Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/23/2007, PH1 - CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST TO ANNEX PROPERTY INTO THE CITY AND AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN MAP TO ACCOMM counat ,o aJb j agenba Report 1=Numb" CITY OF SAN LUIS O B I S P O FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Director Prepared By: Phil Dunsmore, Associate Planner SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST TO ANNEX PROPERTY INTO THE CITY AND AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN MAP TO ACCOMMODATE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AT THE EASTERN BOUNDARY OF THE CITY. (GP/R/ER/TR 135-06, 126-06, 142-04,4-05) PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Adopt resolutions to deny each of the four annexation requests based on findings. CAO RECOMMENDATION Direct the applicants to amend the annexation applications to more closely comply with General Plan policies, as described in this report and summarized in Alternative #1, and then proceed to the environmental impact report (EIR) stage whereby further information shall be developed and considered through an extensive public process. REPORT-IN-BRIEF In response to the Sphere Of Influence update that was approved by City Council on August 23, 2005, several property owners are now seeking annexation into the City to allow residential development. The City is currently reviewing four such applications that include requests for General Plan Amendment, annexation, adjustment of the Urban Reserve Boundary, and rezoning to allow residential development. The applications propose residential development on the west facing slope of the Santa Lucia mountain range outside the eastern boundary of the City above the current development limit line which is at approximately the 460-foot elevation. Although three of the four requested annexation areas are now within the City's Sphere of Influence (SOI), this does not automatically guarantee annexation or any specific form of development. However, inclusion in the SOI does imply a probable physical boundary and service area for a city, assuming that other policies and standards can be met. These applications are being processed simultaneously in order to have a properly broad perspective. In fact, General Plan policy requires a "Development Plan" to coordinate future development at this edge of the City in order to ensure logical expansion of city services. Additionally, each of these annexation requests rely upon the construction of a new water main with a water tank built at an elevation suitable to serve the new properties with gravity-fed water pressure. Therefore, although these are separate applications with separate owners, they are linked by the need for the water service and by the need to develop as a single "Development Plan" in accordance with General Plan Land Use Element Policy 6.2.7. The City Council is not being asked to approve annexation or development of any of the properties at this time. The decision before the Council at this time is: "Which, if any, of these Council Agenda Report—GPF 1135-06,126-06,4-05,142-04 EAST SIDE ANNEXATIONS Page 2 proposed developments should proceed through the entitlement process?" Moving further through the process will require an EIR and a substantial additional cost for the applicants. The CAO Recommendation differs from the Planning Commission recommendation primarily because the staff believes that while the proposed developments do not all comply with all of the City development policies and standards, with proper modification, most can come into better compliance and advance other important General Plan policy objectives. The City's General Plan and development standards contain several specific points of direction regarding where development should be allowed, and under what conditions - conditions not presently satisfied by these applications. The General Plan also strongly promotes the creation of a permanent greenbelt around the City, compact urban development, land use control of City fringes, and adding to our housing supply. Therefore, rather than simply rejecting all of the applications, this report outlines the conflicting issues and sets forth staff suggestions for proceeding to resolve (to the extent possible) and balance these conflicts in a way that supports City policy, standards and goals. DISCUSSION Overview of the 4 Current Annexation & Development Proposals The following text and map briefly describe each of the four annexation proposals. Sunny Acres Estates V development lots 1 o.4 acres open space _4 I 2 ! Ii Sydney Street Annexation !! ... 12 development lots,water tank 56.7 acres of open space Fairview Estates 6 Development lots, 73.34 acres open space I 1, N x I City Limit Line W E S ° � 3 Harmony Way 12 development lots, 8 acres open space � � J F ILC ,7� T rrTTm /-2 Council Agenda Report—GP/' 1135-06,126-06,4-05, 142-04 EAST SIDE ANNEXATIONS — Page 3 1: Sydney Street Annexation. Otherwise known as the "King" property, this annexation proposes 12 development lots and one open space lot. It is located at the east end of Sydney Street. This map proposes to include a water tank that is necessary to support water pressure for all of the proposed annexation areas. The annexation request includes a 57-acre open space dedication that will add to the existing greenbelt at the periphery of the City. The approximate area of the development site is only 14 acres, therefore the open space dedication exceeds the City's four to one requirement to replace open space at a rate of four times the development area. The property is within the City's Sphere of Influence. With project modifications, this project could be brought into substantial compliance with General Plan policies. 2: Fairview Estates. Otherwise known as the "Filipponi and Twisselman" property, this annexation proposal consists of six development lots and one open space lot. It is located above Alrita Street, referred to as the Goldtree Area in the General Plan. This map links an access road to the Sydney Street annexation and provides emergency access from the Sydney Street annexation and provides a water line route that can be used to link the new water main to the proposed Harmony Way annexation. This project proposes to offer up to 73 acres of open space that will contribute to the City's greenbelt. The approximate area of development is about 14 acres, therefore the open space dedication exceeds the City's four to one requirement. Of the four applications, this site is the most difficult to access and has the most significant slopes. All of the proposed development sites exceed 20% in slope. Annexation, subdivision and development of this site, regardless of mitigations and design standards, will be inconsistent with development policies and standards in the General Plan and Community Design Guidelines. 3: Harmony Way. This annexation proposes 12 development lots and one open space lot. This area is currently not within the City's sphere of influence. Development of this property relies on a new water line to be extended through the Fairview Estates annexation to the water tank on the Sydney Street annexation. Eight acres of open space are proposed at the rear of the site. The approximate area of development is about 3.5 acres, therefore the open space dedication of this site alone does not fulfill the City's four to one requirement. Unlike the King and Filipponi and Twisselman properties, this property does not have significant slope and creek constraints. It is relatively moderate slope (less than 15%) and is directly adjacent to a developed road (Harmony Way). Development of this property can comply with the City's General Plan policies. 4: Sunny Acres Estates. The project proposes 25 development lots, one open space lot, one lot for the existing abandoned Sunny Acres building, one lot for the existing new City water tank, and one lot proposed as a pocket park for a total of 29 lots. Existing R-1 zoning below the annexation site behind General Hospital (within the City limits) is proposed to be changed to R- 2. No detailed plans for the proposed R-2 portion of the site have been submitted to the City. Approximately 10.5 acres of open space are proposed to be dedicated to the City to contribute to the greenbelt. However, the total area to be developed exceeds 23 acres; therefore the open space contribution is far short of the City's four to one requirement. The terrain on this site is moderate, with most of the development sites below 20% in slope. Minor modifications to this project would bring it into compliance with the General Plan. These modifications include eliminating upper lots that are on slopes over 20%and providing direct access to open space. Council Agenda Report—GPf 1135-06,126-06,4-05,142-04 EAST SIDE ANNEXATIONS Page 4 Planning Commission Review The Planning Commission reviewed these requests at a public hearing on April 25, 2007. Due to conflicts with General Plan Policies, the Commission recommends the City Council deny all of the annexation requests without proceeding with the environmental review process (EIR). General Plan policies that are designed to protect hillsides, open space and visual resources conflict with the proposal to build structures and roads above the current development limit lines. Preliminary Environmental Review A draft initial study of environmental impact prepared by staff for the development plan indicates that an EIR would be required. The initial study identifies potentially significant impacts in the area of Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Geology/Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology/Water Quality, and Land Use and Planning. The Planning Commission did not recommend proceeding with an EIR since the development of some of the properties would be inconsistent with the General Plan regardless of mitigation measures or design alternatives. If the Council decides that an alternative form of each project should move forward, staff will prepare a revised initial study to determine the appropriate level of environmental review. Additionally, if the Council encourages a modified development plan, any revised plan will need to go back before the Planning Commission for their review. Antiquated SubdivisionsfUnderlying Lots Both the Sydney Street and the Fairview Estates proposals derive from a very old (1883) subdivision known as the Goldtree Vineyard Tract. This subdivision extends from the Terrace Hill area to the ridgetop east of the City. Old subdivisions of this kind have the potential to defeat or frustrate newer rules and regulations governing many aspects of land development if there are recognized underlying lots. An underlying lot is a legal lot or series of lots that were recorded at an earlier date prior to the City's (or other jurisdiction's) ability to review and regulate subdivisions. However, with the 2003 Supreme Court decision (Gardner), maps that were recorded prior to 1893 are not automatically recognized as having created legal parcels unless the individual lots have been conveyed separately from the land around them or unless the local jurisdiction has issued entitlements such as construction permits for an individual lot. If either of those two situations has occurred, the local agency will be obligated to issue a Certificate of Compliance to recognize the parcel as a separate and legal conveyable lot. Some underlying lots have been validated in the four areas proposing annexation and development. The King property shows three recognized separate legal parcels created by lot line adjustments and one unverified portion of the Goldtree Vineyard Tract. The property contained in the Fairview Estates application has not been verified as containing underlying legal lots through certificates of compliance. Under the current Gardner decision, unless evidence of separate conveyance of each lot is provided, both the City and the County must treat the 113.29 acre property as a single site and any subdivision request would be subject to normal provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and the applicable jurisdiction's regulations. An underlying lot can be developed when it is verified that the lot is legal typically through a certificate of compliance. If underlying lots could be proven, potential for development in the unincorporated area might �-y Council Agenda Report-GPr 1135-06, 126-06,4-05,142-04 EAST SIDE ANNEXATIONS Page 5 exist. In addition, other factors affect the development proposals. The Sydney Street and Fairview Estates proposals include a significant area of open space known to contain high quality native grassland habitat, several small but perennial streams and associated vegetation, and several species of rare plants. They are also used by hikers on existing fire and service roads. It is possible that the costs of overcoming the physical constraints on some of the properties, including County regulations and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) requirements, may make development of the underlying lots infeasible. This is due to the difficulty associated with developing septic waste systems on significant slope with heavy clay soils and rock. A special engineered septic system would have to be designed for each lot and the RWQCB would need to oversee and permit the development of such systems. . However, development that can satisfy the requirements of the County and the RWQCB could be permitted. The value of a hillside residence with the views available from the relatively high elevations may make the high costs of water and wastewater systems feasible for most of the underlying lots in question. A denial by the City may cause the applicants to pursue development within the jurisdiction of the County. However, the issue of whether or not underlying lots exist would have to be resolved in either case. If the lots were verified as legal, they would need to be re-configured in order to be conducive to development. In reconfiguring the lots, the new lots would also have to comply with County policies which are discussed in further detail below. The County's General Plan Land Use Element contains policies that restrict or prohibit development on significantly sloped properties, very similar to the City's General Plan. The Zoning for portions of the King property and all of the Filipponi and Twisselman property is Rural Lands (RL) with a sensitive resource overlay zone (SRA) and a Geologic Study area (GS) overlay zone. This zoning restricts the minimum lot size to be from 20 to 320 acres which is far larger than the proposed lot pattern. These regulations would primarily affect the creation of new parcels and would apply in the event the property owners cannot obtain certificates of compliance for the underlying lots and seek a new subdivision. Furthermore, the areas proposed as open space dedications by the applicants are considered unlikely ever to be developed due to very steep slope, geological constraints and limited access. Because the development of the underlying lots under the County's rules and regulations would not achieve, staff has been encouraging several of the applicants to modify their developments to be consistent with City policies and standards in order to potentially receive City approvals. Key Policies and Standards The following discussion summarizes the key General Plan Policies, Community Design Guidelines, Subdivision Regulations and Sphere of Influence policies under which the annexations must be evaluated. The Planning Commission reports for each of the annexations are available in the Council reading file, and provide a more complete analysis of each individual request. Although some of these sites may be possible to develop through careful engineering —.5� Council Agenda Report—GP! 2135-06,126-06,4-05,142-04 EAST SIDE ANNEXATIONS Page 6 and sensitive architectural design, the majority of the applicable General Plan Policies and development standards discourage or prohibit development on significant slopes. Restrictions on development on steep slopes and the objective of permanently preserving a city greenbelt are the two key themes in the following policy analysis. General Plan Policies 1) Land Use Element 6.2.0 Introduction As discussed in the open space section, San Luis Obispo wants to keep open its steeper, higher, and most visible hillsides. Some of the lower and less steep hillside areas, however, are seen as suitable for development, particularly where development is coupled with permanent open space protection of the more sensitive areas_ Staff Analysis: This policy sets the stage to allow potential annexation and development of portions of the proposed development area if some of the more significant constraints can be overcome. The annexation requests are proposing to dedicate the steep hillside above the potential development areas as permanent open space. As proposed, however, each of the annexation requests will need to be modified before they are consistent with this policy. For the Sydney Street (King) project, 10 of the 12 proposed lots have an average slope that exceeds 25% or more, eight of these building envelopes have slopes that exceed 20% with five of them exceeding 25%. At least three of the lots have slopes greater than 30% between the proposed building envelope and the proposed access road. Some of the proposed lots are somewhat screened by vegetation and existing residences. Development on these lots would not be as visible as development on many of the other proposed lots. The proposed subdivision of this area could be modified to lessen the development of the more steeply sloped areas. The Fairview Estates project proposes six lots where all six have average slopes exceeding 25% or more and all designated building envelopes show slopes in excess of 20%. The proposed lots in this proposed annexation are not currently screened by topography or existing vegetation, and are separated from existing residences. Of the 25 proposed development sites in the Sunny Acres proposal, many exceed 20% in slope. In addition, this proposal does not meet the City's policies for amount of open space dedication. The subdivision proposal of this area could be modified to reduce the number of lots on steeply sloped land and increase the open space area. Finally, the Harmony Way project, while located on more gentle slopes, does not provide open space near the amount required by the General Plan. Allowing these developments to go forward as proposed would result in highly visible development without the requisite amount of preserved open space. It may be possible to modify the request to increase the ratio of open space. 2) Land Use Element 6.2.1 Development Limits Hillside planning areas should have carefully chosen development limit lines, and special design standards for the areas which can be developed The location of the development limit and the standards should cause development to avoid encroachment into sensitive habitats or unique resources as defined in the Open Space Element, and public health and 1- 6 Council Agenda Report—GPf 1135-06,126-06,4-05,142-04 EAST SIDE ANNEXATIONS Page 7 safety problems related to utility service, access, wildland fire hazard, erosion,flooding, and landslides and other geologic hazards_ Also, the development limit line and the standards should help protect the City's scenic setting. Staff Analysis: Each of the proposed annexations would shift the current development limit line up the hillside from its current 460 foot elevation limit up to approximately the 600 or 650 feet on the hillside — the Fairview Estates project is proposing shifting this line to the 750 foot contour. This proposal, along with the Sydney Street and Sunny Acres projects, proposes creation of lots at the higher elevations in the middle of the wildland interface known for significant fire risk. The proposed lots for these three developments are also within areas known to have geologic constraints including high landslide risk and potential slope failure risk. The ultimate location of the development limit line should be placed to avoid new lots and housing in areas that could pose a significant health and safety risk or compromise natural resources. Additionally, the sensitive habitat areas and natural resources such as creeks or seeps should dictate the location of the development limit line. The Fairview Estates area and the Harmony Way are highly visible, which calls for the development limit line to be located below the most visible portions of these areas. 3) Land Use Element 1.13.5 Open Space Each annexation shall help secure permanent protection for areas designated Open Space, and for the habitat types and wildlife corridors within the annexation areas... G. Other area properties which are both along the urban reserve line and on hillsides, shall dedicate land or easements for about four times the area to be developed(developed area includes building lots, roads, parking and other paved areas, and setbacks required by zoning.) Staff Analysis: Because this is a quantifiable requirement, determining the compliance of the proposed developments is a relatively simple process. Cumulatively, the annexations will secure permanent open space exceeding the amount required by Policy 1.13.5. Individually the Harmony Way and the Sunny Acres proposals fall short of this open space requirement. The combined proposed open space area will add about 148 acres to the existing 700 acre Reservoir Canyon Natural Area. This General Plan policy directs the City to seek the expansion of the greenbelt. However, doing so with each of the developments — as currently proposed—would result in development inconsistent with other General Plan Policies. While staff evaluates each of the applicable policies as though it has equal importance, the Council needs to consider whether the open space dedications and assurance of a permanent edge to the City carnes more weight than the fact that significant portions of at least 3 of the proposed annexation areas are inconsistent with the other General Plan policies analyzed in this report,particularly with respect to the Fairview Estates proposal. 4) Land Use Element 62.2 Development Standards (for hillsides). Development—including buildings, driveways,fences and graded yard areas on hillside parcels shall: B. Keep a low profile and conform to the natural slopes; C. Avoid larze continuous walls or roof surfaces, or prominent foundation walls, poles, or columns; 1- 7 Council Agenda Report—GPP 1135-06,126-06,4-05,142-04 EAST SIDE ANNEXATIONS J Page 8 D. Minimize QradinQ or roads; E. Minimize. eradiniz on individual lots; eenerally, locate houses close to the street: minimize the Brading of visible driveways; Staff Analysis: As proposed, development of the proposed projects will require significant retaining walls. For the Sydney Street property, the grading and retaining wall needs to be 10 feet in height for approximately 250 feet in length in order to secure the proposed access road. Actual grading and retaining walls for proposed house sites (many of which are proposed on 20-25% or greater slopes) on the Sydney Street, Fairview Estates, and Sunny Acres projects will require a significant amount of grading. Emergency access standards limit access drives to 15% slopes and the proposed street system to provide access to the individual developments will involve significant and highly visible grading and retaining walls. Due to significant slope and deep ravines (creeks), especially on the Fairview Estates and the Sydney Street proposals, these annexation requests, unless modified, will conflict with Policy 6.2.2. On the Harmony Way project, slopes and road grading may be less significant. 5) Land Use.Element Policy 6.2.5 Homesites Outside the Limit Lines Where homesites are to be developed outside the urban reserve or development limit lines, and beyond the City's jurisdiction, they should: A. Be on land sloping less than 15 percent. B. Have effective emergency-vehicle access from a City street or County road, C. Be on a geologically stable site; D. Have adequate water supply for domestic service and fire suppression; E.Avoid areas with high wildland fire hazard; F. Be next to existing development, G..Avoid significant visual impacts. Staff Analysis: The majority of the proposed lots and building envelopes are proposed on slopes that exceed 15% (and up to 30% on some sites). The slopes on the east side of the City are known to have significant geologic hazards (landslide and potential slope failure). The area is a wildland fire hazard area; and grading and retaining walls associated with road and pad development could result in significant visual impacts. The Community Design Guidelines policies further detailed below elaborate on similar issues.. If allowed to be developed as proposed, graded cut and fill slopes as well as retaining walls, and foundations associated with subsequent structures developed on the Sunny Acres, Fairview Estates, and Sydney Street projects would create significant visual impacts. Access for emergency vehicles would be difficult, disrupt creek channels, and roads and building sites would be located within a wildland fire area and in an area of known geologic concerns. As proposed, the annexation and subdivision requests (with the exception of Harmony Way) are not consistent with LU 6.2.5. The inconsistencies with this policy can be reduced on Sunny Acres, Sydney Street and Harmony Way if the proposals are modified. 6) Land Use Element Policy 6.1.1: The City shall designate the following types of land as open space: �' 0 Council Agenda Report—GPC 1135-06,126-06,4-05,142-04 i EAST SIDE ANNEXATIONS Page 9 A. Upland and valley sensitive habitats or unique resources including corridors which connect habitats. C. Those areas which are best suited to non-urban uses due to: infeasibility of providing proper access or utilities; excessive slope or slope instability; wildland fere hazard; noise exposure;flood hazard; scenic value; wildlife habitat value, including sensitive habitats or unique resources... Staff Analysis: The area proposed for annexation and development on these properties is currently designated as open space by the General Plan.This designation is consistent with this policy because steep slopes, slope instability, wildland fire hazard, visibility and habitat value are all present to some extent in all areas. A change to a designation such as low-density residential should not occur unless development sites can be limited to areas that do not have these characteristics. As currently proposed, development at the Sydney Street, Fairview Estates, and Sunny Acres will impact steeper slopes and be located within wildland fire hazard areas, and, especially for the Fairview Estates project, will impact the scenic value of the hillsides as seen from many areas of the City. As proposed, the projects are not consistent with LU 6.1.1. Modifications of the proposed developments in the Sydney Street,Sunny Acres can reduce some of the inconsistencies. 7) Land Use Element Policy 6.2.6 Hillside Planning Areas C The Goldiree 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: a. Provide a gravity flow water system giving standard levels of service to all developed parts of the expansion areb and correcting water service deficiencies in the Alrita Street neighborhood. b. Correct downslope drainage problems to which development within the expansion area would contribute. 2. A development plan or specific plan for the whole expansion area should be adopted before any part of it is annexed, subdivided, or developed. 3. All new houses and major additions to houses should be subject to architectural review. Staff Analysis: The Goldtree Area referred to in Land Use Element Policy 6.2.6 encompasses the Sydney Street property at the end of Sydney Street and the area above Alrita Street near the Fairview Estates property. The policy suggests that the Sydney Street area can accommodate some additional single family development. In accordance with the policy, the project proposes a gravity flow water system, however, this policy was written without analysis of specific topography or specific site constraints.The policy should not be utilized for justification to allow development of areas that are sloped greater than 20% or allow development of areas that may have landslide or fire hazard risk because such an interpretation would be inconsistent with General Plan policy. 8) Conservation and Open Space Element(COSE)Policy 8.1 Greenbelt: Open space outside the urban area. Secure and maintain a healthy and attractive Greenbelt around the urban Council Agenda Report-GP/1 1135-06,126-06,4-05,142-04 EAST SIDE ANNEXATIONS _ Page 10 area, comprised of diverse and connected natural habitats, and productive agricultural land that reflects the City's watershed and topographic boundaries. Staff Analysis: As proposed,each of the annexation areas will donate to the City's Greenbelt and provides land that abuts existing City greenbelt areas. Dedication of the open space is valuable and important, and not only adds to the greenbelt,but can create legal, unified public trails. However,this policy cannot be considered in isolation. A significant portion of each annexation area also conflicts with a series of important General Plan policies that were adopted in order to protect slopes, visual resources, creeks, and natural resource areas. Modifications would be necessary to address these policies and goals. 9) COSE Policy 7.22.5 Soil Conservation and Landform Modification. Public and private development projects shall be designed to prevent soil erosion, minimize landform modifications to avoid habitat disturbance and conserve and reuse on-site soils. Staff-Analysis: New access roads and building pads for each of the project areas would include significant landform modification, grading, and retaining walls as discussed under Policy 6.2.2. Since the building envelopes for Sydney Street, Fairview Estates, and Sunny Acres are located on significant slopes, it is likely that house pad development would require significant landform modification in addition to that associated with access roads in order to construct driveways, parking areas, yards, and house foundations. Since the development plan does not include individual pad development, the overall extent of grading is not known at this time. As proposed, the development of the majority of the annexation areas is not consistent with COSE 7.22.5. 10) COSE Policy 7.30.5 Creek Setbacks. The City will maintain creek setbacks to include: separation from top of bank, appropriate floodway, native riparian habitat wildlife habitat and space for paths. A. The following items should be no closer to the wetland or creek than the setback line: buildings, streets, driveways, parking lots, above:ground utilities, and outdoor commercial storage or work areas. Staff Analysis: The Fairview Estates annexation and the Sydney Street annexation identify roads, driveways and building pads within the setback of creek or drainage areas. As proposed, these projects are inconsistent with this policy and City policies that intended to protect creeks. Site investigation by the Natural Resources Manager concludes that there is one creek crossing for the construction of a new road on the Fairview Estates property. Two other creeks do not contain identifiable water- dependent species; although they are identified on maps as blueline creeks. Thus, they are more appropriately termed"drainages": 11) COSE Policy 9.21.1 B.1 Preserve natural and agricultural landscapes. 1.Avoid visually prominent locations such as ridgelines, and slopes exceeding 20 percent. Council Agenda Report—GP/1 1135-06,126-06,4-05,142-04 EAST SIDE ANNEXATIONS Page 11 Staff Analysis: This is a basic policy that discourages development-on slopes that exceed 20 percent. Whenever development is proposed on slopes over 20 percent, significant landform modification is necessary, and the impacts to visual resources are usually more significant. 20% is also the maximum slope for a private driveway. 15% is the maximum slope that can be navigated by emergency services vehicles such as fire trucks. As proposed, the Fairview Estates and Sydney Street, and portions of Sunny Acres, are inconsistent with COSE 9.21.1 B.1 due to the steep slopes on which the building envelopes and access drives are proposed. Modifications to the Sydney Street proposal and Sunny Acres proposal can reduce inconsistency with this policy, however, regardless of modifications it would not be possible for Fairview estates to be consistent. Harmony way is consistent with this policy. 12) COSE Policy 9.21.5 View protection in new development The City will include in all environmental review and carefully consider effects of new development, streets and road construction on views and visual quality by applying the Community Design Guidelines, height restrictions, hillside standards, Historical Preservation Program Guidelines and the California Environmental Quality Act and Guidelines. Staff Analysis: As noted in the policy above,each of the project areas will need to be reviewed for consistency with the Community Design Guidelines. These guidelines contain specific standards for the development of hillside properties. A complete discussion of the Guidelines is on page 12 below. 13) Housing Element Policy 7.2.4. Within expansion areas, new residential development should be an integral part of an existing neighborhood or should establish a new neighborhood, with pedestrian and bicycle linkages that provide direct, convenient and safe access to adjacent neighborhoods, schools and shopping areas. Staff Analysis: Opportunities to connect the proposed developments to existing neighborhoods are limited due to surrounding developed lots, excessive slope, and the locations of existing streets. However, the proposed Sunny Acres Estates Map could be modified to provide connections to the adjacent neighborhood. This development could provide access from the existing neighborhood to the hillside open space, and pedestrian access to the south and north to existing neighborhoods. The Harmony Way project proposal is immediately adjacent to an existing residential development. 14) Housing Element Policy 11.2.2 Suitability. Prevent new housing development on sites that should be preserved as dedicated open space or parks, on sites subject to natural hazards such as unmitigatable geological or flood risks, or wildfire dangers, and on sites subject to unacceptable levels of man-made hazards or nuisances, including severe soil contamination, airport noise or hazards, traffic noise or hazards, odors or incompatible neighboring uses. Council Agenda Report—GP/I 1135-06,126-06,4-05,142-04 EAST SIDE ANNEXATIONS Page 12 Staff Analysis: With the exception of the Harmony Way project, these projects propose development on steep sights with known geologic hazards and in the wildland fire interface. Some of the proposed development envelopes are in locations that should be preserved as open space. Consistency with this policy could be improved with modifications to the proposed developments, as set forth in Alternative 1. Community Design Guidelines Chapters 7.1 and 7.2 of the Community Design Guidelines were written to implement many of the General Plan policies discussed above. The guidelines create specific development criteria for the creation of new lots and new development sites within proximity of creeks and slopes. The following sections are partial excerpts of the Guidelines followed by staff's response. 7.1 Creekside Development. Creek corridor habitats support plants and animals; recharge aquifers; and filter some pollutants. Creek corridors are a valuable open space resource and provide recreational and scenic opportunities. For these reasons, the City intends to provide adequate buffer areas between creek corridors and adjacent development to protect this valuable community resource as a natural, scenic and recreational amenity. Staff Analysis- Development of the Fairview Estates and Sydney Street areas propose significant grading and new access roads over an existing creek and drainage courses. The proposed amount of grading and landform modification will potentially impact these drainages with possible silt runoff,erosion, and damage to habitat. The proposed development plan is inconsistent with chapter 7.1. The Sydney Street proposal can be modified to reduce this inconsistency. 7.2 - Hillside Development. The Open Space and Land Use Elements of the General Plan both note the importance of preserving the natural character of the hillsides surrounding the community. The guidelines in this section are intended to assist in implementing General Plan hillside policies by minimizing the visibility and other impacts of allowable hillside development. The following design guidelines implement the General Plan policies. 1. Subdivision design.A proposed subdivision of two or more parcels shall be designed to comply with the following guidelines: a. Parcel and building site slope. No parcel shall be created: (1) With an overall average slope of 30 percent or more; and (2) Without at least one building site of at least 5,000 square feet that has no natural slope of 10 percent or more. Council Agenda Report—GP/' 1135-06,126-06,4-05,142-04 EAST SIDE ANNEXATIONS Page 13 5. Retaining walls. Large retaining walls in a uniform plane must be avoided. No visible portion of a retaining wall should be higher than six feet, and a maximum height of three feet is preferred. Staff Analysis: On the Fairview Estates proposal and the Sydney Street proposal include lots that exceed 25% and some lots that exceed 30%.. Building sites in the Sunny Acres proposal contain slopes of 20% or more. Site access in some areas will result in steep driveways, significant grading and extensive and highly visible retaining walls. On Harmony Way all of the proposed lots are on land sloped 15% or less. The Sydney Street proposal and the Sunny Acres proposal can be modified to improve consistency with the regulations. .Subdivision Regulations The Subdivision Regulations implement General Plan policy by prescribing lot standards for hillside areas and areas within the vicinity of a creek. These Municipal Code standards are described in sections 16.18.130 through 16.18.170. As proposed, the subdivision design conflicts with standards that are designed to protect hillsides and creek areas as discussed in the General Plan evaluation above. If the City Council were to recommend the applicants pursue the project, the EIR would need to prescribe mitigation measures that respond to potential environmental impacts as outlined in each of the environmental initial studies that are included with each Planning Commission staff report found in the Council reading file. Sphere of Influence Study The Fairview Estates, Sydney Street, and Sunny Acres properties being proposed for annexation were added to the City's Sphere of Influence by LAFCO and the City in 2006. An area designated as part of a city's Sphere of Influence means that the City and the County have agreed to work together to establish the basis for developing specific land use policies and standards for these areas. Government Code 56425 considers the Sphere of Influence as being a plan for the probable physical boundary and service area of a local agency with the City assuming the lead in planning for these areas consistent with its General Plan.While the properties within the Sphere of Influence are appropriate to consider for annexation,the City should still base future development of such parcels on conformity with the General Plan. San Luis Obispo Area Plan,San Luis Obispo County Department of Planning and Building The County General Plan contains policies similar to the City's General Plan which discourage development on sensitive resource areas, significant slopes, or areas that may have significant wildfire risk. Under the County jurisdiction, the annexation areas have a zoning designation of Rural Lands (RL) with a Sensitive Resource Area overlay (SRA) and a Geologic Study Area overlay(GS). New lots within the Rural Lands category have a minimum allowable size of 20 acres (based on slope and septic system percolation rates)and can range up to 320 acres. The area within the proposed Harmony Way annexation is zoned Rural Suburban (RS) with a minimum lot size of 1-13 Council Agenda Report—GP/T 1135-06,126-06,4-05,142-04 EAST SIDE ANNEXATIONS Page 14 10 acres. In all of these areas, the soils are shallow, underlain by extensive rock, and have a high landslide risk potential. In'addition to contacting County planning staff regarding development of these areas, City staff contacted the Regional Water Quality Control Board to determine the limitations of developing independent septic systems on these properties should they be developed outside of the City's jurisdiction. Due to significant slopes and challenging soil conditions, it would be extremely challenging to engineer septic systems for these properties should they not be annexed into the City. The County General Plan recommends that the density should be transferred out of these scenic and potentially hazardous hillsides into more moderately sloped, less sensitive areas. The following quote is from the San Luis Obispo Area Plan,page 4-21: "The Residential Suburban category designates portions of properties in the Goldtree tract east of Johnson Avenue. These parcels extend into the Rural Lands use category up to 800 feet above the City limits to the ridge line. Residential development on these seven lots would be extremely visible from the City, and should be relocated through a re- subdivision of all the parcels into the Residential Suburban area. Slopes are generally greater than 3091c, and the soil is rocky. Grading necessary for access, building sites and septic systems would be excessive. This hillside is shown as a scenic backdrop in the Agriculture and Open Space Element and is subject to the Sensitive Resource Area combining designation. This area should also be designated as afuture transfer of development credits sending area, in order to transfer potential development to other suitable areas with less potential for adverse environmental impacts." Staff Analysis: The County policy above refers directly to the proposed annexation properties owned by Filipponi and Twisselman (Fairview Estates) which is shown as annexation area 2 on the map on page 2. This policy does not speak directly to the other three annexation areas, however the Fairview Estates property contains a link that allows the annexations to proceed as proposed. This is because the Fairview Estates property provides for an emergencyaccess driveway that is vital for the King property and provides for a water line route to serve the Harmony Way annexation. Without the Fairview Estates development, the King property annexation would need to be re-designed and scaled back to eliminate the need for an emergency access route and a new route would have to be identified to extend a water main to the Harmony Way property. If the applicants desired, each of the annexation areas could be annexed and developed independently so long as they comply with City policies to provide gravity fed water pressure and provisions for typical City utilities and infrastructure. Council Discretion in Applying Applicable Policies The City Council needs to determine whether the proposed annexations should continue through the review process or be denied as recommended by the Planning Commission. While the proposed developments do not all comply with all of the City development policies and standards, they do offer substantial additions to the City's greenbelt which implements an important General Plan policy objective. Other objectives, such as housing supply and control of development on the City's fringe, can also be advanced. A Council Agenda Report—GPQ 1135-06,126-06,4-05,142-04 EAST SIDE ANNEXATIONS Page 15 The City's policies and standards allow the Council some discretion to weigh and prioritize objectives as they apply under specific circumstances. In this respect, the decision before the Council at this time is: "How should the individual objectives and standards (which individually might lead to different conclusions) be applied collectively to best achieve the community's highest priorities?" Where a particular annexation proposal is consistent with all or most of the applicable policies and standards, the task of weighing competing values is easier. Where achieving some policy objectives lessens the ability to achieve others objectives in the same area, the need to weigh values is greater.. To assist the Council, staff has provided information on how existing policies and standards apply to each of the proposed annexations and developments. Staff has also analyzed the effect of impacts a particular proposal would have on existing policy objectives if it were to be approved. Ultimately, weighing these considerations is a matter of Council judgment. Why the CAO Recommendation is Different from Planning Commission Staff's role is to try and achieve all of the stated General Plan policy objectives. This would include enhancing the greenbelt, adding to the City's housing stock, and restricting development on steeply sloped, highly visible hillsides. The CAO Recommendation, therefore, differs from the Planning Commission recommendation because the staff believes that there is a greater opportunity to advance City policies and goals by exercising proposal-by-proposal discretion, rather than by simply denying the proposals without further direction. If the annexation requests can be modified to be substantially consistent with City policy, the benefit of expanding the City's greenbelt and placing the eastern hillsides under City jurisdiction could be a positive outcome. The staff analysis concluded that three of the four proposals could be approved in such a way as to achieve the City's open space objectives with development inconsistencies that could be minimized if the individual projects are modified. It is not evident at this time, however, that the development proposed in the Fairview Estates area can be modified to substantially eliminate policy or standard inconsistencies. A Potentially Creative Option for Fairview Estates An alternative that preserves greenbelt open space and that is acceptable with respect to the General Plan and City development standards is preferable to an alternative that preserves open space at the cost of approving development that is not consistent with other policies and development standards. A superior alternative, therefore, will allow the City to preserve greenbelt open space while minimizing development on steep slopes and impacts on the scenic hillsides. To this end, staff suggests that the Council and applicants of the Fairview Estates consider a possible transfer of development potential from the Fairview Estates area to another area within the City's Sphere of Influence that would not be highly visible or located on steep slopes. One such area, also owned by one of the Fairview Estates property owners, is located behind the KSBY station on Calle Joaquin. With Council concurrence, staff hopes to explore this option further with the Fairview Estates applicants. Council Agenda Report—GP/F' `135-06,126-06,4-05,142-04 EAST SIDE ANNEXATIONS Page 16 CONCURRENCES The Utilities Department has reviewed the proposed annexations and has worked with the applicants to conceptually design a gravity fed water system, including a new water tank and water main that will be necessary to serve any new development above the 460-foot elevation. The Fire Department has reviewed the proposed subdivision maps and has conceptually approved the access driveways and proposed street system. Additionally, the Fire Department will require that any new construction in this area comply with the guidelines for development within the wildland fire zone (which includes clearing the vicinity of native brush and trees, and minimizing landscape to fire retardant specimens). The Natural Resources Manager supports the proposed open space dedications and has worked with the applicants to locate potential access trails for the open space. Additionally, the Natural Resources Manager has visited the proposed development sites to review potential biological resource areas, creeks and habitat areas. Although the development plan for portions of the annexation areas are inconsistent with General Plan Policy, mitigation measures could be incorporated to reduce the significance of environmental impacts. The Natural Resources Manager continues to have concerns about the potential of the "underlying lots" to allow for development in the County. This is a significant problem in California, and the fact that the project sponsors are willing to vacate the underlying lots, thus re-designating the potential development, is considered to be a benefit to the City and community. FISCAL IMPACT Amending the General Plan for this location would result in the potential for a small number of residential sites. Residential development helps to offset associated fiscal impacts through the payment of impact fees. However, there may be residual minor fiscal impacts in terms of providing additional City services such as police, fire and other services that will need to access these new neighborhoods. ALTERNATIVES At present, some applicants are working on amendments to the proposed annexation and development plans to reduce inconsistency with General Plan policies and development standards. However, alternatives that address the significant General Plan conflicts have not yet been submitted to the City. If Council accepts the CAO Recommendation, such alternatives will need to be further developed before becoming part of an EIR and subsequent hearing process. Several alternative actions are outlined below- Staff is recommending that Alternative 1 serve as a point of departure for the Council in crafting direction to the applicants and staff. 1. This alternative could reduce inconsistencies with General Plan policies and development standards and advance other important City goals. To pursue this alternative, the following changes should be made to the proposed annexations and development plans: A. Sydney Street. Annexation - Eliminate or reconfigure lots 2 through 5 on the King property to avoid conflicts with the southernmost creek and to avoid significant Council Agenda Report—GP/( ',135-06,126-06,4-05,142-04 �t EAST SIDE ANNEXATIONS Page 17 grading and landform alteration with the intent of bringing the proposed development plan into compliance with the General Plan and City development standards. Eliminate private driveway connection to Fairview Estates. B. Filipponi and Twisselman (Fairview Estates) - Eliminate these properties from the proposed annexation and development plan and consider the potential for transfer of development credits to allow residential density on a more suitable property within the City or within a potential annexation area. One such area is a property owned by the applicants across from the KSBY property on Calle Joaquin. C. Sunny Acres - Eliminate or reconfigure any of the lots that exceed the 530 elevation contour and provide for direct access to the proposed open space area on the hillside. Increase the proposed open space allocation to more closely comply with the City's 4 to 1 requirement. D. Harmony Way— Allow the annexation as proposed, however increase the open space allocation to more closely comply with the City's 4 to 1 requirement. 2. Allow the project to proceed, including the Filipponi and Twisselman annexation, through the EIR process with amendments as proposed by the project applicants. If the applicant proposed amendments differ from what is presented to the Council, the alternative project shall proceed back to the Planning Commission for review prior to returning to the City Council for review and approval of an RFP for the EIR. 3. Eliminate further consideration of the Fairview Estates and Harmony Way annexations/developments, (Harmony Way would be eliminated because it is not within the City's Sphere of influence and does not propose a method of providing gravity water pressure). Proceed with review of Sunny Acres and modified Sydney Street annexations. 4. Continue action, if additional information is needed. Direction should be given to staff and the applicant as to specific items that should return to Council. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Vicinity Map for each annexation request 2. Comparison of development limit lines between the proposed projects and other areas of the City. 3. Reduced scale plan for each annexation request 4. Planning Commission Resolutions for each annexation request 5. Planning Commission minutes for each annexation request 6. Draft City Council Resolution denying each annexation request A copy of each of the Planning Commission staff reports and each environmental initial study (one for each of the four annexation requests) is available in the Council reading file in addition to a full-size map of each annexation request. GACD-PLAN\Pdunsmorc\Rczoning&GPA's\EAST SIDE ANNEXATIONS\Ftnal Draft Council rpt(10-23-07).doc 1 -17 ^- . %� ` J v or .. C � � a .•� hient 1 Q O ti 1 8a;j'r{J< we + tom( Uj C lI !ll w \ •! , d fig. �aatf e( _1 $ MIN, BeppN dt Jill y gp! � \... 1 bp468 E! it �' E r ° Attac ment 1 R-1-s CIOs-40-SP -2 i PF PF-S `Oy R-1 ti sO,y PF OQ O-PD -1 p R- !O 1 9 R-1 -1 9GCG R y°a� -1 9 -1 MCHTY MAUIED FoHe No. 1 r N �1 X00 00nn QD Ds h Oo op9 2220 IF are S Attachment t C/O SP 1-S R-1 C/OS-a0 R-1 PF O PF-S R-1 0 PF O-PD 1 R-1 R-1 �9 ys �Cl p C/OS-40 oy 1 FC P O R- 0, 1 �a R- D VICINITY MAP File No. 4=05 N 1925n d e —20 ��1 iii fin., ��. ����� ISI 1� 1 I � t 1700 Harmony ATTACHMENT 2 Elevation Study of Developed areas within the City In order to evaluate the proposed annexation and development areas with other areas that have been developed within the City, staff has evaluated the highest locations in the City compared to the existing development limit line and the proposed annexation areas. At present the Development limit line is at 460 feet on the east side of the City, primarily due to water pressure, but also because this line generally divides the area of steep, highly visible slopes from lower less visible areas. At three locations around the City there are residential structures that are built above the 460 foot contour. These residences are located at the end of Buena Vista Drive above Highway 101 and Cuesta Park (531 feet in elevation); east of Johnson Avenue on Sunset Drive and Alrita Drive (524 feet in elevation); and at the end of Highland Drive at the base of Bishop's Peak (590 feet in elevation). Of these areas the highest developed residence presently in the City is at the end of Highland Drive. This residence is on a 1.5 acre lot at an elevation of 590 feet. As a visual comparison several other areas in the City were documented in relation to the 460-foot elevation. For example, the highest properties at Stoneridge Drive are at an elevation of 315 feet and the new homes in tract 1750 at the base of Islay Hill on Huckleberry Lane are at approximately 310 feet. The maps on the following pages illustrate the 460-foot elevation contour at various points around the City, including the proposed annexation area. Additionally, the 590 foot elevation contour is illustrated to compare the annexations with the height of the highest existing residential structure in the City. It is important to note that each area has different visual characteristics. While some neighborhoods near Bishop's Peak are close to the elevation of the proposed annexations, these areas are on a north facing slope with significant trees, vegetation and gradual contours that help screen the residences. On the east side of the City, the southeast facing slopes are somewhat barren and exposed to view from many locations around the City. Therefore, allowing development at a-similar height to the Bishop's Peak area may result in different visual changes. Furthermore, it should be noted that some of the proposed development sites on the Sydney Street and Fairview Estates annexations exceed the highest known residence in the City with an approximate elevation of 630 feet. �-ate ATTACHMENT 2 Proposed Annexation areas compared to Development limit line (460 feet)and Highest known residence in the City (590 feet). The map on the following page shows the Harmony Way area. ■ U N N'� l` " ■ `�; ,-�. Elevation ■■e■■ 590 Feet � i 4. 0.�t �ti,• 460 Feet wit 1 r7� i �L$+-`. ■u A�(• ^,� �e. l *�k. AIQVirLW i �a ` -�\ i f W..\ � '1 �/ w1/' "4 � f'■ ?. � - � "lie /'�,�\ � Ali , 'y� + .t\ ♦ r � i \> >� M' ��� �. c? ,�I _off, J �a s—:',a�k� •Cwt. % A �etp'b�t•�,offs.�� � �"4. \ h.V�e` � a : ■ �1■ rA ATTACHMENT 2 Proposed Annexation areas compared to Development limit line (460 feet) and Highest known residence in the City (590 feet). This map includes the Harmony Way area. ILI A, Elevation V moons 59O Feet -- -------- - 460 Feet 7' Z 74 X AN are 4� vote • ologo 3 rr WAY ATTACHMENT 2 This map identifies how the 460 foot elevation and 590 foot elevation compare to development east of Johnson Avenue. There are a number of residential structures that are already above the 460 foot elevation in this area. • • Elevation N ■ 590 Feet 460 Feet ® Structures above 460 Feet ,o • ° rffft � m Z r • •f ti �yj •�af►s.o 0 ap of moo 1 O •. f. ° 1Q. ti •`� I LID s ATTACHMENT 2 This map illustrates the neighborhood below Bishop's Peak and shows some structures that are above the 460-foot elevation contour. The subdivision map that allowed these lots to be created was recorded in the mid 1960's prior to current City policies. t MIRA So •e \ QPSp� i'�� vYi }° Elevation N anon' 590 Feet f � --� — 460 Feet �, •i ` \ ® Structures above 460 Feet 49 WESTMONT /® Mal • <O -� MARLENE i ♦�•• �'� � ��.r Ape a; i -- i i 4 •• Op� DALY ��—`D11LV PJ FEL MAR \�f W Z ♦ ,,� � 1 1 LL I 0; W ♦ HIGHLAND IZ` z ARREN e t • •W'' 'i� a,— v i ♦•♦ '^---'` v"" DONNA �— i • �\� ; CRAIG' _ l --' CRAIG_ • T I i•� tI--- 4-1 - �i ATTACHMENT 2 This map identifies how the 460 foot elevation and 590 foot elevation compare to development around Cerro San Luis. There are no structures above 460 in this area. L j[Lj�j� d- if i-W 7l W�--_.�( Elevation N =� °e°e, 590 Feet � S N tvSE� , r � 460 Feet Structures above 460 Feet Cr W �°° r°• i Off \ i♦1� 14W&. � o� Cerro San Luis ♦•• • a • s ■ r ee e ■• ef1� S ♦°a♦ 14 e 4 ATTACHMEXT 2 This map identifies how the 460 foot elevation and 590 foot elevation compare to development at Stoneridge. Ther_a are no residential structures that are above the 460 foot elevation in this area. - 3 , Lj=71 ` 1, MITCHELL. O r O [ 17 Elevation N L z ¢ z ■e■e 590 Feet 460 Feet LAWRENCE Structures above 460 Feet STONERIDGE % a 9Q 9 �r ORCUTT �o • e � 1001.6 lanwwop Ell JIN11 fdS/S0 Sl �,Ulu! S ' agep•� �.._ C 0 q Nb jp Ip b fi INDRat kile l lie � 8 t7 E g gg kg h O `"'"`u'-va"ry an-rvr-am agyw pig k-ra.w aw �VgQII € $Q so�� �elEQ �l a Yjss 31 4 iQ Mill —_— _____ a HiQAh IR 11 Ila %741 ti, pea 3s b Sny'sl1 �i i �\ H3�0 til.� s69 p�ae$$ / / "j S YHI � l ,y�` �+ ,,y oL\` \� �'� v^/moo L � �,•,f / s9131 s 6; 136 , obi is br 4remmvvlMV lM�+v+Iwael�nlml�U�11 Momma AA� Attac went.9 AW7d OIVICV&O 7V/Ud-70AA" R figo, 'ON dVN -LOV&L 3A/1 VIN-71 ONVS-7A gal 'X A Q) N -A V 'A v % V� % Vv Lev gg tlac bill Atetac ,ent 3 4 ON dVPV -LOVML -:MLZ VLN-71 ONLIS2A Z�' jlf F wd.Ainun wtuaolvoo lddtl ? I Fil ,zJILI - ----------- 0 IX 107 all x zi Q I; 3o,2 Attachment•S u $ 6 365N m o^ REM • � + � � lel mmo$ m ^ n3 as Fl AST a »zLL m w ZnU y ' .pHNSmNA Z Nw.. hoz o Pw UOn�AUCNSTA n. Q = !! �» s�< .0on ^mpp^2 0m0YON LL 4/ c CSI r^`4 , 41i f _ C� @ j n "V bi U mrc'6rca Wrc "Z}�bi m E c p&J 'E-4j •` a oo oon0 ~ u"fi Gold O =Uo. r�l y 04 8 Z � � WZ QO ~ �1 QZ ^ . pvZ r�OmT\� g �• n• <4� 4 b t Q F N •e QZrz -2 WUCr _L4 O O a tirc �► p �J — JWa J `W JW / jau J � n^ Q // / Al Z Wp 'A p to 4 / .%X4`4 / u1W.•.y°x aro[t�M tdm w Muwxwm®w-I��wvM�MmlYdc-ammlemvmw / 1. e . �I • l\ r / J !i ;t ,FA '���kl�'� Erb � ~ �t'�•r� sq I,M EJ x.. /Al' L wry WE rf `i allIl ii�•t`! y,gr �A 1`* -Xt ryy Win ME �IIr.W�� ■. ?alb ,; r*"� aI t� �JJ•� rl' ! eA AlhT SAM(^� � � �•�}��, � � �it �I II 1 .�j I „ SRI Mal ii @3n i ',,,ilk" .�°��; i• �'f f�. K.`.. � /,�.,��- R F '; �,, lull ,��,I� /(/I "�- ..rAf✓ -�il!'v"mL • �r....+�✓ ' � ..'n° i..i �S?t!l 1�S IIIII��„m�Ml v 4.NlN\Mt,llll.l {{l1{IJF Ji #frll'�R/l� I 7''u 1/♦)�m,i`ryl,VIIIII + {YsM1'IMl/~ `. b Ailac Z ent 4 � „ g o 3 QII '§c� \ E6 e 6B9© Y: Q moi' 8 ; Q i �1� 11. { fes z —1 I—�I m..¢ � Z e - .2 m�o m°a '� �_� [~ r' C Ki.,• p I —uJ 1_ J—leL6Sl � e '• � b ��'o's d de I -Ioo, Ik y� J soy, 9 ok _ I / I NI l OII _ M A � \ N 45 r (W� n b • no i� ��y� ; 1�V � � a �' sgt%oc q€eegr O s bU }iiii •t �.'� n j N LL. .Qy�cj Tryp r`lel a Sgtr, � VN 101�� it u �� - N : I✓ ^l�V�,� b� R Erb Co ze .1g I Co CO f i i I � I I I I I \I 1 •pw�.w+oo: aroa xi w to wvw-avowom+u-n.mw°sw.rmiswc-enm®somw /-.37 Attachment A AUN/?PvWo I 1Nf111,Vo, 9N tj LA 11 9 NVr 11 16, 1 111 JR J It IT, R7 - ----------- i ki 91 i 1 1 z aI p 5 1 !jig 114 R'11 9 12 tji LZ YA d I It 1� , AA 21211 H a 1! M-1 kill RN R11 I< bktIIgk Ig OdGA90 S*77 NVS ZWS A3MAS ftV1 ilaci-iment FZZ 67 10 V&1 3A/-/V-1 NM DNI-1 S3A ' N NV7d 30VNIV8(7 GNV DNIGV80 7Md3ONO,? jl�i 11 i III Ila Iwo 7/- - I /Z N Aj.! Emil 11 ---------------- --71 AI LAI ,,i.,tarc -in ena f'LLZ 10 b&l 3i1/1 dl N31 DN%1 S3ii �f Nv7d.unLLn 7dnLdMNOO 8! hip Ail II aipYiia lilt,fig^�6yy rote I BGS r 1 31 % a i e � l 1 .i•" i i I ' � �1e' 1 II � i a 1 aX G Al 1 j f �•eo-vr-rm � I i' � iii i .•�----i' � / I ' S � yo ermv� ti.u�wi.en,.eruwol•+�.•-.ii w/.rn� r spill Q � u = I � RRR 9 I pp I ! � L � &Yg h 111111 �g@ii c� k IIS �I tlR I eab��l �Ro$_c � 4 8k! i g in = kv$1 I i 64 AM I F� •` � !� .� � !3 ! � �it N I`!a CSR O ti' Y+�4 li � 6e�3e3 N I� �,'rTi e � ih hzqq ie J� < k i .vvaa anoivtcnns +�� �$ 1���� ... � � ' ul 1 �I :il r f IIs:7�►i �.Iitt eri �1 J //�E��iK X11 /dd l ��I �_��� •e</uiii./].2Sr.7/Ir//p..r.•111/I f� !t'� lIIIIIII,Ml11111 Tr Attachment $f- RESOLUTION NO. 5479-07 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING ' COMMISSION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, PREZONING, AND ANNEXATION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1600 BISHOP AND 2220 FLORA TR/ER/GP/R/ANNX 135-06 (Tract 2813) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on April 25, 2007, for the purpose of considering application TR/ER/GP/R/ANNX 135-06, a request to, annex a portion of the property into the City, amend the General Plan Land Use Map, Prezone portions of the site R-1 and C/OS, and allow a 29-lot residential subdivision; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, reviewed and considered the Environmental Initial Study prepared for the project that concludes that an EIR would be required; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: Section 1. Recommendation Based upon all the evidence, the Commission makes the following findings to recommend denial of the project: 1. The proposed development pattern is not consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element Community Goals since it proposes development within areas designated as open space, at the urban edge of the community without an adequate transition to areas outside of the Urban Reserve Line. 2. The proposed adjustment of the development limit line is not consistent with General Plan Land Use Element Policy 6.2.1 since the project proposes to extend the urban development line into a sensitive resource area that contains significant wildland fire risk, significant geological constraints, and is within a significant visual resource area. 3. The proposed development plan is not consistent with Land Use Element policy 6.2.2 and Conservation and Open Space policy 9.21.1 B.1 since it would introduce significant grading on hillside parcels that exceed 20% in slope. 4. The proposed development plan is not consistent with the City's Community Design Guidelines since it proposes new parcels on sites that exceed 20% slope and the proposed building envelopes also exceed 20% in slope. 5. The proposed map is inconsistent with the City's Subdivision Regulations since the lots are �-y3 Attachment GP/R/ER/TR/ANNX 4-05 Sydney Street Annexation Draft Project Planning Commission Resolution 5479-07 Tract 2827 Page 2 inconsistent with the design criteria specified in the Subdivision Regulations chapters 16.18.130 through 16.18.170. 6. The proposed development plan is not consistent with General Plan Housing Element Policy H 7.2.4-New Development's Relationship to Neighborhoods, since it is not integrated with the adjacent neighborhood. 7. Road improvements necessary to support the scale and design of development will introduce potentially significant environmental impacts to the site in terms of aesthetics and biological resources unless mitigation measures can be adequately incorporated into the project design. 8. The draft initial study prepared by staff indicates that the project may create significant unavoidable environmental impacts that would require the preparation of an EIR, and ultimately would require the City to adopt overriding considerations for the project's impacts. On motion by Ashbaugh, seconded by Carpenter and on the following roll call vote to wit: AYES: Commissioners Ashbaugh, Brodie, Carpenter, Christianson, Gould-Wells, NOES: Commissioner Miller REFRAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Stevenson The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 25th day of April, 2007. Doug Davi on, Secretary Planning Commission i-7 7 Attachment RESOLUTION NO. 5476-07 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT; PREZONING, AND ANNEXATION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1925 SYDNEY STREET TR/ER/GP/R/ANNX 4-05 (Tract 2821) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on April 25, 2007, for the purpose of considering application TR/ER/GP/R/ANNX 4-05, a request to, annex a 70 acre property into the City, amend the General Plan Land Use Map, Prezone portions of the site R-1 and C/OS, and allow 12-lot residential subdivision;and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the Environmental Initial Study prepared for the project that concludes that an EIR would be required; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: Section 1. Recommendation Based upon all the evidence, the Commission makes the following findings to recommend denial of the project: 1. The proposed development pattern is not consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element Community Goals since it proposes development within areas designated as open space, at the urban edge of the community without an adequate transition to areas outside of the Urban Reserve Line. 2. The proposed adjustment of the development limit line is not consistent with General Plan Land Use Element Policy 6.2.1 since the project proposes to extend the urban development line into a sensitive resource area that contains significant wildland fire risk, significant geological constraints, and is within a significant visual resource area. 3. The proposed development plan is not consistent with Land Use Element policy 6.2.2 and Conservation and Open Space policy 9.21.1 B.1 since it would introduce significant grading and retaining walls on hillside parcels that exceed 20% in slope. 4. The proposed development plan is not consistent with the City's Community Design Guidelines since it proposes new parcels on sites that exceed 20% slope and the proposed building envelopes also exceed 20% in slope. 5. The proposed map is inconsistent with the City's Subdivision Regulations since the lots are inconsistent with the design criteria specified in the Subdivision Regulations chapters 16.18.130 through 16.18.170. Attachment# GP/R/ER/TR/ANNX 4-05 Sydney Street Annexation Draft ProJect Planning Commission Resolution 5476-07 Tract 2827 Page 2 6. The proposed development plan and subdivision map is not consistent with General Plan Circulation Element Policies since the street pattern and lack of neighborhood connection increase automobile dependence and discourage pedestrian and bicycle travel. 7. The proposed development plan is not consistent with General Plan Housing Element Policy H 7.2.4-New Development's Relationship to Neighborhoods, since it is not integrated with the adjacent neighborhood. 8. Road improvements necessary to support the scale and design of development will introduce potentially significant environmental impacts to the site in terms of aesthetics and biological resources unless mitigation measures can be adequately incorporated into the project design. 9. The construction of a new water tank, where proposed, to serve the project with adequate water pressure will create significant site and visual impacts due to significant landform alteration and grading to support an access road and pad for the new tank. 10. The draft initial study prepared by staff indicates that the project may create significant unavoidable environmental impacts that would require the preparation of an EIR, and ultimately would require the City to adopt overriding considerations for the project's impacts. On motion by Commissioner Brodie, seconded by Commissioner Ashbaugh and on the following roll call vote to wit: AYES: Commissioners Ashbaugh, Brodie, Carpenter, Christianson, Gould-Wells, NOES: Commissioner Miller REFRAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Stevenson The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 25th day of April, 2007. Doug.Davi on, Secretary Planning Commission Attachment RESOLUTION NO. 5477-07 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, PREZONING, AND ANNEXATION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 0 FAIRVIEW TR/ER/GP/R/ANNX 126-06 (Tract 2773) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on April 25, 2007, for the purpose of considering application TR/ER/GP/R/ANNX 126-06, a request to, annex a 88.96 acre property into the City, amend the General Plan Land Use Map, Prezone portions of the site R-1 and C/OS, and allow 6-lot residential subdivision; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the Environmental Initial Study prepared for the project that concludes that an EIR would be required; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: Section 1. Recommendation Based upon all the evidence, the Commission makes the following findings and recommends that Council deny approval of the project: 1. The proposed development pattern is not consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element Community Goals since it proposes development within areas designated as open space, at the urban edge of the community without an adequate transition to areas outside of the Urban Reserve Line. 2. The proposed adjustment of the development limit line is not consistent with General Plan Land Use Element Policy 6.2.1 since the project proposes to extend the urban development line into a sensitive resource area that contains significant wildland fire risk, significant geological constraints, and is within a significant visual resource area. 3. The proposed development plan is not consistent with Land Use Element policy 6.2.2 and Conservation and Open Space policy 9.21.1 B:1 since it will introduce significant grading and retaining walls on hillside parcels that exceed 20% in slope. 4. The proposed development plan is not consistent with the City's Community Design Guidelines since it proposes new parcels on sites that exceed 20% slope and the proposed building envelopes also exceed 20% in slope. 5. The proposed map is inconsistent with the City's Subdivision Regulations since the lots do not meet the minimum dimensions or area as specified within the regulations, Chapter /-y7 t, _ Attachment GP/%ER/TR/ANNX 126-06 Fairview Estates Draft Project Planning Commission Resolution 4-25-07 Tract 2773 Page 2 16.18.130. Furthermore, the lots are inconsistent with the design criteria specified in the Subdivision Regulations chapters 16.18.130 through 16.18.170. 6. The proposed development plan and subdivision map is not consistent with General Plan Circulation Element Policies since the street pattern and lack of neighborhood connection increase automobile dependence and discourage pedestrian and bicycle-travel. 7. The proposed development plan is not consistent with General Plan Housing Element Policy H 7.2.4-New Development's Relationship to Neighborhoods, since it is not integrated with the adjacent neighborhood. 8. Road improvements necessary to support the scale and design of development will introduce potentially significant environmental impacts to the site in terms of aesthetics and biological resources unless mitigation measures can be adequately incorporated into the project design. . 9. The draft initial study prepared by staff indicates that the project may create significant unavoidable environmental impacts that would require the preparation of an EIR, and ultimately would require the City to adopt overriding considerations for the project's impacts. On motion by Commissioner Carpenter, seconded by Commissioner Gould-Wells and on the following roll call vote to wit: AYES: Commissioners Ashbaugh, Brodie, Carpenter, Christianson, Gould-Wells, Miller NOES: None REFRAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Stevenson The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 25th day of April, 2007. Doug Dav' son, Secretary Planning Commission Attachment �f RESOLUTION NO. 5478-07 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, PREZONING,AND ANNEXATION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1700 HARMONY WAY TR/ER/GP/R/ANNX 142-04 (Tract 2666) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on April 25, 2007, for the purpose of considering application TR/ER/GP/R/ANNX 142-04, a request to, annex a 1.1.54 acre property into the City, amend the General Plan Land Use Map, Prezone portions of the site R-1 and C/OS, and allow 12-lot residential subdivision; anti WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the Environmental Initial Study prepared for the project that concludes that an EIR would be required; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered.all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: Section 1. Recommendation Based upon all the evidence, the Commission makes the following findings to recommend denial of the project: 1. The proposed development pattern is not consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element Community Goals since it proposes development within areas designated as open space, at the urban edge of the community without an adequate transition to areas outside of the Urban Reserve Line. 2. The proposed adjustment of the development limit line is not consistent with General Plan Land Use Element Policy 6.2.1 since the project proposes to extend the urban development line into a sensitive resource area that contains significant wildland fire risk, significant geological constraints, and is within a significant visual resource area. 3. Road improvements necessary to support the scale and design of development will introduce potentially significant environmental impacts to the site in terms of aesthetics and drainage unless mitigation measures can be adequately incorporated into the project design. 4. The draft initial study prepared by staff indicates that the project may create significant unavoidable environmental impacts that would require the preparation of an EIR, and ultimately would require the City to adopt overriding considerations for the project's impacts. Attachment' GP/R/ER/TR/ANNX 142-04 Harmony Way Annexation Planning Commission Resolution 5478-07 Tract 2666 Page 2 On motion by Commissioner Brodie, seconded by Commissioner Carpenter and on the following roll call vote to wit: AYES: Commissioners Ashbaugh,Brodie, Carpenter, Christianson, Gould-Wells, NOES: Commissioner Miller REFRAIN: ABSENT: Commissioner Stevenson The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 25th day of April, 2007. Doug Da dson, Secretary Planning Commission Planning Commission Mint.', Attachment �- April 25, 2007 Page 6 Commr. Brodie questioned how this project could continue without the 1854 Sydney Street Annexation (including the tank) going forward in that they wo have to provide their own gravity fed water system. She asked the City Fire ?r all to define the requirements for access which would be a 20 foot wide road, d noted she could not upport the.project because of consistency issues. Commr. er felt this project could stand on its own nd therefore could support the project. Commr. Christianson co not support the oject because of the change of the development line and the nee or the water t k proposed on project #2. On motion b Commr_ Brodie to reco nd to the Cit Council denial of the roiect. - 7rsri Seconded_by Comr.AYES: Commsh augh, Christia on, Gould-Wells, Carpenter NOES: CommRECUSED: NoneABSENT: CommnThe motion carried .On a second motior. Miller for the Plannin .Commission to re mmend to the City Council reconsider 1700 Harmony as part of the S here of uence. Seconded by Corfimr. Ashbaugh. A/T- mmrs. Ashbaugh, Christianson, Miller, Gould-Wells Nmmrs. Brodie, Carpenter Rne Ammr. Stevenson Ted on a 4:2 vote. 4. 1600 Bishop and 2220 Flora Streets. ANNX, GP/R, TR and ER 135-06; Request. to annex approx. 23.61 acres; amend the General Plan Land Use Map and Zoning Map from Conservation/Open Space (C/OS-40) to Low-Density Residential (R-1) and relocate the Urban. Reserve Line; tentative tract map creating 26 residential lots; and environmental review; R-1- and C/OS-40 zones; County of San Luis Obispo, applicant. (Phil Dunsmore) Associate Planner Phil Dunsmore presented the staff report, recommending that the project be continued to a date uncertain with specific direction to staff and the applicant, noting that water service and neighborhood compatibility are the major constraints for this project. Carol Florence, applicant's representative,. described of the work involved to meet the City requirements. Planning Commission Mini.:.. Attachment > ' April 25, 2007 Page 7 PUBLIC COMMENTS: Joanne Weatley, 2263 Flora Street, felt these projects would have financial impacts to the City, and expressed concern with the loss of open space. David Young, 2084 Skylark Lane, agreed with previous speakers, spoke in favor of retaining the open space. Deborah Cleere, 1804 Viewmont Drive, noted that she could not find any positive aspects for the residents of San Luis Obispo for these projects to go forward.. Patrick Mullen, 2234 Flora Street, voiced concerns with possible fire hazards, flooding, and other issues described in the staff report. Steve Zawalick, 2384 Florence Drive, voiced concerns brought up previously. Chris, 2840 EI Cerrito, had concerns focusing on the geology of the site. Karen Allen, 29.40 Parkland Terrace, voiced concerns not only with the annexation, but with housing and when and where it is feasible. Courtney Cable, San Luis Obispo, felt the project should not go forward and environmental review should not be completed. Jim Andry, San Luis Obispo, voiced concerns that the density does not meet the neighborhood. There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION_COMMENTS:. On motion by Commr:. Ashbaugh to continue the meeting beyond the 11 p.m. Seconded by Commr._Miller. AYES: Commrs. Brodie, Christianson, Carpenter, Gould-Wells,. Miller, Ashbaugh NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Commr.Stevenson The motion carried on a 6:0 vote. On..motion by Commr. Ashbaugh_ _to continue this item with a reconfiguration to a date uncertain with specific direction to staff and the applicant. Seconded by Commr. Miller. AYES: Commrs. Gould-Wells, Miller, Ashbaugh NOES: Commrs. Brodie, Christianson, Carpenter RECUSED: None ABSENT: Commr. Stevenson �-sz. Planning Commission Min, . . —, Attachment April 25, 2007 Page 8 The motion failed on a 3:3 vote. On a second motion by Commr. Miller to continue to a date uncertain with development kept to slope of 20% or less and kept in the 460 contour line. Seconded by Commr.. Ashbaugh. . _ AYES: Commrs. Ashbaugh, Miller, Gould-Wells NOES: Commrs. Brodie, Christianson, Carpenter RECUSED: None ABSENT: Commr. Stevenson The motion failed on a vote of 3:3. On a third motion by Commr. Ashbaugh to recommend to the City Council denial of the project. Seconded by Commr. Carpenter. AYES: Commrs. Brodie, Carpenter, Ashbaugh, Christianson, Gould-Wells NOES: Commr. Miller RECUSED: None ABSENT: Commr. Stevenson The motion carried on a 5:1 vote. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION: 5. Staff . Agenda Forecast Deputy Dire or gave a brief agenda forecast of upcoming jects. 6. Commission ADJOURMENT: With no further business before th mmission, the meeting adjourned at 12:40 a.m. to the regular meeting of the Pla mg mmission scheduled for Wednesday, May 9, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. in the Coun ' Chamber o ity Hall, 990 Palm Street. Respectfully submi by Approved by the ning Commission on May 23, 2007. Jill Francis Recording ecretary Diane R. Stuart, Management Assistant Planning Commission Minut`� Attachment April 25, 2007 Page 3 Buzz Kalkowski, SLO, felt the steepness of the hillside not appropriate for development, and had concerns with traffic. 2 m Wineshank, Santa Clara Street, agreed with li ited development, affordable ho ing, downtown development, and retaining the o n space. Vance er, SLO, voiced concerns with floodin . Richard Minkle, 810 Sydney, SLO, also ex essed concerns with flooding. There were no furthe omments made om the public. COMMISSION COMMENT Commr. Ashbaugh asked staff define the R-1 designation and asked about other zoning options. Commr. Miller discussed a current wat tank size and water line and supported the need for environmental view noting how it 'll make the project easier to review. She did not support staffs ecommendation becaus she felt alternatives should have been looked at with directi In by staff. Commr. Brodie dressed public concerns and the pr lems with going forward with two of the proje s and not all four. On motion b Commr. Brodie to recommend denial of the curve ro osal. Seconded bv Commr. Ashbaugh. AYES: Commrs. Brodie, Ashbaugh, Christianson, Gould-Wells, Car nter NOES: Commr. Miller REC ED: .None ABS NT: Commr. Stevenson T e motion carried on a 5:1 vote. 2. 1854 Sydney Street. ANNX, GP/R, TR and ER 126-06; Request to annex approx. 88.96 acres; amend the General Plan Land Use Map and Zoning Map to Low- Density Residential (R-1) and Conservation/Open Space (C/OS) and relocate the Urban Reserve Line; tentative tract map creating 6 residential lots and one open space lot and environmental review; H & D, R & K, D & N Filipponi, applicant. (Phil Dunsmore) Associate Planner Phil Dunsmore presented the staff report, recommending the Commission recommend denial of the annexation and General Plan map amendment to the City Council. Dan Gilmore, City Utilities Engineer was available to answer questions regarding the water line. Planning Commission Minut l � April 25, 2007 Attachment Page 4 Neil Havlik, Natural Resources Manager,, discussed the proposed open space, and the opportunity to eliminate antiquated subdivision and replace it with a modernized tract map, and natural wildlife resource preservation. . Carol Florence, applicant's representative, reviewed Agenda items_ 2, 3 and 4, and requested environmental review so that the project could be properly understood and reviewed. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Garry Holdgrafer, 1840 Alrita Street, noted that he and six neighbors had previously sent the Commission written testimony explaining his concerns with this project, specifically access to the project through his (and the neighbors') property. Cameron Tapp, 1841 Alrita Street, voiced concern with mudslides and wildlife impacts. Steven Zawalick, 2384 Florence Drive, noted concerns with slopes, floods, retaining walls, and loss of open space. John Edmisten; 3055 Bahia Court, spoke against the project, noting that as a civil engineer, he could understand the many problems that could arise with these projects. Janie Howland, 1690 EI Cerrito Court, had various concerns voiced previously. There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Ashbaugh discussed the height of the retaining wall and requested that staff identify and discuss any benefits of the annexation. Commr. Brodie had questions regarding the driveway, lot 6 not being shown, and water tank visibility. Public access to the open space was discussed with staff. Commr. Miller asked when environmental review would be completed, who would pay for it, and if it would this help the Commission to review the feasibility of this project. Deputy Director Davidson clarified that the purpose of an ElR is not to define the project. It is appropriate when there are significant conflicts with City policies to conduct the policy review first, and then based on its outcome, define the project. This more refined and consistent project is used as the basis for the EIR. Commr: Carpenter discussed the viewshed and other public concerns.. On motion by Commr. Carpenter to recommend to the City Council denial of the Pro'iect. Seconded by Commr. Gould-Wells. �-ss ; Attachment , Planning Commission Minui: r April 25, 2007 Page 5 (� AYES: Commrs. Brodie, Ashbaugh, Christianson, Miller, Gould-Wells, Carpenter NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Commr. Stevenson The motion carried on a 6:0 vote. 3. 11700�blarmony Way. ANNX, GP/R, TR and ER 142-04; Request to annex approx. 11.64 crest amend the General Plan Land Use Map to Low-Density esidential and Co ervation/Open Space and prezone the property to R-1 a d C/OS and extend Ur an Reserve Line; tentative tract map creating 12 resi ntial lots; and environmen I review; Roger Brown, applicant..(Phil Dunsmore) Associate Planner it Dunsmore presented the staff report rec mending the item be continued to a date u ertain, with specific direction to staff a the applicant. Carol Florence, applican representative, was available answer questions. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Charles Felix, 3380 Sequoia D 've, brought wri n material for the Commission, and discussed how the City Council pr viously deni d development in this location. Chuck Putnam, San Luis Obispo, di not upport the. project, and did not want any changes in the area Guy Hackman, 1740 Southwood Driv , felt a project should be denied. Norman Dean, 1699 Southwoo Drive, prese ed photographs to Commission, and agreed with previous speakers the importance denial of the project.. Barry Cleveland, did not pport the project and no d that will put his concerns in writing. Sean Laughney, 33 Southwood Drive, had financial co erns with the proposed developments in th his property value will go down with the ss of the open space surrounding them Deannie Curt' , 1630 EI Cerrito Court, spoke against the project, ut in support of preserving o en space. There w e no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Ashbaugh discussed the property that would be annexed as future City property, and felt that the City Council should take another look at this area for inclu ` n in the sphere of influence. i Attachrrlent $ SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 25, 2007 CALL TO ORDERIPLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: -- Present: Commissioners Dan Carpenter, Amanda Brodie, Diana Gould-Wells, Andrea Miller, John Ashbaugh, and Chairperson Carlyn Christianson Absent: Vice-Chairperson Charles Stevenson Staff: Deputy Director Doug Davidson, Associate Planner Phil Dunsmore, Natural Resources Manager Neil Havlik, and Recording Secretary Jill Francis ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: Commissioners or staff may modify the order of items. The agenda was accepted as written. MINUTES: Minutes of April 11, 2007 and April 18, 2007. Approve or amend. The minutes of April 11, 2007 were approved as submitted. The minutes of April 18, 2007 were approved as submitted. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. 1925 Sydney Street. ANNX, GP/R, TR and ER 4-05; Request to annex approx. 70 acres (13 acres for 9 homes and 57 acres of open space), amend the General Plan Land Use Map and Zoning Map to R-1 (Low-Density Residential) and C/OS (Conservation/Open Space), and relocate the Urban Reserve Line; tentative tract map creating 12 residential lots and 1 open space lot; and environmental review; King Ventures, applicant. (Phil Dunsmore) Deputy Director Doug Davidson provided an introduction on the role of the Planning Commission for this hearing, explaining that the Commission is wearing its quasi-judicial "hat" in determining if the proposed annexations meet the City's policies. Associate Planner Phil Dunsmore presented the staff report, recommending the Commission recommend denial of the current proposal to the City Council, and consideration of staff recommended project alternatives including the option to continue the item to a date uncertain with specific direction to staff and the applicant. Deputy Director Doug Davidson explained the "Sphere of Influence", a plan for the probably physical boundary and service area of a city. It is a long-range, 20-year planning tool. The Urban Reserve Line was described as "The boundary between areas that the City has decided my be appropriate for urban development and land to remain in open-space and rural uses. Agricultural and open space uses my also be maintained within the urban reserve line." Planning Commission Minutes. Attachment ,g April 25, 2007 Page 2 Rachel Covesdi, King Ventures, expressed surprise that staff was recommending denial of the project since the applicant has complied with all requests. She briefly discussed the suitability and resource protection, water tank addition, public concerns such as who was paying for the tank and road improvements, and City guidelines. She requested the environmental review go forward to address staffs concerns. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Pat McKeague, 1695 EI Cerrito Court, voiced concerns with the unstable soil above his property, flooding, fires, and loss of views. Randal Allen, 2490 Parkland Terrace, noted concern with urban sprawl, increased traffic, safety, fire and flood hazards, and wildlife impacts. Jesse Norris, 2047 Wilding Lane, felt all the projects should be denied because of concerns with fire, water costs, and loss of open space. Arlene Winn, 3346 Barranca Court, made comparisons with problems that occurred in Malibu. Carol Rich, 2832 EI Cerrito, expressed concerns generally with long-range impacts could occur with these projects, and specifically connected with the retaining walls proposed. John Belsher, 2606 EI Cerrito and 412 Marsh Street, brought visual materials for the public and Commission to view which shows the impacts of the projects. Tony de Jong, 1854 Sydney Street, voiced general concerns with the proposed annexation. David Kuykendall, 1218 Pismo Street, noted traffic and safety concerns. Norman Jacobson, 1683 Knoll Drive, agreed with concerns described by the previous speakers. Randy Hickok, 1820 Sydney Street, described concerns with flooding, City maintenance and liability. Marion Wolff, 3128 Spring Court, agreed with previous speakers, and noted her main concern is with the loss of Open Space. John Ewan, Sylvia Court, discussed the definition of sphere of influence, including trails. Robert Mueller, San Luis Obispo, discussed the sphere of influence. Steven Sororick, SLO, spoke against the proposed projects. Planning Commission Minute AttaCllfrleC11 April 25, 2007 Page 3 Buzz Kalkowski, SLO, felt the steepness of the hillside is not appropriate for development, and had concerns with traffic. .Tom Wineshank, Santa Clara Street, agreed with limited development, affordable housing, downtown development, and retaining the open space. Vance.Weber, SLO, voiced concerns with flooding. Richard Minkle, 1810 Sydney, SLO, also expressed concerns with flooding. There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Ashbaugh asked staff to define the R-1 designation and asked about other zoning options. Commr: Miller discussed the current water tank size and water line and supported the need for environmental review noting how it will make the project easier to review. She did not support staffs recommendation because she felt alternatives should have been looked at with direction by staff. Commr. Brodie addressed public concerns and the problems with going forward with two of the projects and not all four. On motion by Commr. Brodie to recommend denial of the current proposal Seconded by Commr. Ashbaugh. AYES: Commrs: Brodie, Ashbaugh, Christianson, Gould-Wells, Carpenter NOES: Commr. Miller RECUSED: None ABSENT: Commr. Stevenson The motion carried on a 5:1 vote. 2. 1854_ Sydney Street ANNX, GP/R, TR and ER 126-06; Requ o annex approx. 88. acres' amend the General Plan Land Use Ma Zoning Map to Low- Density sidential (R-1) and Conservation/Ope ace (C/OS) and relocate the Urban Rese Line; tentative tract map cr ng 6 residential lots and one open space lot; and en ' nmental review; H R & K, D & N Filipponi, applicant. (Phil Dunsmore) Associate Planner Phil Du ore ented the staff report, recommending the Commission recommen nial of the anne n and General Plan map amendment to the City Council. Dan Gilm , City Utilities Engineer was available to answe estions regarding the water line. Attachment +� . Planning Commission Minu, April 25, 2007 Page 5 AYES: Commrs. Brodie, Ashbau ris ' IIs, Carpenter NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT- ommr. Stevenson y The motion carried on a 6:0 vote. 3. 1700 Harmony Way. ANNX, GP/R, TR and ER 142-04; Request to annex approx.. 11.54 acres; amend the General Plan Land Use Map to Low-Density Residential and Conservation/Open Space and prezone the property to R-1 and C/OS and extend Urban Reserve Line; tentative tract map creating 12 residential lots; and environmental review; Roger Brown, applicant. (Phil Dunsmore) Associate Planner Phil Dunsmore presented the staff report recommending the item be continued to a date uncertain, with specific direction to staff and the applicant. Carol Florence, applicant's representative, was available to answer questions. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Charles Felix, 3380 Sequoia Drive, brought written material for the Commission, and discussed how the City Council previously denied development in this location. Chuck Putnam, San Luis Obispo, did not support the project, and did not want any changes in the area Guy Hackman, 1740 Southwood Drive, felt the project should be denied. Norman Dean, 1699 Southwood Drive, presented photographs to Commission, and agreed with previous speakers on the importance of denial of the project. Barry Cleveland, did not support the project, and noted that will put his concerns in writing. Sean Laughney, 3391 Southwood Drive, had financial concerns with the proposed developments in that his property value will go down with the loss of the open space surrounding them. Deannie Curtis, 1630 EI Cerrito Court, spoke against the project, but in support of preserving open space. There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Ashbaugh discussed the property that would be annexed as future City property, and felt that the City Council should take another look at this area for inclusion in the sphere of influence. /—le 6 Planning Commission Minu.', Attachment April 25, 2007 Page 6 Commr. Brodie questioned how this project could continue without the 1854 Sydney Street Annexation (including the tank) going forward in that they would have to provide.' their own gravity fed water system. She asked the City Fire Marshall to define the requirements for access which would be a 20 foot wide road, and noted she could not support the,project because of consistency issues. Commr. Miller felt this project could stand on its own and therefore could support the project. Commr. Christianson could not support the project because of the change of the development line and the need for the water tank proposed on project #2. On motion by Commr. Brodie to recommend to the City Council denial of the Droiect Seconded by Commr..Carpenter.. AYES: Commrs. Brodie, Ashbaugh, Christianson, Gould-Wells, Carpenter NOES: Commr. Miller RECUSED: None ABSENT: Commr. Stevenson The motion carried on a 5:1 vote. On a second motion by Commr. Miller for the Planning Commission to recommend to the City Council to reconsider 1700 Harmony as part of the Sphere of Influence Seconded by Commr. Ashbaugh. AYES: Commrs. Ashbaugh, Christianson, Miller, Gould-Wells NOES: Commrs. Brodie, Carpenter RECUSED: None ABSENT: Commr. Stevenson The motion carried on a 4:2 vote. 4. 1600 Bishop and 2220 Flora.Streets. ANNX, GP/R, TR and ER 1 ; Request o annex approx. 23.61 acres; amend the General Plan Lan a Map and Zoning from Conservation/Open Space (C/OS-40) to Lo ensity Residential (R-1) and r to the Urban Reserve Line; tentative ct map creating 26 residential lots; and e ' onmental review; R-1 and S-40 zones; County of San Luis Obispo, applican . it Dunsmore) Associate Planner Phil Dunsm ented the staff report, recommending that the project be continued to a d uncertain wl ecific direction to staff and the applicant, noting that water se ry and neighborhood com ility are the major constraints for this project. Carol FI nce, applicant's representative, described of the work in ed to meet the City r quirements. Attachment RESOLUTION NO. (2007 SERIES) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP,GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, PREZONING,AND ANNEXATION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1600 BISHOP AND 2220 FLORA TR/ER/GP/R/ANNX 135-06 (Tract 2813) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on April 25, 2005, for the purpose of considering application TR/ER/GP/R/ANNX 135-06, a request to, annex a portion of the property into the City, amend the General Plan Land Use Map, Prezone portions of the site R-1 and C/OS, and allow a 29-lot residential subdivision; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on October 23, 2007, for the purpose of considering application TR/ER/GP/R/ANNX 135-06; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed and considered the Environmental Initial Study prepared for the project that concludes that an EIR would be required; and WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff,presented at said hearing. BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. 1. The proposed development pattern is not consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element Community Goals since it proposes development within areas designated as open space, at the urban edge of the community without an adequate transition to areas outside of the Urban Reserve Line. 2. The proposed adjustment of the development limit line is not consistent with General Plan Land Use Element Policy 6.2.1 since the project proposes to extend the urban development line into a sensitive resource area that contains significant wildland fire risk, significant geological constraints, and is within a significant visual resource area. 3. The proposed development plan is not consistent with Land Use Element policy 6.2.2 and Conservation and Open Space policy 9.21.1 B.1 since the it would introduce significant grading on hillside parcels that exceed 20% in slope. 4. The proposed development plan is not consistent with the City's Community Design Guidelines since it proposes new parcels on sites that exceed 20% slope and the proposed building envelopes also exceed 20% in slope. /—lei Attachment GP/R/ERnWANNX 4-05 Sydney Street Annexation City Council Resolution 10-23-07 Tract 2827 Page.2 5. The proposed map is inconsistent with the City's Subdivision Regulations since the lots are inconsistent with the design criteria specified in the Subdivision Regulations chapters 16.18.130 through 16.18.170. 6. The proposed development plan is not consistent with General Plan Housing Element Policy H 7.2.4-New Development's Relationship to Neighborhoods, since it is not integrated with the adjacent neighborhood. 7. Road improvements necessary to support the scale and design of development will introduce potentially significant environmental impacts to the site in terns of aesthetics and biological resources unless mitigation measures can be adequately incorporated into the project design. 8. The draft initial study prepared by staff indicates that the project may create significant unavoidable environmental impacts that would require the preparation of an EIR, and ultimately would require the City to adopt overriding considerations for the project's impacts. SECTION 2. Action. The Council hereby denies application 135-06, a request to annex a request to annex a portion of the property into the City, amend the General Plan Land Use Map, Prezone portions of the site R-1 and C/OS, and allow a 29-lot residential subdivision. On motion of seconded by , and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of , 2007. Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: Audrey Hooper, City Clerk GP/R/ER/TR/ANNX 4-05 Sydney Street Annexation City Council Resolution 10-23-07 Attachment''6 . Tract 2827 Page 3 APPROVE AS TO FORM: CAathan Lowell, City Attorney G:\CD-PLAN\Pdunsmore\Rezoning&GPA's\135-06(Sunny Acres Annex)\Council Reso 135-06 10-23-07.doc —ze -' Attachment to.l. RESOLUTION NO. (2007 SERIES) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP,GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT,PREZONING,AND ANNEXATION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1925 SYDNEY STREET TR/ER/GP/R/ANNX 4-05 (Tract 2827) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on April 25, 2005, for the purpose of considering application TR/ER/GP/R/ANNX 4-05, a request to, annex a 70 acre property into the City, amend the General Plan Land Use Map, Prezone portions of the site R-1 and C/OS, and allow 12-lot residential subdivision; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street,.-San Luis Obispo, California, on October 23, 2007, for the purpose of considering application TR/ER/GP/R/ANNX 4-05; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed and considered the Environmental Initial Study prepared for the project that concludes that an EIR would be required; and WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. 1. The proposed development pattern is not consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element Community Goals since it proposes development within areas designated as open space, at the urban edge of the community without an adequate transition to areas outside of the Urban Reserve Line. 2. The proposed adjustment of the development limit line is not consistent with General Plan Land Use Element Policy 6.2.1 since the project proposes to extend the urban development line into a sensitive resource area that contains significant wildland fire risk, significant geological constraints, and is within a significant visual resource area. 3. The proposed development plan is not consistent with Land Use Element policy 6.2.2 and Conservation and Open Space policy 9.21.1 B.1 since the it would introduce significant grading and retaining walls on hillside parcels that exceed 20% in slope. 4. The proposed development plan is not consistent with the City's Community Design Guidelines since it proposes new parcels on sites that exceed 20% slope and the proposed building envelopes also exceed 20% in slope. —CSS Attachment GP/R/ER/TR/ANNX 4-05 Sydney-Street Annexation Draft Project City Council Resolution 10-23-07 of Tract 2827 Paoe 2 5. The proposed map is inconsistent with the City's Subdivision Regulations since the lots are inconsistent with the design criteria specified in the Subdivision Regulations chapters 16.18.130 through 16.18.170. 6. The proposed development plan and subdivision map is not consistent with General Plan .. t Circulation Element Policies since the street pattern and lack of neighborhood connection increase automobile dependence and discourage pedestrian and bicycle travel. 7. The proposed development plan is not consistent with General Plan Housing Element Policy H 7.2.4-New Development's Relationship to Neighborhoods, since it is not integrated with the adjacent neighborhood. 8. Road improvements necessary to support the scale and design of development will introduce potentially significant environmental impacts to the site in terms of aesthetics and biological resources unless mitigation measures can be adequately incorporated into the project design. 9. The construction of a new water tank, where proposed, to serve the project with adequate water pressure will create significant site and visual impacts due to significant landform alteration and grading to support an access road and pad for the new tank. 10. The draft initial study prepared by staff indicates that the project may create significant unavoidable environmental impacts that would require the preparation of an EIR, and ultimately would require the City to adopt overriding considerations for the project's impacts. SECTION 2. Action. The Council hereby denies application 4-05, a request to annex a 70 acre property into the City, amend the General Plan Land Use Map, Prezone portions of the site R-1 and C/OS, and allow 12-lot residential subdivision. On motion of ,_seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of 2007. Mayor David F. Romero nto / � � GP/R/ER/TR/ANNX 4-05 Sydney S'treet Annexation Draft Project City Council Resolution� 10-23-07 Attachment Tract 2827 Page 3 ATTEST: Audrey Hooper, City Clerk APPRO AS TO FO n nathan Lowell, City Attorney 3 '/\ Attachment �! RESOLUTION NO. (2007 SERIES) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, PREZONING, AND ANNEXATION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 0 FAIRVIEW TR/ER/GP/R/ANNX.126-06(Tract 2773) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on April 25, 2005, for the purpose of considering application TR/ER/GP/R/ANNX 126-06, a request to, annex a 88.96 acre property into the City, amend the General Plan Land Use Map, Prezone portions of the site R-1 and C/OS, and allow 6-lot residential subdivision; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on October 23, 2007, for the purpose of considering application TR/ER/GP/R/ANNX 126-06; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WIiEREAS, the City Council reviewed and considered the Environmental Initial Study prepared for the project that concludes that an EIR would be required; and WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings: 1. The proposed development pattern is not consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element Community Goals since it proposes development within areas designated as open space, at the urban edge of the community without an adequate transition to areas outside of the Urban Reserve Line. 2. The proposed adjustment of the development limit line is not consistent with General Plan Land Use Element Policy 6.2.1 since the project proposes to extend the urban development line into a sensitive resource area that contains significant wildland fire risk, significant geological constraints, and is within a significant visual resource area. 3. The proposed development plan is not consistent with Land Use Element policy 6.2.2 and Conservation and Open Space policy 9.21.1 B.1 since the it will introduce significant grading and retaining walls on hillside parcels that exceed 20% in slope. 4. The proposed development plan is not consistent with the City's Community Design Guidelines since it proposes new parcels on sites that exceed 20% slope and the proposed building envelopes also exceed 20% in slope. /_4¢e Attachment � GP/R/ERrrR/ANNX 126-06 Fairview Estates City Council Resolution 10-23-07 Tract 2773 Page 2 5. The proposed map is inconsistent with the City's Subdivision Regulations since the lots do not meet the minimum dimensions or area as specified within the regulations, Chapter 16.18.130. Furthermore, the lots are inconsistent with the design criteria specified in the Subdivision Regulations chapters 16.18.130 through 16.18.170. 6. The proposed development plan and subdivision map is not consistent with General Plan Circulation Element Policies since the street pattern and lack of neighborhood connection increase automobile dependence and discourage pedestrian and bicycle travel. 7. The proposed development plan is not consistent with General Plan Housing Element Policy H 7.2.4-New Development's Relationship to Neighborhoods, since it is not integrated with the adjacent neighborhood. 8. Road improvements necessary to support the scale and design of development will introduce potentially significant environmental impacts to the site in terms of aesthetics and biological resources unless mitigation measures can be adequately incorporated into the project design. 9. The draft initial study prepared by staff indicates that the project may create significant unavoidable environmental impacts that would require the preparation of an EIR, and ultimately would require the City to adopt overriding considerations for the project's impacts. SECTION 2. Action. The Council hereby denies application 126-06, a request annex a 88.96 acre property into the City, amend the General Plan Land Use Map, Prezone portions of the site R-1 and C/OS, and allow 6-lot residential subdivision. On motion of seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of , 2007. Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: GP/R/ER/TR/ANNX 126-06 Fairview Estates City Council Resolution 10-23-07 A°tachment Tract 2773 Page 3 Audrey Hooper, City Clerk j PRO AS TO FORM: athan Lowell, City Attorney /-7D Attachment RESOLUTION NO. (2007 SERIES) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, PREZONING,AND ANNEXATION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1700 HARMONY WAY TR/ER/GP/R/ANNX.142-04 (Tract 2666) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San.Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on April 25, 2005, for the purpose of considering application TR/ER/GP/R/ANNX 142-04, a request to, annex a 11.54 acre property into the City, amend the General Plan Land Use Map, Prezone portions of the site R-1 and C/OS, and allow 12-lot residential subdivision; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on October 23, 2007,for the purpose of considering application TR/ER/GP/R/ANNX 142-04; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed and considered the Environmental Initial Study prepared for the project that concludes that an EIR would be required; and WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff,presented at said hearing. BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. 1. The proposed development pattern is not consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element Community Goals since it proposes development within areas designated as open space, at the urban edge of the community without an adequate transition to areas outside of the Urban Reserve Line. 2. The proposed adjustment of the development limit line is not consistent with General Plan Land Use Element Policy 6.2.1 since the project proposes to extend the urban development line into a sensitive resource area that contains significant wildland fire risk, significant geological constraints, and is within a significant visual resource area. 3. Road improvements necessary to support the scale and design of development will introduce potentially significant environmental impacts to the site in terms of aesthetics and drainage unless mitigation measures can be adequately incorporated into the project design. 4. The draft initial study prepared by staff indicates that the project may create significant unavoidable environmental impacts that would require the preparation of an EIR, and ultimately would require the City to adopt overriding considerations for the .project's /-7/ Attachment GP/R/ERnWANNX 142-04 Harmony Way Annexation City Council Resolution 10-23-07 Tract 2666 Page 2 impacts. SECTION 2. Action. The Council hereby denies application 142-04, a request to a request to annex a 11.54 acre property into the City, amend the General Plan Land Use Map, Prezone portions of the site R-1 and C/OS, and allow 12-lot residential subdivision. On motion of seconded by , and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of , 2007. Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: Audrey Hooper, City Clerk APPRO AS TO O onathan Lowell, City Attorney G:\CD-PLAN\Pdunsmore\Rezoning&GPA's\142-04(Harmony Way-Brown)\Council Reso 10-23-07.doc