The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About04/20/1993, 1 - ""ROSEMONT"" PROJECT ON THE EAST SLOPE OF BISHOP PEAK -A REQUEST TO ENABLE THREE HOUSES AT THE NORTHW" ►►��►I MEETING DATE: '��+��►�ullVlllllll��A1111 city of San tuts OBISpo 4- -Zo- POGs COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER: / FROM: Arnold B. Jonas, Community Development Director BY: Glen Matteson, Associate Planner / SUBJECT: "Rosemont" project on the east slope of Bishop Peak -- a request to enable three houses at the northwest end of Highland Drive by (1) amending the general plan Land Use Element map to enlarge the urban reserve by about two acres, and (2) adding the planned development (PD) zone to about 143 acres zoned conservation/open space, with a 40-acre minimum parcel size, and approving a preliminary development plan. CAO RECOMMENDATION: /. Adopt a resolution to grant a negative declaration of environmental impact and to amend the general plan Land Use Element by moving the urban reserve line to encompass the recommended building envelopes. a, Introduce an ordinance, in summary form, to confirm the negative declaration and to approve the rezoning and preliminary development plan, with findings and conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission. REPORT IN BRIEF Within the Ferrini annexation open space area, the general plan, zoning, and an easement exception allow consideration of approving three houses near the end of Highland Drive, with potential for a fourth dwelling near Highway 1. The City is not bound to approve or to deny the request. The action is a matter of judgement, considering environmental impacts, general plan consistency, and public preferences. The Council must decide if the package of benefits offered by the proposal outweighs the package of detriments. Benefits are: - Improved domestic water service to six existing houses; - Improved reliability and quantity of fire flow for about eight existing houses; - A formalized right of public pedestrian access from the end of Highland Drive, which does not now exist even though many people gain access to the area this way; - Improved public pedestrian trail access over an existing easement starting at the informal City park on Patricia Drive; - Reduced impacts from livestock grazing in the oak woodland area; N �»��N►�IIIIIf��pN�uii�d�N city of San lues OBlspo MiN COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Each of the benefits could be achieved by means other than the proposed project, though they probably would not be achieved as soon, as effectively, or at no financial cost to the City. Detriments are: - The appearance of houses intruding in an essentially natural area, mainly as seen from higher on the mountain and from some points in the northern part of the city other than the immediate neighborhood; - Reduced wildlife habitat due to.the presence of buildings and human activity; - Disruption of archaeological material and occupation of an area sacred to the original inhabitants; - Increased potential for erosion and soil instability. Each of the detriments can be mitigated to acceptable levels through changes to the project as originally proposed and through conditions of approval. Approving the project in its present form requires special findings. The Planning Commission has recommended that all the findings be made. Staff has not supported the findings required for the density bonus which enables a total of four dwellings. Additional steps required for completion of the project, beyond the requested Council action, are staff approval of a parcel map, Architectural Review Commission approval of house plans, and staff approval of construction plans and inspection of construction. BACKGROUND Situation To allow construction of three houses, potential buyers of this property have asked the City to amend its general plan, so City services will be available. They also have asked for approval of a planned-development rezoning, which would allow clustering in the open space easement exception area and prescribe certain public improvements and design standards. The project design has been through several significant revisions since first proposed. There is substantial public opposition to the project, as shown by the attached Planning Commission minutes, and the letters and petitions in the Council reading file. The Planning Commission has recommended that the project be approved. The applicant agrees with all recommended conditions of approval, but would prefer to keep the option of enlarging the designated building envelopes if justified by further geologic study. �-a ��u►w►�uIIIIIfplpwlldlll city of san tins osispo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Data- Summary Owners: Felton Ferrini and others Applicant: John Rossetti Representative: Victor Montgomery, RRM Design Group Zoning: C/OS-40 Land Use Element map: conservation/open space Environmental status: Director approved a negative declaration August 31, 1992. Action deadline: State law does not set a deadline for legislative acts such as general plan amendment and rezoning. Site Description The houses would occupy a shallow trough extending from elevation 600 feet to about 630 feet, on the eastern flank of Bishop Peak. A new water tank would be located between groves of oak trees, about 200 feet higher than the end of Highland Drive. Annual grasses, many oak trees of varying sizes, and some brush grow on the site, which has been grazed. The site includes a graded, unpaved road, a garage-type building, a stock-water tank, a stock- water pond, several large boulders, and some clusters of rocks which were moved many years ago. (See attached initial environmental study for additional information. ) Proiect Description The applicant proposes to create three lots, of 1.8, 4.8, and 7.4 acres, each with a designated building envelope to accommodate a single-family house. The building envelopes and associate driveway contain a total of about .two acres. Specific house designs are not proposed at this time, but design standards are included. Evaluation open space easement The project is proposed in a unique situation: the site is an exception to an established open space easement, the only easement exception of this kind within the City. When the Ferrini annexation (Tract 1182) was considered in 1978, the City and the. applicant agreed on a certain area to be developed with residential lots and another area to be kept as permanent open space. The status of about 14 acres, site of the proposed three lots, was not resolved. Rather than clearly designating it for. residential development or for permanent open space, the compromise which allowed the project to proceed included this area in the open space easement, but required further City approval --rezoning of the property-- for residential development. The applicant asserts that the intent was to give the City control of timing and design for /- 3 ��iruVVIIiIIIUI� ��dpi city of San tins OBISpo COUNCIL AGENDA DEPORT residential use, but not the basic type of use. Staff believes that the rezoning requirement enables the City to deny residential use. Of course, under City zoning rules, applicants can apply for zoning to allow residential development each year, no matter how many times requests are denied. Staff believes that approval of this request under the easement exception would not constitute abandoning the easement, as asserted in public testimony. General plan consistency The project raises several policy issues concerning land use and utility service. According to the general plan Land Use Element: - Uses within the C/OS designation should not require urban services, major structures, or extensive grading (the C/OS zone allows one house per parcel of the minimum size) . - The City should not provide or permit water service above the elevation reliably served by the City-maintained system, which is 472 feet in this location. The houses would not be major structures. Extensive grading is not proposed and would not be required. However, City utilities and services are proposed for the three dwellings. The project would result in the water service elevation being raised for the proposed building sites, for eight existing houses near the end of Highland Drive, and other land in the vicinity at the same elevation. This location is not addressed by the Land Use Element's Hillside Planning Policies and Standards. The Land Use Element does set criteria for approving minor annexations, where a relatively small increment of development can be allowed in exchange for permanent open space protection and where existing deficiencies in public facilities can be corrected by the additional development. The project's relatively small size and its potential to improve water service and fire protection for existing dwellings in the vicinity would make it a candidate for a minor annexation if it were outside the City. When the Ferrini Annexation was approved, the whole area was treated as a "minor annexation. " Eighty-five residential lots were approved, .while about 148 acres were to be protected as permanent open space, and a small, informal hillside park was dedicated. However, the open space easement contained an exception for the site of this project and for a residence near Highway 1. In summary, the proposal is of the type. that would generally meet the tests for a minor annexation under adopted policies. However, the site is already within the city, and the open space is already covered by an easement. ��►�► i�uiIIIIIIII�Ii► �l��l MY of San LUIS OBISPO COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT The adopted Open Space Plan shows the site as "scenic sensitive open space. " This designation ,discourages any development. The Seismic Safety Element shows the site and vicinity located on the Franciscan formation, with very high risk. of landslide, and as a probable landslide. (See also discussion of geologic hazards below. ) z According to the Public Safety Element, the site is within an area of moderate wildland fire hazard, and borders an area of high wildland fire hazard. Also, the site and vicinity are beyond four- minutes response time for City and State/County fire service. (See also discussion of fire protection below. ) The adopted general plan does not give clear preference to preserving open space over other potential objectives, such as formalizing public access or improving water service to existing development. The Hearing Draft Land Use Element update has more explicit open space goals (2, 31 4, and 6 on page 5) and policies (6.3 on page 43) , but they cannot be used for consistency tests until they are adopted. Zoning Regulations A determination of consistency with Zoning Regulations will require special findings and an interpretation. The three proposed dwelling sites at the end of. Highland Drive, plus the fourth site reserved for a dwelling (near Highway 1) , would usually need a total site area of 160 acres (4 X 40) in .the C/OS-40 zone.. Staff calculates the open space easement area, excluding the two-acre dedicated City park, as 143 acres, which would allow three dwellings maximum (3 . 6 if figured as a fraction, though to date fractional dwellings have not been considered in the R-1 and C/OS zones) . The PD zone allows a density bonus not exceeding 25 percent, if certain findings are made. Depending on interpretation, ' four dwellings would requirea density bonus of 33 percent (four minus three., divided by three) or a density bonus of 11 percent (4 minus 3.6, divided by 3. 6) . In order to approve a density bonus, the City Council must find that the project meets three of the following six criteria. Further, in deciding the extent of a density bonus,. the Council must consider the extent to which the project meets these criteria. (1) It provides facilities or amenities suited to a particular occupancy group (such asthe elderly or families with children) which would not. be feasible under conventional zoning; The project does not meet this criterion. ��n��►►I�IIIIIIIII�I��u�i�BUI city of San tins OBISpo WMIQ COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT (2) It transfers allowable development, within a site, from Areas of greater environmental sensitivity or hazard to areas of less sensitivity or hazard; -, The previous Ferrini development plan did so. The proposed preliminary development plan does not allow development everywhere within the 14-acre exception area; it does designate building envelopes within parts of that area which are generally less sensitive. The proposed building envelopes have been reduced from those originally proposed, by more clearly excluding existing large oak trees and smaller pockets of space between oak trees on the outer edge of the trough. The excluded areas are those which involve higher fire hazard, higher risk of damaging oak trees, higher risk of slope instability, and greater visibility. However, there is no allowable development to be transferred from the area outside of the 14-acre exception. (3) It provides more affordable housing than would be possible with conventional development; The project would not meet this criterion. (4) Features of the particular design achieve the intent of _ conventional standards (privacy, usable open space, adequate parking, . compatibility with neighborhood character, and so on) as well as or better than the standards themselves; The project appears to meet this criterion, in that it meets the intent at least as well as conventional R-1 zoning. Also, two features appear more desirable -than what conventional R-1 zoning would typically provide: (a) provision of formal, public pedestrian access around the building sites; (b) use of a common drive and enhanced entry area, rather than three "slice-of-pie" lots, each with minimal frontage on the Highland Drive cul-de-sac. (5) It incorporates features which result in consumption of less materials, energy or water than conventional development; The project does not appear to meet this criterion. However, use of one public booster pump to supply the proposed water tank may be more energy efficient than the separate pumps operated by individual homeowners. (6) The proposed project provides exceptional public benefits such as parking, open space, landscaping, public art, and other special amenities which would not be feasible under conventional development standards. ko ��N�►�H��uIIIIIIUIpu �l��l city of San .UIS OBISpo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT The project may meet this criterion. The following could be found to be benefits: (a) Eliminating the small, substandard water tank which serves a few dwellings in the area; (b) Providing gravity-flow domestic water service for existing houses ; (c) Upgrading water pressure and duration of fire flow for existing dwellings (during a power failure, the existing water supply for fire fighting is limited to the amount brought to the site by truck) . Whether these are "exceptional public benefits" is a policy determination for the Council. Also, there is not a clear connection between the .density bonus and the water service improvement, though a greater number of new dwellings would allow the cost of the water-service improvement to be spread over more payers. A density bonus would not be needed for two dwellings on Highland Drive plus one on Highway 1, or for three dwellings on Highland and none on Highway 1. If the City Council finds that the project is not eligible for the proposed density bonus, it could not be approved in its present form. Staff's recommendation to the Planning Commission did not support the density bonus. Granting a density bonus in conjunction with development in an area designated as open space appears contrary to the intent of the zone. Eliminating the dwelling site near Highway 1 would further a principal .City goal, to establish a greenbelt. Elimination of the dwelling site near Highway 1 is not needed to avoid significant impacts for the overall project. However, it would be desirable to avoid further development at this scenic entry to the City. The need for a caretaker's residence for about 130 acres of hillside grazing land, or even for crop productionor horse stables on this lower area, is questionable.. Several larger parcels around San Luis Obispo are cultivated or grazed, and have no on-site caretaker. (See also Public Participation below. ) Appearance The vicinity of the proposed building sites is visible from much of the . Foothill Boulevard area, Cal Poly, and the residential area above San Luis Drive. It is also visible from the Southern Pacific railroad (Amtrak) along the Chorro siding at the Stenner Creek Bridge area, and briefly from the Highway 1 entrance to the City. The new houses will be visible from the end of. Highland Drive. With the proposed design standards, parts of new houses may be visible from: �-7 ��Hai10►�IIIIIIIII�►°1��'9�0�11 city of san Luis osrspo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT A. short segment of Highway 1 approaching the City; Limited areas on and above the Cal Poly campus; Montrose Drive; Skyline Drive just north of Mirasol Drive; The eastern part of Clover Drive; Upper La Entrada Drive; The intersection of Highland Drive and Highway 1; The Twin Ridge cul-de-sac. Visibility of new houses would be minimized by the location and size of the proposed building sites, within the trough-shaped area and the surrounding oak trees, and the 22-foot building height limit. The natural topography of the site and the existing mature oak trees will effectively screen carefully located new dwellings from most nearby and distant views. Building exteriors will be limited to earth tones. Olive-green, matte roofing tile and medium gray or tan walls, or similar colors, will allow the new houses to blend with the surrounding oak trees and brush, dry-season grass, and rocky areas. The visual impact of 25-foot tall structures (the maximum normally allowed by zoning) has been evaluated. During August 1992, 25-foot tall poles placed within the proposed building envelopes were observed and videotaped from various points within the Foothill and Cal Poly areas. The water booster pump at the end of Highland Drive, near an existing well head, would be a low-profile facility, screened by existing and new planting. It is not expected to be unsightly. The water tank would be about 11 feet tall and 25 feet in diameter. It would be painted a color similar to the existing city water tank to the northwest, which is light tan. The tank site is not visible from the nearby neighborhood. It would be visible from such distant vantage points as the "P" hill behind Cal Poly, the railroad tracks above Stenner Canyon, and the vicinity of Cal Poly's poultry unit. The water tank access road would have a surfaced width of 12 feet.. Grading would disturb an area at most about 20 feet wide. Cut and fill banks at the edges of roadway would not exceed one foot high and three feet wide, with a maximum slope of one vertical in two horizontal. The upper half of the access road would be screened by oak trees. The lower half of the water tank access road, beyond the proposed driveway loop, would be visible from some houses in the upper Ferrini annexation area (Twin Ridge and Montrose drives) . All features would be visible from most points at higher elevations on this side of the mountain. �" U ��i ►�IIIIIIUIIhNuil��l MY Of San LUIS OBISPO COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Geologic stability Soil instability and erodability have the potential to affect the project occupants as well as downhill neighbors, but risks will be mitigated to acceptable levels. The project vicinity is susceptible to landslide. Soils are generally highly expansive clay and clay loam, formed from sedimentary and metamorphic rocks, with limitations for development or cultivation. Slopes within the proposed building sites range from five percent to 15 percent, while slopes immediately above and below the building sites average about 25 percent. Excavation for a new house in the area downslope to the southeast of proposed Lot #1 has caused a crack to open in the excavated lot and in a neighboring lot. While the excavated lot has a steeper slope, and involves more soil removal than expected on the proposed_ lots, this crack is an example of the type of earth movement which can be triggered by grading in a slide-prone area. Runoff from roofs and paved surfaces could erode gullies in the hillside and carry sediment to lower areas, if: it is not dispersed over areas with adequate vegetation or directed to streets or storm drain pipes. Without proper building site selection and foundation design and drainage, construction on the existing soil types can be damaged by future earth movement. Dwellings have been permitted on other sites in the vicinity, with similar geologic and soil conditions (along Highland, Oakridge, and Patricia drives) . In November 1992, Earth Systems Consultants conducted a geologic investigation of the site, and prepared a report, supplemented by a letter in January 1993 (Council reading file) . The report concludes that the proposed building sites occupy an ancient landslide that is very unlikely to move as a mass. However, there are small slides around the edges of the mass. These small slides are to the east and lower than the proposed building sites. Depth to bedrock is variable, but appears to be about 50 feet near the middle of the building envelopes. To avoid the potential for a small slide to disturb the proposed building sites, Earth Systems recommends maintaining a 50-foot setback from the lip of the shallow trough to the building envelopes. The conclusions of the report are based on previously published material, site surface inspection, and subsurface profiles based on measurements of deliberately produced shock waves. Earth Systems notes that this approach is acceptable for site planning, but that test borings to confirm the shock-wave profiles should be conducted before actual construction, to verify the conclusions. I-9 ��itI�IIIIIIUIP �Idlll city of San tuts OBlspo MoGe COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT After receiving Earth Systems's recommendation, the applicant proposed to have the third building envelope closer to Highland Drive than in previous plans, in the western part of the area previously shown as Lot A. Building envelopes in Lot #2 and Lot #3 have been reduced as well. This approach is consistent with mitigation outlined in the original environmental initial study, which recommended that site development extend no further than the lip for reasons of geologic stability, fire safety, and appearance. The applicant proposes "two-phase" building envelopes, The main envelope would be eligible for any type of development features otherwise allowed, without further geologic study. The envelope extension would be eligible for any type of development features otherwise allowed, if on-site borings demonstrate adequate stability. Use of the envelope extensions would be subject to approval by City staff. Due to the expense of conducting borings, the applicant has asked that this application be acted on now. Staff and the planning Commission recommend that ultimate building envelopes be designated as part of the planned-development rezoning action (recommended condition #17) . For reasons of geologic stability, fire safety, appearance, and administrative clarity, the darker shaded areas on the site plan should not be included in the approved building envelopes. Earth Systems also recommends lining the existing livestock pond to avoid continuous saturation of surrounding soils. This is a recommended condition of project approval. .Total failure of the water tank, a very unlikely event, would release about the same volume of water as held in two to three backyard swimming pools. The water would flow toward the boundary between proposed lots #2 and #3, then along the common drive to Highland Avenue. No significant damage is expected from such an event. City code requires the subdivider to provide an . engineering soils and geology report (as described in Section 16.2.0.030, parts I and J, of the Subdivision Regulations) . The report will cover all areas of the site to be developed or modified, including the water tank location and access road. This would be a more detailed investigation than the Earth .Systemfs report cited above. Staff emphasizes that additional soils and geology site investigation and recommendations must be prepared before a parcel map or building permits can be approved. This study also is a recommended condition of approval. The Earth Systems letter clarifies that earth movement from above the proposed building sites is not a hazard, and that the proposed water tank site will be adequate using conventional earthwork methods. I-Jb �uh�iNNl�uiIIIIHIIpN ►�I�III MY Of San WI s OBISPO COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Fire protection A key rationale for the project is improved domestic water service and fire-fighting capability for nearby existing houses. Public. testimony has suggested other ways to provide this improvement without development in the open space area, and staff has considered additional alternatives. These options are listed below. From a fire-protection viewpoint, each option is inferior to the proposed new city water tank, which is continuously available for service and requires no special City equipment. - City water tank benefit assessment area, for existing houses only; - Private tanks at each existing dwelling; - Modify pond to provide fire flow storage; - New tank below ground, with no, permanent access road; - On-site emergency pump; Public access Tract 1182 created a public pedestrian easement of unspecified location from the park on Patricia Drive to the western property boundary. This route is not marked and little used. The approach from the end of Highland Drive is heavily used, by people who climb the gate and generally follow the old ranch road. There is no recorded access easement at this point. The proposed project would identify a trail route from the park and create an' easement and trail, around the proposed building sites, from the end of Highland Drive. Public access issues include recreational. opportunity, liability, and damage from littering, vandalism, and fire. Other issues For additional discussion of the topics above, and for information on traffic, wildlife habitat, utility demands, and archaeology, see the attached initial environmental study. ALTERNATIVES The Council must be satisfied with environmental information and make an environmental determination before acting on the amendment requests: Concerning the environmental determination, the Council has as options requiring more information in. the form of (1) an expanded initial study or (2) an environmental impact report (EIR) . The Council may add, delete, or revise mitigation measures. 1 ��h�►�i►►IVIIIII�II�hA111 CItY Of San IDIS OBISPO Nftga COUNCIL AGENDA (REPORT Concerning the amendment requests: (1) The Council may approve the applications with findings, conditions, or exceptions different from those in the attached draft resolution and ordinance, subject to the need for general plan and zoning consistency, and for a reasonable relationship between project impacts and City requirements. Some of these alternatives are: (a) Approve the PD rezoning, but not the relocation of the urban reserve line. This would require that any new dwellings be served by on-site water supply and sewage disposal. This approach would not be desirable since it would raise more issues of environmental impact and general plan conformity, and overly complicate or preclude the improvements to water flow for fire fighting. (b) .Approve the project subject to establishing additional restrictions in the open space easement area, to reduce the impacts of livestock grazing. (c) Approve the project with a condition voiding the other open space easement exception, for the house near Highway 1 (suggested by staff) . (d) Reduce the number or size of lots at the end of Highland Drive. (e) Modify the size or location of the designated building envelopes, or the types of features which can occur only within the envelopes. (f) Modify building height limits, Or maximum building coverage, or minimum setbacks. (g) Request dedication of fee ownership of the open space remainder (though the owner has expressed opposition to this idea) ; (h) Require additional features for public access, such as parking spaces or barrier-free (wheelchair accessible) trail segments. The Council may deny the applications. The attached draft resolution #2 includes findings for denial. The Council may continue action, with direction to staff or the applicant. '11111111Illl111001�8111 city of San tuts OBISp0 , COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT PUBLIC. PARTICIPATION The Planning Commission conducted hearings on September .30, 1992, and February 24, 1993. There was extensive public testimony representing various viewpoints (minutes attached) . At the February hearing, the Planning Commission voted five to one (one absent) to recommend approval of the applications with findings and conditions as in the attached draft resolution # 1 and draft ordinance. The Commission was able to support the required findings for approval, and recommends that the Council grant the density bonus based on the limitations placed on the caretakers' quarters and the provision of exceptional benefits in the form of improved water service for .nearby dwellings. The dissenting commissioner thought that the proposal was not consistent with the general plan, it constituted an abandonment of the open space easement, and the findings for a density bonus could not be made. Petitions opposing the project and many letters have been received over the last ten months (Council reading file) . Several of the recent ' statements were received on appeal forms, because the authors were unsure that this item would come to the Council regardless of Planning Commission action. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution to grant a negative declaration of,environmental impact and to amend the general plan Land Use Element by moving the urban reserve line to encompass the recommended building envelopes. Introduce an ordinance, in summary form, to confirm the negative declaration and to approve the rezoning and preliminary development plan, with findings and conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission. ATTACHED Draft resolution #1 to amend Land Use Element as recommend by Planning Commission Draft ordinance to rezone as recommend by Planning Commission Language for modified condition #15, to remove the potential for a dwelling near Highway 1, as recommended by staff Draft resolution #2 to deny applications Reduced site plans and entry detail drawings Revised initial environmental study Planning Commission minutes 9/30/92 (approved) Planning Commission minutes 2/24/93 (draft; approved minutes forthcoming) ENCLOSED Plans (3 folded, stapled sheets, each 30" X 4011) -/3 �IINNI�111�IIIII ��Null �� MY Of San IDIS OBISPO All COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT IN COUNCIL READING FILE Applicant's statement and supplement Existing open space easement agreement Correspondence received Earth Systems Consultants' report, with supplemental letter AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING Videotape for visual study GMARSMNT.CAR #1 APPROVING RESOLUTION NO. (1993 SERIES) A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT MAP TO ENLARGE THE URBAN RESERVE LINE FOR THE ROSEMONT PROJECT (GP 89-92) The City Council resolves as follows: SECTION 1. Fin in 1. The Planning Commission and the City Council have held public hearings on the proposed amendment in accordance with the California Government Code. 2. The Council has considered public testimony, the initial environmental study, and the report and recommendation of staff and of the Planning Commission. 3. Enlarging the urban reserve line at this location is consistent with general plan policies, considering the specific circumstances of the proposed project. SECTION 2. Environmental determination. The Council determines that the -- proposed project, as revised and with required mitigation measures fully described in the initial environmental study (ER 89-92), will have no significant, adverse impacts. Council approves a negative declaration. SECTION 3. Amendment. The general plan Land Use Element map is amended as shown in the attached Exhibit A. The Community Development Director shall cause this change to be reflected in documents published by the City. 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 1993. Mayor Resolution No. (1993 Series) Page 2 ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED: City Administrative Officer me Community Develo nt Director GMARSMNT.RFS 1_/4 EXHIBIT A GP 89-92 AMEND LAND USE ELEMENT MAP URBAN RESERVE LINE LOCATION ENLARGE URBAN RESERVE LINE ABOUT 3 ACRES TO INCLUDE REVISED BUILDING ENVELOPES 1 , 1C1 ,}{. , t..3• '''�� 1. 'Waa./--JJ.aF],�+`i?;J � a �«'�i��3 j. •,3.i?,v ia:;`i:r r); YiiV•i.3. ,.t, . a)...?•.%•)� a .l �..1�{ �,ar •J ! ),»•y moi;J'i A • r7 Y�JJ....']'T.� •.)J:. •a w 7'• J3 �) a a— -'r I } { Jr Enlarge urban I %�x;:3 ,? ;, _ .. , .ti . ... .. reserve line ].�+.. til ,l• •t•. •yi(['~`� •n ,="�'''+�i'.i�•.• .{��_'J. j��. .�• r );•. .::c:• ., ... c .2J• as ::•',L::::: ' ::: :� . s'• q °rra •a •� ( :iii:-: . t 7 7• ii. r•. . - J a • •y7 I •a2 rt r Y Y r .7- . r•7 ': oa' r, 7✓ .7^3,- .Y. �.'R•.7 03] 1 •°h•iGPt•pm'p'D]i.. •1� 5 .9 ........:::::::::. .......: . 1341. A JI •-i� :t, '• •'L: L�"„_ •IV:'••amu ''T�.• ..n. - .yY]. _a . .� iii... ':is'l.• r t• I , •1" ?t _ ,•r, �rye .3,..^, _a'g•,-,3•:•� ,}��,• _ _ ';`:: •r' V _ •7. !4- F' "r. ra• OY-'Sit. I '�I, ('�' .{•- 1C• + '•7' e�,� .• i cr = � f/' `M'C'-1_ �S' �. r(te'•' raw• �•,: fi t a �:�•.,.�r �•('' t n �Jt �' •r r'• .t c .!fid`-,�'Yit - •t r C` r 5;r'�rrtir.1 dry:!.• f.:�r•r.•e. rr•�}»:r -�i.�, �"'�••.� . . ............ .......... ..:::::::::::........ n f1r11 •tnr r :w• h' C •n. r= f T •i t r' r f .arab• ^: ' 'l H / ORDINANCE NO. (1993 SERIES) AN ORDINANCE OF THE SAN.LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL ADDING THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONE TO THE FERRINI OPEN SPACE EASEMENT AREA AND APPROVING A PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE ROSEMONT PROJECT (PD 89-92) BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings 1. The Planning Commission and the City Council have held public hearings on the proposed amendment in accordance with the California Government Code. 2. The Council has considered public testimony, the initial environmental study, and the report and recommendation of staff and of the Planning Commission. 3. The planned development rezoning is consistent with the general plan, conservation/open space designation, as explained in section A of the initial environmental study: _ 4. The.preliminary development plan is consistent with the purpose and intent of the conservation/open space and planned development zones. 5. The development will occur within an area specifically excepted from the general limits of a previously recorded open space easement. 6. The proposed zoning promotes the public health, safety and general welfare. 7. Council recognizes the remaining potential for a caretaker's dwelling of limited size and configuration, within the easement exception area near Highway 1, and determines that this dwelling constitutes a density bonus as provided in the planned development zone. The density bonus is granted based on the following findings. A. The project transfers allowable development, within the site, from areas of greater environmental sensitivity or hazard to areas of less sensitivity or hazard, because the development plan does not allow development everywhere within the 14-acre open space easement exception area; it does designate building envelopes within parts of that area which are generally less sensitive, excluding areas with higher fire hazard, higher risk of damaging oak trees, higher risk of slope instability, and greater visibility. �- Ordinance No. (1993 Series) Rosemont Planned Development Page 2 B. Features of the particular design achieve the intent of conventional standards (privacy, usable open space, adequate parking, compatibility with neighborhood character, and so on) as well as or better than the standards themselves, specifically the formal, public pedestrian access around the building sites and the use of a common drive and enhanced entry area, rather than three conventional lots, each with minimal frontage on the Highland Drive cul-de-sac. C. The proposed project provides exceptional public benefits which would not be feasible under conventional development standards, specifically: (a) eliminating the small, substandard water tank which serves a few dwellings in the area; (b) providing gravity-flow domestic water service for existing houses; (c) upgrading water pressure and duration of fire flow for existing dwellings. SECTION 2. Environmental determination, The Council determines that the proposed project, as revised and with required mitigation measures fully described in the initial environmental study (ER 89-92), will have no significant, adverse impacts. Council - approves a negative declaration. SECTION 3. Zone map amendment. The zone map is amended by addition of the planned developed (PD) zone to the subject property, as described in the attached Exhibit A. SECTION 4. Preliminary development plan. The preliminary development plan consists of drawings dated December 30, 1992, on file in the Community Development Department, along with the project description in the initial environmental study. The Council approves the preliminary development plan subject to the following conditions. 1. Grading and construction plans for public or common facilities and for dwellings will include erosion control measures, such as limits on season of work, permanent planting, and temporary erosion-control fabric and sediment traps, as approved by the Community Development Director. 2. Grading, compaction, or excavation within the drip lines of oak trees will be avoided. Before grading or construction begin, temporary fencing will be provided along the drip lines, to remain in place during construction. The subdivider and each lot developer will enter into a tree protection agreement, �aq Ordinance No. (1993 Series) Rosemont Planned Development Page 3 with financial guarantee, in a form approved by the City. The subdivider or lot developer will replace any oak tree in the construction area which dies within three years of completion of the construction covered by the agreement, with two oak trees, to the approval of the City Arborist. These requirements shall be noted on grading and construction plans. 3. Domestic grazing animals (cattle, horses, sheep, or goats) shall not be allowed within the individual lot areas. 4. Landscape plans shall include detailed specifications for successful relocation of any oak trees from the rock pile areas, to the approval of the City Arborist. 5. A driveway and water-tank access road shall be constructed along the general alignment of the existing ranch road, as shown on plans. The access road shall have an all-weather, crushed-rock surface, to blend visually with the surroundings, as approved by the Utilities Director and the Community Development Director. The nearby mortar stone will be preserved in place. 6. A qualified archaeologist and a Native American will be present on site during all excavation and grading. If cultural resources are encountered, construction activities which may affect them shall cease. The Community Development Director and a representative of the appropriate Native American group shall be notified of the extent and location of discovered materials. Materials will be recorded by a qualified archaeologist. Disposition of artifacts shall comply with state and federal laws. A note concerning this requirement shall be included on the grading and construction plans for the project. 7. Outdoor lighting will be limited to downward directed, low-intensity lighting for safety of walkways, drives, or building entries. 8. The buildable lots are hereby designated sensitive sites, requiring Architectural Review Commission approval of each new dwelling. A. Building exteriors shall use colors which blend with the surrounding vegetation. B. Stone facing shall be used for any foundation stem walls visible from off the site. C. Foundation stem walls shall not exceed five feet tall above finished grade. i Ordinance No. (1993 Series) Rosemont Planned Development Page 4 9. Applicant shall provide a new water tank, pump, and main for domestic water service and fire protection, to the approval of the Utilities Director. Plans for these facilities shall be submitted for approval by the City concurrent with any land division. A. The tank shall be screened with vegetation, to the approval of the Community Development Director. B. The tank shall be painted with varied shades to camouflage it, to the approval of the Community Development Director. C. If the City chooses not to accept the tank and access road for maintenance, they shall be maintained jointly by the lot owners. 10. The maximum building height shall be 22 feet. 11. All buildings, solid fence§, walls, and recreational'facilities such as decks, swimming pools, or tennis courts shall be limited to the designated building envelope; areas outside designated building envelopes shall be maintained essentially in a natural condition. 12. The existing pond shall be lined to prevent saturation of surrounding soils, and maintained_essentially in the condition existing in 1993. 13. Lot owners shall manage vegetation near the building envelopes for fire safety and wildlife habitat value, by measures such as encouraging grass or fire-resistant shrubs instead of highly flammable brush within thirty feet of dwellings, and separation of low-hanging oak branches from the ground. 14. Owners shall provide and maintain enhanced public pedestrian access from the end of Highland Drive and from the City park on Patricia Drive, generally as shown in the preliminary development plan, to the approval of the Community Development Director. 15. Any caretaker's dwelling located within the easement exception area near Highway 1 shall be contained within an agricultural building and shall be limited to 1,200 square feet living area. 16. Architectural review shall be required for any structure within the-open space easement area. J Ordinance No. (1993 Series) Rosemont Planned Development Page 5 17. Building envelopes shall be limited to the smaller (lightly shaded) areas shown on the preliminary development plan dated December 30, 1992. 18. Prior to issuance of building permits, all debris and derelict equipment shall be removed from the site. 19. Prior to any land division or building permit, applicant shall provide the City a geotechnical study and recommendation based on adequate borings, to confirm previous work and to demonstrate soil.stability. Before approving any land division or building permit, the City shall have considered a review of this report and recommendation, prepared, at the applicant's expense, by a qualified, independent geotechnical engineer selected by the City. SECTTON 5. A summary of this ordinance, approved by the City.Attorney, together with the votes for and against, shall be published once, at least five (5) days prior to its final passage, in the Telegram-Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance shall go into effect at the expiration of thirty (30) days after its final passage. INTRODUCED AND PASSED TO PRINT by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo at its meeting held on the day of . 1992, on motion of seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk _ Ordinance No. (1993 Series) Rosemont Planned Development Page 6 4 APPROVED: City Administrative Officer re Community Dev>1 pment Director GMARSMNT.ORD EXHIBIT A PD 89-92 CITY LIMITS I y . Ar e I ' cis ` WtAJ LI.� VI.� fill. � �•+a.' 1, i a_ • I 1 I `\ r. i i �n -- 1 .ta•.... w1 �.. � �aat�e.i .�[. 11( t i ! ' �1 Cil �• w CT aa z ,.\`��J�J L+�� `� '✓� awe .w�wroll�. \ el Sao ��\QcC, ks J ry NORTH cIT• DIY„: � ; ; - GRAPHIC SCALE 0 SOD 1,000 2,000 3,000 _ I . /_ 7 j REVISED CONDITION #15 If Council prefers to delete potential for fourth dwelling near Highway 1: 15. Prior to issuance of building permits, owner(s) shall provide an open space easement, to replace the previously recorded open space easement, limiting the remainder parcel to grazing or other agricultural uses approved by the City, and deleting the previously identified potential for a dwelling near Highway 1. ' - X62 DENYING RESOLUTION NO. (1993 SERIES) A RESOLUTION OF THE.SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL DENYING APPLICATIONS FOR THE ROSEMONT PROJECT (GP, PD 89-92) The City Council resolves as follows: SECTION 1. Findines. 1. The Planning Commission and the City Council have held public hearings on the proposed amendments in accordance with the California Government Code. 2. The Council has considered public testimony, the initial environmental study, and the report and recommendation of staff and of the Planning Commission. 3. An initial environmental study (ER 89-92) has been completed and made available for public comment, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and State and City environmental review guidelines. The Council has reviewed and considered this initial study. 4. The amendment of the urban reserve line location is not consistent with general plan policies, because it would raise the water service elevation beyond the gravity-flow system maintained by the City, and foster urban development within an open space area. 5. Part 3.0 of the recorded Ferrini annexation open space easement agreement requires zoning approval for development in the exception area, which is a legislative act of the City. 6. The planned development rezoning is not consistent with the general plan, because it would allow additional development within an area designated for open space uses. 7. The preliminary development plan is not consistent with the purpose and intent of the conservation/open space zone, which is intended to prevent further subdivision. The preliminary development plan is not consistent with the purpose and intent of the planned development zone, because density transfer has already occurred as part of the Ferrini annexation and subdivision, and the additional development would occur within an area which is environmentally sensitive due to geologic conditions, wildlife habitat, visual prominence, archaeological resources, and wildland fire hazard. SECTION 3. Action. The requested general plan Land Use Element map amendment and the rezoning are denied. , —, Resolution No. (1993 Series) Page 2 On motion of seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT.- the BSENT:the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of 1993. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED: City Administrative Officer ny Community De to ment Director. GMARSMTD.RFS ��. '1� j �� r, ASK rL INf � CR. ,-r•ti�s .. '� � i�( .- .-..� i •ice �� :�• O_ __�:� \o, r. L11 i;l �r e_ 1 � :f.. ®�x,Q -; ; - -ter,: ,, "1 i�G . -m•. �°yy - { %f �/♦( ^O/ O 1 �y `yJ� tr,•. •�_ -,,a`--?`•;.<.+/yam' �/ L.r k \ ` vY 7C ,y'`�/v\�\♦'' , �_„q �1''-/.F,I}f„� -1'r ,ar .,III�C_'+_pR pff C/' a 1 � �� o,. v r�P l ` � I �• � � . .-lonK-, on E NZ t, 100 Irk-` W y'.. V s Zu at zz VIJ u J W . ♦ -.` _ rte_ � '�. _� � �� / .XAQQfO I � ♦\ •\� o\ __ ” �• / NV7 ,♦ Q. \ii f/, 'S: IWC• -`� ” z 0 .../// / �`— •�- k�I r atn k ( .r `� rrra••te. nra�r Ile OVEN SPACE •... I �. I -_' ,`` `\ _� \ _ `� REMAINDER134 AC wG UiT1.e.Y \\\\ �.\ �• ��.. \•l \\ \\�j J� Yl WYuuMtiwa �. LOT 24.8 AC 0�MACE t 1��-'•\!_ /\`t'�..' � �•. `.• ..�.an.rte.. nu. LOTJ r / `�`\.�— � �,� r�'we�wR.+isata•.wn.. � a aawtv.:.va.A 4.1 I raat..a rs.ar ttm.rv, . — - AwII.4 a..n[u� - t�i: �L ` •�• lAd Lam. � • .osn_ i i - 4t� + '! I w+w rua A 6,r.f aOdtl rae rW-_ �1:��r• �•- �t ::�_• :I � ��raee,e.crm sW +au.r nuvt et�.mawwee �urnae.. ._ Ir rottvavr��- , �``.,�. va n::.omwa..�r..• t c..ween w nv vrAeaw vow a+ (f� `-� tY.tI4G MC.�Y .FOl1Kr�OOO TJTI� � \ tfe A Y/Y. j . �Qfi r,•M, t.1ai1R.DQ 41C CYI�! 1 �3 �_ .00wD Wen.I R.r � •�/�/ at stir I L E D_ S ITJJEPLAN aLI " Id 0XIi StRC. e•e �-a9 E t 1 •Y ~11 � �:r t J S , 7 �� a ♦ h�r� � rr .� �. �'�'.,y` .• Fit!`. �y t iQr�. iIL '� Z -c o >. QQ2 y� t ] 3 i � � U p 3+i Z: =a .a Z iCVV O Q �O ' C17Cy 4 San lws 0BISp0 INITIAL STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SITE LOCATION�i oY'T1�i^wlZ-� Qh� .�f }��g��uvi e� �Y APP`LICA1TION NO. S9- 92 PROJECT DESCRIPTION APPLICANT V7 Ro5-50ti-� CCt\ems v .. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: NEGATIVE DECLARATION MITIGATION INCLUDED EXPANDED INITIAL STUDY REQUIRED _ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAOT =E?OST REQUIP.'eD PREPARED BY 1 1 5fl-t-e5P �`SSOC ) cz"ya v- DATE 0-?-5 - 92- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S ACTION: DATE /3( Im_ R r r 7r, NINyJ SUMMARY OF INITIAL STUDY FINDINGS 1.DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING II.POTENTIAL IMPACT REVIEW PCSSIBLE ADVERSE EFFECTS A., COMMUNITY PLANS AND GOALS .. .. ................. .. .......... .. . ... .... . . . . ... . .YES B. POPULATIONDISTRIBUT]ONAN0GROWTH...... . .......... ....... ... . ....... . ... ... .. .. X10 C. LANDUSE ............. .........................._................................. } D. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION ................................................ -NO E. PUBLIC SERVICES . ....... . ....................................... . .....................Y= F. UTILITIES......... . ....... ......... . ..... .. ................... ........ .. ... . .. .. .YF S V G. NOISE LEVELS ...................................... M,c:> H. GEOLOGIC 3SEISWCHAZARDS&TOPOGRAPHICMODIFICATIONS ... .................. �I�7s ��»L I. AIR QUALITYAND WIND CONDITIONS............................... .............. .. SURFACE WATER FLOW AND CUALITY ........ NO K. PLANT LIFE.......................... ......Y5 rr,r alb L ANIMAL LIFE.............. ................................................. ....... YAC rir�n7-1 R'TtR u ori M. ARCHAEOLOGICAUHISTORICAL .................................................... Y17-r5 Yr�>>f1�ei11LoY� N. AESTHETIC ..........................__................................................, YFS vis l 7laa jb� v O. ENERGY/RESOUP.CEUSE .............................................................. P. OTHER ...................................... � Ill.STAFF RECOMMENDATION `SEE ATTACHED REPORT sa-es INITIAL ENVIRONINIENTAL STUDY 89-92 Revised February 1993 "Rosemont Planned Development" I. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT S., SETTING Applicant John Rossetti proposes to create three lots, ranging in size from 1.8 to 7.4 acres. each with a designated huilding site area to accommodate a single-family house. The lots would he located in a 14-acre portion of the roughly 14S-acre Ferrini Annexation open space easement. The easement contained an exception allowing the Citv to rezone this 14-acre area for a maximum of three houses. No specific development is proposed as part of this project for a second, four-acre easement exception area near Highway 1, where intensive agriculture, horse stables. and a caretaker's residence could be approved by the City as a separate action. The houses would occupy a shallow trough extending from elevation 600 feet to about 630 feet, on the eastern flank of Bishop Peak, with street access at the northwest end of Highland Drive. A =10,000-gallon wuter tank would be located between groves of oak trees, about 200 feet higher than the end of Highland Drive. Annual grasses, mcnv oak trees of �.arvini, sizes. and some brush gow cin the site. v.hich has been grazed. The site includes a graded, unpaved road, a garage-type building, a stock-water tank, a stock-water pond, several large boulders in natural positions, and some clusters of rocks which «ere moved many years ago. To accommodate the proposal. the applicant has requested that the planned- development (PD) zone be added to the existing zone. which is conservation/open space. with a forty-acre minimum parcel size (C/OS-40). In approving a PD zone: the City also apprmei the basic feature: of a p;uw:eu de%_1k) tnem (>ucll ,l> the nllmher. type, and general location of d�veilings and means of access). Specific house dest_ni are not prop6sed at this time, but design standards are included. Also. the general plan Land Use Element 'Y%OL I be by nlpVing the Urban reserve line to 1I1CiLlde the residential lots, so city utilities and services would be available. The site was the .subject of the Fen-ini Anne.ration and Development Plan Environmental Impact Repot (EIR), prepared by \Merriam, Deasy and Whisenant, Inc., in 1978 (on file in the Community Development Department). Rosemont Environmental Study 2 II. POTENTIAL IMPACT REVIEW A. Community plans and goals The project raises several policy issues concerning land use and utility service. While approval would not cause significant impacts at .this location, a series of similar approvals in other locations would be cumulatively significant. No similar proposals are pending. However, similar physical conditions exist around the slopes of Cerro San Luis, and along the Santa Lucia Foothills (above Johnson Avenue). According to the general plan Land Use Element: Uses within the C/OS designation should not require urban services, major structures, or extensive grading (the C/OS zone allows one house per parcel of the minimum size). The City should not provide or permit water service above the elevation reliably served by the City-maintained system, which is 472 feet in this location. The houses would not be major structures. Extensive grading is not proposed and would not be required. However. City utilities and services are proposed for the three dwellings. The project would result in the water service elevation being raised for the proposed building sites, for eight existing houses near the end of Highland Drive, and other land in the vicinity at the same elevation. This location is not addressed by the Land Use Element's Hillside Planning Policies and Standards. The Land Use Element does set criteria for the approval of minor annexations, where a relatively small increment of urban development can be allowed in exchange for permanent open space protection and where existing deficiencies in public facilities can be corrected by the additional development. Tl-.e project's relatively small size and is potential to improve water service and fire protection for existing dwellings in the vicinity would make it a candidate for a minor annexation if it were outside the City. The project is proposed in a unique situation: the site is an exception to an established open space easement, the only easement exception of this kind within the City. When the Ferrini Annexation and Tract 1182 were approved in 1978, the whole area was treated as a "minor annexation." Eighty-five residential lots were approved, while about 148 acres were to be protected as permanent open space,. and a small, informal hillside park was dedicated. However, the open space easement contained an exception for the site of this project and for a residence near Highway 1. The easement exception allows the property owner to request and the City to approve a zone change and land division Rosemont Environmental Study 3 of the type proposed. The City is not obligated to approve the request, either as submitted or in modified form. In summary, the proposal is of the type that would generally meet the tests for a minor annexation under adopted policies. However, the site is already within the City, and the open space is already covered by an easement. The adopted Open Space Plan shows the site as "scenic sensitive open space." This designation discourages anv development. The Seismic Safety Element shows the site and vicinity located on the Franciscan formation, with very high risk of landslide, and as a probable landslide. See discussion of geologic hazards (item H) below. According to the Public Safety Element, the site is within an area of moderate wildland fire hazard, and borders an area of high wildland fire hazard. Also, the site and vicinity are beyond four-minutes response time for City and State/County fire service. See discussion of public services (item E) below. No other general plan elements identify potential impacts. Consistency with Zoning Regulations will require special findings.and an interpretation. The three proposed dwelling sites at the end of Highland Drive, plus the fourth site reserved for a dwelling (near Highway 1), would usually need a total site area of 160 acres (4 X 40) in the C/OS-40 zone. Staff calculates the open space easement area, excluding the two-acre dedicated City park, as 143 acres, which would allow three dwellings maximum (3.5 if figured as a fraction, though normally fractional dwellings are not considered in the R-1 and C/OS zones). The PD zone allows a density bonus not exceeding 25 percent, if certain findings are made. Depending on interpretation, four dwellings would require a density bonus of 33 percent (four minus three, divided by three) or a density bonus of 11 percent (4 minus 3.6, divided by 3.6). In order to approve a density bonus, the City Council must find that the project meets three of the following six criteria. Further, in deciding the extent of a density bonus, the Council must consider the extent to which the project meets these criteria. (1) It provides facilities or amenities suited to a particular occupancy group (such as the elderly or families with children) which would not be feasible under conventional zoning; The project does not meet this criterion. - r— Rosemont Environmental Study 4 (2) It transfers allowable development, within a site, from areas of greater environmental sensitivity or hazard to areas of less sensitivity or hazard; The previous Ferrini development plan did so. The proposed preliminary development plan does not allow development everywhere within the 14-acre exception area: it does designate building envelopes within parts of that area which are generally less sensitive. The proposed building envelopes have been reduced from those originally proposed, by more clearly excluding existing large oak trees and smaller pockets of space between oak trees on the outer edge of the trough. The excluded areas are those which involve higher fire hazard, higher risk of damaging oak trees, higher risk of slope instability, and greater,visibility. However, there is no allowable development to be transferred from the remainder. (3) It provides more affordable housing than would be possible with conventional development; The project would not meet this criterion. (4) Features of the particular design achieve the.intent of conventional standards (privacy, usable open space, adequate parking, compatibility with neighborhood character, and so on) as well as or better than the standards themselves; The project appears to meet this criterion, in that it meets the intent at least as well as conventional R-1 zoning. Also, two features appear more desirable than what conventional R-1 zoning would typically provide: (a) provision of formal, public pedestrian access around the building sites; (b) use of a common drive and enhanced entry area. rather than three "slice-of-pie" lots, each with minimal frontage on the Highland Drive cul-de-sac. (5) It incorporates features which result in consumption of less materials, energy or water than conventional development; The project does not appear to meet this criterion. However, use of one public booster pump to supply the proposed water tank may be more energy efficient than the separate pumps operated by individual homeowners. (6) The proposed project provides exceptional public benefits such as parking, open space, landscaping, public art, and other special amenities which. would not be feasible under conventional development standards. The project may meet this criterion. The following could be found to be benefits: /L Rosemont Environmental Study 5 (a) Eliminating the small, substandard water tank which serves a few dwellings in the area; (b) Providing gravity-flow domestic water service for existing houses ; (c) Upgrading water pressure and duration of fire flow for existing dwellings (during a power failure, the existing water supply for fire fighting is limited to the amount brought to the siteby truck). Whether these are "exceptional public benefits" is a policy determination beyond the scope of environmental review. Also, there is not a clear connection between the density bonus and the water service improvement, though a greater number of new dwellings would allow the cost of the water-service improvement to be spread over more payers. A density bonus would not be needed for two dwellings on Highland Drive plus one on Highway 1, or for three dwellings on Highland and none on Highway 1. The issue of the project's qualification for a density bonus is an important policy interpretation, but is not itself a significant environmental impact. If the City Council finds that the project is not eligible for the proposed density bonus, it could not be approved in its present form. B. Population C. Land use D. Transr)ortation and circulation No significant impacts are expected. The project would be a minor extension of existing low-density residential development. Development of three houses would resuir in about eight additional residents, and about 30 additional vehicle trips per day. (See also discussion of public recreational access under item O below.) E. Public services The natural slopes and vegetation, and the neighboring wood-frame, combustible-roof houses, make fire safety a primary concern. Fire response time from the nearest City station is about five minutes, while the City's standard is four minutes. Fire protection and fire safety impacts would be mitigated to an insignificant level by: (1) the proposed access, on-site hydrant, and increase in water pressure and storage; (2) the City's Rosemont Environmental Study 6 requirements for automatic fire sprinklers and fire-resistive roofing in new buildings; (3) State requirements for clearance of flammable brush within 30 feet of structures, and other fuel-control standards; (4) PD design standards preventing decks, combustible foundation walls, or overhanging structures on the eastern slope of the building envelopes. F. Utilities No significant, adverse impacts are foreseen. Water supply impacts will be mitigated to an insignificant level by code requirements. Water distribution will be improved. Sewer collection and treatment impacts will not be significant. Any new building has the potential to adversely affect City water service, since the normal level of demand exceeds the safe yield of supplies. However, the Water Allocation Regulations will mitigate the project's impacts to an insignificant level. They will require the builder to obtain a water allocation, which depends on the City securing a major, additional source of supply, or to offset twice the required allocation by retrofitting existing facilities in the City. The required allocation would be 2.25 acre-feet annual water use (0.75 acre-feet for each dwelling on a lot larger than one-quarter acre). The amount of the required allocation can be reduced by recording an easement which limits the landscaped area that is irrigated with potable City water, or by providing another irriaation water source, such as a private well or gray water. The minimum required allocation would be. 0.68 acre-foot (about 0.23 acre-foot per dwelling). The maximum required offset could be achieved by retrofitting about 75 other dwellings; the minimum would require about 12 other dwellings be retrofitted. The City's water distribution system is comprised of several pressure zones. Each pressure zone is supplied through a separate storage tank, or through a pressure-reducing valve. The elevation of the tank, or the valve setting, determines the maximum elevation at which adequate water pressure for domestic use and fire-fighting is available from the Civ-'-c g , fed sister . 1 n the Highland Drive area, 472 feet is the maximum elevation at which the existing gravity system will supply 30 pounds per square inch (psi), usually considered the minimum allowable pressure. (Forty psi is desirable, andmay be required for automatic fire-sprinkler systems.) Eight houses have been built at or above this elevation. Sir houses have private pumps to maintain adequate water pressure. If electrical power supply fails, adequate water pressure cannot be maintained. The City normally does not allow such individual pumps as a means of providing water service. The proposed project would construct a 40,000-gallon tank at approximately 775 feet elevation, providing 40 psi up to the 683-foot elevation,.including the project site and Rosemont Environmental Study 7 existing houses in the vicinity. (Elevations on the "site plan," based on aerial photographs, differ by several feet from elevations on the "detailed site plan," which is based on a more accurate site survey.) The City's sewage treatment plant currently violates water quality standards, and. operates at about 86 percent of its hydraulic capacity (based on average dry weather flow, before water rationing). The treatment plant upgrade, under construction, will improve treatment levels to meet water quality standards and increase hydraulic capacity by about five percent. No significant sewage-treatment impacts are expected. H. Geologic & seismic hazards, topographic modifications Soil instability and erodability have the potential to affect the project occupants as well as downhill neighbors, but risks will be mitigated to acceptable levels. As noted in item A above, the project vicinity is susceptible to landslide. Soils are generally highly expansive clay and clay loam, formed from sedimentary and metamorphic rocks, with limitations for development or cultivation. According to the Soil Conservation Service, Soil Survey for San Luis Obispo County: Along the existing road and pond, where most of the building sites are designated, soils are of the Los Osos - Diablo Complex. These are clay loam over clay subsoils, having low strength, high shrink-swell, slippage when wet; and high water erosion. Below the lip of the trough containing the building sites are Lodo clay loam soils, having high water erosion potential. To the right of the entry drive are Diablo and Cibo clays, having moderate water erosion potential, high shrink-swell, and.slippage when wet. Uphill from the building sites are Briones-Tierra complex soils, with rapid runoff and water erosion and high shrink-swell in subsoils. Slopes within the proposed building sites range from five percent to 15 percent, while . slopes immediately above and below the building sites average about 25 percent. Excavation for a new house in the area downslope to the southeast of proposed Lot #1 has caused a crack to open in the excavated lot and in a neighboring lot. While the excavated lot has a steeper slope, and involves more soil removal than expected on the proposed lots, this crack is an example of the type of earth movement which can be triggered by grading in a slide-prone area. Rosemont Environmental Study 8 Runoff from roofs and paved surfaces could erode gullies in the hillside and carry sediment to lower areas, if it is not dispersed over areas with, adequate vegetation or directed to streets or storm drain pipes. Without proper building site selection and foundation design and drainage, construction on the existing soil types can be damaged by future earth movement, posing a hazard to properties below. Dwellings have been permitted on other sites in the vicinity, with similar geologic and soil conditions (along Highland, Oakridge, and Patricia drives). The Ferrini EIR observed that "the extent of slides is incorrectly shown on the geologic map accompanying the City Seismic Safety Element." The EIR did not elaborate, but provided a map "Geologic Constraints." (The fault lines shown on this map were described in the EIR as ancient and inactive.) In November 1992, Earth Systems Consultants conducted a geologic investigation of the site, and prepared a report, supplemented by a letter in January 1993 (both on file at the Community Development Department). The report concludes that the proposed building sites occupy an ancient landslide that is very unlikely to move as a mass. �. However, there could be small slides around the lower edges of the mass; these lower edges are a considerable distance, horizontally and vertically, from the area of the proposed building sites. Depth to bedrock is variable, but appears to be about 50 feet near the center of the proposed building envelopes. To-avoid the potential for a small slide to disturb the proposed building sites, Earth Systems recommends maintaining a 50- foot setback from the lip of the shallow trough to the 'building envelopes. The conclusions of the report are based on previously published material, site surface inspection. and subsurface profiles based on measurements of deliberately produced shock waves. Earth Svstems notes that this approach is acceptable for site planning, but that test borings to confirm the shock-wave profiles should be conducted before actual construction, to verify the conclusions. miter receiving Earth Systems's recomrneaulation, ilii applicant proposed- to have the third building envelope closer to Highland Drive than in previous plans, in the western part of the area ,previously shown as Lot #1. Building envelopes in Lot #2 and Lot #3 have been reduced as well. This approach is consistent with mitigation outlined in the original environmental initial study, which recommended that site development extend no further than the lip for reasons of geologic stability, fire safety, and appearance. The applicant proposes "two-phase" building envelopes. The main envelope would be eligible for any type of development features otherwise allowed, without further geologic study. The envelope extension would be eligible for any type of development features otherwise allowed, if on-site borings demonstrate adequate stability. Use of the envelope extensions would be subject to approval by City staff. Rosemont Environmental Study 9 Earth Systems also recommends lining the existing livestock pond to avoid continuous saturation of surrounding soils. This is a recommended condition of project approval. Total failure of the water tank, a very unlikely event, would release about the same volume of water as held in two to three backyard swimming pools. The water would flow toward the boundary between proposed lots #2 and #3, then along the common drive to Highland Avenue. No significant damage is expected from such an event. City code requires the subdivider to provide an engineering soils and geology report (as described in Section 16.20.030, parts I and J, of the Subdivision Regulations). The report will cover all areas of the site to be developed or modified, including the water tank location and access road. This would be a more detailed investigation than the Earth System's report cited above. Recommended mitigation: 1. Grading and construction plans for public or common facilities and for dwellings will include erosion control measures, such as limits on season of work, permanent planting, and temporary erosion-control fabric and sediment traps. Monitoring: Community Development staff checking of subdivision and construction plans, as they are submitted. J. Surface water flow and quality No changes to overall drainage patterns are proposed. Anv construction has the potential to harm surface water quality by allowing sediment, concrete and paint residue, or fuel to enter soil or waterways. The mitigation recommended under geologic concerns (item H above) will avoid significant water quality problems. Several seeps or springs exist in the vicinity. Rainfall and runoff from upper slopes follow porous layers of rock debris or soil, then emerge from the ground surface when less permeable rock or clay lavers are encountered. Development (including grading, landscape irrigation, and possible foundation drainage systems) on the proposed building sites are not expected to affect existing springs or seeps. In prolonged, heavy rains, the stock pond overflows. The lower edge of the pond is formed by a berm, with a low spot to direct the overflow. The flow is generally toward the northeast. To avoid erosion of the proposed access road, the overflow point may be shifted slightly to the north and directed to a channel with rock or other material to resist erosion. The relocation will cause outflows to enter the nearby ravine sooner than 9 1 Rosemont Environmental Study 10 the existing outflow location. The stock pond appears to catch runoff from a relatively small drainage area.. No evidence of erosion was observed in the late spring of 1992. See also the discussion of water tank failure in item H above. K. Plant life L. Animal life Removal and damage of coast live oak trees (Quercus agrifolia) and loss of aquatic and wetland habitat are concerns, but impacts can be mitigated to acceptable levels. The previous initial study and 1978 EIR concluded that there were no rare or endangered species within the annexation area, and that there would be no significant impacts on biological resources. While a graduate student with expertise in botany visited the.site in summer 1992 to confirm initial staff observations,.no detailed biological assessment has been performed. According to the California Department of Fish and Game, Natural Diversity Data Base, any sensitive species occurring in the vicinity occur across the broader San Luis Obispo area, not just the site or vicinity. The site is at the edge of urban development and open land. Neighboring home sites are generally large, with.both native and introduced vegetation. Undeveloped areas . include grazed grassland dominated by introduced species, oak woodland, chaparral, and. bare rock outcrops. A stock water pond has existed for many years in the western part of proposed Lot #3. In spring 1992, the pond occupied about one-half acre, and appeared to be about three feet deep at most. It appeared to be losing water rapidly due to evaporation, seepage, or both . The designated building sites avoid clusters of oak trees. The detailed site plan includes a note that existing trees are to remain. In addition to direct removal from areas to be occupied by roads or buildings, the following can reduce the vigor of oaks and eventually kill them: - Establishing frequently irrigated landscaping (such as lawn) under the oaks stimulates oak root fungus. Trenching for utility lines or excavation for deck or garden-structure footings can cut roots. Scraping off, filling, or compacting soil in the root area (which extends at least to the tree canopy's dripline) --perhaps the most significant threat-- changes the availability of water and oxygen. /_<ll 1 Rosemont Environmental Study 11 The proposed road to the new water tank and the water tank itself would be on grassy or brush-covered areas, and would avoid oak trees. It appears that the outer branches of one large oak may need to be trimmed to provide clearance for the water tank access road where it curves around one cluster of trees, but no removal of trees or significant root damage is expected from constructing the water tank or access road. The applicant intends to relocate a few small oak trees from the areas where_ previously moved rocks have been placed, to enhance the entry area. Properly carried out, such relocation will not have a significant impact. While the pond is a man-made feature, it supports minor aquatic vegetation. The lack of wetland vegetation appears to be due to unrestricted livestock access, highly variable seasonal water levels, and probably the current multiyear drought. The pond does provide water for bird, mammal, and amphibian species which have existed in the area since before European settlement, and which previously depended on natural water sources and wetlands that have since been degraded or eliminated by agricultural and then urban development in the Foothill Boulevard area. No changes to the pond are proposed as part of the pending applications. It is included within a proposed lot, where livestock access would be prevented. Constructing houses on the site is likely to result in more domestic cats and dogs in the area, and increased disruption and predation of wildlife. The applicant has agreed that domestic grazing animals (cattle, horses, sheep, or goats) should not be kept within the individual lot areas, to avoid impacts on vegetation, erosion, water quality, and dust. An alternative with reconfigured, significantly smaller lots was considered as a means to avoid wildlife habitat impacts. However, it was decided that fencing of the proposed lot boundaries would afford protection from future livestock grazing for a larger area, and that the revised building envelopes would be adequate mitigation. Recommended mitigation: 2. Avoid grading, compaction, or excavation within the drip lines of oak trees. Before starting grading or construction, provide temporary fencing along the drip lines, to remain in place during construction. The subdivider and each lot developer will enter into a tree protection agreement, with financial guarantee, in a form approved by the City. The subdivider or lot developer will replace any oak tree in the construction area which dies within one year of completion of the construction covered by the agreement, with two oak trees, to the approval of the City Arborist. Note these requirements on grading and construction plans. 3. Prohibit domestic grazing animals (cattle, horses, sheep, or goats) within i ` Rosemont Environmental Study 12 the individual lot areas. 4. Include in landscape plans detailed specifications for successful relocation of any oak trees from the rock pile areas, to the approval of the City Arborist. Monitoring: Community Development staff and City Arborist checking of subdivision and construction plans, as they are submitted, and site inspections during development. Note: Manv seedling oaks have sprouted under the canopies of the mature trees. As grasses are grazed down by livestock and deer, the seedling will be browsed. Few sapling oaks exist on the site. Most trees have trunk diameters of at least four inches. Rather than obtaining nursery stock for any replacement trees, it would be desirable to use seedlings from the site. Doing so maintains genetic continuity from trees adapted to this location. M. Archaeolo}icaljhistorical resources No historical resources exist on the site. Archaeological resources do exist on the site T and throughout the vicinity. Impacts to on-site resources will be mitigated to acceptable levels, with adequate precautions during grading and excavation for areas where additional cultural resources may be found. The western parts of Lot #1 and Lot #2, and the southern part of Lot #3, contain boulder or bedrock mortars. These are deoressions in rock surfaces used by Native American (Chumash or earlier) residents for grinding acorns. While shells, tools, or other artifacts indicating habitation have not been found on this site, there is a high likelihood of encountering them on these slopes of Bishop Peak. This area is sheltered from prevailing winds and has abundant acorns and some water, all desirable features for Chumash and earlier inhabitants. A boulder along the western edge of the existing ranch road, within proposed lot #3, contains a long, rounded depression and a cupule on its nearly flat, horizontal upper surface, indicating its use as a mortar. The proposed drive could require movement of this boulder. A 1977 field check (Charles Dills) found "marginal aboriginal evidence," including: three stone fragments that may have been scrapers, east (just downhill) from proposed Lot #1; a small mortar in the area which was dedicated as a City.park (toward Patricia Drive from the proposed lots); a larger mortar site uphill, to the west of the now developed Ferrini subdivision (within this project site). The archaeological report, included in the /-�/3 Rosemont Environmental Study 13 EIR, observed that "no occupation area associated with this mortar site has been found," and cautioned that "care must be exercised since it may be found below the surface during construction." Occupation sites were typically located near mortars, for convenience in preparing food. A June 1992 records check with the California Archaeological Information Center (UCSB) confirmed that: mortar sites exist throughout the high meadows in this area; no artifacts have been found within the site of the proposed project; other cultural resources exist within the vicinity, implying that they may be found on this site as well. A representative of the Northern Chumash Council has indicated that the cerros are sacred to the Chumash, and that the site occupies an area which they consider significant. Recommended mitigation: 5. As a driveway and water-tank access road are provided along the general alignment of the existing ranch road, the nearbv mortar stone will be preserved in piace. i h. A qualified archaeologist and a Native American will be present on site _ during all excavation and grading. If cultural resources are encountered, construction activities which may affect them shall cease. The Community Development Director and a representative of the appropriate Native American group shall be notified of the extent and location of discovered materials. Materials will he recorded by a qualified archaeologist. Disposition of artifacts shall comply with state and federal laws. A note concerninU this requirement shall he included on the grading and construction plans for the project. Monitoring Community Development staff wili check construction plans, review the archaeological-services contract, and visit t « site during grading and excavation. N. Aesthetics Some recent hillside dwelling proposals have included very large houses, with colors that . contrast with each other and with natural background colors of soil, rocks, and vegetation. The appearance of new houses on scenic hillsides surrounding the city is a concern, but visual impacts of the project will be mitigated to acceptable levels. The vicinity of the proposed building sites is visible from much of the Foothill Boulevard Rosemont Environmental Study 14 area, Cal Poly, and the residential area above San Luis Drive. It is also visible from the Southern Pacific railroad (Amtrak) along the Chorro siding at the Stenner Creek Bridge area, and briefly from the Highway 1 entrance to the City. The new houses will be visible from the end of Highland Drive. With the proposed design standards, parts of new houses may be visible from: A short segment of Highway 1 approaching the City; Limited areas on and above the Cal Poly campus; Montrose Drive; Skyline Drive just north of Mirasol Drive; The eastern part of Clover Drive; Upper La Entrada Drive; The intersection of Highland Drive and Highway 1; The Twin Ridge cul-de-sac. Visibility of new houses would be minimized by the extent of the proposed building sites, within the trough-shaped area and the surrounding oak trees, and the proposed 22-foot building height limit. The natural topography of the site and the existing mature oak trees will effectively screen carefully located new dwellings from most nearby and distant views. Building exteriors will be limited to earth tones. Olive-green, matte roofing tile and medium gray or tan walls, or similar colors, will allow the new houses to blend with the surrounding oak trees and brush, dry-season grass, and rocky areas. The visual impact of 25-foot tall structures (the maximum normally allowed by.zoning) has been evaluated. During August 1992, 25-foot tall poles placed within the proposed building envelopes were observed and videotaped from various points within the Foothill and Cal Poly areas. The water booster pump at the end of Highland Drive, near the location of an existing well head, would be a low-profile facility, screened by existing and new planting. It is not expected to be unsightly. i The water tank would be about 11 feet tall and 25 feet in diameter. It would be painted a color similar to the existing city water tank to the northwest, which is light tan. The tank site is not visible from the nearby neighborhood. It would be visible from such distant vantage points as the "P" hill behind Cal Poly, the railroad tracks above -Stenner Canyon, and the vicinity of Cal Poly's poultry unit. The water tank access road would have a surfaced width of 12 feet. Grading would disturb an area at most about.20 feet wide. Cut and fill banks at the edges of roadway would not exceed one foot high and three feet wide, with a maximum slope of one vertical in two horizontal. The upper half of the access road would be screened by oak �- trees. The lower half of the water tank access road, beyond the proposed driveway loop, L�� Rosemont Environmental Study 15 would be visible from some houses in.the upper Ferrini annexation area (Twin Ridge and Montrose drives). The proposed water tank and access road are not expected to cause significant aesthetic impacts. Recommended mitigation: 7. Outdoor lighting will be limited to downward directed, low-intensity lighting for safety of walkways; drives, or building entries. Monitoring: Architectural review as "sensitive sites;" staff plan checking and inspection as house construction proceeds. O. Recreational opportunities and public access impacts No significant changes are proposed. Reducing or increasing public access through the development site is an important public concern. However, significant environmental impacts are not expected. For many years and for many people, the end of Highland Drive has provided public pedestrian access to a trail up the easterly slopes of Bishop Peak, and to climbing rocks beyond Lot #3. While there is no recorded access easement for the trail over the private property, existing signs and practices indicate that pedestrian access has been tolerated, if not encouraged, so long as parked vehicles do not block the gated road access. (Determining the existence of a prescriptive easement is beyond the scope of this study.) The proposed project accommodates continued public pedestrian access while preventing access by trail bikes, which could cause erosion. The applicant has proposed that public access from the end of Highland Drive be formalized. There would be a designated trail with a cattle-guard entry. Also, there would be signs directing users to the Patricia Drive (City property) access, if parking on Highland Drive was not available. In addition, the trail from the Patricia Drive access would be more clearly identified. The applicant has indicated a willingness to accommodate public pedestrian access, but is concerned that it not interfere with the privacy and quiet of existing or future residents. Also, since much of the upper 'end of Highland Drive is narrower than a standard street, and serves as a fire lane, accommodating parked cars is a concern. Provision of off-street parking beyond the cul- de-sac, considered by the applicant, is strongly opposed by nearby neighbors, who are concerned that it would encourage night and party usage, resulting in noise and litter. i �LA# Rosemont Environmental Study 16 In addition to Highland Drive, access to Bishop Peak exists: Through the City park property on Patricia Drive, partly along the road to the existing water tank, which is not heavily used and which does not provide an obvious trail to the higher elevations; At the Foothill Boulevard saddle, where a heavily used trail goes up the southerly slope. Summary of mitigation measures and monitoring program Following acceptance of this initial study, if the Community Development Director determines that any mitigation measure listed in this study is ineffective or physically infeasible, the Director.may add, delete, or modify mitigation to meet the original intent of the measure. Measures recommended by Communin• Development Department and agreed to by applicant: 1. Grading and construction plans for public or common facilities and for dwellings will include erosion control measures, such as limits on season of work, permanent planting, and tzrnporary erosion-cprttrol fabric and sediment traps. 2. Avoid grading, compaction, or excavation within the drip lines of oak trees. Before starting grading or construction, provide temporary fencing along the drip lines, to remain in place during construction. The subdivider and each lot developer will enter into a tree protection agreement, with financial guarantee, in a form approved by the City. The subdivider or lot developer will replace any oak tree in the construction area which dies within one year of completion of the construction covered by the agreement, with two oak trees, to the approval of the City Arborist. Note these requirements on grading and construction plans. 3. Prohibit domestic grazing animals (cattle, horses, sheep, or goats) within the individual lot areas. 4. Include in landscape plans detailed specifications for successful relocation of any oak trees from the rock pile areas. to the approval of the City Arborist. Rosemont Environmental Study 17 5. As a driveway and.water-tank access road are provided along the general alignment of the existing ranch road, the nearby mortar stone will be preserved in place. 6. A qualified archaeologist and a Native American will be present on site during all excavation and grading. If cultural resources are encountered, construction activities which may affect them shall cease. The Community Development Director and a representative of the appropriate Native American group shall be notified of the extent and location of discovered materials. Materials will be recorded by a qualified archaeologist. Disposition of artifacts shall comply with state and federal laws. A note concerning this requirement shall be included on the grading and construction plans for the project: 7. Outdoor lighting will be limited to downward directed, low-intensity lighting for safety of walkways, drives, or building entries. Required by codes (not a complete listing): Soils and geology report, with design recommendations (to be provided before creation of lots, with additional documentation before issuance of building permits, if needed). Automatic fire sprinklers in new houses. Fire-resistive roofing. Storm water runoff control. State requirements for clearance of flammable brush within 30 feet of structures, and other fuel-control standards. Water allocation/offset requirements. Proposed by applicant (not a complete listing): Building envelopes (reduced from previous proposal). Enhanced public pedestrian access. New water tank, pump, and main for domestic water service. No removal of mature oaks. Building height limit of 22 feet. DOC Rosemont Environmental Study 18 Access road, on-site hydrant, and increase in water pressure and storage for fire protection. Design standards preventing decks, combustible foundation walls, or overhanging structures on the eastern slope of the building envelopes. Earth-tone colors for building exteriors. Use of stone facing for any foundation stem walls visible from off the site. Foundation stem walls not to exceed five feet tall above finished grade. No livestock grazing within lots. All buildings, solid fences, walls, and recreational facilities such as decks; swimming pools, or tennis courts limited to area.within designated building envelope; areas outside designated building envelopes to be maintained essentially in a natural condition. Maintenance of the pond. Vegetation fuel management, to encourage grass or fire-resistant shrubs instead of highly flammable brush around the dwellings; and separation of low-hanging oak branches from the ground. Monitoring Architectural review as "sensitive sites." Community Development staff and City Arborist checking of subdivision and construction plans, as they are submitted, and site inspections during development. Community Development staff will review the archaeological-services contract, and visit the site during grading and excavation. GMARSMNT.IES 1_�,C P.C. Minutes September 30, 1992 Page 4 2. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, GP/PD 89-92. A request to add a Planned Development zone to the existing.zone (C/OS-40) to al!ow development of three single-family homes on three lots on fourteen acres; Northwest end of Highland Drive; John Rossetti; applicant. Glen Matteson, Associate Planner, reviewed the agenda report with the recommendation that Commission consider the environmental initial study and recommend that City Council 1) approve the general plan amendment and 2) approve the rezoning and preliminary development plan based on findings and conditions, including a condition that the open space easement exception allowing a fourth dwelling near Highway 1 be voided. He gave a brief slide presentation and outlined the details of the proposed development. Glen indicated that staff had received 14 letters and a petition of 300 names objecting to the project. He also offered a video of the project made available by the applicant for the Commissioners if desired. Commissioner Cross questioned the space required by the Fire Department for turning ) vehicles at the end of a road as long as that proposed. Ken McCool, Fire Marshall, verified that the proposed project would meet the Fire Department standard. Commissioner Hoffman questioned staff for details regarding housing envelopes, road surfacing and fencing. Chairman Karleskint declared the public hearing open. Vic Montgomery, 3026 S. Higuera and repres.enting the applicant, offered his video of the project development site into the record, He discussed the various actions which have taken place concerning this area since 1975. He supported the proposed three residences and caretaker's unit, with access to Bishop's Peak from Highland and Patricia, and concurred on all recommended conditions except #15. The Commission clarified questions on acreage, caretaker's unit, vegetation issues and preservation of the oak trees. Peter Kasse, 501 Kentucky Avenue,.was concerned about the wildlife on the property and preserving the peaceful view from Bishop's Peak. He urged opposition to the project. i � rA i P.C. Minutes September 30, 1992. Page 5 Robert E. Neil, resident since 1951, supported the project and expressed opposition to hikers, bikers and rock climbers. Gary Felsman, 2234 Santa Ynez, spoke in opposition to the project and offered a brief slide presentation of the property. He suggested an ordinance setting a height limit for development on all hills. Dale Rivera, 1170 #D Leff, spoke in opposition to the project and urged the Commission to keep the property as is. Martha Karshner, 1 Highland, felt that the project would help the existing parking problems created by visitors to the Peak and strongly supported the project. Chairman Karleskint requested clarification of fires which have occurred on this property; Carla Sanders, 660 Oakridge, was concerned about the soil stability and requested an . EIR on possible effects on the downhill neighbors. Ted Kennedy, 570 Peach St., #14, spoke in opposition to the project. He enjoyed the view and felt the project should not be allowed as a correction to problem with climbers. He indicated that most hikers do not leave trash or swear. Neil Seike, 1032 Knoll St., uses and enjoys the trails and urged opposition to the project:. Dave Wilson, 178 Boysen #2, gave apologies for the problems the residents have with some climbers. He spoke on the wildlife and felt an EIR should be done. He urged consideration of archeological aspects (Chumash) as a part of this project. Randy Knight, 1281 17th St., Los Osos, and representing the Sierra Club, spoke in opposition to the project. He strongly urged the Commission to preserve the open space and the morros. He noted the cumulative effects of development on the morros, and said the neighbor's concerns about fire and access can be resolved without the project. Ann Pistachie, 1241 Pismo St„ spoke of the property's natural beauty and was opposed to the project. Jeff Ferber, 1179 Laurel Lane (RRM employee), encouraged the public and private owners to work together to create benefits for all. i-Sly f i P.C. Minutes _ September 30, 1992 Page 6 Richard Schmidt, 1012 Broad St., discussed open space projection and abandonment of an open space easement, which requires four findings, public access to parcel, and precedent. He urged opposition to the project. John Ashbaugh, 1093 Los Cerros Dr., said the situation was created by bad decisions fourteen years ago. This site should be at the top of the list for open space acquisition. Tim Farrell spoke in opposition to the project. Charles Allen, 3730 Higuera, enjoys the Peak and spoke in opposition. Felton Ferrini, applicant, spoke in support of the project. He explained his intent to define trails, not deny access. Jennifer Menek, 102 Mill, spoke in opposition. She urged the Commission to look ahead and not dwell on past actions. Vic Montgomery presented the open space easement wherein exception is given to the 14 acres. He spoke of no request for abandonment, wildlife to be preserved, the completed archeology study on the property and preservation to the rocks. He noted that any public agency could have bought the site in the last fourteen years.. Chairman Karieskint closed the public hearing. Commissioner Settle expressed concern for the lack of water pressure and the open space precedent. Commissioner Hoffman discussed the importance of the agreement made 14 years ago. He indicated support of the project if the geological study shows that there are suitable sites. He also suggested changes in wording to condition #11 regarding fences. Commissioner Williams agreed with Commissioner Hoffman and the binding agreement made with Mr. Ferrini. Chairman Karleskint appreciated the concerns expressed by the hikers and climbers. He felt the geological issue and the water pressure issue should be addressed. He said it will be hard to get open space easements get open space easements in the future, if the city doesn't abide by its agreement to allow "with approval" the three homes while obtaining the open space easement to a large area. With the coming of a full Open Space Element, the City must show that the city negotiates in good faith. P.C. Minutes September 30, 1992 Page 7 Commissioner Cross could support the project only if it clustered lots closer to the cul-de- sac, lowered the water tank, limited houses to one story, dedicated for ownership of the rest of the open space easement; and demonstrated geological stability. Commissioner Senn was impressed by the speakers and the staffs analysis, and felt the City has an obligation to Mr. Ferrini based on.the agreement signed with him 14 years ago. Commr. Hoffman moved to continue the item to a date uncertain and directed a geological study be done on the three building sites, identifying specific areas and capabilities of supporting the homes. Commr. Senn seconded the motion. AYES: Hoffman, Senn, Cross, Williams, Karleskint NOES: Settle ABSENT: Peterson The motion passed. 3. GENERAL. PLAN AMENDMENT A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT GP R PD 145-92. Review of the initial study f environmental impact and a request to amend the general plan amendment d prezone the property to R-1-PD to create eight residential lots; 4 Foothill Boule ard; Burt Caldwell, applicant. Judith Lautner, Associate Planner, present d the staff report, recommending that the Commission hear public testimony and ontinue this 'item to allow completion of environmental studies. Commissioner Cross expressed concerns ith traffic and specific lots. Chairman Karleskint opened the public hea ing. Richard Zweifel, 1218 Vista Del Lago, spoke in support of the open space and expressed concerns regarding drainage problems, tra c, and public access. John Ashbaugh, 1093 Los Cerros Drive, wa concerned with traffic, drainage, and visual impacts of the project. He suggested setti height limits for buildings.. /-5'd D R A F T Excerpt - Rosemont Project MINUTES - CITY PLANNING COMMISSION City of San Luis Obispo, California February 24, 1993 PRESENT: Commrs. Gilbert Hoffman, Dodie Williams, Brett Cross, Fred Peterson, Charles Senn, and Chairman Barry Karleskint. ABSENT: Commr. Mary Whittlesey. OTHERS PRESENT: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director; Ron Whisenand, Development Review Manager; Glen Matteson, Associate Planner; Cindy Clemens, Assistant City Attorney; and Diane Wright, Recording Secretary. ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA: ------------------------- --------------------------------------- Item 2 . General Plan Amendment and Planned Development GP/PD 89-92 . A request to add a Planned Development zone to the existing zone (C/OS-40) to allow development of three single-family residences on three lots on fourteen acres; northwest end of Highland Drive; John Rossetti, applicant. (Continued from February 10 and January 27, 1993 , and September 30, 1992 . ----------------------------------------------------------------- Chairman Karleskint said that the item had been presented and public testimony had been heard on September 30, 1992. He explained that the public hearing had been closed, and staff was recommending that the Commission reopen the public hearing because of numerous project changes and new information. The Commissioners all agreed to reopen the public hearing. Glen Matteson presented the staff report, showing exhibits and maps and explaining property boundaries, the location of the proposed dwellings, and existing hiking trails. He recommended that the Commission consider- the revised environmental study and determine that there will be no significant impacts, that the Commission recommend to the City Council that the general plan amendment be approved; and that the rezoning and preliminary development plan be approved with findings and conditions, including a condition voiding an open space easement exception allowing a fourth dwelling near Highway 1, and with the building envelopes permanently limited to the smaller areas shown in the revised plans. He said that the San Luis Obispo Fire Department supports a water tank on the hill for improved water service, and a representative from the Fire Department was present at the meeting to answer questions. He said staff had received several calls and letters including a telephone call from Jody Ramslind, 436 Pismo St. , opposing further . /1 Draft Planning Commission Minutes February 24, 1993 Page 2 development of Bishop Peak, a letter from Vic Montgomery, the applicant's representative, and letters from Richard Schmidt, Gary Felsman and Michael Sullivan expressing concerns about the development. In answer to a question by Commr. Peterson, Glen Matteson explained that the applicant had a geological study prepared from existing published information and a seismic evaluation of the stability of the hillside. The geologist recommended locating building areas 50 feet from where the slope breaks, unless test borings later show the hillside was stable enough to allow buildings 30 feet from the slope. He said he was not aware of a formal easement for the trail to Bishop Peak from Foothill Boulevard, and that trail was not on- the nthe applicant's property. In answer to a question by Commr. Peterson, Cindy Clemens said City liability in the open space easement would depend on several issues, including whether or not there was a release of liability in the easement. She explained that there is a broad immunity for public entities regarding injuries in unimproved recreational areas, and it was unlikely the City would be liable. Glen Matteson explained that the modifications to the easement in 1984 were done to make the language of the open space easement consistent with the State's Government Code and did not affect the size or nature of the easement. In answer to a question by Commr. Senn, Glen Matteson explained that if the project was denied, the applicant could not submit another application that was similar in nature for one year,. but that similar applications could be submitted it future years. Cindy Clemens agreed with Glen Matteson's explanation. She. explained that the Commission could not arbitrarily deny the application without a valid reason such as an environmental concern or consistency with the general plan.. She 'said because the 1984 document stated that development would be subject to approval of the City and rezoning of the property, it. was subject to the legislative process and approval was not guaranteed. In answer to a question by Commr. Senn, Glen Matteson said staff concluded that the project could be found to be consistent with the general plan, but the general plan leaves room for interpretation. In answer to a question by Commr. Cross, Glen Matteson said the proposal was not an abandonment of a portion of the open space easement.. Cindy Clemens agreed with Glen Matteson because the potential for approval of the project was written into the easement. Chairman Rarleskint opened the public hearing. Draft Planning Commission Minutes February 24 , 1993 Page 3 i Victor Montgomery, 3026 South Higuera Street, applicant, said John Rossetti, Felton Ferrini, Dennis Shallenberger, and Rick Gorman were present to answer questions. He used the map from the open space easement to clarify where development would occur. He felt that voiding item 113.D" of the open space easement recommended by staff should not be done. He said that the applicant wanted to retain the potential for a fourth dwelling to be occupied by a caretaker. He explained that the proposed water service was determined after talking with the City's fire, water, and utilities departments. He felt that the City's failure to implement easement items 113 .C" and 113 .D" would have a chilling affect on the City's ability to get open space easements in the future. He asked that staff's recommended conditions 15, 17 and 18 be eliminated. Dennis Shallenberger, head of the geotechnical engineering department of Earth Systems Consultants, described the seismic method he and Mr. Gorman used to determine the stability of the hillside. He said the site as a whole was stable, but some recent sliding had occurred on the steeper slopes where a setback was recommended. He explained the conclusions are preliminary and recommending the setback was a conservative approach. He said a boring study would be done later and might find a lesser setback would be sufficient. In answer to a question by Commr. Cross, Mr. Shallenberger said borings would cost about $40, 000. In answer to a question by Commr. Hoffman, Mr. Shallenberger explained that the slide occurred about 11, 000 years ago, but now the soil lies farther down the slope and heavy rains would not cause the soil to slide. He said the weight of houses would not be enough to cause a slide. He said the slide in Portuguese Bend in Los Angeles was not caused by the weight of the houses, but the grading that was done. Eric Maceda, 13.50 Cavalier, presented a letter to the Commission signed by 260 people opposing the project. He felt that the City was not obligated. to grant this request because of the previous agreement. He said a valid reason to deny the project was the opposition of the public, and a significant aesthetic impact. He said once there is development, the ground will be wetter and a slide could occur. He said not all soil dynamics can be modelled in_ a computer program. Bob Neal, 18 Highland Drive, said he lives adjacent to the project. He felt the City should not back down from its agreement with Mr. Ferrini to develop the land. He said he would benefit from fire safety improvements from the project. He asked the Commission to approve the project. David Russ, 12-S Sierra Madre, said he had heard the geotechnical engineer speak at Cal Poly, and he had said he kept high liability insurance because it cannot really be predicted what is going to happen. Draft Planning Commission Minutes February 24, 1993 Page 4 Michael Sullivan, 1127 Seaward St. , said he disagreed with Mr. Neal that the City had an obligation to honor the contract allowing the development. He felt the Commission's obligation was to determine if the project was consistent with the general plan and if the rezoning was appropriate. He said the project was, inconsistent with the existing and proposed general plan land use elements and the open space elements. He said page 26 of the general plan states that a City objective is to discourage the County from development on hillsides, including Bishop Peak. He said the public wants to preserve hillside rural character. He believed the mitigation measures did not eliminate the significant environmental impacts and that there was no reason to grant a density bonus for the fourth dwelling. He asked the Commission to deny the project. Commr. Senn said Mr. Sullivan wrote an excellent letter. Jeff Kirby, 1766 Pine Cove, (manager of Escape Route, an outdoor rental facility at Cal Poly) said he used to live next to the Wild Animal Park in San Diego where 400 homes now exit on land that was once open space and he moved to San Luis Obispo because of the green hills. He urged the Commission to deny the request. Gary Felsman said it should be determined now who would be liable if there was a landslide. He said the open space restriction allows a maximum of three homes, not at least three, and the V Commission could allow fewer homes. He said the seismic safety plan of 1975 identified this site as a high risk for a landslide. He felt the report as presented was incomplete because a soil analysis had not been completed. He thought the site was not suitable for tennis courts and swimming pools. He expressed concern that the mitigation for oak trees was not sufficient because replacement trees would not have to be replaced if they died. He asked who would be watching to see that the mitigations were being met. Alex Hardy, 2053 Sierra Way, expressed concern that the developer and the people living in the proposed development would benefit at the expense of thousands of people who opposed building on the mountain. He expressed concern that the proposed project exceeded the development elevation for the morros. He said he wanted to institute a good trail system on the peak. He said there were more deer on the mountain than cattle. Martha Karshner, 1 Highland Drive, said she lived next to the project and said-she supported it. She expressed concern that the last time she spoke to support the project, her mailbox was knocked over. She said many deer come down to Highland Drive at night. She said many of the people in the audience were now living in areas that were undeveloped when the Ferrini's parents built her home. She said her home is on the slide and there has been no i� slippage. She said hikers and bikers have damaged the trail from the end of Highland Drive; no one has used the access from Patricia Draft Planning Commission Minutes February 24, 1993 Page 5 i J: Street. Access should be closed if the area will not be maintained. Commr. Cross said several Highland Drive residents would benefit. from the water tank, and he asked Mrs. Karshner if she was willing to help pay for the maintenance of the new tank. Mrs. Karshner said no. She said she paid water bills and still did not have adequate fire protection. She believed property owners have rights, and pointed out that the hikers are trespassing on private property. Garret Smith, 1819 San Luis Drive, read a letter from his father, Gerald L. Smith, a faculty member and former head of the Landscape Architecture Department at Cal Poly. The .letter questioned the stability of the fine textured soils on steep slopes, stated that fire hazard would increase and that the recommended mitigation is usually not enforced, that the removal of oak trees would damage the wildlife habitat and replacement was not acceptable mitigation, and that the development would set a precedent for future building in open space areas. The letter asked that the hillsides be. preserved for future generations. Martin Brinar, 1844 Vicente Drive, questioned the stability of the - land, not only in the perspective of the proposed homes sliding, but land sliding above the development as well. -- Matt Kokkenen, 215 Squire Canyon, said those who come to San Luis Obispo because it is beautiful, paradoxically affect that quality of life because of new housing needs. He said private landowners have a right to develop their land. Thomas Notitas, 1230 Murray Street, said the need for fire protection could be solved with a water tank without the development. He felt the project would affect many people because of its effect on the environment. David Wilson, 778 ' Boysen, a. Cal Poly ecology major, said the situation would set a precedent. He said the general plan supports preserving the morro"s. He asked the Commission to consider the meaning of several quotes that stressed the importance of preserving the earth for future generations. Robert VonBulow, 1106 Oceanaire, said the term greedy developer has been misused in San Luis Obispo. He felt a greedy developer puts as many tract homes in as small a space as possible for as much money as he could get. He said someone who wants to construct a dream home is not a greedy developer. Patrick Gordon, 651 Brizzolara, Apartment 2, said most people at the meeting were against the project. He said there were a lot of risks involved and the hillside should be protected. He said the � �cP Draft Planning Commission Minutes February 24, 1993 Page 6 ro proposed expensive castles and project osed J P P XP people did not need such homes. Wilma Waight, Ramona Drive, said she had lived in San Luis Obispo all her 64 years. She said Bishop Peak should not be ruined and asked the Commission to consider the mountain. Luke Chamberlain, 120 Mustang Drive, said he grew 'up in a nice area adjacent to a eucalyptus grove which is now all developed. He said if this project was allowed, building would eventually continue up to the top of the mountain. Carla Sanders, Oakridge Drive, said the area was geologically unstable and was stated so in the previous staff report. She said as a downhill neighbor, she -was not willing to assume any risks and she opposed the development. She said only preliminary tests had been done, and boring tests would have to be done at some time. She asked that the Commission require boring tests to be done before the proposal is approved. Tim Farell, 2069 McCollum, said he was an employee of Allen Settle, but his statements did not necessarily reflect the views of his . employer. He said he was glad that so many Cal Poly students showed up for the meeting. He asked the Commission to consider purchasing the development rights from the owner of the property. �J He said there were no assurances the site was completely stable, the project did not serve the people of San Luis Obispo as a whole, and it would adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of the residents. Ann Pistache, 896 Mill Street, responded to another speaker who implied that the opinions of Cal Poly students were not as important as other residents because they were not property owners, and pointed out that students had a right to vote and the Commission should consider their views. She felt she was not selfish; it is not selfish to work to preserve beauty. She wanted to preserve Bishop Peak because it was what she believed was right. She would be here only four years to enjoy the mountain. An ecological sense is more important than big houses on the hill. After a short break, the Commission discussed whether or not to continue item 3 . The applicant indicated that they would like the item to be heard this evening if possible. Emmons Blake, 684 Al-Hil Drive, said this request was part of a project that had been worked on for many years. He said a PD designation allows for special treatment of the land; the water tank would be concealed and would benefit the city. He said granting the request would hold 138 acres as open space in perpetuity. He asked the Commission to approve the project. Jan Clucas, 1727 Corralitos, said when she first moved to San Luis Draft Planning Commission Minutes February 24, 1993 Page 7 i Obispo she had made an offer on a house on San Luis Mountain that she later discovered had slid down the mountain and the house had split in two. She said she had heard there were slides.on Highland Drive in the 1960s. Cristala Mager, 555 Ramona Drive, #92, said a decision should be made on the facts and based on the stability of the area, not on emotions, and that all open land is beautiful. Tom Kirk, 870 Islay, expressed confusion because he thought the land had been zoned as open land. He said the general plan supported preserving the Morros, and he felt the .project conflicted with the general plan. He thought the mistake was made years ago, and should be corrected by denial of the project. He said he was against exceptions allowing building at higher than normal elevations and expressed concern about the precedent setting nature of the proposal. Vic Montgomery said, in 1978, the Ferrini project was the first to guarantee permanent open space on Bishop Peak, and it was still the largest open space easement in the city. He said this project encompasses 2 acres, which is far less than the 14 acres that was identified as an exception to open space. At the time, the City Council said this was a model project. He said comments about the - developer being greedy were unfair. He said access to the peak existed because of the property owner's acceptance. He said there is no current access to the peak from Highland Drive unless a fence is climbed over, but that this project would provide access. from Highland Drive. He said the City was not assuming the risk of the project sliding down the hill, because boring test results would be submitted with the subdivision map. He said a second expert would confirm the determination of boring tests. He said the developer would maintain the water tank if the City chose not to. He said the original proposal went to the State Appellate Court and was fully considered and publicly known, and there were no loopholes. Chairman Karleskint closed the public hearing. In answer to a question by Commr. Cross, Ken McCool, City Fire Marshall, explained several homes on Highland Drive rely on an electrical pumping system, and if the proposed water tank were to be put lower on the hill, the water pressure would be insufficient to provide adequate protection to those existing homes. He said. a diesel-powered system might stall in the smokeof a wildland fire. He said a gravity system was best. He believed the 40, 000 gallons would be adequate to protect the homes. Commr. Hoffman expressed concern about approving the PD before the boring tests were completed. Glen Matteson said if the geologic study found that the site was not appropriate for development, a parcel map would not be approved sA Draft Planning Commission Minutes February 24, 1993 Page 8 Cli and the PD zone would be removed by the City. Commr. Williams said she visited the site and did not have a problem with the location of the water tank. She said after driving around the city and looking toward the mountain, it appeared that the proposed development would not be visible. She said an open space area does not guarantee. open space access, and, in fact, some open space areas prohibit public access. She felt current access was a privilege, not a right, and she asked hikers to take better care when they were hiking on Bishop Peak to prevent erosion. She said she would not object to the project if the borings were done before final action. In answer to a question by Commr. Karleskint, Glen Matteson said that a proposal for different dwelling sites, as a result of further geologic study, would require a new application. Commr. Hoffman said he did not have major problems with the project, but expressed a desire that the road to the water tank not be an asphalt paved road, but one that blends in with the environment. He said he was not willing to consider additional area for development even if the borings showed it would be possible since there were aesthetic and fire-safety reasons for the additional setback. He felt the development would not be visible from most areas of the city, and did not believe approving it would �l result in development farther up the mountain. Commr. Peterson said prior to the meeting, he was against the project, but he had changed his mind. He said the County allows a higher development line than the City. He did not feel the developer was out for a quick buck. He said if the preservation of the mountain was the central issue, hikers and bikers would be prohibited to eliminate erosion damage to Bishop Peak. He said he could accept the Fire Department's decision on the location of the water tank. Commr. Cross believed the proposal was not consistent with the general plan. He said he agreed with Mr. Sullivan's letter and did not believe the land should be rezoned for development. He believed the road to the water tank would be visible. Commr. Senn said he was influenced by Mr. Kirk's comment that a mistake may have been made years ago. He felt that a deal was made in 1978 to seek development on the 14 acres, and was reinforced in 1984 . He said if objections were made about the quality of the development, he might have been persuaded to deny the project. However, he felt the proposal was a, sensitive treatment of the site. He said he was comfortable about the question of soil stability, because nothing would be developed until boring tests were completed. He said walking the site helped him to understand why the proposal was appropriate. He said he sympathized with those objecting to the project, but believed the City should honor i Draft Planning Commission Minutes February 24, 1993 Page 9 the deal it made in 1978. Commr. Cross said he felt general plan consistency had to be addressed. Cindy Clemens said pages 2 and 3 of the initial study discussed general plan consistency. Commr. Senn questioned if the setback limit should be left open for _ engineers to determine where the best stability of the soil was, whether it be more or less than 50 feet. Commr. Hoffman felt the 50-foot setback was appropriate because of visibility impacts, not just for soil stability. Commr. Williams agreed that visibility impacts were important. Commr. Karleskint said he thought this was a unique situation. He said he was impressed the developer agreed to preserve 148 acres as open space. He said the City was more concerned at the time about what was going to be built on the 14 acres, not if development would be allowed. He said the City did enter into an agreement with the developer and the City should uphold that agreement. He felt the judgment of the Superior Court of California on October 28, 1980, guaranteed the applicant the right to use the remaining portions for development. He said the City is currently attempting to make agreements with other property owners and it was important to uphold agreements the City had made with property owners in the past. He wanted to include conditions that boring tests proving the site was suitable for development be done before approving land division or building, that the water tank would be visually screened, and that the debris on the site be cleaned up. He said he did not feel the project conflicted -with the general plan. Commr. Hoffman suggested the Commission examine the conditions. In answer to a concern of Commr. Karleskint, Glen Matteson explained that conditions 3 and 11 intended for open wire fencing to be around the perimeter of the lots. Commrs. Hoffman, Williams, and Karleskint felt item 5 should specify that crushed rock should be used for the service road. In answer to a question by Commr. Senn, Vic Montgomery said no large oak trees were proposed to be removed, but approximately four saplings would be replanted along the perimeter of the lots, with replacement ensured for longer than one year. Commr. Karleskint said replacement or .transplanted trees should be guaranteed for three years. Commr. Hoffman wanted condition 9 to state that the water tank Draft Planning Commission Minutes February 24, 1993 Page 10 would be painted to blend in with the environment. Glen Matteson said the City would prefer a light color so that it would absorb less heat and less bacteria would grow. Commr. Hoffman said vegetation screening should be required. Commr. Senn suggested a caretakers unit provided by condition 15 be under 1,200 square feet or less of living space. Commr. Hoffman agreed with Commr. Senn, .and . suggested a condition be added to clean up the dump site on the property. . He suggested a condition 20 stating " An independent third party review of the geological study will be required to be done by a geotechnical engineer chosen by the city and paid for by the developer prior to submission of the tract map. " Commr. Cross felt the City should not be responsible for maintenance to the tank or its access road. Cindy Clemens suggested that wording be added to condition 9 stating that if the City chooses not to maintain the road or the tank, the developer/owner would be required to do so. The Commission agreed to delete condition 9, and renumber subsequent conditions. In answer to a question by Commr. Senn, the geotechnical engineer said he was satisfied with a 30-foot setback from the slope. Cindy Clemens said she accepted Glen Matteson's conclusion that a density bonus would be required for the fourth unit, and that specific findings would be required to approve a density bonus. Commr. Hoffman moved to recommend to the City Council that the requests be approved in accordance with staff's recommendation, if the expanded geological study showed that no significant effects would occur, that additional findings 6, 7, and 8, on page 10 be included, and with the conditions as modified by the Commission. Commr. Karleskint seconded the motion. Cindy Clemens suggested the following language be added to findings 2 and 3 : "This is based on the discussion of general plan policies in the initial study. " Commrs. Hoffman and Karleskint agreed with Cindy Clemens' suggestion. Commr. Cross said he would not be supporting the motion because it was not consistent with the open space policies in the adopted Land �' Use Element. He felt the project was an abandonment of an open Draft Planning Commission Minutes February 24, 1993 Page 11 space easement, and that the findings for a density bonus could not be made. VOTING: AYES _ Commrs. Hoffman, Karleskint, Williams, Peterson, and Senn. NOES - Commr. Cross. ABSENT - Commr. Whittlesey. The motion passed. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Respectfully submitted, Diane Wright Recording Secretary GMA224PC.MIN 1 MEETIN�AGENDA John B. Ashbaugh, AICP DATE J1TEM #_..L— 979 Osos St., Ste. E San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 805/544-8523 (far 544-2703) April 20, 1993 CGNr'S. TO: 1 ❑•D-o"es Action ❑ FYI I C�Casel L CDD DIR Hon. Pe Pinar 12 C"o ❑ F.�,D,z. Peg d, Ma or Y IYACA0 ❑ Ffs,E1z E and Members of the City Council A71 CNT£Y ❑ FWo . City of San Luis ObispoCLL X/o.:r_.. L7 POLICE C-L ❑ PdCh4T.T.� i [_'j nz .CID City Hall ❑ cry-DF U ❑ LI"L3 I San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 --- ❑ _7- Dear Mayor Pinard and Councilmembers: Please accept these comments on the proposed Rosemont project on Highland Avenue, which is before the Council for your action this evening. I had previously commented in opposition to this project at the Planning Commission in September, 1992, based on my understanding of the project at that time. It is my understanding that a compromise proposal is now being negotiated. I have had an opportunity to review an illustration of this compromise. This proposal would result'in the project being conceptually approved for only three lots at the end of Highland Drive,with the remainder of the property being dedicated to the City in fee for permanent open space. In addition, a public access trail would be provided generally along a route similar to that now used by many families within the neighborhood. Also, the water tank would be located at a lower elevation, requiring much shorter access route and less disturbance of the upper slopes. , In the spirit of working cooperatively with the property owner and keeping faith with the commitments of previous City Councils, I would aupport this compromise. We would all prefer that this sensitive site be preserved in its entirety as permanent open space,but this outcome is unlikely in view of current fiscal realities. If the proposed compromise 3-lot project is approved, I would urge you strongly to incorporate the following design features: 1. Provide for handicapped access (including parking) so as to assure that the outstanding views from this site are available to all. This can easily be accomplished without excessive grading, since the current alignment of the access road is at a very gentle grade. A decomposed granite base is probably suitable material for such a path, provided that it is properly maintained. Asphalt pavement should be avoided, P-0 APR 2 0 1993 CITY CLERK SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA Page 2. . l A.pri120; 1993__,_ , .. but would also be an acceptable alternative if necessary for a utility maintenance road for the water tank. 2. Incorporate the water tank as part of the access improvements rather than as a stand-alone, fenced facility. Too often,water tanks are ignored and treated merely as public works facilities; the result is typically an eyesore. This tank should be sensitively integrated into the natural berm in the location shown in the compromise proposal. This berm may need to be augmented by additional fill or by strategically- placed boulders. The wheelchair accessible path should also lead up to the top of the tank so that it can serve "double duty" as a scenic overlook. The tank should be structurally designed to support this use, and it should be landscaped and screened so as to be invisible from Highway One or other locations to the north. 3. Maintain the existingcattle pond as a year-round fire-flow reservoir by piping in non-potable well water from the well on the Ferrini property near Highway One. This would considerably enhance the aesthetics of the proposed open space area. In addition,wildlife would benefit from the year-round water source. The pond shoreline should remain accessible to the public. 4. Apart from the above-described improvements, the dedicated open space area should not be developed as a public park that attracts visitors from a wide areaof the ci . Instead, it should remain largely as it is today: A delightful and very restful spot used by relatively few nearby residents who appreciate it for its magnificent views, its rugged wildness, and its diverse plant and animal habitat. It is critically important, however, that handicapped access be provided to this site, if only because it can be provided so easily. There is literally no other place in the city where wheelchairs could conceivably be provided access to a comparable hillside open space area. Some of the design features discussed above may not be fully resolved through the PD rezoning this evening, but these matters should be addressed at the appropriate time in cooperation with the property owner and area residents. Again, I wish to extend my support of this proposed compromise, and I compliment the property owner and those on the Council who have worked with him to bring about this result. I urge you to give it your conceptual approval tonight. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project. Sincerely, ohn B. Ashbau CP L) �.TE fnI '�,�fltTENI#� APR 2 C 1993 COPIPSTO: ❑-Dotes Arlon ❑ FYI t;Ify COUNCIL I -Colum CDDDIR C April 20, 1993 SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA I�-yrCAO ElCIR FAND 1--7 AC O ❑ FIT P1 CHLE To: City of San Luis Obispo, California e A rc:\TY ❑ Ftv Da Planning Commission e_C1±MKi0' :c.. L-1POLICEC-i. and Cit Council ElrlTT:�VA McCJ PECDI=? Y ❑ C ZADF,LF ❑ LPLD—R. I From: Michael C. Sullivan n 1127 Seaward St., San Luis Obispo 93405 RE: Planning Commission Meeting of 2/24/93, Agenda item 2, Proposed General Plan Amendment and Planned Development GP/PD 89-92, northwest end of Highland Drive, John Rossetti, applicant. ("Rosemont" project proposal) and CITY COUNCIL meeting of April 20, 1993 to consider approval of said project. The following additional comments are for the public record. 1. The following comments are in regard to the Council Agenda Report ("Staff Report") by Glen Matteson, Associate Planner (Council meeting date 4.20.93,item 1, Rosemont project) I beleive that the Planning Commission did not porperly assess the consistency of the proposed project with the General Plan. In fact, in the Planning Commission meeting of 2.24.93; the Commission deferred to the judgment of the Staff Report that the project was consistent with the General Plan. There are many, many flaws in the logic preseritedd in the present and past staff reports (dated 4/20/93 and 2/24/93). On page 1-4 of the current staff report, two major inconsistencies are pointed out, yet these inconsistencies have been ignored. First, the proposed housing development does allow "major structures" (Houses over 2000 sq. ft. plus garages and possible outbuildings), and does require urban services. Secondly, the proposed project does permit water service above the elevation reliably served by the City-maintained system. Both of these are inconsistent with the General Plan. On page 1-4 of the Staff report, it is stated, 'The location is not addressed by the Land Use Element's Hillsides Planning Policies and Standards." This is not exactly true. The general provisions (G and H) of the land use element (page 25-26) apply to all hillside locations. On page 1-5 of the staff report, Mr. Matteson states, "The adopted General Plan does not give clear preference to preserving open space over other potential objectives, such as formalizing public access or improving water service to existing development." This is absolute nonsense! Apparently, Mr. Matteson was half-asleep when he wrote that statement. The General Plan is clear on this issue. There are at least twelve (12) places where it is made clear that preservation of open space is a primary goal of the city. Look at the following sections of the 1977 Land Use Element: (1) Page 9 : "The principal purpose for allowing such (minor) annexations is to help establish a permanent open space green-,belt surrounding the city although C', other significant public benefits may justify approval of aminor annexation." It would be quite ironic if this proposed minor annexation were to be approved. Open space will be lost, not gained. This is in direct conflict with the principal purpose for such an annexation. 1 (2) Page 10 - paragraph c. implies that°minimized outward urban expansion -within the unincorporate urban reserve" is a goal of the city. (3) Page 12 -The proposed project , which is now in an unincorporated portion of the urban reserve area, would have the last priority for expansion of City services. (4) Page 12-fourth paragraph - "The city should establish agricultural and other open space zoning and preserve programs.... intended for (1) interim short term, or (2) long term or permanent use....." (5) Page ?-2- "Open space lands will define the edges of the city so that it will remain a comprehensible, identifiable place." (6) Page 23-The purpose of hillside planning policies and standards is to "protect and preserve scenic hillside areas and natural features such as the volcanic Morros, ridge lines, rock outcroppings and steep slope areas that function as landscape backdrops for the community." (7) Page 23-The purpose of hillside planning policies and standards is to "set the limits of commercial and residential development in hillside areas by establishing a permanent open space green belt at the edge of the community." (8) Page 23- The purpose of hillside planning policies and standards is to "direct development away from areas with hazards such as landslides, wildland fires, rapid drainage and erosion." (9) Page 25 section g. "Prior to or concurrent with any further subdivision or development of commonly held land inside the urban reserve, the city Will require that land beyond the urban reserve be secured as permanent open space." (10) Page 26 section I. "lt is an objective of the city to encourage the preservation of scenic hillside areas beyond the Urban Reserve Line or Development Limit Line." (11) Page 26 - "It is the policy of the city to discourage the creation of isolated building sites in scenic hillside areas. In general rural development should be sited contiguous to flatland areas." (12) Page 26 - "The county should consider a wide range of mechanisms for preserving Scenic Hillside areas as permanent open space including..... Bishop Peak etc." On page 1-6 of the staff report, Mr. Matteson questions whether the proposed project might provide "exceptional public benefits." Others have argued that (hese "exceptional public benefits" are a valid reason for approving the project in the first place and for a density bonus. The upgraded water system is not of great public benefit nor is it a pressing need. The public benefits discussed in the staff report all apply to the upgraded water system. These benefits apply to about 8 homes or about 40 people, which is less than one-tenth of one percent of the city population. This is obviously not any "exceptional public,benefit." Please refer to page 1-26 of the staff report (A resolution .... denying applications for the Rosemont project.) All of the findings in that denial are reasonable and supportable by the facts. Compare this to the proposed findings for approval on page 1-18 of staff report. The C ' following findings cannot be reasonably be made: (3) "The planned development rezoning is consistent with the general plan, conservation / open space designation." (There are numerous inconsistencies with the General Plan) (6) "The proposed zoning promotes the public health, safety, and general welfare" (This is a false statement. There are still some unanswered questions about geologic stability, landslide potential, and erosion potential. Fire protection could be a problem. There is a detriment to the public welfare because of the net loss of usable open space in this hillside area which is designated for open space use by the General Plan.) (7) B. "The proposed project provides exceptional public benefits.." (This is a false statement. The benefits are not of urgent need. The city has not demonstrated that the existing water systems are inadequate or substandard. The " benefit ' of an upgraded water system would apply only to a very small minority (less than 0.1 O/o) of the city population.) Also, section 2 (Environmental Determination) (staff report, page 1-19) is not reasonable because of various still-unresolved issues such as geologicstabilityand archaeological impacts. Also some of the proposed mitigation measures would be ineffective, as discussed in my letter to the planning commission 2124/93. For all of the above reasons, approval of this project would be considered an "abuse of discretion" by the Planning Commission and/or Council. The Commission /Council should make the "findings for denial" as given in the staff report. Signed, Michael C. Sullivan MEET ING2D_g3 AGENDA / Da ITEM # April 19, 1993 wPISTo: O•Demotes Action 0O M CTo: City of San Luis Obispo, California &, '"CDE)DIR Planning Commission P 0 FNQ 0 and Ci t y CouncilTTORNTr p P;DRB0_0MK/ oRIc. O Potirp al From: Michael C. Sullivan. Q MGMT.TIA.x.t C] RECDIK 1127 Seaward St., San Luis Obispo 93405 °�F�� " � UTILDIR RE: Planning Commission Meeting of 2/24/93, Agenda item 2, Proposed General Plan Amendment and Planned Development GP/PD 89-92, northwest end of Highland Drive, John Rossetti, applicant. ("Rosemont" project proposal) and Ci t y Council meeting of April 20, 1993 to consider approval of said project. The following comments are for the public record, regarding GP/PD 89-92, proposed General Plan Amendment and Planned Development, northwest end of Highland Drive, John Rossetti, applicant. Items 1-6 (below) were presented to the Planning Commission 2/24/93. Additional new comments are given in part 7 below. 1. Using a reasonable interpretation of the existing General Plan, the recommended "Findings" 2-3 (Planning Commission Staff report, p. 8) can not be made. �,. Finding number 2 states, "The amendment of the urban reserve line location is consistent with general plan policies." The amendment of the urban reserve line location is not consistent with General Plan policies of the 1977 Urban Land Use Element. The proposal conflicts with these Open Space Policies: a. Conservation /Open Space "Areas intended for permanent open space will be designated "conservation / open space." This designation will be applied to land which is unsuited to urban use because of: infeasibility of providing access or utilities consistent with policies under C.1.d. above; excessive slope or slope instability, wildland fire hazard; noise exposure; flood hazard; scenic value; ecological sensitivity; and agricultural value." "Uses within this designation will generally be those not requiring urban services, major structures, or extensive landform modifications. Parcels will be kept large, generally 5 to 40 acres. " D. Hillside Planning Policies and Standards i. Hillside Areas Beyond the Urban Reserve: It is an objective of the city to encourage preservation of scenic hillside areas bond the Urban Reserve Line or Development Limit Line. ... It is the policy of the city to discourage the creation of isolated buildino sites in scenic hillside areas. In general rural development should, be sited contiguous to flatland areas. .....The county should consider a wide range of mechanisms for preserving Scenic Hillside Gareas as permanent open space including_but not limited to Bishop Peak, etc.RE(=;tIV U APR 19 1993 L;IrY COUNCIL SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA Residential Land Use Objectives h. "AII residential development porposals should be designed to ..... mitigate or avoid special site constraints such as climatic conditions, noise, flooding, slope instability, or ecologically sensitive surroundings. They should be compatible with present and potential adjacent land uses. Finding number 3 also cannot reasonably be made. The finding states, "The planned development rezoning is consistent with the general plan. The General Plan implies that those areas already zoned for Open Space are known to be unsuitable for urban uses, therefore to allow a re-zoning for urban use is inconsistent with the General Plan. Finding number 4 states, "The preliminary development plan is consistent with the purpose and intent of the conservation / open.space and planned development zones." Such a finding is not logical. The 1977 General Plan open space policies state: "The city will not designate more land for urban uses than its resources cna be expected to support. Open space lands will define the edges of the city so that it will remain a comprehensible, identifiable place." "Areas intended for permanent open space will be designated "conservation / open space." Thus, it is the intent of the General Plan that those areas already zoned and used as open space should remain permanently is such use rather that being rezoned for residential use. The 1977 General Plan Growth Management Objectives state: d. The City should not provide nor permit delivery of City water and sewer services .... beyond a maximum elevation of 460 , 320 or 240 ft, depending on location." The proposal is, at minimum, inconsistent with the above mentioned General Plan items. 2 The proposal is inconsistent with the draft Open mace Element update of 10/92. While the draft cannot be used as a test of current General Plan consistency, the Commission should consider the negative impact and unfortunate precedent that would occur if the proposal were approved. For example, the proposal is inconsistent with the following items of the draft Open Space Element: Hills and Mountains - General Goals - Preserve mountains and hills, ridgelines, scenic rock outcroppings, and other important geologic features as open space. - Preserve and enhance the aesthetic quality of mountain and hill resources. - Protect hill and mountain properties from potentially hazardous or visually degrading development conditions. Ch. 3 - Policies for New Development - The city shall require that development adjacent to open_space provide (a) a buffer between proposed development and existing open space to,.minimize conflicts between development and existing open space lands. The buffer should provide for an extension of the open space holding. Program 1 - The city shall establish a program to purchase and lease back agricultural lands near urban or developing areas for continued agricultural use. 7 Ch.'2 - Hills and Mountains Policies 2.c.a. - Within the urban reserve line and city limits; keep structures on less than 20% slope. 2.e. - Maintain the character and visual quality of the adjacent hill or mountain resource. 4. - Preserve protected hills and mountains. Policies within the greenbelt and other planning area 1.a. - Protect the Morros as Open Space and agricultural land. Programs within the Greenbelt 1. The city and county should jointly adopt or adopt similar hillside development standards that fulfill the intent of the element's policies. At p. v: "It is the intent that the rural character and agricultural uses around developed areas remain largely unaltered (thru clustering, transfer of development credits, or acquisition.) 3. The proposal is in conflict with the city's intention to cooperate with the county to establish the chain of morros from Bishop's Peak to .Hollister Peak as permanent, open space. Preservation of the chain of morros extending from Bishop's Peak to Hollister Peak is a goal of the County. The county has already denied a proposal for a golf course and resort near Hollister Peak (1991-92) because such an increase in urban use conflicts with the goal of open space preservation. To allow.further residential development on Bishop's Peak will not be consistent'with the county's goals. 4 The proposal is in conflict with widespread public sentiment for the continue_ d preservation of the rural character scenic beauty, and existing hillside open space of the city. Time after time, the public opinion in the City of San Luis Obispo has been strongly in favor of the preservation of the rural character and sense of open space adjacent to San Luis Obispo. The current proposal is an example of the incremental destruction of such qualities_ The proposal does not provide affordable housing, nor are the proposed water supply improvements of pressing necessity. The only "purpose" of this proposal is to make a lot of money for the prospective owners / developers. The City has no obligation to permit residential development in this existing residential area. The city does, however, have an obligation to follow the goals and policies of the General Plan and the will of the people. The only way to accomplish that is to deny the project. 5. The proposed "mitigation measures" do not substantially obviate or eliminate or effectively mitigate the potential environmental impacts. For example: - The mitigation for the landslide potential simply requires erosion control measures for grading and construction. This by itself does not preclude further landslides due to natural slippage or erosion near and beneath the proposed dwelling site. - The extent of archaeological resources at the site is not known. A further archaeological study should be completed prior to consideration by the Planning Comission. - There is no effective mitigation for the visual impacts of the dwellings and water tank(s). The only mitigation is that"outdoor lighting will be limited." (7). 6. There is no compelling reason to grant the "density bonus" for a .fourth dwelling near Foothill Blvd. In deciding the extent of a density bonus, the Council must consider the extent to which the 1 project meets several criteria. (See staff report, Rosemont Environmental Study at p. 3). Of the six main criteria, the proposal does not meet criteria 1, 3, or 5 (according to staff report). It is questionable if criterion 2 is met, because there is no allowable development to be transferred from the remainder of the original 14-acre exception area. It is questionable if the project meets criterion 4, because the site location (exceptionally high on the hillside) is not really compatible with existing neighborhood character. The project does not meet criterion 6, because upgrading of the water system is not really an "exceptional public benefit", in fact some of the local landowners are opposed to it. A benefit for a few landowners cannot be considered a "public benefit available to all. In summary, the project does not meet the criteria for the density bonus to an appreciable extent. 7 The approval of this proposed proiect by the City would not be legal. It violates Government Code section 65567 which state that a General Plan amendmdent must be consistent with the local open space plan. It violates Government Code section 65562 which requires that open space must be conserved wherever possible. It may violate Government Code section 65874 regarding release of open space covenant, which requires the City to find that the restriction of the property to achieve land use goals of the City is no longer necessary. It may be in violation of Government Code section 6 5860 which requires that the re-zoning be consistent with the General Pian. Also, the granting of special privelege to the owners of the property allowing the proposed development seems to be in violation of Government Code section 65111. The proposed re-zoning is, in effect, a variance from the terms of open space zoning. Section 65111 allows no such variance if it conveys special priveleges not given to other property owners in similar situations. For all of the above reasons, approval of this project would be considered an "abuse of discretion" by the Planning Commission and/or Council. The Commission / Council should make the "findings for denial" as given in the staff report. Signed, Michael C. Sullivan 4 MEETIN AGENDA COPIES CTO: o' RECORDING REQUESTED BY ' 'D Ate,,.. O_FYI 3 c28 When recorded, return to: I5� P-CU�DDIR DOC. NO r,A" FIN.•D OFFiC{AL RECORDS CITY CLERK'S OFFICE ACAO 0 FIRE CHIEF SAN LUIS OBISPO CO., CAL City of San Luis Obispo _ ATIO��vLY El FWDrR. P. 0. Box 321 t�CU�I 1'&c. D POUCECH. San Luis Obi Q MCMI'T`Ekk,I Q RIC DLA. J U L 51984 spo, CA 93466 Oe (❑] uTILD„2 tet' F iANCIS M. COONEY `d'j County Cleric-Recorder N TIME � 9 CPEN SPACE EAM ENT 2 ► 3 S PM This indenture, made and entered into this 19th day of June, 1984, PQ o%3Q�0, ob U�SOe�sby and between FELTON A. FERRINI and MARLDM A. FRAZIER, hereinafter called "Owner” and THE CITY OF SAN LUIS CBISPO, a municipal corporation of the State of California; hereinafter called "City". WITNESSETH; WHEREAS, Owner possesses certain property situated in the County of San Luis Obispo. State of California, hereinafter describedas "the •subjF,-t property" and more particularly described in Exhibit "B", attached _.. hereto and by this reference incorporated herein; and Vtt'EREAS, the subject property has certain natural scenic beauty and existing openness; and hrMMEAS, both Owner and City desire to preserve and conserve for the public benefit the great natural scenic beauty and existing openness, natural condition and present state of. use of said property of the'-Owner.- and he Owner;and y4MFMAS; the Owner requested annexation of 199 acres to the City._ with .the intent that 51 acres would be allowed to develop with 86 single :family home 'site's and that the remaining 148 acres beyond the City's urban reserve line would bepreserved in its present scenic beauty and existing openness by the restricted use and enjoyment of said property by the Owner through the imposition of a perpetual open space easement with conditions hereinafter expressed; and nnA A e%nn r WHEREAS, the Owner of said property submitted a development plan for said 51 acres as required by City annexation policy; and WHEREAS, the City approved said development plan by prezoning the 51 acre development area "R-1 Planned Development" subject to certain conditions of approval, including a grant to the City of a perpetual open space easement on said property and within said 148 acres certain public access rights to Bishop's Peak and to a scenic vista point defined on tae Owner's approved plan; and cF.AS, the Owner is willing to grant the perpetual open space easement on said 148 acres as a part of the annexation approval; and _ WHEREAS, the owner has supplied City with a title company Lot Book Report 'li'sting all trust deed beneficiaries and mortgages, if any, under Y_ prior. recorded deeds of trust and mortgages on the subject property. WAS, the Owner has previously granted an. open space easement for the subject property by instrument dated June 11, 1978 and which instrument was recorded on July 21, 1978 as document 35130 in the official records of San Luis Obispo County in Volume 2087, page 546 et seq; and WHEREAS, it has cone to the attention of Owner and City that certain prodcedural irregularities may have occurred in the granting, acceptance and recordation of the above-mentioned previously recorded open space easement; and WHEREAS, it is the desire of Owner and City to correct and rectify any errors that may exist as a result of said procedural errors involving the:previously recorded open space easement. L �^ -2 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and in compliance with Chapter 6.6 of Part 1 of Division l of Title 5 of the Government Code of the State of California commencing with Section 51070, and in further cor.!ideration of the mutual promises, covenants and the conditions herein contained and the substantial public benefits to be derived therefrom, the parties hereunto agree, as follows: 1. Owner hereby grants to City an open space easement in and to the property described. in Exhibit 'W!, said grant of open space easement conveying to City an estate and interest in said real property of the nature and character and to the extent hereinafter. expressed and resulting from the restriction's hereby imposed upon the use of said property by Owner. To that end, and for the purpose of accomplishing the intent of the parties hereto, owner covenants,. on behalf of himself, his heirs, 'successors, and as'sign's with the City, it's successors and assigns to do and refrain from doing 'severally and collectively upon owner's property the various acts hereinafter mentioned. 2. The restriction's hereby; imposed upon the use of said property .by Owner and the acts which Owner shall refrain from doing upon the said property in connection herewith are, and shall be, as follows: 2.A. No structure's will be placed or erected upon said premises except 'appurtenancet for agricultural uses consistent with the open. space character and the intent of this document. 2.B. No advertising of any kind or nature shall be located on or within said premises.. -3- R u VOL?611rAcF394 2.C. Owner shall not plant nor permit to be planted any vegetation upon said premi'se's except as may be associated with erosion control or agricultural uses consistent with the provisions of this agreement. Permitted uses shall include but not be limited to grazing and related activities or other agricultural uses permitted by the City Council except as otherwise provided in Sections 3.C. and 3.D. 2.D. Except for the construction, alteration, relocation and maintenance of public roads and utilities easements, the general topography of the landscape shall be maintained in its present condition and. no.topographic change's 'shall be made. 2.E. No use of "said described premises which will or does materially alter the landscape or other attractive scenic features of said premise's other than. those above specified shall be done or suffered. 2.F. Owner. 'shall. not cut timber; trees or other natural- growth, except as may be approved by the City Community Development Director for fire protection, or a's' required for thinning, elimination of diseased growth and similar protective measures. 2.G. Owner shall not extract natural resources from said premises except for develoment of water rights. 2.H. . No lot 'split shall be permitted, except as otherwise' provided herein for 14 acre's shown on Exhibit "A", attached hereto and by thi's reference incorporated herein 3.. The following property rights in said property are hereby excepted from thi's grant and are reserved to Owner: -4- e gni ?Fl7 i r)nm lk 3.A. The right to use and occupy :said land shall be limited to grazing and related activities or other agricultural uses as approved by the City. No vegetation other than that necessary for erosion control or permitted for agricultural use's may be planted. 3.B. The right to maintain all existing private roads, bridge's, trail's and 'structures upon said land, and the right to develop and maintain public and private water sources and systems. 3.C. . The open 'space restrictions on 14 acres noted on Exhibit "A" are limited to allow a maximum of three (3) lot's and three (3) dwelling unit's on said area 'subject. to the approval of the City and rezoning of- the property. 3.D. An additional exception from the open space restriction's 'shah apply to the four (4) 'acres on Highway 1 at depicted on Exhibit "A" to allow intensive agriculture, horse 'stables, and caretaker's residence 'subject to the issuance of appropriate permit's. 4. Land uses permitted, or reserved- by'rfti's instrument shall be 'subject to the ordinances of City regulating the use of land. 5. This easment 'shall remain in effect in perpetuity. 6. Notwithstanding any provi'sion's herein, this grant of an open• space easment 'shall in no way restrict the construction of, nor the right of the owner to permit construction of, public service facilities installed,_ or to be installed, for the benefit of the land which is the 'subject of this grant, provided 'such facilities are installed, or to be installed, pursuant to an authorization of the City Council. -5- _. 7P4 .1 r)no 7. This grant may not be abandoned by City except pursuant to all of the provisions of Section 51090 of the Government Code of the State of California. 8. This grant of open space easement, as specified in Section 51096 of the Government Code of the State of California, upon execution and acceptance in accordance with Chapter 6.6 of Part 1 of Division 1 of Title 5 of the Government Code of. the State of California commencing with Section. 51070, shall be deemed to be an enforceable restriction within the meaning of Article XIII Section 8 of the Constitution of the State of California. . 9. Me trust deed beneficiaries and mortagees, if any, listed on the-'Lot Book Report referred to above, andwhose .•signatures are affixed hereto, do hereby assent to this grant of an open space easement and, further, do hereby subordinate their respective interests to the restrictions imposed by this grant. 10. Land use's permitted or .reserved to Owner by. this grant shall be subject to the ordinances of City regulating the use of land provided, further, that lot •split's shall be prohibited, except as provided in Section 3.C. 11. The terms contained herein shall be binding on the parties hereto and their 'succe'ssor's and assigns. 12. This open space easement shall be effective upon the approval and.,acceptance of City in accordance with.the provisions of Government Code Section 51083. -6- • vol 2-W PAGE 397 O r%••t ',•. f,/." {: ' . i�fir.. l• .'i;�.r CI •pr.wlrrau wya•. Jr Mep Myl wt �• 'S �`. .��i '� ••:.-{,�,�•.f\f•:,1. .r;�r:..?7_',•j r��'•..��` laoyvdS111RT1n s�il�Yd as euldlj I / ��_ •.. i !j•.•r'f'-�(F�r•� "1• n;.; t•r. •6u11 f'� 1• ling& •'i 'OWFW S.13070D3i \' ...,• I ';' �;f•.. c:,[��!i:.i a. l' r� i j m Z-+ nM rm i j mcn c�i�m (^�� Z z M,> �� o z n >(n. C n nxLn rn X I• m �Z _ (•. 3 M> _ ._. _..:. Vol 9611 PAGE 3 J8 fer:rini Anne>:ation Description. A parcel of land beina a portion of the Northeast '; of Section 21 and the ' t+orth,•jest !; of the .1401-th",est !; of Section 22 , T.30S. , R. 12E. , tL. D.h1. , San Luis 05isr-o C010VILy; California, described as follows: C"inning at the !; corner common to said Sections 21 and 22 and running along Lhe ::est line of the Southwest !; of the Northti•:est '•j of- said Section 22 North 00 12' 00" East, 616.20 feet more or less to a point 'on the r:esLerly line of Tract 460 as sho-M on map filed for record in Gook 8 at Page 39 of Maps in the office of the San Luis Obispo County Recorder; thence running along said westerly line North .27* 10' 00" West, 292.79 feet more or less. to the most westerly corner of said Tract. 460; thence continuing along said westerly line North 62° 50' 00" East, 151 .55 feet moreor less to the said west line of the Soutin•:est !s of the Nortt,:•,est of said Sectibn 22; thence continuing along said west line, North 0° 12' 00" East, 374. 12. feet more or less to .the Northwest corner of the South:•:est •< of the 1401-thwest !; of. said Section 22; thence East, 132.0.00 feet more or less to the Northeast Corner of the. Southwest !B of the Nortliv.est !; of said Section 22; thence running alp;,g the East line.of the Northwest !.; of the t;ortheast !z of said Section 22. h:urth*0° 08' 30" ►:rest, 859.30 feet'.more or less to a point on the westerly right-of-way line of California State Highti:ay 05-SLO-01 ; thence following Said i�esterly right-of-i:ay line Horth 44° 31' 30" West, 33.89 feet more or less to a point; thence continuing along said right-of-way line Horth 5V° 33' 30" West, 33.84 feet; thence continuing. along said right-of-way line ;forth 45° 01 ' 30" West, 632.54 feet more or less to a point on the north line of said Section 22; thence- along said north line 11orth 890 53' 20" West, 829.05 feet more or less to the Nor•th:•:est corner of said Section 22; thence along the north lini of said Section 21 '.;EST, 2640.00 feet more or less to the ttor Lilwest corner of the Northeast r ` art r• o. said Section: 21 ; Lh'unce SOUTH 2640.00 feet more or less to the Southwest corner, of the Northeast !z _ Of said Section.. 21 ; thence EAST 2G40.00 feet more or •less to the 's corner common to Said Section 21 and Sec Lion 22 and to- the true point of be9innin9- Conlairiin:g Ig9 au-es rrrore or less. Except $1 acre portion zoned R-1 P.D. thereof owned by Cwner and shown in White on Exhibit "A". Xs u - VOL 2611 PbGE 399 IN WIT'gSS HWEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this document ori the day and year first above written. OWI-.RS ton A. Ferrini Marlene A. Frazie Notary: CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO a municipal corporation MAYOR MELANI C. BILL CIT' PAMELA OGE J VOL C E R T I F I C A T E O F A CC E P T A N C E ' THIS IS TO CERTIFY that the interest in real property conveyed by the Open Space Fent dated Jame 19 , 1984 , from Felton A_ Ferrini Anr7 _ Marlene A. Frazier to the CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, a Political Corporation, is hereby accepted by the undersigned officer on behalf of the City Council pursuant to authority conferred by Resolution No. 549 (1959 Series) , recorded May 26, 1959, in Volume 1002, Official Records, Page 292, San Luis Obispo County, California, and the Grantee consents to recordation thereof by its duly authorized officer of his agent. Date: July 3, 1984 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO Mel C. it yo AZ"'w Ci C3erk ' 9611 402 END OF DOCUME.-T VOL�. PAGE h. _TING AGENDA DATE `�`20'f1TEM April 19, 1993 TO: City Council FROM: Bill Roalman , RE: Rosemont Subdivision at the end of Highland Drive I propose the following site plan as an alternative for-your consideration. This alternate plan creates three parcels, each approximately 25,000 sq. ft. in size. Pedestrian access would be along a red rock road between lots 2 and 3. The road would extend to the water tank, as shown on the map. In exchange for allowing the three lots, the City would require fee title ownership over the remaining 145 acres extending down to Highway 1. RECEIVED L' APR 1 y 1993 CITY COUNCIL SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA COPIt'S. TO: ❑'�otes Action� FYI ��'' CDD DIR I�fF.O ❑ FIN.DIR. [�ti0 11FM CHMF QEY ❑ FW DIX If CLERK/O_',IG. ❑ POLICECFL ❑ MGMT.TF t hi [1 P.L•C DIP _FiG F 1 vl7Lnrx U - r• r-� \,tib;SV• '-� •9. � - t I� r / i �'�.`±if r: / •)+�.•) I f I've`4 _ e .o � »,v.. 1 C—' �,� .wY,��% :�,/ -.15r•,� i��;:'^i`i o s eY o.. V•iI 10 y u u -�Cm YYt�� /� � � :\ tel•• � ...,, i , 1 C 1 C' 1 4�- r%�Com,�•n {1 "•r .� \ � _rte-1..` ) I i � �� i(.{C?�R c)� � . .-, • ♦ � . � u t ! I ` �'' '•�---...�i 'r'Na'-.:J•'\.�ori, �,, , _r I \ � 5: F e PF �%�,"Jf1�d:1� r e' .Iir,. \\I•`. `i7 ,'I�'. QW ,,1 i .:,\^ °N,`}:� j.. ^••fit In l:lr '...:"''{; �. 6 \` r •• ',) /� �W �\ (1 77 t1 b A� �� M� �Y '�t l� '•' IA p 1 y t ffr C ,.. is / / �<0 I P 1' j � /• - , I . "� Z � I . • r�.�/_�) a•�• m / ,� / � t , / / •fnunl♦e�^ — ^^�.y.^ _% r :��^_fir-.r. u._�. � ` e MEWING AGENDA / DAA,. D 3 ITEM # 14 April, 1993 . C Arnold Jonas RECEIVED Development Director City of San Luis Obispo Affil S 03 re: Geologic Study of Rosemont Subdivision srwiu s o°B SPP CA At the Planning Commission meeting on this subdivision there was considerable discussion and public input regarding the completeness and appropriateness of the geologic study for this three lot subdivision. As the maker of the motion for the recommendation of approval I would like to clarify the concern with the test borings and ask that this clarification be forwarded to the City Council, either as part of the staff report or a referenced attachment. It is understood that the borings would be required prior the issuance of any building permits. The question that needs to be clarified is the purpose of these borings: are they to determine the best and safest locations for structure siting (regarding potential slippage and.its impact on down slope neighbors) or are they being conducted to justify the siting desired by the developer ? As the maker of the motion it was my intent that the borings be performed, and their locations selected, so that a determination of the best siting (ie. the safest for the down slope residences) could be made without regard to any preconceived (desired) siting. This approach will provide the best protection of the rights, property and lives of the down slope residents; the property, structures and liability, of the developers and future land owners; and the potential liability of the city. Thank you for letting me expand upon this concern. Sincerely, COPIE,TO: R: Gilbert Hoffinan ❑•D=Ws Adios p Fn Planning Commissioner Kaundl �CDDDIR Rr c'!o ❑ FIN.DiR Rr CAO ❑ FIRE clilEF P ATfomEY ❑ FW Da cc: Marlslant CLERK/ORIG. ❑ POLiCECFL CSaunders ❑ MGMT.TF-kM C) REG DIR ❑�$EAD F,Ze--❑ unL DIR. COPIES TO: °' Wes Actio MEETING AGENDA = KL `D'DIR DATE �'ZD-93 ITEM # J 0 . FuN.DIR. '�!'�12�.0 D FIR:CHIEF vR.\c f H- M'DiR. April 7, 1993 cLERx/C-?.sC. ❑ P.}LICEM D Mc:kmr.".I C; RSC,DID C` San Luis Obispo City Council ` [3,ZFS-AD E-1 E O LTILD:',2 ' 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo CA 93401 Attn: Mayor Pinard and Council Members Subject: Rosemont Development at the end of Highland Drive ARI 31993 Dear Mayor Pinard and Council Members: CITY COUNCIL sal LUgs ostsM CA The project at the end of Highland Drive is great concern to me. Though I wish the city would leave it as permanent open space, I believe they are two courses of action the . . city can take which will make it a win win situation for all parties involved. Option: 1 Don't allow any houses to be built on the proposed sights There are many reasons specified in the Land Use Element, Hillside Policy Section which could be grounds for denial. 1. Statement of Purpose a. To protect and preserve scenic hillsides and natural features such as the volcanic Morros, ridge lines, rock outcroppings, and steep slope areas that function as landscape backdrops for the community. b. To set the limits on commercial and residential development is hillside areas by establishing a permanent open space green belt at the edge of the community. C. To protect the health safety and welfare of community residents by directing development away from areas with hazards such as landslides, wildland fires, rapid drainage and erosion. d. To insure that the community's general plan specifies the ground rules for hillside development prior to the submittal of individual subdivision or construction projects for city consideration. Section i. Hillside Areas Beyond the Urban Reserve, Outlines many conditions which must be satisfied before development can occur. Specifically The geology is determined to be stable and not subject to landslide problems. In the original EIS the area was designated as high risk of landslide. The Seismic Safety Element identifies certain areas as high risk should be considered for open space designation as part of the Open Space Element. These areas include lands designated as high and very high risk of landslide. . - l of 3 It should be noted the Hillside Planning Policies came before the Ferrini Annexation. Therefore specific guideline could not be established. However I believe all the general guidelines still apply. The above reason combined with many items in the EIS and the fact that a potential lawsuit could be brought against the city if the developer is allowed to build on unstable, ground give substantial grounds for denying the project. Solution: If the Council wishes to pursue this option. The Council should negotiate either purchase the.development rights or purchase the property outright from the property owner. These ideas are outlined as programs in the Open Space Element currently under review. This would make a win win situation for all concerned. The property as of 1987 is currently assessed at approximately $110,000. See enclosed document. The city does have funds set aside for this purpose. An action such as this would definitely show the City's support for the protection of the Nine Sister's. Option: 2 Allow the building of homes at the end of Highland Drive. If the council wishes to allow the building of these homes. The following modifications should be added or changed in the Planning Commissions recommendations. 1. All mitigations and project requirements should be tied directly to the land not to the project. This requirement allows all mitigations to be enforced if the property changes ownership of if the owner doesn't comply with the project as approved. The County of San Luis Obispo is already doing this as a standard practice on sensitive sites. 2. A complete geologic study should be performed by a independent third party. The report should be reviewed and approved by the city. The geologic study will find the best building sites. 3. There should be no pools or tennis courts allowed on the site. This will cause unnecessary grading and potential ground movement.. 4. The remaining 10-12 acres outside of the building sites should become permanent open space. It should also not be included as part of the home sites backyard. 5. The easement language says a maximum of three homes can be built on the site. The project should be limited to two home close to the end of highland drive. . 6. The building site on Highway 1 should be eliminated. 7. The water tank should be located next to the new homes, with an auxiliary pumping system designed to turn on in the case of power failure during normal operations or in a emergency. This will alleviate the need for grading the road to the 775 ft elevation. Placing the water tank next to the homes will also fix water pressure at the lower homes. The only reason to place the water tank at 775 feet is to service the two new homes. _ 2 of 3 8. Obtain a developers agreement which publicly donates the trails to the City. C This will allow many-volunteer groups(i.e. San Luis Obispo Parks Open Space and Trails Foundation(SLOPOST), Sierra Club) to developed the proposed trails and help correct erosion problems which are already occurring on the sites. 9. If necessary purchase the remaining development rights to prevent any further unnecessary conflicts, As you can see I want to take a pro-active "stance where ever possible to come to a solution which will satisfy all parties involved. We must work together to meet the desired goals of everyone. If there are any question please contact me. Sincerely, Gary S. Felsman 2234 Santa Ynez Ave San Luis Obispo CA 93405 (805)549-0532, Eves, Msg. . (805)541-0488, Work CC. Bill Roalman, Penny Rappa, Alan Settle, Dave Romero, Glen Matteson — " 3of3 Assessora__ applicant waive Findings of Fact. -- AppiidaLion No. 86-20, Multiple Parcels, fuilon A. Ferrini vial, is Presented. Mr. Ferrini being present and sworn, amends application (Parcel No. 52-601-04) to reflect a Land value o1 $122,000. Mr. Dick Frank, Assessor, .amends application (Parcel No. 52-601-04) to reflect a Land value of `-- $255,300. Mr. Mark Connelly, Deputy Assessor, being present and sworn, descrilki wUJccl property; recommends roll values beheld on both parccL•^. Mr. Frank addresses reasons for reassessment. Nr. Ferrini highlights history Of subject property; cites factors supporting his opinion of values; .. distributes exhibits aooresSing same; addresses open space encumurance issues. Mr. Ferrini and Mr. Frank stipulate to 130 acres at $17,000 and 4 acres at $20,000. Mr. Ferrini feelb the 14 acres left should be valued at $88,000; addresses stringent conditlons placed upon subject parcels; feel;. development of subject parcels in strictly speculation at this time. Mr. Frank comments to clarification of restriction by the open space agreement. Mr. Yasumoto comments to the various selling price ranges. Mr. Frantz r ' questions the number, of .lots carrying restrictions with applicant responding. Mr. 0111 Vrrooman being present and sworn, comenLs to .line 19, 1984 as u.,: date or value on the 14 acres; states there is an absence of comparaules available on the 14 acres with open space restrictions. Mr. Frank comments to the Volney sale with Mr. Vrrooman responding. Mr. Connelly presents the Assessor's case; submits air . photo showing subject property; addresses rule No. 2 in determining value amounts; distributesexhibitsaddressing same; reviews appraisal concepts; speaks to .water issues. Mr. Frank requests a continuance to enable a formal exchange of information to take place. Mr.. Ferrini objects to any continuance. Mr. Frank states he is willing to .subpoena individuals who would be .able to testify to the potential value of subject pruperiy if developed. Mr. Hnrn expresses an absence of confidence with city officials. Mr. Frantz and YasLmoto speak. to continuance Issues. Mr. Frank states he is willing to go forward with today's hearing. Mr.. Connelly continues his presentation; withdraws listing as a comparable. The . Assessor and applicant agree to accept comparables as presented by both parties. Mr. Vrrooman comments to the time table of selling proposed lots. - Mr. Yasumoto coanents to subdivision .amounts and related issues. Matter is discussed and thereafter, on motion. of Mr. Frantz, seconded. by Mr. Horn and being -unanimously carried, the Board determines Application No. 86-20, Parcel No. 52-601-04-000, date of value to be February 1985 with ttie full Land value to be $98,800. Matter is discussed and thereafter, on motion of Mr. Frantz, • seconded by Mr.. Horn and being unanimously carried, the Board determines e Application .No. .66-20, Parcel No. 52-512-24-000, date of value to be February 1985 and finds the full Land value to be $1,000. Assessor and applicant waive Findings of Fact. On motion of I.L. Frantz, seconded by Mr. Horn and being unanlmously carried, the Board a,.,,roves the Assessment Appeals Board Minutes of Jarxwary 9, 1987 as submitted and instructs the Chairman to sigh same. On motion duly made and unanimously carried, the Assessment Appeals Board of the County of San Luis Ooispo, State of California, does now adjourn to Friday, February 20, 1987 at 9:00 o'clock A.M., in the Board of Supervisors Chambers, County Government Center, San Luis Ooispo, California. ATTEST: FRANCIS M. CoomEY, County Clerk- Recorder and Ex-Officio Clerk of the Assessment Appeals Board By: U1 Ce-(,I Deputy Clerk-Recorder� �viEFnNG AGENDA f DATE flo`93 ITEM Dear Commission Members, We, the undersigned, are opposed to the rezoning of the land at the end of Highland Drive from Open Space to Planned Development for the following reasons: • We acknowledge that a deal was struck between the City and Mr. Felton Ferrini. This agreement was-named "irregular," even in your own staff report. You are in no way obligated to fulfill this agreement. This project would have significant environmental aesthetic impact that in no way can be mitigated. The protection of the Moiros is the top environmental priority for citizens of San Luis Obispo. • According to staff report, the site is located on ancient landslide. Construction on the slide would upset a geological equilibrium that took thousands of years to develop. the landslide will try to reach a new equilibrium to respond to changes caused by - construction. The result would be earth movement that would effect both those on the site and those below it. We hope the Planning Commission realizes that these facts must be considered under the California Environmental Protection Act. We also hope on that the Commission will realize what a tragedy it would be to spoil one of San Luis Obispo's most outstanding natural features for the sake of development. With all of this in mind, please vote against this proposal Wednesday night. ❑CO•METO- &N= Anion 13 FYI Sincerely, 40 OP-CAO FIN.Di ChorIP❑ E a7340 ATTOR:sEY ❑ FW DIR. o r%Yeri n& 0c o CLiR.K/O'G. QLD POLICECH 54o Cg 3�yU� I ]..� pp e- ❑ 1dGT.iT.Tr+nd Q 1,CCDID P.EA4RU 0 LrrJLD!iL 0 - ; _ 'L _ n^ c-¢ y�y,� APR 21 1993 _ - CITY COUNCIL -- SAN-LUIS OBISPO, CA - - --- -_z,,�� --1�0..11�� -- - -�`��'''..�------mac.`•--- --� _3..-,/�(�J��- -112----5-Eu�1k,-,�� - ---Lo ....__ vwr4b-'V()SJ ��------- i3 (�{Li 2__cle►--men eo• vdiCknt -------Eie&f-on►r'-i_FQ_gr _- ---- ------- ---- ko vel—_ /fit uS 2 _--- -----��-�.�_�__ .._ -�`-'`—�—.-- --.5fv�c,�t�---------�.c,.�-k_�_-rte`-r_•'�'.� _- - - -..._ ---- ese Ac' httrtc - .----- --- -- -.ftf LAlzc- ----311- - � ��-- -- 37- _ - 10 LA _ - - tl Z- -�M-ML Af ---__C1W9 i a O�-Lo ►� O,egr,4 :57vopkall- _ 444,v s 462974r,� 1A ss 55 i-Pi�JZ ��.� --- - `--�1✓��.c'..�� - ------ .2_C..6�i�. �i,C�l ,. _ 57 . ---- A.11 .11. ,� Ucla ;zgC - oJ w��o - ---—r� - ---- --- --- - --- - ---- --- 2 A el LA- -70 ----------- _Jti -4- Gr UJ Yf f,LQ 4�V �m JLJZ)V-� pl. Lker- el ►o_o..' - — lol Coi.�y—(- vt�J S�v,cleh�- c,taaC--j P-CAjVv L—+ LAI a- — — ieChorr_uSl_-r �S71A iG� MEETIN , AGENDA -- � , DATE ITEM# • j f ' ' SIERRA CLUB o.. SANTA LUCIA CHAPTFR roYlo[D " 1993 COPial.o: ® ❑•Dmotes Action ❑ ' co. , Rf CDD DR April 20, 1993 CAO ❑ Fm DR iSl ACRO ❑ nP[T:( 'F- San Luis Obispo City Council FWDiR 990 Palm Street CLQ K/0F1 • f0POLKECK ❑ 1V_1QVIT.T�S�j.1 li�C.DID San Luis Obispo CA 93401 ❑ c?EaDr, ❑ i*rn Drti Attn: Mayor Pinard and Council Members _ ❑ Subject: Rosemont Development at the end of Highland Drive REL U. RPR 2 1993 Dear Mayor Pinard and Council Members: CITY COUNCIL SAN LUIS OBISPO. CA The project at the end of Highland Drive is great concern to Sierra Club. The Sierra Club is concerned about the incremental impact of several projects being built on the Nine Sisters(Morros). The Sierra Club also realizes that without the cooperation of the landowners, government agency, businesses and environmental organizations,the goals concerning the protection of the Nine Sister will never be reached. The Sierra Club believes there can be a win win situation which will benefit the public and developer alike. There are two courses of action the city can take which can satisfy all parties concerned. Option: 1 The city buys the property and does not allow any houses to be built on the proposed sights. There are many reasons specified in the Land Use Element, Hillside Policy Section which could be grounds for denial. 1. Statement of Purpose a. To protect and preserve scenic hillsides and natural features such as the volcanic Morros, ridge lines, rock outcroppings, and steep slope areas that function as landscape backdrops for the community. b. To set the limits on commercial and residential development is hillside ureas by establishing a permanent open space green belt at the edge of the community. . C., To protect the health safety and welfare of community residents by directing development away from areas with hazards such as landslides, wildland fires, rapid drainage and erosion. d. To insure that the community's general plan specifies.the ground rules for hillside development prior to the submittal of individual subdivision or construction projects for city consideration. To explore. enjor. and�,43 the nation's scenic rrsourcei . . . Section i. Hillside Areas Beyond the Urban Reserve, Outlines many conditions which must be satisfied before development can occur. Specifically The geology is determined to be stable and not subject to landslide problems. In the original EIS the area was designated as high risk of landslide. The Seismic Safety Element identifies certain areas as high risk should be considered for open space designation as part of the Open Space Element. These areas include lands designated as high and very high risk of landslide. It should be noted the Hillside Planning Policies came before the Ferrini Annexation. Therefore specific guideline could not be established. However I believe all the general guidelines still apply. The above reason combined with many items in the EIS and the fact that a potential lawsuit could be brought against the city if the,developer is allowed to build on unstable ground give substantial grounds for denying the project. Solution: If the Council wishes to pursue this option. The Council should negotiate either purchase the development rights or purchase the property outright from the property owner. These ideas ate outlined as programs in the Open Space Element currently under review. This would make a win win situation for all concerned. The city has funds set aside for this purpose. An action such as this would definitely show the City's support for the protection of the Nine Sister's. Option: 2 Allow the building of homes at the end of Highland Drive. If the council wishes to allow the building of these homes. The following modifications should be added or changed in the Planning Commissions recommendations. 1. All mitigations and project requirements should be tied directly to the land not to the project. This requirement allows all mitigations to be enforced if the - property changes ownership of if the owner doesn't comply with the project as approved. The County of San Luis Obispo is already doing this as a standard practice on sensitive sites. 2. A complete geologic study should be performed by a independent third party. The report should be reviewed and approved by the city. The geologic study will find the best building sites. 3. There should be no pools or tennis courts allowed on the site. This will cause unnecessary grading and potential ground movement. 4. The easement language says a maximum of three homes can be built on the site at the end of Highland Drive. The number of homes to be built are at the councils discretion. 5. The building site on Highway 1 should be eliminated. 2of3 -i 6. The remaining 145 acres outside of the building sites should become permanent open space and fee titled to the city.. 7. The water tank should be located next to the new homes, with an auxiliary pumping system designed to turn on in the case of power failure during normal operations or in a emergency. The tank will be hidden with landscaping or a burro to hide it from view. This will alleviate the need for grading the road to the 775 ft elevation. Placing the water tank next to the homes will also fix water pressure at the lower homes. The only reason to place the water tank at 775 feet is to service the two new homes. 8. Obtain a developers agreement which publicly donates the trails to the City. This will allow many volunteer groups(i.e. San Luis Obispo Parks Open Space and Trails Foundation(SLOPOST), Sierra Club) to developed the proposed trails and help correct erosion problems which are already occurring on the sites. The Sierra club wants to take a pro-active stance where ever possible to come to a solution which will satisfy all parties involved. We must work together to meet the desired goals of everyone. If there are any question please contact me. Sincerely, Gary S. elsman Vice Chair(Acting Chair) Santa Lucia Chapter of the Sierra Club P.O. Box 15755 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 (805)549-0532 3 of3 - r I; I r• • sem— •�\ r I.t �Ypy� 1 � ��1 •� •'�•-'� `; � 'S:'--,rte 11 •.r <;��j '� • �LF 0-9 31 f �+�+��%� 1t l�/•.�`ji;i�f' r; t ,T `L %moi Z'= 4 I_ i N N u U C eo.L F: - u � � i 1 Earth systems Consultants 1 ` Northern California 1 1 1 � _ 1 1 PLAN REVIEW AND PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL/GEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION FOR ROSEMONT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA NGG08440W01 December 28, 1992 tCopyright C 1992 Earth Systems Consultants Northern California All Rights Reserved 1 1Earth Systems Consultants Pacific Geoscience Division `F Northern California 4378 Santa Fe Road San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805)544-3276 FAX(805)544-1786 December 28, 1992 JOB NO.: NGG0844OW01 DOC. NO.: 9212-259.LTR Mr. Felton Ferrini ' c/o RRM Design Group Attn: Mr. Victor Montgomery 3026 South Higuera Street tSan Luis Obispo, CA 93401 PROJECT: ROSEMONT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT LOTS 19 2 AND 3, PATRICIA DRIVE SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA ' SUBJECT: Plan Review REF: Earth Systems Consultants, Dec.. 4, 1992, Preliminary Geotechnical/Geologic Report, Rosemont Planned Development, Lots 1, 2, and 3, Patricia Drive, San Luis Obispo, California, Doc. No.: 9212-057.RPT ' Dear Mr. Ferrini: We have reviewed the revised detailed site plan, noted herein as Revised Site Map, dated December 30, 1992 prepared by RRM Design Group for the Rosemont Planned Development, San Luis Obispo, California. The purpose of this plan review was to confirm that the revisions made on the plan are in conformance with the recommendations presented in the referenced report. The plan revisions consisted of relocating Lot 3 from the northwestern section of the property to southeastern section of the property, west of Lots 1 and 2, and moving the building areas of Lots 1 and 2 fifty feet back from the existing ridgeline. The location of the ridgeline and the building setback are delineated on the Revised Site Map presented with this letter. The sizes of Lots 1 and 3 were reduced by just under an acre and the size of Lot 2 was increased by nearly two acres. 1 ' 1 1r ' The revisions on the Revised Site Map were found to be in conformance with the recommendations presented in the referenced report. The final building setback line from the ' existing ridgeline will be modified or verified as shown on the Revised Site Map during the subsurface exploration phase of this project. For your convenience, the referenced Preliminary Geotechnical/Geologic report is bound with this plan review letter. ' We appreciate the opportunity to have provided geotechnical and geologic services and look forward to working with you on subsequent project phases. If there are any questions ' concerning this report, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Sincerely, EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTSFESSIQ�✓'q!� Northern California, Pacific Geo D encs Division �&eQIiA 'm Wo CiE 2158 Richard T. Go Bennis Shall ergs G . Ex IZ131!g3 Engineering Geo gi t No.CEG 1325 * �'' taw co aG OF CAL��'� ' F OF C/►1.�F 1 t 1 Earth Systems Consultants Pacific Geoscience Division �► Northern California 4378 Santa Fe Road San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805)544-3276 FAX (805) 544-1786 January 22, 1993 FILE NO.: NGG08440W01 AECEIV EL Mr. Felton Ferrini c/o RRM Design Group " JAS 2 190/3 Attr:._M*.. Victor NZontgomcry 3026 South Hipuera Street Crrv^FSAN LUISoe,SM o vrraunwnc �� •� San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 SUBJECT: CLARIFICATION OF PLAN REVIEW AND PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL/GEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION FOR ROSEMONT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, DATED DECEMBER 28, 1992 Dear Mr. Ferrini: This letter is to clarify two issues that have recently come up with respect to the subject report. The first issue was brouglit up by Mr. Tom Baascii, Chief Building Official of the City of San Luis Obispo. His question was whether or not the landslide shown in the northwest corner of the site was a recent slide or part of the ancient slide, and whether or not it could possibly encroach upon the proposed location of Lot 3. The limits of the ancient slide are shown on Plate 1 of the referenced report as a geologic contact between the ancient slide and metavolcanic and chert rock. The slide in question is without a doubt a reccnt-slide and in no way affects our preliminary opinion that the ancient slide is stable. At this time we are of the opinion that the ancient slide moved several thousand years ago during a period of exceptionally intense rainfall. Our preliminary analysis showed that due to its current location on a shallower slope, it no longer has sufficient driving force to induce future movement. All of the recent slides on that hillside tend to move in increments of a few inches or a few feet at a time. The recent slide in the northwest corner of the site is 500 or more feet from the proposed building area on Lot 3 and would have to traverse relatively flat terrain in order to encroach on that building area. It is our opinion that that slide is not a hazard to any of the proposed building areas. The second issue raised is witli respect to the stability of the site for the proposed water tank above the three lots. This area was not specifically addressed in [lie report as the report addressed the stability of the ancient slide as a whole and the safe setback from areas of recent sliding. The proposed tank location is a significant distance from any of the areas that we believe to be currently unstable. It lies high up on the ancient slide and in our opinion, its construction will in all probability require a graded pad that will be constructed using conventional earthwork methods. y CM Mr. Felton Ferrini January 22, 1993 I would like to again point out that all of,our conclusions thus far are preliminary and are based upon geophysical methods on this site and soil parameters developed from nearby sites with similar conditions. Additional soils and geologic investigation will be necessary to augment the existing 'field data, stipplenle*nt this analysis, and to`develop` specific grading, foundation and more precise setback criteria for the Rosemont building areas. All of the ancient slide, the recent slides, the tank area, and the three building areas will be further discussed in detail in that report. I hope this clarifies the matter. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned at your convenience. Sincerely, C, Q�or-UJS/af,, Earth Systems Consultant rg<V* \�a e0 GEu Go W r�a r Igo. �E ..t 53 0-1 Dennis S1 enberger Exp. 1 r, Ir_i 1 ichard T. Gor t t+o.CEG 13zs / �. CE TIFJED Gcotechnlcal )✓noinccr ,` crtificd Enoin n Ig fa�eo se+o a 7. ^ GEOt IST \Q a \� Q Jr , 9jr OF qTF Distribution: RRM Design Group _ ;� OF CA — Attn: Mr. Victor Montgomery City of San Luis Obispo Building Department, Attn: Mr. Tom Baasch City of San Luis Obispo Planning Deparlmcnt Attn: Mr. Glen Matteson Doc. No.: 9301-169.LTR z ' Earth systems Coinsultaints Pacific Geoscience Division 91MM7 Northern California 4378 Santa Fe Road San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 ' (805)544-3276 FAX(805)544-1786 1 December 4, 1992 JOB NO.: NGG0844OW01 DOC. NO.: 9212-057.RPT Mr. Felton Ferrini 1 c/o RRM Design Group Attn: Mr. Victor Montgomery 3026 South Higuera Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 PROJECT: ROSEMONT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT LOTS 1, 2 AND 3, PATRICIA DRIVE SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA SUBJECT: Preliminary Geotechnical/Geologic Investigation ' Dear Mr. Ferrini: In accordance. with your request, we have completed the preliminary geotechnical/geologic investigation for the Rosemont Planned Development in San Luis Obispo, California. This report describes the results of our investigation as well as the geologic conditions of the area. For your convenience, three copies of this report are provided for your use and distribution. We appreciate the opportunity to have provided geotechnical and geologic services for the preliminary phase of this project and look forward to working with you on subsequent project phases. If there are any questions concerning this report, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. ' Sincerely, EARTH SYSTEMS CONSULTANTS oQA IMSI Northern California, Pacific Geoscience Division I.GORE o, 58 Richard T. Go No.cec tars *� Dennis Shall en get, E. 6cp. 193 Engineering Geo St CERTIFIED ENGINEERING 1 DS/Ir GEOLOGIST OF CA1.1� 9TF(0)r- C�t`Eo� 1 I Earth Systems Consultants Pacific Geoscience Division Northern California 4378 Santa Fe Road San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 1 (805)544-3276 FAX(805) 544-1786 DECEMBER 4, 1992 TABLE OF CONTENTS PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL/GEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION ROSEMONT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT LOTS 19 2 AND 3, PATRICIA DRIVE SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA' 1 JOB NO. NGG0844OW01. t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Page . 1.0 INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . 1 2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3.0 SITE SETTING. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 4.0 METHODOLOGY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 5.0 FINDINGS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5.1 Geology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5.2 Seismic Refraction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . 6 5.3 Slope Stability Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7.0 CLOSURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 REFERENCES. . 10 APPENDIX A Endacott & Associates Technical Data 1r Rosemont Planned Development 1 December 4, 1992 ' Lots 1, 2 and 3, Patricia Drive 1.0 INTRODUCTION The Rosemont Planned Development is located at the northern end of Highland Drive in San Luis Obispo, California. The site area consists of 148 acres. Within this area, a three-lot subdivision is planned with lots ranging from 2.6 acres to 8.3 acres. A single family home is planned to be construction on each lot. The purpose of this investigation is to provide preliminary geotechnical and geologic ' information for the planning process and to assess the .feasibility of the planned development from a geotechnical/geologic viewpoint. The general concern regarding the proposed ' development is the slope stability of the area, due to the site being situated on a ancient landslide. Therefore, the majority of this report contains information related to slope stability ' and its affect on the proposed development. For our investigation, we were provided with a 200 scale site plan and site map,.dated August 17, 1992, prepared by RRM Design Group. These plans were used in our ' investigation to plot technical data and are included with this report, noted herein as Plate 1 (see map pocket). Plate 1 consists of the site map, geologic map and cross section A-A'. 2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES The scope of work for this investigation included geologic field mapping, slope stability analysis, a seismic refraction study, review of air stereo photographs, review of ' geologic and geotechnical reports and literature pertinent to the site and geotechnical and geologic evaluation of the data collected. ' Evaluations of the soil for radioisotopes, hydrocarbons, or chemical properties are beyond the scope of the investigation. NGG0844-WO1 9212-057.RPT Rosemont Planned Development 2 December 4, 1992 ' Lots 1, 2 and 3, Patricia Drive ' 3.0 SITE SETTING The three-lot subdivision lies on the northeastern flank of Bishop Peak, west of Patricia Drive and north of the dead end at Highland Drive. The topography in the vicinity of the proposed three lots is relativity flat with a slight inclination to the south. East of the lots, the topography becomes significantly steeper toward Bishop Peak. The west side of the lots are located adjacent to the top of a slope. The slope is approximately 50 feet high with an approximate slope inclination of 3:1 (horizontal:vertical). ' A residential neighborhood lies south of the lots and undeveloped land is present around the remaining areas. Man-made features on the property consist of an existing cattle ' pond which lies northwest of Lot 3, and an unimproved dirt road that is located southwest of the lots. Vegetation cover is spares to moderate, dominated primarily by native grasses. ' Clusters of oak trees and boulders are scattered throughout the property. 1 4.0 METHODOLOGY Prior to performing the geologic field mapping, stereo air photographs (PW-SLO2-36 & 37, 1973, by Pacific Western) were reviewed for geologic surface features, such as the limits of landsliding and direction of landslide movement. Sometimes these types of features ' are not discernible in the field, but can be depicted on aerial photographs. Air photographs ' were also used to interpret the geologic structure of the area. Geologic reports, maps and geotechnical reports were reviewed to obtain technical ' information to be used in the slope stability analysis and forming our conclusions. This information was also correlated with field data obtained from the geologic field mapping and seismic refraction study. NGG0844-WO1 9212-057.RPT 1 Nil OF Rosemont Planned Development 3 December 4, 1992 1 Lots 11 2 and 3, Patricia Drive ' Geologic field mapping was performed to map rock outcrops and geologic surface features related to slope stability in the vicinity of the site. Rock outcrops were mapped particularly for their slope stability characteristics. Surface features such as springs, geologic contacts and recent landslides were also mapped. Three 300-foot seismic lines were performed during the seismic refraction study to estimate the thickness of the ancient landslide. The locations of these lines are presented on the geologic map, Plate 1. The lines were placed in three locations across the ancient landslide in an east-west direction to obtain a profile of the landslide. Seismic refraction works by measuring the velocity of a shock wave through the ground. The shock wave is produced by hitting a metal plate with a sledge hammer. The theory of seismic refraction is that the denser the soil or rock material, the faster the shock wave will travel through the ground. Typically, landslide debris is softer than the underlying rock it slid over. As the shock wave passes through this contact, its velocity will increase. The change in the velocity can then be correlated to depth. ' To evaluate the stability of the ancient landslide, cross-section A-A' was drawn to estimate the geologic conditions on-site. These conditions were analyzed using the PCSTABL5 computer program. This program, which was developed at Purdue University, has been used internationally for many years and is considered the foremost slope stability program in the industry. ' PCSTABL5 is an IBM-PC/XT version of the mainframe program STABL5. Three limit equilibrium procedures are available in this program. These include the Modified Bishop, the Simplified Janbu, and the Spencer methods. These three procedures are all ' "methods of slices", but they differ from the ordinary method of slices in the assumptions that NGG0844-WO 1 9212-057.RPT 1 1i Rosemont Planned Development 4 December 4, 1992 ' Lots 11 2 and 3, Patricia Drive have been made to achieve statistical determinancy, and the particular conditions of equilibrium that are satisfied. The Simplified Janbu method was used for this project due to ' the shallow, planar profile of the landslide. The soil parameters used for the analysis were taken from previous ' geologic/geotechnical reports prepared for sites with similar slide conditions adjacent to the subject site. These soil parameters were obtained from laboratory tests such as the direct ' shear test and the unconfined compression test. ' A horizontal seismic coefficient of .15g (U.S. Army Corp. of Engineers, 1982) was used in the slope stability analysis to derive the seismic factor of safety. The geologic conditions in cross section A-A' were evaluated for both circular and block sliding failures, under both static and seismic conditions. To be conservative, a free 1 subsurface,water level and saturated soil conditions were assumed for the purposes of the analysis. 5.0 FINDINGS 1 5.1 Geology Bishop Peak is one of several peaks to a chain of old volcanoes that originated 1 approximately 32 millions ago. These peaks extend from Morro Rock to the south eastern limits of the San Luis Obispo. The peaks are remnant hard cores or plugs of the volcanoes and consist of crystallized andesitic or dacite rock. During the ' volcanoes' active stage, they each ejected volcanic ash or dust, rock fragments and extruded flowing molten rock. When the molten rock cooled, a volcanic core or plug was left in the neck of the volcano. The higher elevations of Bishop Peak are mantled 1 NGG0144-WO1 9212-057.RPT Rosemont Planned Development 5 December 4, 1992 ' Lots 1, 2 and 3, Patricia Drive with volcanic debris which consists of the volcanic ash and rubble and dislodged scattered boulders of the crystal core rock. Rocks of the Franciscan formation underlie ' the volcanic debris and surround the volcanic core. About 11,000 years ago the climate in North America was much wetter than it ' is today. Most Quaternary geologists agree that the North American weather at the close of Pleistocene epoch, (11,000 years before present) was cooler and was 1 accompanied by 20 to 40 percent more annual rainfall than is experienced today ' (Rogers, 1989). This amount of rainfall and cooler weather raised groundwater levels, with respect to today's levels, increased erosion and increased the depth of surface 1 water infiltration. As a result of these extreme environmental conditions, most of today's topography was carved and formed during the Pleistocene epoch. Intuitively, ' hillsides were lain back due to erosion or slope failure to the steepest slope angles they ' could sustain under those environmental conditions. The ancient landslides were generally larger and deeper compared to landslides that have occurred in recent time. In the drier climate of Holocence epoch (past 11,000), much of the large (ancient) landsliding has ceased, due to less rainfall, deeper groundwater tables and shallow surface water infiltration. ' It is believed that the ancient landslide present on-site consists of old volcanic debris that became super saturated during the Pleistocene epoch and failed. Recent ' shallow debris type failures are present along the flanks of the ancient landslide due to a thick soil zone, shallow soil saturation from springs and recent rainfall. NGG0144-WO 1 9212-057.RPT 1 1• Rosemont Planned Development 6 December 4, 1992 Lots 1, 2 and 3, Patricia Drive ' The crystalline rock boulders present on-site are believed to have been dislodged during the Pleistocene time prior to occurrence of the ancient landslide. This is based on weathering features observed on the boulders, such as weathering rinds, fracturing, and spalling. These types of features take thousands of years to develop and would not tbe discernible if the boulder had recently rolled. The topography along the northern perimeter of the landslide is steep and yet no recent landsliding was observed on the flank of this landslide area. Other flank areas 1 around the perimeter of the ancient landslide have a flatter slope angle and have numerous shallow slides. This stable condition present on the northern flank of the landslide suggests that there may be a buried ridge of rock in that area. The toe of the slide is mapped on the existing public park and to Patricia Drive. Review of air photographs and finding from field mapping indicated that this area is ' underlain by metavolcanic rock. It is believed that the toe of the slide trends along the southern side of the park and terminates approximately 200 feet west of Patricia Drive (see.site plan). 5.2 Seismic Refraction 1 The results of the seismic refraction study indicated that there are three different layers of materials. on-site: a topsoil zone, slide debris and bedrock. The depth to bedrock is estimated to be 30 feet. This depth was used to model the landslide conditions for the slope stability analysis. A technical discussion of field procedures and results of the seismic refraction study performed on-site is presented in a report by Endacott & Associates, Inc. and is ' appended to this report (Appendix A). NGG0844-WO1 9212-057.RPT i 1 W7 Rosemont Planned Development 7 December 4, 1992 ' Lots 1, 2 and 3, Patricia Drive 5.3 Slone Stabilily Analysis 1 The soil parameters used for the slope stability analysis were taken from ' previous studies performed on adjacent sites by our firm under the name of Pacific Geoscience, Inc. (see references). A cohesion of 229 psf and phi angle of 24 degrees ' were selected for the analysis. These soil parameters are considered to be the most conservative of the previous studies. ' A block failure surface was analyzed along the entire failure surface of the ' landslide. The failure was assumed to be saturated. A minimum of 150 trial failures surfaces were run to obtain a factor of safety of 2.3 static and 1.13 seismic. A circular failure surface was also analyzed with the same conditions. One hundred trial surfaces were run but no valid failure planes resulted due to the planar configuration of the ' slide. The upper section of the landslide, above elevation 650, was analyzed to determine if this section had a potential to fail onto the proposed lot area. This section of the landslide was analyzed with circular failures using the same soil parameters and geologic conditions as above. The factor of safety of this analysis was 2.7 static and 1.4 seismic. The lower section of the landslide, below elevation 650, was also ' analyzed for circular failures. The static factor of safety for this landslide section was 1.4 static and 0.84 seismic. 1 Results of the analysis of the landslide sections except the lower section, were above the 1.5 static and 1.1 seismic standard of practice factor of safety. Additional ' analysis was performed to determine the soil parameters necessary to cause a static factor of safety below 1.5. In this analysis, the phi value of the slide debris was NGG0844-WOI 9212-057.RPT OFF Rosemont Planned Development 8 December 4, 1992 ' Lots 1, 2 and 3, Patricia Drive gradually decreased. The results of that analysis indicated that with a cohesion of 229 ' psf and 15 degree phi angle the factor of safety would just fall below 1.5. Based on previous laboratory tests on soils in the Ferrini Heights area, these soil values are considered to be very conservative. ' 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The following conclusions are based on preliminary data and data obtained off-site ' from previous studies. Recommendations are provided at this time to be used for feasibility ' purposes only and may be subject to modification when the subsurface investigation phase of this project is completed. 1 Based on field mapping/observations, review of air stereo photographs and the results of the slope stability analysis, the ancient landslide mass is considered to be stable. We believe that the ancient landslide initially moved during the late Pleistocene time period and ' has not demonstrated any discernible movement in recent time. The eastern flanks of the landslide are considered unstable and recent shallow debris flows have been observed in these areas. Due to the potential for shallow slope failures to occur along the eastern flank of the ancient landslide mass, we recommend that the proposed building envelopes be set back a minimum of 50 feet from the top of slope, see Plate 1, site map. It must be noted, however, that this recommendation is preliminary and may be modified by future analysis. From a geotechnical standpoint, we see no evidence of major development constraints. The surficial soils are clayey and will probably prove to be moderate to high in expansion ' potential and low in R-value (ability to support asphalt pavement). It is anticipated that future studies will provide recommendations for minor mitigative grading to prepare suitable building NGG08U-WO1 9212-057.RPT 1 OF Rosemont Planned Development 9 December 4, 1992 ' Lots 1, 2 and 3, Patricia Drive ' pads for the structures. We recommend that the existing cattle pond be lined to prevent groundwater infiltration into the ancient landslide mass. Although, the slope stability analysis ' indicated the ancient landslide mass is stable, it is never prudent to allow surface water to stand and infiltrate into a landslide mass. 1 7.0 CLOSURE This report is valid for conditions as they exist at the time the investigation. The investigation was performed in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing in the locality of this project under similar conditions. No other representation, warranty, or guarantee, is either expressed or 1 implied. This report is intended to be a planning document. It is not intended to provide design or construction level recommendations. Additional, invasive investigation will be necessary to finalize stability conclusions regarding the location of the recommended setback, grading recommendations, foundation recommendations, etc. This document, the data, conclusions, and recommendations contained herein are the ' property of Earth Systems Consultants, Inc. This report shall be used in its entirety, with no individual sections reproduced or used out of context. Copies may be made only by Earth ' Systems Consultants, Inc., the client, and his authorized agents for use exclusively on the ' subject project. Any other use is subject to federal copyright laws and the written approval of Earth Systems Consultants, Inc. ' Thank you for this opportunity to have been of service. If you have any questions or if discussion of alternate concepts is desired, please feel free to contact this office at your convenience. ' End of Text NGG0844-WO1 9212-057.RPT I 1 Rosemont Planned Development 10 December 4, 1992 ' Lots 1, 2 and 3, Patricia Drive REFERENCES ' Pacific Geoscience, Inc., 1984, Preliminary Soils Engineering Investigation of Tract 1182, San Luis Obispo, California. ' Pacific Geoscience, Inc., 1990, Engineering Geology Report, Tract 401, Lot 7, Oakridge Drive, San Luis Obispo, California. Pacific Geoscience, Inc., 1990, Soils Engineering and Slope Stability Report, Brennan Residence, Tract 1182, Lot 84, Ferrini Estates, San Luis Obispo, California. Rogers, D. J., 1989, Analysis of Reactivated Ancient Landslides, Article 6, Reprint from the 1 9th National Short Course on "Slope Stability and Landslides", San Diego, California. 1 1 1 NGG0844-WO1 9212-057.RPT 1 1 ' APPENDIX A Endacott & Associates ' Technical Data 1 ENDACu FT & ASSOCIATES, INC. 545 N. SLINNYSLOPE AVE. t PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91107 —� (818) 577-2020 November 27. 1992 REPORT Geophysical Investigation Rosemount Construction Site San Luis Obispo, California ' for Earth Systems Consultants 1 INTRODUCTION This report presents the findings of a geophysical investigation conducted at the Rosemount residential development site in San Luis Obispo, California. The survey was conducted by Endacott & Associates in November 1992. The primary purpose of the survey was to determine the subsurface soil conditions and geologic setting at the site. Three 300 foot seismic refraction profiles were shot in reverse profiling. The location of the lines of investigation were marked on ESC Site topographic plan provide by Mr. Richard Gorman of Earth Systems Consultants. The results of seismic profiles are shown on Figures 1 through 4. TECHNICAL DISCUSSION The standard reverse profiling requires that both ends of the geophone spread be "shot" (generation of a seismic event either by shooting explosives or by successive impacts of a sledge ' hammer) in order to determine the true velocity of the subsurface materials. Several methods of depth calculations can be used to find the depth of the velocity layers. All of the calculation schemes used are based on Snell 's Law and assume that the seismic velocity of these layers increases with depth. The two most commonly used formulae are the critical distance and the intercept time . Endacott & Associates uses a variation of the time intercept method where the delay time under each geophone station is found by_ subtracting the delay time of the shot from the intercept time. ' FIELD PROCEDURES ' Endacott & Associates uses a Geometric 1210 F signal enhancement digital memory seismic system to record the impact events. This system records twelve traces of seismic arrival times for a single impact event. A twelve station cable is used to connect the station geophones to the seismograph . The cable used for these surveys has geophone take-outs equally spaced at twenty- five feet (spread) . ' Seismograms for the reverse profiles were generated for multiple impacts located at each end , middle, and in line ofset from each end of the spread. Each seismogram was inspected and first arrival (compressional wave) picked and timed . These times were then tabulated and depth profiles calculated. tRESULTS The seismic data was interpreted into three velocity layers, the lowest of which represents the surficial material to a depth of 3 to as much as 30 feet near the middle of line 3. The velocity of this material is low, between 1100 and 2200 fps (feet per second) . The middle layer varies in velocity from 3200 and 4600 fps. The higher velocity could either be an unsaturated weathered rock unit or saturated surficial material . This contact with the higher velocity materials has the characteristics of a slip plane of a recent landslide. There appears to be two bedrock units underlying the site. The first unit lies on the western or uphill side of the site and has a velocity range of 5500 to 6600 fps. The second unit toward the easter or down slope has a velocity of 10 ,250 fps. The contact between the high velocity unit and the much lower velocity 14000 fps) underlying unit toward the east on line 3 may be saturated. The unevenness of the high velocity surface is probablity due in part to the size of the near surface boulders. ' CONCLUSIONS It is our conclusion that the site is underlain with volcanic rocks with the most compent units found down slope. TP1..._ 13-7 1uj ! ✓� ,f nl�r,�,ra��-F �;rt'•� 1 1 EI '=; p,,.11 ,,_. PROFILE FILL a. w. 1 �5" rte El -:t�� I;f t'1 1 1 3 I r, 151 LAJ 7,9 D1 T,-"-'.r-.4 C E EI � !v1 ( 'r_ FILE R•o�-,rrrlc.r,t S I..LILL ._._....... . .... ...___. .._......_. 1___._._.._._-_._._. r-- -i - 1 y'1 •• F 7 i'D y5-0 ?5C• 3cl11 alocl W _•%.`• �' be 47_i - t t Ei . FILE - 4c•��.I ' T 1',•�R I I MTf -- - -. - 19: _ ----T- 47,+ 1 '=iii 21,[ D 1 1 1 1 1 1 r- IIII ulW city. -Or...- SAn WIS OBISPO ' 990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 •San Luis Obispo,CA 93403.8100 APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL In accordance with the appeals procedure as authorized by Title I, Chapter 120 of the San Luis Obispo MunicipalCode,the undersigned herebyappealsfromthe decision of— 1>L..A-ri�1IyyL, my rendered on Fe:6 2411. 1gal , which decision consisted of the following O.G. set forth factual situation and the grounds for submkdng this appeal.. Use additional sheets as needed): FILC 1-4 S9_gZ&r';6?r1Pf �W&- I)ECISIan1 vJAS -$LFbizC^ ALL C,JovjLtrnGit— oc GiaC.aGIC S-TAJ1 ILI-i-•I WAS. KAla, UA -- —T-VIE -i)*Z.1 S t o.✓ is OJT or- W, TT, -VIAoF c-z-r I c 'Sprk.r LU15 c� IS-Pa $+� VKI 17 ,�T?1�. �jNG "f1-I z v s ^l4 rzd J Ec i tN�i-t2 i/0\s s oc ,K -r+f TN P R pJ T- V[ 3J 14-M ,,J v 1,-i M ,-rte TH AMVVbF T14 Vai3Pry 'PtcsCie JeF L IrJ r- aa.., 5-�ITV?�$ An/ -l�If cAe�✓ SpETcr Eats n . Tlic � .✓D..i4S Ur4D e,Z sCaTt b.J S-/013 01-- -rl.4 C— o c�z t- o Dc The undersigned discussed ft.decision being appealed with: on DATE&TIME APPEAL RECEIVED: Appellant: L L Wame/rlUe RECEIVE ® Repress MAR - 4 19933 LA VAL/tai �sACCrOW CITY CLERK :70Z SAN LUIS OMPO.CA. One Original to City Clerk City Attorney Calendared for. �° Copy to Administrative Officer Copy to the-following department(s): W 1Wi4s -r-L4 i.5 7 gL 1S avr R e P R c3c-..T S, d Ovn1 ov 6 rz A- r''19-a^k IS s -ra -r-w-C- -tvg-P o�c Sika (-Jl5 03isp-6 -ra 'PR-o"Tv-z--r -r;4 v- ►+ aeQ�S A s A v�J ) Q v c- .a ..+-D W q�,Jyz sa ,a-rz cam — -rir�- �,,,/D i.Jv s ,�►€��-ID �a c oz.�rrr s� a�r•.►s ,-r+� -BanrJS c.arinla-r- -rz-t r PPa�aS's+ L, is IN ca.v s STZrv&r t.,1 t-n4 t t c �- �t.a ..JnJ! �T[� �rt� e ► �-'S ear-r1�,j wl:� LA"J.-i I Nle LbvK►.1 t�1 D� A D aC /T' �/ / c.L C-A-,2 'T:T T S JV -m= 7-p-c- S 7e bw 4 P7byZ TLtZ.a w,w. ww*Z> ) -J .'2r--F-4t).,J ,J✓C, t=J L �,.L� �1i✓ �t�.�i KA 12 . T-' sL"'Q7L I YJ/ w /� 5 N0 T. aOBISPO ' 980 Palm StreaUPost Offloe Boz 8100 •San Luis Obispo,CA 93403.8100 .w:1VMI'y�f. APPfJ►I.TO CITY COUNCIL In accordance with the appeals procedure as authorized by Title I. Chapter 1.20 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code,the undersigriedheietiYappeatsfromthedeclstonof A rendered on which do* cislon consisted of the following (Le. set forth factual situation and the grounds for submltzlrtg ibis OWL•-Use additional sheets as needed): �6�-rr/oi? l7v�ir7 �Z� �/LO'�OS�"-✓� G�/r.Q�/1�!!i�t�7.aJ i}ia-!G/vGi��i1/•�' /1/VO �?Grl/L/1/lid OGr/GG-E3'j�/t-l�it/`Y o��r�✓�/iiv'a— aa .ft-r�P 9 S.oiv /y/y¢v g D�GIdi�o�.t/ oti a+�ciivog z�i�,��r� Cid 7.YG F/�vo/�vG-g .�-�� I�i�i�o'riir� C�.� . �y��t� �°c-�tiv coNg!S 7�.rr��-� c�r.,•.vo -� �-o�SdNit.3t.-y �� s-r,�� !�/ i°it.aPogn� �S �ivcoiv��S7ca�T carry A01z0t._'7 a_A0civ S�ira-�L ciycry 7 ,o/Lo�09/!cr 2aN�_e e. z'S c✓�� cov�v TS Gid c.S r¢) ^;V ;V ��o-it O�N L 7 � �9glsGl.Ai - AS frit/ Zd Cr/7�tN7• it ni }� The uncle fined d(scxrssed the.d�iclslon;alma ed Ar on DATE&TIME APP AL RECEIVED: Appellant RECEIVE ® rameg . MAR . 2 1993 eprese e z Cr�rxo 0,' I U -`l y� �'6il Wfl2n 5' 7_ SMU S CA oe�+a, Address (Sos )Phone original to Cky Clerk My Calsndared for. - Attorney 9 -w Copy to AdminlsVaWe Officer Copy to the-Tallowing department(s): February 24, 1993 RECEIVED FEB 2 61993 Planning Commission WY OF SAN uus W po City of San Luis Obispo °pMMUNmDEM-OPAERT P.O.Box 8100 San Luis Obispo,CA 93403 Dear Planning Commission Members: I am writing to you regarding a proposed project located at the end of Highland Drive owned by Felton Ferrini and Marlene Frazier. There is a request before you to amend the urban reserve line of the general plan and approve a planned development for the property. My area of expertise is in land planning and design with specialization in landscape analysis and ecology. The following outline of opinions regarding the proposal is based on a professional background of over 30 years of practice,research and education. 1. It is historically well-known that the entire hillside of Bishop's Peak area where the old Ferrini subdivision has been built is of questionable stability. There are many evidences of earth slippage caused by the combination of shallow depth to bedrock conditions and a perched watertable resulting in seeps and other forms of surface water. This type of watertable condition;when coupled with steep slopes,fine soil texture on top of bedrock,and little vegetative cover,will result in liquifaction of the soil when triggered by any significant natural or man-made jarring disturbance. In other words,it would act like a bowl of jello rolling down a hillside. The property in question has many large areas where this condition exists. The requirement of flood insurance coverage will become a critical issue for both new and existing residents of the area. No mitigation measures exist that would successfully remove this threat. 2. The additional loading of this hillside with more housing should be resisted in terms of wildfire hazard. Extended yet 200 or feet higher up the slope will only further complicate the firefighting ability of the CDF and the City of San Luis Obispo fire equipment. Even though the city has policies that deny the planting of highly flammable brush within thirty feet of dwellings in situations like this, the monitoring of this practice has seldom been followed up. 3. In examining the proposed development plan,there appears to be a substantial removal of existing oak trees or grading of roads and building sites very near sensitive native vegetation. Simply requiring the developer to replace any oak trees that are lost is not acceptable. The extended period time for oak trees to mature and reestablish the valuable wildlife niche of the existing vegetation is too long in this particular fragile ecosystem. The overall quality of vegetation and wildife habitat would be irrevocably damaged. 4. Contrary to the staff report,the approval of this amendment would set a precedent for future requests to modify the open space element elsewhere in the city. Using common logic,the planning commission and city council would be making themselves very vulnerable when anyone might want to expand a development into the permanent open space zone. 5. Aesthetically,the property in question is very visually accessable from many different vantage points around the central and northern areas of the city. Many cities of similar size to San Luis Obispo have made a strong commitment to an established elevation mark of restricting development on.hillslopes. These statutes have been tested many times in the courts and have always been successful. One of the continual comments made by various tourists who visit the city is the fact that the hillsides around the Morros have been protected in a permanent open.space restriction. The land above the end of Highland Drive must remain in public domain. No private citizen has the right to own,and thus restrict public access,to property as ecologically fragile,visually vulnerable,and beautiful as is this piece of land. In conclusion,I would like suggest to you to remember the rights of our children and grandchildren who will live in San Luis Obispo."Let us hope they will take pride in knowing that their parents and grandparents had the foresight to fight for and protect the unique qualities of this place for them. Sincerely, Gerald . Smith,ASLA 1819 San Luis Drive San Luis Obispo 5-7 City of San Luis Obispo � -�qL 3 Planning Commission 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo CA 93401 RECEIVED Attn: Mr. Karleskint and Commission Members Subject: Project 89-92, Northwest end of Highland Drive FEB 2 51993 Dear Commission Members; I am opposed to the development of three homes at the end of Highland Drive near Bishop Peak. These homes are above the existing service level which should not be raised except in a emergency situations. The development as proposed is unacceptable. There are many question which have not been answered, which should be asked by the Planning Commission. I have outlined them below. 1 . Why is the city considering the project if the geological study is not complete. Does the city want a lawsuit for allowing a building on potentially unstable ground. 2. What are we deciding here? The applicant only has the right to ask to build not the right build. The City Council must approve this by rezoning the land, moving the Urban Reserve Line. Please clear this up at the hearing. 3. According to the recorded deed on the Ferrini Annexation, 51 acres were to be developed. The remaining 148 acres, is a perpetual open space easement with a few exceptions. Ask the city lawyer to make a official determination and determine what is required to abandon the easement according to 51090 of the Government Code of the State of California? 4. From the EIS there seems to be no alternatives plans to this project. Were any other ideas considered which would make this project more feasible? 5. The original EIS madereferences to Tennis. Courts, Pools, Etc. This is not consistent with hiiiside development. Please strike this out of any approved project. 6. Three homes are proposed. The project could easily be scaled down to two homes at the end of Highland Drive and not extend up to the cattle pond. Water can then be supplied locally. The existing zoning does not allow for this many homes without a density bonus. Please ask these questions and get some reasonable answers before making any decisions concerning this proposal. Bishop Peak is natural landmark and should be preserved for future generations. Sincerely, RECEIVED R RM DESIGN GROUP Architecture-Phvmhnt•bi+, rnrrmS• hitrritn:a• Landscape Archie ctitrr FEB 2 p 107705 CRY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO OOAEALU M MNELOPMEW February 24, 1993 Mr. Glen Matteson City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 RE: ROSEMONT PD - GP/PD 89-92 Dear Glen: I have been out of town until 2/23/92 and only late that afternoon was I able to review the revised Staff Report. I am concerned about the question and answer summary contained therein, particularly number 1; "Is the City bound to approve or to deny the request?" My concern is that your response to this question is framed in a manner which doesn't recognize the background facts of how the exceptions within the open space easement came about and seems to treat them as though somehow they are now separate from the original project as evaluated and approved by the City Council. As applicants, our opinion is that the City is bound to approve the request. This is based upon California law of good faith and fair dealing between parties to any such agreement, including public entities. A fundamental question not answered in the question and answer response is; if the City had (or has) no intention of approving the 3 lots and 3 houses, why were the exceptions (3.c and 3.d) granted? These exceptions were discussed and the intent was, to my recollection, clear during the original project public hearings and City approvals. These exceptions would be approved, subject to City review and imposition of conditions. The rezoning provision for exception 3.c was included in order to give the City the maximum opportunity to review and condition the 3 lots and 3 homes. The exceptions were (they still are) a part of the package of give and take between the City and land owner during the consideration of a development which was at the time pointed to as a model project. The open space easement (paragraph 3) is clear when it states: "The following property rights in said property are hereby excepted from this grant and are reserved to owner." }o_6 South Higuera Street,San Luis Obispo,California 91401 505!541-1794 ine-a ith Street, Modesto,California 953c.l '-o9/544-1794 A 07th!,un 'V Nll dlanrgnmr y.:1,J111,—Lfe,.�-r`..mit.•,col le" Mr. Glen Matteson Page 2 - February 24, 1993 Under these particular facts and circumstances, it is our opinion that rezoning can only be denied for specific and objective reasons such as geology, seismic, etc. that don't exist here. We have done our utmost to be cooperative and to design a project which is responsive to issues raised during City review. It is significant to note that within the 14 acre exception area the proposed planned development includes less than 2.5 acres of developable.area or ±18% of the area reserved in Exception 3.c. Even within the 14 acre exception area approximately 11.5 acres or 82% will be retained as open space. This is in addition to curing an acknowledged and existing water and fire protection deficiency on Highland Drive. I request that you convey this background information and this letter to the Planning Commission during your review. Sincerely, RRM DESIGN GROUP Victor Mo eryy Chief e O r cc: J hn sse c/vm-fe February 24, 1993 To: City of San Luis Obispo, California Planning Commission From: Michael C. Sullivan 1127 Seaward St., San Luis Obispo 93405 RE: Planning Commission Meeting of 2/24/93, Agenda item 2, Proposed General Plan Amendment and Planned Development GP/PD 89-92, northwest end of Highland Drive, John Rossetti, applicant. The following comments are for the public record, regarding GP/PD 89-92, proposed General Plan Amendment and Planned Development, northwest end of Highland Drive, John Rossetti, applicant.. 1. Using a reasonable interpretation of the existing General Plan, the recommended "Findings" 228'(Staff report, p. $) can not be made. Finding number 2 states, °The amendment of the urban reserve line location is consistent with general plan policies." The amendment of the urban reserve line location is not consistent with General Plan policies of the 1977 Urban Land Use Element. The proposal conflicts with these Open Space Policies: a. Conservation /Open Space "Areas intended for permanent open space will be designated "conservation /open space This designation will be applied to land which is unsuited to urban use because of: infeasibility of providing access or utilities consistent with policies under C.1.d. above; excessive slope or Slope in ili , wildland fire hazard; noise exposure; flood hazard; scenic value; ecologicalsena"y ; and agricultural value:" °Uses within this designation will generally be those not requiring urban services, major structures, or extensive landform modifications. Parcels will be kept large, generally 5 to 40 acres. ° D. Hillside Planning Policies and Standards i. Hillside Areas Beyond the Urban Reserve: It an objective of the cily to encourage preservation of scenic hillside areas beyond the Urban Reserve Line or Development Limit Line. ..... It is the policy of the city to discourage the creation of isolated building sites in scenic hillside areas. In general rural development should be sited contiguous to flatland areas. .....The county should consider a wide range of mechanisms for preserving Scenic Hillside areas as permanent open space including but not limited to Bishop Peak• etc. Residential Land Use Objectives h. "AII residential development porposals should be designed to ..... mitigate or aygil special site constraints such as climatic conditions, noise, flooding, slope instability, or ecologically sensitive surroundings. They should be compatible with present and potential adjacent land uses. 1 Finding number 3 also cannot reasonably be made. The finding states, ?he planned development rezoning is consistent with the general plan" The General Plan implies that those areas already zoned for Open Space are known to be unsuitable for urban uses, therefore to allow a re-zoning for urban use is Inconsistent with the General Plan. Finding number 4 states, 'The preliminary development plan Is consistent with the purpose and intent of the conservation /open space and planned development zones." Such a finding is not logical. The 1977 General Plan open space policies state: °The city will not designate more land for urban uses than its resources c na be expected to support. Open space lands will define the edges of the city so that it will remain a comprehensible, identifiable place" °Areas intended for permanent open space will be designated °conservation /open space" Thus, it is the intent of the General Plan that those areas already zoned and used as open space should remain permanently is such use rather that being rezoned for residential use. The 1977 General Plan Growth Management Objectives state: d. The City should not provide nor permit delivery of City water and sewer services .... beyond a maximum elevation of 460 , 320 or 240 ft, depending on location" The proposal is, at minimum, inconsistent with the above mentioned General Plan items. 2. The proposal is Inconsistent with the draft Open Space Element u dao_ to of 10192. While the draft cannot be used as a test of current General Plan consistency, the Commission should consider the negative impact and unfortunate precedent that would occur if the proposal were approved. For example, the proposal is inconsistent with the following items of the draft Open Space Element: Hills and Mountains - General Goals - Preserve mountains and hills, ridgelines, scenic rock outcroppings, and other important geologic features as open space. - Preserve and enhance the aesthetic quality of mountain and hill resources. - Protect hill and mountain properties from potentially hazardous or visually degrading development conditions. Ch. 3 - Policies for New Development - The city shall require that development adjacent to open space provide (a) a buffer between proposed development and existing open space to minimize conflicts between development and existing open space lands. The buffer should provide for an extension of the open space holding. 9 Program 1 - The city shall establish a program to purchase and lease back agricultural lands near urban or developing areas for continued agricultural use. Ch. 2 - Hills and Mountains Policies 2.c.a. - Within the urban reserve line and city limits, keep structures on less than 20% slope. 2.e. Maintain the character and visual quality of the adjacent hill or mountain resource. 4. - Preserve protected hills and mountains. Policies within the greenbelt and other planning area 1.a. - Protect the Morros as Open Space and agricultural land. Programs within the Greenbelt 1. The city and county should jointly adopt or adopt similar hillside development standards that fulfill the intent of the element's policies. At p. v: It is the intent that the rural character and agricultural uses around developed areas remain largely unaltered (thru clustering, transfer of development credits, or acquisition.) 3. The proposal is In conflict with the city's intention to cooperate with the county to establish the chain of morros from Bishop's Peak to Hollister Peak as permanent open space. Preservation of the chain of morros extending from Bishop's Peak to Hollister Peak is a goal of the County. The county has already denied a proposal for a golf course and resort near Hollister Peak (1991-92) because such an increase in urban use conflicts with the goal of open space preservation. To allow further residential development on Bishop's Peak will not be consistent with the county's goals. 4. The proposal is In conflict with widespreadpublic sentiment for the continued preservation of the rural character .scenic beauty. and existing hillside ogen apace of the city. Time after time, the public opinion in the City of San Luis Obispo has been strongly in favor of the preservation of the rural character and sense of open space adjacent to San Luis Obispo. The current proposal is an example of the incremental destruction of such qualities.. The proposal does not provide affordable housing, nor are the proposed water supply improvements of pressing necessity. The only `purpose" of this proposal is to make a lot of money for the prospective owners I developers. The City has no obligation to permit residential development in this existing residential area. The city does, however, have an obligation to follow the goals and policies of the General Plan and the will of the people. The only way to accomplish that is to deny the project. 5. The proposed "mitigation measures" do not substantially obviate or eliminate or effectively mitigate the potential environmental Impacts. For example: - The mitigation for the landslide potential simply requires erosion control measures for grading and construction. This by itself does not preclude further landslides due to natural slippage or erosion near and beneath the proposed dwelling site. - The extent of archaeological resources at the site is not known. A further archaeological study should be completed prior to consideration by the Planning Comission. There is no effective mitigation for the visual impacts of the dwellings and water tank(s). The only mitigation is that"outdoor lighting will be limited." (7). 6. There is no compelling reason to grant the "density bonus" for a fourth dwelling near Foothill Blvd. In deciding the extent of a density bonus,the Council must consider the extent to which the project meets several criteria. (See staff report, Rosemont.Environmental Study at p. 3). Of the six main criteria, the proposal does not meet criteria 1, 3, or 5 (according to staff report). It is questionable if criterion 2 is met, because there is no allowable development to be transferred from the remainder of the original 14-acre exception area. It is questionable if the project meets criterion 4, because the site location (exceptionally high on the hillside) is not really compatible with existing neighborhood character. The project does not meet criterion 6, because upgrading of the water system is not really an °exceptional public benefit", in fact some of the local landowners are opposed to it. A benefit for a few landowners cannot be considered a °public" benefit available to all. In summary, the project does not meet the criteria for the density bonus to an appreciable extent. For all of the above reasons, approval of this project would be considered an "abuse of discretion" by the Planning Commission and/or Council. The Commission/Council should make the `findings for deniar as given in the staff report. Signed, Michael C. Sullivan 4 Dear Commission Members, We, the undersigned, are opposed to the rezoning of the land at the end of Highland Drive from Open Space to Planned Development for the following reasons: • We acknowledge that a deal was struck between the City and Mr. Felton Ferrini. This agreement was-named ''irregular," even in .your own staff report. You are in no way obligated to fulfill this agreement. • This project would have significant environmental aesthetic impact that in no way can be mitigated. The protection of the Morros is the top environmental priority, for citizens of San Luis Obispo. • According to staff report, the site is located on ancient --landslide. Construction on the slide would upset a geological equilibrium that tookthousands of years to develop. the landslide will try to reach a new equilibrium to respond to changes caused by construction. The result would be earth movement that would effect both those on the site and those below it. We hope the Planning Commission realizes that these facts must be considered under the California Environmental. Protection Act. We also hope on that the Commission will realize what a tragedy it Would be to spoil one of San Luis Obispo's most outstanding natural features for the sake of development. With all of this in mind, please vote against this proposal Wednesday night. Sincerely, � �� ( ;¢tib FAA CAJ340( 1366 reo'er;64L _tfG - 8'7G MILL-s7 Sco, C-I� q3qo l Sot Ck� lc�v L a,C,4 s� 1A C 3�5-A �r�, (' :v 7n L$�{c{ Viced�e Sri Lo ��ke coves 0 February 22 , 1993 City of San Luis Obispo Planning Department 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo Ca 93401 Attn: Barry Karleskint and Commission Members Subject.: Rosemont Development at the end of Highland Drive - Dear Mr. Karleskint and Commission Members I have enclosed a newspaper article for your review. This article describes what is going on in Los Angeles with all the rain and potential building on unstable ground without complete information on the proposed site's geology and landslide potential. If we are to go ahead with this development, I suggest an impartial geologist report from a firm outside the city limits. Sincerely, Gary elsman 2234 Santa Ynez Ave San Luis Obispo CA 93405 (805) 549-0532 .—Glen--Matt'eson, San Luis Obispo City Council More than a month later, Den- ._: . ton's home is still standing and she { .CALIFORNIA ALBUM i ; believes she made the right choice. , a n "I'm glad I stayed. But I feet a ,^_--. .. : little bit like I'm m my own little Ariaheun HRIs=Homeowners [eland,and what good is a house on an island if there' Inobody around See Their Dreams Slip Away you?"Denton,58,IT a She said that s}z and her hus- band, a retired b " essman, had planned before thesltl de to sell the m Some MII landslide area may have to walk"out on their ; house and settle elsewhere for - their retirement I guess those mortgages.Others have become neighborhood activists. plans are off now," a said. ..... Unlike Denton, erald M. Stei- ByMATTL rr,'TIMES STAFF WRITER ner, 51, was pac i his bags the minute he and 4 family were NAHEIM HILLS—For hundreds of residents asked to leave.Thecracks running ` to this upscale community,the future is as up his driveway vere enough to uncertain as the ground under their homes. persuade him tha there was a It is hard to plan anything,they say,when your problem. once-quiet neighborhood is being held hostage by a When city ere drained his slow-moving,25-acre landslide. pool, "it was like y sucked the "Our lives are in limbo,"said Gail Tuner,41,one of lifeblood out of the ome,'he said. -, more than 100 residents who had to evacuate from 45 I Watching his $1. million home r houses four weeks ago."There's nothing we can do_ slowly breaking art was like but wait and see what's going to happen.It's torture." witnessing"a dea the family, Pam Dogris,32,who lives outside the evacuated area but in the path of Steiner said the slide,agrees. Instead of war ' for the inevi- "Sometimes I wish that it would just rain and rain and rain so the hill _ table,-he.decided start a one-, would come down once and for all,"said Dogris,who works out of her . 1a�n:-7. in ign4 educate his home selling men's ties."That way we could get on with our lives and-..: nebors..and fmd ut: who was start over." He.ga .20-year- But a quick resolution to the problem in this neighborhood about 12 yuonrnental' et:reports . miles east of Disneyland seems unlikely.Geologists say it could be tbaC-he_says seem. indicate that months or years before the creeping landslide stops moving. ; e 'ty: and devel :knew of Last week's storms did not help matters and,as rains continued to - saturate the hill,city crews worked feverishly to pump water out of thelandslide problems before ground in an attempt to stabilize the earth. es were built .. Using his office computer, Stei- -- - ner�omposed"open letters"to tell eMeanwhile; h dr of�resi- , ats Going on d around the , f. lits neighbors what he' learned,. andslide are seer g e values of Residents first notice"-that the laying blame on the city's doorstep: homes." 1 t me are , '!cracks was moving in ril when -The-•residents„who are searching •ho p �_ �cracks started appearin in streets forrany_`t>iformation' about'their'i biistdenn wal ' out"on their r,-` " �' g g•- .." 6� .and sidewalks.. During the next p�dtcatnentr'"ea erfy read_his dis- ortgage paymer;a many do not :nine months, it barely noved an ,�tches J now if they can fford to makeaa inch and was not a gra concern tast;week;c'I�andsiide Update r I .lrepatrs;_and_bthe, have become w most No 6'.'.was"ritailed.to hundreds of il activists on behall f their neigh- All that changed i January readers, and No. 7 is in the works, 1 .bora.W$.tintervi .attorneys and after two weeks of rains aked the he said. *VwY 'P_..- . g"ao&:dhenu `rolling hillsides and a celeraied w6 esponstb%efr the slippage..In the spa of seven Fu Steiner, his wife and daughter og an an a landslide are living in an office warehouse in . . . .g ,n ;days,the slide moved m e than 14 ugh rt all,: dents of dif- h p g Fullerton where his video-dubbing !inches in some laces splitting =4;eces,'.Inco levels and :foundations, breaking a art walls business is based. He said he has tg _wn;closer :and cracking open swim ing pools plans fo build:a new- home "on er, some::tat n to;their i _ „. g as if they were eggshells �:gome,flat land",m Newport Beach:. zex�Qor-neighbors or the first. By Jan. 18, the of. the Steiner said he and sonte.of"his, r 'evacuation order, res nts, city -n`eighbora:who-own custom homes officials and geologist ere in a athe;topiof-the hilt have enough r .. I panic. I oiaejr tA.buy.houses somewhere Anaheim Hills;a t of the city Everyone, that is, !xcept'Dar- of Ariaheim,"is'a pe ful; family ;{ aene Denton. elabaa start over. But those who I comrnunit of:}niddl • to ` ;Gve toward the bottom of the slide • y uPPaz- Like a captain goingdown with a f:are not so fortunate. `�classµ dsidenis:livin in -houses g p, 1:.,.:A majority have invested their -' I nofilt fo:' =million: ; sinking ship, Denton refused to People-- h' `to"movie ° leave her home, whch is worth ;;:. . !. ' more than$1.2 million."I think the •j P�uxe�; ?ll�tii"'`n " hborhood city is overreacting,' she said as Gfe.savings in their homes and do home ' 'not know how they are going to her neighbors packedtheir belong- dr hounding ings and a city crew drained her "-survive; especially because most mountairi5'and «ties,' '60 - pool. in§urance companies exclude land- nity,is considered one o the nicest oi;slide coverage from their policies. plates to live in Or unty—at least•; wa it- s; until' th slide oc- curred. ' teim Hills Residents See Dreams Slip Away Y Tr` ' - Y� 1 nC ♦Y 1 'i>ij•i.: ,i F�AUREUu JOSE RARREtilp.A/, The Wit in.the earth cracks open a curb- in the?Anaheim Hills::; - # MONDAY,FEBRUARY A 1993 A9 we'll et ;toe of-the bottom, of the Wid- ration Feb:3.-"Hopefully. g ;. _�,. .;_ something to' help pay: the rent slidet. a .* while. we're. evacuated," :Gail: "It's a scary situation,'he saidr.. Turner said. Clayton said he started the group The couple said they hope that because "nobody seemed to .be some sort of lawsuit-against the stepping forward to.take a leader city; the developer or somebody ship role on behalf of the home-. might help them solve then finan-: owners" se'v'e 1; tial woes = tiSo W. has organtzed p .,- So does fellow resident Michael well-attended>residents meetings;. Gail and Jeff Turner put every- Clayton,-who formed the group to discuss-their-plight and possible_ thing into their$320,000 home.Jeff Communicators in Action about a legal remedies.At least nine highly week after the slide respected-law'. firms.;have made•- Turner, 37, a firefighter with the Clayton; 49,'an employee rel a- presentations at the gatherings city of Downey, has done a lot of work on the.home himself, adding :tion .manager "'lU' Ford .Motor" The one bright spot Clayton `a dinette and new windows. Co.,moved his family from Detroit said: has been meeting his neigh to Analie m,dills in Mazgt},.,;a borer?-_i; "It's a lot of money,time,sweat -,.- -- 1 I qp'e learned that'l have a lot of `and tears in the home;;:.'he' said., month before the first,c acks a = geared in the sidewalks K on wvery nice neighbors;'he said"Too We'd like to stay there." fhis'-house a largg f bad it took something like this to The question"is whether they °.+� .G tr {W =. a stree"Chas been�dentift� 'get to know them rcan afford to. -. _ _,•; - - "I don't make $100,000 a year; said Jeff Turner, who'is the sole breadwinner for his We and two young daughters."Our budget was pretty tight;,there wasn't a whole lof left for frills._ He.fears that.the,family may 2iave*tb walkaway�from:the mort er'ren,gaebecausehe-cant'cov at :he same and'a house paymen .. time: :r.•--: r;•.. ..... In.the.short-Leri; the Turners have.applied'for-federal financial assistance, made' available by President Clinton's disaster decla- t February 23, 1993 TO: Planning Commissioners FROM: Barbara Ehrbar�e SUBJECT: Public Comment Rosemont Project (GP/PD 89-92) Jody Ramsland of 436 Pismo called today and indicated that she would not be able to attend the Commission's meeting, but she wanted to express her opposition to further development of Bishops Peak. e � RECEIVE ® Feb. 19, 1993 FEB 1 9 IM To the Planning Commission CRY OF SAN WISOBMP0 Re: Rosemont Development 0QL*"mroEV&0PWN* From Richard Schmidt Since the staff report includes allegedly documentary claims from the applicant that the Rosemont site was always excluded from the perpetual open space easement, and still fails to include the documentary evidence to show that this claim is unfactual, I am supplying the attached information. The Commission must ask itself: Which is a more authoritative documentary source, an ordinance passed by the City Council and an open space agreement filed with the County Recorder, or election claims by an interested party? With regard to election claims (which, it must be noted, failed to convince city voters), it is a matter of law that they carry no expectation of factuality. We are all familiar with false claims advanced at the time of an election. However, the issue goes beyond such merely anecdotal evidence. Three years ago, in a local election, one side took the other side to court seeking to have false statements stricken from that side's official ballot argument. The court agreed the statements were false, but concluded it had no jurisdiction to remove them on that ground, for the Constitution's First Amendment guarantees the right of all Americans to be liars. So much for the legal basis for advancing election propaganda as documentary proof of anything. In contrast to the anecdotal "evidence" provided by the applicant which alleges the open space easement covered only 130 acres, the official documents both refer to a perpetual Qpen space easement that covers 148 acres. The Rosemont site, then, is clearly part of the perpetual open space easement. An "exception" to the easement's restrictions was included to allow the owner to request possible future development. The city is under no obligation to grant that request; the right established by the ordinance and by the open space agreement is merely the right to request such review from the city. The city's "obligation" has thus been fulfilled by processing the current request. In other words, the city retains full discretionary "legislative" authority to approve or deny the request. Approval means that the Commission places development above the public's interest in preserving already-protected open space. Denial means the Commission places priority on protecting public open space. I urge you to protect this unique and outstanding piece of public open space by rejecting the request to develop it. Attachment: Excerpt from open space agreement filed with County Recorder. Similar language regarding the easement ("The applicant shall grant to the city a perpetual open apace easement on the 148 acres depicted on Exhibit 1 attached prior to the annexation of the 199 acres recommended for annexation.') is included in Ordinance 759 (1978 series), "An ordinance of the city of San Luis Obispo amending the official zone map (To prezone property known as the Ferrini Annexation)." Mt en recorded, return to: DOC. NO. CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE OFFICIAL RECORDS City of San Luis Obispo SAN LUIS OBISPO CO., CAL P. O. Box 321 . San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 C1UrillL211978 WILLIAb1 E ZIMARIK COUNTY RECORUR ME � 000 3 2 PN OPEN SPACE EASEMENT This indenture, made and entered into this day of July, 1978 , by and between FELTON A. FERRINI and MARLENE A. FRAZIER, hereinafter called "Owner" and THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, a munici- pal corporation of the State of California, hereinafter called "City. " WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Owner possesses certain property situated in the County of San Luis Obispo, State of California , Hereinafter described as "the subject property, " and more particularly described in Exhibit "B" , attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein; and WHEREAS, the subject property has certain natural scenic beauty and existing openness; and 11HEREAS, both Owner and City desire to preserve and conserve for the public benefit the great natural scenic beauty and existing openness, natural condition and present state of use of said property of the Owner; and WHEREAS, the Owner has requested annexation of 199 acres to the City with the intent that 51 acres would be allowed to develop with 86 single family home sites and that the remaining 148 acres beyond the City' s urban reserve line would be preserved in its present scenic beauty and existing openness by the restricted use and enjoy- ment of said property by the. Owner through the imposition of a DS/AG:]antr 7/11/78 ?VOLMS7 1'n(i J4U perpetual open space easement with conditions hereinafter expressed; and WHEREAS, the Owner of said property submitted a development plan for said 51 acres as required by City annexation policy; and WHEREAS , the City approved said development plan by pre- zoning the 51 acre development area "R-1 Planned Development" sub- ject to certain conditions of approval, including a grant to the City of a perpetual open space easement on said property and within said 148 acres certain public access rights to Bishop's Peak_ and to a scenic vista point defined on the Owner's approved plan; and WHEREAS, the Owner is willing to grant the- perpetual open / space easement on said 148 acres as a part of the annexation approval; and WHEREAS, the Owner has supplied City with a title company Lot Book Report listing all trust deed beneficiaries and mortgagees, if any, under prior recorded deeds of trust and mortgages on the subject property. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and in com- pliance with Chapter 6. 5 of Part 1 of Division 1 of Title .5 of the Government Code of the State of California commencing with Section 51050 , and in further consideration of the mutual promises, cove- nants and the conditions herein contained and the substantial public benefits to be derived therefrom, the parties hereunto agree, as follows : 1. Owner hereby grants to City an open space easement in and to the property described in Exhibit "B" , said grant of open space easement conveying to City an estate and interest in said real DS/AG:ktm -2- 7/11/78 kV0L2 S7 aLL 5 47 February 14,. 1993 RECEIVED City of San Luis Obispo FEB 1 81993 Planning Commission Crry LUIS OF 990 Palm Street oaiENr San Luis Obispo CA 93401 Attn: Mr. Karleskint and Commission Members Subject: Project 89-92, Northwest end of Highland Drive Dear Commission Members; I am opposed to the development of three homes at the end of Highland Drive near Bishop Peak. These homes are above the existing service level which should not be raised except in a emergency situations. The development as proposed is unacceptable. There are many question which still have not been answered in the latest staff report, which should be asked by the Planning Commission. I have outlined them below. 1 . Why is the city considering the project if the geological study is not complete. Does the city want a lawsuit for allowing a building on potentially unstable ground. 2. What are we deciding here? The applicant only has the right to ask to build not the right build. The City Council must approve this by rezoning the land, moving the Urban Reserve Line. Please clear this up at the hearing. 3. According to the recorded deed on the Ferrini Annexation, 51 acres were to be developed. The remaining 148 acres is a perpetual open space easement with a few exceptions. Ask the city lawyer to make a official determination and determine what is required to abandon the easement according to 51090 of the Government Code of the State of California? 4. From the EIS there seems to be no alternatives plans to this project. Were any other ideas considered which would make this project more feasible? 5. The original EIS made references to Tennis Courts, Pools, Etc. This is not consistent with hillside development. Please strike this out of any approved project. 6. Three homes are proposed. The project could easily be scaled down to two homes at the end of Highland Drive and not extend up to the cattle pond. Water can then be supplied locally. The existing zoning does not allow for this many homes without a density bonus. 7. The city has discussed the possibility of buying the developer rights from the owners of any land they wish to preserve. Maybe this is one of those cases: 8. Mitigation for oak trees does nothing to guarantee the replacement trees will live long than a couple of months. These trees should be kept alive for a minimum of 10 years. 9. Public access to the property is being billed as a carrot for density bonus considerations. I believe public access was a intended to be given when the Ferrini Annexation was accepted by the city. 10. How does the relate to the Hillside Planning Policies and Standards. Which states in the "Statement of Purpose": a. To protect and preserve scenic hillsides and natural features such as the volcanic Morros, ridge lines, rock outcroppings, and steep slope areas that function as landscape backdrops for the community. b. To set the limits on commercial and residential development is hillside areas by establishing a permanent open space green belt at the edge of the community. C. To protect the health safety and welfare of community residents by directing development away from areas with hazards such as landslides, wildland fires, rapid drainage and erosion. d. To insure that the community's general plan specifies the ground rules for hillside development prior to the submittal of individual subdivision or construction projects for city consideration. 11 . Section i. Hillside Areas Beyond the Urban Reserve, Outlines many conditions which must be satisfied before development can occur. Specifically The geology is determined to be stable and not subject to landslide problems. We need answers not guess work 12. It should be noted the Hillside Planning Policies came before the Ferrini Annexation. Therefore specific guideline could not be established. However I believe all the general guidelines still apply. Please ask these questions and others to obtain some reasonable answers before making any decisions concerning this proposal. Bishop Peak is natural landmark and should be preserved for future generations. Sincerely, Gary S. Felsman 2234 Santa Ynez Ave San Luis Obispo CA 93405 cc: Glen Matteson, Mayor Pinard and Council Members City of San Luis Obispo RECEIVED Planning Commission 8 � 3 990 Palm Street FEB San Luis Obispo CA 93401 WYOF Attn: Mr. Karleskint and Commission Members mvo vELa�r�ur Subject: Project 89-92, Northwest end of Highland Drive Dear Commission Members; I am opposed to the development of three homes at the end of Highland Drive near Bishop Peak. These homes are above the existing service level which should not be raised except in a emergency situations. The development as proposed is unacceptable. There are many question which have not been answered, which should be asked by the Planning Commission. I have outlined them below. 1 . Why is the city considering the project if the geological study is not complete. Does the city want a lawsuit for allowing a building on potentially unstable ground. 2. What are we deciding here? The applicant only has the right to ask to build not the right build. The City Council must approve this by rezoning the land, moving the Urban Reserve Line. Please clear this up at the hearing. 3. .according to the recorded-deed on the Ferrini Annexation, 51 acres were to be developed. The remaining 148 acres is a perpetual open space easement with a few exceptions. Ask the city lawyer to make a official determination and determine what is required to abandon the easement according to 51090 of the Government Code of the State of California? 4. From the EIS there seems to be no alternatives plans to this project. Were any other ideas considered which would make this project more feasible? 5. The original EIS made references to Tennis Courts, Pools, Etc. This is not consistent with hillside development. Please strike this out of any approved project. 6. Three homes are proposed. The project could easily be scaled down to two homes at the end of Highland Drive and not extend up to the cattle pond. Water can then be supplied locally. The existing zoning does not allow for this many homes without a density bonus. Please ask these questions and get some reasonable answers before making any decisions concerning this proposal. Bishop Peak is natural landmark and should be preserved for future generations. Sincerely, Jennifer Rennick and Neal Saiki February 14, 1993 1023 Mill St. SLO, CA 93401 City of San Luis Obispo RECEIVED Planning Commission FEB 1 61993 P.O. Box 8100 SLO, CA 93401 cm OF SAN LUIS OBLSPO CGLUMrtY OEVELOPWNr Dear Planning Commission, We are opposed to the zoning change and SLO General Plan amendment requested by F. Ferini and V. Montgomary for the property around Bishop Peak and particularly the 14 acres at the top of Highland Drive. We are opposed to this request for several reasons. First, this request, if granted, would go against all current city plans to preserve open space. The current zoning of Conservation/Open Space was designated with the future of San Luis Obispo and its citizens in mind- not something that should simply be changed for the sole benefit of a few individuals. It is our understanding that changing the Open Space zoning for the 14 acres can be considered an abandonment of the Open Space Easement - an illegal action unless the land in question can be found to fall short of certain requirements. During the Public Hearing on Sept. 30 '92 this was shown by many concerned citizens not to be the case. The C/OS zoning should be enforced. Second, the land above Highland Dr. exceeds the 600 ft. elevation building moratorium. Certainly, one reason for not building above this limit is the practicality associated with the lack of water pressure for fighting fires. We understand that FIRM Designs has suggested that a water tower be built several hundred yards up the hill to alleviate the problem, but this solution assumes that the only reason one should not build above the 600 ft elevation is because of fire safety. It also assumes that the existing home owners do not have an adequate system for fire protection and more importantly that they will be willing to pay for the new system. As was clearly stated at the last Public Hearing by a Highland Dr. home owner, not all of the neighbors, if any, would be willing to pay for such a system, especially when these same home owners'supposedly should have their own means of water storage. We question RRM's motivation. It seems to us that the only benefit such a water tower and its accompanying service road would provide is for the potential further development of the 14 acres once a Planned Development or Residential I I zoning has been acquired -which brings us to the second reason for not building above the 600 ft. elevation. Any building above this elevation begins to change the aesthetic beauty of San Luis Obispo and area. This project, if built, would only pave the way for further development. Accumulative effect of ignoring such building guidelines has an irreversible and detrimental affect to the quality of life and appeal of the area. Bishop Peak is a San Luis Obispo landmark. One has only to look at the many cards and photos that fill our down town shops or to remember our '92 Pacific Bell telephone book cover, etc. Third and most importantly, we believe that if the requested zoning changes are granted by our city council, this project would set a dangerous precedent. It would show everyone that our planning commission can be easily swayed and that the Conservation/Open Space zoning is meaningless- only a zoning for potential developers to hide behind until it suites the land owner to develop. Development should be planned; they should be part of a long term goal. The zoning changes requested by F. Ferini and V. Montgomary are not part of the General Plan. We do know, however that in this particular case -for the 14 acres at the top of Highland Dr. - F. Ferini, with the help of V. Montgomary, did manage to include a clause in his 1978 contract with the City, that allows for the opportunity to develop the land subject to current zoning. During the last several months we have learned more about this "contract" and it is our understanding that a lot of finagling and political maneuvering was done just to get this clause into the contract. The Planning Staff reported that this clause was highly irregular and hopefully the City wouldn't make anymore such contracts. Therefore, we don't feel that anyone on the Planning Commission nor the City Council should feel obligated to grant the requested zoning changes. This proposed project should be subject to the current zoning of Conservation/Open Space; it is a very important part of our General Plan which is a vital part of assuring that this city and the greater area will remain the beautiful place that it is now and with a quality of life that we can continue to enjoy. Than you nnifer Ren ck Ned Sai ' v ' tiECEId ►� : FEB 1 01993 392 Christina way CrFYOFSAN LUIS OBiSpC San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 'rWM'I"ITVnF'T' "' February 6, 1993 City of San Luis Obispo Planning Commission 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo CA 93401 Attn: Mr. Karleskint and Commission Members Subject: Further development at end Highland Drive Dear Commission Members, We are opposed to the development of more homes at the end of Highland Drive near Bishop's Peak. We thought this area was safe from further development. It should be. This is especially true as you go up toward the pond. This man-made pond is an ideal breeding site for the local tree frog, Pseudacris (formerly Hyla) regilla. It partly makes up for loss of breeding sites caused by channelization of streams farther down. Bishop's Peak is a natural landmark, a very special place that we in San Luis Obispo are privileged to live close to, but also responsible to protect. What remains should belong to everyone who wants to walk_ there on beautiful sunny day or a brilliant moonlight night. I hope we have the sense to stop cutting it up for the few and keep it for everyone and future generations. sincerely, Dirk R. Walters Bonnie K. Walters Y I 625 Al tail Drive San. Luis Obispo CA 93405 City of San Luis Obispo February 3, 1993 Cit; Council 3a�a Luis Obispo C.i 93403-0100 Dear City Council i am writinS in reSard to t.`e Rosemont -Project, Planned Deveic"Fent GII _D 89-72. Last fear 1 :1170te a tette 1 O..yOSiIiOn t0 -:his . i MOW KSA to cianSe my position to approval of the r=„ue2ted varia-"_ce to allow the project. to prcgress as prc,,oset7 by tGe applicants . The ch-anSe in my position has Come thxcugf_ conn"iaera;,io-, 0_ the history of this project; bot: before tiie .commission, before the city council, and in tiie court decisions, as well as information from m nei,_'abor, Felton Ferrini. I would ap:;reciata the exzeditinS of this matter in a :vay favorable to the ap 'licants . 1 believe t__e care t_ey i ave. en p given to making this as 2nviro _mentally friendly ;... _ roj�e„ct as possible siould be valued teavily. Also, ;ihat the city does with this project :•rill ei Mer tilp or 'cinder the willingness of other landowners to agree. to tradeoffs in areas desired for public recreational access . The future of open space agreements with landowners depends on demonstrated good faith by the city in honoring past agreements . I feel this is especially true of the public hope of gaininS access for recreational use of the peaks. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Aa Nita 3. Fishburn KECEIv r. L � 0�0 FEB 0 91993 ` CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO '%WMUNITY DFyFI_POS• '�N1vJ�j\s o05P0, OP SP f i FEB 0 4. 1993 626 Al nil Drive crry of SAN Luis osisae San Luis Obispo C9 95405 February 3, 1993 City of San Luis O'bisDo Planning Commission man Luis Obispo CA 93403-0100 Lear Planning Commission: I am ;•rriti_rg in regard to the iosemont Project, Planned Development 1T/PD 39-92. Last year I wrote a letter in opposition to this . I now wish to change my position to ap_oroval of the requested varia_.ce to allow the project to progress as proposed by the applicants . The change in my position .has come through consideration of the history of this project; both before the commission, before the city council, and in the court decisions, as well as information from my nei ,hbor, Pelton Ferrini. I would appreciate the expediting of this matter in a way favorable to the aD:;licants . I believe the care they have given to making tris as enviror."mentally friendly a project as possible should be valued heavily. Also, .chat the city does with this project will either help or hinder the willingness of other landowners to agree to tradeoffs in areas desired for public recreational access . The future of open space agreements with landowners depends on demonstrated good faith by the city in honoring past agreements . I feel this is especially true of the public hope of gaining access for recreational use of the peaks. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Nc444f P, fca G%�u Nita i. Fishburn City of San Luis Obispo Planning Commission CITY 190 R34+=Er.2011 L193 990 Palm Street 116+0F_),EEEF,�•+•`• OF ,EIA1 �sOOPi=•S•S San Luis Obispo CA 93401 ''- z E '"'-' 00 Attn: Mr. Karleskint and Commission S•A [i7`. S 08 Sritd fiJi::l �]�:; •sP0 40u 93403-8100 Subject: Highland Drive Development ,; - Ill1e ge'�I11N'��Iiilf��l'll'illl�1�f 41��ei1�'etl"!U![I t�I •_ .Jb:L VV•II1l�lJ�1Vn :`A�V.11�ri'J� - - - .. ••• I am opposed"to the development of three homes at the end of Highland Drive near Bishop Peak. These homes are above the existing service level which should not be raised,except in a emergency situations. The development as proposed is unacceptable. There are many question which have-not been answered, which should be asked by the' Planning Commission.'I have outlined them below. 1. What are we deciding here? The applicant only has the right to ask to build not the right build. Please clear this up at the hearing. 2. According to the recorded deed on the Ferrini-Annexation, 51acres were to be developed. The remaining 148 acres is a perpetual open-space= Y(Jta r• IGc� d � Ol i s 104✓I�I (j WI I q v\ d / y C'a I�`Turnttl �-o rwe A/ew vovl•c x,I t t'G'W► 'hl e ✓ed w0 l)l res 4- I0 n e Gu (� s ��^evu S v1 Was Wtud e r ywt a d e �- was wa ( tow-ly t'ViU f- v-, b by vi a f vj2 y � w4. su w a I owe m e fl/2 u CO j J.e s SGv�, hf l vw V�l C tltq 101A-evt V-4 I le y lll "S 1 O v►4 V-as trn a d e {v,� Y�„ U n a r t e .�FVe rva^ ed uu�rl ravl 61P r0 �e s�u r JAI, s a,�►d r o �— fie v- d all 4r" 08 tMe u Vd 'ce VVCtSVI sou '(1�►S I a end v✓L�� mad e AO Y- Yom' wvlev) Su vi cam e y L7 v�us s (vz u v►cli-- A - e dvkc cic �S ►vJ�„ fi � �uas trv�� fv Cu vi ev'&v^ s b p , i.,.,e S T' 9b wra I(Iv) rb, a h Wt► POW ( 1vinq cU0 mak--. me hAvv1 bumlc Th �S Io 0 8 Vras vnudl �r Y(f,4 a v, d YVIe R R M D E S I G N G R O U P Ardtile mr P/nrutin� EngincefiirS• Interiors•Landscapc Architeaure January 27, 1993 Planning Commissioners City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 RE: ROSEMONT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT Dear Planning Commissioners: It has recently come to our attention that as a part of your open space plan deliberation, the Sierra Club has suggested that the 14 acres at the top of Highland Drive (Rosemont P.D.) be designated open space and preclude any further development. As background to your discussion, please keep the following in mind: 1. This property is presently zoned C-OS-40. 2. This property is a part of the Ferrini annexation open space area and subject to an existing open space easement which has been approved and signed by the property owner and the City of San Luis Obispo (1978). 3. The existing open space easement has a specific section which discusses this 14 acre area and what is possible within it. 4. The Ferrini annexation, including the open space agreement, has already been the subject of an appellate court decision. 5. An application consistent with the open space agreement is presently on file with the City. We urge you not to take any action regarding this property which is inconsistent with the intent of the existing open space easement and its specific provisions. Sincerely, RRM DESIGN GROUP Victor Montg ery Chief Exe ve r cc: J n et " $o:i 5outb ILgurra Street.San Lui>Obispo,Cu I i lora is 934111 8051541-1794 . ,r_ - i.!h c•t, M"11c:tn,Caiiic:ttia 4:.354 "'9/5.44"?94 I ' it ECEIVE1) City of San Luis Obispo JAN 2 2 1993 Planning Commission n SAN LUIS BIpo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo CA 93401 Attn: Mr. Karleskint and Commission Members Subject: Highland Drive Development Proposal Dear Commission Members; I am opposed to the development of three homes at the end of Highland Drive near Bishop Peak. These homes are above the existing service level which should not be raised except in a emergency situations. The development as proposed is unacceptable. There are many question which have not been answered, which should be asked by the Planning Commission.. I have outlined them below. 1. What are we deciding here? The applicant only has the right to ask to build not the right build. Please clear this up at the hearing. 2. According to the recorded deed on the Ferrini Annexation, 51 acres were to be developed. The remaining 148 acres is a perpetual open space easement with a few exceptions. Ask the city lawyer to make a official determination and determine what is required to abandon the easement according to State Law? 3. From the EIS there seems to be no alternatives plans to this project. Were any other ideas considered which would make this project more feasible? 4. The original EIS made references to Tennis Courts, Pools, Etc. This is not consistent with hillside development. Please strike this out of any approved project. 5. Why are there three homes. The project could easily be scaled down to two homes at the end of Highland Drive and not extend up to the cattle pond. The existing zoning does not allow for this many homes. Please ask these questions and get some reasonable answers before making any decisions concerning this proposal. Bishop Peak is natural landmark and should be preserved for future generations. Sincerely, ifECEIVIE 0 JAN 2 2 1993 City of San Luis Obispo cm of SAN tuts Planning Commission '^n�Munmvo�rE,OB 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo CA 93401 Attn: Mr. Karleskint and Commission Members Subject: Highland Drive Development Proposal Dear Commission Members; I am opposed to the development of three homes at the end of Highland Drive near Bishop Peak. These homes are above the existing service level which should not be raised except in a emergency situations. The development as proposed.is unacceptable. There are many question which have not been answered, which should be asked by the Planning Commission. I have outlined them below. 1. What are we deciding here? The applicant only has the right to ask to build not the right build. Please clear this up at the hearing. 2. According t_o the recorded deed on the Ferrini Annexation, 51 acres were to be developed. The remaining 148 acres is a perpetual open space easement with a few exceptions. Ask the city lawyer to make a official determination and determine what is required to abandon the easement according to State Law? 3. From the EIS there seems to be no alternatives plans to this project. Were any other ideas considered which would make this project more feasible? 4. The original EIS made references to Tennis Courts, Pools, Etc. This is not consistent With hillside development. Please strike this out of any approved project. 5. Why are there three homes. The project could easily be scaled down to two homes at the end of Highland Drive and not extend up to the cattle pond. The existing zoning does not allow for this many homes. Please ask these questions and get some reasonable answers before making any decisions concerning this proposal. Bishop Peak is natural landmark and should be preserved for future generations. Sincerely, �� Y. t gall 3l5 � F tq {�L.W i1 1 V HiQ !?c\-j Sc.r L.tb Ob,sfc,CA. q' itNov .,U UJ ;. 19 LUIS 0101Spol CA 93YoI S F NOV 2 1992 ` CG,rc Gbo.t�- t�-s Pr1o�resS. I•�owe,rart G�' �-In� �a.�.e CG(q-- 4bo�� L `V1 V�fg11V�Qy� Grid .T- ¢n ay 1 MOI�1�t...� �✓%d `fit K¢ G. X ook off f��^E 6e-Q At W 1 V t e- ...) U�- avr 4 1'1 2 c�e✓e.l c,n,M�.n{ R E C E I V E D NOV 2 41992 CITY of SAN LM aMpo CoMµ1WFY'M-WLoPMENT- A E C E I V E U NOV 1 71992 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO "OMMUNITV DEVEI nPMDr r 538 Felton Way San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 Dear 'Supervisor: I am writing to express by concern over the proposed Rosemont development on Bishop's Peak. The intrusion into the wildlife corridor, the destruction of plant communities and blight to the grand scenic view of the Morros has gone far enough. I fear that approval of this development will seta precedent that is lacking the vision for preserving the Morros that I believe both the City and County have expressed in their General Plans. At the least, I think a 600 foot maximum elevation for any type of development should be strictly enforced. And, I hope that in the future, all existing undeveloped land can be held in permanent open space to protect the existing ecosystems and scenic view-shed for our County. Thank you for your time. Sin erely, 46t A ele Marie Anderson ' OCT 3 0 IM BOAP,O OF SUPERVISORS BOUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO Y SUPOMSOF Recei It poPy of a C:�hn�,arn �r►'nUlo( �a�, Po�� 1✓CG�iI/5-� lam" �l�v✓s ��'a�/e �� Gv is �G✓�3�� 1-�c�Wl� Yee Sh ��3 �� - �u �� 4iold. � Who d y fl-d 6ecvl�lj Aevei d )4 Xou -VI �� ► . ►r✓ Psi 0CT 2 1 199 i -ly / % upgflon S4 Yll^�C P// 1.�WZ W' 7��5 T��S of b,&.111 hf Who it XYLJ.*? JP7 Z, �+ ��-�i►�til v {"�n�' FYI �l sf� 3 �G�v/G w�/�c� �� 7k/k7 Sfi /l have (,t . hl kd r e- s'� -!�� -� $�•� s �lir9 �c_.1 4 JAZ A — RECEIVED OCT 2 01992 I l q 0 CITY 01:SAN LUIS 08 NT4- 4!� d ve New e�I,t � r'l d; 74 c? CA ri-I ct VA !Gl�q vi s pi c LA� �v Y-e- vv) k) e- Z)f7 OCA �S4:Fdve"S I YVI PO-Y-16 1-1+ pj L4 1 LIP 15 ll�e� ra V'_k�5 C? '04 L4_fon c� 0 -s Koo 4'L C4 �'l pe klOy4t% akJ (2Czzd V V-e, e T I(I ct Ve_� VV I 6%( V% bei ....... VIVI 4A pf CPO rly I>qc� -2 44 1 VVI I JZ�. L R 0 OCT 1 6 1992 CITY CLERK nqlppn RECEIVED OCT 1 61992 city Council Planning Commission 990 Palm street CM OF SAN LLMS CBS* San Luis Obispo Ca. 93401 CMDAMTo Whom it may concern: We are greatly opposed to R.R.M. Designs building proposal on Bishop's Peak. Bishop's Peak is a S.L..O. county landmark that is held dearly by members of this community and should not be zoned for any development now or in the future. Bishop's Peak belongs to the whole community, not private individuals. Please reject R.R.M. 's proposal . Sincerely, Voting members of S.L.O. G Z o 16- i Cie re LA 11FFy4N� �sEM/N6 � kOtQ- -iZ CAKE Ro6crfi George— Ia,r'�2�c` ��1HtQS Aiof League of San Lu s POST OFFICE BOX 4210 • SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA 93403 Ubmen T btej s Obispo September 7, 1992 RECEIVED OCT - 919% The Honorable Ron Dunin Mayor of the City of San Luis ObispoCITY OF So L UIS 065M 990 Palm Street - San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Dear Mayor Dunin, The San Luis Obispo League of Women Voters wishes to register its concern regarding the Rosemont development on Bishop's Peak which proposes .that.- . two houses be built above the 600 ft. elevation.... _.. -. From our earliest studies and our stated position since- 1967, we see that" holding the line on elevation is the key to maintaining the natural beauty of the Morros. kTe further note that the Morros are.'an essential part - of the peace and pleasure- of-living in this city and county.----They are also a sought after sight by. those who visit and tour our area. Once _ the line-is• breached, it is difficult and eventually impossible to hold it in the future. Creeping up the hill will lead to landslides, erosion and the gutting of our most unique geographic feature. Keep the Morros as they have been for all time. — - We ask that• you hold the developers to the original agreement. and. hold--' _-..-. the line! We further request that you direct the Architectural Review Commission to make that elevation limit of 600 ft. perfectly clear in the guidelines they are currently preparing for hillside development. - Sincerely., Beverly Hund,President League of Women Voters San Luis Obispo, CA SEP - R 1992 CITY CLERK sAN LUIS OBISPO.CA J R RM DESIGN GROUP October 7, 1992 OCT _ o CITV OF Mr. Barry Karleskint, Chairman COMMUNmDEulsHr Planning Commission City of San Luis Obispo Box 8100 San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100 Re: Rosemont Project Dear Chairman Karlesldnt: At your Planning Commission hearing on September 30, 1992 during public testimony, the issue was raised that the Ferrini project,when originally approved, had promised 148 acres of permanent open space and that the present request to implement the two exceptions was tantamount to abandoning the open space easement and inconsistent with the public's understanding that there would be 148 acres of permanent open space. This is not true. Both Mr. Ferrini and RRM Design Group have been very careful not to present the Ferrini annexation as 148 acres of permanent open space because to do so would be unfair since 18 acres are subject to limited additional development based upon the two exceptions contained in the open space easement. We did not want to over state what was promised. I have enclosed for your information the Measure E campaign materials prepared and used during 1978. They are all very careful to indicate that there will be 130 acres of permanent Men space. The Rosemont project does not violate the public information provided during the Measure E campaign, and does not violate the public's understanding. It is consistent with Mr. Ferrini's promise and the recorded open space easement. As you can see from these 1978 campaign materials, the project, with 130 acres of permanent open space, was supported by the City Council including a present member of the Planning Commission. We are moving forward to obtain the geologic and soils information requested by the Commission and will submit it to staff as soon as it is completed. Sincerely, RRM D SIGN GROUP Vicrohn Chi • Enc cc: ners n v/vm-ferrn.krl ,•.r,h !h�.:o,'it-1'1 h"1 1'::'t)1+i'Pu t'.i.",,:m.i. _ 1 14 1 ,,; V.W V01.10 V. VEL, CITY COUNCIL C..MMENTS ON . , THE FERRINI ANNEXATION In July 1978, the San Luis Obispo City Council approved the Ferrini Annexation and placed it on the November ballot for consideration by the voters. What did the Councilmen have to say about the Ferrini Annexation during their deliberations? Mayor Schwartz: It is really a very well thought out,well considered development package.The 1977 General Pian anticipated some minor annexations and it set up conditions on which their acceptance should be predicated, in my view it meets those conditions. Weighing all of these points, i think this project is TVhwhiie fo the Ci . nneth Schwartz. Councilman Settle: I think this is a well designed and conceived idea.We have a good idea what we're getting because we have a great deal of information in terms of the environmental impact report, LAFCo comments, Planning Commission comments and planning staff comments to judge from. It provides additional housing,a substantial 130 acre open space easement and will take several years to actually build out. I support the Ferrini Annexation. Allen Settle Councilman Dunin: This annexation will provide: 1. 6595 of the available land as open space. 2. It will serve as a model for any future request for annexation. 3. The water system for the entire Foothill neighborhood will be improved. 4. The environmental impact report is favorable. 5. LAFCo supports the annexation. 6. It is consistent with the City General Plan. For these reasons I support the Ferrini Annexation. Ron Duan ; Councilman Petterson: I agree with the other Councilmen.The 130 acre open space easement in,a permanent benefit to all residents of the City. I hope that this annexation will serve as a model.It is well thought out I feel that the benefits offered to the City far outweigh the cost of providing services and that-the small area being developed with low density housing will pay its own way for City services by payin ity taxes an fees. I support the Ferrini Annexation. Steve Petterson 3: W *This is what your City Council said about the Ferrini Annexation.O When you vote on November 7th, Vote YES on the Ferrini Annexation. YES on Measure E 9 Y i w k cµv�ia,� 4�'+�TkRy`y�'��'�r.� i�,�; 'as ,��+yam.iE+.�s.i`4e•.7M_._s.e },4 ;.:t�1+c>`'�..1^ ...� 7 T--III;IIIZ ,� �r'` x."'�v'_w y'�{,�� °'�L_�+'�v^-`.r-K� l'S a�tL-�„'"•P �:i?��"rv� ' y h'�'+aw�.�+,.• d. ;ems The Ferrini Annexation is the final stage in the development of one of the City's finest neighborhoods.It is the fitting end to a history begun in 1903 which has contributed housing, school sites, park land and quality improvements to form this neighborhood. On November 7th you will decide on the Ferrini Annexation by casting your vote for Measure E. When you cast your vote, think of these contributions offered by the Ferrini Annexation: *130 acres of oak woodlands preserved as scenic open space,forever.Your children will see the land as you see it:agricultural land unspoiled by subdivision, houses, mobile homes, and the like, providing a scenic buffer zone at the north edge of the City. *Land for a three acre public park, given to the City including improvements for public parking. *A trail easement for hikers to have access to Bishop Peak from the public park. *A new water system large enough to improve fire fighting safety in the entire neighborhood,not just for this annexation. *Drainage and sewer system improvements,not just for this annexation but other parts of the neighborhood as well. *A low density,high quality, efficient addition to the neighborhood which will pay its own way in taxes to the City. The Ferrini Annexation is a minor annexation which will make a major contribution. VOTE YES ON MEASURE E. _ PAID POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT • PAID FOR BY THE COMMIT�T`EE To SUPPORT MEASURE E .+:_-i:J (A8"1'�U.. Y:t.; T T�t�ti::RER) I L � i s R � r 3:R'q'. s. 4 %i'+�.F �Yi J- �y'+.3,•mf'R" ,rt�yG.q, i "y +- 7"S + •+Y.R.2,tQ�y..��wP �., .t cr ♦' 'i Hs �a�aY''us 'R-< t�+rziy +� --��aarll ^�^'a`y}'a4 } '� -•L_x. "^ ', ...+g'.'M_ f�' :,J`� �.c 'vY Y"ey9i •=a l" y- + uat"r f �� Y�y f r+ �f +� -fed r�� I t:d+'•� � -r,y/,: s r('" �Y �� 5 J, .� / 1,: t"7�=i•7y� fi .1r ~l'� � 2 l �Y- � r - r '+"' 1 x - ✓ ., f t;C x +� dak;i, 'rT/�I � s. '��'R, �-'...Y'�Mn"''-""�-�'.1"� �;✓: 1 ""`` ,r-" .. �'YT.a.,� _ .�1 ^. ,� hh�k '�•y�� ` it ��_ .>. ' ', �. - r.,. Yy :.r „ 'f�� i,�.rF'.,r//' �y ,�.,'- . ...� �s�,�, !•.'"- r. e yam+ z4'k'.. 'Y.x.aC��s•`'^yY• "X'w'•��?uR"' R;zZ �•«e� �i..� � �yi.-�1�� X f' ��;i`:.Ff orf �� Yv�. jV-t .'VA R �'_4,.r •^p' 7 �.c^ w.,4.,�� _ t ,w ,��1� {'•�4i Y W`lou rOM1 rCr `rs k n �a� sa>s +�•�aw� �t ` - X+.z �.. 'r✓ ,Yc' 'a r# fl ' 4`+,. ..ir A -- ,� k.t. P �`✓Y��/«�°_j�'T �fFv�i.Y,.. �t;i.,�,s�x �',�'yL/Y,�,aA��,+�..,�� .�_•�, M.�., �y� n .C.. _ a XRT; J'r� ,rti ,�� -+�t�. .a ��C-d-cr�r�i`i,./^�, �,,,j.,, -'F Fc. .� '35w,n r, (�„� 'k°•�`c� � � �' .:4n .-�:� w r tom._-.. -:'Y. ...� .i .�r �.+�'3w..:4 . L.l�{• 'f'`!�.,t..., "'.R^v.y✓rN'aW..�! S'E/'� !^'- � �J . . . t(�) V' '.- AS KEE R TH,, , El. P -SCENI C- OPEN - SPACE --m- 1, K% i The Ferrini Annexation r offers 130 acres of permanent open space on Bishops P ' • '0 VOTE • BOA SURE-1E It preserves _ beauty for �. It is • to • PAim BY THE COMMITTEE RE - ._M (ARNO _ j;&_gUWC�Rf_KjE_j��U-_Et(VICTOR MONTGOMERY-PRESIDEN LD VOCNY TREASURER) 547 MARSH,SAN LUIS . . Pv S� --92 `Cec� J Ere-, Oe C4�' ii. - U? z-fes Guh��.e sem_ � 91 4- CP - .4A AIL - t cam_ KZ, �� _ � Z - - ell 12, L, RECEIVED Stephen P. Ekegren $EP 3 0 1 Marianne B. Ekegren 628 Oakridge Drive om of SAN WIS OBISPO San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93405 CO&Mr Y OEVEIOPWNr Planning Director Planning Commissioners September 29, 1992 City Hall 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93101 Re: ROSEMONT PLAID D]BNISII,OPI\ YSNT Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: It has come to my attention that you will be reviewing and considering for approval, a housing project at the top of Highland Drive, in the city of San Luis Obispo. I live at 628 Oakridge Drive,just below the project. I would like to voice my support for the project. I have reviewed the site plan and had discussions on various aspects of this project with the developer. The quality and density of what is being proposed, along with the improvements to the water system and the added benefit of "legitimizing" the access to Bishop's Peak, all seem to be a benefit to the city. Thank you for your time, and once again as an adjoining neighbor, I would like to recommend this project be allowed to go forward. Respectfully; �CCJCcy/�``�� Stephen P. Ekegren Marianne B. Ekegren J 64 1?3qo - it-r_160 O - `e2a. ..-.. - --— - -------- ,per ie r , y� _i September 25, 1992 San Luis Obispo City Planning Commission 990 Pal Street San Luis Obsipo CA 93406 Attn: Barry Karleskint Chairman and Commission Members Subject: Rosemont Development Proposal After reading the Staff Report in favor of this project with many mitigation measures, with several letters and 300 signatures in opposition to the project the staff still recommends approval of the project. The site is specifically identified by the City, Administrative Draft Open Space Workbook, May 7, 1992 on page 12, item 20, for preservation as open space. Are we ignoring our own planning guidelines. I am wondering what has to be done to protect the hillsides of San Luis Obispo and the Morros from further development above the existing service levels and above the 600 foot level where this project is proposed. It is clear the city needs an ordinance which actually sets hillside standards for development before it is to late. The defacto standard of 472 feet for this area should be used as a guideline for Bishop Peak Area. There are many other hills which could be built on if this project is approved.. Bishop Peak is natural landmark and should be preserved if at all possible. Finally, On page 5 of the Open Space Easement, Section 3.C. "The open space restrictions on 14 acres noted on Exhibit "A" are limited to allow a maximum of 3 lots and three dwelling units on said area subject to the approval of the City and rezoning of the property°. Please deny this project based on Findings for Denial, page 6, Number 1,2;3,4, of the Staff report. Sincerely, r r Gary S. Felsman 2234 Santa Ynez Ave San Luis Obispo CA 93405 (805)549-0532 cc: San Luis Obispo City Council RECEIVED SEP 2 31992 CM UNOF SAN LUIS OBISPO C.PNEN 1� �4 12 / r fv CCpMUNRY BEVE.GPMENi t-i( � Dw S Gly C�,��rf� caad Ptp,►o,;y cmM►35,zjl, 2-oj 1992 Pik, T4 poseAu o-A Chwi44 #\emaio5 is r1OG'n/ a S �a�(ld y r+vL4 g dp 444 froJeC4, At5o +6 C� QMC-J, r4 +��3 a-tix komcd �k dao a,4 L� Pz� ' j CdeJ ,r, k 7 � RECEIVED SEP-2-3AM come - - _ _ - r l ♦ a R �CRfVRD Slip 13 0 672 Serrano Drive #1 uMV2,11 OPIUM San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 September 22, 1992 Mr. Glen Matteson Associate Planner City of San Luis Obispb P.O. Bog 8100 San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100 Re: Rosemont Planned Development Dear Mr. Matteson: Certain pages of the Initial Environmental Study 89-92 concerning the Rosemont Planned Development have come to my attention. In your consideration of this development please add my concerns. In the interest of brevity I' ll mention only three: 1 ) The possibility of future similar approvals, with incremental need for urban services; 2) The Seismic Safety Element shows the site at very high landslide risk; 3) The water tower: hidden? I hope you share the passion for protecting the elegance of our views! I like the study's wording: " . .the site is ' scenic sensitive open space. This designation discourages any development. ' " Pretty emphatic! I hope you and your staff, the Council Members, and the Mayor reject this project. Thank you. Cordially yours, Nanette Lie mane` (Mrs. H. September 22, 1992 a 1:86P 3 City of San Luis Obispo `" Planning Department -ITv of sw Lu;s css�c 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo CA 93401 Attn: Glen Matteson Subject: Highland Drive Development Proposal Dear Glen: I have enclosed two sets of petitions which show concern for the project at the end of Highland Drive. The first set contains approximately 300 signatures against the proposed project in general. Most people believe development should occur below the 600 foot level and the Morros should be preserved whenever possible. The second shows concern over the Chumash Indian Site at Whale Cave. This also shows that many people are concerned about other Chumash sites including the one on Bishop Peak. Please add this information to the Staff Report for consideration by the Planning Commission. Sincerely, Gary S. Felsman 2234 Santa Ynez Ave San Luis Obispo CA 93405 (805)549-0532 cc: Planning Commission Members, City Council Members CF.h -TY CF SAN LUIS C2ES?n ;ry of SAN LUIS CS 21�C - -- 1727 Corralitos Ave. San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93401 September 19,1992 Mayor Ron Dunin City Hall 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, tea. Dear Mayor Dunin; I have reviewed the Initial Study of Environmental Impact for the proposed Rosemont Development on Bishop Peak. I do not agree with the finding of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. The site is susceptible to landslide and should not be built upon without a thorough study of the land stability. This should explore the potential for hazard to properties below the site. Many years ago I had a personal experience with a property on San Luis Mountain at a lower elevation where following a rain storm the home broke in half during a landslide. Construction on the site could severely damage the existing oak trees. Landscape irrigation could eventually kill them. There have been cases in the past (ex, the site of the present Discovery Inn) where the builder promised to preserve certain trees along Grand Ave. . During the building process the trees were damaged and finally removed. No replacement trees were planted. The proposal to minimize the visual impact of these 2 story homes by requiring the building exteriors to be limited to earth colors may not actually be implemented. Unfortunately once a project is approved color selection can become a matter of opinion and the mitigation can be overlooked . This has been a problem in past incidents concerning color.. The site is currently and properly zoned "scenic sensitive open space" and that zoning should not be changed . Bishop Pe k is a unique local asset and should be protected in a natural tate. Building on or over the 600 foot elevation would set an ' unacceptable precedent when city policy has established 460 feet as an elevation limit. I do not believe the red bucket test included views from Johnson Avenue which provides one of the loveliest views of th Nlorros . The Morros are an esthetically important back drop or the city. Sincerely, Jn Clucas HAROLD D.SEGAL,M.D.,INC. Neurological Surgery 140 Casa Street San Luis Obispo,California 93405 B 805/543-4319 C 1E o� L FAX 805/543-0446 SEP 2 1 IY92 CITY OF SAN LUIS OgISpo Community Development Director City of San Luis Obispo Re: Application #89-92 September 21, 1992 Gentlemen: Just this morning we were advised unofficially that the subject application is being processed, and that it will affect land immediately adjacent to our property at the end of Oakridge Drive, Lot 86 of Tract 1182. We have been told that there is a deadline for public comment today regarding the initial study of environmental impact. Though we have not seen that study, we wish to make our feelings known as they pertain to several issues that have been reported to us. First, we object if this application has indeed been processed to the point of public comment without official notification of adjoining property owners. Second, we understand that there is reference in the report to an access trail to Bishop's Peak from the end of Oakridge. We know of no such access. We see nothing on the tract map for Tract 1182 that would indicate such public access. Third, we are told that there is reference to instability of soil upslope from our property, and that development plans will mitigate disturbance to acceptable levels. Our view at this time is that no disturbance upslope is acceptable. We acknowledge that this response is hastily prepared and based only on hearsay. Lacking full, timely information, howev we feel we must object to the project. Vl e� 1� 9340.E 6 � � � � l4tIL� SEP 2 1 M2 CITY OF SAS LUIS CBIS?O 041991 SIERRA CLUB b✓ SANTA LUCIA CHAPTER 1281 17th Street FOU"°` ® Los Osos, CA 93402 September 19, 1992 dhCEI fhit Mr. Glenn Matteson San Luis Obispo Community Development SEP 2 9 692 990 Palm Street CITU OF SAN LUIS OBISPO San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 _...., Dear Mr. Matteson: The Sierra Club wishes to reaffirm its strong opposition to the proposed de- velopment of homesites above Highland Drive on Bishop Peak. The proposed changes in the project since my letter of July 5 do not address our concerns. This development cannot be sufficiently mitigated and should not be approved. I will not repeat the details of our case, since they have been adequately and thoroughly addressed in many other letters that you have received. In brief summary, this area is a sensitive open space area. Human encrouchment, with all that entails, will have a serious impact. Further, the visibility at these high elevations, especially the water tank, is not acceptable. Primarily, however, this is a policy issue. The Morros are a unique feature of our natural environment. There is overwhelming evidence, from multiple sources, that preservation of the Morros is the number one open space priority for city and county residents. Various efforts are moving forward to insure their long-term protection, as I'm sure you know. Further development will undermine those efforts. The problem is very much one that Garret Hardin called "the tragedy of the commons." No one development project is likely, all by itself, to cause serious harm -- a point that the applicant always makes. But projects don't exist in isolation, and the the sum total of many small projects can eventually destroy the "commons" for everyone. This project comes on top of extensive development that has already occurred on the lower slopes_ Further, it would set a horrible precedent whereby other development projects on the Morros would likely be proposed. As a policy matter, it's time for the city (and the county) to say, "Enough is enough -- the slopes of the Morros have reached their 'carrying capacity' and no more projects will be allowed." To do any less would send a clear message that the city cares more about the private interests of a few individuals than about the clearly articulated desires of a majority of its citizens to preserve the remaining open space on the Morros. Houses can be built anywhere. We only have one Bishop Peak. I sincerely hope that your staff will recommend denial of this project, and that the Plan- ning Commission will concur. Sincerely, Randall D. Knight Conservation Committee Chairman To explore. enjoy, and protect the nation's scenic resources . . . ECE IV F. 6 SEP 1 71992 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO - Todd C. Beights 483 Luneta Dr. San Luis Obispo, CA. 93405 TO: City of San Luis Obispo, Planning Commission 990 Palm St., San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93401 RE: Rosemont Planned Development Dear Commission Members, My name is Todd Beights, and as a long time resident of the City of S.L.O. I am concerned about the important decisions being made in regards to proposed land use and the disappearance of open space. I'm sure that you've heard these concerns before, but I can't count on it. Through the years, many worthwhile growth concepts and guidelines have been hammered out by good people wanting to maintain and protect the unique and somewhat pristine characteristics of our community. I realize that it is a constant uphill battle for you to maintain these characteristics, given the powerful and ever increasing pro-growth influences that abound. I thank you for your perseverance to date. In regards to this project, I voice my opposition loud and clear! The elevation limits set for such growth are sensible, effective, and are in place for a lot of darn good reasons! The interpretation of these guidelines should not be such a negotiable item. In closing, please consider, with great insight, the precedent that your determination will set for all other sites in this area that are currently under protection from this sort of evolution. With; greatest regards, Todd C. Beights September 17, 1992 To: City of San Luis Obispo C E IV t 4 Community Development Department Glen Matteson, Associate Planner SEP 1 F 159 From: Carla Sanders CITY OFSAN LUIS C9ISP0 660 Oakridge —. San Luis Obispo Subject:Initial Study of Enviornmental Impact, Application #89-92 Dear Glen, My husband and I have the following comments about initial study #89-92 at this time; 1. Page 7, Geologic and seismic hazards, "Soil instability and erodability have the potential to affect the project occupants as well as downhill neighbors, but risks will be mitigated to acceptable levels" . We are downhill neighbors. There are no "acceptable levels" of risk we are willing to assume. We are opposed to any development on this site which puts our downhill property at any risk. 2. Page 8,There are no mitigations for the above. 3. Page 15, last paragraph. There is no existing access to Bishop' s Peak from the end of Oakridge drive. 4. Page 17, given the geologic and seismic hazards it seems imprudent to even consider swimming pools which potentially leak and runoff-creating tennis courts. 5. Page 18, "areas outside designated building envelopes to be maintained essentially in a natural condition" . The qualifying word "essentially" should be eliminated. Sincerely, Carla Sanders Lani Sbeele. Ph.D. - 1575 Braderson Los tis, CA 93402 805/528-4942 Planning Department,City Council County Government Center San Luis Obispo, C9 93-401 September 9, 1992 This letter is to express our -strong opposition, to the proposed Rosemont porject at the be-se of Bishop Peak. The Area is and should remain open space, a part of the natural beauty of the Sari Luis area. Habitat, access for recreation, and visual be,&aty/irnpact would all be degraded for the majority of citizens so that a leer could profit. Once such an exception is granted,we can be sure that other developers would clamor for their opportunity to fiarther degrade the natural beauty of Bishop's Peak. Zoning laws should be adhered to by all, for the benefit of all, not modified to suit the convenience of developers and their ;veal th;r clients. Thank you for your thoughtful attention. Sincerely, Lani Steele Gary Mickle U; N C rn 0 0 rn 1' 3 N c � z c� ttlivkiV kka SEP 1 01992 CITY OF SAN OBISPO September 9, 1992 0OMMUNmroEvIE<OPw%r City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo CA 93401 Attn: Mayor Ron Dunin and Council Members Subject: Initial Study of Environmental Impact, Northwest End of Highland Drive, Application No. 89-92 Dear Mr. Dunin and Council Members: I am writing this letter in response to the Initial Study of Environmental Impact(EIS) for the Northwest End of Highland Drive. Application No. 89-92. As stated before, I am against the project in principal and hope the City Council, Planning Commission and Staff see the benefit in denying the application for zoning changes allowing three homes to be built on this 14 acre site. The preservation of the Morros are of a great concern to me. I have outlined comments to the EIS below. 1. Community Plans and Goals The Morros are a great asset to the beauty of San Luis Obispo. These volcanic plugs deserve preservation and have been slated by many groups and organizations that they should be preserved. A. A Specific Plan for Preservation of the Morros, San Luis Obispo County Planning Department, Ned A. Rogoway Director, 1972 - This document though not passed discussed many attributes concerning the Morros and there preservation. On page 26 of this document. It states. "Development should not be allowed to disrupt locations of high scenic value, including scenic backdrops and prominent ridgelines and knolls. Major vistas should be protected and scenic views should not be blocked by development. In view of all these factors, including those geological, fire and erosion hazard, it is recommended that no development be permitted above the 600 foot level elevation of each of the peaks in the study area, as well as any of the connecting saddles which may extend above the 600 foot level." B. San Luis Obispo County, Natural Areas Plan, 1992 - This plan states the Morros are in great need of preservation. 1 of 4 C. San Luis Obispo City, Open Space Plan This plan shows the site as "Scenic Sensitive Open Space" This designation discourages any development. The plan also indicates the city should establish a greenbelt around the city to preserve its beauty. D. Morros Task Force - Currently there is a group with many members of the county, Land Conservancy, Bud Laurent, Sierra Club, ECOSLO and others trying to develop ideas on how to preserve the Morros for future generations. E. San Luis Obispo County Survey - This survey asked many people of San Luis Obispo County what was high on there list of concerns for the county. The preservation of the Morros was high on the peoples mind. F. SLO City Review, Winter 1989 - On the front page of the newsletter is a picture of Bishop Peak. The caption reads " A view of Bishop's Peak, one of the City's scenic resources, rising behind a San Luis Obispo neighborhood." This newsletter states "The open Space section of the City's General Plan is being updated to include more active preservation and possible acquisition of San Luis Obispo's scenic areas. G. City Conducted Survey - A city conducted survey in May of 1988 found that citizens are concerned for the area's natural environment. 2. Archaeological Historical Resources As indicated by the EIS there are several sites used by the Chumash Indians or earlier. These sites are important to the Indian culture and to the residents of San Luis Obispo. These sites should be preserved for the public and not disturbed or destroyed. The reports indicate some sites would be disturbed by the homes. Why not create a historical park for all to see instead of locking these sites off from the public. According to the Northern Chumash Council the Morros are sacred and this site of the proposed development is significant. 3. Aesthetics The aesthetics of this project up set me very much. Hillside Standards are very important if this project is approved. The view from the top of Bishops Peak, North Saddle and the surrounding area will be greatly impacted by the additions of these three homes. Once where there was a open meadow will be a 20 foot wide paved road with a turn around, a 12 foot wide paved road to the water tank, three large 2,500 square foot or larger homes with 500 square foot garages, and a 40,000 gallon water tank 25 feet in diameter, 11 feet high located at 775 feet. 2of4 4. Public Access Public access is of great concern for all citizens of San Luis Obispo including the handicapped, elderly, children young and old and you and me. The trails show on Figure 2 are not desirable for the hiker as shown described below. 4.1 Highland Drive Access The trail shown on Figure 2 is not the current access point. The trail currently follows the proposed road and existing graded road to the north side of the Cattle Pond. Moving the trail to the south as,shown will involve disturbing the Oak Woodland Habitat, and prevent any handicapped access to the peak. The Planning Commission Minutes, dated April 11, 1984, Commissioner Reiss was concerned about deleting the scenic overlook which precluded the handicapped and elderly from gaining access to the top of the mountain and enjoying the views. Rerouting the trail would again preclude the handicapped from accessing the peak and enjoying the peak close up. As stated in the EIS, page 14, I believe a Prescriptive Easement should be investigated and acquired for this access point. 4.2 Patricia Street Access The Patricia Street Access is a viable access for the healthy but precludes the handicapped or elderly from accessing the peak. The proposed access is 200 feet lower than the Highland Drive Access. A locked gate and barbed wire fence keep the normal person off the existing road. The proposed trail in Figure 2 is undesirable since it again cuts through a riparian habitat, steep gully and heavy Oak Woodlands. The trail will cause extensive erosion and require high maintenance. A better trail is located near the water tank at 575 feet. But does the city want people near the water tank? 5. Fire and Water Services The addition of the water tank is not a perk for the city. There is no question that fire and water service will be improved by locating a water tank at 775 feet for the homes on Highland Drive. The Femni Annexation did not allow any homes above the 472 foot level. Yet the city allowed 8 homes to be built above this level using individual pumps to create water pressure for each of the homes. If the city was really concerned about the water pressure, or fire danger, the city would of required the builders of the eight homes to put in a water tank at the end of Highland Drive to accommodate this. If these homes were located in the county, the water tank does not be above the existing homes. The only requirement is that hook ups be provided for fire crews to pump the tank dry in case of a fire. Gravity flow is not required. I have several pictures showing what the county requires in rural areas. 3of4 6. Conclusion In conclusion, I believe this project is not desirable for the city to approve. It sets many precedences which could ultimately hurt any goals for the preservation of the Morros or creating a greenbelt around the city. The city has said many things concerning the preservation of open space, it is time the city act to implement some of the desired goals. I plan to do more research concerning this project before the Sept. 21, 1992 deadline and the hearing on Sept.. 30, 1992. Please support me and deny this projects approval. Sincerely, Gary S. Felsman 2234 Santa Ynez Ave San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 CC. San Luis Obispo City Planning Commission, San Luis Obispo Planning Department, Peg Pinard, Bill Roalman, Jerry Reiss, Penny Rappa 4of4 VN: Review SL® CRY CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO NEWSLETTER REM WINTER 1989 VOLUME SIX Open Space, Breathing Space vs�o Pr o P P The Open Space section of the ,,,FA,��✓�� City's General Plan is being up- dated to include more active preser- vation reser vation and possible acquisition of San Luis Obispds scenic areas. Open space is more than parks, which are active and improved areas. .: Open space includes undeveloped land set aside for many functions in- cluding the protection of natural resources, views, and passive recrea- IL tion areas.These lands help maintain a healthy environment for residents, as well as for plants and animals. Other uses of open space include agriculture, nature and wildlife preserves, hiking and horseback riding areas, and sites for nature A view of Bishop's Peak, one of the City's scenic resources, rising behind a studies and educational outings. San Luis Obispo neighborhood. The City conducted a public opi- who is preparing the open space needs. ee suni Rossi y's input and involvement nion survey in May of 1988 and found update. that citizens are concerned for In order to gain ideas and are essential to the planning process, the areas natural environment. and community meetings and information, planners have visited interviews will be held. The input of Respondents viewed clean air and other cities with active open space open space as the City's greatest plans. One such city, said Rossi, is the property owners is of particular strength. Boulder, Colorado,which is a college importance. Any successful open Planners are responding to these town with a very successful open space program must be very sensitive concerns and think now is the time space program. to the needs and rights of property to look toward the future of open Rossi stressed that increased owners. space preservation. attention to open space is not at odds Also essential to the policy update Under current practices,open space with the City's planned growth and are the identification of open space resources such as creeks and hillsides development. Instead, it is intended resources in and near San Luis may sometimes be obtained by the Ci- to help manage growth and provide Obispo, such as the creeks, hillsides, ty as part of the development ap- the "backyard" and breathing space and peaks, and the consideration of proval process. However, planners that all residents need. Open space a green belt around the City. have begun work on a City-sponsored planning should be viewed as a After work on the element update open space program which can occur "companion" to some growth said is completed,it will be taken to public in the absence of development Rossi. It will also help define the City's hearings and the City Council for proposals. boundaries. adoption. If the policy is adopted, a "This planning shows that San Luis In order to revise the Open Space specific implementation program will Obispds leaders realize the City's in- section, planners must conduct be prepared and carried out in future comparable physical setting needs at- studies of the City's environment, ears. tention, - said Planner Randy Rossi, funding sources, and community , y RECEIVED August 18, 1992 AUG 2 41992 CITY OF SAN LUIS osispo CMWNr<y M'WELOPWN-r Mr. Gary S. Felsman Santa Lucia Chapter of the Sierra Club P.O. Box 15755 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 Re: July 14, 1992 Sierra Club Press Release Opposing Dear Mr. Felsman: We recently received a copy of your club's press release regarding the three homes proposed at the end of Highland Drive. We were very surprised by the press releases'poor factual basis since we usually associate your club with a more rational and factual approach as opposed to rhetoric and misstatement of facts such as appear in this press release and your club's petition. It is also unfortunate that no one in your club has contacted the applicants to discuss your concerns. First, it seems appropriate to clarify who is proposing these homes and for what purpose. The applicants are Victor Montgomery and John Rossetti. RRM Design Group is retained to design the project. Mr. Montgomery works at RRM Design Group. Mr. Rossetti is a local commercial real estate broker. Our purpose in filing this application is to create three home sites. One for each of our families and one which would be sold. Your press release is very inaccurate and we will clarify the facts for your club members in the paragraphs which follow: 1. RRM Design Group is an architecture, planning, civil engineering, and landscape architecture firm. RRM Design Group is not a development company and certainly not a "major developer in the County". RRM Design Group does provide design services to developer clients as well as public agencies throughout California. 2. The actual elevations of the proposed home sites varies between 600 to 657 feet. 3. Existing water service deficiencies have long existed on Highland Drive. Existing houses at or above the elevation of the existing swimming pool tank on Highland Drive do not have gravity flow water service. If power goes off, they presently have no water service and no fire protection. I Mr. Gary S. Felsman Page 2 August 18, 1992 The proposed water tank will provide water service and fire protection for the three houses proposed and for existing homes on Highland Drive which have inadequate water pressure, poor domestic flows, and little or no fire protection. The additional fire protection and domestic flow provided by the proposed tank is a very high priority for the City Fire Department, City Engineering Department, and existing residents on Highland Drive. This tank (and the associated water lines, fire hydrants, etc.) are a significant benefit of these three proposed homes. 4. The proposed tank will be approximately 40,000 gallons based upon City criteria. 5. The tank and homes will not be visible "clear across the City". We recently erected 25-foot high pylons at the location of each of the three proposed houses. City staff was invited to verify the pylons were in place and .then checked visibility from various locations in the City. We also video taped the site with the pylons in place from various locations. As a result of this analysis, the maximum height of the proposed structures is proposed as 22 feet At this height, the homes on proposed lots #2 and #3 would not be visible from the locations checked by us and City staff. The home on lot#1 may be visible from a specific angle to the north west from Anacapa Drive and Twinridge Drive and briefly (2.8 seconds at 55 mph) from Highway 1 southbound. It would not be visible from the City to the east and south. The water tank will not be visible to the City and is proposed to be limited in height to approximately 11 feet It like the homes is screened by existing trees which will remain. 6. Existing homes on Highland Drive are above the existing service levels and do not have adequate water for fire protection. The three proposed homes will cure this deficiency. The three new homes will have non-combustible roofs and be fire sprinklered. 7. The requested zone change C-OS-40 to C-OS-40 PD will not allow "all developers" to build above existing service levels. These three houses are proposed in a very specific area which was identified as a part of the prior Ferrini project in 1978. This site was specifically identified in the open space easement and maps for that project Mr. Gary S. Felsman Page 3 August 18, 1992 8. The 14-acre site is specifically called out as an exception to the Ferrini open space easement which would allow three houses. Open space has been retained even within this 14-acre area by defining restrictive building envelopes. The permanent open space envisioned and dedicated as a part of the Ferrini project will remain. 9. The remaining open space area (130 acres) is not "set up" for development. Only two locations were identified as exceptions within the open space easement all other areas were granted in perpetuity. The open space easement is very clear about this. 10. The project is coming up now because we recently made arrangements to purchase the site (148 acres) from Mr. Ferrini. 11. The zone change is from C-OS-40 to C-OS-40 PD. The existing zoning would allow three homes each on 40-acre parcels. The zone change allows the three homes to be clustered on the 14-acre site identified in .the open space easement. A caretaker's residence is allowed in an exception area (4 acres) near the City pump station adjacent to Highway 1. 12. Public access will not be stopped as a part of the three homes. The existing access/trailhead park (2 acres) at Patricia Drive will remain and the existing trail easement to the peak will be realigned to facilitate hiking. Public access will be available from Highland Drive although it will no longer be necessary to jump a fence and locked gate. A public pathway to an existing hiking trail through the trees to the climbing rocks and the peak is proposed as a part of the three homes. 13. We are not "attempting to take advantage" of something not envisioned at the time the open space easement was created. The exceptions to the open space easement have been in the easement from its inception. The two exception areas are identified on the map exhibits attached to the open space easement. These exceptions were approved by the City and were a part of the negotiations for the project and the concept of open space dedication when the Ferrini project was approved. 14. Contrary to your comments about destroying Bishop's Peak, the Ferrini open space easement was the first permanent protection provided for Bishop's Peak. The easement exception for this 14-acre area was a part of the tradeoffs made by Mr. Ferrini and the City to achieve permanent protection of the 130-acre area. Mr. Gary S. Felsman Page 4 August 18, 1992 15. The proposed zoning amendment to allow clustering is not a "convenient" modification. The existing C-OS-40 zoning would permit three 40-acre parcels. The PD rezoning is to facilitate clustering the homes on the 14-acre open space exception area. The proposed General Plan Amendment is to relocate the urban service line to facilitate extension of City services. This enables the curing of existing and dangerous public safety deficiencies(fire protection) on Highland Drive by extension of existing City service rather than independent service for just the three new homes. 16. The property is being purchased with knowledge of City land use requirements. The present zoning accommodates three homes (but not clustered). The open space easement has a specific exception relating to this site and both the City Fire Department and Engineering Department are aware of the existing public.safety deficiencies on Highland Drive and have requested that this project participate in curing these existing problems. This is not a proposal for a radical redesignation of this site. It has been a part of the official discussiolis by the City and property owner since 1976. We are attempting to implement three houses on a 14-acre site identified as an exception in the existing Ferrini open space easement. This was a part of the tradeoffs which resulted in the first permanent open space on Bishop's Peak. We are not restricting public access to the peak. In fact,we are removing existing barriers to access (the site is presently fenced and gated at the top of Highland Drive) to the peak and providing permanent public access. Building envelopes are proposed within the 14-acre area and building heights are limited, so that existing trees will screen off site views of the new homes. We are also correcting existing service/safety deficiencies. We hope someday to live with our families on two of the three sites. We live and work in San Luis Obispo and have for many years. Our businesses are established here and our children to go school here. We are proud of what we have contributed to San Luis Obispo both as professionals and as community members. The three homes proposed are sensitive to the community's desire for access,visual impacts on the community and the needs of our neighbors on Highland Drive. Mr. Gary S. Felsman Page 5 August 18, 1992 If your club is interested, we would be pleased to discuss this with your members or committees in person. You can call Vic Montgomery at 543-1794 or John Rossetti at 544- 3900. Best regards, , Victor on tgo AIA John Rossetti cc: Mr. elton Ferrini Glen Matteson, City of SLO v/vm-ferrn.fel SIERRA CLUB SANTA LUCIA CHAPTFR /OWND1 ew 199a EIVEL) JUL 0 81992 1281 17th Street MY OF SAN LUISOSISPo Los Osos, CA 93402 COIWMUNMYOEVELOPMECp July 5, 1992 Mr. Glenn Matteson San Luis Obispo Community Development 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Dear Mr. Matteson: The Sierra Club wishes to state its strong opposition to the proposed develop- ment of homesites above Highland Avenue on Bishop Peak. Knowledgeable in- dividuals, using accurate maps of the area, have stated that the houses would be at, or even above, the 650 foot elevation level. This is considerably higher than the 460 foot level that several of these individuals tell me they heard from your office. The highest existing homes are already above the 460 foot level. The water tank would have to go even higher, likely at or above the 750 foot elevation. These structures will be large and highly obtrusive. Bishop Peak is a major natural landmark of the area. As you know, there are several plans moving forward to save the higher elevations of the morros as permanent open space. Public opinion polls by the Sierra Club as well as others have shown that the public overwhelmingly favors preservation of the morros as its highest open space priority. It was generally thought that the annexation of the Ferrini property had placed the area above Highland Avenue into an open space designation. To now allow development to proceed through "loopholes" in the annexation would be cruel hoax. I sincerely hope that the city has more integrity than that and will not allow these projects to go forward. Sincerely, Randall D. Knight, Ph Conservation Committee Chair cc: Planning Commission To explore. enior, and protect the nation's srpnic rrsources . . . 1727 Corralitos Ave., San Luis Obispo, CA July 3,1992 Mayor Ron Dunin City Hall i ECEIVE � 990 Palm St. San Luis Obispo, Ca. JUL 0 6 '992 42OF UN LUIS 'Nm DEve ow&P,0, Dear Mayor Dunin; I am disturbed to learn about the proposed Rosemont Development on the designated open space land at the end of Highland Drive on Bishop Peak To allow structures at an elevation above 600 feet would establish an undesirable precedent for the Morros which form an important natural geologic and historic landmark At that elevation development would be very visible throughout the City. The proposed development would have an adverse scenic impact on the natural beauty of Bishop Peak, one of the most attractive of the Morros and a most valuable scenic resource for our City. Houses built on expensive sites frequently are large and obtrusive. The Morros must be protected from such encroachments. In addition the proposed site for this gated development would block public access to a popular open space and would destroy an attractive and at times a wild flower strewn open space. The 1978 Ferrini annexation, of which this site was a part, was opposed by a vote of the people of San Luis Obispo. The City's wishes were overturned through a court action brought by the developer. As part of the annexation agreement a 148 acre easement was dedicated as open space. The easement allowed the proposal, not approval, of three houses on an undesignated part of the open space. The City Council should reject this development proposal as precedent setting and inappropriate to the intent of open space protection, of public access and of scenic preservation. The City must be serious in its role as stewards of a valuable asset and not allow further encroachments on Bishop Peak . Sincerely, Janice A. Cllu�cas cc: Peg Pinard Penny Rappa Jerry Reiss Bill Roalman Barry Karleskint Glen Matteson June 12, 1992 City of San Luis Obispo Planning Department 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo CA 93401 Attn: Glen Matteson Subject: Highland Drive Development Proposal Dear Planning Department; This letter is in response to the proposed closed development project at the end of Highland Drive by Rossetti and Montgomery. After talking to a city planner and gathering some information I have come to the conclusion this project is not in the best interest of people and the city of San Luis Obispo.. Granting zoning changes and site approval would deny the public which has traditional used the area for years to access the north side of Bishops Peak. I have watched the area used by all ages from 5 years old to Seniors. This is a favorite area of rock climbers and hikers alike. The project plans to add three building sites above the existing water service available for the area. These sites are not just a few feet above as I had originally thought. They could be as much as 200 feet higher than the Street itself. A water tank would be even higher than this. Why are we allowing this to occur. Anybody with enough money could build anything they want at any elevation. Why are we allowing a few developers to profit at the expense of others. We are setting a dangerous precedence. There are many sites around San Luis Obispo which could be developed if enough money was spent on them. Zoning laws and regulations were made to adhere to, not to be modified when convenient. The developers knew what the zoning on the property was when it was purchased. Why change it now. Why do developers think they can get favoritism. I know I wouldn't if I had proposed such a plan. We should all be treated equal. Bishop Peak is natural landmark and should be preserved if at all possible. Not developed as some would like. Y°.'hy is this proposal coming now. T e city is in the process of updating its Open Space Element. Its time we put something back into the community. Sincerely, Gary S. Felsman JUN 'I b 1992 2234 Santa Ynez Ave San Luis Obispo CA 93405 (805)549-0532 c( �`SER` SAN L-.;.3 os12Do,CA cc: Planning Commission Members, City Council Members Y . �►Iilpllllllllllllll�� Ilhlllilll �� city o sAn hues oaspo 990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403.8100 April 8, 1993 Mr. Vic Montgomery RRM Design Group 3026 S. Higuera St. San Luis Obispo CA 93401 Dear Mr. Montgomery: The San Luis Obispo City Council will hold a public hearing to consider a general plan amendment and planned development zoning for three houses at the northwest end of Highland Drive (Rosemont Project - GP/PD 89-92). The meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, April 20, 1993, beginning at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 990 Palm Street. Other hearings may be held before or after this item. Please know that if you challenge this action in court, you may be limited to raising. only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to,the public hearing. For additional information or questions concerning this item,please contact Glen Matteson, Associate Planner, in the Community Development Department at 781-7165. The Council agenda report with recommendations by staff should be available by the Wednesday before the meeting. Sincerely, Diane R. Gladwell City Clerk c: John Rossetti, Rossetti & Co., 1065 Higuera, #301, SLO, 93401 Felton Ferrini, 17 Chorro St., SLO, 93405 Glen Matteson, Community Development Dept. The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services,programs and activities. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410 I ��IIId�IIIIIIIIIII�B�� IIIIII lilt� city of sAn tuis oaspo 990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100 April 8, 1993 Mr. Michael C. Sullivan 1127 Seaward St. San Luis Obispo CA 93405 - Dear Mr. Sullivan: The San Luis Obispo City Council will hold a public hearing to consider a general plan amendment and planned development zoning for three houses at the northwest end of Highland Drive (Rosemont Project - GP/PD 89-92). Please understand that although you have filed an appeal of the Planning Commission recommendation on this project, the City Council is required to consider this application as submitted and will not be considering it as an appeal. However,your appeal statement has been transmitted to the Council and you may express your concerns during the public hearing. The meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, April 20, 1993, beginning at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 990 Palm Street. Other hearings may be held before or after this item. Please know that if you challenge this action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. For additional information or questions concerning this item,please contact Glen Matteson, Associate Planner, in the Community Development Department at 781-7165. The Council agenda report with recommendations by staff should be available by the Wednesday before the meeting. Sincerely, Pi.0R. Gladwell City Clerk c: Glen Matteson, Community Development Dept. © The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services,programs and activities. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410 Illllulll IIIIIII I�IIIIIIIII IIIIIII IIIIIII IIIIII�� SDI Cl of luis oBispo MIN 990 Palrn Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100 April 8, 1993 Mr. Eric Nicita 1350 Cavalier St. San Luis Obispo CA 93405 Dear Mr. Nicita: The San Luis Obispo City Council will hold a public hearing to consider a general plan amendment and planned development zoning for three houses at the northwest end of Highland Drive (Rosemont Project - GP/PD 89-92). Please understand that although you have filed an appeal of the Planning Commission recommendation on this project, the City Council is required to consider this application as submitted and will not be considering it as an appeal. However,your appeal statement has been transmitted to the Council and you may express your concerns during the public hearing. The meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, April 20, 1993, beginning at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 990 Palm Street. Other hearings may be held before or after this item. Please know that if you challenge this action in court, you may be,limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. For additional information or questions concerning this item,please contact Glen Matteson, Associate Planner, in the Community Development Department at 781-7165. The Council agenda report with recommendations by staff should be available by the Wednesday before the meeting. Sincerely, ane ft6ell City Clerk c: Glen Matteson, Community Development Dept. The City of.San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services,Programs and activities. J Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(8(15)781-7410 cityo san vu�soBispo ' 990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo,CA 93403.8100 APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL In accordance with the appeals procedure as authorized by Tide I, Chapter 1.20 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code,the undersigned herebyappealsfromthe decision of 'PLArj,J 1vJ L\, rendered on 7r'n5 24'0'0 19 j . which decision consisted of the following (Le. set forth factual situation and the grounds for submitting this appeal. Use additional sheets as needed): F11-c DEC/5-,or1 WA-5 "O-iF "b'c-9c7 - ALL enlo�c�� oc Ge:Z La G I C I L I--,/( W A_%. K Ala IU n/ �Ac- -DtZi S 1 o� IS O J Tb F c IhPc2 st cTt2 W, Til —(71E G2T� DC AE5'�N -� yJv �� HSL l"^FAcT 1N No �,/4 I CA- J B r- V`, T7 C-dkTJ�>• - jNC illi t*6jS [i,/Z' �OJ�� t/J idYL !/�5So< u1T� vJ[Ttf T�}r FRofecT V10L-jq-T-C-5 5� EZ�rrr�a.J $J1cD ,.Jv �t . 1� THc AwtVVJ�� of PJ - Ga..[ S-c A[✓ LlL3��an►�e�T 0A -ri-1F SPA-c c- d}SIF�arxrT, -n4c f✓,.✓b�.✓4S 1ZE d u I P.Er UrJD e),2 5'E2.T1 b.J S'!c,93 0 -ri-1 L-- o o u en The undersigned discussed the.decision being appealed with: se on DATE&TIME APPEAL RECEIVED: , Appellant: SIC- N1L1 WOWWW REC'EIVED Repress e MAR - 4 1993135-0 LQVA L I e-� 4 '�s g►w ress Carr CLERK U i�;A SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA One original to City Clerk �o��i� City Attorney Calendared for. -=;4rer Copy to Administrative Officer Copy to the'foliowing department(s): + L 7-E-C I S/ &b-3 Z ESP R t3c�.fTS Prry X413 Arj 0 OYQ ow 5A7.f -J)5 o'e3/5pts -7-6 �aTtzT -Ts t s- w+ d7e2 As ,•a J..J , Q �� •�� Ns�T,J+2F,t . ,A2cz� C� ;27 1 oaz j Z. A D a.JS )77 77-) P�'a f�d5f1 L r5 )nl c o5 i s-'jt;&- -r �-J r-T44 }I I L L S/D e Z q ..1 tJ/ hl L� tit c 7 t"3 CAN T:A I• j 4r-O W lTt4 i•✓ T2-f-�' -1�Do�-� �O ey5�.3gvti► �L4-rJ1� J5� �z�ru� .SAID c- /7- ✓may L Y�2 -P?' mtuv 4 7` W rT C J^S nI c7F--lE35 J -7-o F=L)L X1.4- w )TLJ /1 o T. Jill Fil cityo san l�uisoaspo 990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo,CA 93403-8100 APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL In accordance with the appeals procedure as authorized by Title I, Chapter 120 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code,the undersigned herebyappealsfromthe decision of 9G/+NNtvC3- GviH/YifS�/aN rendered on2f Z��Q which decision consisted of the following (i.e. set forth factual situation and the grounds for submitting this appeal. Use additional sheets as needed): �6�.a/o.�t /'7�ir4 �zi Gizdho5�r G-�ir��U.o�ir.�✓ G��'�C� S 9- �z �.ri�t� �t.d/�i2.a ver✓ �y ��/ri✓/v�i�a— GO'M/�! O�G��ilat/ oiv �za�irJ,AS r�/� � C�� 7.Y� i'�•iir/o�� .�-a'� f'.-e�5/t sar�/�t!g t�y �� to lam/ �/tavos�� S /NCD/1/Sl$7Ciit/� w��1 4/fit�"7 O,ac�/ Ss�itG��c�s�c_✓+/7 ��o� Q2) O� c�c.v��2ir � '55r Od.v.ce-«�S i.✓/�di .��i3G�G Sciv-��-r��v� c S . ova \The un� defsigne7d domed the,derision belna ed w t on ' DATE&TIME APPEAL RECEIVED: Appellant: aa C ``�� yyam�, e 9 OR _ 2 1993 Representative 12:�30�,�� eor z7 S'c�ii►w�r� �- � MOM CA Address SM+ P,o Original to City Clerk Calendared for. City Attorney Copy to Administrative Officer Copy to the•foliowing department(s): s C�Q Y+, Dear Commission Members, We, the undersigned, are opposed to the rezoning of the land at the end of Highland Drive from Open Space to Planned Development for the following reasons: • We acknowledge that a deal was struck between the City and Mr. Felton Ferrini. This agreement was named "irregular," even in your own staff report. You are in no way obligated to fulfill this agreement. • This project would have significant environmental aesthetic impact that in no way can be mitigated. The protection of the Morros is the top environmental priority for citizens of San Luis Obispo. • According to staff report, the site is located on ancient landslide. Construction on the slide would upset a geological equilibrium that took thousands of years to develop. the landslide will try to reach a. new equilibrium to respond to changes caused by construction. The result would be earth movement that would effect both those on the site and those below it. We hope the Planning Commission realizes that these facts must be considered under the California Environmental Protection Act. We also hope on that the Commission will realize what a tragedy it. would be to spoil one of San Luis Obispo's most outstanding natural features for the sake of development. With all of this in mind, please vote against this proposal Wednesday night. Sincerely, �a" / �� _ ZA L,,<3 Q FA) CA,934o1 1366 �icenl � fFC M,LL-Sr 5Cp, vt �3g01 ot�(i`5 5� 59'rJv urs. stg _. 515-A IJr�C�oW�Dr� lrRo Le¢f s1� 4d ren c-¢ 9.P yo/ 0�`'� I�CL�-�i n �2✓l�1 f `'' ��'/P/'%K E COY Qheo - - SLU,_c/-q-._9.34�y5 _ Stio WAUT Obi ti t ,t I 18rG C5au " N)oxIc,& t lv `�uGhor_t S-f Q q 13t — Chis-]inoivn p . �acn G wi s Cbm Y Y Ib d�-G7 � f C y0 �© x a y3 avu i4ckAji�—vl.rw C/+ L _a_ _m_ 1 �ant_a_�n�baCa S�• �,_ ? - �C� C5�' r1e1�5sa C�t�r_on SLJ CA - — - - s+GL ��. ,<<.. pro TIT-- f CA 23y (6 -(ZOO � _C <<��1h Wd._GT_l_v 1V_S�t - lL SLD,_L� 9 3D5 Dp-e - s&o C�{ 93 10/ s-Lo , &-o,4 - $ 3 y i o L E) G(3 X10 5 -- 1 Llro,e lid- - W-4.�7_�'V rd - SL ,_�ij` -7,366 --- --- A4 - - t, O z-z azo 04 g3liok _ _ s. � C-.a_ �3d� Alm - --- - —�-�- �` V l- - --��-- -- -- —--- - 5�--_L_��fib.►��,_G,�--g3_Y �3<<0 L - -- -- -- _ Std-- `13�f�1- ---- — C' ot,- -- -_ _ -- - S LOQ cA q3 yo 5 l U C-A rr19rl—Sm4 , 5-cl LO. C A, 3ld L -- ----41�°l"1�.t6.cc�,�r_t 93_`�6� f na- Z i4-i> - y-) Ec, r U-�► 4 iP l��ilMtiv"f�' D-r3Dti C= le Q34 SLv; CA= 93yDl ------ Z___4_A0- - _A0-Flo, - ---- Sl ►-4 Q3LfQI -\j cczla i •- � + � � � � ' . i / . � . . - :- . __ - I � -_- � �� - ---- -- :. -- . i--- - -- ---- --- -- ;- _ _ -�� -- ;. _-__ _ _ _- .. �. . .� � - -, _ , . , r I I i Ao%, - -- 107 ' - ��e.- - - - - --//7- S/10 .-CC-Al ----9.3_4a - - — -- _ _ -- - ___5L0_, CA R_3_4-0 tri its sl�o, �j - - --- . 2_ - Sczu, - - -- - -- - -- -- - ---- -- -- e-(adi e� . .e-gid I ---- --- ----- _ 1_l_gy o . 3(D - ---- - --�----tib----- �-____.____- --_ . 7 �.i Q 237 �'- C-ad g13Wo1.7d_0 S . L , o . �a 43 4 o I_a-dM F� � .��J -- ---- -Sup Lir/�---- - - - �?o. X34`-1 N-1 LV (JEL-L bU !t . S etv 4- .M adv Q. 3s GCut _ Y SLO O CA 'I'S to--2000 SiemU cc��e 32.L 5c . 43g(o Ton �;/-K 870 ISr'ar I -- ---- Sly I&A , �� — ---—-- 2-2q ea r. SLo -- - 9�mss. v 1' rte. I I 11 4jc�-s vk G 72Z �J �u CL S2 o G� �3/c�o� `� L-C) CJS C, l Fb-=4� G key S Cf► C1� rlg\l —335 � ,—�- Poky 5LO �A R 3yo1 -2-I oo i SLO cA . 9%4e)_I 22 ScL,�.�a l.uuct I ISLtJ�_CA 9c3�1o� 77�l�oytc4lm;�/t 20 C/oy If5`o/ ;I �:utviorls ! SLv C,4 93c-(o f ��`� SLD C�L Q 3°F-DS -�-----4----------------- --- � i ---- - -- _.r r - - .` _ . - - _ ,y, .. �_ .. � �� -- --- -. _ _ f i �� + ' -- �• - -, -- � I 4 _ _ _ __ y I i � J - ' - - X-vk e fooll 44, - Lv�S o t3�s,�o ,�/a�J`� � � _ALJ 3 �d ---- �� ---------------- - ----__'' �-��-Pyr_---- - ---- E-1 17 ---- �' �-_��`�-w. ------ � �Q • Com. Sc� ---- saK UA-Ls-0b_is ----------- --- i ow i J _ � , i , I 6VVS CA ltC/1 -S� - - ---- ------- - C yn til 3 r" S k.P L–1, C3e�i c�J Ga . '73�- f AiL .0 T1,13S - - ----� - 13Y38— - loci-- ----- --- lM B -- --___--+_---.-- _-- .--._ _-_—_.--- 1.373—F_1zE.D6FL�c.�sT- -- 4SAZ . — S1.-o_,—CAN 93y0S..- ------ --- --;--sof .��-"--- C' 15-7o P4-t. St ! _s_c.e)---��------ 1-44 1 S6 S- ` -O - - CA- 934o f q rLL TcI-,,; _y----- --- -- -tel -Poly ALO_13ji10 — - - SCD Cc, 9 iv: i 1 i -- UU ss - 3 SL cy — ��, LAB -34C I 1 Illy A1�11 Sc,hL�� yis ( ivy G��eiZ �rerrc, ,� � 3/G cGl /holy) 5tQ 16 --10 O O 136 'fel M-� 3� I Frcmch� C� �G1_� SLS C(3� l lo -laoc!) C6r� 13 by Ca,v�I i Gr 5 LD Q� �3�j05 P7/8 S��3 G rw i Ste, u4 93y0' 3 1'!/ alv, (:i 34l D 222s I �►� , 9 34 Q� rc t3 5-D S L- 0 / A)ICr-t;q Sw �ir3 �oS lure 5Z MIL -Zoab .SLo 93Yn l IJ- CACWO. 5-kb Y3PI 555 5L �aI�tA34L)I c r 1K Ec.�V P C. TEC P E A A K E A We the undersigned are opposed to the proposed development at the end of Highland Drive. Any zoning change allowing three homes is unacceptable and should not be granted. Bishop Peak is a Natural Landmark and should be preserved for the future. Bishop Peak is a great area for all to enjoy. Highland Drive access is very important to hikers, climbers, handicapped and disabled. This is a pristine habitat and should not be encroached upon. Phone l l-aLi�. 8Urdr. t+, Address Sa.-^ GaYLos 1> r. 543 — �f593 ame C' State S o ign PCA 4 2 Y U Print Name/y. ✓� Address Q l"�a �` 1l� Ph,%�e¢1L—J I 2. r ca v �l Sign Nam City, State Print Name Address Phone 3.. / il() klf4i C. LdSonl 54q AA be4 -4LOZj S�ame City, to .. aff�'�(/l(Z/Nytpi V / � 3yo5 P • t +Iame Address Phone `SiWame City, State P ' t Name %—Address Phone // Name Ci , State io, Print Name A Address 3` Phone 6. (°s� H- s �oS7 tGt� A to S" Name ty, S ate �,ilS�Fi1CPU L'A 401 P * t Name Address Phone 7. ,�Q7mq er q Ma «atm C,)ti 543-7 WI-3 Si Ci tate -0 � ta C'rc• 93� R-Fiq t Name Address Phone s. r- 227 a�C'A l eta s Sign ame �it , State 0 0 Print Name Address Phone 9. C-e-&rt4e G . C i0 (7 Z7 Name JCi State _ T L,,,S 64 Print Name Ar 3ress Phone 10. Sign Name City, State A E I E We the undersigned are opposed to the proposed development at the end of Highland Drive. Any zoning change is unacceptable and should not be granted. This Bishop Peak is a Natural Landmark and should be preserved for the future. Bishop Peak is a great area for all to enjoy. Closing the north side of Bishop Peak allowing a few people to profit at the expense of others is not in the public interest. Pngt Name Address Phone 1. ( A I C- � titr 13ZZ L " Si Name Cia A--kAty Print Name Address/ s 5F' Phone 2. �_ A 6vy IVII2 `3 -� �z, I Q 7t- ✓c� l`f3�/��'S? 11 City, State Print Name Address Phone 3. S e j- -*- Si *S' Name City) to ^i/ 4. Ic. Hit ycr Print Name Address Phone S_ Sign Name City, State (r4 Print Name Address Phone 5. L...ktAea -4//tri 3730 S. F3 L¢ Sign City, State ri�}n° ctA.,6. PYeke'c'i� 1d ame Address P��ne LI S' Name City,State Ant XweAddress Phone 7. 4 C E> l .(242 -("z Sign N :' City,State .6.,. S(Cc Print Name Addresse 8. 1n 4 L/ '-d ��t r 1--/�l''el 3 ) ti S Sign Name City, State Print Name ! // J \ J Address 3 1-7 'f:�-�r/17?L Phone 9. ice.(, � ir1n, !,:�/�T��, .► L � > z u„- — /- 7 Sign Name City, State Print N Address Phone 10. Ali L Sign Name ^ City, State /� SAVE BISHOP PEAKAREA We the undersigned are opposed to the proposed development at the end of Fighland Drive. Any caning change is unacceptable and should not be granted. This Bishop Peak is a Natural Landmark and should be preserved for the future. Bishop Peak is agrew area for all to enjoy. Closing the north side of Bishop Peak allowing a few people to profit at the expense of others is not in the public interest. Priflt Name Address Pie TL Si Rp Name ! City, State , J Print N e AddPhone 2. � IJ�Bc1�i�,E'.l•J/�/L/ c-- -- /J/�� Ci ')State Pril Name. Address Phone Sign Name . City, State Print name / Address , Phone Sign Ne City, State ,�: Print Name Address Phone 5. t'CIfN Il'1 . T,jjAA/C IT x '.21 5`// • .35/ 3 Sign Name City, State R t Print Name Address ��.., Phone c: Name • City, State _��7 SLC/ �r L 1-'L l4� .�/ �1�L! -c ti c �. .. qVI Print Name Address Phone 7. 1 �.�s t='1'� /�r Z�&I-, Signr City, State 7 srh• 24 Pript Name,, ' Address Phone r 8. Sigh Name City, State P ' t Name Ad /;) Phone 9. e J (y City, State � �G ' �V v J PrintV / Q �\ Address jC n ! I �1/ Phone lo. city, state C m , VE BISHOP PEAK AREA We the undersigned are opposed to the proposed development at the end of Highland Drive. Any zoning change is unacceptable and should not be granted. This Bishop P is a Natural Landmark and should be preserved for the future. Bishop Peak is a great area for all to enjoy. Closing the north side of Bishop Peak allowing a few people to profit at the expense of others is not in the public interest. P ' Na ae Phone 1. C- CZ / sign�Tamq ��°�, n F u:-. ��-y 7 3Yfl� Namo n Address d Phone 2. t Ln4 M 11 ��-�'Cor 4D S' City,State Print Name Address Phone 3. ;2.,l zef Wa44:iz 1-700 z Sign Name City, State Print I Sme �^ Address l 4. 12rri r�.r �n1 � I -41 �C1Acno�� Si e City, State / IJ innt Name Address Phone5. NamPrint -. , City�State 7 Phone 6. � A rJ 6-119`4Ps 71-4 w, Address r/ sign N City,State ,o-err Ci z"171k &' -, Print Name Address Phone 7. ,Q�& E . 7'n�eT. A.w /y3/ S' /-1/IL. 7n S 39 -3-fS/ State Si ame Ci tY, o e_ 8. Pr"z'L�rr; APh y I roy�ii►ll d4rw 'Utyd Sign CYty,State Ara'me Address Phone 9. F�'y .f L .94nWE77 Si#4 Name City, State Address Phone 10. ply(}rint �k;: =�h r S' N ,% j City, State t F.) PMUTE(`;�`T BISHOP PEAK AREA We the undersigned are opposed to the proposed development at the end of Highland Drive. Any zoning change allowing three homes is unacceptable and should not be granted. Bishop Peak is a Natural Landmark and should be preserved for the future. Bishop Peak is a great area for all to enjoy. Highland Drive access is very important to hikers, climbers, handicapped and disabled. This is a pristine habitat and should not be encroached upon. Print Name, Address Phone 1. 6 km 4 ry ss.,t , YIOVF--? A ic- SigWarne Ci , state S 4.7 Lt:,'ry��s�� , ce/ Prua Name Addr one 2. JR - _z/ 6tiY ST 2 ,93- 1y7 C' , State �oe14l rint Phone 3. P CNrc Add��O��<�� Si m 1/!s► -- Cit , State a:_:I-17 Print /,�� rx Address /� // � r�Y Phone 4. /"t /F�/ fits✓ Sign N e City, t o 3 yo � Print NameAddress Ph o e s. V IC) (mss Sign Na# 7Ry, Sta Sig 1k. C C7 /� Print Name Address Phone 6. kbb Sign e q �. �joiiE LACity, State Pi N `J' w L`y Address Phone 7. rl ,,W t. iy(VEE/ /OYo 01640 4V 7 Z�j 36 Y� WSi City, St•to pr��me Address Phone e City, State CA 513Y y Print Naine Address Phone 9. zi�ra� 3 0 — Sign Name City, State Printwm Address Phone 10. L 00 )'-s _ Ste$ -3qa5 Sign Naity, State � s ©sos CQ `P3yc�1 MuTECT BISHOP PEAK AREA We the undersigned are opposed to the proposed development at the end of Highland Drive. Any zoning change allowing three homes is unacceptable and should not be granted. Bishop Peak is a Natural Landmark and should be preserved for the future. Bishop Peak is a great area for all to enjoy. Highland Drive access is very important to hikers, climbers, handicapped and disabled. This is a pristine habitat and should not be encroached upon. Print Name Address �1 Phone 1. .2000' Aortic 444-1--we N 9e City, State S' Zos mos, C'� 2. /Print a(IrEa• 92 Ya5 Zeawa- ,�- U�U Si a Cit ,State Tint Name Address C J� Phone 3. Soh" Z), 91,J 4490 Foinsdto% -SJ 546-786a Si �— City, State SLo . C'I 93yol Pi t NA..d,,d,.ffe,,ss�� Phone 4. ie �... tai- r h�'t`10 (&Ln y-'t6#— ci 54(0—"18'6 2 IS' aNa,me, City, St to Print Name AddressPhon 5. Z� 4 es.. IP L k ��1�(� rltQ.c/4 Sign T e City State Print Name Ad r s Phone 6. hR�4409 /(. 5;1CAQ "rpt Si Name • City, State �'e�1 Print Name E' Address !L m°`� Phone 7. r (88 f ��A A-- S4 Sign N _ City, State CA . 93Y o 5 t NameAddress Phont 8. VE liq 5'. !-AS ;W'-G 6 'rcl ame L City State� �A �✓�5�a y P Mme Address t L� � Pho 9. Si ^ Q, City, State l[ � S osos � Print NaAddress J V Phone lo. JVD6 tro� kv M JT Z I Ire Si Named City Stat ®TECH° UnISHOP PEAK AREA We the undersigned are opposed to the proposed development at the end of Highland Drive. Any zoning change allowing three homes is unacceptable and should not be grim d. Bishop Peak is a Natural Landmark and should be preserved for the future. Bishop Peak is a great area for all to enjoy. Highland Drive access is very important to hikers, climbers, handicapped and disabled. This is a pristine habitat and should not be encroached upon. Print Name Address Phone ign Nil te � p� 1U15 Ot5;2a C9 . Print Name Addresp ,� Phone 2. Gtia e c- 3c #'0 1,e J lam/ OC)dy ?'J73- -5 5/� Si ame _T Ci , State Print Name Phone 4 Ad7;;a „ /�14 Ste/ /ate Sign f cz- City, State (/ s� L s 93 P ' t ame Address Phone 4. //�i T i L�' 23 Gy Mesad 4,/ 5,7- S' ame Cit , state�>> �� , , _ , L --� Prin aake Address Phone 5. #-f C- SG�24�c Q57 QrLN7f P—ola.l 596 �8z8 Sign e, City, State 5o i, Lint 04, �� 1?3964 Print Name Address Phone 6. L7A7-1jA2i.vd i2u?.=- ,?, /ya 7 7s6 -2�0 Si Name City, State SAS✓Awl S 'OR/cooG f� 9;W4 Print Name Address � �� n� � Phone / 7. Ma Wv- (� Sign Na City, State 52K Z Vt3 Mu/af1 93yl� ti Prin Address Phone Sign Name OWCity, State Print Name Address Phone 9. Sign Name City, State Print Name Address Phone 10. Sign Name City, State "REAK A We the undersigned are opposed to the proposed development at the end of Highland Drive. Any zoning change is unacceptable and should not be granted. Bishop Peak is a Natural Landmark and should be preserved for the future. Bishop Peak is a great area for all to enjoy. Closing the north side of Bishop Peak from Highland Drive to hikers, climbers, handicapped and disabled, allowing a few people to profit at the expense of others is not in the public interest. This is a pristine habitat and should not be encroached upon. / 1• P Name Add Phone 9 i3P200 d/,ST Si ame y City, tate Q 3 p ame Address / Phone 2. fe' 637 Td>co �— Sign City, State Print Name , r Address Phone Sign ame City, State Print NameU fa Address I To r0 #ZPhone5 5 y5 4 6 7t5 4. L a Furt�k Si city, state Say l,�.t,s Ob�sQo P� �3yoS p �e Address Phone 5. 1 C- S oZC� ESTE o _ 'ol' y Sb Name City State Fl-� K� C04 i Print Name A Address Phone 6. , a*n G6141.e 24-74 oc0kyay G City, State Ow eig 3yo al Address Phone 7. P Mvc X45 L4— Si ame City, state OZ Print Name Address Phone 8. 11 i 774- g.F Ismo e 1? 4L /fl L D,2 t-513?_ S' t ame k '�� city, state _L/tlL'1�L��itYl1 Print Name Address _ Phoogel-S 9. 160 �1 • Si ame City, State Print Name Address Phone 10. &c-HAJ�ee--e.yt+ i401� 16STye of fzi3ICI S' Nam City, State LOS Us o c 4- SAVE BISHOP..- PEAK'. AREA We the undersigned are opposed to the proposed development at the end of Highland Drive. Any zoning change is unacceptable and should not be granted. Bishop Peak is a Natural Landmark and should be preserved for the future. Bishop Peak is a great area for all to enjoy. Closing the north side of Bishop Peak from Highland Drive to hikers, climbers, handicapped and disabled, allowing a few people to profit at the expense of others is not in the public interest. This is a pristine habitat and should not be encroached upon. n��iam� Ph e 1. Pram 1 ' 0L7 I 6.38 'Toro #-F ? Z Sign-N City, State cI 3 y0 Print Name Address Phone Si a City, State t Name Address Phone 3. /,* h 30E 1P� Sign Name City, State PrintN e Phone 4. (� C11-C Ad 3lJ Sign N / City, $tate t / . Print aan�te Address / Phone 5. Lfr-,, Sign N City, Sta �-i r� Address) IS , A�.,OF 0 Phone 6. P It � 'V"�F''�'�,, Sign N e City, StateSLC> CA 613ya N e Address Phone 7. �, c '3Q 3a 4T a�� sg am City State p f4 !2 4-Z-4 41mt Name Address 8. _ �S-Z Z OQ ( f' /' Phon/ L 7 r SimVAffie Ci , State o Print Name Address Phone 9. AL - LeMUS iSoZ 3 RO S�- .52g2-6fb Name City, State wood �1 srkCA 3 4/0 7- Address Phone 10. Print L scej ske-Intep— 11t!;-- T/t?uROJ 7195 Sign,Name city. state SAVE BISH OP PEAK AREA We the undersigned are opposed to the proposed development at the end of Highland Drive. Any zoning change is unacceptable and should not be granted. Bishop Peak is a Natural Landmark and should be preserved for the future. Bishop Peak is a great area for all to enjoy. Closing the north side of Bishop Peak from Highland Drive to hikers, climbers, handicapped and disabled, allowing a few people to profit at the expense of others is not in the public interest. This is a pristine habitat and should not be encroached upon. Phone 2-o Address -C�-Y LI S' Name / City State l L - r Print ame Address Phone 2. Print Y WooO /Zyo Sign Name City, State Print N n L Address / Phone Sign Name City, State o int Name Addayr� r Phone 4. 4&'vftr-rn �i4CMCn *�. Nam _ _ �_ c� CA 9300 Print Name Address Phone 5. CR/C 388 a .V G ..io��en 5�/7- Cie/ Sign Name City, State ' vca cA Print � AddressPhone, 6. Thas A/oAdes G YK Sign Name , City, State San Lv 01,;s.;2c CP Print Phone �. N�1 e � c.P S Ai -( Los m�� ✓u.yen� s 6 �� C,Q 43iz0r erne Add�ryye� Phone 8. cJ / `K �oGic Cc)/2Sr g City, ,/,G)M U Print Name r Address Phone 9. 5fA,�.+ 132 I CA yP L 16-9-- Sign Mme Citytate G4— Ptmi erne / Address Phone 10. .420 C . /2�1��/.4•� ��i/ua i S—�// �� Si t City tate J/as SAVE_ BISHOP PEAK AREA We the undersigned are opposed to the proposed development at the end of Highland Drive. Any zoning change is unacceptable and should not be granted. Bishop Peak is a Natural Landmark and should be preserved for the future. Bishop Peak is a great area for all to enjoy. Closing the north side of Bishop Peak from Highland Drive to hikers, climbers, handicapped and disabled, allowing a few people to profit at the expense of others is not in the public interest. This is a pristine habitat and should not be encroached upon. Print Name Address PS7$'9 3 1. -'Z.\ yN g(i S! meA CityrSt—Ate Phone 2. Print amveS S Z Cbz^�n Address r•1s ol.. .� v e i/.2 " 0357 Si ?1C;�/g�e��1 �Q ElJrvtnisQ City, 6 4111 lV/tS nTCQf3 yol Print Name Address Phone 3. �QC��S S[�h5o� X1:2 -0399 Si Name State C4 Print Name CC /� Address Phone 4. Si a City, State � p AddryeM /� 6k Phone 5. Sign me City Staff / n Ao (�L1`i (� l� 1� ` Phone Sign ame City, 7. klenn/� CD/�'��r�n/< Ad ��JT� TO40 "( Ph 3 < �Sigc±kme City, State E' caw LcG4-a1sja Name Address Phone g, On m b r 'a.k 1*32 -oro S N Ci State �5FL1/ Print Name Address Phone G /1 sus 7Y.� 9. hyo ��- / Sign Na City, State 3 yb/ Trint Name Address -U2` 1 -`�Z1 Phone esL 10. l`4�lf��OA ��iN�l9S L { \ Name V C 'c rD GA `� o< <-1 alo 1 �-To o +E�'. 6E342tnv2 SAVE BISHOP PEAK A'EA- We the undersigned are opposed to the proposed development at the end of Highland Drive. Any zoning an change is unacceptable d should not be granted. Bishop Peak is a Natural Landmark and should be preserved for the future. Bishop Peak is a great area for all to enjoy. Closing the north side of Bishop Peak from Highland Drive to hikers, climbers, handicapped and disabled, allowing a few people to profit at the expense of others is not in the public interest. This is a pristine habitat and should not be encroached upon. P 'in Namq� Ad Phone � s-h M A 7 �)I u,°�u,/a N CAtate i1- �( e'cesgr/1 j Ptern A 1 Address Phone 2. ,�( � _ /1" r- L uv P- "OI y .sYY—Ys7 o S;gn City, state Mon J, ELO rA 93YoS Print Name Address Phone 3. 1_: ,,,n _i3_Coa+,v r4 M�sn+.«. sign N city, State �. �66� fl cj 3Y Print Name Address Phone 4, <+ervuer 51 Sv7-0,755 Sign.,fame City, State _G&&M2e &- — S)-e. eA e-f qO 5 Priv Name Address Phone 5. (mi&i w'4 OIJY� ex'-'a I Sign Nakne City, State 1�0cAA Co,- Print Name Address / Phone si NciVtate Ptint Name Add 7. �> /GGt i KA 7iR U� • t0 0 Phone . — S;gn citstate Q5-5 <a �3c{OS — �/&� Print N Address Phone 8. �� Sva f l ��lAge Sr- S-c/7 SignN c�s�B . Lt� �3Yo / ( G C/ Print N o Address Phone 9. n1 l ..Sc,sJ A -Mush!t 74, X 17-g9Sl Sign Name City, State Sty l'A 934oS- Print Nn Address Yhone 10. Si / Civ, 9-3 rEARK, AH.. We the undersigned are opposed to the proposed development at the end of Highland Drive. Any zoning change is unacceptable and should not be granted. Bishop Peak is a Natural Landmark and should be preseryed for the future. Bishop Peak is a great area for all to enjoy. Closing the north side of Bishop Peak from Highland Drive to hikers, climbers, handicapped and disabled, allowing a few people to profit at the expense of others is not in the public interest. This is a pristine habitat and should not be encroached upon. s N e 12 SL 1 1. —TIM - i5 Print Name Address Pho e 2. Si N , State � ^ • �� Sos ft-- Printame Address Phone 3. 4 zC & + c-k .I r ]) — �L Sign Namq NamCity, state L c-- c%t . ca Phone a. Print N _aa4 CTO o CJS- Address TAAP7 ,6 h # T 5�3 n�ign Name City, State ��►ntAddress Phone Name A / 5. ,/�o'n�eFr �PIG�rGlv�z7 L�Pl3 Sir err/ cT ,Q� Sitz'O7yL Ci , State t Name Ph . 3 6. �I1Pl� r Men, Address �,r�� (— Nam City, Sti-J alb`{OS PrinjN ame Address Phone 7. /YDR Ib U CAI,- .GE.e 897v 7 ZZ -8Iaz8 Si Name City, Stay� Print Name Address Phone 8. 1D/ s i$25� ,d,�Ys Seo. ! �yaS slit sss Sign Name City, State Print N aye Add? q A.S S Phone 9. S• City, State Print Nam Address Phone 10. Sign Name City, State SAVE bS P EA 'A EA We the undersigned are opposed to the proposed development at the end of Highland Drive. Any zoning change is unacceptable and should not be granted. This Bishop Peak is a Natural Landmark and should be preserved for the future. Bishop Peak is a great area for all to enjoy. Closing the north side of Bishop Peak allowing a few people to profit at the expense of others is not in the public interest. t NaAddress, Phone 1. '°�►�c;me r�Gry as 3 :; 7 g 3/P7 1-1 Sign ame S City, StateZCI C) P ',t Name (, Address ,� 1* Phone SignN CIV'-State Print Name �J�� Address Phone t O 3. I, i L J"� ?pf� C3lyL'�s 3�" 2oG -3 35� Si t1ame City[ tat 9/ Address Phone 4. Pn�imatn� c�edlsr 2`3`( Ccx�� P�acst tsf� 34t;-t,'1g� si\gJ� ;ZZ�, � s}� City State � �C3 064n0. CA. gtto� Print Narpe 0 0 4 /f LE/r✓ A S of/C ��/J '- 'v J�C- 5. � l � Phot �k s Y;7z G`� �� SS Sign Nam �� City, State a Namy Address Phone t 1. 6. art ��,��-U-'n� 1'Z43 � �`1 i~ S� <&S—SZSS-L133 Sign, arae city, State fps V Sv5 %3�ay t Name ,( �n Phone 7. G f� Address ��l1 'i v 3 iY S Name �J City, State Print Name Address Phone 8. Sign Name City, State Print Name Address Phone 9. Sign Name City, State Print Naas Address Phone 10. Sign Name City, State DAVE Bibmwi PEAKAREA We the undersigned are opposed to the proposed development at the end of Highland Drive. Any zoning change is unacceptable and should not be granted. This Bishop Peak is a Natural Landmark and should be preserved for the future. Bishop Peak is a great area for all to enjoy. Closing the north side of Bishop Peak allowing a few people to profit at the expense of others is not in the public interest. cc��gqt� AddressP40& —,,-?-(.4o a _� l i. P1'�� moi'"LJAIaW 2 ICf 4� Si N Ci state 3 Pri t Name Address Pho��,g' 2. Afx03- 15' .5 tX Sign Ram City, State S L(J CA 1 Ph ae s. N {�. i(.�� Aa ��X /3$��C 5 y f- 3�lF0 sign ame l City' e ^ t � � l Print Name Address Phone 4. S Cityr I `jtL-: —(DOV(A Print Name Address Phone 5. M"T, l�l�a� 'S�3 5, Sign Name City, State 6. Prt'mAddrej-, L ( P " �� 5` Phonle ign � City, State�� 7. Priest Nie ) J IL AddU Sign Name City' S Print Name Address Pho e 8. ->A ^ EUA tIKIA PYA -A2 PartyNli g, Sign Name Ci, j State Print Name Address Phone 9. Orin `� z_ 158i J' Si City, State ✓7i Y t � L-C- l��f Print Name Address * Phone S• Name City. Spate e' _ c4� 1 i1o� SAVE I E We the undersigned are opposed to the proposed development at the end of Highland Drive. Any zoning change is unacceptable and should not be granted. This Bishop Peak is a Natural Landmark and should be preserved for the future. Bishop Peak is a great area for all to enjoy. Closing the north side of Bishop Peak allowing a few people to profit at the expense of others is not in the public interest. 1. t N L Add= g (A / /� tL �l O P n- sl p.L — 'Sraame r� C• stats ��/ �5 � b;sr�, (.14 9 3 �'- i �� P ' t Name P, Address Phone 2. �_ Si NCity, State Address Phone 3. t xame c� 720 -� �•`(� S�fs r Si a� Ci , state Z/--o C lC P tNA"30ddress - Phone a. s t C%State Print ame Address Phone 5. � i; r✓� 3 S/ �eae� s�' sof'-Cf Si NCity, State r L-a �� SGi', Crr �3�to/ Print N .e Phone 6. � SignfName�� c' Grp T8�SZ-6 Z Print Name Address Phone 7. M►C4Aet, F tp_ lti`l Pte-*'► °�- 5�3 —Seo 5 Sign City, State W bill Print ame Address Phone 8. a 2 rgi��: F 5Y Z - 9585 Si gn N city,state Sfted &vt Print Name Address Phone r 16 j4. Sign Name city, to 1 i �?• ✓ 7 P e 10. cAddress e 11a L kt,c� 6 it y state GC Z 7., SAVE 61ST P PEAK - AREA We the undersigned are opposed to the proposed development at the end of Highland Drive. Any zoning change is unacceptable and should not be granted. This Bishop Peak is a Natural Landmark and should be preserved for the future. Bishop Peak is a great area for all to enjoy. Closing the north side of Bishop Peak allowing a few people to profit at the expense of others is not in the public interest. t Name Address '' rr � Phone 1. � �`t� F�-tr UArc J� �`I�' �33� i Name C ty State 2. P S '. .��r�ex Add�d0 05Q5 5'+ (Q ress Phone Sign A City)�, State S Name Address Phone 3. ,= 114' iyU 1�5�J f�/cr}hives rd -l�S 6 9 S� ame ��0 Cf? 91yQs" Prynt Name Address Phone 4. (-e P c J C�7 /U �i7or�a ,4 _ �l�l- 4/ ZOO Siun,,8iame t State Prr�' .t Nam Address / Phone 5. J �Jc �m ; �� IZSZ )C-;oo �/. '�/ � stf2 - �6$y sign>pft Ci L C P • t Name Address Phone 6. equ t ACX WT N' O_COR_e Sign Name _ City, _ _ ,/ W n�, Print Name Ate ddress k� fJ Phone 7. RtK t_.a .,� e.L Uroy'� ( CAOL) 229-5'tZt Sign N City, State PrintTAG Address Phone S. tJaAG a L��t +P J c! 0 6rf�o _- —� / Sign Name City, State Print Name •. // Address ` Phone 9. ��e�!r7 �t L) rDfL>. 4I l�a�i'�Ctu D � ! Si ame - Citygtate Prin Name Address Phone 10. ( c�Sya n .�e c :� 31106 Kit SCgn�am�� `� City, State . rmUTECT BISHOP PEAK AREA We the undersigned are opposed to the proposed development at the end of Highland Drive. Any zoning change allowing three homes is unacceptable and should not be granted. Bishop Peak is a Natural Landmark and should be preserved for the future. Bishop Peak is a great area for all to enjoy. Highland Drive access is very important to hikers, climbers, handicapped and disabled. This is a pristine habitat and should not be encroached upon. Print Name Address Phone ign Name City, State 441a41 A Sra h L ri'!i 04'iN 0 C,4 Print Name Address Phone 2. �1re. LcLzcu�kS f y% -mar�LV-1d Si ga ramie City, sta Com¢ 9yo� Print Name Address Phone 3. 104te7-k.an Ca (y[f'Z C-ftf, -d Sl &2 S4-i -`/i9.2 Sign Name�� City, State Print Name Address Phone 4. `CA^ < Osr+llZ-O /£33 Name City, State AU.) t vi S (11316Pn rint Name Ad rens Ph o e 5. �A A. ^00tuM0M :12 MCM0 ST AA— 7� igs Name City, State ,W �� trN L Ks CW�a .GA-1?�1 rint Name Address Phone 6. M I 0-a-cL.1 'FJc S w� ,k�— 1►.-� . Si Na � City, State Print Na Address Phone Si Name City, State Print Name Address Phone 8. Fr4-Wk 14EVAa 54L--��a1 Sign Nme Ci , State i>13 01 Pint Name Address Phone 9, Swip Name Ciittyt, SState .��Prink Name Add? L A., C'A� oi� Pe 10. y nit 9 A f Sign N e City,State1 C. i PROTECT BISHOP PEAKA A We the undersigned are opposed to the proposed development at the end of Highland Drive. Any zoning change all three homes is unacceptable and should not be granted. Bishop Peak is a Natural Landmark and should be preserved for the future. Bishop Peak is a great area for all to enjoy. Highland Drive access is very important to hikers, climbers, handicapped and disabled. This is a pristine habitat and should not be encroached upon. N e Address $ Phone i ame . C 1,1, State Name r� Address Phone 2. GAS 1 Si ame City, S to Print Name AeressPho�y 3 �) 3. Ross N,e vi b V 3S S vet _J'0 t Si Name04z- Cit State Nec�� « n t-Gt ty b►�(�� -A g Ph e Print Name Address '/ Z� - �� 4 -c (� 4. �Vtt/t10 S _ (� ( 1Lt JGJ sign ame X11 �i � city, Print Name ` Address 1 Phone p,J 5. -C. re ti 0; t�10T1 YSJ/ -)4� Li e>11e) Siw. arde City, State -- - S i D Print Name Address Phone 6. PeNtvE JA+iE5 Q(00 36Acle� Foga 7a4 Sign Name City State Print tame Address - / Phone 7. vT Gor �3yC7 eaw'ltIet- Lc,A C SG13'?UW Si a pity, State (gyp c'1 a3" P n ' Name Address Phone 8. rxhc nx,✓� GQ, 1 V. L V\- Si ame City, State c7 ca �13Yo 1 Print Name Address Phone ^� 9. 4tez/4 c / cam./1/3^7aL. Sign ame City, State c 21 L45 �, li�e) . Prin me Address � Phone 4U alo. c �► Sign Name Cl Y ,State /S / �� C 1 ' 1 PROTECT BISHOP PEAK o We the undersigned are opposed to the proposed development at the end of Highland Drive. Any zoning change,allowing three homes is unacceptable and should not be granted. Bishop Peak is a Natural Landmark and shuld be preserved for the future. Bishop Peak is a great area for all to enjoy. Highland Drive access is very important to hikers, climbers, handicapped and disabled. This is a pristine habitat and should not be encroached upon. Print Name Address Phone 1. SAMIF- s ty• M ;vie -3;'1,6z_ Name City, sp Li i G �i57'c3 �9 SDs t Name Address Phone 2. M �ArtG 7�i Q. ame City tate 3 Print Name Address Phone 3. ame �� City. Address Phone Print Name 4. Sign Name City, State Print Name Address Phone 5 Sign Name City, State PName Address Phone 6. Sign Name City, State Print Name Address Phone 7. Sign Name City, State Print Name Address Phone 8. Sign Name . City, State Print Name Address Phone 9. Sip Name City, State Print Name Address Phone 10. Sign Name City, State PROTECT BISHOP PEAK AREA We the undersigned are opposed to the proposed development at the end of Highland Drive. Any zoning change allowing three homes is unacceptable and should not be granted. Bishop Peak is a Natural Landmark and should be preserved for the future. Bishop Peak is a great area for all to enjoy. Highland Drive access is very important to hikers, climbers, handicapped and disabled. This is a pristine habitat and should not be encroached upon. Print Name Address Phone SName City State igm/ SAO Print Name Address Phone _ 2. 5C'--"4aTt f-722 l FG 57- Si TSi N City, State �s QS�S Co—f� Print Address Phone 3. ('r,r4n� �iAz-�ak.ZV�� i� 0�C-xn"r— Sign N " City, State p hone ,� 4. rtnt11.7d � /f A P�' } Ages C 1� �7 4�'Q `t S Name Cit State P ' t Name Address Phone 5. �ih Name — C't , StateCA �n1 Print Name Address Phone 6. Sign Name City, State Print Name Address Phone 7. Sign Name City, State Print Name Address Phone 8. Sign Name City, State Print Name Address Phone 9. Sign Name City, State Print Name Address Phone 10. Sign Name City, State UP PEAK AREA We the undersigned are opposed to the proposed development at the end of Highland Drive. Any zoning change is unacceptable and should not be granted. This Bishop Peak is a Natural Landmark and should be preserved for the future. Bishop Peak is a great area for all to enjoy. Closing the north side of Bishop Peak allowing a few people to profit at the expense of others is not in the public interest. Print Name Address Phone 1. -JA.Me.c� 1)IL /qO F�,(r,.1 Hp Sign Name Ci% tY, SL o t Name Addddress t / /IPhone 2. � - . ,� /a4.1 I la� �t r/\ , .j 71C �6�r SignfCity, State PLint Name Address Phone 3. AC4ZI /3407 ux P*W- - - 644 Name Ci , State [-urs taks � C4 i Print Name Address Phone 4. .)ainA 2tb( L/—'5+R Sign N City, State CA- Prin!;�rrame Address Phone 5. Trr(t;"DU.2AQ -mal Vt�1 $T• t- ST Sign N City, State r_0cwt oco , cA, g Print Name Address Phone 6. +�-LIat-u f�hk po. Sox /o9 � 995:-/ZsA.J Si N Citytate a S 93`00 7. Print N meJ u. L, t,5oc�W1 Address $ P" SI S'E(e Sign City, State N � 6 Sa^ Leis 0 tseo C K3go( 8. t tame Addl j5N 13 T 3 1.3 Xi in city, SWLIX M4 �� tat W CA— &I 3�4 Print Name Address Phone 9. ArCir. TDA (-t.'v_ —srf �sa �v.�. rave �1L l 5511 Sign Name City, State ct- Print Name Address Phone 10. Ac�` 7'A t2r C.a u;LZ. Sign Name City, State c� A—,A5r4eCt---c G4 Ct 2 Z S`hA'VffE 'UISHOP PEAK- 'AREA We the undersigned are opposed to the =development at the end of Highland Drive. Any zoning change is unacceptable and should not be granted. This Bishop Peak is a Natural Landmark and should be preserved for the future. Bishop Peak is a great area for all to enjoy. Closing the north side of Bishop Peak allowing a few people to profit at the expense of others is not in the public interest. Print Name Address rhone 1. 0 �Y.trl Tct-D {��')C 2(a6r City, State U�i ?W 26'8K.�1? G14. R�i�147 Print Name Address Phone 2. fit\ Qu Inn A(10)= Ill ' �,� Obis 4'�1 SCity, State i atne h' 3 Print Name L?-j/�LIJ� Address 1T T/9s c'i9,�'/�a /`OC r Ph' ZU- 939 2 Si ame Ci State Phone 4. Ntin t'��et"�(i .� Address Phone �"�G['r - Si�p C;�, state �r rn L-y S �yl1S Print Namen Address Phone 5. � s,c 6. 1COF3„✓ .✓ _5/! l.AW,-cx/ S'/y'Z3Fa'3 SigoName City, State Print Name Address Phone 6. A qA fi7f PJ 1'�o W • q6u )7o - ; ame City, State Print Nadwl Address Phone ZA Sign Name City, StateG �/�t>crf., 1c.Eat�`— Sax fjl�c2 UF/ti.a,2e� M” 534Ael Print Name Address Phone 8. _A511 $5� Sign Name _ .City, State Print Name Address Pho sCittyy, State Print.Narne Address Phone 10. ,�c t�7f �/orr. �e,�— s'/ O 5rc; : -6£�%l`7 Sign ame City, State tiAVE 61SHOP PEAK AREA We the undersigned are opposed to the proposed development at the end of Highland Drive. Any zoning change is unacceptable and should not be granted. This Bishop Peak is a Natural Landmark and should be preserved for the future. Bishop Peak is a great area for all to enjoy. Closing the north side of Bishop Peak allowing a few people to profit at the expense of others is not in the public interest. Print Name Address Phone 1. Dpurr DEEL 1/6 -2 & v' STree7 3.25 /1/71/ ame City, State L os CA 9 3 y�z Name Address Phone P�j 2. � i / ? ?s =:�CCity, State l sZ o .T7-- C Prilr Name Address Phone 3. JAM Es Dnx-te, 1�U; dsos Sv?`92o7 S; Name city, State / 6.W 3,e64 Print Name Address Phone 4. JArj rT�571\; Al UP-2&Z 1&,? Si Name City, State Print Name Address Phone Sign Name _ e City, State ;4U,? W b-1�.,;y` 0-��,;,�u.,LZ Gam. Print Name Address Phone S; Name C. , State Print Na� Address Phone 'gn NameCity, State C� /i COvn ' e Address Phone Li t- 8. n' 155 � _ 510 ti Print Name Address Phone 9. 13 22- PkI Si City, State Print Name Address Phone 10. N�a._,o /1(0 k(t iAk]C4 ,amsy.n 5 V.at>c� Sam-83 1 Sign�a¢oe �L city, State V J SAVE 61SHOP PEAK AREA We the undersigned are opposed to the proposed development at the end of Highland Drive. Any zoning change is unacceptable and should not be granted. This Bishop Peak is a Natural Landmark and should be preserved for the future. Bishop Peak is a great area for all to enjoy. Closing the north side of Bishop Peak allowing a few people to profit at the expense of others is not in the public interest. Print NAddress n Phone 1, � �Q U �u% S 21, 'S Im SignCi , State ��w-- ,Ili IA^ ,)ks Oi&,F�po. Cq .5slot Print NameAddress A 2. ,Trill LILA ILA yg OO SO rn U G � Phone-SSI SA* N City, state �•�as CAC/Cr-O Print Name Address Phone 3. rST Ql zw r O- Gsx i 3�0 Sign Name City, State �/ .n ZI4f e<X= u4.��-r / Print Name Address Phone 4. (Ycmsol-We- / / / ('eha. � ST/3 5336 Si Name City, State ,....0, [ D Cat Print Name Address Phone 5. 2olv (-AL1TKv/ 936 43fr-soyy Si gn City, State Prin Name Address Phone 6. e �trs ?b& fAo Z rA"M.. 773 - 2991 sign erne J City, �V I�Pk F. V� C]'3 WIT P ' t Name `b– Address Phone 7. Sign ame C t tate ------------ Print Name Address Phone Si Name City, State 8e,Y 7Z PriaAddress t�tam� 9. Jam•-� l�S� / �9D sign city, state • �.�.. ��s Ods cf} Phone lo. ` ��J A N l VVI-'a ;fit, SAVE 61SHOP PEAK AREA We the undersigned are opposed to the proposed development at the end of Highland Drive. Any zoning change is unacceptable and should not be granted. This Bishop Peak is a Natural Landmark and should be preserved for the future. Bishop Peak is a great area for all to enjoy. Closing the north side of Bishop Peak allowing a few people to profit at the expense of others is not in the public interest. Print Nam, Address Phone 4,7-T-t Li A �2_ _ S43-YL 9'3 Sign City, State t Name Phone Address (L� 2. , 2225— � a5 '�► S' 7 city '3sG o Name Address Phone 0 S 3. IVl � � 2a k ►'� 733 S Si N City, State L Print Name Addressy, 3s- Si S Phone 4. � i �xQ qI & l c ) IJ -�C SignN- ,0 City, State 6 T Name Address Phone t 5. r L. q-O 5 � _ .e s � `(85-5o`-f`(. Si City, State C P ' t Name Address � �- Phone 6. I rn Si Ci tate Print V Address Phone 7. r. A 312, —#g kyow' Ljkl-5359 Sign N City, State C .�• �t,t/Gl GQ.. c P ••pt Address Phone 195lk Lo60sos ✓A, 2.0 ss�g�lsat� Sign Name City, State W«u A+ .Y_ Govt l cis DSOS Print Name / Address Phone 9. JArt Joupu S;gpNclam R� z3Cityres , Print Name Address Phone 10. Sir city, SAVE 61SHOP PEA%k We the undersigned are opposed to tht`proposed development at the end of Highland Drive. Any zoning change. is unacceptable and should not be granted. This Bishop Peak is a Natural Landmark and should be preserved for the future. Bishop Peak is a great area for all to enjoy. Closing the north side of Bishop Peak allowing a few people to profit at the expense of others is not in the public interest. Print Name Address Phone 1. REittieICE AOKRrjW 15 LS 01-0 OALPa/LEA• �8�7 Name City, State Print Name Address Phone 2. 16'�r /1�7 fr .su-ou"X Si Ci + State X-01 Ora, 4, 11'Y17I Print ame Address Phone 3. Rrs,InAn S�o .�+gr✓by IoZy I �Jd� ..tyc�cl �� Sal S-s� 13 Sign NI City, State c SL0 C A Print Name Address / p Phone 4. 3e.w+ e �r 2�0,�� i►�I �k� ,1� '� �G'Z /N yS�1� Sign Name City, State SLO r A P * t N Ad s Phone s. btiuc c vrr8cc mK A,LSSc�ht c;T syy-sem Si W /, /j�� City, state Print Name Address /� �� Phone 6. Tlw�^aS ZUV r 3 +7s /"lYZ YAC ad - Sign Name_ City, St /�atg ero o/3¢Z 2 Priqt Name L Address Phone 7. r C- "Aa 64L� 6LAcktocL Po gox 25;3 3►39 Si4 N Ci State q e ��— A�/�SC-1DXc 0 Cr'9 �3N�3 Print Name �I Address Phone 8. kitA I/ --;Z 0syI77 �* O Sig¢,Name Cit , State P Name Address Phone 9. 17,14 V�e'5Z/4A/ -3� Si ame City, State Address _ Phone 10. P��o Epi I 6i'� N City, State e'- L- V Ci SAVE 61SHOP PEAK AREA We the undersigned are opposed to the proposed development at the end of Highland Drive. Any zoning change is unacceptable and should not be granted. This Bishop Peak is a Natural Landmark and should be preserved for the future. Bishop Peak is a great area for all to enjoy. Closing the north side of Bishop Peak allowing a few people to profit at the expense of others is not in the public interest. t Name Address 7_�r oe 9im N CiState p Address Phone 2. a �_ ( T f o 7p (� Sign City, State CV 4 MCI CI P ' Name Address Phone 3. �tt av e P��,�.� 7%1 PfOCl2 S F Sy 4-0 Sign Name City, State kms. ,:� — SLa C-A q 3ya l P ' NMI►IT Y IW`� I Y I 1 (�t/((',l t Address 42 Ph Sig I , state 13 33 t7 4. �' t Name Address Phone 5. zit 1.2 1,57-.1- Si am City, State Pr, Name Address Phone S' me City, State _ Cit 7. �Name \/ Address Phone x—TCx��`�6 t�� c�' c�- S' N City, State P ame Ad Phone 8. n 12,71 SiCity, State 5( CLY ?jiat Name Address Phone 9. IDD i2> Qre)W-#-viY-IrLPE792> D- 1 Mur C� Si City, State SLO CA P ' T Address Phone 10. C ALL 1110 :1J,-; � l=ever'11 :o1i� SO-547C) s U2 K 01 PROTECT BISHOP PEAK_ AREA We the undersigned are opposed to the proposed development at the end of Highland Drive. Any zoning change allowing three homes is unacceptable and should not be granted. Bishop Peak is a Natural Landmark and should be preserved for the future. Bishop Peak is a great area for all to enjoy.. Highland Drive access is very important to hikers, climbers, handicapped and disabled. This is a pristine habitat and should not be encroached upon. _ Address Phone 1. Pring Sign N t N me Address Ph # on" -7 el 4 �S 2. l j:�55 Cam m1a Sign Nknm ty, State cLn CA- U405 Print Name Address Phone 3. t I Le Lo t5A'a,-3Sbs S ame City, State ` S LCA C A- q 3 t►o S Print NAddress Phone 4. 190 , " �4o c ro,ea r l AA- Sip 3 Sign Na City, State P t Name Address Phone 5. i35 !'tc� 5 Li Si ame State : Cv Ppt Name AddressFe Phone si City, state ALO �- Pant Name Adite Phoney 7. t gA t Sign it Phone s. e Add T k S� AM 4-74 S• Cit , State Pry Nam Address Phone 9. I'�N �b��a�i�l� 4LIo (11 h r1 I I� 1 - -ATL P)-(3(ag St's Name n City, State 1cnn sr-a, _< f� �r Address Phone lo. P ha Lt/e!es odQ�d try 3 Sth St. 51�- o76Z Si ame city, State - c1 PROTECT BISHOP PEAK AREA We the undersigned are opposed to the proposed development at the end of Highland Drive. Any zoning change allowing three homes is unacceptable and should not be granted. Bishop Peak is a Natural Landmark and should be preserved for the future. Bishop Peak is a great area for all to enjoy. Highland Drive access is very important to hikers, climbers, handicapped and disabled. This is a pristine habitat and should not be encroached upon. _ Print Name Address Phone 1. �fcPut� r"oFd it 70 /fa.�>�� •✓ SY(o-o�I't" Sign N city, sra t0N Cvr) � hi��J �;d Print ^N^ame �� Address 4? / Phone 2. c�7ia w T7i n.a� 3 7e tits/ L i Sign N City, Sta f Orro a ��,' 3ygZ Pmt ame Address Phone 3. n ,S'4�-36oY- sign City, State A �13yu4� ri LJIS (� (o ( 3 �J C y rin Name Add s L Phone P 6 4. le r �l SD e.SL1�t� S`1 - Sign ame City Sta Print arae Address Phan 5. Leah rAlkCutLIN s /9L10 Coro l.n1 City, State Jr L 01 Prin Name Add Phone 6. ig(5� c5A0DofAL- S-A 1J•cho+rY� 5 - �� Sign City, State 4= (u1S old,rD ,S_ Print Name Address Phone 7. Tota Sign Name City, StatePh L Print N�ame,, � Address one 8. Sign-N City, State CSU Print Name Address Phone 9. t,?/C ate X199-/743 Sip`Name City, State Print Name Addr Phone R+ Gtr1 Sign Name City, State A 6 -3 q G< 1 SAVE BISHOP PEAK AREA We the undersigned are opposed to the proposed development at the end of Hiighland Drive. Any zoning change is unacceptable and should not be granted. This Bishop Peak is a Natural Landmark and should be preserved for the future. Bishop Peak is a great area for all to enjoy. Closing the north side of Bishop Peak allowing a few people to profit at the expense of others is not in the public interest. P ' t N e Address( Phone � � i ty, p Name c A P4� Address Phone city sq Lo- tate t Name �. Ula 1��-trs A dfmJ9� _ Ph 3. nt Cityr". L44 Phone 4. �t2�G K_��.�5 c3c/ CKZIST/NA L)4Y S '7 Si e Ci 5 151 Print Name Address Phone 5. Sign Name City, State Print Name Address Phone 6. Sign Name City, State Print Nam Address Phone 7. Sign Nates City, State Print Name Address Phone 8. Sign Name City, State .'Print Name Address Phone 9. Sign Name City, State Print Name Address Phone 10. / Sign Name City, State / r' PRTEL";' T BISHOP PEAK AREA We the undersigned are opposed to the proposed development at the end of Highland Drive. Any zoning change allowing three homes is unacceptable and should not be granted. Bishop Peak is a Natural Landmark and should be preserved for the future. Bishop Peak is a great area for all to enjoy. Highland Drive access is very important to hikers, climbers, handicapped and disabled. This is a pristine habitat and should not be encroached upon. Print Name Address Phone 1. M-OT1�L� ►SZ 4 RTwt Ali Sign Name City, State �y+ t..h1.1 0649 e� Print Name Address Phone 2. TAW pi► N ofF f* 'f2►Nl ►' q �o't► CA4- Srgn Name City, S to Print Name Ad Phone w3�� P 3. � Si Ciq, State 5+�?� Print Ame Address S 73 C (/ a K 0 Vet✓t Phone 4. TA4 PV nqn U o,: cc, _ 3Da>� Sign Name City, State Print Tame Address n Phone 5. n � �D ( n�n �� /lA Sign ame City, tate 6. � t Name ' A�O (.)7& 11,1x, Phone �2 �t t5ori v 0�7 �aY?� (lGcl LUl-5061 a QO �nacarne Address Phone Sign XAEW City, State se,o c/9 C/ Print Name Address Phone s. 'r EVA //i5Pat:N 4-3 — 6)'l z Si City, State /t r e � Print Name Address Phone Sign Name City, State S 5 Print Address 10. ,5 0 1?!X�-�(o� Si e City to 4�P-P PROTECT B15HUP PEAK AREA We the untignrsed are opposed to the proposed development at the end of Highland Drive. Any zoningchangeoing three homes is unacceptable and should not be granted. Bishop Peak is a Natural Landmark and should be preserved for the future. Bishop Peak is a great area for all to enjoy. Highland Drive access is very important to hikers, climbers, handicapped and disabled. This is a pristine habitat and should not be encroached upon. _- Print Nam J- Phone o�/ 1. f % J e.�-►vte� IMO rro bo'C Si N • city, scare X71 PSN_ Phone p 2. 't '� 7 �J E 1 U('�TS Ad4ressLUAJ NZ S4 Si N Citi, State ` of print Name Address Phone 3. Sign Name City, State Print Name Address Phone 4. Sign Name City, State Print Name Address Phone S. Sign Name City, State Print Name Address Phone 6. Sign Name City, State Print Name Address Phone 7. Sign Name city, State Print Name Address Phone 8. Sign Name City, State Print Name Address Phone 9. Sign Name City, State Print Name Address Phone 10. Sign Name City, State p ®TKT We the undersigned are opposed to the proposed development at the end of Highland Drive. Any zoning change allowing three homes is unacceptable and should not be granted. Bishop Peak is a Natural Landmark and should be preserved for the future. Bishop Peak is a great area for all to enjoy. Highland Drive access is very important to hikers, climbers, handicapped and disabled. This is a pristine habitat and should not be encroached upon. _ Print NameAaa II Phone 1. Tdw�es l ke- 4 9 f)l s an O -S f S f07°�( Ci Si ame City, State SQ � `7`341a1 Name Ad�l � r Phone I ame2. City, � lC.� � SJ Name Address Phone 3. _Z_Tc�Pb � S Name City,State Print Name Address Phone 4. 1goo gi City, State 1r /;fad ' ,a: `r3I1 '1 5. l_ Phone L�l� t.J i�h�s Address��9 a2y'' est 8 �s`� 8�s�31a Sr arae City�State Print Name Address Phone ign Name City, State i110rlce 3,, CA 93 t±3 -�Y Print Name ClAddress 71, 'y Ph pbong,�p0 7. ' 1C !V Al D D M /3.31 Si r� City,rS(ate a.-Y3 . Y3/V� ((��`1L-Q/Y�Q (� Print N4 Address Phone s. OJr Cs1 3l0 C'g ''-a 979I Sign(��jX�, me City, State- .4- 0(22 Y Print Name Address Phone 9. Sign Name City, State Print Name Address Phone 10. Sign Name City, State s PROTECT BISHOP PEAK AREA We the undersigned are opposed to the proposed development at the end of Highland Drive. Any zoning change allowing three homes is unacceptable and should not be granted. Bishop Peak is a Natural Landmark and should be preserved for the future. Bishop Peak is a great area for all to enjoy. Highland Drive access is very important to hikers, climbers, handicapped and disabled. This is a pristine habitat and should not be encroached upon. Pant Name r--- _ Address Phone_ ` SI Name City, State _ Print Name Address Phone 2. Qober % t.trxil(It ;r,)",V 3Sr,. Wis4 ,lavka AVt- S'f f-6 r Sign Name Cicy, State �k, `7 f.y c CAS Si.V CA ci 3 Lt c-i' Print NaMe Address Phone 3. o Zr rZ �rnrvS " Sign am Print Name Address Phone 4. >nn ��rl r�e. CeJr r kyt�'Y► 2�b� N OYMU �t ��- L-Li 611 Sign Name Cic�, State Print Name Address Phone 5. I I i A �1i•�c I vv�.G..'S it -f Q�,e c.a..cr,i✓�t A✓e 5�l 2 i ame City, State S A3Y05 Print Name Address Phone 6. �c'� S�' _T_ City, State 5. L, v Le,- 9 3L4OS Print Name Address Phone 7. Sign Name City, State Print Name Address Phone 8. Sign Name City, State Print Name Address Phone 9. Sign Name City, State Print Name Address Phone 10. Sign Name City, State PROTECT BISHOP PEAK AREA We the undersigned are opposed to the proposed development at the end of Highland Drive. Any zoning change allowing three homes is unacceptable and should not be granted. Bishop Peak is a.Natural Landmark and should be preserved for the future. Bishop Peak is a great area for all to enjoy. Highland Drive access is very important to hikers, climbers, handicapped and disabled. This is a pristine habitat and should not be encroached upon. 1. 'Print Nam ae.s N' Address Phone l�,, ke (- �9 � ist4lo Sf fC? S' s' am City, state Lv J T3 yQ 1 Address. Phone 2. J amen � ��t,v City )ate , Phone 3 Name ` Address Z -� �'G 4:;Z/ `� S Name City, State y ! ( urs Print Name / Address Phone 4. O'L- 0 ��tst� _ 1200f Si City, State 1 s. `lulm.t hkus Address�9 o2y �t gP s 8Y-s�Pa Ci state Print Name Address Phone 6. > . t i Sign Name City; State _ �ifor'rr 3--;'l Cf Tj Print NameAddress Phone / 7. !' YL AI Al D CIL)M 1331 5�_ '`� X90 Si sold � City,J.C.Q-Q/K-0 f Ca Prin�toamq Address Phone 8. U, rq) CM'6' V-a 1.1 G Cq A Lue''f'q g%P7 979% signCity, State Print Name Address Phone 9. Sign Name City, State Print Name Address Phone 10. Sign Name City, State PROTECT BISHOP PEAK AREA We the undersigned are opposed to the proposed development at the end of Highland Drive. Any zoning change allowing three homes is unacceptable and should not be granted. Bishop Peak is a Natural Landmark and should be preserved for the futttre. Bishop Peak is a great area for all to enjoy. Highland Drive access is very important to hikers, climbers, handicapped and disabled. This is a pristine habitat and should not be encroached upon. Print Namq Address Phone 1. 1, e- LA )A. ar C,-a,vLc- <. 3 - 8593 Si Name City, State Print Name% , Addes G �? � [ Ph,yF �,�'J2. ✓ f / c1F_?C Sign City, State Print Name % Address,r Phone 3. SimNarne City, to . �� ::1, r. C• �✓�.�� r,�. `� �,; r�' ayes " P i Name Address Phone 4. `Si ame C City, , fT L —moi. r ByrnyrL i s Ll�r sT u� C R, t Name �AddressPhone �/ q 5. _ Name j CV' State State /✓ \�a ,�,,,� o' � .t• � r, , � � \ t Q,3 y 1. Print Name Address jf 3` Phone g t; t6ws� — i:z:a- , Sign N Ciy, State Print Name Address Phone 7. T;cw-p .ler- �f S 616 Yan-1 c.J14 .543-74y3 Si City. State pmt Name Address Phone 8. `� �7A t-F'► J�I<? LED-- 172 0 Si ame �Ci�y, State Print Name Address Yz Phone Sign Name j City State Print Name Ac Tress Phone 10. _ Sign Name City, State J SAVE BISHOP PEAK AREA We the undersigned are opposed to the proposed development at the end of Highland Drive. Any zoning change is unacceptable and should not be granted. This Bishop Peak is a Natural Landmark and should be preserved for the future. Bishop Peak is a great area for all to enjoy. Closing the north side of Bishop Peak allowing a few people to profit at the expense of others is not in the public interest. PrintName Address Phone Si Name C!71 state i Cf rj Print Name Address Phone Sign Name I_ City, StateIel 2. I Pint Name Address Phone 3. t t. :-J S c' �� 3 71 'qJ- ` -zG sip'Nam 4. Print Name Address Phone Sign Name City, State V �l• 1 Print Name Address Phone s. 3736' S 173 SSf y -yt' Z¢ signriame City,state Print Name Address ' * /� P)onee�44 14 _ Sign Name �, ,!Z City, State Prime Address Phone 7. Sign Name. _ City, State Print Name Address Phare J� 8. /=1v. �� y E�'l�'�l 3 ) 4 S c-, �.��.r.c!� Y Sign Name City, State S•Lv �-¢ Print Name /� t , Address r 1 '?�l 3'i 17It_ ; Phone Sign Name City, State Print Name r Address Phone 10. Sign Name City, State r �� C,.:3 CC\ SAVE BISHOP PEAK AREA We the undersigned are opposed to the proposed development at the end of Highland Drive. Any zoning change is unacceptable and should not be granted. This Bishop Peak is a Natural Landmark and should be preserved for the future. Bishop Peak is a great area for all to enjoy. Closing the north side of Bishop Peak allowing a few people to profit at the expense of others is not in the public interest. Print Name Address Pone .� _ u 1,i; X71 Sip Name City, State p 4 Phone 2. Sign-Nam City,�.State Print Name Address Phone 3. Sign Name • City`, State ../ /4 a.•` \'�".� t_� 1 � b �, !tel Print Name / ,/ Address l Phone 7 4. Sign Name 'j �- City, State Print Name Address �/ t Phone Ki 5. /`t:c 1 . C"a f T :v im � 1 1y L ( J i TJ L-- Sip Sign Name City, State / r lam.... '.r;✓. '5.' t: Print Name Address J Phone 6. ` S.l!i .(L. C 7•• a•a.. i' G�� Fll a'. 7c.�[ � � J §ign Name City, State 1 7 � •�i,4'�.Li lea 1 .'. � L� 7 tL! - a.• t V el(Y Print Name Address Phone 7. e- (- - c 'f'�L ; i .alzG/ •`�,/� A,l 46'0(—dPiXS-S Sign Name City, State { - Z •#',.IZa Print Name, Address Phone 8. = u, , , �Ki: L; �141t , f ! ! til . `1`fi�Z Sign Name City, State Print Name Address i? r Phone Sign Name City, State 7 Address 10. r ame City, State L / �` SAVE BISHOP PEAK AREA We the undersigned are opposed to the proposed development at the end of Highland Drive. Any zoning change is unacceptable and should not be granted. This Bishop Peak is a Natural Landmark and should be preserved for the future. Bishop Peak is a great area for all to enjoy. Closing the north side of Bishop Peak the a few people to profit at the expense of others is not in the public interest. Address Pie Sign I�Tamg Ci sate Pti�t Name Address ` Phone 2. 'G� Y© 1 � (n1 I�`11 , � Sign Nam city' state Print Name Address Phone 3. Z Sign Now City, State Pm Lkn�2 Print�l $meAddress 4. 'C r 1 C r-x Y ;_ I l ^^ r, ' . y 2� Sign Nam �. City,state , Adder Phone riat Nam 5. _ _ l ` \ $iName City, $tate Print Name Address Phone 6. �,�f►r-' ;y ��; r.•� ti ti `� Ile �ic;«, r SignName City, State Print Name £ Adder done 7. ',o if Sj Sign�1a� t City, State Phone 8. , t �a ti:u'u.►ti' '.> rwf t'1.►11 17 yl ty $gn ame %` c,% }CIS Prin4iam Address Phone 9. T � 2Z/ L L' �� Sip Name City, State Print Name Address Phone. 10. Sign,N�me. City,State PROTECT BISHOP PEAK AREA We the undersigned are opposed to the proposed development at the end of Highland Drive. Any zoning change allowing three homes is unacceptable and should not be granted. Bishop Peak is a Natural Landmark and should be preserved for the future. Bishop Peak is a great area for all to enjoy. Highland Drive access is very important to hikers, climbers, handicapped and disabled. This is a pristine habitat and should not be encroached upon. Print 1. �Rtaml,, Address All Sc;n.4 ��V�-� ,4e L Phone S' ame Ci , State S, %-7 Vic,,°ry�>r�� , ce� PrJ Name 2. SLp 9AYrZ— P#Name Address Phone 3. ehrw E? f9©fes<kf-t- �ks�- 7rl�r Si City, State 44 e Address Phone 4. PrinM SignN City, Print NameAddress /� G Pho s. FS"�v (cis 6� Sign N / . , Stats C� okeS2 Print Name Address Phone 6. Sign Y }, ' 6}�C;kE NCity, State Pi N H uJ Address P ne 7. r! ally L. 11rKEFti 147%0 Cle4p L,v zy 3e Y,7 City, SteQd�G� tt.l Tame Address Phone 8. �Qe ,�$ City, State Print N e Address Phone 9. -7J ?,:Z,-:w, i�rC'+ti O Sign Name City, State Printwme Address Phone 10. 7C. L Q-o�0�70�-�� { �S -3ti"a5 Sign Nat State G�D� s Demos Cc, 913y(;,9), PROTECT BISHOP PEAK AREA We the undersigned are opposed to the proposed development at the end of Highland Drive. Any zoning change allowing three homes is unacceptable and should not be granted. Bishop Peak is a Natural Landmark and should be preserved for the futt re. Bishop Peak is a great area for all to enjoy. Highland Drive access is very important to hilaers, climbers, handicapped and disabled. This is a pristine habitat and should not be encroached upon. Print Name Address �l Phone 1• �O Dep >or d c% A,--e S' N City, State Print Name 2. unvMona yc 'o Si - Cit State t Namen Address Phone 3. 706 Z>. Grrahv 4490 4Dinscb-)A 4-114 78 786a Si T City,.State C/} 93ya/ P * t Name Add�esss�, Phone 4. die l.. •t`fy0 (ocr�,azi4_ S' Name City, St4te Print Name Address Phon 5. S� It� fP L. �(/ 0 47 t*m u,2c 4 A .yAMC cityi�i-�.�c� Print Name Add�r sss Phone 6. v,*5_#4RBJq�19 /�, 5C'..Rig �ayj/�� Sip Name City, State 6q cl-5 Print Name !;' Address (Lr'"iPhone 7. 14 1 [off 9 � Pe-- Sq y Sign N City, State CA . Uilo5 ''nt Name Address Phone 8. �Acl< /r?a /ice S7-. S' '`l6 icy/ � ame L city'state a�s �w �✓��a y 9. P .. dress L e-- I� P� Si , e 711 Su 'lY O^ City, State r a S /�S-� C49 Print N " �J1/Address l 7 Phone 10. 0e lro kv 3. 7441 rWrDdJza L l & Si Name City tate i PROTECT BISHOP PEAK AREA We the undersigned are opposed to the proposed development at the end of Highland Drive. Any zoning change allowing three homes is unacceptable and should not be graded. Bishop Peak is a Natural Landmark and should be preserved for the future. Bishop Peak is a great area for all to enjoy. Highland Drive access is very important to hikers, climbers, handicapped and disabled. This is a pristine habitat and should not be encroached upon. Print Name Address Phone L AIARILila/ _E n. 0n as v� U�s7R At.� 5-5(�( -o�cS'z �� i N&UP Ci + S LUIS OAS 7�►' ;CA . Print Nam — ,/� Phone 2. Gtiac c )<J, 13ri SAVE BISHOP PEAK- AREA We the undersigned are opposed to the proposed development at the end of Highland Drive. Any zoning change is unacceptable and should not be granted. Bishop Peak is a Natural Landmark and should be preserved for the future. Bishop Peak is a great area for all to enjoy. Closing the north side of Bishop Peak from Highland Drive to hikers, climbers, handicapped and disabled, allowing a few people to profit at the expense of others is not in the public interest. This is a pristine habitat and should not be encroached upon. Name Addre� / Phone 1. sr9 f��Ocrd S Si ame Y City, State 9 3 Print amp , Address Phone Sip NPme ,/r� � qty' State� 9- r•/'(r X Print Name . Address Phone 3. T 9 (.z . 'JOmF� _' ?,rot, 14P Tr' Sign amp ;, , City, State ? Z O 4. Print Name Laura Fv rtfk Address 15 2 I b ro Phone 5 5q5 4!0�S City,S Si tate y► S �b�, o CA R3tiDr Phone s• ,�- �,- F- -RA-4c> a-�yso Name City State CAPrint Name Address Phone ame City, State L 13( Prin _! Address Phone 7. K �: t')F Si ame City, Seto Print Name Address Phone 8. 111•TA- RFfSH?gURtJ 1;?_/ -A& IFIL D� - Si Ci , State k2. Print Name Address _ Phone, r� 9. V i7r � oK �'J� �, y211 SiErl ^ City,State cpp P Print Name Address Phone 10. ; ti 4'; Sign Name City, State ti . SAVE BISHOP - PEAK AREA We the undersigned are opposed to the proposed development at the end of Highland Drive. Any zoning change is unacceptable and should not be granted. Bishop Peak is a Natural Landmark and should be preserved for the future. Bishop Peak is a great area for all to enjoy. Closing the north side of Bishop Peak from Highland Drive to hikers, climbers, handicapped and disabled, allowing a few people to profit at the expense of others is not in the public interest. This is a pristine habitat and should not be encroached upon. 1. I Ty_ `I 638 Tomo #-F <1Z—o$'S( Sign "Mro C1'q ,. 9:5 c o r Print Name Address , t1 Phone 2. `70% Si City, State Pmt Nme Address Phone 3. Sign Name. City, State rLy;C.t Print Nkme Address_ Phone 4. lI �;✓- J i Sip Name City, state Print Address ry Phone Sign N City, State 3, Print Names, 4 'i ,, 1'r Address,S-I2 M�V Q Phone 6. ` 1 Sign Name City, StateSL CA G13%-1 Q A_ Pript Name Address _ a Phone Sign Name City, State tri , � t, ••� , Print Name r Address _ Phone 8. Sign City, State 9. Print Atm L D15 Address/$02 29. 26fb Name City, State ')6aW0C<L 3 410 2- Print Print Name Address Phone 10. 4'4&L_ S6pJ51197M eP_ 1-lit! T//?u/2 Sign ame City, State ^'q�-& SAVE BISHOP PEAK AREA We the undersigned are opposed to the proposed development at the end of Highland Drive. Any zoning change is unacceptable and should not be granted. Bishop Peak is a Natural Landmark and should be preserved for the future. Bishop Peak is a great area for all to enjoy. Closing the north side of Bishop Peak from Highland Drive to hikers, climbers, handicapped and disabled, allowing a few people to profit at the expense of others is not in the public interest. This is a pristine habitat and should not be encroached upon. Ptiat dame Address Phone 1. ��.c� �tr•v•� 7n'�S� C�h��r/J A-n��#B`- ��i5-5SY/ Y S' Name f City; L 0 L AT Printame Address Phone 2. TNI) Y K)COO /29a Pl,.'/lis Lu Sign Name City, State s. 4D. ✓F- y3�ivi Print Name - Address 1 Phone 3. r Sign Name City, State pprrmmf / 4. C. tE c� !-C-0-0 ,Add s Phone �`f?,[ ►.! t Si Name City State Print Name Address Phone SipName �/� City, State Q Print Name Address Phone Sign Name City, State Print Name Address Phone t City., State Phone 8. Pr Name S*W-Nam ,, ' ... City' State 4 r Print Name Address Phone 9. SAN 132 t CA UP L,F� L- sign sme �� Ctty �-o r C'4- PrYarne Address r //' Phone 10. lc' _�%�d Si city,,��tate J."a �•,9 y3y� =S"E BISHOPPEAK AREA We the undersigned are opposed to the proposed development at the end of Highland Drive. Any zoning change is unacceptable and should not be granted. Bishop Peak is a Natural Landmark and should be preserved for the future. Bishop Peak is a great area for all to enjoy. Closing the north side of Bishop Peak from Highland Drive to hikers, climbers, handicapped and disabled, allowing a few people to profit at the expense of others is not in the public interest. This is a pristine habitat and should not be encroached upon. Print Name Address - Phone Si l r Crt''�tat ' L n Print Name Address JQ/ Phone 2. 'Z(Z 55 ,,pz rc- '. a26 .s- �a�^ �s� .` !7{ V e �`�Z 03,F T Sign��lV� ' A---- City, State f'3� / 3. Print Name Address Phone �o�S S �i�3oo � -621 7 S.` Name C� ,lS te �# Print Name ! Address Phone 4. Si arae City, State V� AN AMTM Phone 5. �� . . Sign e i city, 7 Phone 6. '�1 CGS- S+ 56- 1 Sign Name City, State PrinI.VPLS e 7. elle nI!t Go�brii7/� Ad JS 3 y re,z, Sisps2kme Ci state �Gta-�l%LD Name - Address Phone 8. S' N Ci State Print Name Address / Phone Sign Name'—" City, State T rmt Name Address Phone lo. 1 1TOA �-�-r #Z� �- b Sign Name � City, State SAVE RISH ®P PEAK. AREA, We the undersigned are opposed to the proposed development at the end of Highland Drive. Any zoning change is unacceptable and should not be granted. Bishop Peak is a Natural Landmark and should be preserved for the future. Bishop Peak is a great area for all to enjoy. Closing the north side of Bishop Peak from Highland Drive to hikers, climbers, handicapped and disabled, allowing a few people to profit at the expense of others is not in the public interest. This is a pristine habitat and should not be encroached upon. 1. N DSP A14M �l' 7 ;01 ct r r<.,i�e�EAc� ✓r SlS—Cf�l�l gaNti V Cis,ALM t xame Address � �2. z-11— Lov 2 Y-Ys 7 C, Sign City, State >c-4 73 y,,S'- Print Name _ Address Phone 3. ► '4 a. f�c`tt,�N l4 M�sn..n, .lea Sign N(�$ �,J City, State Print NameAddressAddress Phone Sig ,,Name City, State r :gym : 5j b. CA .5 fU S S. �N1Alme v � ' w lyn A�� 1 Cr rn 0 Q 1/1 Phone _$ R Si ape City, State V Print Name 1 Address Phone 6. Sign N i " City„State /' �.../. Dink 7. lvame, u' Fi5 7 /GGLrr�'1�R �f (C C) p L 7 — Sign Cit st te 9&i5!5 •o r �3yo5 8. Pant ase i ys ?�'�1 .� S�Address Phone Sign NN City State G y 9 Print Name-rO� Ad%�s CS f7�r t d� Phone7-&7-� _J l I t�C) Sign Name City, State ..�- -QO (IA 41110 PrintxanmC� Address� �b`7s-�1 c7- C�4t°%g 10. rlda'21� city, 9:3 AL SAVE BISHOP PEAK AREA We the undersigned are opposed to the proposed development at the end of Highland Drive. Any zoning change is unacceptable and should not be granted. Bishop Peak is a Natural Landmark and should be preserved for the future. Bishop Peak is a great area for all to enjoy. Closing the north side of Bishop Peak from highland Drive to hikers, climbers, handicapped and disabled, allowing a few people to profit at the expense of others is not in the public interest. This is a pristine habitat and should not be encroached upon. Address Phone -%4Z 1. rtN 7 VqA l� � S his OB1G, �t Print Name Address 2. h 22(�- ^ hOe Fv�/� S Si NCf State /-0' l ISIS l _ Paint ame Address Phone r 3. c ! �.? � . LtZC /k � k !.� lt e�`� ;lei / % Cr. Sign ame' City, State t Print Name Address Phone 4. o-� d.i c ci-r C:CL l;'ice rrttgn Name City, State .. gz. 5i r, C iA . B;int Name _ Address Phone 5. 1��c'i`% p!!�i^lits", � al �� ;�� - �t7-10 7 oo Ci , state 6. P% l� . xM n tf Aaai r" ,� P77, St,3 N City. Ste Y41 Prknt�Name \ Address Phone 7. A&kM g U E/ Z=6= City, Sta Print Name Address Phone SiSS 8. jag6e- & loS 1$2'/ AW.0 Soo. Sign Name City, State 9. PrintNanl!hl Address V S Phone s , city, state C,4C j 4.0 Print N Address Phone 10. Sign Name City, State SAVE BISHOP PEAK ' AREA We the undersigned are opposed to the proposed development at the end of Highland Drive. Any zoning change is unacceptable and should not be granted. This Bishop Peak is a Natural Landmark and should be preserved for the future. Bishop Peak is a great area for all to enjoy. Closing the north side of Bishop Peak allowing a few people to profit at the expense of others is not in the public interest. Print Name Address _ '' /� Phone Sign ame i City, State t Nam Address Phone 2. ic( 71r44 16. Sign N '? City, State Phone 31 J — 3. is 21z�z� Ad�tess,!j/uf-s 2�G -3 35� Sid NameCity state, prtgtNaa� f �' Addresses Phone�56 4. .J i N'�f',( cw_c-1u Sig,Name r City .State �. i L�SOc�s nCt C" 5. Point Na pel A 5��/ C. �cel �� l Phot�e k -5; 7� Sign Name'; city, State ° o � t Name ; _ Address _ Phone Sign-Name City, State "P,iintName j; i i Address �` Phone - ign Name / ). is City, State; Print Name Address Phone 8. Sign Name City, State Print Name Address Phone 9. Sign Name City, State Print Name Address Phone 10. Sign Name City, State SAVE BISHOP PEAK AREA We the undersigned are opposed ro the proposed development at the end of Highland Drive. Any zoning change is tutaptable and should not be granted. This Bishop Peak is a Natural Landmark and should be preserved for the future. Bishop Peak is a great area for all to enjoy. Closing the north side of Bishop Peak allowing a few people to profit at the expense of others is not in the public interest. Address Sa N C4 State 2. r, lk'� Address tName r'-' i g53.5 611- 14 I=(r q 2- . SignName City, State { a, i,l? C-f1 Sign�(ame { City, State Print Name Address " Phone Si _ City;'�tate Print Name Address Phone 5. C'lti,.✓", - Ajfe-:i Sign Name l? City, State f, 00iiec LA Address1 Pho*e 6. 5iSfl i City, State r.� t �u=' 7. Print Ntl1- (' G 7` IL Ad Phone. ' q Sign Name City, Stye LJS 8. P��: cxu A i?A CI A '�A Print NmeAaare Sign Name Ci State '�/'I /� %fir• I�yY L. �l Print Name Address Phone _ Si ame City, State 7`tL; 5 i-_ C C s=t Print Name Address : Phone 10. )--AA//=' [=. . Lc/�/` S Name , City, Slate ` c; �; i SAVE BISHOP PEAK AREA We the undersigned are opposed to the proposed development at the end of Highland Drive. Any zoning change is unacceptable and should not be granted. This Bishop Peak is a Natural Landmark and should be preserved for the future. Bishop Peak is a great area for all to enjoy. Closing the north side of Bishop Peak allowing a few people to profit at the expense of others is not in the public interest. 1. t N�L /` / A 1 Joy_e �l cc�tyy� y� ame •-� �zste ��5 V 6tS 1–o ' J Prip;Name Address Phone 2. Slyffi�N Clty, State !�6" f Ly� Aa- � Lsc? &.-- Print NPhone ame Address / 3. ^ 'c-✓i `2-c -�eacy i•`(( SYS "fl Si Lazne Cit!, State Pript N Address Phone 4. S N q City,/ q Prin!�ame Address p Phone 5. �GJi/� /"YJ ✓:1 � � �L �L� cSLr �y 7'—�l 7GO Sign N� City, state c v t .<: /7,- Print /Print N Address Phone Sign'Name , City, tate ;� f --L -- Grp Print Name Address Phone 7. N`AtW4t;t, j P — 1'L;`I Q!�ir1 `L 5�3 -5105 Sign.NM City_State Pin � • 8. N � l %iczv� Address ' S er �. ,.4��_ Phone57 9S$ Sign N City, State %��:. S hill d 1 c i' Print Name Address Phone 9. Sign Named city te (j� 4 s/ •' Address 1 P nem10. +117Fe,"-�'. `: -I h I,),;) 1 L S� itg Sta e SAVE '6ISHOP PEAK -AREA We the undersigned are opposed to the proposed development at the end of Highland Drive. Any zoning change is unacceptable and should not be granted. This Bishop Peak is a Natural Landmark and should be preserved for the future. Bishop Peak is a great area for all to enjoy. Closing the north side of Bishop Peak allowing a few people to profit at the expense of others is not in the public interest. t Name Address '' rr Phone 1. �rLY> N-t c u e rr< :�( i Name J CO, State n Print N Address Phone 2. 5 '�C rr2Y I-IaO 05v5 S+ (o Sign e A city, state S 1. ltl' k 3 P Name Address }hu> n U b 9 Sp sine Ci!Y, State rYl i c_ a C �J C 27jVaS_ PNam Name Address / Phone 4. 7,P Ld Z.4 /t/ dylori a :#-A �S ti Ll- Iql Z/o Sigq$Tame Vty, state e - Pt �''n�t Address / Phone 5. tlecinevc -Z SipjbTjjfne C` ,L 6. -CAPrjnteoua KIA �c AQPZ� N �,eo4 Phone Sip Name _ CitV_ state (,�19 Co.-lg3�Qr Print Name Address Phone 7. RFK l_.r►.._t�_-o2 UbmA Sign N �j City, State JC I. S°w Add 8. Print ,sine ACA a ` �F �rPhone Less f:fro71z-Z2,12 8 / Sgn pine / city/, state �/ 11 _� �/�✓I a(e itY f �`J / V Print Name / Address � Phot.01 - F J Sign-,Name a '° CityState - :NZ L Priv Name _ Address Phone 10. d/y' ix%g oyt �za_r�' r '•��/�.- Sip'Name (; City, State SAVE b1SHOP PEAKAREA We the undersigned areopposed to the proposed development at the end of Highland Drive. Any zoning change is unacceptable and should not be granted. This Bishop Peak is a Natural Landmark and should be preserved for the future. Bishop Peak is a great area for all to enjoy. Closing the north side of Bishop Peak allowing a few people to profit at the expense of others is not in the public interest. Print Name Address Phone Sign City, State. t Name Addrest Phone Sign Name City, State /*.� v 3. Print Name Address c-44-c� 13401Sign Ph_ S lv Name Ci , State t-uls �1SFb G¢ `t3fo� Print Name Address Phone 4. -)a�%A )..tb l Sign N City, State C.4- 93ti`4f Print arae Address Phone 5. Tim OpVgA J 21(4-1 V tin 4;T• Sign N City, State _ ota►n , cA els Print Name Address Phone 6. 14dat-u Oh�42 0 o" Bax tog `f 99s-/ZS"E Si citytate S Lk 231,30 Print NaxneJAddress Phone 7. GarL «� 1.► GS P" 8047 Sign Nofie City, State SQ^ L,i,, OW& CI-q-w( t Tame Addre�! D L/U� I �J �-�'3 Phg`i - 3gI 8. as y� gn City, State 5-LO C,- &1 0 Print Name Address Phone Sip Name ; i City, State Print Name Address Phone 10. �4zf� ori ��!;_�,r_ Q,�j . c� �.}� ;ti; i 4��- C[Lf-1-71 Sign Name City, State SAVE- JISHOP PEAK AREA We the undersigned areopposed to the proposed development at the end of Highland Drive. Any zoning change is unacceptable and should not be granted. This Bishop Peak is a Natural Landmark and should be preserved for the future. Bishop Peak is a great area for all to enjoy. Closing the north side of Bishop Peak allowing a few people to profit at the expense of others is not in the public interest. Print Name Address Phone 1 A0 r=LP �b I-bX 2� &5ZT7 )ell City, State -PA4n frdw.t Q4. "447 PLint Name Address Phone 2. Qtd&,, (M)5-7--t-sqpit SimirJame City, State 7.6. fin,_ ;_ "T Ofar , CA - 4.sk2- Print 3. �ia✓e�G T//rI r%" Address s g atne , ;- Ci r°- n , , Name �-, �. Address Phone 4. Sigyn Cly, State f.% 1. �' G{'{ �•"'741.\/ 4 liy !,• i % � � � Print Name �y Address Phone 5. T.�y /`j. KOf3.n/5o.i 2S// Afy,/7C2/ Syyy�7L>3 Si ame City, State Print Name Address Phone Q 6. M AR-4 r)11 ) 3Fy-;,J fes() W • (amu PFW )w - 7 j,� t ame _ City, State / �� 1 [C/ Print -Name' Address Phone 7. Sigh Name City, state c, e_ Print Name Address Ph it 57 Sign Name City, State Print Phone 9. ^S k�e7(��LS g�HCS:`. / AddiCSs S,.6, ,:7 r7 §4wName Cl , St8te Print.Name Address _ (�, Phone 10. ci Sign Name City, $tate y r SAVE ASHOP PEAK AREA We the undersigned are opposed to the proposed development at the end of Highland Drive. Any zoning change is unacceptable and should not be granted. This Bishop Peak is a Natural Landmark and should be preserved for the future. Bishop Peak is a great area for all to enjoy. Closing the north side of Bishop Peak allowing a few people to profit at the expense of others is not in the public interest. Print Nam 1. pDV(r PEEL. A 116 : & S7*-eel ddPhone � ane City, State Pk1 1-,L- 3yd osos, CSF 9z 2. KN I �C� 1, �-�3r0 Addressatne ?s pity,See 012-e—C,,r7— 6-14 . Print Name Address �! Phone 3. -JAMES Si Name — City, State Print Name Address Phone 4. Sip Name City, state y ✓ f3 L Print Name Address Phone Sign Name _ City, State I Lf- Print Name Address Phone t- ' —•� 6. iaLa �4iicc.n`J ��C-.ji �,h c %%� iy� - Sign Name ,/% City, State Print Namy — Address Phone '�i' S'gn Name (r'�ty, State 8. �{�lif)T Address 3 n Phone "T City, State Print Name Address Phone SiName city, state , ti !, l� �/- % �/'�^1.1.1 / /• Y,fJ i" /•/� /��. 1 Fq Print Name Address Phone lU. k rN/�C,� 5�,0 )?'•;'"� Sign ape i City, State SAVE ' JISHOP PEAK' AREA We the undersigned are opposed to the proposed development at the end of Highland Drive. Any zoning change is unacceptable and should not be granted. This Bishop Peak is a Natural Landmark and should be preserved for the future. Bishop Peak is a great area for all to enjoy. Closing the north side of Bishop Peak allowing a few people to profit at the expense of others is not in the public interest. Print Name „ Address /� Phone 1. �E\z t) U �,11<-1 ell SVi t'" PC" M-' -A3 �Sign Ci , State 1 -- �-� C)?&-cPV, ca .iisfoi Print Nam Address Phone 2. fon S,U46 � S' N:11 Ct'ty, state Print Name Address Phone 3. l/lA'r ,S7e,l�,n r-O. Sign Name City, State � .rsi Print Name Address Phone 4. -(_:-cA-eL)^ uL ( f�dow+ f / l �— �'eN� l 5�/3 5336 Sigp Name City, State Print Name Address Phone 5. Rona LAurKv/ 936 w r"4: 43r-soyy Si gn city, state Se-o cf+ 234• l Pin Name Address /� Phone 6 2 e yrs ?d�- titin V_Td/m A, '773 - z f�-I Sign ame City,�S{afe qq,:' Priot Name Address Sign ae , Ci*State zra " Print Name Address Phone Sign Name City, State f / ,D Print Phone// 9. a -✓ , A Sip'NOM City, state ell 9 10. Phone City, state SAVE " dISHOP PEAK AREA We the undersigned are opposed to the proposed development at the end of Highland Drive. Any zoning change is unacceptable and should not be granted. This Bishop Peak is a Natural Landmark and should be preserved for the future. Bishop Peak is a great area for all to enjoy. Closing the north side of Bishop Peak allowing a few people to profit at the expense of others is not in the public interest. Print Name_ Address Phone J ?A-rT"(_s A D2_ S443-yec93 Sign City, State Address Phone 2. t Name/ en P ' t Name Address Phone 0 3. Nl l�U 1Tc�u ►-aE'� "733 S Sign N City, State L 4. ��) ALJ O�tQ 1 A ) K)Pr/'J"�'I � �S Print Nam Address Phone Sign Name City State Pent Name Address Phone 5. Si - city, State C t Name Address Phone 6. I wt Si Ci tate C,4- f�3 � Print Name c Address Phone 7. ✓2- 3cz �� Y� 4s-I.434.8 Sip Nam city, s —W • �tVC,, t o tate o C c�tc�c Pn�t a Address Phone 8. I 9s t-dsos-as V,&, Sign Name City, State Wlt.UA. �- C2ovt Lc)S OSOS Print Name Address Phone 9. JJ NAa�1m O 1) F ' 6 G -� ' t;�o Si 3Dknt- Vim CityAuite 1�CScoop � , Print Nam Address Phone 10. Sr ;dame City, State ��.. S?74a e/), SAVE 6ISHOP PEAT ' AREA We the undersigned are opposed to the proposed development at the end of Highland Drive. Any zoning change is unacceptable and should not be granted. This Bishop Peak is a Natural Landmark and shci.d be preserved for the.future. Bishop Peak is a great area for all to enjoy. Closing the north side of Bishop Peak allowing a few people to profit at the expense of others is not in the public interest. Print Name ,`//�� Address n Phone 1. RFRu lc- l4 ,R) 2 Oud /S i S �� > OA K t�aALU• - .`ic b7 ,,Sign Nam4City, State Print Name Address Phone 2. �� ; . Si Ci , State Print ame Address Phone 3. ..3 c elb I'CO'N y I SQL'.- 'JcxUc1 4S-1�i(., i 3 Sign N City, State - SAO CA Print Name !I ll Address Phone 4. Gam+ o` `Xrir �.i I� "7�r.•. �1 � ,lT' G �C/ yi�1J Sign Name _ City, state Nam Phone 5.5. �C Adel 1 ,J Si .. /�,,,, ,/ city, State 1 411, yr e_ Print Name Address Phone 6. T—ko 30s' Am, dZd- 49-12&s Sip Na= City, State( Pngt Name Address Phone Sign NAMe City, State 4111S Ptry Cts �13NZ3 Print Name Address Phone 8. Sik�aa Name city, state S-L. o L v¢ Pring Name Address Phone 9. i2-i4 pe_5ij C#c Si ameA city, state i<V P�" c am Address G -1 f "�7 f/> �J �. Phone 10. N_ , City, Stare �✓ ,) C,/ c' � SAVE OISHOP PEAK AREA We the undersigned are opposed to the proposed development at the end of Highland Drive. Any zoning change is unacceptable and should not be granted. This Bishop Peak is a Natural Landmark and should be preserved for the future. Bishop Peak is a great area for all to enjoy. Closing the north side of Bishop Peak allowing a few people to profit at the expense of others is not in the public interest. ftt Name - f 11. � � p ,,. � C '- r SI NCi Stat7' \ / Address F— Phone 2. F sign city, State 4 Name J' Address Phone 3. ,t ,1h,' T?"� !�'=�1�41 7��)� �1 "r. j� -q 91 Sign Name City, State PJ*NM Address ` �3�33 Phone 4. 7 1/ S ' ' Ste /PtlNatr�e Address Phone 5. l_ 1��1_ iF 6 _ !R,'- c-• -piny Si 8mm /� City, State Pript Name i Address Phone !! } fI { , 6. City, State _ ,,1i Name Address Phone 7. S' N City, State St_0 8. IYI/S h sr Ad?q 9� Phone Sii= City,State C pr F nt Name Address Phone Si Name '� City, State V LL Pri Name. Address Phone 10. r- Sigp Name_ - City, State PROTECT BISHOP PEAK AREA We the undersigned are opposed to the proposed development at the end of Highland Drive. Any zoning change allowing three homes is unacceptable and should not be granted. Bishop Peak is a Natural Landmark and should be preserved for the future. Bishop Peak is a great area for all to enjoy.. Highland Drive access is very important to hikers, climbers, handicapped and disabled. This is a pristine habitat and should not be encroached upon. �. Prin �if Address �sy„J SignIL� City, state 4 L7 PriqtNp= Address �� } a Ph54 Cl 1 S 2. SS S l wt mn U sign � � City. state CA q ' c Print Name Address Phone 3. C?tr C. nl£r 5A*7, 3ST�c S ame City, State Print N Address Phone a. 40 It say- `C, Sign N /y J City, State `'1 4_4-- Wnt Name Address Phone ^ 1 Sigh-tame City, State. p�Name Address PhOIIe 6. G' 11 i -95 17•—1 7 Si City, State i Print Name / Address — Phone 7. 01 Sign NaLae � rty tate a e AddressPhone 8. 1162 T+1 S't� s -u►��t S Ci , State L� Pant Name Address Phone 9. PI'L c 42 gag S' Name rl City,State S74 i'1Q n P�pt dame Address Phone 10. V Vat-le. �;/ Vd al-d i:�y 3 5r`' St. D 261 Si Mame City, State Y L'os dS dr A. 5 3 4 i PROTECT BISHOP PEAK AREA We the undersigned are opposed to the proposed development at the end of Highland Drive. Any zoning change allowing three homes is unacceptable and should not be granted. Bishop Peak is a Natural Landmark and should be preserved for the future. Bishop Peak is a great area-for all to enjoy. Highland Drive access is very important to hikers, climbers, handicapped and disabled. This is a pristine habitat and should not be encroached upon. Print Name Address / Phone 1. d v e �,.)ocy/ 1� 7 0 / ,P ,»a CA/ SYto-QN Sign N - City, State ��ti Print Name AdderPhone2. 347e t'01'.*1ey 2n, Sign Nade City, Sta i 7 , �t��s��,... fig_-.�_ _, �//G .ic• / �6 �- C _ .. Print lFam Address Phone 3. 1 n IC.s2' 17esCa��o .S1 . 5'Ly-36o5— Sign City, State CA Prin Name Adds y Phone r 4. Sign ame /l/V` City S r,b' 11 Print ame Address Phone 5. IeaH fRIR-CUIvt. S /yL]D _ G�oc9 /.►J e City, State _✓ �F is oT Pte, Address Phone Sign City, State tr Crw� C�(d s a p , CA Print Name Address Phone 7. C r Sign Name City, State Print Nape Address Phone 8. 1 Sign-Nate ( ' City, State Print Name Address Phone q 9. Sign Name City, State Print Name Address Phone 10. Sign Name City, State SAVE BISHOP PEAK AREA We the undersigned are opposed to the proposed development at the end of Highland Drive. Any zoning change is unacceptable and should not be granted. This Bishop Peak is a Natural Landmark and should be preserved for the future. Bishop Peak is a great area for all to enjoy. Closing the north side of Bishop Peak allowing a few people to profit at the expense of others is not in the public interest. pN Address l I \ Phone mt City State T Paine Address _ Phone 2. ni-1-t KAut- yI A" rS Sign dame`fCity, State /3yY Phone 3. � oryme K, (�1a lt�vs A Sign&= A/ blagcity, to � N Address 4. �i 21C _ r4L7�2S Cff�A 15T/NA 04 C( Phone 3-70 Si WE%fX-�1�1' cl • S /.c�.s O�iS{�5,� 2�� Print Name Address Phone 5. Sign Name City, State Print Name Address Phone 6. Sign Name City, State Print Name Address Phone 7. Sign Name City, State Print Name Address Phone 8. Sign Name City, State Print Name Address Phone 9. Sign Name City, State 10. Print Name Address Phone Sign Name city, State PROTECT BISHOP PEAK AREA We the undersigned are opposed to the proposed development at the end of Highland Drive. Any zoning change allowing three homes is unacceptable and should not be granted. Bishop Peak is a Natural Landmark and should be preserved for the future. Bishop Peak is a great area for all to enjoy. Highland Drive access is very important to hikers, climbers, handicapped and disabled. This is a pristine habitat and should not be encroached upon. Print Name Address Phone 1. Ih�1Tkc.w Ari�o i�Z_`i mal 4-Y Sil'-I l$7 Sign Name Qty, state 5..V L Aft .% 06 i.!p u. Q.e► Print Name Address Phone 2. T4wW1 140AWE n i 11'x( CPO C„A4, r- Srgn NazeCi , State Print Name Address q („ Q Phone 3. i' d� � !D `wL SipCi , State AZA2 Print Address 5 73 t U AH 0 VC't Phone a. ()RA c filo OS C C, ---- Sign Name, City, State Print ame Address Phone s. sign ame city, rate R 6. Psint Name l�> 1 5� Atel - Kira �r�a. Phone o 3z� ' Z vn 'ia aState LU15 06 lr pr o ATM Address . pl— Sign City, State C/Print g, 54 Name Address 1 L /,51Phone City, State « r � Print N e Address Phone 9. L►SSA S,; 3 is- A Al I�Mlwc> --- -0/G SignDame ' City, State S C4 �05 10. Print Name ' fi�V A � S e / City tae PROTECT BISHOP PEAK AREA We the undersigned are opposed to the proposed development at the end of F ighland Drive. Any zoning change allowing three homes is unacceptable and should not be granted. Bishop Peak is a Natural Landmark and should be preserved for the future. Bishop Peak is a great area for all to enjoy. highland Drive access is very important to hikers, climbers, handicapped and disabled. This is a pristine habitat and should not be encroached upon. 1. Priatxamc' �3D et, t1e� iMprro�� Phone � Si Naihe City, State h PtiaLName *% Ad rens Phone 2. inn l�E 16 HT s SC� i-Wu e7-A t)2. S u (-C)(P Si N i City, State �t340 Print Name Address Phone 3. Sign Name City,State Print Name Address Phone 4. Sign Name City, State Print Name Address Phone 5. Sign Name City, State Print Name Address Phone 6. Sign Name City, State Print Name Address Phone 7. Sign Name City, State Print Name Address Phone 8. Sign Name City, State Print Name Address Phone 9. Sign.Name City, State Print Name Address Phone 10. Sign Name City, State - of CQI'IES TO: League of - Sall i a.o �FFIC"M 4210• SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA 93403 Women Voters Obis ?T'c D DIP. CAO. ❑ FIV.DIR. !AiZ. O F ECIiIEF 1� A roz��v CJ RVDiR. MEETING 9 ArCP'dl�l� � E K/C!^?t . _i FOLICECII ..LC.DI? DATE 0' ITEM # _ April 20, 1993 t �RG-ADFILE J L7TL' IR. TO: City Council of San Luis Obispo RE: "Rosemont" project on east slope of Bishop Peak The League of Women Voters of San Luis Obispo has previously stated, to the Planning Commission, our opposition to this request to amend the General Plan and approve a rezoning. Tonight we ask you specifically not to approve the request or a prelimi- nary development plan for this property. We do so for the following reasons: 1. The staff report clearly states that Council approval is a matter of judgement and you are not obligated to approve the request. 2. The subject property is above the adopted Urban Reserve Line and City policy, as stated in the adopted General Plan and its Update draft, is to preclude development above this line because of such things as slope instability, fire hazard, lack of services, etc. The conditions that governed the placement of the Urban Reserve Line--slope, fire, scenic and environmental sensitivity, etc.--all characterize this site. 3. The area is above the City's water service line, as established in the Land Use Element--472 feet for this location. We feel strongly that the City must consistently enforce the designated service line throughout the City. Piecemeal enforcement simply encourages piecemeal assault on the policy until eventually the City will have no policy. It is our understanding that the water line is based on reasonable planning and utility service standards, and we ask you not to incrementally discard these standards. 4. If the Council chooses to set aside the water service limit, we feel a focused EIR is needed to investigate and explore the environmental impacts of such a decision—as required by CEQA. 5. Should the Council approve this project's request, the density bonus appears to be totally inappropriate. This is a fragile and scenically sensitive site above the urban reserve and water service lines, and development should be minimized, not maximized. The intent of the density bonus is to encourage social or design innovations. No such innovations exist in this proposal since the water tank would correct an existing flow problem that will be exaserbated by the proposed dwellings. Certainly current deficiencies should be remedied and poor service not allowed, but labeling such mitigations as "innovations", and granting rewards, reduces the bonus provision to little more than a way to "max" out the site. - 2 - There are other details of this proposal which can be criticized on the basis of established City policy points, but the basic issue here is whether or not this Council intends to render a decision which underscores and follows policy which has been established with much public input to and intense deliberation by previous Councils. The Urban Reserve Line and preferred hillside standards were clearly outlined. To negate these philosophies flies in the face of representative and responsive government. City voters once rejected annexation and development in this same area. Please don't insult them further by approving this request. Sincerely, Beverly HundPresident League of Women Voters of San Luis Obispo