The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07/25/1995, COMM - COMMENTS Sam Vigil 1890 Castillo Court San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 July 25, 1995 Mr. Bill Roalman MCEIVED Councilman QUL,2 S IM City of San Luis Obispo CITY.COUNCIL Dear Councilman Roalman, '4°^" nc'ccn nO I request that you make an inquiry as to the appropriateness of a City employee acting(or appearing to act) as a proponent of a development project. In his memorandum of July 27, 1994 to the San Luis Obispo County Planning Department, Dan Gilmore, City Utilities engineer, commented on the risks inherent with the Emerald Hills water supply and wastewater supply. He further commented on the technical feasibility of water and sewer connections to the City of San Luis Obispo. As this memorandum was written in at the request of the County, it is an appropriate response. The memorandum is an attachment to the Final EIR. In his letter of April 13, 1995, to Gerry Peterson of Emerald Partners, Mr. Gilmore expanded his discussion of the technical feasibility of annexation with respect to pipe sizing , implying that all that would be required is running larger pipes (contradicting his prior statement in the memorandum of July 27, 1994 that "...the City does not currently have adequate supplies to serve this project...). Furthermore the tone of the letter leaves the impression that annexation is being considered by the City. This letter was submitted to the Planning Commission as Exhibit A to a statement from William S. Walter. attorney for the Emerald Hills Partnership, of April 26, 1995. Mr. Gilmore also appeared in person at the San Luis Obispo County Planning Commission Hearing of April 27, 1995, apparently at the behest and service of the developer, since Planning Commissioner Ken Schwartz made it clear that Mr. Gilmore had not been invited to testify by the Commission. Is this an appropriate action for a City employee? As the Certification of the Final EIR is being considered by the County Board of Supervisors on August 8, 1995, I request that this matter be reviewed as soon as possible, and if appropriate that this letter be retracted or amended to be consistent with the City position in the Final EIR and that the letter not imply that the City is actively considering annexation. Sincerely, .4nc _ Sam Vigil MEMORANDt tM ^,�E July 27, 1994 TO: Pam Ricci, Project Planner FROM: Dan Gilmore, Utilities Engin ' SUBJECT: Emerald Hills Estates The following comments are in regard to the Emerald Hills Estates Draft Environmental Impact 9c-1 Report Though there are some significant concerns raised in the EIR, my comments must be limited to possible and foreseeable impacts to the City, with respect to Utilities. The project proposes to use several wells as the supply for potable water. These wells will not significantly impact the City's own groundwater program. Water supplies for this project are Ivery minimal, however: There seems to be very little 'safety margin". There is a possibility 9c-2 that if any component'of the water supply plan fails, the development would need to seek additional supplies through the City. Though the City does not currently have adequate supplies I to serve this project, it would be prudent to provide for possible future connection to the City water distribution system for emergency use and/or annexation. A similar risk exists for the wastewater system. If the wastewater system were to fail, City residents immediately adjacent to the development would be affected. In the design'phase, some 9c-3 thought should be given to possible future annexation to the City, and how the systems would connect to City facilities. All facilities should be bunt to City Standards. Costs for necessary improvements to connect to the City systems will be paid by the property owners at the time of annexation. Designs should befsubmitted to the City for review and comment, once they are available. If you have any questions or comments, please call me at X208. y cc: John Moss, Mikd Bertacciru' Wdr. way,t mw X-18 74mgal City Of san Luis ®BJs ' samad955 Morro Street • San Luis Obispo. CA 93d01 April 13, 1995 Gerry Peterson Emerald Hills Partners 1308 Broad Street, Suite 21 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3966 Subject: Utility Service to Emerald Hills Dear Mr. Peterson, At the request of Mr. Bob Hather, I am writing this letter to address the *,ss-;,! %;f ;;s it and sewer capacity as it would pertain to the annexation and service of the Emen-1%; ..>:.� Project. While there are other areas of concern to the City Utilities Department, appears to be sufficient capacity in the water distribution and wastewater collection systems to adequately serve the Emerald Hills Project if it were to be annexed. The only modification to the existing system that would be required. would be the reconstruction of the last reach of sewer line in Diablo Drive. This line must be upsized from 6" to 8" to conform to City standards. The length of this line is approximately 230 feet. The other areas of concern involve issues such as water supply. water pressure. ele it: water storase, impact fees, lift station need and location, etc. These issues will a!a.: ll to be addressed prior.to annexation. if you have any questions, pease feel Fre : � :• me at 781-7208. Sincerely. W. Dan Gilmore, PE Utilities Engineer cc: John A-loss. Jerry Kenny a�: 6ather.11r • The r t �. .IS to.•:._S ... _ .. .t: . oTete omof San UJIS mumt9trons O nefor the oeof`tto ioSln�l°7 loe C.sa-tM • • a• ' - •• _ A•-r-r4CH/4&_tiT /+ 1.0 wi //i 01 art S. Gu4 /-1,e.�_....1.n. WALTER & BORNHOLDT KENNETH C.BORNHOLOT A Partnership Including a Pcfessional Corporation Telefax WiL_.A.M S. WALTER' 679 MONTEREY STREET (805) 541.6640 SAN LUIS OBISPO.CALIFORNIA 93401 Telephone (805) 541.6601 -A ?refessionel Corporation April 26, 1995 Emerald Hills Planning Commission County of San Luis Obispo County Government Center 1050 Monterey Street San Luis Obispo. California 93408 Re: Tentative Tract Map 1875 and Development Plan D890320D (Emerald Hills Partners) Dear Commissioners: This office represents Emerald Hills Partners. the owners of the property for which a Tentative Tract Map and Development Plan for 37 residential units have been proposed. For over four years, the Tentative Tract and Development Plan have been "in process" with the County. during which time our clients have expended hundreds of thousands of dollars in cooperative efforts working with the County in preparing a wide variety of specialized studies addressing every reasonable concern regarding this Project. Indeed. from a public agency standpoint. one could hardly ask for a more cooperative group of owners who have been both patient and diligent during this very long and expensive process. At the Planning Commission hearing on March 23. 1995. the Commission took two distinct actions: (1) The Commission unanimously certified the Filial Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Project. and expressly adopted the findings in Exhibit B attached to the March 23. 1995 Staff Report. l The length of this process expressly violated the requirement in State CEQA Guideline Section 15103 that the completion and certification of a FEIR must occur within one year after the date that the lead agency accepted the application as complete. There has been no unreasonable delay caused by the applicant at all which would allow for suspending those time limits pursuant to Slate CEQA Guideline Section 15109. Planning Commission County of San Luis Obispo April 26. 1995 Page 2 (2) The Commission took tentative action to direct staff to return with a reduced density. 25 unit project. While the Commission has already taken final action adopting specific findings in certifying the FEIR. the Emerald Hills Partners respectfully ask the Commission to reconsider its tentative decision on March 23, 1995, because of both errors of fact and errors of law which. when fairlv considered, should lead the Commission to reconsider its tentative decision. The integrity of the County's Planning system itself would be reinforced through the recognition of these errors and their timely correction without further lengthening the planning process and needlessly increasing the costs and delays to an applicant who has performed in an exemplary and cooperative manner throughout the process. The errors of fact and law. which are explained in greater detail. below can be summarized as follows: 1. There is no substantial evidence to support a density reduction to 25 residential units. ?. The proposed reduced density 25 unit Project violates CEQA Section 21035 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15092(c). 3. The proposed reduction to 25 residential units renders the Project 'infeasible" in violation of CEQA Section 21061.1 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(d). 4. The proposed findings for a 25 unit project are contradicted by and inconsistent with the Commission's March 23, 1995 action certif,,-ing the FEIR and adopting the CEQA findings in Exhibit B to that Staff Report. a. The record is clear that the Planning Commission certified the FEIR on %larch 23. 1995. and expressly adopted the CEQA finding in Exhibit B to that Staff Report. b. The CEQA finding adopted by the Commission demonstrate that there is no legally adequate basis or substantial evidence upon which to reduce below 32 the number of residential units.. 5. Certain conditions should be deleted since they are unrelated to this Project. Planning Commission County of San Luis Obispo April 26, 1995 Paste 3 1. THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT A DENSITY REDUCTION TO 25 RESIDENTIAL UNITS Two very significant facts were not considered (either at all, or not sufficiently) to the Commission at the March 23, 1995 hearing, which require reconsideration of the tentative decision to reduce to 25 the number of residential units in the Project: a. Concern was expressed that in the remote and speculative event of a severe water shortage (which was already taken into account by the hydrogeologists which have studied this Project extensively), there was inadequate capacity in adjacent City of San Luis Obispo facilities to serve this Project under emergency conditions. or in the event of possible subsequent annexation to the City. Correspondence dated April 13. 1995, from W. Dan Gilmore. Utilities Engineer for the City (Exhibit A hereto), states that "there appears to be sufficient capacity in the water distribution and wastewater collection systems to adequately serve the Emerald Hills Project if it were to be annexed." The letter further notes that the only modification would be reconstruction of the last reach of sewer line in Diablo Drive. to upsize it from sic inches to eight inches to conform to City standards for approximately 230 feet. b. Much of the concern involved adequate water supplies for the proposed Project. based upon representations frorrl Bear Valley residents that they had insufficient water, and that this Project would adversely affect their water supplies. Reliable information now indicates that Bear Valley Estates has drilled an additional well with a tested production of 100 gallons per minute (Exhibit B hereto), and some have indicated could be up to 600 gallons per minute, and capable of 600 gallons per minute if tested with a larger capacity pump. Both the shortage of water for Bear Valley Estates and the potential impacts of this Project were greatly exaggerated. It would be unreasonable to penalize the Emerald Hills Partners for water scarcity conditions which do not exist. and purported impacts on Bear Valley residents which are unsubstantiated. The extensive studies supplied in the course of Project evaluation has led the hvdrogeologists to conclude that there is sufficient water resources to serve the full Project as originally proposed. In light of that substantial evidence. any potential adverse impacts which would justifv the Project reduction to 25 units is based upon speculation. and not evidence. The water studies for the Project went far beyond the scope of previous studies for any other project including a 14 year pumping history. The State CEQA Guidelines (Section 15145) specifically directs that speculation concerning project impacts should be avoided in the CEQA process. Similarly. the speculation based upon incomplete information and contrary to extensive expert studies is not a legally adequate basis upon which to "gut" this carefully planned and highly commendable Project. Planning Commission County of San Luis Obispo April 26, 1995 Pave 4 2. THE PROPOSED REDUCED DENSITY 25 UNIT PROJECT VIOLATES CEQA SECTION 21085 A.`-D STATE CEQA GLTDELLNES SECTION 15092(c) CEQA (Public Resources Code) Section 21085 expressly prohibits the proposed reduction in the number of housing units to 25 units: "With respect to a project which includes housing development. a public agency shall not, pursuant to this division. reduce the proposed nurnber of housing units as a mitigation measure or project alternative for a particular significant effect on the environment if it determines that there is another feasible specific mitigation measure or project alternative that would provide a comparable level of mitigation. This section shall not affect any other requirement regarding the residential density of that project." The same limitation is contained in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093. which addresses the approval of a project after considering the FEIR in conjunction with mandated CEQA findings (Section 15091). The discussion accompanying that section is pertinent here: "Even though this limitation is contained in the statute. it is included here in order to make this section complete and to identify the limitation at the relevant step of the process. If agencies are not made aware of this provision through the guidelines. manv agencies will be likely to overlook the limitation. The result could be increased litigation over permits and a reducticn in the number of housing units that may be constructed in the state." rSra(e CEQA Guideline § L50921. "Discussion": emphasis added.) Other feasible mitigation measures. which do not render the project economically infeasible include: (1) Phasing of the construction of residential units. with an initial phase of 32 units. and a second phase consisting of the 5 shaded lots depicted on Exhibit C until: (a) screening ve zetation has been planted and developed. and;or (b) the water treatment plant is operational and has a proven performance history. and/or Planning Commission County of San Luis Obispo April 26. 1995 Page 5 (c) monitoring of water supply. actual water consumption. and a determination by the County Engineer that sufficient water is available to serve the additoinal 5 units. (2) Approving the 37 units (second 37 lot alternative, quasi-clustered design) evaluated in the FEIR within the footprint designated for the proposed 32 unit Project, therebv avoiding near-term visual impact and further minimizing water consumption to provide a further water supply buffer and mitigation. There are no findings or substantial evidence which support reduction in the number of housing units. The Commission should consider these possible alternatives which would provide a comparable level of mitigation, rather than unnecessarily adopt a reduction in the number of housing units. thereby expressly violating CEQA Section 21085. 3. THE PROPOSED REDUCTION TO 25 RESIDENTIAL UNITS RENDERS THE PROJECT "INFEASIBLE" L` VIOLATION OF CEQA SECTION 21061.1 ASND STATE CEQA GUIDELr�;ES SECTION 15126(d) The proposed 25 unit Project is, quite simply, economically infeasible=` and is tantamount to the "no project" alternative. In proposing the reduction to 25 units in combination with an expensive package treatment plant, the Commission has gone beyond the alternatives discussed in the EIR. The authors of the Environmental Impact Report never concluded that the 25 unit alternative was in fact feasible. Instead. they merely noted that a 25 unit project without a package treatment plant "appears feasible." (Final Environmental Impact Report, Emerald Hills Estates. p. 176: emphasis added.) The owners maintain that a 25 unit project is not economically viable, even without a package treatment plant. exascerbated further by the high four vear holding and process costs. Both the proposed findings and evidence are insufficient to support a proposed reduction in density which render the entire Project economically infeasible. with this veru long planning process leading to an unnecessary "dead-end." It is clear that EIRs are required to discuss only alt feasible ernatives. which are alternatives that could feasible obtain the Project's objectives. 14 Cal. Code Rees. > 151261d). The term "feasible" is defined in Public Resources Code Section 21061.1 as. "capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time. taking into account economic, environmental. social. and technological factors." The proposed Planning Commission alternative is. after careful review. economically infeasible. Plannins Commission County of San Luis Obispo April 26. 1995 Pase 6 4. THE PROPOSED FINDINGS FOR A 25 LNNIT PROJECT ARE CONTR-',DICTED BY AND Pi iCONSISTENT WITH THE COi VVIISSION'S ;MARCH 23, 1995 ACTION CERTIFYING THE FEIR AND ADOPTING THE CEQA FL-DINGS P; EXHIBIT B TO THAT STAFF REPORT The April 27, 1995 Staff Report represents an unusual distortion of the planning process in failing to recognize that the Planning Commission has already certified the Final Environmental Impact Report and adopted specific findings in Exhibit B attached to the March 23, 1995 Staff Report. Indeed. when one compares the various sets of Staff Reports, one is left with the inescapable conclusion that there is insufficient and inadequate evidence to support the most recent findings, which appear to be nothing more than a post hoc attempt to rationalize the Plarinino Commission's tentative decision which is really unsupported by substantial evidence and adequate legal grounds. a. THE RECORD IS CLEAR THAT THE PLAN LVG COMINIISSION CERTIFIED THE FINAL EIR ON MARCH 23, 1995, AND EXPRESSLY ADOPTED THE CEQA FENDING IN EXHIBIT B TO THAT STAFF REPORT The tape of the meeting of March 23, 1995. very clearly indicates that the Plannins Commission acted to formally certify the FEIR for this Project, and adopted the specific findings attached as Exhibit B to that Staff Report. The following transcription of the tape of the meeting indicates as follows: Chairperson: Okay. may we have another motion please? Com. Bianchi: Let me make this first motion and set it out of the way. 11110ve that we certifv the final EIR based on the findin_s in Exhibit B. Chairperson: Oh. okay. Do we have a second to certify the EIR? Conn. Schwartz: I'll second the motion. Chairperson: I have a motion and a second. h•lay )ve have a roll call please. Clerk: Commissioner Bianchi? Com. Bianchi: Yes. Clerk: Commissioner Schwartz? Planning Commission County of San Luis Obispo April 26. 1995 Page 7 Com. Schwartz: Yes. Clerk: Commissioner Gallacher? Com. Gallagher: Yes. Clerk: Commissioner Keefer? Com. Keefer: Yes. Clerk: Chairman Ostrov? Com. Ostrov: Yes. It is clear. therefore. that the Commission both certified the EIR and adopted the findings in Exhibit B attached to the March 23. 1995 Staff Report. We are aware of no procedure under CEOA the State CEOA Guidelines. or the Countv CEOA Guidelines that allows the Commission to either rescind its clear action on March 23 1995 to reconsider the ftndin2s that were made at that time. or to now ignore the previous certification of the FEIR. b. THE CEQA FINDING ADOPTED BY THE COINUMISSION DEMONSTRATE THAT THERE IS NO LEGALLY ADEQUATE BASIS OR SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE UPON WHICH TO REDUCE BELOW 32 THE NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS With retard to water supply impacts. the Commission has made the follw,\im* findings based upon the following substantial evidence: 11 3. Finding - Certain changes or alterations have been required in. or incorporated into. the project �vhich avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR. ".l. Supportive Evidence - The project will increase water consumption on the site and could affect the water supply in the area. This project impact and contribution to cumulative impact on water will be significant using a reasonabiv conservative water demand factor of 0.71 AFY/unit. The %eater demand for the project will range from 15.3 to 19.2 AFY, using demand factors of 0.59 AFY/unit and 0.74 AFY/unit. respectively. and including the applicant's proposal to use reclaimed water in front yards. The «eater Planning Commission County of San Luis Obispo April 26. 1995 Page 8 available to the project has been estimated to be 13.7 AFY. Using more conservative water demand factor of 0.74 AFY.'unit. the project is approximately 0.5 AFY short of the estimated available amount, even with reclaimed water use in front yards. "The mitigations listed above would reduce water use and excess flows. The two-tiered rate structure would reward low use and therefore also reduce water use. The Master Landscape Plan containing irrigation .demand calculations not exceeding 0.177 AFY/unit for front yards will ensure that water does not exceed demand. Water Monitoring Reports submitted to the County every six months would provide a mechanism for the water use to be monitored and allow for corrective measures to be implemented that would to (sic] reduce water use. With the implementation of these mitigation measures the significant water supply impacts associated with the proposed project will be lessened to a level of insignificance." Staff Report, March 23. 1995. Exhibit B, p. 4-14 (Exhibit B. p. 4) With regard to visual resources, the Commission made the following findings based upon substantial evidence: "3. Findings - Certain changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which lessen the significant effects as identified in the Final EIR. but the project's visual impacts would be residually significant in the short to moderate-term. However, as discussed below in Section VI, staff is recommending approval of a reduced project 32 parcel alternative that would reduce these visual impacts to insignificance. With approval of the mitigations and the recommended alternative. the project's visual impacts have been reduced to a level of insignificance. 114. Supportive Evidence - The Final EIR concludes that, even with the above mitigations and the applicant's proposed landscaping, the project would result in short- to moderate-term significant adverse impacts to viewers within the key viewing area. The key viewing area includes portions of Los Osos Valley Road and Foothill Boulevard (See Final EIR. page 109). The project site is within a County-designated Sensitive Resource Area, and both Los Osos Valley Road and Foothill Boulevard, from which the development would be visible, are considered scenic highways by both the County and the Citv. "The San Luis Obispo Area Plan requires future applicant to apply for a Minor Use Permit and include specific measures to minimize visual impacts. The review of the submitted application materials by the County will provide an appropriate system of checks and balances that will ensure that Planning Commission County of San Luis Obispo April 26. 1995 Page 9 homeowners take into account visual and aesthetic impacts when designing their homes. The Final EIR recommends revising the applicant's proposed landscaping plan as discussed above. Making the plan species-specific. requiring 80 percent coverage of residences, establishing landscaping as early as possible, and incorporating additional screening will contribute to a reduction in the amount of the development visible from the key viewing area. However, in the short-term, it is likely that developer improvements would still be visible and would degrade the visual condition of the site, at least until the landscaping has matured, and impacts will not be entirely eliminated. "Restricting the height of future residences on all lots well reduce the amount of building area visible both to viewers travelling on nearby roads and to adjacent landowners, many of whom are downslope of the proposed project." Staff Repots. March 23. 1995. Exhibit B. p. 4-!4 (Exhibit B. p. 13) In discussing alternatives. the Commission's adopted findings. provide: "H. Staff Recommendation "Although not evaluated specifically as an alternative in the Final EIR, staff is recommending a reduced project alternative that allows development of 32 parcels instead of the 37 parcels proposed by the applicant. The five parcels deleted are those that are most visually prominent (Lots 22-26, located along "A" Street). In addition, the "A" Street cul-de-sac is recommended to be deleted. This alternative is similar to the "Quasi-Clustered Design" alternative discussed in Section C above and in the Final EIR on page 171. The five parcel reduction .will increase the amount of water available to each lot and the significant unavoidable visual impacts would be reduced by mitigations to a less than significant level. "The five parcel reduction recognizes (1) the severe Nwater limitation on the site; (2) the need to be sufficiently conservative its water calculations to ensure that future residents have an adequate source of water; and (3) the uncertainty accompanying the estimated water supple. It institutes a water 'buffer,' thereby allowing for a reasonable margin of error in the calculations and the operation of the system. Approval of this alternative would reduce all significant impacts to significant, but tnitigable." Staff Report. March 23. 1995. Exhibit B. p. 4-25 (Exhibit B. p. 15-16). What the applicant could accept based upon these findings is approval of the 37 unit Project in two phases. the first phase of 32 units. and a second phase. the construction of Planning Commission County of San Luis Obispo April 26. 1995 Page 10 residence tract improvements in five of the 37 lots after the monitoring program demonstrates the sufficiency of water for those units, the verified performance of the package treatment plant. and verification of actual water consumption rates. This type of condition provides the same level of mitigation without violating CEQA's prescription against the unnecessary reduction of density in housing projects. The Commission also made the following CEQA general findings: "A. The Planning Commission finds that changes or alterations have been incorporated into the project to mitigate or avoid significant impacts. These changes or alterations include the mitigation measures outlined herein and set forth in more detail in the Mitigation Monitoring Program, adopted hereNAth, and in the Final EIR. "D. The Planning Commission further finds that specific economic, social. or other considerations make infeasible certain of the alternatives suggested and analyzed in the Final EIR. These considerations are more fully discussed in the EIR and in previous sections of this document that address the alternatives that are infeasible. "F. Although the approved project, conditions of approval, and i\Iitigation I-Ionitoring Program adopted by the Plam-dng Commission mitigate the potentially significant environmental impacts as required by CEQA, there %%ill be residually significant short-term impacts upon visual resources. These impacts have been lessened through the project's mitigation measures as required by CEQA. The remaining adverse environmental impacts that are not reduced to insignificance by the implementation of the mitigation measures have been reduced to insignificance by approving the 32-lot reduced development as discussed above and in the staff report." Staff Report, March 23. 1995. Exhibit B. p. 4-15 (Exhibit B. pp. 16-17). S. CERTAIN CONDITIONS SHOULD BE DELETED SINCE THEY ARE UNRELATED TO THIS PROJECT Unless otherwise deleted by the County Engineering Department. there are EWO conditions of approval which should be deleted. Development Plan Condition 14C would require the applicant to repair or replace two eighteen inch C\lPs under Prefumo Canyon Road ut the southerly boundary of the site. (Staff Report. April 27. 1994. p. 5-2.) This should he Planning Commission County of San Luis Obispo April 26. 1995 Paste 11 deleted since there is no nexus of any kind between the Project and the need to replace the structure. If they are damaged. it was not as a result of the applicant's actions. and the Project has no impact which would require the replacement. In addition. the requirement in Exhibit E to the Staff Report (p. 5-32). "Access Improvements." No. 3 requiring dedication for road widening purposes of 60 feet along Prefumo Canyon Road should be deleted. There simply is no nexus between the Project impact and this required dedication for the public benefit. Therefore. the applicant respectfully requests that these two conditions be deleted. 6. CONCLUSION The tentative decision to reduce this Project to 25 units is inconsistent with the requirements of CEQA. the evidence. and the previously adopted CEQA findings. The applicant would propose, consistent with the law and evidence, that the Project as originally proposed. including 37 units be approved under a single development plan and tentative map, with the tract improvements and the ccnstruction of residences to be completed in two phases. The first phase would be limited to 32 lots. with the second phase occurring after screened landscaping has been installed to reduce to insignificance potential visual impacts from the construction of the five shaded lots on Exhibit "C". and as the result of the water monitoring program. verification of actual water consumption. the County Engineer is satisfied that sufficient water exists to serve the additional five residences. This would appear to be a mitigation measure that is based upon the evidence and consistent with the law which should be applied to the Emerald Hills Project. Very true• yours. WilliarW-8. Walter EXHIBIT A �ia�h�Ii��►i��l�llll��11�(IIIII city of san lues oBjspa .X 955 Morro Street • San Luis Obis Co. Ca 93401 April 13, 1995 Gerry Peterson Emerald Hills Partners 1308 Broad Street, Suite 21 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3966 Subject: Utility Service to Emerald Hills Dear Mr. Peterson. At the request of Mr. Bob Hather, I am writing this letter to address the iss::' -!• Nv;.tt_r and sewer capacity as it would pertain to the annexation and service of the Emerz.iu Project. While there are other areas of concern to the City Utilities Department. ::i','i appears to be sufficient capacity in the water distribution and wastewater coile,-t;on systems to adequately serve the Emerald Hills Project if it were to be annexed. Tlie only modification to the existing system that would be required. would be the reconstruction of the last reach of sewer line in Diablo Drive. This line must be upsized from 6" to 8" to conform to City standards. The length of this line is approximately 230 feet. The other areas of concern involve issues such as water supply. water presslil-i:. :It-% water storage, impact fees, lift station need and location. etc. These issues will 1-i'z,. 11 to be addressed prior. to annexation. If YOU have any questions. pease feel ;`:l me at 78 1-7208. Sincerely. �� . W. Dan Gilmore, PE Utilities Engineer cc: John Moss. Jerry Kenny -dg: hath.r.tlr �� The Cay of San Lu-s 01DIS00 s comniitteo io inc!k. P te cssaveci a:+ :: its <_••.=es .� Teleeon,munications Device for the Deal 16051 o . EXHIBIT B FLUID CONTROL SYSI EMS, INC. P.O. Box 3170 Paso Robles, CA 93A 47 :entr. Uc. #475786 (805) 239-4357 FAX Bear Valley Mutual Water Co. Well No. 72 Hour Pump Test Results DATE TibE - 1AIM GF PSI ASPS 4/30 5: 1SPH 27 FT. 0 c? 0 4/30 5:30PM 87'3" 80 85 50.0 5/1 8:30A.1i 102' 8" 80 82 50.6 5/1 5:30Pm 103' 90 42 :3.3 5/2 8:30A.'i 102' 3" 90 42 49,6 5/2 5:30FM 103' 1 38 50.3 5/3 6:30AM 103' 10 38 50.5 5/3 5:30PX 105'2" 10 38 50.3 The test irldicates a that the pump ins lled should produce approx. 75 GPS! at the 90 PSI static system pr ssure that currently exists With moderate draw down of the well . Submersible pump is set at 294 feet on top o; well case. EXHIBIT C W co t 7• ' Qr_l cc O � 'I n'T L � ;w.u9 e.r.e:n+.a U C �. %�'•i ! �, / ' .� I • -- ,'fey/ ' !rL \ `\k��- �,�L ll.. .'i. ,`'! L• -L L L Ic`L,// ..� \,'` ,\:ar- I L Lij i 0 -6 m Q if Zia I ijal/ Lli af mt 1 \ _ i _�'r;� � �� \ . t\I .'1 '�\ -•, =s. �,�•'"�';:� �1 '_ def 7 .1 Ee\ � I lld V .� y i ,.� is !1�__, � .f IS'�7':�•y:::}. }?:�S{�:�'t�:, � \ ` 1 C •,•� _ Ili. �. '� 1 `:; a_ k'. k• \ ,\\ C � co \ Mco 3 ::•: >'::.::` .\ `5: I` l''`' 0.t: ` •. _._�.,. ��::; \•. �.,-,\\�1111 iI l��, �1\`�..,�� /1711 1` �1 Cy0J co C d LU U _ C E cn O 172 m