has low
pressrun shut-off protection, to prevent pumps from running when there is insufficient suction
pressure. Low suction pressure can cause pumps to overheat and can cause cavitation of pump
impellers,both of which can lead to premature wear and failure of the equipment. Also, as stated
above, private booster pumps require electricity, and will not operate in a power outage without
standby emergency power.
Q: To what extent are the County property and the Harmony Way property truly dependent on
the water tank proposed on the King property?
A: From a technical perspective,there are engineering solutions that would allow each of the
four development proposals to progress independent of each other. From an economic
perspective,City ownership of the necessary facilities would result in certain costs that would be
shared by other water customers,as described below. The following excerpt from the City's
General Plan addresses hillside development in the Goldtree area:
C. The Goldtree area extends up the hill from the Alrita Street neighborhood.
This is a minor expansion area which can accommodate single-family houses.
1. In addition to meeting the usual criteria for approving minor annexations,
this area should:
i. Provide a gravi y4low water system giving standard levels of
service to all developed parts of the expansion area and correcting
water-service deficiencies in the Atrita Street neighborhood;
ii. Cornu downslope drainage problems to which development
within the expansion area would contribute.
iii.A development plan or specific plan for the whole expansion area
should be adopted before any part of itis annexed,subdivided,or
developed. (Existing houses inside the urban reserve line need not
be annexed along with any new subdivision_)
iv.All new houses and major additions to houses should be subject to
architectural review.
The policies contained in this section of the General Plan have guided our approach to water
service in these areas Specifically, the projects should not only "provide a gravity-flow water
system giving standard levels of service to all developed parts of the expansion area,"but should
also "correct water service deficiencies in the Alrita Street neighborhood" This provision was
included since the Alnta Hydnopneumatic Pump Station was always intended to be a temporary
facility. Since it became apparent that there was a need for this facility to become more
permanent, a new pump station replacement project was budgeted and implemented The new
pump station is currently about 90'9/6 complete. While the need to "coned water service
deficiencies" has been eliminated with the construction of the new pump station, it is still
possible that the facility be converted to a more conventional pump station feeding a tank that
would serve the entire area by gravity.
Council Memorandum East Side Annexations—Water Service Issues
Page 3
The applicants for the four subdivision projects have been directed to seek a regional,or mutually
beneficial, solution to the water service issues. The primary driver behind this direction is cost.
From a stewardship standpoint, Utilities would prefer to own and maintain a single tank and
pump station serving all the eastside annexation areas. The alternative would include up to four
smaller tanks and pump stations that would each serve just a handful of lots. The maintenance
costs for these facilities would exceed the water service revenues generated by the customers that
they serve,resulting in a subsidy by our other water customers.
A single tank could also be located somewhere other than the King property. However, the site
included in the most recent proposal has several distinct advantages. It is relatively hidden,
accessible from Sydney Street, along an existing access road, and at a good elevation to provide
the proper range of water pressures. It is ldcety the only site that has all these features.
Utilities has worked with the developers in seeking acceptable solutions to any water and
wastewater service related issues they may have, independent of other considerations including
general plan policies. We have done so following direction from Council relative to inclusion of
these properties in the City's sphere of influence.
If you have any additional questions regarding water and sewer service to these properties,please
don't hesitate to call Dan Gilmore at extension 208.
&YANa 2C
ouNCIL °CDD DIR RECEIVED
CAO PIN DIR
ACAO PIRE CMIEr
ATTORNEY PW OIR OCT 19 2007
CLERK/01110 POLICE CHF
❑ DEeT HEADS Aeo DIM SLO CITY CLERK
October 16, 2007 UTIL 010
Fife BIR
Mayor David Romero
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO RED FILE
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo CA 93401 MEETING AGENDA
DA ITEM #...L
RE: FAIRVIEW ESTATES ANNEXATION
Dear Mayor Romero, __.....
I wish to support the project of the Filipponi and Twisselman families for
annexation of the Fairview Estates..I have known these individuals since our 1950
college days. They are outstanding members of the-community and good stewards of
the land.
The prevailing philosophy that," I have mine and you can't have yours" is selfish
and unreasonable. Property owners should-have the•rights to do what they want
with their property. This project will be an asset to the community and it has my
full support.
Dan W.Peterson, DDS
Pace'l of 3
i
From: Carol Rich [CRich@liveeyewear.coml ., 7 Sent: Fri 10/19/2007 1:05 PM
To:
Cc:
Subject: FW: Hillside Developments-above Johnson Ave.and Harmony Way
Attachments:
Re: 1925 Sydney Street. ANNX, GP/R,TR and ER 4-05: 1854 Sydney Street
ANNX, GP/R,TR and ER 126-06: 1700 Harmony Way. ANNX, GP/R,TR and ER
142-04: 1600 Bishop and 2220 Flora Streets. ANNX, GP/R,TR and ER
135-06:
Dear Vice Mayor Settle-
I think I know where you stand on this issue, but.I am sending this to
all Council members. I know that you are acquainted with my Father,
John Evans. Thank you for your years of service to our community. Letter
as sent below: -
Weare writing to express support for the Planning Commissions
recommendation on April 25th regarding the project annexation proposals
listed above.
As residents of the area, we are very familiar with the dangers and
problems that will arise should these developments be allowed to go
forward. In the broader picture for San Luis-Obispo, we are just as
concerned with the notion of changing the Urban Reserve Line and
violating our General Plan for the benefit of a few. In our opinion this
sets a dangerous precedent!
We as a city need to make a decision to hold our 460 foot.limit line
and make it clear to all developers in the future. Being consistent and
not making exceptions for any reason seems like the logical path.
The existing urban reserve line has served a very useful purpose so far.
Our beautiful undeveloped hillsides are key in making San Luis Obispo
special-
Not only for our residents, but for people who may consider visiting.
Tourism is one of our largest tax revenue bases!
As far as specifics, in Phil Dunsmore's Planning Commission Agenda
report for 1925 Sydney Street, GP/R, ANNX and TR/ER 4-05 and 0 Fairview
(1854 Sydney Street), GP/R, ANNX and TR/ER.126-06- here is some
additional information that underscores the concerns identified in the
Reports.
As residents of the area, we are very concerned about the impact a
development of this scale, especially the proposed water tank, will have
on existing homes. In addition to the creeks identified in the Reports,
many existing residences in the area contain underground springs that
are just below the surface of the ground. These springs have caused
varying water intrusion and moisture problems for homeowners. In
particular, we are aware of one home that-had one of its piers
https:Hmail.slocity.org/exchange/asettle/Inbox/FW:%20BIlside%20Developments%20-a... 10/19/2007
- Page 2 of 3
undermined by an underground water source. When we bought our own home
on EI Cerrito- my husband had to immediately take on the task of digging
up our backyard to install a French drain to deal with the virtual creek
running through our garage! In addition, during the last EI Nino period
in the late 1990s, homes in the area were flooded by the enormous
quantity of water that ran off the hillside. Further development on the
scale described in the Reports appears to pose a serious danger of
increasing the risk of damage to existing residences by altering the
existing underground water sources and disrupting the existing
ecological and geological balance.
Wildland Fire Hazard. The Report states that the area is known for
"significant wildland fire risk."This is a real danger. Area residents
remember well the wild fire that broke out several years ago and
endangered several homes in the vicinity of the proposed projects.
Viewshed Conflicts. The City recently built new water tanks adjacent to
the proposed projects, located behind the old General Hospital. These
City water tanks sit at a much lower elevation than the new water tank
proposed by the projects (presumably the City tanks are below the
current 460 foot limit). The City water tanks are an eyesore and can be
viewed from many sites around the City, both near and far. Additional
development on the steep slopes in this area would only compound the
problem, especially if the proposed 255,000 gallon water tank is added
at the 700 foot level.
It is also interesting to note that the proposed site of the new water
tank appears to be in the general location of a highly visible, giant
star that was illuminated during the December holidays for many years by
the previous property owner.It seems ironic to replace such an
attractive holiday symbol that was enjoyed by all City residents with a
water tank.
Housing Policy. The proposed lots are located adjacent to existing
residences that are among the most expensive in the City.The new homes
proposed for these lots clearly will be luxury homes. The housing crisis
in San Luis Obispo is well documented and will not be ameliorated by
building additional homes in this category. Before taking the drastic
step of changing the Urban Reserve Line to allow for new housing, the
City should focus on encouraging high density and in-fill residential
projects designed for more moderately priced homes. Perhaps the City
and County can work together to turn the lower elevation General
Hospital lots over to a housing non-profit to build work force housing.
We have to wonder why the County is more interested in improving their
land and selling for profit. We also ponder whether this type of
practice violates County Land Use Policy.
Please do what is right for our community and deny proceeding through
the entitlement process and subsequent ER's for any of these four
proposed developments. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Ted and Carol Rich
https://mail.slocity.org/exchange/asettle/Inbox/FW:%20Hillside%20Developments%20-a... 10/19/2007
Page 3 of 3
2832 EI Cerrito
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
805.788.0201
crich@liveeyewear.com
tedelou@sbcglobal.net
https://mO.slocity.org/exchange/asettle/Inbox/FW:%20F illside%2ODevelopments%20-a... 10/19/2007
Page 1 of 2
From: Jacquelyn Wheeler Dcwheels@pacbell.net] Sent: Fri 10/19/2007 1:57 PM
To: To: mromero@slocity.org; cmujlholland@slocity.org; Carter,Andrew; Brown, Paul; Settle,Allen
Cc:
Subject: Johnson Ave Projects
Attachments:
To All San Luis Obispo City Council Members:
I live at 3303 Barranca St in a home my husband and I built in 1987. The
Harmony project
would have a profound and negative impact on us and our neighbors on
Harmony.
We are adjacent to the driveway which currently goes to the Brown house.
Not only would our view be forever negatively changed but we would have the
dust, dirt, and noise generated
by construction for possibly years to come. Mr. Brown
owns a contruction company. In the past he was sited by the County for
improperly dumping dirt that he excavated from city lots onto this county
lot. What is to prevent him from doing the same thing again? He was also
cited for violating other county rules by having excessive amounts of debris
and nonfunctional rolling stock. He has not proved to be
a good neighbor. In addition, my understanding is that he is also requesting
that his current residence be annexed.
It clearly is higher than the URL. Currently he may be experiencing lack of
water in his wells. This project not only guarantees him huge development
profits but also will provide him with city water. At what cost is this to
the taxpayers of San Luis Obispo?
The City of San Luis Obispo should never have accepted any of the proposed
development
applications. They are all in some way contrary to the General Plan. If
anything
like this was going to be considered, it should be done when the next
General Plan
is revised. It should not be done in this piecemeal manner.
I am writing to ask you to deny the proposed hillside
developments behind General Hospital, the King Ventures Project, the
Filipponi/Twissleman Project, and the Harmony Project. Much research has
taken place by the City Planning Staff and the City Planning Commission as
well as citizens of the City who are vehemently opposed to this project for
many concrete and viable reasons. All have recommended denying these
projects because they do not follow any of the development rules approved by
the City Council as part of the General Plan for the City
The hillsides are extremely steep. One only needs to stand near the areas
of proposed development to see how incredibly dangerous it would be to build
above the current URL(460 feet), not to mention the precedent that this
would set for future development on our incredible, scenic hillsides
throughout the city. Many tourists come to our city to enjoy the scenic
open space areas on the surrounding hillsides. The planning that is taking
place at this point has already cost the citizens of this City an
https://mail.slocity.org/exchange/asettle/Inbox/Johnson%2OAve%2OProjects.EML?Cmd=... 10/19/2007
Page 2 of 2
unnecessary tax burden and work load on the City.staff. These projects
require moving the URL well above 600 feet, and they do not follow the rules
established in the General Plan or the hillside building constraints
approved by the City Council . I encourage all of you to deny proceeding to
an EIR, which will cost the City even more money. We are wondering why
these projects have been allowed to go this far in the planning process.
Jacquelyn Wheeler
San Luis Obispo
https:Hmai l.sloci ty.org/exchange/asettle/Inbox/Johnson%20Ave%20Projects.EML?Cmd=... 10/19/2007
Debra Hinkle RECEIVED
1241 Johnson Ave., PMB 320 OCT 1 J �n97
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
SLO CITY CLERK
October 19, 2007
Mr. Allen K. Settle, Vice Mayor
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Re: 1854 Sydney St. Project
1925 Sydney St. Project
1600 Bishop St. Project
1700 Harmony Way Project
Dear Vice Mayor,
I am writing to ask you to deny the above four proposed projects.
I have attached a 5-page summary of my views on all the projects. I prepared this
package (with help from my friends and neighbors) to highlight the generic reasons
for denying the projects. This information is truth for the hillsides in San Luis
Obispo, not just for one project or hillside.
Before you view the package, I would like to share my very personal views on the
two projects that would most affect my family and me. I am specifically referring
to the two projects listed above in red--the Sydney Street projects.
I live on El Cerrito Court and I am extremely worried about the safety of my
family, neighbors and my home. I haven't had a good night sleep since the survey
poles were driven into our unstable hillsides. A few of my top safe concerns
are:
• Landslides
• Mudslides
• Fire hazards
• Water runoff and erosion
• Serpentine Rock formation slippage (it contains chrysotile asbestos)
• 12,000/135,000 Voltage Power Lines
I urge you to DENY the proposed hillside developments by following the San Luis
Obispo General Plan:
• Directing development away from areas with hazards
• Keep open San Luis Obispo's steeper, higher and most visible
hillsides
• Protecting scenic hillside areas and natural features (rock
outcroppings and steep slope areas—backdrops for the community
• Uphold the open space green belt at the edge of the community
• Avoid large, continuous or prominent walls, poles or columns
In closing, I would like to thank you for time it will take to read this information. I
tried to keep it short imaging the volume of information that you have already
received from numerous residents.
Sincerely,
Debra Hinkle
JUST SAY TO ALL
❑ REQUESTING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT ( EIR)
❑ ANNEXING LAND
❑ MOVING URBAN RESERVE LINE
❑ CONSUMING OPEN SPACE
❑ INCREASING FIRE DANGER
❑ INCREASING OTHER HAZARDS
❑ DAMAGING WILDLIFE AND
ENDANGERED PLANT SPECIES
. . . .... _ -
TOURISM and VIEWSHED
Million Tourism
for SLO County including :
1 Local and State r
�✓��^ l r't- K il.� l�}LY 1 fir:
People come here for many reasons.
major area's rr beauty.
can'tIf we destroy it, we / back and fix it.
• County Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, 11/05,P.13
FIRE HAZARD
® SLO County has one of the worst
fire environments in CA.
0
15
. , r�xmuomo
aOMM
i`�l'"r rrswr�
v
1
l l
-�n. �A Ty�1 .tfiL aur.rr
�y.11Prt.�.m•
fY1.�CP�
® Large damaging wildfires :
■ 1985 Las Pikas (12 homes, 75K Acres, $1.2M property)
■ 1989 Chispa (4 homes, 10K Acres, N$.3M property)
■ 1994 Hwy 41 (42 homes, N50K Acres, $10M property)
■ 1994, 96 Hwy 58 ("107 Acres, $1M damages)
�;yp Cqu�ry IKrrl MernrO MIUyUaO Dlm.ILOS•V.15.36
— Tw
I
FLOOD
HAZARDS
RM PUAM
MUMM
swwuo5w0
*"&way
Cftftw&M
Soft F
� COIM1►OFIIMMI{Od90
ANDrM
gmreaiauru"m
f*
y
ti
Fa: