Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
04/01/1997, 6 - CONSIDERATION OF A FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR), AND REQUEST TO ANNEX A 384-ACRE PARCEL INTO THE CITY WITH DEVELOPMENT OF 38 RESIDENTIAL LOTS ON 17.8 ACRES NEAR PREFUMO CREEK. PROJECT ENTITLEMENTS INCLUDE A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMEN
COUnciL j apenaa Rep= CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FROM: Arnold B. Jonas, Community Development Director Prepared By: Pam Ricci,Associate Planner BIZ SUBJECT: Consideration of a Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and request to annex a 384-acre parcel into the City with development of 38 residential lots on 17.8 acres near Prefumo Creek. Project entitlements include a General Plan Amendment for map and policy changes, a Prezoning and a Vesting Tentative Tract Map. CAO RECOMMENDATION A. Adopt a Resolution (Attachment 1) certifying the Final EIR including the mitigation monitoring program, based on findings. B. Conceptually approve the following General Plan Map and Text Amendments, based on findings, and direct staff to aggregate the Resolution (Attachment 2) with other proposed General Plan.Amendment actions for adoption by single motion at the end of this meeting. General Plan Map Amendments • to designate the developable portion of the site as Low Density Residential and the remainder as Open Space; • to modify the location of the Urban Reserve Line to include the developable portion of the site; and • to change the designation of Descanso Drive from a local residential street to a residential collector. Text Amendments • to modify Land Use Element (LUE) Policy 6.2.6. J. regarding development of the Pref imo Creek hillside planning area; and • to amend Footnote (3) of Policy 5.2 of the Circulation Element regarding average daily traffic on Prefumo Canyon Road. C. Introduce an Ordinance (Attachment 3) to print approving the prezoning of the developable portion of the site as R-1-S, Single-Family Residential with the Special Consideration overlay zone, and the remainder as C/OS400, Conservation Open Space with 400-acre minimum parcel size, based on findings. —1 Pref tmo Creek Homes Annexation Project Page 2 D. Adopt a Resolution of Application (Attachment 4) requesting that the Local. Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) take proceedings for SLO County Annexation # 48, based on findings. E. Adopt a motion directing the applicant to proceed with the development of a tentative tract map that is consistent with the Planning Commission's recommended preference for staffs `Biologically & Geologically Superior" alternative. Lots 22-25 and Lots 28-30 may be included in the tentative tract map design if it is determined that landslides can be stabilized and recontoured to be safe with minimal aesthetic impacts. DISCUSSION Situation The applicants want to develop a 38-lot subdivision on about 18 acres of land located adjacent to, but outside the City limits. The project involves a number of planning entitlements including annexation, general plan map and text amendments, and prezoning, along with an environmental impact report. The project site is located off of Prefumo Canyon Road near Castillo Court. The predominant physical features of the site are the flatter grassland commonly referred to as the meadow, the steeper hillside areas and the riparian corridor of Pref imo Creek. The project includes the dedication in fee to the City of 366 acres of open space. EIR Process Shortly after the project application was accepted for processing, City staff held a Development Review Committee meeting to compile preliminary comments on the project. Because the project raised important policy issues and had the potential to result in significant impacts to the environment, staff determined, and the applicant agreed, that an EIR needed to be prepared for the project. On October 18, 1995, Community Development Department staff held an EIR scoping meeting with neighbors and other interested persons. The meeting was not mandatory, but was held because several neighbors had expressed deep concerns with the project and its potential impacts to the area. Based on input received at the meeting, staff made changes to the draft workscope for the EIR. On January 9, 1996, the City council authorized staff to proceed with sending a Request for Proposal (RFP) to qualified consultants to prepare the EIR. After interviewing four firms, the firm of c•ea Planning Consultants was selected. The consultant contract was officially executed in April of 1996 and work on the document begun. On November 6, 1996, a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission to discuss the Draft EIR during the required public review period. At that meeting, testimony from both the Commission and public was taken. The Final EIR is a compilation of the Draft EIR and responses to comments. � -z Pref nto Creek Homeb Annexation Project Page 3 Responses to comments are a written evaluation of comments on the environmental issues received from persons who reviewed the Draft EIR Copies of all the written comments received from residents of the nearby neighborhoods and local and state public agencies, have been incorporated into the Final EIR. The minutes of the November 6, 1996 Planning Commission are also included in the Final EIR. On March 3, 1997, the Planning Commission reviewed the Final EIR in conjunction with other project entitlements. The Commission voted unanimously to recommend to the Council that the Final EIR be certified. Planning_Commission's Action At a special meeting held on March 3, 1997, at the Laguna Junior High School auditorium, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve the requested entitlements. All of the motions for approval of the various entitlements were unanimous, with the exception of the motions for approval of the general plan map amendment to modify the location of the URL, and to support the annexation. On these two motions, Commissioner Ewan voted no. The prezoning motion included designating the open space area as C/OS-400. This was an amendment to the staff report which had identified C/OS40 zoning for the open space areas. The change was made to address the potential concern that the open space area be preserved and not further divided into 40-acre parcels. The most divided vote was not on one of the actual entitlements, but the Commission's preference on an alternative to the submitted tentative tract map. The vote to recommend a preference for the staffs Biologically/Geologically Superior Alternative was 3-2 (Ewan and Senn voting no). The next section of this report discusses the alternatives in more detail. There was a large crowd in the audience and 13 persons provided testimony. Most of the speakers were opposed to the project; their concerns were primarily focused on the change to the location of the Urban Reserve Line (URL), unstable soils due to landslides and creek erosion, flooding, impacts to wildlife, and traffic impacts. The`Biologically& Geologically Superior" Alternative The applicant has submitted an application for a tentative tract map. However, staff s recommendation to the Planning Commission did not include a motion to approve the tentative tract map that was submitted. The staff report to the Commission states that the tract map should be modified to reflect compliance with the mitigation measures contained in the EIR and the environmental design alternative selected by the Council. The tract map would return for both Planning Commission and City Council review at a later date, most logically after LAFCO hearings on the annexation. The EIR included a discussion of alternatives which were also summarized in staffs report to the Planning Commission. In addition, the staff report also contained discussion of an alternative G3 Prefumo Creek Homes:-,nnexation Project Page 4 described as the `Biologically Superior" alternative. This alternative contains elements of both the reduced density and compact development alternatives included in the EIR. The"Biologically & Geologically Superior" alternative was presented by staff at the Planning Commission meeting. It includes the elimination of lots at the western end of the project as recommended by the Natural Resources Manager, as well as the elimination of the lots affected by landslides that were recommended for removal in the reduced density alternative contained in the EIR. A majority of the Planning Commission indicated a preference for the `Biologically & Geologically Superior" alternative presented by staff at the meeting. However, the Commission in supporting that alternative clarified that their intention was to allow some flexibility regarding the retention of the lots affected by landslides. The Commission wanted more information on grading and technical data on stabilizing the landslides before making a determination on whether or not lots could be developed in those affected areas. There were also concerns with the aesthetic impacts of recontouring slopes that would be needed to stabilize the landslides, grading that would extend into open space areas and the need to remove vegetation, possibly significant species such as oak trees. Building on geologically unstable sites is directly inconsistent with several policies contained in the general plan and can be inferred to be inconsistent with others. Appendix C of the EIR outlines the various policies that were analyzed in reviewing the project's consistency with City plans and policies. The policies cite the avoidance of potential hazards, preservation of scenic resources, and protection of sensitive areas as reasons that landslides and other geologically unstable areas should be avoided as sites for new development. The Housing Element contains Program H 11.3.1 (General Plan Digest) which suggest that the City adopt regulations to prevent housing from being developed on sites subject to geological hazards. The Council should indicate whether these policies would prohibit development of the lots affected by landslides even after they are stabilized and the hazards eliminated. . Carol Florence, one of the applicant's representatives, presented a series of plans to the Planning Commission to illustrate the evolution of the subdivision design from the original submittal to the design showing 34 lots labeled the `Biologically Superior Alternative". This alternative presented by the applicant is similar to stafFs `Biologically & Geologically Superior" alternative. It differs by showing one additional lot in the western end of the site (the biological corridor) and the retention of the landslide lots. This alternative, along with staff s `Biologically & Geologically Superior" alternative, is attached to this report as Attachment 6. SUMMARY As discussed above, the applicant's have applied for annexation, prezoning, General Plan amendments, and tentative subdivision map approval from the City. The entire project was subject to detailed environmental analysis through the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) process. Several actions by the Council are now required. y� Prefiimo Creek Home annexation Project Page 5 1. The Council must certify the EIR after determining whether the focused EIR adequately addresses potential environmental impacts and complies with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. It is important to note that the EIR is not a project entitlement, but rather an important background resource or tool for the Council to use in assessing potential environmental impacts. As such, certification of the EIR as recommended by staff, does not mean that the Council has to support the policy changes that are being requested. 2. The Council must decide whether the project site should be annexed and allowed to develop with residential uses. It is the Planning Commission's recommendation that the Council support the requested changes to the General Plan, prezoning for low-density residential and open space uses, and the annexation itself which will ultimately be acted on by LAFCo. 3. The Council should look at the subdivision design and provide direction for dealing with the site's development constraints and details. As discussed above, there have been several alternatives that were addressed in the EIR and at the Planning Commission hearing. The Planning Commission is recommending that the Council support the "Biologically and Geologically Superior Alternative" which is described in more detail above. Approval action on the tentative subdivision map is not requested by applicant nor proposed by staff at this time. ALTERNATIVES 1. Adopt the Resolution, included as Attachment 5, denying the requested general plan and zoning amendments based on inconsistency with the City's General Plan. 2. Continue with direction to the staff and applicant if the Council desires further information or analysis to render a decision. Attachments Attachment 1: Resolution certifying the Final EIR Attachment 2: Resolution approving the General Plan Map & Text Amendments Attachment 3: Ordinance approving the Prezoning Attachment 4: Resolution of Application to LAFCo (Annexation) Attachment 5: Resolution denying the project Attachment 6: Staffs"Biologically& Geologically Superior" alternative & the applicant's "Biologically Superior" alternative Attachment 7: Mitigation Monitoring Program Attachment 8: Letters received since the Planning Commission meeting Attachment 9: Planning Commission follow-up letter & Draft 3-3-97 Planning Commission Minutes Attachment 10: Planning Commission Staff Report N \Cny C=wa Rpoa �--s *TACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO. (1997 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO CERTIFYING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT(EIR)FOR THE PREFUMO CREEK HOMES ANNEXATION PROJECT LOCATED AT 1855 PREFUMO CANYON ROAD (ER 26-95) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the City Council have held public hearings on this EIR in accordance with the California Government Code;and WHEREAS,the EIR comes to the City Council after extensive review and with the comments of the Planning Commission and concerned public;and WHEREAS, the potential environmental impacts of the project have been evaluated in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the City s Environmental Guidelines. BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council as follows: SECTION 1. Environmental Determination. The City Council hereby certifies that the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Prefumo Creek Homes Subdivision and Annexation Project adequately identifies the project's potentially significant impacts, alternatives to the proposed action, and recommended mitigation measures. SECTION 2.Findings. 1. The Final EIR was prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and was considered by the City prior to any approvals of the project. 2. The Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City. 3. The proposed mitigation measures contained in the EIR will adequately mitigate adverse environmental impacts of the project, or a statement of overriding considerations will be made for those significant and unavoidable environmental impacts. 4. The Mitigation Monitoring Program has been reviewed and approved by the City Council in conjunction with the certification of the Final EIR. �-b Resolution No. (1997 Series) Page 2 On motion of —__ —_ seconded by .and.on thefollowing roll.call vote: AYES: NOES:. ABSENT: the.foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this, . ___day df __ _ - , 1997. Mayor Allen Settle ATTEST: City Clerk Bonnie Gawf APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney Jorgensen 6�7 *TACHMENT 2 RESOLUTION NO. (1997 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AMENDING THE MAPS AND TEXTS OF THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AND CIRCULATION ELEMENTS IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE CONSIDERATION OF THE PREFUMO CREEK HOMES ANNEXATION PROJECT LOCATED AT 1855 PREFUMO CANYON ROAD (GP 26-95) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on March 3, 1997, and recommended approval of amendments to the maps and texts of the Land Use and Circulation Elements of the City's General Plan in conjunction with the consideration of the Prefumo Creek Homes Project located at 1855 Prefumo Canyon Road; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on April 1, 1997, and has considered testimony of the applicant, interested parties, the records of the Planning Commission hearing and action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed general plan amendments are consistent with the General Plan and other applicable City ordinances; and WHEREAS, the potential environmental impacts of the project have been evaluated in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the City s Environmental Guidelines. BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Environmental Determination. The City council finds and determines that the project's Final Environmental Impact Report adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed Zoning map amendments, and reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. The Council through the certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report incorporates the mitigation measures listed in Exhibit A into the project. City Council Resolution No. (1997 Series) Page 2 SECTION 2. That this Council approves the General Plan Map Amendments described below, based on the following findings: Map Amendments • to designate the developable portion of the site as Low Density Residential and the remainder as Open Space(Land Use Element Map); • to modify the location of the Urban Reserve Line to include the developable portion of the site(Land Use Element Map); and • to change the designation of Descanso Drive from a local residential street to a residential collector(Figure#2 , Circulation Element Streets Classification Map). Findings 1. The proposed amendments are consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan, with the proposed text amendment outlined below, and with compliance with all of the mitigation measures contained in the project E1R. 2. The project is consistent with Open Space Policy l.C., Urban Reserve (numbered as Policy 13.2.1 C in the general plan digest), which "requires projects that would involve minor expansions of the URL to secure open space" on land adjoining but outside the new URL location. SECTION 3. That this Council approves the General Plan Text Amendments described below, based on the following findings: Text Amendments • to modify Land Use Element (LUE)Policy 6.2.6. J as follows: The Pre fumo Creek area extends into the Irish Hills west of Pre,jumo Carryon Road Development should be limited to areas within the URL with permanent protection of the creeks and upper hillsides. • to amend Footnote(3) of Policy 5.2 of the Circulation Element to read: For Chorro Street, north of Lincoln Street, and Prefumo Canyon Road the maximum desiredADTgoal is 7,500 ADT. Findings. f'o —� City Council Resolution No. (1997 Series) Page 3 1. The proposed LUE text amendment will not jeopardize the integrity of the LUE with the proposed modification to the location of the URL. 2. The proposed Circulation Element text amendment reflects realistic traffic levels and goals and is consistent with strategies used elsewhere in the City to resolve street capacity issues. SECTION 4. Ad 'on. 1. The Land Use Element Map is hereby amended as shown in Exhibit B. 2. The Circulation Element Map is hereby amended as shown in Exhibit C. 3. The Community Development Director shall cause the change to be reflected in documents which are on display in City Hall and are available for public viewing and use. 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 , 1997. Mayor Allen Settle ATTEST: City Clerk Bonnie Gawf City Council Resolution No. (1997 Series) i Page 4 APPROVED AS TO FORM: i tto ey ff J gensen l:Vdgu AqC A.2645 Res- To avoid redundant duplication with this staff report, Exhibit A is attached to Attachment 3 . The full Exhibit A will eventually be included with the Resolution if approved. -�/ AIM \ \ .� is/ / i/ / / i•,°�./ / / !, R. 1)AND'OPENSCE RS\ \ \ / / / / / / / / / /• \\ R L CA.. E RL ` TO H E :::::''.'ENGINEERING PREFUMO CREEK HOMES EXHIBIT PLANDEVELOPMENT GENERAL ASSOCIATES AMENDMENT '� ..... 13 VRQ 38►ali�E1lTREEl=:9iUi:1.US O&SPO, CA 9301 805/64Y-8E3B REQUEST ............................_.......--. 7.,+,f+„E_O111(�7REET;?;=_P7I80 R08LE8, CA 97446 805/277-1075 6-/3 w � P V Q O 1-a O O � E-1 d U U z wo z QFa � x rz o o A w w I C\2 W a ¢ d wN x a rwn W E Y W Z C/] ¢ ¢ ¢ w w w o a z ►� ~" W Cry F 4; 'co U O E im g 0, a t� w x ¢ P, x x a a U x o NZg 1 0 va r�W�/ I 1 V l/) 1 \ i � 1 , _. ��._._._._._._._._.- 4 r...... _ 1 P \ � 1 s' E I 1 d � 1 a 1 m N 70 =LISIHX3 A. TACHMENT 3 ORDINANCE NO. (1997 SERIES) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AMENDING THE ZONING REGULATIONS MAP TO DESIGNATE 1) A N APPROXIMATELY 18-ACRE PORTION OF THE SITE NEAR PREFUMO CREEK WHERE DEVELOPMENT LOTS ARE PROPOSED AS R-1-S, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, WITH THE SPECIAL CONSIDERATION OVERLAY,AND 2)APPROXIMATELY 366 ACRES OF THE SITE AS C/OS-4009 CONSERVATION OPEN SPACE WTTH A 400-ACRE MINIMUM PARCEL SIZE, CONTINGENT UPON FINAL APPROVAL OF ANNEXATION OF THE SITE AT 1855 PREFUMO CANYON RD. (R 26-95) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on March 3, 1997, and recommended approval of amendments to the Zoning Regulations map; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on April 1, 1997, and has considered testimony of other interested parties, the records of the Planning Commission hearing and action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff, and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that map amendments are consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element (LUE) map and text, with the proposed text amendment, and the City Council finds that the map amendments are consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Regulations and other applicable City ordinances; and WHEREAS, the City Council has certified the Final Environmental Impact Report, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15090. BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. The City council finds and determines that the project's Final Environmental Impact Report adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed Zoning map amendments, and reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. The Council through the certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report incorporates the mitigation measures listed in Exhibit A into the project. SECTION 2. The Zoning map amendment (prezoning) R 26-95, designating the developable portion of the site as R-1-S, Single-Family Residential with the Special Consideration overlay zone, and the remainder as C/OS-400, Conservation Open Space with 400-acre minimum parcel size as shown on the attached Exhibit B, is hereby approved, based on the following findings: Findings: 1. The proposed"S" overlay zoning will document the special considerations for the site which are: protection of and access to the riparian corridor, protection of wildlife habitat and corridors, preservation of hillside open space, geological Ordinance No. (1997.Series) Page 2 constraints including landslides, aesthetic concerns with development of visually prominent sites, creek setback and access; fire protection issues; and provision of City utilities and services. 2. The required administrative use permit will serve as a master use permit that fulfills the intention of LUE Policy 1.13.3, Required Plans, which calls for the master planning of proposed annexation areas so that the City has an adopted plan showing the project layout, required open space protection and provision of streets and utilities. SECTION 3. A summary of this ordinance, together with the names of the Council Members voting for and against, shall be published at least five (5) prior to its final passage, in the Telegram-Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance shall go into effect upon final approval of annexation of the site by the Local Agency Formation Commission. INTRODUCED AND PASSED TO PRINT by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo at a meeting held on the 1 st day of April 1997, on motion of seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Mayor Allen Settle ATTEST: City Clerk Bonnie Gawf APPROVED AS TO FORM: *10oJ;ens"en 1.%W=\R 2695(Ord) EXHIBIT A Prefumo Creek Homes EIR Mitigation Measures Land Use D-7. To achieve consistency with policy 1.13.3 of the Land Use Element (development plans), any of the following actions is required: a. A specific plan must be prepared, or b.The proposal must be amended to include a PD (Planned Development) or an S (Special Conditions) overlay district and a development plan must be prepared, or c. City planning officials may determine that the submitted subdivision map allows for adequate review of the project. D-8. To achieve consistency with policy 1.9.3 of the Land Use Element, policy 4C of the Circulation Element and policy 2 of the Open Space Element (pedestrian paths/trails) either of the following actions are required: a. City planning officials may determine that the policy does not apply in this instance because of security and privacy considerations; or b.Require the applicant to identify and install a trail system as a condition of the tentative subdivision map approval. D-9. To achieve consistency with policy 6.1.1,6.2.0, 6.2.1, and 6.2.2 of the Land Use Element (geologic hazards), the City must take either of the following actions: a. Eliminate lots 22-25 and lots 28-30 from the proposed subdivision; or, b. Adopt the mitigation measures proposed by the Geotechnical Conditions section in this EIR. D-10. To achieve consistency with policy 6.2.6 J of the Land Use Element (density and development of Prefumo Creek area), the City must take either of the following actions: a. The policy must be deleted, or b. It must be amended to allow the proposed density. D-11. To avoid inconsistency with policy 6.2.6 J of the Land Use Element (density and development of Prefumo Creek area), lot 12 must be deleted from the tentative subdivision map (also see mitigation measure K-7). D-12. To achieve consistency with policy 2.2.11 and 6.4.6 of the Land Use Element (creek corridor protection), and policies 1.A, LE,and 3.A of the Open Space Element (creek corridor protection), the tentative subdivision map must be redrawn to exclude areas within the top of the bank of Prefumo Creek within privately owned lots. D-13. To achieve consistency with policy 1.C.4, 2.A,2.B.1, 2.B.2 and 2.0(grasslands) of the Open Space Element, the City must include findings, in its approval of the tentative subdivision map, that these policies are discretionary along with the reasons why these policies should not be applied in this instance. D-14. To achieve consistency with objective 5 and policy 1.5 (air quality) of the Circulation Element, the City must include the residential portion of the project within the urban reserve line. The City must also make a finding that adjustment of the urban reserve line does not violate the City's commitment to supporting the efforts of the Air Pollution Control District to implement its Clean Air Plan. D-15.To achieve consistency with policy 1.312 of the Housing Element (consistency with other general plan policies), the City must adopt mitigation measures-D-1 through D-15. D-16.To achieve consistency with policy 1.31.2 of the Housing Element (housing on geologic hazards), the mitigation measures required by the Geotechnical Conditions section in this EIR must be followed. D-17. To achieve consistency with program 2.22.1 of the Park and Recreation Master Plan (provision of athletic fields), the project shall be required to pay park and recreation fees,in addition to the dedication of open space,to help finance new athletic fields in the area. Traffic and Circulation E-2. To mitigate the existing deficiencies on Prefumo Canyon Road and Descanso Drive and the additional impact created by the proposed project, the City shall take either of the following actions: a. Reclassify Prefumo Canyon Road as a residential arterial between Del Rio Avenue and Los Osos Valley Road and develop a neighborhood traffic management plan to reduce travel speeds and divert traffic from Descanso Drive to Prefumo Canyon Road, or b. Amend the Circulation Element to increase the desired maximum average daily traffic volumes and desired maximum speed for Prefumo Canyon Road and Descanso Drive. E-3. To maintain consistency with the City's Bicycle Transportation Plan, the City shall take either of the following actions: a. Require construction of a bicycle route along Prefumo Canyon Road, or b. Require construction of a bicycle route through the project on the main access road and along the emergency only access road. E-4. To improve safety conditions along Prefumo Canyon Road, sight distance to the east must be improved by moving the main access road eastward as far as possible. The final main access road shall be approved by the Public Works Department. E-5. Cumulative impacts can be mitigated by implementing mitigation measure E-2 Noise F-1. Require the applicant to complete grading within a four-month period. Assess liquidated damages if the grading exceeds this time period. F-2. Limit all project-related construction to daytime hours (lam to 6pm). Prohibit any construction activity, not including grading, from occurring at least one day a week. F-3. Clearly post noise restrictions on-site until the proposed project is completed. Air Quality G-1. All material excavated or graded shall be sufficiently watered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. During the time period in which grading will occur, watering shall occur at least twice daily including weekends with complete coverage, preferably in the late morning and after work is finished for the day. Reclaimed, nonpotable water from a source other than Prefumo Creek shall be used whenever possible. G-2. All clearing, grading earth-moving, or excavating activities shall cease during periods of high winds (greater than 15 mph averaged over one hour) so as to prevent excessive amounts of dust. G-3. If soil materials are transported off-site, they shall be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. 6��9 G-4.Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading shall be sown with fast-germinating native grass seed and watered until vegetation becomes established. G-5. All disturbed areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using approved chemical soil binders, jute netting, or other methods approved in advance by APCD- G-6. On-site vehicle speed during construction shall be limited to 15 mph for any unpaved surface. G-7. All unpaved areas with vehicle traffic shall be watered at least twice per day including weekends, using nonpotable water from a source other than Prefumo Creek. G-8. Wheel washers shall be installed where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads and streets, or provisions shall be made to wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site. G-9. "Best Available Control Technologies for Construction Equipment" (CBACT) shall be applied to+we one piece&of diesel-fueled construction equipment involved in grading operations. APCD-recommended modifications are the following: a. Injection timing retard of two degrees, b. Installation of high pressure injections, and c. Use of reformulated diesel fuel. G-10. APCD recommends the following measures to address concerns of asbestos- containing material: a. A sampling and survey work plan shall be prepared for APCD approval. Elements should include but are not limited to geological mapping of the site, sampling strategy, and lab analysis methodology. b. After APCD approval of the work plan, the sampling and survey activities and lab analysis shall be carried out. Results should be submitted to the District for review 30 days prior to the start of construction. c. If asbestos-containing material is determined to be present, an asbestos health and safety program/work plan for construction activities in serpentine to comply with state and federal law will be required. Work plan elements should include construction and project strategy to prevent emissions to ambient air, a 10-working day advance notice of project start date to APCD, protection methods to prevent worker exposure, and the presence of a California-certified asbestos environmental monitor or registered geologist with asbestos certification on-site during construction activities to identify 6-�C potential unmapped or subsurface serpentinite and to initiate contractor/worker emergency procedures if required. d. If asbestos-containing material is determined to be present, none of it shall be used as surface-layer material on any part of the project such as road beds,building pads, or landscaped area. e. If asbestos-containing material is determined to be present, notification to buyers shall be required. f. If asbestos-containing material is not found in the serpentine deposits on the proposed project site, the APCD requires the preparation of an emergency work plan to address potential unmapped or subsurface serpentinite, the presence of a certified asbestos environmental monitor or registered geologist during construction activities to initiate an emergency work plan if necessary, and notification of APCD of the project start date. Geotechnical Conditions H-4. Additional geotechnical engineering shall be performed during preparation of the grading and improvement plans for the project. This work will include the development of foundation recommendations, grading specifications, and other final engineering details for individual lots or smaller areas of the project. Geotechnical engineering performed at this point should consider grading throughout the entire project to avoid the need for repetitive studies as individual lots are developed in the future. The resulting plans will incorporate walls, buttresses, subsurface drains, and other features to remove and/or stabilize the landslide deposits on the project site. Appropriate stability analyses documenting the performance of all slopes under ground-shaking conditions will be provided. These will include an analysis of the new conditions affecting the previously analyzed landslides, an analysis of the landslide deposits not previously analyzed. an analysis of new cut and fill slopes, and an analysis of natural slopes in the vicinity of the development. All plans and studies will be subject to review and approval by the City Engineering Department. Drainage and Water Quality I-4. As part of the grading and improvement plans for the project, the applicant shall .prepare more detailed drainage and erosion control plans and install erosion control improvements in appropriate locations. These plans must also indicate points of access for maintenance of the creek and must be approved by the City Engineering Department. I-5. To ensure coordination of streambed alterations and to minimize .repetitive construction projects within the streambed, the developer shall design and disclose to regulatory agencies all proposed structures and activities within the streambed. 6 -z� These would include all road construction, pipeline installation, erosion protection, water and sewer improvements, drainage control and discharge structures, debris removal, vegetation removal, revegetation, and any other activities that would involve work in or adjacent to the streambed or within the jurisdictional wetlands. The agencies to be notified and authorizations to be obtain include the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers -Section 404 Permit; the Regional Water.Quality Control Board - Section 401 Water Quality Certification; and the California Department of Fish and Game - Section 1603 Streambed Alteration Agreement. I-6. To reduce the potential for short-term debris transport and accumulation within the streambed and to improve the capability of the City to provide long-term maintenance, prior to transferring the creek open space area to the City, the applicant shall prepare and implement a program to remove excessive vegetative debris, old lumber, and other material that would tend to accumulate and obstruct flows within the streambed. This measure is not. intended to remove live vegetation or to disrupt biological habitat and should be oriented towards removal of downed eucalyptus branches and similar material. The program should be designed and implemented with input from a qualified biologist and with approval of regulatory agencies as part of the larger program of streambed alterations discussed below. Biological Resources J-4. A 30-foot building setback from the edge of the riparian vegetation shall be established for lots 1-14, 37, and 38. No disturbances other than those required to mitigate erosion problems or to ensure adequate drainage shall be allowed. J-5. In the vicinity of lots 31-38, the main road shall be reduced to 30 feet and moved at least 20 feet from the top of the creek bank or from the edge of the dripline whichever is greater. If substandard-size lots result from this action, these lots shall be eliminated from the tentative subdivision map. J-6. The stands of perennial, native bunch grasses left in the open areas in the southeastern corner above the building envelopes of lots 14, 15, and 19 shall be protected. No ornamental plantings or other homeowner-related disturbances will be allowed in this area. J-7. The tentative subdivision map shall be redrawn so that the freshwater marsh, located on lot 15, shall be located in the open space area. J-8. Once bridge and road construction drawings and a more detailed grading plan are available, a plant ecologist/restoration specialist shall prepare a restoration plan. Gibispe sedge-M it 5-1 . The plan shall survey the site for sensitiveIn ant species as identified in the Draft EIR• identify suitable sites for replanting the suecies affected establish replanting ratios and contain a monitoring plan to ensure the gyp•-,Z success of the replanting Preparation of the restoration plan shall be the responsibility of the project sponsors. J-9. Disturbed areas around the bridge construction site shall be revegetated with native riparian vegetation as soon as possible following the construction. Any necessary pruning of trees in the vicinity shall be conducted by a certified arborist. J-10. Trenching needed for the waterline which will cross Prefumo Creek shall be by auguring or by hand-trenching. If roots over one-inch in diameter are encountered, . these roots shall be cleanly cut along the sides of the trench. J-11. CC&R's shall ensure that the oak and riparian woodlands in the adjacent open space areas are left undisturbed and managed properly after development, and no ornamental plantings or other related disturbances occur following development. J-12. The disruption of the riparian and creek area will be mitigated by complying with the California Department of Fish and Game streambed alteration permits and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers wetland permits. The applicants (or their successors) for the proposed project will prepare the necessary documentation/mitigation plans to obtain the permitting from these agencies. Aesthetics K-7.- Lot 12 should be eliminated from the tentative subdivision map. K-8. As a part of the application, the applicant shall submit a landscape, irrigation, and maintenance plan to the City Architectural Review Commission for review and approval. The plan shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and a qualified plant restoration ecologist and shall include the following: a. Planting along either side of the riparian corridor where necessary to provide complete screening of the interior of the site from viewing areas along Prefumo Canyon Road. Screen planting shall be of the scale such that at maturity, views of the hills above the development are not blocked. b. All planting near the creek and between the creek and Prefumo Canyon Road shall be site-appropriate native vegetation. c. Planting of trees and shrubs on both sides of the proposed entry road between the creek and Prefumo Canyon Road in a way should block direct views into the site as seen from the straight section of Prefumo Canyon Road to the east. d. Screen planting along the north side of lot 13 would help block views from Prefumo Canyon Road through the gap created by the bridge and into the site. e. Planting shall be placed between lot 12 as shown on the tentative subdivision G -�3 map dated 8-1-95 and Prefumo Canyon Road so that views from Prefumo Canyon Road will be screened from both east and westbound views. f. Planting around the entry road between the creek and Prefumo Canyon Road shall be designed to duplicate a naturally occurring native plant community, not a formal entry to a subdivision. The planting shall include appropriate trees and associated understory. g. Appropriate existing on-site planting such as native perennial grasses and coastal shrubs shall be integrated into the excavated slope in order to blend visually the cut area with the adjacent land cover. The excavated slope shall not be aesthetically "landscaped" or irrigated in such away which would create an artificial green appearance during the summer months. h. Trees, shrubs, and groundcover within the interior of the development shall be included which are native to the area or are drought-tolerant and have a native appearance. i. All screen planting along the creek and along the north side of Prefumo Canyon Road shall be in plaee 12 menths prie commence either concurrently or before the initift! site grading commences. Where screen planting would be impacted by construction of the bridge or entry road, planting in those specific areas shall occur immediately after construction in that area. Screen planting shall be completed within 90 days unless more time is granted by the Community Development Department. Planting within the development indicated on the landscape plan shall be planted prior to the sale of any of the residential lots which would be created as a result of this project. j. Where slow-growing plant material is used for screening purposes, larger-size container plants shall be used. k. After construction, seed shall be applied to all disturbed slopes. The seed shall consist of species existing on the site prior to disturbance. Aesthetics K-9. The height of residences on lots 1-29 shall be restricted to 25 feet, measured as provided under Section 17.16.040 of the City's zoning regulations. K-10. Individual lot owners shall submit plans to the Community Development Department for architectural review and approval. The applicant's submittal shall follow Community Development Department guidelines and include a site plan, general project statistics, grading and drainage plan, landscape development plan, material samples board, sectional drawings, and other information. G -� K-1 1. All excavated slopes shall incorporate slope-rounding as part of their design. The slope-rounding shall be of the largest radius practical to blend visually with adjacent slopes. K-12. A geotextile capable of allowing grass-growth shall be used to line the rock- lined swale above lots 19, 20, 23, and 24. K-13. All topsoil removed from graded areas shall be stockpiled and redistributed to the greatest extent possible throughout the site where landscaping and revegetation will likely occur. K-14. All street and home lighting shall be shielded in order to screen light sources ' from. neighboring properties and from Prefumo Canyon Road. Lighting details shall be reviewed through the architectural review process. K-15. Covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&R's) shall be submitted for consideration along with the tentative subdivision map to ensure the on-going protection of the oak woodland, grasslands, existing individual trees, and all riparian vegetation including shrubs. Public Services M-5. A fire management plan shall be prepared by a landscape architect to identify specific fire safety measures that will reduce the possibility of a severe fire in the area. The plan will provide precise dimensions and standards for a fuel-break around each residential lot which borders the oak woodland or riparian area and for the emergency access road. The fire management plan will clearly define the responsibilities of each homeowner and the responsibility of the homeowner's association for maintaining fire safety. The final subdivision map shall not be approved until the fire management plan has been submitted and approved by SLOFD and the City's Architectural Review Commission. M-6. Based on the fire management plan, covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&R's) shall be developed to identify clearly the fire safety responsibilities of the homeowners association and of the individual lot owners. M-7. For lots 1-11, 13, 14, and 38 as shown on the tentative subdivision map dated 8-1-95,any, or any combination, of the following options may be used to provide an adequate fuel-break: a. A variance from the front yard setback requirements may be granted to allow the building envelopes for these lots to be closer to the street. b. Redrawing the building envelopes would result in compliance with the 30- foot greenbelt requirement. (0 9 c. If after item a. and b. above have been implemented and the 30-foot greenbelt requirement still cannot be met, structures shall be constructed of nonflammable exterior materials. Public Services Cumulative Impacts M-8. By following the mitigation measures already adopted for the LUCEEIR for fire protection and law enforcement, cumulative impacts can be mitigated to a less than significant level.. No further mitigation is, therefore, required. Utilities N-3. To minimize the potential for failure of the project's sewer pump station and force main, a program and documentation for emergency responses must be provided to the City prior to final approval. This emergency response plan must identify a most probable type of failure and specify contacts and responsibilities for the emergency response. Arrangements with a private contractor capable of providing emergency repairs must be shown to the satisfaction of the City as part of this plan. If required by the City, the pump station shall be provided with an emergenU 12ower supply. N-4. A single well is not allowed to provide irrikation water to multiple single family residential lots To be consistent with City policy. the City must take either of the following actions: a Require the applicant to use another source of water for irrigation needs. b Amend the policy to allow an irrigation well to serve multiple, single family residential lots. Cultural Resources 0-1. If any prehistoric cultural materials or buried concentrations of historic cultural materials are unearthed, work within 1,000 feet of the find should be halted until they can be examined and evaluated by a qualified archaeologist. 6 —2 6 .� Ct ~< \� . -O SScr �ECITO CT. RELOCATE CITY LIMIT- TO .'HERE... �,� 4,�y��a• p `Pyo DESIGNATE LAND R- 1 -$ ' s C/O S-4 00IV � O 5 l -2-P 1(9.4 ACRES) PREFVh(O O R ( 17.8 ACRES?. r°a C/OS-400 (356.8 ACRES) / / C/OS-40 _ -:::-: -------- • ENGINEERING PREFUMO CREEK HOMES EXHIBIT DEVELOPMENT .. REZONING _.-- ASSOCIATES REQUEST 1Y1D_i LYQ 8T7tEET_9k11-WS OBISPO. CA 93401 806/649-8668 ...- .. .. R091E9. CA 93440 806/]]7-1033 / OTACHMENT 4 RESOLUTION NO. (1997 Series) A RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION BY THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL REQUESTING THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION TO APPROVE THE PREFUMO CREEK HOMES ANNEXATION SLO COUNTY ANNEXATION#48 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the City Council have held public hearings on the proposed Prefumo Creek Homes Annexation;and WHEREAS, the City Council on April 1, 1997, by Resolution No. (1997 Series), certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed annexation, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15090;and WHEREAS, on recommendation of the Planning Commission and as a result its deliberations, the council has amended the General Plan Land Use and Circulation Maps, and approved the amendment of the Zoning Map by prezoning the property for the annexation known as the Prefumo Creek Homes Annexation;and WHEREAS, City Council approval is a prerequisite for the San Luis Obispo County Local Agency Formation Commission to initiate formal annexation proceedings; WHEREAS, the territory proposed to be annexed is uninhabited, and a description of the boundaries of the territory is set forth in Section 2;and WHEREAS,this proposal is consistent with the sphere of influence of the affected.city. TingUTORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE SAN LUIS'OBISPO CITY COUNCIL AS FOLLOWS: Resolution No. (1997 Series) Page 2 SECTION 1.Findings. 1. Annexation is appropriate since the site is contiguous to the City on its north and east sides. 2. Annexation of the site is a logical addition to the City, due to its location adjacent and nearby to existing residential development, and the availability of services. 3. Based on information in the application, a field inspection, and a review of relevant references in the Community Development Department, staff has determined that there is no evidence before the Department that the project will have any potential adverse effects on fish and wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. 4. The City Council has certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed annexation, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15090, which is hereby incorporated into this resolution by reference and adequately address the potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed annexation. SECTION 2. Annexation Area Described. The Prefumo Creek Homes Annexation consists of that area, including approximately 384 acres, on the south side of Prefumo Canyon Road, near Castillo Court, in the City of San Luis Obispo, County of San Luis Obispo, being Assessor's Parcel Number 067-221-029, as shown on the attached map, Exhibit A, and legally described in the attached Exhibit B. SECTION 3. Council Recommendation. The City Council recommends that the Local Agency Formation Commission approve the proposed annexation subject to property owner compliance with city requirements regarding environmental mitigation and public improvements as described in the project's EK in accordance with California Government Code Section 56844 et. M. SECTION 4. Implementation. The City Clerk shall forward a copy of this resolution, General Plan and prezoning actions, EIR, and all pertinent supporting documents to the Local Agency Formation Commission. NOW, THEREFORE, this Resolution of Application is hereby adopted and approved by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo. Resolution No. (1997 Series) Page 3 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 . 1997. Mayor Allen Settle ATTEST: City Clerk Bonnie Gawf APPROVED AS TO FORM: C' Attom eff orgensen Wag=\An=Rs �o�3a EXHIBIT A 143/ `\ 16o \ NJ O/ °. O Baa 0: \ ao. : 7 • o � Ile J q q t ' ocoa A. / T a. y ``\ \' :•• BM 6190 S+ any aitDr Park Go Co 1 , 1 o x7/9 ♦ \\, / �\� �`� II �' •Borrow •••••.••'•••. , \�Vc/033 \`` '' •: x � FOOD pQCEFUNOO CREEK CzICHIES Map B-2 Environmental Impact Report Project Site �� Exhibit B Legal Description Lots 55 and 56 of the Subdivision of the Rancho Canada de Los Osos Y La Laguna, in the County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, according to map filed October 8, 1869 in Book A at page 84 of Maps. Excepting from Lot 56 those portions of land as granted to Teakwood Terrace, Inc., a California corporation, by deeds recorded January 28, 1971 in Book 1603 at page 232 of Official Records and recorded September 5,, 1972 in Book 1686 at page 569 of Official Records. Also excepting therefrom that portion of land granted to the County of San Luis Obispo by deed recorded October 8, 1976 in Book 1927 at page 656 of Official Records. Also excepting therefrom those portions of said lots, included within the boundaries of Map No. SLO 75-53 filed February 28, 1975 in Book 17 at page 50 of Parcel Maps. Also excepting therefrom that portion of Lot 56 granted to the City of San Luis Obispo, by deed recorded September 30, 1983 in Book 2526 at page 585 of Official Records. Also excepting therefrom that portion of said lots granted to the City of San Luis Obispo by deed recorded May 14, 1985 in Book 2707 at page 101 of Official Records. Also excepting therefrom Lots 1 through 8 of Tract 1053, in the County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, according to map filed September 29, 1987 in Book 14 at page 15 of Maps. Also excepting therefrom that portion of said Lot 55 granted to the County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, by deed recorded May 18, 1988. in Book 3145 at page 336 of Official Records; under Recorder's Series Number 26458. Said land is also shown as the remainder parcel on map of said Tract 1053 as described above. A-PrACHMENT 5 RESOLUTION NO. (1997 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE MAPS AND TEXTS OF THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AND CIRCULATION ELE1VIENTS AND PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING REGULATIONS MAP IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE CONSIDERATION OF THE PREFUMO CREEK HOMES ANNEXATION PROJECT LOCATED AT 1855 PREFUMO CANYON ROAD (GP 26-95) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on March 3, 1997, and recommended approval of amendments to the maps and texts of the Land Use and Circulation Elements of the City's General Plan in conjunction with the consideration of the Prefumo Creek Homes Project located at 1855 Prefumo Canyon Road; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on April 1, 1997, and has considered testimony of the applicant, interested parties, the records of the Planning Commission hearing and action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed general plan map and text amendments are inconsistent with the several policies of the General Plan as evaluated in the project's Environmental Impact Report and Planning Commission report; and WHEREAS, the potential environmental impacts of the project have been evaluated in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the Citys Environmental Guidelines. BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of-San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. 1. The proposed general plan map and text amendments and prezoning are inconsistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan, specifically those policies which call for a compact urban form, prevention of sprawl, protection of sensitive habitats and resources and avoidance of development in geologically unstable areas. 2. The proposed development of the site will not be compatible with surrounding land uses because it will increase traffic levels on Prefumo Canyon Road and nearby G-33 City Council Resolution No. (1996 Series) Page 2 residential streets, it will adversely impact biological resources of the site and does not avoid geologic hazards in all instances. 3. The proposed modification of the Urban Reserve Line (URL) will adversely affect the integrity of the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan. SECTION 2. Denial. The following amendment requests are hereby denied: General Plan Map Amendments • to designate the developable portion of the site as Low Density Residential and the remainder as Open Space(Land Use Element Map); • to modify the location of the Urban Reserve Line to include the developable portion of the site(Land Use Element Map); and • to change the designation of Descanso Drive from a local residential street to a residential collector(Figure#2 , Circulation Element Streets Classification Map). General Plan Text Amendments • to modify Land Use Element (LUE)Policy 6.2.6. J as follows: The Prefumo Creek area extends into the Irish Hills west of Prefumo Carryon Road Development should be limited to areas within the URL with permanent protection of the creeks and upper hillsides. • to amend Footnote(3) of Policy 5.2 of the Circulation Element to read: For Chorro Street, north of Lincoln Street, and Prefumo Canyon Road, the maximum desired ADT goal is 7,500 ADT. Zoning Mau Amendment (Prezoninel • to designate the developable portion of the site as R-1-S, Single-Family Residential with the Special Consideration overlay zone, and the remainder as C/OS-400, Conservation Open Space with 400-acre minimum parcel size. On motion of , seconded by and on the following roll call vote: City Council Resolution No. (1996 Series) Page 3 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The.foregoing resolution was passed and adopted thus—day of , .1997. Mayor Alhen.Seitle ATTEST: City Clerk Bonnie Gawf APPROVED AS TO'FORM:- PG,�-,JfJoOnsen LV%gwe\gpr 2695 is (dory) i ATTACHMENT 6 cn C O rm V/ . fit•. \\ �` �i1 \\\\\t\II Cr CL AWk �. I � '�` 5�.�• {`_ \ Ill \ \ D ^ %\ CO Z m Cr �• � \ul�. �\,Vy 9F.w \� M. CL �` rn \ • \ -i 5 1. \\ 'NON O I 1,1 70 4 JL \\\ CD 0 OCN CL N � \ AK I ISI I I I/ �-�/� %�I� •::l••:.S!.�::��::. S fr n Or -v -- - - - - Ww + �1 O_ z s 'f-i c4 LU V . , ui CC IL O > _ ~ LLO W JQ (LV Q- ' \\ 1.���` \tap.•',.,' '•:.`,.,. ,:� m egg{ CL z m 0 x VA. � 7yk 1 •. � 1 1 \ 1 \ 6-57 ATTACHMENT 7 City of San Luis Obispo Prefumo Creek Homes Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring Program March 1997 Coea Planning Consultants G-�8 V-4 s x G a A v ti w G M d 0I 1' y 0. vQ'i w p /C�11 U O i w GJ m f3. Cd G d O > O OG U 3 {. o 00 � •> ° O U y ed bo y .r Hy O v d y G1 �v O y , Y i .. A. v d O 'O pE 4p > tu 3 a, rA O W G: '� O ed + COC O +0. 4+ ,y U > d 0 ^� a '� it ..yr y 0 Qy•'w Cm EO �-] P. G 0 •v as O rD ea v G! p V '6 w O y e0 ;« R.F-� t3.'O v N 'O v bO to O C •'� SZ 00 ed � > o `� � y3a; � � Umoo d vp u � a. E°•4 0 0 0 CL. � 00 a, E 61 a �mGOA L< o6 Via` z d d-39 � N d 0.' O A A V W M FI Ad F.1 1 .-di FJ W� tic aao�, VA UA � y 03 �, •c; o �a PC CUr w +: G U raa P� '0 o ° -z° .dzedo Yto 00IL m r a Cdoar, .c � o .oma tv rA cis 0) ccl "" 0 v to 0 chi' O O U v 7 O W w �/ 0 y N wNy .'n e�a !•tea y .r0i }why d ` ° O O w 0.+O. v N V O N - d tlJ two N O y .. �C m w G 'C o O �"• 0 O O r. m 0 O 01 O r. •E ca V a+ CC G 01 x O ed ° A Oto CL 0 Q r. +. O v�� r ea 0 m Cl. 'O W OO ar U O V U ° R 001 O N Q ° V C ea ... V ,G ... +, F •D W ed �. A F O 'O ea cc G rE o mF e A � IL z °1 M Y v a o � G a V W > 9 �i H Vd �I a �w aaa UO UO d a 0 d cd o oG H H r! .o o r O c O Ap r. m O O o c E pw CA V ° °' ec � U .O ° nix y W a m o a d 3 cm CU tv p C. ar W w d ; y ' 'w W O O ea ra O W y O) t�» W Pr �0! �n w O `-' v aO. w �.•, > 0. 0. E S rA $ o C O 0 -0 G +• �. w y v + ... t o :=� ++ C. C�to o r 4i � -O ..Vi C+ O aXl aY fZo o 'aoE > � � do � vox i �, C1. A > -c s ,� cO, 0 O•, �j CC y oV eC A CL. F O C � vOi F cV W �d � ts. .3U o c:• CIS � a �f 00? Via` � z A A (- w 8 d x ^ A a S w > G rr Q Q Q y o u O v cu O 00)) O OQ"i coxa UD UD UA Q � R. O 04 Q o O v O y y o Com v d ec p G C �+ p N .c h0 U3 cu U3 y y 4! OO O Q N O m r. t,CU 0 � ° L1 bo > y ,ea OW CLI Cd i F N Q•'v �tv.• }" •y+ n X.. �y" w �' "� �" E '3b ... a 3 � 3 �... •.. p .. ... Q '3 oar., �, 0) v� y ..�. y V C1 O N g 0 :� vO� O W 01 w ¢U3 cu, R Q, w O C� y V Q U oai 0U � rn a, otoU a, �,... ow av V fV .. 4J C � +. A V . 0) •.. OU pr.V CDed C. + C a) QC C a>) .: ° as +�. w a d ¢' O Qm � N —� C ni y 3 .p p� 4! O r. . ) CCk. ® yom. 7 ny r ;d 4! Ctv C 'x 0) CO cc fio ' �° °» 0 .0 '0 mo o F+ C°1D C C o «• E C ,3 eel _ C6d' ui z G�4Z Ln s d x d o � G v M r d� x w G>1 cn � O •c a s x o U Cd cn ° w to W O � 0 o o �, 0 0 O �. V e� G > w N 60 N + y y F. G1 .rr cVu F� CL'C bo H v G d0 Q G v V O Oo O G O0 ed G _ d 41 CU tv to ;s 010 eo 3 G v 3 .5 „ v � E 003 >, tv ;; yG ooO.UcclG m°C d bU0 LUo V G d d v p C y Po 4 U G W C •O G G to � a � ad � W 5 r. '0 o +. O ,, C E bo rr G O G •O v LL O O y G ++ O > G a� C C.Y C to 0 G CA'O G>ti (n p O d y w .G LL.[ F P Q.O +. O O a ea E s as g O a w < N CL z LS f--1 F Gil 6—Y3 X - � w a d b o Q A r � k F. > Ac 94 U Q d k O 5M F O V CL. t6 a �. oC F Oi (U .� En >, y N T3 � .O m • V 04 = U v v v v Y catv � M v � o v >, >, R tv V ya, > 3U ed Cd o w w pp e0 a > "d QQQJJ! O eC CC v y O O w, W OC d 0 = � d ^: .O M " O O R 0 O 0�0 G N it Gl > j Ql 0 ++ r, 0 .0 O W 0 �0 ay vwy .� G:1� Q CJCdo bo no v�ioai . Ed b V y .U G �'' V p •G C1. Gl C Com, tvtv G O 3 eC OV v G! w i b0 C Lon �� �j w d 'v~'"i rn 0 O 0 � G m m v CL a � Q 'ri Q � 04 m _ 0 -0 O O k r o IE M m� w m y [7 z w x E d a d o . A X d y N � y � yAy � P o a a as �, A uas3 uIwo as3 uas3 O +~. •�• O w O O oa N a P-40 Qb ° UO °: �a O ++ 7 0O bo � chi L'y p N d 0 C (zto O N o d 2 Ei U C O . aid � o .y �ov �C .... q -� O �y CC C� CJ G.y �. V E �M ti .y W 0 V cao �' tyAtv W OW ,� 0.2 v 0.%'cb to 0 164 a� IL V 4) w rA yy" �"• 0o ++ ,ter. ea +, C Q ; Q 0.4 '� Qr �+ w .a � O O 0 •1~r fyll d Q Y 1.4 zQr CL� O Q yap." >, O m m ° tv>, 3Nx y �Q�J1ch Cb wry C V H U cu ea U te' W CoQ cu b Ou w U .xJ Q Q o E �. W r:. m Via` z w w Z w w _ �� 00 d a a 0 m � u m w S Q 4 d i+ tie 1� 01 ° bo d O p, m 0lb 60 w ea 0 0... � CL a � Q'•� d a°1i a 7 � O G `� .•• aaa AL1 : GG � v 1 ►+1 � VAI V u ` e°� O G f3.� .O •O rj) y u v >, v Ts d aU adox v o a, � > � v ., oG 3 •> w "' v py woo > 'y i °y' ° -o o .G 'o .- �. o w G `n o G 3tv y N y v yO u. 00 y .�4 G r0, OD G x G v G c � w. 3 ' tv PC ° w30) 4 o °y' Lo o �: ta Qy � m va v y v .. y v a� ec r. ca S3, y Po m o� b0! ^[ L4 tGC CU o > oo y i y .v v eyd tom, ren ���, O ca 'O Q 'R DO >` v G v `� v w y ,v, OU Oo M y L W > W S� O G .v o a� Ly :� �� O vy G m � G G p IL (fl V +�+ y G V ca 0 G y O > y y y > GO r c o 3 � 3 `° by eo n o ° � u a. o °° v _ Fr O 00 y y rQ. w tv U o G bo-. G o .� O EDCL cu m tv5CU y i. •.. cc cv �¢ � � � 03 . 3H ¢ ax, 00> m � � 8 www C C o a = E G �.= ml a a z Q c� c� u u (,-yb a, s d x z 0 •+ gj a A v w Q :7 d d- to d G Q m 7 0 a d oG O m 31 - o0 O GOD boo .°o V O > r u 41 P. 0 A o O �. O m > m v C a ° G "cis „r7 0 be G ��+ .0 �"� +�+ tv O O 111 d v( A.O v aoi m x > .Yi Vl m ¢• V ~ fJi �i V m o � m ►. ... vm3 rnoy �, ° (U C .Y. W �+ > d Q Gl a G1 W .r ” to i ..n A ° „yy V �r .� '� it Xi (�j to m •y ° p o . E _ a 00 CL z c7 c� 0 d a q u a Q M d nn a A CG OC ILI Q Q Q d G S O O O O �y O • .0 v 'O Q at O (v 4J 'p :�r �, . cu 'fl �rpj p rnca w .fin y . .V Id ~ H rr p U "r 'd r T3 �i GG rte.. LL QJ 0 fC O �i O Q" Fi r' CO GJ ? d ,�'� •F �"' '?� V ~ W rA O y y riS Xyy. .� O w O m O O to i . rn� U aE .60 E i C .G D O w a" w0, Ch v Q. O 7 ++ y eo2. a, Q .c = �. E m cd u x v p G. L1. rn �' pp 'LS %O L3 Q C w w D.O W U O CL crO w "" O G g R O .y 'O c° p 0 m W .� ca y p O a ODQ w CA v y O O 0y G w m + U G w y > V Dl j O y^j .�1 V .p .fl pp y b0 V .r�.•11r L. '� .V.i L.! y y rA En C U : U .0 u DG e0 .Ci u Q m cC 04 rt: tv .6 y y � O O O C ., E o CM Via` x6 —YP r d a a 0 .r A d d e�y o � aaa Q d d d E °D V •� O 'df }O„ O v O. •� •� G r edd A 000 �. � �' aJ LO z °' •o a o CA w R G w0 'Ol ed O O V L3 w U) y y Gib w 'O Cl ' C V O 0U. y O y y y � ,., �7 V A Fi y�yy 3 V .r+ Gl >++• w •.. O c A >> Y .w A • fA �i ..wi �i Fw H 41 A cz t G� AC -igi �i �1 y > ,0 ~ 0 -0 � 41 �.. tC r QO �' ° �r ^ N ..r }n a) CU �.z r+ E 0 33 a, a'U c ° 14 o c °or°a w A .�.. U 61 w ° O "' � O V cm pppp aC '� v 0 � i v [ V V O �' V O A � O G cD E Q A p p O fl. 6! '� A •0O 0. V Acc 0! ¢, 3 y >, O •p > b z .b O r. v y .fl a. V u L1. vii R•'C i1. VOl 3 a �. 'O vi vOi t''G Gl w c a a Is '" N q N di s d a a 0 A u C IV to ..w V y x V d c E y lb �G! td a R-� to .ti v .. >N UU bo to CA w w _ v 00 w '" H CD to U. Gl tC w � O s y 0 a w _ Ccz � � Cd A. �r tin V w 00 a•. 41 y rn 0,0 O rn 0 y v �O G ani ,O ^ O O y ro b4'O O G •. ry y $ O > •i 0 0 "" .O Ocd M .r 6n Qr r. V G ++ t•. rr .� Q) t-. r+ > rr Y Cc O ¢, ttn v •� dw v "" 0. E aC d y to •�, a+ 4/ O V ` V ❑ .�. 0 •� w m ai ai s. O v� O G O O. to In pp?7 y .• y ., V vii y ��� G 0 0 o O 0 cGi 0 ami Fes., Ol ,O '� O „eaD OG O r+ u rA Qi O rn y w. Z tv t�i� U. +. O rn to OO ai trs p, 'O v O $1, to i0 i � w wy„ 'C7 rA > .� d ...� O •g d cz 7 OW `y° 0 C" 0. vOi w d In icy C]. A.+�"• CC ` 7�i ix.. it fyn w V R i .�.. V Ol 0 3 w V t,s C. ,y.. �. G01 •� U Ol vi•t'3 Utm Cp U O W w O 'r0�.. b0 O > G F' G .G cu > .0 Y = a O w O .� .O 'Q G v 0 d�O1 O a d m �' +. y t0» G to x►, ,_ 'O w ... sx, O U a Q"v0, O w 0 i d y O OO O w ,O 'O O O y�C y t o >~ d C V w r to 4! Qr .' V 3 O W V] 'O i LL i W 'O � E Via` z c5 x 6�f0 M �4 w a a 0 a � � G Y d r N x e�A o V aaw � Q d a Sy _ G y O E > > 41 0 y to .O v cda °' mi y o E .a >. ►, G ed tu O .b d O v v O y v1 g0/ Att °cis �• 'V1 ° Qr y w to N A �� r. rb CD y w+ O riPO •� y i GJ p 61 0 O V rn Ol E w O pr b0 O A ;; C >,� p >/ ' ow�V l G Op >JO 0 r x G 0 'C .2 ►�/, +GOv, .rQ�."+ rA• QG � GwvyG CU . C k, W > Oc7C 'bGw0 CV '�Cmrn � O.o ¢,o � > rnrc ni ¢ a. Q. au � abw Im R � Jaz 40 d a e 0 a w toto W Y +d > >1 Ol C .. V u A.O `' y r. y O 3av � av �+ o a 3y � a, co v y � 3 O �•� Q/ 41 y ,. O O ori A H +'' O O Q/ c. A _ > eC y O u O O toy G w 3 G •0Z (Lpoz O rz 3 '�' r' y r' 4J y a) pp CU > •-+ V O w w O O v v. e� ro t su t G to d C A r'� 'O W } -" V m O N rte. G O� y O 'y � 0bo 1 - F" GO O US eo .., Q. y � G ayi > O U t O O y _ ED Ow _ � _y z Id C E 4JCL. o y 'O �: pup ; ] O 'i O co= aCL.X w a v G Glu > O d 0 i U U O w 21 ¢ ami i w }• oz v v c F 0 V � �. cF G. � � > O O .� c .� cnaa � � rE ao � n �F m� Via` z —f3 Ln s d W 0 .. ts A +M r w ti a VJ .Yi > Fr Q) o p = 3 � e a..�' d d A ap Up ac x w ca IWO tv a .r S o O C Y 00 0 ~ '� i s i+l O t; y ea PG 114 O vdi' a+ +• +' w cn O �r+ Q A >'� O G S y» C y ec v v OC O G. +. O 'o .+ O 0 G ec 'O A cd C. O w y 3 cu -. CU w OO w w .. O 'C3 y G7 p G v O y E aD 1! v 00 w fl Cd 3 O y ayi o d .•• d �.. '.'-' 'w w pOp,r .... 4: P, ec .O •� O1 �. y w C CZ.A cG fdCA yy i �• >� (u 3..tv Cc Cy r rte.• V i'�d .r• Q..V G'' y O V O O R w 0 GJ 41 G F. o FV. i U ..� a+ tri fu d i'}y b . U w A 40 V Q+ a V '1~• iii y w V A •--� X f7 O O O G� y •"' yp e� coot � > . o v ° A r o W o � •o E CO CD a� y v, O . V O O ;; 3 y y C m R �y O (v I-° s d x o . i6 a w Q M d s r d A y y� O W P4 RS 0. V D V Q V Q d q Q m d r.+ U y Q Q U H "'" Fy O • ro v N O W w GO ►. tC tv ed m y x � 'o y �, O O .., ,� B cc V ' °ca°/i � uoi °' z ci. c3v X30 a.ca tv IM 0 a) a0 - a hyo „ ,.. � a Q Lo fO Q fA .fir �r � r.+ y � U U 4J eC O .r .r h 00 td +' O i0 m tai'.CL Hl 'i+ yyrA..� 01 rr Q vyi 0-too ,y A U 'Q U cc C o m = �a � a z �' ? r. S d x 0 w � A w d > m 41 H b0 � :1 m Qz v oz cu 3 Q" chU o4 oG a U D P4 u 04 fA fA d Q O O r O O +y+ ey > G 'O > C > O y O '" .G O to Q„ •� vo y00yy � 3w � > vii W y 'O o Q. OCU to to 9 to b0 y "� !� Ob4 0. Gl ... .-r 0 Y w to bo bo �O .. y G ed y ,O eC O 1. o N O y G! m 0D o o a� c w 0 d w y Q• a; .0 � o >, Q� V ^� y ++ Q) y �. r.. y d •3 f� v 3 2 o r+ yO R Z M. y fA CA rO G1 = MOp O y ��' eG d ~O b0 G! .O 'O Q, 8U1 r'�. z y cis "5" .� a4 H >� y a bo.Z cd y G E O y d �¢ O O !d � y � .g ; � CL y 'C .O LL inw .4 0 v y y ea 1-4 v O ~ v to ed .. �. y > O Qi y 'Lys V b4 �. rr C1 E o y :: 0. v ate, N A Oj O O y Q = V b0 wy 0 y 41 to o O � — p 0 tv 1.4 CU 0 C -o R. y 0..., ea v y �. J 0 y > u .� m c o a =C , E o tmw wa «+ m C Via` z 0O OD fi d x a 0 to a, H A M d N w ..r a 4 40i w p y O N O d w O aria VA a0 Vto O dU .o a d _ d 3o °°' a' ya°i � vapi °1to LO W oE °: o A4 ° � w ° Ow o .. cd bo a, a to v nrw G) Q•3 ° 41 to w es .. O F� rrcd cu ^ G� .. +. y p $ v� y p toe 2cap v ro bo y y ° Q LLQIM A e° w cu O W m R ,, a G �. 3 p to Or cu CU bo w o M � . CA .0 ++ r �. O Y H 0) U5 Or v w m > 0. v � V ¢, a = v a, ¢cp > pry d aa.01D SUV y � ed �.u o a, O O o �- £ .. d a1,,. mag C-i oC Jaz d u u s d a o _ u R w o Q M d ..w > > > > > O O ° 0 d S O d d G/ O1 Q! (n CI) fn Cn K 'O G>! .Y v � R � i+ rtl G! O y r. d 4J vU O epo v Q. v O a O i d 93 O 3:cu ya � � � •o .« Y °gyppv, eau � o A � ecUGo a v CU w P4 + o w l a: 0 - E p = 0 +�. A d w p w O v cu v d di ed A. W ^' pu vu �ow0G0 > rd Im O W e0 CU y q w G G >' w O 0 bo ` to 0 cc rl CC O 01 0 M bo to O Ow �yyyj � U .� 000 .x3 tm G Iur G1 rCl Ql w f0 y • ru � Fr i•~a �+ O p a+ y (+CCS' to bo CL, L = (L1 O 00 O y e�C ° p o CC 16. w u w > CA m O Q b w E: O v x N LYi r. 0 C o Via` � z 6-57 0 N rd s d P4 G C w Q M d w � p eC etl eC eC rw 0 CW1 a x a cn cn cn cn d C Q N d O O O O to to G 3 u' E bo ed a o °' y �--� `� O .-r � 'S� �•. V to � � � '�r. '� ++ N ao 3 �+ y O vii ? (Uto ~ iyvai v =V) 0 :dvy tv Cm) o d Stu � � w � aov op � 0m ed V) 0 (a y 6/ O � _ rte. X C 'C v to O cc v ca tu to ed tv W P4 .� 0 N G boy 0 .'�r'['�-i R >> twt to Q'�,[ �¢ �" Q"� o o 7 ^' C. ice. fti Y7 Gl �CC 41 o m o W 0 >'P4 y '� a ed •4 OD y d v eC am .0 (U � � oo � � � > Ovyc'�+ � �'� ? r. N "d s d a G 0 ... G w w > m > Q 0 > > O O y; cl R + SL w cu 0 aj aGaa6 uD to cn' uQ d r. a O 3G ?: O m v ar r G eo V w G > p> y 0 ~ ~ CU A O a. G O w G G 4OiF. C G. >, aJ O A b0 .O ca O o w G v 'b O G G. r _y •y O G O y a� vG G R, 0 'C as v v O G.3. _ U +• O ... �. a) +. N Y d O O cu u G 'a y 0 +� O `�' y 0 ay. eyo U m c E 1'.a & E; qua. G 3 �. v `� -0 -Z c v ar V o 0o y y y , E cn m y O � ,G 0 °° y p. G G a. V A C � �o � a' � a awl .cva. 3y 000 � v � E cm ¢ � G a, .G ... O .r 3 a ° 'd v o G y W G 'Vl a) c6 ++ ++ r�• a) ++ �y it yy .� fvA w N ILm �Qo 'a,� a. 3aAbo �tm_ °oma' d Pa 3 � ° cu o� ° o ° r, 0 � �h.� 'X � � c o p ate. rA C bO A V V a! 0. > y, w ? � w 7 a) w (n Z so ed w CU = ww-0 V O �. e^Gtl `�, O. O y O a>i W i0. `p ¢ G. 4J v v c .i V1 w+ " 0 to V � Q �. (]. O ed t�. �4 � m � 1.. � ►. C C O r £ bC13 •'' cm f pip tj N N s d C M d it .r h � y > ixn H M A Q) 0 0 O O O O aaa VA R, Q F., D C. D ti0 0y O yO ,O 3 O G. r. '> G O �y. p4 94 W > H tra 30 C tv •F t0 1Oi O -G e� 0 O 0 . G .0+ vi OD%0 ami G.'O Ooo OGD.., .O .O m d m C H G U •.r d ,� ... eC O1 '� t a a+ •oG � too W CdN E o 0 3z r y v o w a; •o ea � y , ObtGO am W > .0 O ay aG� Nd� 0G0O W pyW R. O c .0 .r IL 0 >,. 0 1o � w o owe a. o ° ¢'a. .+ H Q .O A y A Gl e� +' �' t0 Cf G 'G �c o >> 'O O~ G U .O y .d G U rA ^' Gl ..Ui .. q1 Q) O O ed G 0 r y ` '�.. �".. X 7 d > V e� CL 4! y d1 G~ � O Oto >, bo as° fn O in C £ o m w A� o ri e*i en N d P4 p G O m A V ^ W F+ M d it O ..r ab GQi w 0 0494 ; dU UA tndV d R C $ O O w O a.'> O to .. GL O '0 O O C�C y O ++ O a 1.4° ate ca ed O A tr V 00 V cn fx O U O w p ed v O O Itl ai 000 .R O cn � p G O � a. W y p Gl � p Ej •y ., O p 'pO aye N Gpi t y tv in 8) > E o0 ► E O o .. cU3 y 3 �, a � ,woowp. inc t Q CO w O .� y w 'L3 eC C p •� ~ter t:. h w ea O F' N <C eC O OJ v� 't!� A Ol .0 C yy w o w�y t� ,p y w E AP_ O CC O w w m IM d x 3 C .. C do ea xcl y. y « �° ' w° ' � x w wO a: o,o O 0 b o E C o i = rn � 41 G1 y eC 'p w .~. w �,� .�. w Qac w ° w g a � o .., � � -. y v b° � 0 X00 tl .� cv Q o a3 U o oo �. Z dp °n. 3 a, a. o o C p t! m E Via` z P-0 N `d v �i G O O � a V Q w •M +d A ib b r. v A > y w � w Y/ d o0i w GJ O Gal aaa cn Ufa d o � d to L ro O Ow a cn H w U5wov 000 •3 � � 3p $ oo O -IZ a O eC y O tvw eC O 1 V d Gl .yy, y p C y 'C G1 Gl 4 CD &4 y0 O ; M G1 C .O t. G C G1 �i ftl w > r+ ate.. y Gl U cu 'O v O O Go o O aJ pp to 0 w a, oO a)¢ .4 � vto G>i > y i py Gl o -o O .. oal p � W ccu IL Oo >, waJ ar ro ca y Ei Ei Gl 'y cu .moi 61 G1 3 CJ .Un+ CL Y rr Q a ° W '� ry+ rr 6" 1�-� •!0 Gl � fA Iii m m .. G z d Q td t0 U > U C V e0o Q PC1 v U 7 ' W C O G +, C O G1,3 pap� �C l� �-62 R $ § � § � ) ■ ) > � f 2 \ ƒ� k � k 7 � �§ ab @ a e 0 � Gia & Q { mo / 222 § 2 � b2g � cis / � { 3 ° c 3 &_ 2 ¥ et § $ 2 ■ o w a ■ § ate � o i \ � � t SUS — #— 22 § \ \ / a� � k / ƒ \ 2 �� 22m ■ fa _ It « � ■ _ A �q � cu cb co § tM �§ / s a 2k 2 (v �o N d a 0 � r a Cee W SO .n.l GO w 01 1.4 41 +d r 1� t..1 d �• G y _ -• ai a A 'i +. grA , Q � � a a. a'.. .� � aO aeC en V u O O ~ r.. Ologs 83 a fG Ln y ° ° Nyy W 01 �.o Q 9 wto 0 y w x y Z C w Qr� a 7 F= O 50. Q+ Ql '� 'y GJ 0a fa .O rn W Q" (L) O LL o r p. G 0 w v v 0 0 0 O CL ebo eS G *+ O M p u O 'C C = w ea ww �' r, S.ss. a) C° ts. a U C V F O w w 41 ea u G1ed Ol eq `i--1` b y d .� w L1. e0 ett O O R E o Icm � � d M (o'6y � $ § / � . � © £ 19 u > � k 2 § 2 § § (v AAS Uo » c � u a o ° § > 0 cu E kw ( § � � _ t # _ 2 \ / .4 S-0 0 / � \ / \ — � © # � = Sd E § 0 \ § ucl E 2 � t \ � � u 0 © rn = q a0 IL § 2 b e CD 22 � % » ems tz \ t § _ k , L D § § § �/ f � z CD § k k > 0 0 § a _& � -�� AfrACHMENT 8 Letters from the Public Regarding the Project G-6G LL E U C L f �' p Z ¢ 3 LU 0 W F U co w `fir" Q� C) i�`U rL ll. d a ¢ 7 a [�. � D1 om ❑� ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ C.) i Q � D ][ O ¢ � og �`` ¢. � obaUoo s � r vo -ICS - .` �— .� �- C � _ . � � lam: � -� JIB 1 � � = 9 q 4- 40 cl v J � � 3 S 5. � lk for Y I lu if3 f'ti'1C(II roeeling �� /� IAa 1 8 1997 ink /������ �w " i i ie- �L9 76 x9- /"c" 7 -- . ... 10 :I ----- -'i"..'."---_.l_� -----.-- — _ COUNCIL - -- CDDDIFI-__Ow ti.._._...._ ! gA0 Q�FIN DIR .f•1 �+�m'i�3 �1' 1r. E_+' CAO_._..-----❑ FIRE CHIEF -- - — L(ATTORNEY (OW DIR f PICLERKIORIG ❑ POLICE CHF ----- MAIM -- -- ------ 0 MGMTTEAM- 0 RECDIR - - 71r- --.. ._ y' 13 C WFILE ❑ UTIL DIR p __....... --. ...- - CITY CLARK —-- -- -------------- ._� .. _ __..-._....❑ PERS DIR G 7 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA ��, --10 0Z /- - ?2 f i : (o- 70 RECEIVED Date: 3/15/97 fj :z;r:t i: ::;inert for MAR To: Mayor and City Council,San Luis Obispo y—� 9 CITY COUNCIL From:Vicki and Steve Finson 1 co.+ n° �w�rtl t � Re: Proposed Perfumo Canyon Creek Development We are strongly opposed to the proposed Perfumo Canyon Creek development. By way of introduction,we feel it is important for you to know some things about us. We own and run a small business in San Luis Obispo and have lived here for 8 years.We strongly believe that SLO must grow and we support planned growth for our area.We vote and stay apprised of current local events,but this is the first time we have felt this strongly about a local issue.We own a home and live near the proposed project,but would not be able to see it from our home.We are strongly opposed not because it is near to us,but because it is a bad development.The fact that we live nearby has only helped make us more aware of the proposed development. The proposed development should not be approved for several reasons. 1. It is an unfeasible place to build a large housing development(i.e. more than 4.houses);it will be packed into a biologically sensitive area between 5 known slide areas and a known flood plan.The developer says this can be"mitigated."Certainly we have all seen pictures of Californian homes demolished by mud slides— those developers also said they had"mitigated"the potential hazards. 2. When the land was purchased the developer[new that only 4 houses could be built.This is sensible for the land and complies with existing City and County policies. 3. This is a biologically sensitive area!This is a very precious piece of land.Developments have been repeatedly denied here because it is a horrendous idea! Not many areas like this exist in SLO county—let alone so near the City limits.The creek runs almost all year,there are 100 year old oak trees and the wildlife is abundant.This place is unique and cannot be replaced once it has been developed and destroyed. 4. We believe the developer knows that this project would never be allowed without the"carrot" of alleged open space. It has been denied several times and he knows he needs to"convince"the City to approve it. 5. The developer knows that he has nothing to lose with the"gift"of land to the City.The developer knows that this"gift"land cannot be developed —it's a very steep,heavily wooded area.The developer knows that current County and City policy prohibit development on the hillside.Even if policies were changed,which is highly doubtful,it would not be economically feasible —or perhaps even impossible with the known slides. The developer is"generously giving land" which has no real value for the developer! 6. At the planning Commission meeting,one of the Board members stated that the City should change its policies to allow acceptance of this proposal because the County could not be trusted; they might change their policies to allow development.This is fallacious thinking.We do not believe that the City or the County would ever allow building on the hillside(the alleged"free"open space),but the Commissioner is incorrect to believe that the land is any "safer"from future policy changes if under City jurisdiction,as evidenced by the fact of this cavalier disregard of existing City policies. 7. The City gains NOTHING from this proposal!The area is already open space under all existing policies!The citizens actually loose open space and loose a very precious area.The City gains the liabilities of public access to a very steep,heavily wooded area and the liabilities of homes built between slides and a flood plain. Open space has nothing to do with ownership. 8. The City looses the respect of the community.Why spend many years and lots of money to develop a General Plan and policies for planned,consistent growth only to change the plan whenever a new development with incitements is proposed?The URL was specifically moved in 1990 to protect this area! Please ask yourselves an important question: Would you consider approving this huge project,and changing all the policies to allow it,without the acquisition of the hillside area?Please follow the City's policies and your own common sense—protect the SLO environment for the all the citizens you represent! Do not modify the General Plan—do not modify the URI— do not approve this project! A i ir1 til 4c.Jocumem for future Co+urlch rlieetirog Late._rl�g:rr'ze� r. t11VkL !AR 1 F, 1997 MARCH 9, 1996 OFsaNLUISOSISPo RICHARD A KRAHN _ BISp.. 1037 MURL AVE. SAN LUIS OBISPOr CA. HONORABLE MAYOR A. SETTLE MAYOR OF SAN LUIS OBI$PO. DEAR SIR; I IMPLORE YOU TO FOLLOW THE GUIDELINES SET FORTH AS TO BOUNDRIES AND DEVELOPMENT IN OUR FAIR CITY. PLEASE DO NOT LET GRED OR AVARICE SWAY YOU IN REGARD TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ON PREFUMO CANYON. I REFER TO THE GREED AND AVARICE OF THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY. IT IS NOT I%N THE BEST INTERESTS OF US WHO LOVE NEARBY NOR THE CITY TO GO AGAINST ITS OWN GUIDELINES AND PERMIT THIS DEVELOPMENT I ASK YOU AS A RESPONSIBLE MAN AND A LEARNED MAN TO EXERT ALL YOUR POWER TO STOP THIS RAPE OF OUR NATURAL GREEN LANDS. THANK YOU FOR AYOUR A ATTENTION'., RICHARD A. KRAHN _ r F CDD DIR "N DIR ❑ FIRE CHIEF 2 PW DIR❑ POLICE CHFEl�/ED❑ REC DIR❑ UTILDIR MAR 1 4 *V1 ❑ PERS DIR T CITY COUNCIL r4 !/ �[ rgN1 " r �' 7.2 ��`1 tutu's C:,uncil4rneeling JDuil yl c 1 1 _- 3-19-7 1 4 sOn4S y1- Cat�, if ac srdicedP.A l e e i 2/N/97 1v 144a,)It)< To: San Luis Obispo Mayor Alan Settle and Members of the SLO City Council Re: Developments Proposed for the Pref imo Creek Area B 1997 .')F SAN LUIS 081$Pr Dear Mayor and City Council Members: I am alarmed and dismayed that once again, the issue of bending our"urban edge" has come before our city planners. I laid out many details of my adamant opposition to such a decision in my letter to you of 1/9/96. After 13 months, I feel even more strongly that the developments proposed for the Prefumo Creek area, if allowed to proceed, will be a monstrous mistake. So the Destroyers—er, Developers—are at it again, asking us to give up some of the local native habitat we all enjoy,just so that they can make their millions from huge, ostentatious mansions for a few. Eyesores, really, compared with the beauty of 500- year-old oaks, free-running streams, and graceful deer. We town dwellers NEED some close-in, natural areas. Not to mention the wildlife— birds, mammals, riparian life—that depends totally on the rare sources of water around SLO for their very lives. In the long dry months of summer and fall, I often walk up into the Irish Hills with my trowel, to channel and husband a few trickles of water from a rare spring on the mountainside. When I return, the many animal prints in the mud tell me my work was gratefully accepted. Prefumo Creek is another, larger source of scarce water for our wildlife and so is priceless, to them and to us humans who love the outdoors. Have you seen the bumper sticker that reads, "Humans aren't the only species on earth, we just act like it" ? I fully believe other species have the right to live. Homes bring in noise, roads, paving, dogs, cats, cars—goodbye Nature, goodbye habitat. Hello roadkill, hello empty woods and sterility. I've been told that in the Prefumo Creek area, the developers want us to annex their land so they can enjoy the city services—while they offer to give us, in trade, some wild area THAT THE CITY ALREADY HAS PRESERVED. Some trade! Good trick—if you people swallow it. So I beg you: do the right thing—for all us critters. Respectfully, RECEIVED FEB 2 4199/ CITY COUNCIL cAN 1"' f%41CpQ_CA March 3,1997. Re:Perfumo Creek Homes �e�ewed -9 by Ms .Me Ewes-� Dear City of San Luis Obiispo, I have just recently discovered that Perfumo Creek Homes Development has plans for a sewage lift station. The commission should know that the release of Hydrogen Sulfide Gras(rotten egg smell)from this facility may be toxic to my health.I am disabled with Multiple Chemical Sensitidry. If I have to leave this meeting because of my health please allow this letter to be read in my absense in it's entinty. This letter is a formal request for American Disabilities Act/Civil Rights accommodation for myself and my two handicapped children,in order to avoid toxic injury in the case of low-level exposure. I am also requesting on behalf of any other individuals with illness that may be affected by this station. While my son's and I have a lot of very specific technical medical diagnoses-for example Reactive Airway Disease,partial complex seizures, and Toxic Encelophy,-Multiple Chemical Sensitivities(MCS) generally describes the combination of symptoms and conditions. Our symptoms are chronic pain, chronic fatigue,cognitive dysfunction,and breathing difficulties for low-level exposures. Other symptoms may vary due to exposure,ie.muscle twitching,blacking out,vomiting,etc. All of which can be quite severe,from one low-level toxic exposure.Permanent damage and months in bed may result. It has been estimated that I have lost 30 IQ points,my son has lost 15-20. Though this fluctuates due to air quality. 1930 Castillo Ct.will be our retirement home and our specially designed environmentally SAFE home. While there is no known cure for MCS,I have heard of people slowly getting well in very clean air. Our children can go to school,primarily because of the perfume and pesticide free accommodation and the fact that the windows are usually open year round. I have been able to etiminatP being on Oxygen all day since leaving Florida This was the safest location we could find. There are no specially zoned safe areas for people with this disability in this county. We are left to find our own accommodations. I DESPERATELY NEED THE AIR QUALITY IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD TO NOT BE WORSENED. Car and Truck fumes,and a neighbor's cleaning chemicals,pesticides,and other toxic chemicals can make me sick. For example,once at Kennedy Nautilus,while on the treadmill(experiencing labored breathing just from the physical exertion),I nearly blacked out within seconds after a scented man used the tread mill next to me. I pushed the button to stop,but fell while the machine was still moving. I can foresee the same or worse happening if exposed to H2S in my yard. I have included the following documents to support my claim. *Cover pages from "Hydrogen Sulfide and reduced-Suykr gasesAdverselyAffect Neurophymologial Functions" Rest of article available at your request. *EPA letter stating that people with this illness are an acceptable risk in their standards. *Letter from State of Florida about us being on the pesticide sensitive registry. *Letter from current doctor-with toxicology notes *Letter from Social Security Disability LOW-LEVEL H2S EXPOSURE In the Article"Hydrogen Sulfide and reduced-Sulfur gases Adversely affect Neurophysiologial Functions",symptoms reported of persons living down wind and receiving low level exposures are . "....headaches,nausea,vomiting,depression,personality changes,nosebleeds,and breathing difficulties." At risk populations,ie.seniors will most certainly experience symptoms. . . 2 EPA-ACCEPTABLE RISK EPA letter discusses the risk/benefit statute which means that"....all of our decisions reflect a determination that the benefits outweigh the risks,not that there are no risks." "In recent years,there have been numerous reports of people developing multiple chemical sensitivity(MCS)which is similar to other types of sensitivity in that exposures to low doses(well below those that would affect others)are associated with effects that can be very debilitating to health.." In the EPA letter Dr.Blondell speaks of"...one report in the literature of an asthmatic who died from a severe reaction to a pet shampoo." Our doctors suggested we leave Florida,they were concerned that we were seriously at risk. I could end up as one of the 60,000 a year asthmatic deaths due to air pollution. PESTICIDE REGISTRY To possibly save our lives our occupational medical specialist placed us on a pesticide registry.Medical tests were required for qualification for the Florida Registry of Pesticide Sensitive Persons. This entitled us to 24 hr.advance notification of any pesticide application by a licensed contractor within 1/2 mile of our home. THIS IS A CLEAR EXAMPLE OF A STATE TAKING DIRECT RESPONSIBILITY OF INSURING THAT OUR HEALTH AS CHEMICALLY SENSITIVE DISABLED PERSONS WAS REASONABLY PROTECTED FROM AIR POLLUTION. This is a clear example that Florida recognizes that normal exposures considered non-toxic can be extremely hazardous even fatal to people with MCS.The City of San Luis has also given us a pesticide free base-ball field,the development of our rental house has a pesticide free zone for us. Sewage lift stations can not predict failures in order to give notice to hypersensitive individuals. DOCTOR HEUSER Our present doctor,Dr. Gunnar Heuser,warns in his letter that low level H2S released could be toxic to ' us.His toxicology textbookprintouts describe sub acute poisoning signs as nausea,stomach distress, diarrhea,balance disorders,chest pains,etc.. I need for you to make the connection that acute symptoms can happen to me from low-level exposures that may not bother anyone else. Please respond to the following requests. 1. An ADA/Civil Rights expert should evaluate my request and make a recommendation to the planning commission. 2. The lift station should be designed like a nuclear plant(not to ever fail)Nothing experimental should be allowed. Odors every time the sewage backs up are not acceptable. Roger Briggs,executive director of the Regional Water Quality Control office,told me carbon filters can fail.I believe a Sewage Lift station is part of a pollution incident in Los Osos. The other day I was outside and I noticed 8 deer frolicking on the meadow,while large hawks circled above. Every day deer can be sited in the meadow,every evening they come down to the creek bed. I was shocked to learn that their drinking water is not and will not be protected from storm water run off with retention ponds. This is an area of serious neglect on the part of the city planners. We only have one lake to pollute,or protect I have never seen so much wildlife any where else in this area This creek and meadow are very special and vital to many animals existence. I oppose this project not only for my own health reasons,but because this development would seriously hurt their habitat. Sincerely,Linda J.McElver 594-1064 1 6r9.f 4i. Tozi roiogy and Indus G . Healrrt, Vol. 11, No. 2, J99� •gs :•M'DROGEN.;S.ULrFIDE AND'REDUCED-SLLEUR GASES XprERSELY :AFFECTNEUROPI'I1rSIQT�OGIC4L FU�iCTIONS KAYE H. KILBURN University of Southern California School of Medicine', Environmental Sciences Laboratory ?' Los Angeles,California •''�'l~lw H WARSH,... i' RAPHAEL:be . -.. eti ction5ervices;Inc. .: Workers Disease D,.... is Claremont;';Califosru:a Hydrogel sulfide (HHS) above '30 parrs.- per `miliion (PPnt)' causes been unconsciousness and death. Lover doses of anexposurerelateahave ses not been regarded as innocuous, but the effects of prolonged r P studied. This Stu was orti`urgear or ld to eg donrnwed foonit the Prot ssing of gases as a r_suI f "sour" crude oil demonstrate persister: neurobehavioral dysfuncriort. Thirteen and 22 neighbors of a refinery complained of headaches. former -workers breaching C- - nausea, vorrtiring, depression, personality changes, noseboie leso trout states di;Ttculries. Their neurobehaviorc! functions and a p and educational level. i (PO!I-fS)were compared to 32 controls, marched{or a2- ` The exposed subjects' mean values were statistically significantly abnormal compared to cor:trols�orit s%mbolcrrai!reaction A and B, eed of s and t media erecall color discrimination, g of c son,. Their POMS scores were much 'nigher than those of controls. Visual but not in ez,vorkers. recall was significant, impaired to neighbors, 1, uvas concluded that neurophysiological abnormalities were associated with duced sulfur gases, including H2S from crude oil desulfurization exposure to re . 1. address all co—espondence to: Kaye H. Kilbum, M.D.. university of Southert California. School of Medicine.Environmental Sciences Laboratory. 0)5 ZOial Ave.,CSC 201,Los Angeles,CA 90033.Tel.:(1-!3)342-1930.rax:(213)3,2-1533. 2. Presented in part at the 4th lnternauonal Symposium Net1991 aviora! Methods z^.d Effects i1 Occupational and Eri iron.-mental Health.Tokyo.Japan.July 5-11, l of mood states,reacuon time. i Key words:balance,blink reflex latency.color vision,profile Taxicolor'and Industrial Health.V01.11,No.2.pp.185-147 Copyright'C 1995 PrinI ton cies ificPublishing Co..Inc. `7 b 'Zi 1R,6 Kilburn and Warshaw ec Sl INTRODUCTION. 41 One hundredand fiIry yews ago..deatns to sewer workers were aunbuted`to Has (Ghnsl son, s t .. a Pasas from oil refineries in.Canada t.D er 1845). More recently, HIS diad reduced-sul.0 a al., 1989) and from paper-making in Finland (]aakkola et al., 1990) �roduce3,_symotofns =rid impaired pulmonary function in residents downwind from the refineries,but no neurological r: --- _ or psycngogica.'testin8;was done. Low-level environmental exposure to Has without mortality has been t_hored (Spitzer et al., 1989) by some and thotig19 iib trigger mass .A psychogenic illness or"crowd disease by others (Landrigan and Miller, 1983;Modan et al.,. 1983). Before dismissing these as no more than nuisance oases, it would be prudent to examine exposed populadoas. The health complaints of nine workers triggered th s investigation. The workers had been employed in the desuifuization unit of a California coastal refinery that removed Sulfur and heavy fraction from crude oil. Along with shortness of breath. wheez!ng�eve end nose. k i-ntation and cough, skin rashes, depression,.and headache. the.y.shp�Yed smsll-_i:way T obstruction on spirometry. Downwind neighbors of the refinery also had many s� -tetoms. Our hypothesis was that these symptoms reflected impaired neurobehavioral perTcrrnance. Neurobehavioral impairment from chronic low-dose H exposure has not been repened. We tested 13 former workers from the refinery and 22 downwind neighbors in. Nipoma, i California, before and after they filed suit against the refinery. When the exworkers were studied,their earlier small-airways obstruction,dermatitis, and depression had cleared. SUBJECTS AND METHODS Ten male exworkers, mean age 38 years, who had worked in the desulfurization unit of the refinery for one and a half to three years, and eight male and nine female reftnen neighbors, mean age 38.5 years. were studied in Janua.^; 1989 and restudied in June 1991. In "_7 1991 we studied three additional exworkers and five additional neighbors (total 25% Ind 33 unexposed controls (18 men and 14 women). The exworkers had been pipe fitters. -+inters, laborers.and process handlers in the vanadium pentoxide (Va05)desulfurization : =iter its installation. in 1986.done had been overcome by Hi-S.Twelve of the workers studio had left the refinery by October 1988, another in Julv 1989. One worker was lost to f:.:--- -up in 1991. These exworkers and near-plant residents became plaintiffs in a class ac_:- 1=w suit- Controls were friends and relatives nominated by the exposed subjects. They `:' neither worked at the refinery nor resided in the downwind zone and were close matc-es :.r ase, Bender,and educational level. s i Exposure Conditions and Air Monitoring Data Residents lived within 1?00 meters east-northeast of the refinery at a lower e!:• _:::-. and within 2,400 meters of the sulfur plant and coking units (Figure 1). On most da.:s. _: tal air inversions held the refinery's odorous stack gases close to the ground.These gases arc heavier than air. Air monitcrina at street level near the center of the suh:e_ comes G� 77 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY g n . /I g WASHINGTON, L.C. 20460 July 14 , 1995 OFFrUE OF Linda McElver PREVENTCN,PESTiCIDESAND 3966 Hollyhock Pray TOXCSUBSTA.N:ES San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Dear Ms. McElver: . I air, sorry to hear about the health problems in your two children . Regarding your question about EPA pesticide regulations , I have some information that may be useful to you. No one should ever assume that because a pesticide is registered with ZPA it is absolutely safe. The pesticide law, FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act) is a risk/benefit statute which means that all of our decisions reflect a determination that the benefits outweigh the risks, not that that are no risks. Pesticides are designed to be toxic to living things and there is usually a certain amount of risk when pesticides are used. However, if pesticides are used strictly according to label directions, this risk is expected to be no greater than minimal. An exception to this general rule may occur in people who are unusually sensitive or even allergic to pesticides and other i. chemicals. In such cases, the reaction can be quite severe and even life-threatening. For example, there is one report in the literature of an asthmatic who died from a severe reaction to a pet shampoo (in this particular case the individual had not been taking proper medication and was not able to get help in time) . In another example, the employer sprayed an office despite a direct warning from an employee's physician of severe sensitivity . This application resulted in potentially life-threatening effects requiring emergency room treatment and subsequently a major law suit. Therefore, it is important that pesticide applicators take special care to see that their applications do not result in exposure to someone with these types of extreme sensitivities. This may include avoiding any application at all in certain areas or substituting nor.-pesticidal approaches to controlling pests . In recent years, there have been numerous reports of people . developing multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS) which is similar to other types of sensitivity in that exposure to low doses (well below those that would affect others) are associated with effects that can be very debilitating to health. The medical community has not been able to determine what causes this problem. The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency has not yet formulated a policy for regulating exposure to pesticides among those with this problem. There is an interagency workgroup co-chaired by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry and the National Center for T ReeyeledrReeyelablo Prnteo with SoylCanota Inic cn papor that contains a least 50%recicied 1:-er � "7j nd ,.. Environmental. Health y ( artof the `Centers for Disease Control of a �- .Prevention) • that ..is ria" ng witttsinScnown� about MC5 and; a�aill; Yc: probably be ma)tinq'recos�men al.:E ' far .urtherz,Wesearch in thealfall,; 2,::• of this year. We will .%be happy to supply you with a copy of the report when it becomes available. In the meantime, enclosed is a ° copy of Adopting our Pest Control in the School Environment: Adopting Intearated Pest Management booklet. It recommends that schools minimize use of pesticides and, where possible, u-se substitute measures that do not require use of pesticides at all. I hope this information will be useful to you. sincerely, Jerome Blonaell, Ph.D. , M.P .H. Health statistician Health Effects Division (7509C) Eva J.VVH 1890 Castillo Court San Luis Obispo,CA 934W March 3, 1997 Fecet*ved— a# 3-3-47 rn#� Dear Planning Commissioners The issue is: Should we build across the creek? Does it make sense? In my letter of February 26, I touched on some of the problems associated with this development proposal : project inconsistencies with numerous General Plan policies, hazardous conditions on site, City liability and cost, and the lack of public benefit in this annexation proposal. This proposal is a bad deal for the City and should be summarily rejected. Ask yourselves what the benefits to the City would be in developing this land? Do we need the additional housing? Not really. Even if we did, we have enough land within the Urban Reserve Line to accommodate a population of 56,000 residents. That's 14,000 people to go within our planned expansion areas. We do not need, nor should we, annex land outside of the Urban Reserve Line. But aren't we getting this incredible amount of open space? Not really, because the 366 acres being offered have no development value as it is composed of steep and unstable hillsides and the flatter portions are inaccessible. This portion of land is now and will always remain "open space." The City gains nothing by owning it, except some liability. However, the City loses open space by completely eliminating the meadow and turning it into a subdivision. This is a real Trojan Horse. What about liability? Our City Engineer states unequivocally in his letter of September 22, 1995, that " ...this site is not a good one for development. It will result in increased liability to the city beyond that typical of good development if approved with the density and design submitted." He was referring to the geological instability and creek management problems in particular. What about the creek? During the rainy season this is a wild creek. In the short eight years I have lived near this creek, I have seen it rearrange its banks each year. Two years ago a portion of Prefumo Canyon Road caved into the creek and big boulders were brought in to stabilize the road. When that road was built the creek was far away, but no longer. The creek continues to expand its bank at the next curve in the creek channel. You can see the raw sides. A home is projected G-8� r to be built just above this failing bank. The curve in the creek just beyond the proposed bridge to this subdivision just lost a lot of soil this year. Again, the raw scars are there for your inspection. I believe this is also the proposed location of the sewer lift station. This is a proposal where we all lose. The meadow is an inappropriate building site and I would like to finish my presentation with a quote from the General Plan update regarding this particular site: "In 1980 the City Planning Commission reviewed the MIR for a new General Plan Open Space Element. The EER evaluates the impacts of development on the 20 acre area adjacent to the creek. Bridging the creek, grading, visual impacts. wildland fire hazards, drainage and flooding and wildlife habitat were key environmental concerns identified in the EER (The Planning Commission decided not to recommend that the 20-acre area be earmarked for annexation development). The EIR evaluates whether development in the area would meet city annexation criteria. The MR concluded that "development of this site would not result in a more logical, complete or efficient urban edge. On the contrary, it would extend a relatively isolated urban use into an area which is logically perceived as lying beyond the limits of the city formed by Prefumo Creek". Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, v . Eva igil 6-S� J-GJ- I�.:JI O:p/�i•i Frt3iti Vyi„11L OYJD 701 `J'7YJG P. Eva J Yigil Retain this document for 1890 Castillo Court future Cou:?cil meeting San Iuis Obispo,CA 93405 IE February 26, 1997 CIE VIED 51997 RECEIVED City Council ,"OFs�wiu�s0e� P.O.Box 8100 " TLo"„p° MAO 5 199/ San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100 MY COUNCIL � Dear Mayor Settle and City Council Members, ":0N I n�•con #,%!& The Prefumo Creek Homes annexation will soon come before the Council for review . Please allow me to express my concerns regarding this proposal. Prefumo Creek Homes is the most recent incarnation of a series of proposals to build a subdivision on the meadow across from Prefumo Creek. Development on this site was rejected before for good reasons and it should be summarily rejected again. This proposal violates some two dozen established City policies, it puts future residents at risk and saddles the City with potential liability. The EIR is full of references to significant impacts, most of which can only be mitigated by changing the policies themselves. This is a whitewash and therefore unacceptable. This land is appropriately zoned rural lands in the County with Sensitive Resource Area and Geologic Study Area overlays. This land is full of unstable slopes and creeks banks which slough off with each year's rains. Its lush vegetation cover makes it a wildfire nightmare. This land is indeed of great scenic and wildlife value, but it is a bad choice for human habitation. The carrot before the City is the dedication of open space. Please note that the 366 ages being so generously offered has no marketable value as it is composed of steep and unstable hillsides and the flatter portions are inaccessible. This portion of land is and will always remain `open space." The City gains nothing by owning it. The only potentially developable area is the "meadow" and all of it in included in the current proposal. The City will gain another small subdivision it needs to service, a portion of creek it is responsible for, a cumulative burden for other public services - and nothing else. This is not a good deal for the City- reject it. Concerned about property rights? The owners purchased rural lands and are entitled to build two homes and two "granny" units. No one can take that away from them. And the City should not change that entitlement. Thank you for your consideration. G; IQ n n i n G ODYn w+! ss/ D n Sincerely, o�0 1I Eva J. Vigilt7�M-�-�'�. iYY. / C: \wp\ltr.doc\plc-slol .doc Planning Commission Robert Graham City of San Luis Obispo 1829 Marsha Dr . Community Development Department San Luis Obispo, CA. 93405 P.O.Box 8100 781-854q San Luis Obispo, CA. 93403-8100 rgraham@slonet.org February 25, 1997 Dear Planning Commissioners; ° V =a 1 65997 Re: Perfumo Creek Homes Project I ' ve just bought a mobile home and moved back into San Luis Obispo in the Laguna Lake Area . I have been enjoying the tran- quility and the closeness of nature that Perfumo Creek road and it ' s environs provide. I am alarmed that this "zone" of open space and tranquility might be destroyed forever because of an ill-conceived project that would have too many impacts . Having been through the infamous Morro Bay flood of ' 95 of the Morro and Little Morro Creek areas , I have seen first hand the awesome destructive power of Nature against improper planning in low lying creek. areas. Being a San Luis Obispo native, (Born practically on the banks of San Luis Creek ) and residing here off and on for decades, I have seen the disappearance of natural habitat and agricultural open space to more and more developments. Some of it is the mark of progress. But this Project really bothers me as it clearly has potential for: 1 . ) Flooding, 2. ) Traffic �•'I congestion on a blind curve , :3. ) Noise, Light , and Air Pollution increases, 4. ) Destruction of .Native Oaks, Sycamores, Fauna and other native flora, both riparian and meadow, and 5. ) oblit- eration of enjoyment by SLO Citizenry of the spiritual closeness ' to nature. I haven ' t mentioned the costs of providing police, fire, water, sewage, street lighting and such. And of course, the cost• to taxpayers. This project clearly does not belong in the City of San Luis Obispo. I am voicing my objections to you on the htipes that common sense prevails and you do not take the "poisoned fruit" of open space that is offered by the project ' s developers/owners. Leave this open space as it is (or at least in the County ' s hands and their General Plan of entitlement of flour dwellings only. ) Do not annex ! Thank You, and sincerely, Robert Graham SLO-Native. cd �89G � ,. 19yj yl�NCGjS. 1733 Partridge Drive San Luis Obispo,CA 93405 February 25,1997 Planning Commission Community Development Department 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100 Dear Planning Commissioners: The Pref uno Creek Homes development is now zoned for a total of four dwellings on 384 acres. This is the correct amount of development. A unique piece of property is positioned between a tree lined creek and oak studded hills. This riparian land is perfect for the flora and fauna and for us to enjoy and appreciate in its natural state. It does not benefit the city of San Luis Obispo to change the General Plan and to relocate the Urban Reserve Line on Prefiuno Canyon Road. The city does not need control over this land. Mother Nature has placed her own limits here: steep hillside, low meadow, and a creek balanced between completely dry and rushing full with rainwater. Is it asking too much to say no to a limited number of developers and yes to the people of San Luis Obispo? The General Plan is in place to protect our city from individuals who would take advantage for their own rewards. Many concemed citizens developed the Plan to keep our resources and our rights intact. Please recommend that this piece of property not be annexed into the city. Sincerely,�' 7 ) -I�UGt ��uc4.J Watkins February 24, 1997 J^ NlV1S Planning Commission Community Development Dept. 990 Palm Street P.O. Box 8100 San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93403-8100 Dear Planning Commissioners: I am writing in strong opposition to the Prefumo Creek Homes project. As you must know, the environmental impact of this project on the Prefumo Creek area would be catastrophic. I have always thought this city was very progressive in its desire to maintain the beauty and character of the land while making an effort to peacefully blend nature and progress. This project wields such a sledgehammer to the environment that it requires 36 changes to the General Plan! ! Take a walk up Prefumo Canyon Road, look across the creek to the lush green meadow. . . . Now picture 38 homes crammed into that 18 acres (approximately 5 city blocks) . Do the people of this community deserve that kind of trade-off? I sincerely hope you don't think so. Sincerely, Linda HinkleID .1836 Carolyn SLO, CA 93405 (046 17 V.4 oor -�, e 6 8'. �'C .tom � lsziG�-•.✓ �+ J �J C�� .� �e�-t�,�c.� �G. !z- �i�-;-�-✓-L'�'•�`'zi �= Cry--ez. '``�s �„�,.��- � .,,� -�,•,t.e._/sem-�.1-- --� -1�n, rz.d— .Citi-� /LaL/QCL/Yi LIiL[/X`' ��J -C¢i �i(/.�- d7✓ /�inJt-C- �•��./� I'�� �1,Le�1.Gzt�'�e_Ae-Cry. �Cccr af�r�l��rici Lcn1n1i55rol�tl Z/z�jq� �IPasz �o r�o�rQc �t �oe proposecd )ro;Fc4 -G.r ?refit.ono Canyon Ci'Qe L Pic iVs. Pu-I h)lq ho ryies nn I� ti acres of land tdiat is �x+reimei��/ 1'yiol�jica►I� SP,15if>v2 'vV�ulCl Ivt L!. 9rLi�e 1?1i5tCik�. -Il',� �XtYt'r1 C�I�d bu�id�l� vOould not only destroy a unit,ew `7YiSti�111- ark of rural San Luis Obispo , 19LAt i+ �ccLt(ll -34-cm r"Lt 11 r/4 4c `-he_ cr•e e,k�, `r� io'wASNC.�;ni toCJ; nlX;ic� t,OICiUblc czhle, erC51on. Z do nct- wat -+he. C nervi P(an -t-� Ise. Cf�ctn�e 40 a rnoc a'tc: 4N5 Q-17�11'1 I I'LQt'I On Si i3a4)7ema-, as 430 Por-ola--) S Lo, cit Liet cxvnE•ri'o. �^cii f12e!irr�20 February, 1997p�gere°�e� , Dear Mayor £r City Council Members, I am absolutely not in favor of annexing land off Prefumo Canyon Rd. so that 38 homes can be built there. This will cause serious hazards with run-off water during rainy seasons and could cause flooding to Laguna Lake Mobile Estates. The plan would engender vast expenses in order to provide water, sewers, fire protection, police protections, schools, £T mail services. It would endanger deer and many small animals who depend on the creek. It would cause serious traffic on Prefumo Canyon Rd.. Please consider stopping this unwarranted project. 'a � G Sincerely yours, 0,9 �S A tj n, -7- 0 res�denls Sctbmitf ed -this R�gE �yyt I eAvie r i n C ,fE KPN'., S�UG1L CA A t I eotx res idevi4s We, i►l i_ZLOLkvzL L-ak e, M ob(i a Es+a.+e s ( -8fI ATTACHMENT 9 II city of sAn tuis oBispo 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 March 7, 1997 Laguna Hill Park P.O.Box 5260 San Luis Obispo, CA 93403 SUBJECT: Annex/GP/ER 26-95: 1855 Prefumo Canyon Road Dear Applicant: The Planning Commission, at its meeting of March 3, 1997, took the following action: A. Recommend to the City Council that the EIR be certified, based on the following findings: Findings 1. The Final EIR was prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and was considered by the City prior to any approvals of the project. 2. The Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City. 3. The proposed mitigation measures contained in the EIR will adequately mitigate adverse environmental impacts of the project, or a statement of overriding considerations will be made for those significant and unavoidable environmental impacts. B. Recommend to the City Council that the General Plan Map Amendments as described below be approved, based on the following findings: • to designate the developable portion of the site as Low Density Residential and the remainder as Open Space; • to modify the location of the Urban Reserve Line to include the developable portion of the site; and • to change the designation of Descanso Drive from a local residential street to a residential collector. Findings 1. The proposed amendments are consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan, with the proposed text amendment outlined below, and with compliance with all of the mitigation measures contained in the project EIR. C� The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. Tplprnmmiinir=linne rlp.i,rp fn,tho rlp0i/OnAl 701.7Atn ANNX/GP/R 26-95 Page 2 2. The project is consistent with Open Space Policy 1.C., Urban Reserve (numbered as Policy 13.2.1 C in the general plan digest), which "requires projects that would involve minor expansions of the URL to secure open space" on land adjoining but outside the new URL location. C. Recommend to the City Council that the following General Plan Text Amendments be approved, based on the following findings: • to modify Land Use Element (LUE)Policy 6.2.6. J as follows: The Prefumo Creek area extends into the Irish Hills ivest of Prefumo Canyon Road Development should be limited to areas within the URL with permanent protection of the creeks and zipper hillsides. • to amend Footnote(3) of Policy 5.2 of the Circulation Element to read: For Chorro Street, north of Lincoln Street, and Prefumo Canyon Road, the maximum desired ADT goal is 7,500 ADT. Fin_ dines 1. The proposed LUE text amendment will not jeopardize the integrity of the LUE with the proposed modification to the location of the URL. 2. The proposed Circulation Element text amendment reflects realistic traffic levels and goals and is consistent with strategies used elsewhere in the City to resolve street capacity issues. D. Recommend to the City Council that the Prezoning of the developable portion of the site be approved as R-1-S, Single-Family Residential with the Special Consideration overlay zone,• and the remainder as C/OS-400, Conservation Open Space with 400-acre minimum parcel size, based on the following findings: Findin s 1. The proposed "S" overlay zoning will document the special considerations for the site which are: protection of and access to the riparian corridor, protect wildlife habitat corridor to hillside Open Space acres, preservation of hillside open space, geological constraints including landslides, aesthetic concerns with development of visually prominent sites, creek setback and access, fire protection issues; and provision of City utilities and services. 2. The required administrative use permit will serve as a master use permit that fulfills the intention of LUE Policy 1.13.3, Required Plans, which calls for the master planning of b—Q/ ANNX/GP/R 26-95 Page 3 proposed annexation areas so that the City has an adopted plan showing the project layout, required open space protection and provision of streets and utilities. E. Recommend to the City Council support for the Annexation, with submittal of a"Resolution of Application" to the Local Agency Formation Commission(LAFCO), based on the following findings: Findings 1. The annexation is appropriate since the site is contiguous to the City on its north and east. sides. 2. The annexation of the site is a logical addition to the City due to its location in relation to existing urban development. F. Recommend to the City Council a preference for staffs`Biologically and Biologically Superior" alternative because it will: 1. Preserve a wildlife corridor through the site. 2. Avoid landslide areas. 3. Help minimize the need for a statement of overriding considerations. 4. Create a more logical subdivision design (prevents the need for a long road leading to lots with constricted building envelopes). The action of the Planning Commission is a recommendation to the City Council and, therefore, is not final. This matter has been tentatively scheduled for public hearing before the City Council on April 1, 1997. This date, however, should be verified with the City Clerk's office(805)781-7102. If you have any questions,please contact Pamela Ricci at(805) 781-7168. Sincerely, Ronald . Whisenand Development Review auger. cc: Dan Lloyd Buena Tierra, A General Partnership DRAFT CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES WEDNESDAY,MARCH 3, 1997 CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: A special meeting of the San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday,March 3, 1997 in the Multi-Purpose Room,Laguna Middle School, 11050 Los Osos Valley Road, San Luis Obispo, California. ROLL CALL: b Present: Commissioners Janet Kourakis, Charles Senn,John Ewan,David Jeffrey,and Chairman Barry Karleskint Absent: Commissioners Paul Ready and Mary Whittlesey Commissioners Whittlesey and Ready previously announced they would be refraining from participation due to potential conflicts of interest. Staff Present: Assistant City Attorney Cindy Clemens, Associate Planner Pam Ricci,Development Review Manager Ron Whisenand,Public Works Manager Al Cablay. Also present in the audience were Mayor Allen Settle, City Councilwoman Kathy Smith,and Community Development Director Arnold Jonas. The Commission and staff welcomed Commissioner Ewan. ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA: The agenda was accepted as presentdd. CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES: The Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of January 22, 1997 were accepted as presented. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS: There were no public comments made at this time. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. 1885 Prefinno Canyon Road: ANNVGP/R/TR 26-95: Request to annex a 384 acre parcel into the City and subdivide the lower 17.8 acres into 38 residential lots while retaining the remaining 366(+/-) acres as dedicated open space. The development will require an amendment to the General Plan to change the site land use designation urban reserve boundaries and land use policies. In addition,a prezone of the property to single-family residential(R-1)and Conservation Open Space(C/OS-40)is being proposed. Review will also include the consideration of an Environmental Impact Report for the proposed development � q. Planning Commission M s March 3, 1997 Page 2 Associate Planner Ricci presented the staff report and recommended the Commission recommend to the Council that the EIR be certified;the General Plan Map Amendments be approved; the General Plan Text Amendments be approved; the Prezoning of the developable portion of the site be approved as R-1-S and the remainder as GOS-40;and a preference for staffs'biologically superior alternative. Commissioner Senn asked what dialog has taken place relative to the applicant and the neighborhood. Associate Planner Ricci stated there was a neighborhood-area meeting held last week. She didn't receive notice of it. There were no fiuther questions asked of staff at this time. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Carol Florence,representing the applicant,regrets that Commissioners Whittlesey and Ready weren't able to participate because she believes this project represents an opportunity for the city to make an assertive and positive step for taking control of its properties and boundaries,provides for needed housing shock, and fir1511s the city's vision for acquiring and preserving open space. As a former member of the city's Open Space Finance Task Force,Ms. Florence feels qualified to speak about the importance of maintaining open space through methods other than outright purchase. She splayed a grape board which depicts the city's most recent purchases of open space. Ms. Florence stated they are asking the Commission to recommend to the Council certification of the EIR, to modify the GP Maps and Text to reflect the residential development and the remainder of open space. Additionally,they are requesting approval of moving the URL back to its original location prior to the GP G �� Planning Commission Minutes March 3, 1997 Page 3 update in'94. With these modifications,they are looking forward to the Commission's support for annexing the property and approving the revised development plan. Ms. Florence addressed the audience and stated she hopes that after this meeting the lines of communication will be opened She acknowledges all of the audience's participation because she believes self-expression is a function of responsbility. She's read the correspondence and she wants to recognize the concerns because they are important. She is frustrated that there hasn't been an opportunity for her to discuss this project. She's in the process of writing responses to every comment and would like make herself available to explore the details of this project. Ms.Florence stated it is imperative to understand how strict the guidelines are and how time,energy,and money consuming it is to comply with them. It is important to know that the clients proceeded with the application because of direction given by the Council and subsequently by staff. This is a project we can all take pride in. Ms. Florence stated the draft and final EIRs are integral parts of the process. Given the opportunity,most will find their concerns have been analyzed and addressed. The EIRs were prepared by an independent third party and looked at 13 separate issues and concluded that for all the cumulative biological aspects, the project impacts with mitigations could be considered as less than significant. If the environmental and technical issues have been reasonably and adequately addressed by the experts,there should be no opposition. They have willingly continued to make revisions. This community has done a good job maintaining its lifestyle,although there have been changes. Prefumo Creek was actually diverted to enable Laguna Lake to change to its present condition. She is not asking for support of a property that Will infringe on property rights or endanger livelihoods or lifestyles. She is asking for reasoned input and to share a small piece of San Luis Obispo and potentially own one of the most magnificent pieces of the greenbelt that can be shared by the community at large in perpetuity. We want to be good stewards of the land. Planning Commission M s March 3, 1997 Page 4 Ms.Florence stated her involvement with the project came after the draft EIR and she was specifically asked to review this project in Light of the EIRs and the comments from consultants,city staff,and neighbors. Ms. Florence distributed handouts to the Commission which depicts the progression of the development and a summary of the alternate scenarios. Ms.Florence displayed an overhead and stated the original design included 38 lots and a total of 366.2 acres of open space. Ms.Florence stated Alterative 2 was their first attempt at modifying the original site plan. They were able to allow a wildlife corridor and increase the grassland habitat. They eliminated Lot 12 and were able to minimize the width of the roadway and move it an additional 8'from the creek. They were able to reduce the impacts of grading by working with the existing contours. The changes resulted in a loss of three lots. They now have 35 lots and 369.5 acres of dedicated open space. Ms. Florence stated Alternative 3 was Mr.Havlik's response to the revisions. Mr.Havlik's modifications moved the wildlife corridor to the end of the cube-sac and eliminated the original Lots 37 and 38. Ms. Florence stated they all finally settled on Alternative 4,the staff requested biologically superior alterative. The most noticeable change is the grassland area in the wester portion.By eliminating additional lots and reconfiguring others,this alternative now includes 34 lots and 370.6 acres of open space. 6-fib Planning Commission M s March 3, 1997 Page 5 . Ms.Florence thanked city staff for their cooperation and the Commission for hearing this item. The Commission's approval will send a positive message to the Council,proponents of open space,and to land owners who may see this action as cooperative and visionary. Commissioner Jeffrey stated the Commission has received a number of letters from individuals who are concerned about the grassland areas. He asked if there has ever been any kind of public easement across this property. Ms. Florence is not aware of any public easement. Commissioner Kourakis asked if Lots 14-17 were made smaller. Ms.Florence replied yes. By working with the contours,they realized they were able to eliminate the two cut slopes from the original site plan. By doing this,they could swing the property line and give up more grassland. Commissioner Kouralas asked if the blue line is the center line of the creek. ' Ms.Florence replied yes. Commissioner Kourakis asked staff to comment on the biologically superior alterative. Associate Planner Ricci stated the biologically superior alternative described in the staff report wasn't updated to reflect the discussions. There are some lots they still have reservations about,namely Lot 12. Development Review Manager Whisenand added Mr. Havlik's proposal reflects changes to Lot 34. 6-V7 Planning Commission M' Is b March 3, 1997 Page 6 Ms. Florence stated when they started manipulating the site plan to respond to these issues,the numbers got a little off. Their plans respond to Mr. Havlik's concerns. Commissioner Senn asked Ms.Florence to relate the dialog she had with any of the area property owners or neighbors. Ms.Florence stated she was made aware of a meeting at a private residence prior to the fust Commission hearing. She tried to attend the meeting but was asked to leave. There was a meeting held at the Laguna Mobile Home Park that she was not notified about. She has spoken with the homeowners association and will be going before them to speak. They have volunteers on the site who have descriptions of the project and who are asking for support. She has copies of a petition of people who utilize the property and are supportive of the project. Commissioner Ewan asked if the property rights go down into the creek. Ms. Florence stated pari of the open-space dedication includes Prefiuno Creek and there's nine and a half acres of it. Commissioner Kourakis asked if the building envelops have height limits. Ms. Florence stated the height would actually be a condition,which is acceptable. Commissioner Senn feels efforts to arrive at compromise have been stonewalled. Linda,McElver, SLO resident,thanked the Commission for accommodating her special needs. She recently discovered project has plans for a sewage lift station. The release of hydrogen sulfide gas from this facility may be toxic to her health. She is disabled with multiple chemical sensitivity. She is formally bl�I Planning Commission V -s March 3, 1997 l Page 7 . requesting ADA accommodations for herself,her two handicapped children,and others who may be affected by this station. She described the symptoms of her illness. She plans to retire in her home which has been especially designed to be environmentally safe. This is the safest location she could find. There are no specially zoned safe areas for people to with her disability in this county. She desperately needs the air quality in her neighborhood to remain. She distributed a letter to the Commission and information on hydrogen sulfide gas. There are 60,600 deaths a year due to air pollution. When in Florida, she was on a pesticide registry which gave 24hr. notification of pesticide applications by a licensed applicator within half a mile from her home. The city has been generous with a pesticidefree baseball field. An ADA representative should evaluate this request and make a recommendation to the Commission. This is not the right location for a sewer lift station. She has seen deer crossing the meadows and hawks circling above. She hopes the creek will be protected from storm water nmoff. She opposes this project for her health reason and for the protection of the habitats. Christine Mulholland, San Luis Obispo resident,stated one issue is the number of lots that are allowed in the county. The final EIR addresses this by saying it doesn't really matter if there are four or eight. It does in fact matter. A memo from Glen Matteson of city staff says the county LUE designates this area as rural land,a sensitive resource area,a geologic study area,with minimum parcel size. It's 160 acres with two dwellings allowed per parcel. Mr.Havlik's memo says there are two primary units per parcel for a total of four and also cites the county's clustering regulations,and a 100%density bonus may apply. Ms. Mulholland stated this is not ag land and doesn't fall under ag clustering regulation. Ms.Mulholland stated there is a question of nuisance abatement. She distributed a 6-page letter dated Sept. 7, 1990 from the County Board of Supervisors. She displayed overhead photos of over 4 acres of land that was illegally graded at the top. This has never been addressed. This shows a lack of environmental sensitivity and regard for the rules of fair play. The aerial photo distributed by the applicant was taken before the land was cleared and oaks were destroyed. Planning Commission K s March 3, 1997 Page 8 Ms.Mulholland doesn't understand what an EIR has to say before it's given a negative recommendation. There are 36 city and county policies this project is inconsistent with. There are also 24 the EIR calls consistent which she would argue against,such as LUE 1.3. She questions if this project provides anymore logical,complete,and efficient urban edge then the current one provided by Prefiumo Canyon Rd. and the creek? No,it does not. Ms. Mulholland stated the EIR says there are policies which cannot be determined consistent or are frequently open to interpretation and discretion. R Ms.Mulholland stated there are problems with traffic,access, sight clearance,and safe stopping distance. Thresholds in the CE would be exceeded. Natural sounds would be replaced with noise and the air quality would be inconsistent with the clean air plan. There are five landslide area identified and they have lots too close to the creek. We will lose wildlife species, habitat,and all the grasslands. The view will drastically change and the rural character will be altered. There will be noticeable night glare and ambient night light levels. This will not provide affordable housing. The fuel modification zones will result in unacceptable biological and aesthetic impacts. This project will aggravate the existing deficit of fire and police protection. We have a policy where the city will not provide water service outside the urban reserve line. Should we change the urban reserve line? We went through eight years of public hearings and work and we consciously placed this property outside the URL. She asked the Commission to uphold our GP. The GP is a long-term vision for the benefit of the community. The applicants bought 4 rural Lind in the county and they have the right to build four dwelling units. The city doesn't have to own or control all of the open space in our greenbelt in order for it to be greenbelt. This project will take a nearly pristine area and allow it to be degraded in order to get a painted green backdrop for our city. This project needs the city for sewer and water. The last page of the final E1R,the city engineer's summary says this site is not good for development and will result in increased liability to the city beyond that typical of good development if approved with the density and design as submitted. She feels we'll get a better deal if we leave this property in the county. The open space is open space now,and we don't have 6-/00 Planning Commission Iv. :s March 3, 1997 Page 9 to pay for it by annexing,changing the urban reserve line and 36 city and county policies. She asked the Commission to deny this request. Ms.Mulholland stated in May of'95 she received a call from one of the developers named George Smith who said he was directed by the Mayor to meet with the neighborhood. Mr. Smith was invited to a meeting. He had a tract map. He was asked about TDCs and he said he was not interested. Ms.Mulholland stated recently a group of neighbors gathered. Ms. Florence came to the door and neighbors didn't feel it was appropriate for her to stay. It was suggested that Ms. Florence should hold a meeting. There was another meeting at the mobile home park and there wasn't a project representative present. Commissioner Senn asked who organized the meeting. Ms.Mulholand replied she did. Pat Veesart,resident,was on the Commission when this project was first heard. This property is zoned Waal land. In the county land use ordinance,rural lands have an open space designation. The EIR says this designation identifies lands for very low-density development to preserve open space,the watershed, and wildlife habitat areas. It is important for the Commission to understand this property is currently open space. The county recently updated the San Luis area plan and there was plenty of opportunity for the county to change the designation,but did not. He doesn't believe there's any impetus on the county to change the designation now,given how fresh this document is. He believes it will remain open space in the county's jurisdiction. There are four units allowed for this project. This is a sensitive resource area in the county and the preservation of biological resources will be given the highest priority. G•/O/ Planning Commission K s March 3, 1997 Page 10 Mr. Veesart stated, referring to the URL,development takes place on one side and greenbelt takes place on the other. If this line is not respected and continually moved, it means nothing and we will not have a greenbelt in this city ever. It is very important for the Commission to respect the GP and the URL if it expects the county to respect it as well. Mr. Veesart stated this development will not pay for itself,be a burden,and cost the city money. He asked what the city will gain by having this development within its planning area. We're not going to gain any open space because it already is open space. He doesn't believe allowing this development is the best for the city. Commissioner Kourakis stated there is a GP policy that allows moving the URL, in effect, in exchange for open space. Mr. Veesart stated the property is open space. He served on the Open Space Financing Task Force. Owning open space in fee is the last option for the city. It is much better to have someone else own it and have it remain as open space. Commissioner Kouralcis asked if this land could be developed in the county to accommodate horses. Mr. Veesart replied yes. Commissioner Kourakis asked if this county land could have sheep or out buildings. Mr. Veesart believes the land is not designated ag. Any structures applied for would not be a given. Commissioner Kourakis asked Mr. Veesart about permits needed for ag roads. Planning Commission M° -es March 3, 1997 Page 11 Mr. Veesart believes there is no permitting required. The county is now upgrading its grading ordinance and this may change. Commissioner Kouralds asked if ag operations are defined somewhat loosely. Mr. Veesart knows there have been some abuses in the past,but county staff is on top of what constitutes valid agriculture abuse. Commissioner Kouralds asked if fences are allowed on rural lands. Mr. Veesart knows the sensitive resource area would have heightened review by the county. Commissioner Senn was amazed as to how many potential uses could technically go on this piece of property. It's fair to assume many would not be approved,but politics change. Mr. Veesart added the chances of many of the uses happening in a sensitive resource area are slim. It doesn't make sense that because there could be a horrible land use in the future,go ahead and approve it now just to lock up the open space. Eve Greenhill(Inaudible),809 Castillo CL,feels issue before us is should we build across the creek? In her letter of Feb.26,she touched on some of the problems associated with this proposal. The project is inconsistent with numerous GP policies,there are city liabilities,costs,and a lack of public benefit. This proposal is a bad deal for the city and should be rejected. Do we need additional housing? Not really. There is enough land within the URL to accommodate a population of 56,000. The 366 acres of proposed dedicated open space has no development value and is composed of steep and unstable hillsides. This land will always remain open space. The only thing the city will gain is liability. The city will be losing open space by eliminating the meadow and turning it into a subdivision. The city engineer states this site Planning Commission M s March 3, 1997 Page 12 is not good for development. During the rainy season this is a wild creek and the banks are rearranged. The meadow is an inappropriate building site. She cited the GP and stated in 1980, the Commission reviewed the EIR for a new GP and Open Space Element. The EIR evaluates the impacts of development on the 20 acres adjacent to the creek and there were key concerns identified. The Commission decided not to recommend the 20 acre area be earmarked for annexation and development. The EIR evaluates whether development would meet city annexation criteria and concluded development would not result in a more logical,complete,or efficient urban edge. On the contrary,it would extend a relatively isolated urban use. Leslie Beard, 1075 Capistrano Ct.,displayed a video which showed the different uses on the property. There are lot of people who walk,jog,bicycle,and enjoy this area. The video showed hawks,deer,and a mountain lion. Ms.Beard is concerned about increased traffic. This area is designated open space and it would be well advised to go along with the GP. Gilbert Hoffman, 987 Capistrano Ct.,concurs with the comments of Christine and Eve. There's a memo from Mr.Peterman which says there are some problems with creek bank erosion,flooding,debris flow, and slope stability. The Corps of Engineers will not allow any creek bank stabilization unless it is specifically to protect real property and the liability will fall on the city. There are liabilities and costs with open space ownership. ADA standards may have to be met. This proposal will increase the risks of wildland fires. The CDF rates this as a high hazard area. The proposed access is potentially hazardous. There will be no noise buffer between the access road and the mobile home park. The minimum speed was calculated at 35 mph and not the 38 mph that is 85th percentile. There is no quid pro quo for this project. The staff continually refers to the proposed dedication as undevelopable land. It will remain open space regardless of the outcome of this application. The only difference will be ownership. There are landslide and creek bank concerns. He recommends that all EIR mitigations be applied to this project and the property lines on the hillside should be drawn at the 200'contour line or the boundary of any identified slides,whichever is lower. Mr. Hoffman stated a 200'contour will keep the project safe by not Planning Commission M Is March 3, 1997 Page 13 requiring grading of the slides or allowing private landscaping in the side areas. This will preserve native vegetation and keep the area unfenced for wildlife. The project should be required to build or fund the road narrowing and landscape improvements for Prefumo Canyon Rd. Development Review Manager Whisenand stated comments from staff memos have been taken out of context. The memo was written very early on in the scoping of this project. Items of concern are addressed in the EIR. Public Works Manager Cablay stated Public Works was trying to get an overall prospective of concerns at a pre-development portion of the EIR process. Statements out of staff memos have been taken out of context. Allen Babit, 1065 Capistrano Ct.,feels the city will not be gaining any open space. This is already open space now. There are traffic,vision space,and safe stopping distance concerns and discrepancies between the draft and final EIRs. At 35 mph, there are 5a seconds to react to a situation. If traveling at 50 mph, there's only 3.9 seconds to react. Waylon Birch, 931 Capistrano Ct.,feels the offer of open space is just a red herring. The land is open space now and this project wouldn't add any. The majority of the land is too steep to be considered economically feasible to develop. The owners purchased the land zoned Waal by the county and this allows four units. This is the extent of their rights. This land hasn't been in their family for generations, but was purchased by a group of speculators. He would like the city to propose analysis to determine if whether the anticipated taxes produced by this development would exceed the cost of providing city services andmaintenance of the open space. There are liabilities if the city owns this open space. There may also be liabilities for the landslides. Future councils could rezone this and sell it for development. This project creates a dangerous precedent for hillside development. We should stick to the GP. Planning Commission M s March 3, 1997 Page 14 Vickey Fenson, 938 Capistrano,owns a small business in town and supports growth,but strongly opposes this project Our GP establishes our URL and this project is beyond the line. If approved,this could set a dangerous precedent that the boundaries can be altered anytime a developer dangles alleged open space for approval. This could change thecharacter of city. The EIR states there are many hazards. Even though the impacts might be mitigated,there may be future liabilities for our community. The land is zoned ag and an environmentally sensitive area and only four houses are allowed. This was true when the developer first purchased the land. The alleged addition of open space gives the city nothing of value. Gaining access to the open space land will require more roads,parking,and congestion in the area. The city would have less open space than now. We could end up with a concrete meadow and hillside. This is not the vision of San Luis Obispo. We want to preserve our community and follow our GP with common sense. The impacts cannot be mitigated. Development of the project has been repeatedly refused by both the county and city over many years for very good reasons. Karen Johnson, 1056 Huddley(Inaudible)Dr.,Laguna Mobile Home Estates,thanked Christine for organizing the last neighborhood meeting. Ms. Florence did not attend the mobile home meeting,but will be addressing the homeowners'association meeting on Thurs. Ms. Johnson stated today is her mother's 87th birthday. They live together in the mobile home park. He mother has lived there since 1976. Prefumo Canyon Rd. is a special place for her mother and she walked it everyday. Occasionally they drive and park on the shoulder and her mother walks the road. She's been an inspiration to the family for their love of nature. He asked the Commission to deny this project. Carl Calloway,3175 Prefumo Canyon Rd.,gave the Commission a photo board. He shares a property line with the proposed development. His family has lived within the canyon since the 1850s and they have seen a lot of water flowing down the canyon. Twice in his lifetime,in'73 and'78, he's witnessed the area flood,specifically in the meadow area and where the road crosses the creek. During both storms the bridge was blocked by debris and the water crested above the road level. Two homes upstream were Planning Commission h ;s March 3, 1997 Page 15 gutted and he remembers a bathtub flowing down the torrent of water like a doomed ship. His father witnessed flood destruction five times between 1930 and 1970. When his family heard about this proposal,one member commented that only a fool and a lawyer paid by a fool would think of building on five thud slides and at the bottom of a creek bed. It doesn't make common sense. Mr. Calloway is concerned about landslides and debris flow down the creek. The EIR proposes the toes of these slides be cut so avenues can be laid and foundations set. Any geologist could tell you when you cut into the toehold of a slide,you cut away the dam that's holding back the mountain. These slide areas are in constant soil creep. In the back of the final EIR is a very pertinent letter from Mr. Peterson who explains how the slides pose a huge liability for the city if the site is developed. The old hay roads on Mr. Calloway's ranch were cut in the 1800s and cut across the toeholds of several slides. Springs develop and gush with water and cause a liquefaction of the entire slide. Their slides range from 50,000-80,000 tons of earth. Heavy rains cause trees to fall and clog around the bridge and water will crest over the road. There may be suits filed against the city when homes are damaged. He asked the Commission the heed Mr.Peterson's warning. This project is the recipe for liability. Common sense dictates that you cannot sandwich a housing tract between a mud slide and a flood zone. It doesn't make sense. Brian Robert,2700 Prefumo Creek Rd.,feels the reasons he bought his property will be changed by this project. The new properties could devalue those who bought in under a different set of rules. He questions who will be benefited by changing the Hiles. David Brennan,461 Pismo St.,feels this may be a good project. Something is going to get built on this property and the only is question is will it be in the county or the city. It's not open space now. It's undeveloped private property and it only takes a change in politics to put houses on this property. Other cities build on steep hillsides all the time. If this remains in the county,it might all be lost and fenced off. As proposed,this will become public land. He feels this is a good opportunity for the city as a whole. (O Planning Commission M s March 3, 1997 Page 16 Dan Lloyd,EDA, stated as part of their work,they're entrusted with figuring the best and most sensitive way from both geotechnical engineering and aesthetics to develop the property. There is no one best way, but they have come up with something better than what they started with. Mr.Lloyd stated there's been a lot of discussion about the county and the city. Mr. Lloyd has practiced in the county for years. A sensitive resource area does not mean it shall not be developed. It's to say these things are important and figure how to be sensitive in dealing with them in development. Allowable uses in the county means you can do a lot,but you have to go through the process. If this property is brought into the city,it means the resources will be there in the future. Mr.Lloyd stated,with respect to traffic,the sight distance will be adequate and the geometrics will be studied. The plans will safeguard the public. Mr.Lloyd stated, relative to the slides,they reconstitute slides often. Slides can be repaired and it's beneficial. This is studied and understood and will be stabilized to make it safe for development. Mr.Lloyd stated this property is not visible from the normal corridor when driving down LOUR. You don't see the site from across town. Essentially,this is a private park and only enjoyed by those in the immediate area. Private property can be fenced. If this is an amenity for the community,then let the community have it in a way that makes sense. The city has a wonderful opportunity to acquire land for its use. Commissioner Jeffrey asked if the developer would be amenable to moving Lot 12. Mr.Lloyd replied yes;however,if they could work with staff. Density is important. You can only lose so many lots before it become uneconomical. He would like the ability to work with staff. 6 -/og Planning Commission K s March 3, 1997 Page 17 Commissioner Senn asked Mr. Lloyd to address Mr. Calloway's comments regarding the history of the meadow and creek flooding. Mr.Lloyd stated they conducted a hydrological analysis and they have considered the amount of the water coming down the creek. They have plotted the water surplus profile based on the type of intensities. He would like to put some debris protection upstream for the best interest of the city. Commissioner Ewan asked if a debris basin has been addressed in the EIR Mr.Lloyd stated when they were proposing a larger project previously,they felt there was some discussions about the benefits of the improvements. This is an annual maintenance exercise. It is a depression in the stream bed. Commissioner Senn asked what is the probability that flooding will occur in the housing area. Mr.Lloyd stated based on the latest revision to the plan, it is highly unlikely. Commission Kouralds asked Mr.Lloyd what he knows about ag roads and how they are controlled in the county. Mr.Lloyd stated within the county's Land Use Ordinance,Title 22,there are exemptions to grading ordinances. There are certain activities that do not need permits. However, if you were to grade a road, cut or fill more than 3',you would need a grading permit in the county. If the activity were to disturb more than three acres of land,you would be subject to a development permit. If you move more than So cubic yards,you would have to have environmental review. l Seeing no further speakers come forward,the public comment session was closed. Planning Commission N s March 3, 1997 Page 18 COMMISSIONERS'COMMENTS: Commissioner Kourakis stated it is her understanding that if you had a home in the county,you could keep horses,a dog kennel,out buildings,and barns. Development Review Manager Whisenand replied yes. Commissioner Kourakis asked if fencing would be allowed. Development Review Manager Whisenand answered yes. Commissioner Senn asked staff to address concerns of city liability. Assistant City Attorney Clemens stated as far as liability for use of the open space area,the city has options. The city would be able to decide how it wanted to use this space. If it were left in a natural . condition,there are many immunities where the city would not be liable for injury. The more the city chooses to make it active recreation,trails,et cetera,then the city does assume more liability for injuries out there. This is a trade of for any park or recreational area. Assistant City Attorney Clemens stated, relative to the slides,if the city were to leave it in a natural condition,she doesn't see the city liable. If the city approves development which requires there to be some change in the land,there is design immunity. Commissioner Senn stated staff is recommending an S designation. He asked if it would be appropriate under this designation that there be some kind of requirement imposed upon the developer that there be a Planning Commission N .s March 3, 1997 Page 19 . disclosure as a part of the transfer process of these lots that would make it incumbent to provide geotechnical information about the sites. Assistant City Attorney Clemens stated this obligation is upon the property owner anyway. Commissioner Senn asked how the change/modification to the URL came about. Development Review Manager Whisenand stated there is a small section in the March 3, 1990 Planning Commission minutes which talks about Prefumo Canyon and the consensus was to eliminate the minor annexation area and show the land west of Prefumo Canyon Rd. as permanent open space. Associate Planner Ricci hasn't checked the Council's minutes. Commissioner Ewan has a concern regarding the flood,flood control,and drainage. If work was done above this project for flood control,would the project and EIR be impacted? Should this be addressed in the EIR? Development Review Manager Whisenand stated there is an EIR Mitigation Measure I6 and it doesn't really address the idea of creating a new catch basin for debris. He cited Mitigation Measure 16. Commissioner Ewan remembers the flood in 1972 in this area. He is concerned about building on a flood area. Mitigation such as this hasn't been looked at in the EIR. Development Review Manager Whisenand stated erosion and flow was a detailed component of the EIR Commissioner Ewan asked if city staff would go beyond the city area for maintenance. Planning Commission Iv s March 3, 1997 Page 20 Development Review Manager Whisenand replied no. The unidentified environmental consultant stated the EIR did examine the issue of flooding on the site and concluded all of the building envelopes would be above the 100 year flood plain. Commissioner Jeffrey stated the Commission needs to look at what might lead away from recommending certification of the EIR One potential area is the biological discrepancies of unavoidable impact. Associate Planer Ricci stated in terms of certifying the EIR,the Commission should consider if all the environmental issue areas identified in the EIR are adequately discussed. Making a statement of overriding consideration doesn't mean that the biological impacts of the project weren't adequately analyzed. What it says is that the praject as proposed will result in significant and unavoidable impacts. Under CEQA,when you have a significant and unavoidable impact,there needs to be a statement of overriding consideration with approval of a project. Commissioner Ewan asked if the benefits of the project for the city have to outweigh the negative impacts. Associate Planner Ricci replied yes,if the project is approved. Commissioner Jeffrey asked if the Commission felt the EIR addressed and mitigated everything down to insignificant,except one or two areas,would the Commission still be charged with finding that even though those areas were discussed in th;EIR and they weren't mitigated fully to everyone's satisfaction, would this still recommend certification of the EIR Development Review Manager Whisenand stated the Commission could recommend certification to the Council with suggested language or findings. Planning Commission 1, x March 3, 1997 Page 21 Commissioner Jefiiey asked if everything in the EIR has to be mitigated to a point that's acceptable. Development Review Manager Whisenand replied no. The EIR has to disclose,address,and offer mitigation measures. The unidentified environmental consultant stated in the Commission's action to certify the EIR, it's suggesting the EIR has adequately described,discussed,and offered mitigation measures for the environmental issues the EIR has reviewed. Commissioner Kourakis believes this is an acceptable EIR. She believes it has looked at all the subject matter. It has given mitigation measures and if things cannot be mitigated, it is so stated. It has met all the requirements for analyzing the adequacy of an EIR. Commissioner Kourakis moved to recommend to the City Council that the EIR be certified,based on the findings on Page 10 of the staff report. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Jeffrey. AYES: Commissioners Kourakis,Jeffrey,Ewan, Senn,and Chairman Karleskint NOES: None ABSTAIN: None REFRAIN: Commissioners Whittlesey and Ready The motion passed 5-0. Commissioner Ewan moved to not move the Urban Reserve Line and maintain it as it is now according to the General Plan. He doesn't see any positive impact on the city with this annexation or movement of the Urban Reserve Line. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Kourakis for discussion. 4,10 Planning Commission N ' es March 3, 1997 Page 22 Commissioner Kourakis asked Commissioner Ewan to respond to Page 11,Finding 2,Open Space Policy 1.C.,Urban Reserve Policy 13.2.1 C. She stated we have an open-space policy that specifically addresses this kind of situation. We have a very strong open space element in greenbelt policies. This has to be dealt with. She feels strongly the open-space policy pushes us towards seeing this as a minor expansion to secure open space. Commissioner Ewan stated this poliFy is giving us a way to do this if we want in order to gain open space, but it's not required. The question is are we gaining open space? He doesn't see this as a positive for the city. Commissioner Jeffrey concurred with Commissioner Kourakis. He toured the property and found there are wonderful hiking areas on the tops with grasslands. He would like to be assured the property will remain in open space for the future. One of the stated goals is to acquire open space in the city. If we're going to be consistent with the GP,then we have to be consistent with all of the elements of the GP. Chairman Karleskint agrees with Commissioner Jeffrey. He toured the site in a limited way and saw several areas that are fantastic habitat areas on the mountainside and also saw places where homes could be built that are accessible. He doesn't want to see homes on the mountainside. 6. Commissioner Ewan is concerned that open space is defined almost automatically as having some access to it. Guaranteed access doesn't have to be in the definition of open space. He is also concerned about extending the city over a natural barrier. He is concerned about the flooding potential in this area,the stability of the land,and the value of this project to the city as opposed to the cost to the city in the future. Chairman Karleskint shares these concerns as well. Planting Commission Miputes Manch 3, 1997 Page 23 AYES: ' Commissioner Ewan NOES: Cmmissioners Kourakis, Senn,Jeffrey,and Chairman Karleskint ABSTAIN: None REFRAIN: Commissioners Whittlesey and Ready The motion failed 1-4. Commissioner Jeffrey moved to modify the location of the Urban Reserve Line to include the developable portion of the site based on the two findings on Page I L The motion was seconded by Commissioner Kourakis. AYE: Commissioners Jeffrey,Kourakis, Senn,and Chairman Karleskint NOES: Commissioner Ewan ABSTAIN: None REFRAIN: Commissioners Whittlesey and Ready The motion passed 4-1. Commissioner Kourakis moved to recommend to the City Council that the General Plan Map Amendment be approved to designate the developable portion of the site as Low-Density Residential and the remainder as Open Space,based on Finding 1 on Page 11. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Jeffrey. Commissioner Kourakis stated as she drove up the road off Royal Way,there are several developable sites on this mountain There is a whole lot the county allows on this meadow that could be far more destructive of wildlife and habitat then anything without the kinds of mitigations and controls we have on Planning Commission it _ es March 3, 1997 Page 24 this project. A physical line is a much harder boundary. We are now into the open-space program and have a natural resources coordinator. The city has moved beyond just looking to the county or anyone else to preserve the ag land,the green,open.space around the city. The city is involved in an active greenbelt Program. She feels this proposal coprdinates with this program. The environmental protections that are provided in the EIR are good protections. Commissioner Senn asked if we choose to do this and there is an RI-S designation placed on this project, is the next step for the applicant the mapping process? We're dealing with generalities and the applicant will have to come back with specifics. Development Review Manager Whisenand replied yes. They have already submitted a vesting tentative map. AYES: Commissioners Kourakis,Jeffrey,Ewan, Senn,and Chairman Karleskint NOES: None ' ABSTAIN: None REFRAIN: Commissioners Whittlesey and Ready The motion passed 5-0. Commissioner Kourakis moved to recommend to the City Council that the General Plan Map Amendment be approved based on Finding 1,Page 11,to change the designation of Descanso Drive from a local residential street'to a residential collector. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Senn. Commissioner Senn stated this has been a very difficult project for him. He is sensitive to the concerns of the neighborhood. He feels this is best for the overall community in the long term. He is comfortable Planning Commission M' -s March 3, 1997 Page 25 . with the direction this is going and hopefully this will ease the situation between the land owner and the neighbors. AYES: Commissioners Kourakis, Senn,Ewan, Jeffrey,and Chairman.Karlesldnt NOES: None ABSTAIN: None REFRAIN: Commissioners Whittlesey and Ready The motion passed 5-0. Commissioner Jeffrey stated the way LUE Policy 6.2.6 J reads,it doesn't really address the stated repeated concerns about visual impacts for this development with regard to the development of Lot 12. Associate Planner Ricci stated staffs thinking with this particular recommendation and the way it's worded now,the project would be inconsistent with it. It is clear this policy needs to have the wording changed. This policy is part of the Hillside Planning Policy and the LUE. Commissioner Kourakis moved to recommend to the City Council that the General Plan Text Amendments be approved,based on the findings on Page 11;to modify Land Use Element Policy 6.2.6 J as stated on Page 11;and to amend Footnote 3 of Policy 5.2 of the Circulation Element to read as stated on Page 11, including Findings 1 and 2. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Jeffrey. AYES: Commissioners Kourakis,Jeffrey,Ewan, Senn,and Chairman Karleskint NOES: None ABSTAIN: None Planning Commission IV- :s - March 3, 199..7 R Page 26 REFRAIN: Commissioners Whittlesey and Ready The motion passed 5-0. Commissioner Kouralds asked if wildlifepreservation needs to be'specif tally mentioned. Associate Planner Ricci replied that preservation of the biological corridor could be added as:a special consideration. Commissioner Senn stated Zoning Regulation 1-7.65.016 specifically use the wording"wildlife habitat"as appropriate to retain under the S designation. Commissioner Kourakis moved to recommend to the City Council that the Prezcitiiug of the.developable a portion of the site be approved.as R-1-S,.Single-Family Residential with the Special Consideration Overlay'Zone,and the remainder as CIOS-400, Conservation'Open Space with 40-acre minimum parcel size,based on Findings 1 and 2,Page 12,with the addition to preserve the wildlife corridor-for habitat on the site. AYES: Commissioners Kourakis,Ewan, Senn,Jeffrey and Chairman Karleskint NOES: None ABSTAIN: None . . REFRAIN: Commissioners Whittlesey and Ready The motion passed 5-0. Planning Commission M es March 3, 1997 Page 27 . Commissioner Senn moved to recommend to the City Council support for the Annexation,with submittal of a"Resolution of Application"to the Local Agency Formation Commission,based on Findings 1 and 2 on Page 12. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Kourakis. AYES: Commissioners Senn,Kourakis,Jeffrey,and Chairman Karleskint NOES: Commissioner Ewan ABSTAIN: None REFRAIN: Commissioners Whittlesey and Ready The motion passed 4-1. Commissioner Kourakis moved to recommend to the City Council a preference for stab's"Biologically Superior"alternative because it will preserve a wildlife corridor through the site,help minimize the need for a statement of overriding considerations,and create a more logical subdivision design(prevents the need for a long road leading to lots with constricted building envelopes). Development Review Manager Whisenand stated there has been discussion about alternatives and it has evolved over the last month. The applicant's presentation discussed the biologically superior alternative. Mr.Havlik's recommended primary approach is the biological impacts. There are other impacts mentioned in the staff report,specifically with visual impacts as far as Lot 12 being out,as recommended in the EK and aesthetic and geological impacts. Staff would like the Commission not only to look at the biologically superior alterative,but the entire project. He displayed an overhead of what staff would like the Commission to focus in on. Commissioner Senn expressed concern relative to the Commission coming up with a specific number of lots. 6-I>9 Planning Commission N es March 3, 1997 Page 28 Chairman Karleskint stated the applicant could alter the sizes of the lots somewhat. Development Review Manager Whisenand stated if major changes are made to the project,we may need to go back and re-evaluate the EIR Commissioner Kourakis stated her motion is based on the staff report. She prefers not to mention lot numbers. This is still in the design stage and the numbers could change. She suggested using language relative to keeping lots out of landslide areas and modifying the words of stab's biologically superior alternative to reflect the concerns. Associate Planner Ricci suggested language such as combining parts of the reduced density relative to landslides identified in the EIR,Lots 22-25,plus Mr. Havlik's biological consideration recommendation of lots 25-30. Associate Planner Ricci suggested a recommendation in general for the layout depicted in the biologically superior alternative,giving some latitude for ultimate design changes. Ms.Florence wants to bring to the Commission's attention the issue of geotechnical conditions was thoroughly analyzed and addressed with adequate mitigation measures that lessen the level of significance to less than significant. She felt they were working with staff up until a few moments ago,because she has not seen this geologically superior alternative. Mr.Lloyd stated in the first red area on the right,they've removed the lot and increased the lot area They have reduced the lot depth and pushed the lots closer towards the creek. They have taken the cul-de-sac out as being a public street,narrowed it,and made it a private drive. � -la0 Planning Commission M *-s March 3, 1997 b Page 29 Commissioner Senn asked if this has now been revised to be four lots,Lot 22-25. Mr. Lloyd replied yes. Commissioner Senn asked if this is an acceptable situation. Mr.Lloyd replied yes. Commissioner Senn asked Mr.Lloyd to comment on the questions raised by staff regarding the geotechnical issues on these lots. Mr.Lloyd stated they have consulted with Earth Systems who did the original work. The land can be made stable and it's not a significant change. Commissioner Ewan asked if the reconstituted slope would be behind the envelopes for construction. Mr.Lloyd stated it would go as far as the slippage exists. Commissioner Ewan asked if the envelope that the house is designated to built on is on the reconstituted slope. Mr. Lloyed replied yes. They are adhering to the recommendations of the EIR and the geologist. At this site,it is reasonable to let development occur,given the fact that it can be reconstituted and they're going to give up the lots on the end. They are willing to give up Lot 12 and keep 34 lots in the project. Ms.Florence stated each lot will be individually geotechnically analyzed. Planning Commission M;--rtes March 3, 1997 Page 30 Chairman Karleskint has concerns about the landslide areas. Commissioner Kourakis'motion failed for the lack of a second. Commissioner Senn moved to recommend to the City Council a preference for the applicant's biological alternative provided to the Commission,because it will(1)preserve a wildlife corridor through the site, (2)help minimize the need for a statement of overriding considerations,and(3)create a more logical subdivision design,and(4)Lots 22-29 must establish adequate geological requirements to the satisfaction of the Planning and Engineering Departments, (5)Lot 12 be deleted,and(6)the applicant and planning staff be given reasonable latitude to negotiate a solution which would allow the applicant up to a maximum of 34 lots,utilizing the existing R-I-S Zone. Development Review Manager Whisenand noted Lot 26 is not included in the identified landslide area. Commissioner Senn amended his motion to reflect"identified land slide arras"rather than specific the lot numbers. Assistant City Attorney Clemens stated Commissioner Senn may be mixing findings with conditions. Commissioner Senn restated his motion,recommending to the City Council a preference for applicant's biologically superior alternative,modified that identified landslide areas to be developed must be to the satisfaction to the city planning and engineering departments,Lot 12 be removed,and that applicant and staff be given latitude to work together to come up with an ultimate project of a maximum of 34 lots,with the findings being it will preserve a wildlife corridor through the site,help minimize the need for a statement of overriding considerations,and create a more logical subdivision design. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Jeffrey. Planning Commission K :s March 3, 1997 Page 31 Commissioner Ewan stated it was mention Lots 1-11 were moved off the hill towards the stream. He asked what prevents a homeowner from landscaping this area. Development Review Manager Whisenand stated this is addressed in the staff report. Staff is recommending this issue come back in more detail. Commissioner Kourakis is concerneb about moving lots out of landslide areas and into the wildlife corridor. She cannot support the motion. Chairman Karleskint cannot support the motion. He concurs with Commissioner Kourakis and disagrees with deleting Lot 12. He can't support mitigating the landslide areas. Commissioner Kourakis prefers staffs biologically and geologically superior alternative. AYES: Commissioners Senn and Jeffrey NOES: Commissioners Ewan,Kourakis,and Chairman Karleskint ABSTAIN: None REFRAIN: Commissioners Whittlesey and Ready The motion failed 2-3. Commissioner Kourakis moved to recommend to the City Council a preference for staffs biologically and geologically superior alternatives because they will(1)preserve a wildlife corridor through the site,(2) avoid landslide areas,(3)help minimize the need for a statement of overriding considerations,and(4) create a more logical subdivision design. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Ewan. Commissioner Kourakis added this does leave it open to the mitigation measures in the Elk Planning Commission N es March 3, 1997 Page 32 AYES: Commissioners Kouralds,Jeffrey,and Chairman Karleskint NOES: Commissioners Ewan and Senn ABSTAIN: None REFRAIN: Commissioners Whittlesey and Ready The motion passed 3-2. Development Review Manager Whisenand stated the words"landslide areas" refers shown on the map and not other dormant landslide area that were identified in the EIR. The Commission concurred. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION: 2. Staff: A. Agenda Forecast: Development Review Manager Whisenand presented the agenda forecast for the meeting of March 12, 1997. 3. Commission: There were no further comments made. ADJOURNED at 12:02 a.m. to a regular meeting of the Planning Commission,scheduled for March 12, 1997 at 7:00 p.m.in the City/County Library,995 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,California. 6 -�aLl Pladning Commission March 3, 1997 - Page 33 Respectfully submitted, Leaha K.Magee Recording Secretary❑ � �i►f►�►i� citysan luis OBISPO 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 ATTACHMENT 10 Memorandum TO: Planning Commission FROM: Ron Whisenand, Development Review Manager BY: Pam Ricci, Associate Planner PK DATE: March 3, 1997 SUBJECT: Prefumo Creek Homes Project On February 12, 1997, a public hearing was scheduled before the Planning Commission to discuss the project. Because all property owners within 300 feet were not notified of the hearing per the California Government Code, the item was continued to allow for required noticing and statutory due process. The Planning Commission rescheduled the item for a special meeting on Monday, March 3, 1997. With the re-noticing of the hearing, new notices were sent to all property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the project site, including those within County jurisdiction. In addition, notices of the meeting were sent to property owners and residents beyond the mandatory 300-foot radius including residents in the Laguna Lake Mobile Estates mobile home park and residents along Prefumo Canyon Road and Descanso Street. Since the last meeting, several letters concerning the project have been submitted. Those letters are attached to this memo. Also attached to this memo is a memo from the Natural Resources Manager Neil Havlik responding to questions of Commissioner Kourakis. The previous planning commission report is also attached. I:laguna3-3-97 Planning Commission Memo V� 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. l Letters Received After 2/,12/97, ' Rela:rt th:z�doc ,4or RECEIVED f:+hse Courx-ilw eefirna fE8 2 U Iyyi Gate, e sc-5rd'7P.j U a�� nCICITY scn A SEA OF M- A.. CADAM COULD SOON, FLAT? G O V E R 0 'U R H E A D S ! ! A PROPOSAL CALLED PERFUMO CREEK HOMES WLL SOON BE CONSIDERED BY OUR SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL. ' THIS PROJECT IS NOT GOOD FOR LAGUNA LAKE .MOBILEHOME OWNERS. ' HERE' S 14HY: PLEASE PICTURE YOURSELF STANDING, ON PERFUMO CANYON ROAD AT THE UPPER LEFT EDGE OF OUR-MOBILEHOMEPARK. NO?T LOOK OFF TO THE LEFT AND PICTURE A BRIDGE. INSTALLED WHICH CROSSES THE CREEK AND BECOMES A PAVED ROAD WHICH -FOLLOWS THE COURSE OF THE CREEK AND THE EXISTING ROAD. (YES, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT BEFOULING THE BEAUTIFUL MEADOW) , NOW PICTURE THAT THE NEW ROAD RUNS PARALLEL TO THE CREEK AND THE EXISTING ROAD FAR ENOUGH TO 'MAKE ROOM IFOR. THIRTY-EIGHT (38) TJEW HOMES. THEY PLAN 12 HOUSES ON THE 'RIGHT SIDE OF THE NEW ROAD, AND 26 ON THE LEFT SIDE. THE LEFT SIDE INCLUDES A SERIES OF CUL DE SACS TO ACCOMODATE EVEN MORE HOMES ON THE LEFT SIDE. THE LAND INVOLVED IS NOT PART OF OUR 'CITY RIGHT NOW, BUT WOULD NEED TO BE ANNEXED, ' IT WOULD ALSO REQUIRE A CHANGE IN THE GENERAL PLAN ADOPTED BY OUR. CITY AFTER EIGHT YEARS OF PAINSTAKING PLANNING AND CONSIDERABLE COST* THE GENERAL PLAN WAS DRAWN TO CONTAIN ALL ANTICIPATED GROWTH OVER THE NEXT TWENTY (20) YEARS. PLEASE REMEMBER THE LAND CONSIDERED IS OUTSIDE THE CITY AND OUTSIDE THE AREA OF PLANNED GROWTH. WHY IS THE PROPOSED PROJECT BEING CONSIDERED AT ALL? ? THIS PROJECT COULD CREATE A SERIOUS HAZARD. THE ADDITION OF ALL THIS MACADAM AND HOMES WOULD CAUSE A MUCH HEAVIER 'RUN-OFF DURING RAINY SEASONS. THERE WOULD BE PATIOS AND WALKS, DRIVEWAYS AND GARAGES, WHICH' COULD .NOT SOAK UP THE EXCESS WATER. OUR MOBILE HOMES COULD BE WIPED OUT DURING HEAVY 'FLOODING. THIS COULD CAUSE AN ENOPM0US LIABILITY TO THE CITY, AND TO YOU. THIS PLAN WOULD ENGENDER VAST EXPENSES IN ORDER TO PROVIDE WATER, SEWERS, FIRE PROTECTION, POLICE PROTECTION,. SCHOOLS, MAIL SERVICE. THIS PLAN WOULD SOUND A DEATH SENTENCE 'FOR DEER A_*ID MANY SMALL CREATURES WHO DEPEND ON THE .CREEK. OUR CREEK WILL BE POLLUTED. . TWO BEAUTIFUL OAK TREES WOULD NEED TO BE SACRIFICED. TRAFFIC ON PERFUMO CANYON ROAD WOULD BE AWESOME, 14ITH SERVICE VEHICLES AND TRADESPEOPLE SERVICING THE AREA. PLEASE HELP STOP THIS ASPHALT JUNGLE, ' SIGN THIS ARTICLE AND MAIL IT TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL ML'MB S. YOUR OPI ION COUNTS ! T SIGN HERE; AND INCLUDE ADDRESS. 1032 Murl Drive San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 t-4c+P_: S.vefa( copies of -}" leiter Were received signed by VWfOUs re_sident-s of Laouna t-ake Mob;Lg Es-ales ���� r ^ A r Brian and Jeri Roberts rB b 2700 Prefumo Canyon Road FS. 1991 San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 (805)544-8860 Planning Commission Community Development Department 900 Palm Street P.O. Box 8100 San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100 Dear Planning Commissioners: We are writing to voice our disapproval of the proposed Prefumo Creek Homes development project. When we purchased our property in this area this year we felt confident that the area would remain rural based on the General Plan and City/County maps. We are very concerned that the General Plan may be changed in a multitude of ways to accommodate this development without any apparent significant gain to the community in general. Our specific concerns center around the increased traffic to the area, the pollution/degradation of the creek, building in a landslide area and the loss of the meadow area. The Prefumo Canyon area is a wonderful retreat for bicyclists, walkers, hikers, bird watchers and Sunday drives. Everyday many people walk or bicycle along this area and are able to enjoy a variety of nature from the roadside. There are very few areas remaining like it in San Luis Obispo. The amount and variety of wildlife that live here is amazing. Please do not support urban expansion outside the city limits to the detriment of our community and wildlife. Thank you, Brian & Jeri Roberts lo�a� FEE- ,G-q'- TLE ;ICES CHIFE: FA February 23, 1887 e.. rBbr4 Planning � 199?Commission Community Development Department 4/40 990 Palm Street �SOe�sp San Luis Obispo, CA 93403 FAX 781-7173 Dear Planning Commissioners: I am writing to express my concern about the proposed development, "Prefumo Creek Homes." I understand that 38 houses are proposed near where I live in La Canada Village. While I am aware there are many problems associated with this proposed development, there are a few that immediately concern me. Since the construction of the houses behind La Canada Village, Prefumo Canyon Road has become a race trackl it is dangerous to come out of our driveway onto Prefumo Cyn—cars come speeding around that blind curve. This is already an accident waiting to happen; now we are told the traffic on our street will increase by approximately 375 trips per dayl I am also concerned with the quality of life that will be destroyed for everyone in the vicinity: the views, the access to the creek, meadow and hills, and the noise level that will block out the sounds of nature that can now.be heard. I am concerned with destruction of the area, due to erosion, and possible pollution of the creek, from construction and from potential failures of the sewage lift system, which will be required. Mostly, I am concerned that our City officials would set a dangerous precedent by significantly changing a contract with the community, the General Plan. This project seems of no benefit whatsoever to the community, rather it seems a liability. I understand that this property is now in the County and the owners are permitted to build four dwellings. I believe this property should stay in the County, and that the owners should use the land in the manner for which It has resents n apurov border. opposed to City annexation of this property, P Sincerely, LAAA_ k . Carol A. Brookshire 1750 Prefumo Canyon Rd. #51 San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 5449217 �,13C C � Feb. 21,1997 Planning Commission City of San Luis Obispo CA REF: Proposed Annexation of lower Prefumo Canyon We would like to comment on the proposed annexation of the Frefumo Canyon Area followed by the construction of 30+ homes. The EIR notes numerous exceptions required to existing plans to allow this annexation. I chose not to debate `should" "shall" and "may" language in plans but prefer to hue to the spirit of the plans. The plan says "lets build our community this way but allow for exceptions to the letter when advantageous to the community." A. That the scenic/aesthetic value of the area will not be seriously impacted is false. B. That the natural wildlife habitat of a merging woodland, grassland, and riparian environment will not be seriously impacted by ripping out the central grassland area for dense housing is false-4his environment will not be adequately replaced by a wooded slope widely separated from a narrow 20" easement along the constricted creek. C. Housing development is needed in the City- Existing plans designate where the preferred new housing is to be and where land with far less environmental degradation is available. D. Development and other fees paid are not commensurate with the liabilities and long range continuing costs assumed by the City. E. The view /aesthetic values bordering our Urban Development Line are there now, and considering the nature of the land, will in all probability remain without action by the city. Development is possible under the county rights currently held by the property owners, but four pads are certainly preferable to the proposed plan. We wish in no way to interfere with those rights. But in spite of moneys spent in fond hopes, we residents of San Luis have no obligation to extend these rights to annexations and alteration of our long range goals. Seeing no WHY DO IT'S -aet us stay with our thoughtfully designed plans; exceptions are not warranted. The development can be made to conform, or planning requirements altered.-BUT SHOULD WE DO IT? NO—Don't annex a heartbreak!!! Bob & Moira Wunderlich 1225 Descanso Drive SanLuis Obispo CA 93405 544-6267 R ECEivE © EB 2..1 W CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO BUILDING MmjoN ''/ I .rr1V tL .EB 2x, 1997 7F SAN LUIS 061SPC Cp.1(T1V'1'V���16Y_LC►�S�---- ---- T Cc�n�l61 - - 1 ✓� -- , coo �� 1� a- Cl . OIC. CQUK 5�1�� J 70 a_PAn _&Xd -- E MEMORANDUM Date: February 26, 1997 To: Ron Whisenand, Current Planning Manager From: Neil Havlik, Natural Resources Manager�n•W Subject: Relative Impacts on Wildlife of Different Development Scenarios. at Prefumo Homes Site Planning Commissioner Kourakis has asked what the relative impacts upon wildlife would be, under differing development scenarios for the Prefumo Homes site. I have researched the matter and offer the following discussion, which I have limited to those differences in impact only. I am doing this in memo form as I will be out of town on March 3 when the Planning Commission will consider this project. I would appreciate it if you could pass on this information to the Commission. Current proposal. The current proposal would develop approximately 18 acres of this 384-acre property to urban residential densities. The development would be concentrated in a small valley adjacent to Prefumo Creek. The proposal seeks permission to build up to 38 homes within this site. Development of this scale within the 18 acres would essentially replace the current grassland community with urban development and vegetation. This would result in the nearly complete loss of that habitat for wildlife, would be likely to create conditions favorable to various non-native wildlife such as starlings or house sparrows, and would introduce pressure from domestic animals and the possibility of escape by cultivated plants into the surrounding areas. The layout of the development would also serve to cut off access to a portion of Prefumo Creek to wildlife; it should be noted however that in this area the creek is seasonal, and contains no surface flow during the summer and early fall months. The Environmental Impact Report has correctly identified this impact (loss of grassland and associated wildlife habitat) as significant and unavoidable. The question becomes more difficult, however, when we are asked to compare this impact to alternative scenarios which could or would occur if the City did not annex.the property and allow the proposed development. In that event it is likely that development would occur in the County. Development under current County regulations. The 384 acre property consists of two assessor's parcels, and presumably could be developed with two "primary" units per parcel for a total of four. Under the County's agricultural clustering regulations, however, a 100% density bonus may apply, which means that eight units could be constructed. It is reasonable to assume that the density bonus would be utilized, and that the clustered development would occur in generally the same area as the current proposal. This would probably result in the following: • construction of a bridge over Prefumo Creek, though less massive than the current proposal; • Construction of a road, possibly of lesser standard than in the City, possibly of the same or similar standard; • Development of an on-site water collection and distribution system; • Possible development of some type of on-site sewage disposal system; and • Construction of up to eight homes, together with related garages, fencing, and other outbuildings. The impacts of this level of development upon wildlife may not vary significantly from the impacts of the larger number of units currently proposed. The eight units might reasonably be expected to be on two or three acre lots, and at that size certain portions of the lots might remain intact for small mammals such as gophers, meadow mice, and other species important to the food chain. However, the disturbance factor of human activity, domestic animals, and "hobby" agriculture (including pesticide applications) would cause essentially the same pressures upon larger wildlife, including deer, raccoons, foxes, bobcats, hawks, and the mountain lion reported in the area, as the current proposal would cause. Possibilities of escape by cultivated plants would be similar, and use of rural development sites such as under this scenario by starlings, house sparrows, and other non-native birds is well recognized and would certainly be similar. Access to Prefumo Creek might not be as cut off physically as under the current proposal; however, the impact would still be significant. If only four homes are constructed. If the development were to consist of only four units, the wildlife impacts would be likely to be considerably less than either of the above scenarios, except for possible impacts from domestic animals. The bridge might not be feasible, and wildlife access to the creek could range from nearly free to essentially cut off, depending upon site layout, use patterns, and fencing alignments. I believe that, in general, significant qualitative impact changes occur between the four and eight unit levels. Once the homesite parcels in this area get below three acres or so (i.e., above five or six units), the human use impacts begin to completely dominate the site's characteristics, and that is where wildlife impacts begin to clearly show up. Conclusion. Impacts to wildlife occur as a result of development per se, and those impacts increase in a non-linear fashion. Development of one-fourth the number of units does not necessarily mean one-fourth the impact. Reasonably foreseeable rural development of the site is likely to lead to most, though not all, of the impacts upon wildlife associated with urban scale development. Impacts to the larger wildlife species is likely to be the same under both urban and likely rural development scenarios. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMNUSSION STAFF REPORT rrEM a 2 BY: Pam Ricci, Associate Planner PR. MEETING DATE: February 12, 1997 FROM: Ron Whisenand, Development Review Manage FILE NUMBER: Annex/GP/ER 26-95 PROJECT ADDRESS: 1855 Prefiuno Canyon Road SUBJECT: Consideration of a Final Environmental Impact Report(EIR), and request to annex a 384-acre parcel into the City with development of 38 residential lots on 17.8 acres near Prefumo Creek. Project entitlements include a General Plan Amendment for map and policy changes, a Prezoning and a Vesting Tentative Tract Map. RECOMMENDATION A. Recommend to the City Council that the EIR be certified. B. Recommend to the City Council that the following General Plan Map Amendments be approved: • to designate the developable portion of the site as Low Density Residential and the remainder as Open Space; • to modify the location of the Urban Reserve Line to include the developable portion of the site; and • to change the designation of Descanso Drive from a local residential street to a residential collector. C. Recommend to the City Council that the following General Plan Text Amendments be approved: • to modify Land Use Element(LUE)Policy 6.2.6. J. regarding development of the Prefumo Creek hillside planning area; and to amend Footnote(3) of Policy 5.2 of the Circulation Element regarding average daily traffic on Prefumo Canyon Road. D. Recommend to the City Council that the Prezoning of the developable portion of the site be approved as R-1-S, Single-Family Residential with the Special Consideration overlay zone, and the remainder as C/OS-40, Conservation Open Space with 40-acre minimum parcel size. E. Recommend to the City Council a preference for stag's`Biologically Superior" alternative. BACKGROUND Situation On November 6, 1996, a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission during the required (� -43 Prefumo Creek Homes Project Page 2 public review period to discuss the Draft EIR prepared for the project. At that meeting, testimony from both the Commission and public was taken. The Final EIR is a compilation of the Draft EIR and responses to comments. The Final EIR was distributed to the Commission at its January 22, 1997 meeting. This agenda item is both a hearing to consider the adequacy of the Final EIR in terms of its compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and a hearing to consider the various project entitlements. The Planning Commission's action is a recommendation on the EIR and other requested entitlements to the City Council. Data Summary Address: 1855 Prefumo Canyon Road Applicant: Laguna Hill Estates Representatives: Dan Lloyd, Engineering Development Associates (EDA); Carol Florence, Oasis Associates, Inc. Environmental status: The Final EIR has been prepared and has been distributed to the Commission. Project action deadline: Legislative actions are not subject to processing deadlines. Site description The project site, 1855 Prefumo Canyon Road, is located on the south side of the street, near Castillo Court. The site, which is outside the city limits and beyond the City's urban reserve line, is designated on the City's Land Use Element map as Open Space. The site is currently undeveloped and contains a variety of plant communities. The predominant site features are the riparian area along the creek corridor, the flatter grassland areas commonly referred to as the "meadow" where the bulk of the project development is proposed, and the steeper slopes that are a combination of Coastal scrub and Oak-Woodland plant communities. Project Description Laguna IFill Estates wants to develop a 38-lot single-family residential development on the project site. The application specifically includes: ■ Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to evaluate the project's potential adverse impacts on the environment. ■ Annexation of a total of 384 acres of property to the City limits. The developable portion of the site contains about 18 acres; the remainder of the site, consisting of about 366 acres of creek area and hillside, would be retained as open space and dedicated to the City. Prefumo Creels Homes Project Page 3 ■ General Plan Map Amendment to designate the developable portion of the site as Low Density Residential and the remainder as Open Space, and to modify the location of the Urban Reserve Line to include the developable portion of the site. The EIR also recommends that Land Use Element (LUE) Policy 6.2.6. J be either deleted or amended to allow the proposed density. ■ Prezoning of the developable portion of the site as R-1, Single-Family Residential, and the remainder as C/OS40, Conservation Open Space with 40-acre minimum parcel size. ■ Tract Map to create a 38-lot subdivision. EVALUATION As evidenced by the length and detail of the analysis included in the EM, the project's development as proposed raises a variety of complex policy and physical development issues. Stairs mission with this report is not to reiterate, or even summarize, all the very detailed evaluation included in the EIR. It is rather to highlight the main issues that the Commission should discuss to reach a decision on various project components. This staff report is structured to provide: a discussion of key project issues; an outline of the main elements of the project decision-making process; and a summary of alternatives. L PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH CITY PLANS& POLICIES Section D. of the Draft EIR discusses the project's consistency with County and City plans and policies. Appendix C of the Draft EIR provides a summary of all the relevant policies and an assessment of their consistency with the project. The staff report will highlight issues that the Commission and Council will need to resolve during the course of project review to make decisions on project entitlements. Some of these issues will be discussed in this same section of the staff report. Others, because they overlap between policy and physical environmental impacts, will be discussed in the physical impact analysis section of the report. A. The Urban Reserve Line(URL) The LUE Map shows that the URL stops at the eastern edge of the project site, next to the creek and the Laguna Lake Mobile Estates Mobile Home Park. The most basic policy issue, and perhaps the key one, is whether it is appropriate to modify the location of the City's Urban Reserve Line (URL) in anticipation of site annexation and project development. Mitigation measures for several significant environmental impacts, namely inconsistency of the project with LUE and other general plan policies, are to amend the LUE map to show the portion of the project site where development is proposed within the URL (specifically LUE Policies 1.6.1, 1.7.1, Water&Wastewater Management Element 12.1 D.). If the project is ultimately supported by the City, either as submitted or in a modified form and/or C�-13 7 Prefumo Creek Homes Project Page 4 configuration, then the URL must be amended. The applicants argue that the developable portion of the project site was within the URL prior to the adoption of the LUE in 1994. On the other side of the issue is the fact that the site was consciously excluded from the URL through the public hearing process during the general plan update. The issue of modifying the location of the URL to accommodate this project can be argued either way. One could say that modifying the URL to allow the project in the flatter portions of the site will not significantly change the City's compact urban form or lead to excessive sprawl, and will provide the City with a significant amount of desirable open space. This view would be consistent with the Open Space Element, specifically Policy 1.C., Urban Edge, which allows for "minor" expansions of the URL with the acquisition of"sizeable" open space lands that provide a "meaningful buffer to additional urban development." A contrary view would be that the URL was recently established at its present location and modifying the URL now would adversely affect the integrity of the General Plan. Physical constraints, i.e. the creek and steep chaparral-covered hillsides, can be used as reasons to either support or deny the requested amendment to modify the URL. The creek itself is a logical physical feature to use as the ultimate boundary of City development -- a natural division between the urban scale of the City and the more open character of the surrounding County land. However, one could also say that the transition between the flatter grassland areas of the site and the adjacent hillsides is the place to terminate the City limits, because the proposed dedication of open space will logically contain urban development. B. Need for Annexation Area Master Plan LUE Policy 1.13.3, Required Plans, calls for the master planning of proposed annexation areas so that the City has an adopted plan showing the project layout, required open space protection and provision of streets and utilities. To be consistent with this policy the EIR indicates that it may be necessary to amend the proposal to include prezoning the developable portion of the property to Single-Family Residential, R-1, with the Planned Development (PD) overlay. In lieu of a PD overlay, the property could be prezoned to carry the "S", Special Considerations, overlay. The required use permit with an S overlay could be conditioned to require certain improvements. City decision makers may also determine that the submitted tract map allows for adequate review of project master planning. II. PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT ISSUES A. Creek Protection & Access Prefumo Creek runs along the north and west sides of the project site, generally paralleling the adjacent Prefumo Canyon Road. As with other subdivisions with a creek flowing through it, there are issues with this project in terms of creek bank stabilization, retention of the riparian corridor, maintenance and pedestrian access to the creek area, and appropriate setbacks and &-15t Prefumo Creek Homes Project Page 5 subdivision lot layout. Project plans do not show any public pedestrian trails along the creek corridor or in the open space areas. LUE Policy 1.9.3 encourages, but does not mandate, public trails in open space areas. The policy includes language that trails should both "protect the natural resources and provide reasonable security and privacy of dwellings". The Commission should discuss the desirability of a trail system along the project's creek corridor. The width and location of any pedestrian trials through the project would most appropriately be shown on the vesting tentative tract map. The City recently adopted a creek setback ordinance which is now Section 17.16.025 of the zoning regulations. When the vesting tentative tract map was submitted to the City and certified complete, there was not a creek setback ordinance in place. The tract map shows that proposed building envelopes for creek-side lots will be located 20 feet from the top of creek bank. However, portions of some lots include minor amounts of area within the riparian corridor. Appendix C in the Draft EIR points out that this design may provide for adequate creek protection, but is technically inconsistent with LUE Policies 2.2.11 and 6.4.6 and Open Space Policies LA- and 1. E. The creek setback ordinance calls for a 35-foot setback along Prefumo Creek for areas annexed after 1996 unless the Council approves a larger or smaller setback as part of a specific plan or development plan. The Commission and Council has several options in terms of accepting the design of the lots next to the creek as depicted on the tract map: • Accept the design of the lots as submitted - The proposed design showing a 20-foot setback from the top of creek bank to building envelopes can be accepted since the EIR indicates that the riparian corridor is protected with recommended mitigation measures. The City would likely require an easement over the creek setback area of the lots. • Add the required creek setback area to the creek open space area - The tract map could be redrawn to include the required setback area (either 20' or 35', depending on final project conditions)in the creek area open space, rather than a part of the adjacent lots. • An added requirement -A condition may be imposed that a fence be installed between the rear of yards and the required creek setback which is approved through the planning process. This condition could be imposed regardless of whether the creek setback area is part of the creek area to be dedicated to the City as open space or part of the rear of individual lots. B. Geological Constraints Much of the site is underlain by the Franciscan Formation which the City's Seismic Safety Element identifies as having a very high risk of landslides. In fact, several known landslides have (0-/�3 9 Prefumo Creek Homes Project Page 6 been mapped on the project site (see Map H-1 of the Draft EIR). Several of the proposed lots are directly affected by the landslides. The EIR points out that including geologically unstable areas within proposed building envelopes is inconsistent with LUE Policy 6.1.1 which discourages development of areas with slope instability. Creation of building envelopes in known landslide areas is also inconsistent with LUE Policies 6.2.0 and 6.2.1. The EIR indicates that impacts can be mitigated by regrading and stabilizing the landslides, consistent with geotechnical engineering recommendations. The reduced density alternative included in the EIR suggests that several of the lots directly affected by landslides be eliminated which will reduce needed grading and minimize associated visual impacts. C. Oven Space/Grasslands Much of the flatter areas of the site that are proposed for development are composed of grassland communities. The grassland areas are commonly referred to as "the meadow". As discussed in the EIR, there are "impressive" amounts of native grasses along with the dominant introduced annuals. The EIR points out that the project is inconsistent with several policies contained in the Open Space Element that seek to protect "native" grassland areas (Policies 2.A, 2.B.1, 2.B.2, & 2.C). The EIR concludes that the language in the policies is discretionary since the word "should", rather than"shall" is used. The EIR concludes that the loss of"native"grasslands on the site will have a direct impact on the wildlife that use the areas for foraging and a corridor between the hillsides and the creek. This impact is categorized as a"significant and unavoidable impact." This category of impact requires that the City in certifying the EIR to make findings of overriding considerations. III. PUBLIC WORgS✓UTILITIES ISSUES A. Traffic/Circulation The added traffic generated by the project is relatively minor (363 daily trips). Pref imo Canyon Road with the added traffic generated by the project will continue to operate at Level of Service (LOS) A. However, because of the current classification of Prefumo Canyon Road as a "residential collector" , the street, even with existing traffic volumes, exceeds the City Circulation Element's adopted standards for determining a significant impact. Similarly, Descanso Drive presently exceeds the Circulation Element's threshold for maximum daily volume. The EIR suggests two mitigation alternatives; • reclassify Pref imo Canyon Road as a"residential arterial" and develop a neighborhood traffic management plan; or • amend the Circulation Element to increase the average daily traffic volumes and desired C�-ice Prefumo Creek Homes Project Page 7 maximum speed for Prefumo Canyon Road and Descanso Drive. Consistent with the intent of the mitigation measures contained in the EIR, the Public Works Department recommends that the average daily traffic volumes for Pref imo Canyon Road be increased as described in the second alternative above, without increasing the desired maximum speed. This action would be similar to a recent amendment to the Circulation Element to address traffic flow on Chorro Street. In addition, Public Works has recommended reclassifying Descanso from a"local residential street"to a"residential collector street". B. -Ownership of Public Facilities The Draft EIR indicated that certain public improvements would be privately owned and maintained by the Homeowners' Association. At several locations in the Final EIR are corrections or comments to clarify that the intention is that the streets, water lines and sewer mains, including the required lift station will be owned and maintained by the City. This issue will be further clarified with review of the tract map. PROJECT REVIEW & PROCESSING The Commission's actions on the various project entitlements are advisory to the City Council. This section of the report is intended to provide the Commission with direction on their role in the review of the project and approaches to making recommendations on the various entitlements. The following paragraphs serve as an outline to the Commission for the order of considering project components. L EIR ADEQUACY The Planning Commission should first determine whether or not the submitted EIR meets all the legal requirements of CEQA. If the document adequately evaluates environmental issues and appropriately responds to comments, then the Commission should recommend to the Council that the EIR be certified. The Final EIR must be certified prior to approval of the project analyzed in the EIR. Regardless of the Commission's recommendation on other project entitlements (even if it is to deny them), the Commission could support certification of the EIR. In other words, the Commission can recommend that the EIR be certified even if other project requests are not supported. The City has the following options in responding to the conclusions of the EIR: • Disapprove the project because it has significant environmental effects; • Require changes in the project to reduce or avoid a significant environmental effect; • Approve the project despite its significant environmental effects, it the proper findings and statement of overriding considerations are adopted. An agency is not required to select the (o- 1 Prefumo Creek Homes Project Page 8 most environmentally superior alternative. The EIR concludes that the project will result in significant and unavoidable aesthetic and biological environmental impacts. Therefore, the City would be required to adopt a statement of overriding considerations if it were to accept the project as submitted. The aesthetic impacts can be reduced to a level of insignificance with elimination of Lot 12. Unofficially, the applicant has indicated a willingness to eliminate Lot 12. The unavoidable biological impacts are more complex and difficult to mitigate to a degree of insignificance. The biological impacts are associated with both loss of the grassland community and their value as wildlife habitat. The EIR concludes that mitigation measures will reduce impacts, but that "the cumulative loss of the diversity and value of the habitat is a significant impact that cannot be avoided" Staff includes Alternative 4 in the Alternatives section of this report as a strategy to further reduce impacts to biological resources. H. GENERAL PLAN POLICY DECISIONS The Commission should first decide whether it is appropriate to modify the location of the URL to include the proposed project. This is the fundamental decision to accepting other components of the general plan amendment and the annexation of the property to the City. Staff has identified LUE Policy 6.2.6. J as the one policy where the LUE text actually needs to be amended. Other policies have identified consistency issues, but can be mitigated through changes in project design or interpretation of the policy. The EIR provides a choice of mitigation measures which are to either delete Policy 6.2.6. J or amend it to allow the proposed density. Staff would suggest that the policy be retained because it would be desirable to have development criteria listed for this identified hillside planning area. If the Commission supports relocating the URL, then the policy should be amended to read: The Pre fumo Creek area extends into the Irish Hills west of Prefumo Canyon Road Development should be limited to areas within the URL with permanent protection of the creeks and upper hillsides. III. PREZONING As discussed in Section I.B. of the Evaluation section of this report, LUE Policy 1.13.3, Required Plans, calls for the master planning of proposed annexation areas so that the City has an adopted plan showing the project layout, required open space protection and provision of streets and utilities. The mitigation measure identifies the options of either a "S", Special Consideration overlay zoning, a"PD", Planned Development overlay zoning or relying on conditions of the tract map, to meet the master plan requirement. Out of the three choices, staff feels that the "S" zoning is the most relevant to this particular site. �-ria Pretmno Creek Homes Project Page 9 The site has many development constraints that seem tailor-made for application of the "S" zoning. Through the adoption of the"S" zoning, the specific considerations to be addressed with review of a master use permit can be identified. The purpose of the "S" zone states that the use permit can be conditioned to assure neighborhood compatibility, look at project compliance with physical site constraints and protect scenic and sensitive site areas. The "PD" zoning is not as applicable to the project since the applicant is not seeking relaxation of property development standards. The "S" zoning seems to have some advantages in terms of timing and project review. Staff is reluctant to recommend approval of the tract map until revisions are made to address environmental issues. Therefore, documenting now the reasons for the special considerations of the site and having a master use permit return at a later date with a revised tract map seems to be a logical processing strategy. The "S" zoning has been employed with several other similar subdivision projects in the past including: the Royal Way Tracts (TR 1438 & 1439); Prefumo Canyon Estates near the project site(TR 858); and the end of San Luis Drive and Andrews Drive above the San Luis Drive neighborhood (TR 1259& TR 940 respectively). IV. TRACT MAP Staff recommends that the Commission not make a recommendation of the vesting tentative tract map at this time. Staff feels that the tract map should be revised to show compliance with identified mitigation measures before a recommendation on it is forwarded to the Council. For example, the Stoneridge II tract map was acted on after the EIR, general plan amendments, prezoning and annexation were supported by the City and LAFCO. Design of the tentative tract map will be contingent on which environmental design alternative Council selects. These alternatives are outlined below. ALTERNATIVES The EIR identifies several alternatives to the submitted project including: 1. The No Project Alternative-The Commission may recommend that the project be denied on the basis of inconsistency with the General Plan. 2. The Reduced Density Alternative - The Commission may recommend that the EIR be certified, the General Plan amendments be supported, the developable portion of the property be prezoned R-1-S, and the tract map be amended to eliminate Lots 9-12 because of aesthetic impacts and Lots 22-25 and 28-30 because they he on unstable landslide deposits. 3. The Compact Development Alternative - The Commission may wish to recommend this alternative as another way to further mitigate significant biological (eliminate Lots 29-38 to enhance the biological corridor between the hillside and creek areas) and aesthetic (eliminate Lot 12) impacts. Prefmno Creek Homes Project Page 10 4. The `Biologically Superior" Alternative - Based on recommendations from the City's Natural Resources Manager, Planning staff is suggesting another alternative that includes elements of both Alternatives 2& 3 described above. All or a portion of Lots 28-38 would be eliminated in the western end of the site. Removal or relocation of these lots serves several purposes including preservation of a wildlife corridor, retention of some of the grassland area that would otherwise be lost, and the creation of a more logical subdivision design (prevents the need for a long road leading to lots with constricted building envelopes). Lots 9-11 would be allowed with mitigation measures to address visual impacts. With this alternative, staff believes that a total of 30 homes may be possible. There may be ways to change lot configurations and increase the density (number of lots) in the eastern portion of the site to compensate for the removal of lots in the western end. Staff sees some flexibility in terns of the overall number and arrangement of the lots with this alternative. However, any significant change to the project may require further review to evaluate the associated impacts not addressed in the EIR. OTHER DEPARTMENT COAEIMNTS The comments and recommendations of various City departments are incorporated into the EIR. RECOMMENDATION A. Recommend to the City Council that the EIR be certified, based on the following findings: Findings 1. The Final EIR was prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and was considered by the City prior to any approvals of the project. 2. The Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City. 3. The.proposed mitigation measures contained in the EIR will adequately mitigate adverse environmental impacts of the project, or a statement of overriding considerations will be made for those significant and unavoidable environmental impacts. B. Recommend to the City Council that the General Plan Map Amendments as described below be approved, based on the following findings: • to designate the developable portion of the site as Low Density Residential and the remainder as Open Space; • to modify the location of the Urban Reserve Line to include the developable portion of the site; and 0 to change-the designation of Descanso Drive from a local residential street to a residential Prefumo Creek Homes Project Page 11 • to change the designation of Descanso Drive from a local residential street to a residential collector. _Findin 1. The proposed amendments are consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan, with the proposed text amendment outlined below, and with compliance with all of the mitigation measures contained in the project EIR. 2. The project is consistent with Open Space Policy 1.C., Urban Reserve (numbered as Policy 13.2.1 C in the general plan digest), which "requires projects that would involve minor expansions of the URL to secure open space" on land adjoining but outside the new URL location. C. Recommend to the City Council that the following General Plan Text Amendments be approved, based on the following findings: • to modify Land Use Element a UE)Policy 6.2.6. J as follows: The Pre fumo Creek area extends into the Irish Hills west of Prefumo Carryon Road Development should be limited to areas within the URL with permanent protection of the creeks and upper hillsides. • to amend Footnote(3) of Policy 5.2 of the Circulation Element to read: For Chorro Street, north of Lincoln Street, and Pre fumo Carryon Road the maximum desired ADT goal is 7,500 ADT. Findings 1. The proposed LUE text amendment will not jeopardize the integrity of the LUE with the proposed modification to the location of the URL. 2. The proposed Circulation Element text amendment reflects realistic traffic levels and goals and is consistent with strategies used elsewhere in the City to resolve street capacity issues. D. Recommend to the City Council that the Prezoning of the developable portion of the site be approved as R-1-S, Single-Family Residential with the Special Consideration overlay zone, and the remainder as C/OS-40, Conservation Open Space with 40-acre minimum parcel size, based on the following findings: Findings Pref imo Creek Homes Project Page 12 1. The proposed "S" overlay zoning will document the special considerations for the site which are: protection of and access to the riparian corridor, preservation of hillside open space, geological constraints including landslides, aesthetic concerns with development of visually prominent sites, creek setback and access, fire protection issues; and provision of City utilities and services. 2. The required administrative use permit will serve as a master use permit that fulfills the intention of LUE Policy 1.13.3, Required Plans, which calls for the master planning of proposed annexation areas so that the City has an adopted plan showing the project layout, required open space protection and provision of streets and utilities. E. Recommend to the City Council support for the Annexation, with submittal of a"Resolution of Application" to the Local Agency Formation Commission(LAFCO), based on the following findings: Findings 1. The annexation is appropriate since the site is contiguous to the City on its north and east sides. 2. The annexation of the site is a logical addition to the City due to its location in relation to existing urban development. E. Recommend to the City Council a preference for staff's`Biologically Superior" alternative because it will: 1. Preserve a wildlife corridor through the site. 2. Help minimize the need for a statement of overriding considerations. 3. Create a more logical subdivision design(prevents the need for a long road leading to lots with constricted building envelopes). Attached: Vicinity and rezoning request maps Ivfrtigation measures (attached as Exhibit A +a 1N*ac6menn+ 3) Letter from Robin Z. Bell dated 2-6-97 "Fact Sheet" dated 2-6-97 from The Friends of Pref limo Creek Enclosed: Full-size tract maps Previously distributed: Draft &Final EIRs I:Vaguoa\pc report TO RTASCAOFJtp JLe�pRp TT i0 �D�i'11 If74Y . G09 O5o5 o � L 1 4AGLAKE r 4CA AJ 101 S/TE n / 0� TANX FAR/A R0.t0 TO Shatz GEACH _ ............................._............................ _." PREFUMO CREEK HOMES EXHIBIT _ EHGI EERING ._ �:_ __ :-• :• - DEVELOPMENT _::::_:____.::^__ ^.:,. . ASSOCIATES VICINITY MAP 1 c'sevaya:WT*EEr- A+ :: :tus osgaro. CA 93401 805/54945W :,....:. ._.-.............-........... �:Mso Rom Es CA 93"G 804=7-um j � LSA y8 Y CL �i C7 0o OS Cr VALLECrrO Cr QAC RELOCATE .CITY LIMIT' TO .'HERE. _ DESIGNATE LAND �y zAv a� R- 1 cap X92 C/OS-40 Gf%• QOP OC X909 (9.4 ACRES) Pit Afo C R-1 ( 17.8 ACRES)- °a i C/OS-40 (356.8 ACRES) 0 �/ i C/OS-40 C--- - ......................................_............................................ ................._............. :ENGPREFUMO CREEK HOMES EXHIBITDEVELOPMENT REZONING . ASSOCIATES REQUEST 3 _... .._ WIN.3YC.WMEEV i0 Mi'LOIS O818P0. OA 57401 805/848-8688 ::: ::PACO ROBLES. CA 554" 8O5/237-IM /A0-/�8' m ECEIVED FEB 0 71997 - TY OF SAN LUIS 08ISPO r RobiN Z. BE1L February 6, 1997 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members FROM: Robin Z. Bell, Owner/Resident: 1950 Castillo Court (corner of Prefumo Canoyon Road) RE: Prefumo Canyon Creek Proposed.Assessment, 38 Residential Lot Site Development and Open Space Gift Exchange Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: The current Prefumo Canyon Creek Consortium wishes to enhance their property holdings by building a road and "a Bridge to the 21 st Century" off Prefumo Canyon Road. These would access their concurrently proposed City assessment and development of 38 residential lots in the existent creekside Meadow area. The Consortium has offered a sizeable Greenbelt Gift to the City in exchange for this granted privilege. In light of catastrophic impact on reduced property values, quality of life for surrounding property owners, native wildlife and riparian growth, as well as reduced recreational and aesthetic options for appreciative citizens and visitors to the Central Coast if the extent of this development does occur, I would like to offer a more imaginative and financially lucrativealternative to the Consortium, the City, and the Nation at-large. After all, 300+ gifted acres is nothing to sneeze at. With fervent acknowledgement and respect for every property owner's right to develop holdings in any way harmonious with surrounding sites and political atmospheres of the times, why not sell/license or lease "The [Prefumo Canyon Road] Bridge to the 21 st Century", packaged together with the 38 tots and the Gift of Greenbelt Openspace to the National Executive Trust? That way, our current President Clinton and subsequent Chief Executives could implement Dick Norris' pricey public relations advice which we as a Nation have already paid for: "Throw out the ritzy-ditzy profile and substitute low- budget, Kodak-moment camping vacations on majestic federally-preserved lands. Pet deer. Roast marshmellows. The votors'll love you for it." THE CANYON HOUSE Box 15318 SAN Luis Obispo, CA 93406-5318 (805) 546-0606 M=r y. ja 1) ROBIN Z. BELL Because current Prefumo Canyon Creek Consortium acreage holdings on this beautiful pristine terrain (perfect for syndicated news service snapshots most any day of the year) comprise less acreage than, say, Yellowstone National Park, future costs of Chief Executive vacation surveillence budgets alone could be impressively reduced, thereby impacting a. the national benefit of all U.S. taxpayers b. the local benefit of all Central Coast souvenir retailers - c. the on site preservation of native wildlife and riparian growth-- as long as First Family members don't shoot or inhale it. Consider the sale/royalties/income incentives for every Prefumo Canyon Creek Consortium member. With a 300+Acre Greenbelt Gift to the Executive Trust and the sale/lease/royalties resultant income for future generations of heirs and property owners— in addition, of course, to up-front greenbacks, its a succulent package. Not to mention the notion of Prefumo Canyon Creek R.E.I.T. investment potentials for 401 K and tax-free municipal bond visionaries. Besides, the world is entittled to see, to share, and to savor this-local unmined jewel. For my personal tax buck and private residential view from several picture window facing a minimum of 38 future residences, I'd rather catch glimpses of Hillary and Bill frolicking before the international paparazzi in lenses clad in designer Vacation Rustique Togs than would I opt to watch 38 grumbling local homeowners mow Meadow-lawns in their Under-roos. Thanking you for your time and good humor, I am Sincerely yours, Ro Z. Bell cc: Telegram Tribune ThE CANYON HOUSE Box 15318 SAN Luis Obispo, CA 93406-5318 (805) 546-0606 �-isz� Feb. 6, 1997 ECE1VED To: The San Luis Obispo Planning Commision FEB U 71997 The San Luis Obispo Planning Staff Tr of SAN LUIS osISpo Pam Ricci ..Tnrrry^_,fp npwar From: The Friends of Prefumo Creek (A meeting of 21 concerned citizens took place in the Laguna Lake area Feb. 5, 1997. Much of the below was discussed.) Fact Sheet Prefumo Creek Meadows Development "Tbe Mission Plaza of the Greenbelt" A beautiful piece of San Luis Obispo open space slated for intense development? Prefumo Creek and the Meadows nearby About 20 years ago the citizens of San Luis Obispo discovered a beautiful piece of land slated for development that is now the Mission Plaza. Because the site was unique—with the Mission on one side, sloping grassy land in the middle and the creek on the other—people recognized how important it was to preserve this land. There exists just at the edge of our city a nearly identical piece of 'Paradise'--Prefumo Creek its nearby meadows and canyon, all located just off Los Osos Valley Road in the Laguna Lake area. The Prefumo Creek area has a unique layout very similar to the Mission Plaza area, except on a-large enough scale to create a wildlife habitat--its open grassy meadows are located between steep hillsides topped by mountains full of oak trees on its one side and on the other is the Prefumo Creek with its cool waters shaded by a large variety of native trees, including giant Sycamore trees and old oaks. Due to the creek, hillsides and meadows, there is nothing like this environment anywhere in our city's Greenbelt preservation area. To suddenly lose it would be a permenent loss to all local citizens. Uniquely, the setbacks of the neighboring homes from Prefumo Canyon Road, the road itself, the grass land between the road and the creek and the Prefumo Creek with its high banks make a huge barrier between people and the natural habitat on the other side of the creek that the developer would tear out for an intense development of homes. Missing from the Draft EIR is the fact that no where on the edge of our city exists what is in essense a Wildlife Preserve. (See below regarding the mountain lions and other wildlife.) The Draft EIR also misses the fact that nearly all of the 366 acres of "open space" the developer would give the city is not visible from anywhere but in the air. The wrong 14 acres—the most beautiful and most visible--are proposed for destruction while land that would be saved could only be enjoyed from a helicopter. Should the City help one developer change so many city planning policies? Located in the area just outside the City designated for Open Space protection, the developer can currently build about four homes on the total 350+ acres of land if he doesn't annex it into the City. He wants to increase that by about 1000% to 38 homes. While that is a huge intensification of development on this special land, it would, if ever approved, increase our city housing supply by only a fraction of a percent. While there is buildable flat or partially developed land within city limits or out by the airport to equal this tiny housing increase, there is nothing like this special environment. Sprawling out into unique environments should not be our city's policy. Building up—or 'infilling'—not more urban sprawl. -- By doing one developer a favor—worth possibly a million dollars or more—by going through a huge effort to annex this one small piece of land may not be the wisest city policy. Economically, other than a handful of temporary jobs-along with the months of intense construction noise to go with it--there isn't even a measureable amount of economic benefit to anyone, other than for the developer. If city officials do him a very big favor and 1) annex the land into the city, 2) change for his benefit the city's General Plan and 3) intensify the zoning, current city residents will trade their lower quality of life for someone else's short term financial gain. Mountain lions, bears and the wilderness area of Prefumo Creek's meadows More evidence that this is a unique area is the citing of at lease one resident mountain .lioin. Some months ago a mountain lion killed a deer and ate the rear part of it just on the other side of Prefumo Canyon Road from the meadow area of Prefumo Creek. Neighbors and people walking in the area spotted the mountain lion heading back up into the oak hills after finishing its morning meal. Photos of the half-eaten deer show not only the enormous power and appetite of these big cats but the actual huge paw prints before and after the kill. The hoof prints of the deer drinking at the creek and the cat's prints stalking it are real wild life drama. Neighborhood children were warned to not visit the creek or meadow areas in late afternoon or early morning, just as people have been given similar warnings in another canyon area, Poly Canyon. Much more unique wildlife openly enjoy this Wildlife Preserve: A male and female coyote pair have been video taped regularly hunting in broad daylight across the meadow. Two beautiful red tailed hawks are mating and hunting together in this same area. On Feb. 3, 1997, both birds were seen grasping talons while flying together in a mating ceremony. A herd of 35 deer graze the area throughout the year. All the snakes, mammals, birds and other wildlife offer a close view of our nature environment with very little distrubance from local residents. Due to the creek, Prefumo Canyon Road and large backyards of the neighboring homes, people tend to see but not touch the beauty of the area. However, fitting as many as 100 new city residents--many of them children--between the mountains and the creek of what is a wildlife sancuary may put them in peril at some future date. People have spotted several mountail lions in Poly Canyon. Mixing large numbers of new people at the entrance of Prefumo Canyon with large, hungry animals like mountain lions, coyotes and native bears may be a poor choice of city planning, especially since for such a small gain for the city as a whole. The few people among the many who walk, drive, jog or bike on Prefumo Canyon who do take a strole in the creek area try to pick up any trash kids may leave--but only when the sun is nice and high in the sky! What about the "new" open space? Anyone who knows the area cannot say that with this annexation, General Plan amendment and intensification of development that "we'll gain 300+ acres of open space" from this project. It is already 100% open space! With this project, we'll lose the prime beauty of the entire area by building in the wildlife/meadow areas. This will be gone forever. If it stays in the county-allowed development of around 4 homes, that is nothing comepared to a city street put throught the middle of the meadow with light poles and houses and cul- de-sacs on each side of it. Or, if the property itself or the development rights to it are purchased, then the developer gets his money without harming forever a beautiful part of our natural habitate'. Any annexation or General Plan changes applications are known gambles for a developer. Saying `-`no" to this one project could pay off well for- both sides if the ,open space is preserved. and the developer gets something.substantial for it. i �. MEETINP AGENDAMarch 27, 1997 DATE � ITEM # To: Honorable Mayor and City Council members ��,,e, 4,V�' City of San Luis Obispo Re: Prefumo Creek Homes Annexation Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council:. I am writing regarding the annexation of the Prefumo Creek Homes project coming before the City Council on April 1st. I am concerned that misinformation and emotional propaganda being presented by those opposed to the annexation will cause the City to loose an excellent opportunity and ultimately lead to a vastly inferior development occurring on the site. I have seen such things happen too many times in the past. Apparently the current County land designation allows approximately four houses on the property. The folks opposing this project argue that four houses scattered across this much acreage is the same as leaving it undeveloped. But this is not accurate. If the land is sold as four home sites and remains within the County, it will be fenced off and posted "No Trespassing" just like every other piece of land fronting Prefumo Canyon Road all the way to Avila Beach. This is certain to happen and would be a great loss to everyone who now uses the land. Remember, those who now roam across this property, including myself, are actually trespassing. Under the annexation proposal most of this land would become public, and access would be legal and assured forever. A significant benefit to the City, this will expedite the ultimate goal of a greenbelt around the City. Allowing the property to remain in the County will not save the meadow either. the meadow is the best building spot on the lower portion of the property and sure to be the prime site of a new home. Eventually it could include barns, a granny unit, out buildings, corrals and gardens. Livestock could be turned out on the hillside to graze. The other three neighbors would do the same, except new roads would have to be graded to their building sites. - � 'I9f COUNCIL ErCDDDIR . f ❑ CAO ❑ FIN DIR Very likely, all of them would be thinking about further subdividi ' CAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF their land in the future. After all, the maximum four-house scen ATTORNEY 19,PW DIR WCLERK/ORIG D POLICE CHF; ❑ MGMTTEAM ❑ REC DIR ❑ C R FILE ❑ UTIL DIA ❑ PERS DIR is only valid under current zoning. There is nothing to stop the County from changing this. From the County's point of view, this site is an excellent place to build houses. It's close to an urban center, adjacent to densely developed land, and is not productive farm or ranch land. In fact its only real value other than home sites is aesthetic. It's pretty to look at. But there are many areas in the County that are just as beautiful, far larger and even more deserving of protection from development. The County might find it expedient to allow denser building on this site near the city in order to limit building in Pozo or Creston near the Los Padres Forest. A strong argument could be made for quarter or half acre parcels in the meadow area. This is appropriate and consistent with the neighborhoods across Prefumo Canyon Road. The top of the mountain is also a good building area. Being more rural, five acre parcels might be better up there. About forty of them would fit easily. Access could be up Royal Way on the Southern end, where the road is already paved half way to the site, or up one of the new farm roads from Prefumo Canyon Road on the North. This scenario may seem far-fetched at the moment, but it is well within the realm of possibility. What is not possible is that this land will remain unchanged. Whatever plan is finally presented to the County, we can be assured that the county will not put the City's interest first when deciding on it. Why would someone subdivide their land? Money! Anyone with enough money to buy this land in the first place will be well aware of future land values. Just as every other home site in San Luis was once part of a larger ranch, some quite recently, this land will also be divided eventually. The pressure to develop will never disappear. In fact, as residential land becomes more scarce in the future, the pressure to build will increase dramatically. It may take some time, but if left in private hands, this land will absolutely be houses. How long before this happens is anyone guess. It could be twenty years or it could be as early as the next election. One or two key changes to the Board of Supervisors could make this very possible. I see much evidence of a shift in the political climate toward one more favorable to growth right now. Mike Ryan's election to the Board of Supervisors is one indication. Recent easing of restrictions to building in Morro Bay, and a reduction of building fees in Paso Robles are two others. In fact, the shift in attitude to one more favorable to business and growth is evident all the way from Sacramento to Washington. Clearly, leaving the fate of this land in the hands of the County is no protection at all. The only way to keep this land undeveloped and insure public access is to make it public. How could this happen? The taxpayers have made it clear they are not willing to buy and the City lacks the authority to confiscate it. I have not heard of any philanthropic organizations offering to buy it and donating it to the City in its entirety. The only viable possibility is the one being proposed by the current land owners: a reasonable trade of annexation for open greenspace acreage. Given the alternatives, this seams a golden opportunity. Of course there are problems to be worked out but these are just details- and minor details at that. The EIR found almost nothing that could not be mitigated with ordinary, well established techniques. Even the biological category would ultimately be less impacted by annexation because it absolutely preserves the majority of acreage as open space. Problems with road designation or the urban reserve line are just language. There is no compromise to quality of life associated with these legal changes. The review system, so painstakingly developed over the last twenty years, works. All concerns have been raised. All issues have been discussed at length. Everyone has had their say. This is not 1950 Orange County and we are not raping the land. This is a sensitive and well considered addition to our community. Of course if you are against all change, even the smallest problem presents ill-founded grounds to oppose the entire project. But if you truly hold the best interests of the City above all others, then this is a project which should be approved. With the best interest of the City in mind, I urge you to vote in favor of annexation and approve the subdivision as submitted. Sincerely on P. O. Box 14103 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 �F D8 I spc) CA q 3 AFD I 'a ox pod c•z� CGvnwl �4�' �� S was zr8ispb/ C,q 9'9 03 ,p2 ✓ v1�`;Py �, /Ji�v /r�adz 6hc �./l Uh /e7 6D� �ILGG . Ii17f NCIL C-''CDD DIR ®®® [E3(1'1 � 2rANDIR GdYG�/�`1� A7=j I ❑ FIRE CHIEF � ePPW DIR LERk4MG ❑ POUCE CHF GMT TEAM ❑ REC DIR AD FILE ❑ UTIL DIR —14 0 PERS DIR ������� ������ mp��ox»»� ��x�v�� ^� ��� 7 0�� � i� s�^� ox�xxxvv .~�~~.~�~~~~, Allen Settle" Mayor City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo` CA 93491 April 28, 1997 Dear Mr. Mayor: My wife and I purchased our home on the corner of Castillo Ct. and Prefumo canyon in 1987. We have liVed in the city since 1969. Our concern is with the possible develop�ent of 34 homes in the beautifulmeadow adjacent to Prefumo Creek. We believe that this would be a poor area for a project of this type. In 19S9, a similar project was thorouqhl / reviewed and rejected by city government. The rejecton was based prime ar� ly on an extensive EIR report andthe political action of a large group of citizens who live inthe, immediate area. The project wo:ld necessitate very sioni icant changes in the ..or-al environment , including a re-channs ing of Prefumo Creek and the 1-4estruction of the natural habitkt of deer , coyote. bobcat , fishes, and vegetation. Also of concern is the resultant increase in traffic and the p� �ential for landslides and flooding of the area. We respectfully request that you vote to reject this very poor option for the use of this land. Actual v, we can think of no better candidate for the. city 's proposed green belt than this area. | Sincerelv, e COUNCIL »mmuu/u dACAO 0 FIRE CHIEF Q"ATTORNEY [I PW DIR John and Carol Russell OMGWTTEAM OREC DIR 1945 Castillo Ct. OQ�L�R � � `� � �. San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 ' 0 PERS DIR ' /� ----- � .- tall RECEIVED MAR j 1 W/ CITy COUNCIL °AN nn*;pn^CA N;LtTING AGENDA SATE //-/- ?I ITEM # 6 Memo To: Mayor& Council From: John Dunn, CAO Via: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director0 9 By: Ronald Whisenand, Development Review Manager Subject: Perfumo Creek Homes Notification Issues Date: April 1, 1997 It has come to our attention that out of the 744 City Council hearing notices that were mailed to property owners within the expanded notification boundaries for the Perfumo Creek Homes project, 3 notices were inadvertently mailed to the wrong property owners. The parcels in question border the 366 acres of open space to the southwest of the applicant's property. Upon discovering the notification mistake, staff phoned each of the affected property owners and advised them of tonight's Council meeting. Based on input from the City Attorney's office, it is recommended that the hearing continue as scheduled. ` COUNCIL 016DU DIR M/�/CAO Q FIN DIR 0L ACAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF ; TMRNEY ❑ PW DIR p CLERWORIG ❑ POLICE CHF ❑ MGMT TEAM ❑ RED DIR OAC FILE ❑ UTILDIR bf ❑ PEitS�JIA :- J �W Ei ' , APR CITY CLERK SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA R ML.ING AGENDA V- P(oUNCIL U41 DATE ITEM # dd��A0 E(FIN DIR RICHARD SCHMIDT ❑ ACAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF El low Of 1 12 Broad11M�� MLuo FRF A 93405 (805) 544-4247 ❑ CREAD FILE ❑ UTILDIR e-mail: rschmidt@calpoly.edu ❑ PERS MR April 1, 1997 PieGi• Re: Prefumo Creek Subdivision 'r To the City Council: This is a dreadful proposal, and I urge you to reject it outright. TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF PREFUMO MEADOW TRULY WOULD REQUIRE YOU TO HAVE UNSEEING EYES AND HEARTS OF STONE. THERE ARE NO REDEEMING FEATURES TO THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. Some thoughts: 1. This is one of the environmentally worst developments ever proposed for San Luis Obispo. It ranks right up there with the one brought in by the guy from Hallmark Cards to convert the rich habitat of upper Laguna Lake into a mobile home park laid out along a network of artificial canals, with fountains of water and light replacing nesting grounds for thousands of outrageously beautiful and valuable waterfowl and other creatures.The lack of vision and true understanding of value inherent in that project is mirrored in the Prefumo project. 2. Staff is urging you to adopt a Vietnam policy towards opens ace: i.e., you have to destroy it to save it. That strategy failed in the Vietnam War, and it will fail as a method for preserving open space. You don't destroy the best of what you have in order to "save"something of secondary value you were never in danger of losing.To argue otherwise is either to be stupid or dishonest. 3. This is a dangerousproject. Why is the meadow there? Because this is natural flood plain. Why are the creek banks so badly eroded? Because this is the way powerful creeks behave. (In the 1973 flood, large portions of the Laguna Mobile Home Park just downstream were nearly lost to uncontrollable and instantaneous erosion.) Why are the hillsides slumping onto the meadow? Because these overly steep hillsides are trying to reduce the steepness of their slope, and will continue to do so whether the area is kept natural or developed. THIS IS A DANGEROUS SITE AND OUGHT NEVER TO BE DEVELOPED. Developing it subjects the inhabitants to multiple dangers, and subjects the city to outrageous financial liability. THE CITY ENGINEER HAS WARNED OF THESE DANGERS, AND CRITICIZED THE PROJECT. WHY HAVE HIS WARNINGS BEEN SUPPRESSED BY OTHERS IN CITY HALL? 4. The meadow is among the best scenic open space near our city. The creek is among the most lovely and unspoiled, the oaks and sycamores among the most beautiful. The meadow behind provides a backdrop of tranquil contemplation and a place where citizens may observe a large variety of wildlife from a safe distance that protects both humans and wildlife. The most amazing thing about this is that it can all be enjoyed from a public road -- there is no need to "trespass"to enjoy this first class open space as a scenic amenity. Where else in our city's immediate environs is this possible? Where else can, say, an elderly couple stroll in safety or a wheel-chair bound person view such natural scenery? TO DESTROY THIS SCENIC AMENITY WOULD BE A CRIME AGAINST THE PEOPLE OF OUR COMMUNITY. 4. The meadow and creek are among the richest wildlife habitat near our city. The General = Prefumo Meadow Development,Schmidt to Council, Page 1 AVH CnY CLERK r" Plan states that the city will maintain important wildlife habitats and wildlife corridors. Why are the General Plan's directives on this being ignored or distorted?This is an outrageously rich site. It is known to be frequented by deer, fox, coyote, bobcat, cougar and rattlesnake, among others, as well as many smaller and less charismatic fauna. I have personally been rattled at by a rattlesnake right in the middle of the proposed development; it scared the dickens out of me. TO DESTROY THIS HABITAT/CORRIDOR IS A VIOLATION OF THE GENERAL PLAN, AND A CRIME AGAINST THE CREATURES THAT PLAN COMMITS THE COUNCIL TO TRY TO PROTECT. 5. The wildlife resident on this site will present dangerous conflicts with human occupation of the site. OK, so you approve houses, and people with little kids, dogs, cats, canaries, etc., move in. And the bobcats eat the cats, the coyotes rip up the dogs, and mountain lions cart off little kids. You cannot claim you were ignorant of the inevitable bloody outcome. You will bear this blood stain forever, though with the hearts of stone it would take to approve this project, it may not affect you the way it would others. And what will be the outcome for the wild creatures you were supposed by laws of your own making to treat with greater respect? They will be hunted down as"predators" and eliminated from the hilly "open space"you allegedly will save for their benefit. What a sham! 6. The staff recommendation for approval makes mincemeat of years of public deliberations and resulting policy which concluded that this area was too valuable as natural oDen sap ce to develop. Let me remind you that the prolonged 6 year process leading to adoption of the current General Plan Land Use Element and Urban Reserve Line thoroughly debated the merits of developing this site, and AT EVERY JUNCTURE DETERMINED DEVELOPMENT IS INAPPROPRIATE. Why isn't staff directed to support rather than subvert the outcome of such monumental public policy debate? 7..Fear and loathing of "what the county will do" is invalid justification for chanaing policy on development of this piece of natural open sspace. There has been a constant drumbeat from pro- development forces in City Hall since last fall's election to preempt the now allegedly dangerously pro-growth county by beating them to doing precisely what we fear the county will do to us! How asinine. If you truly fear the county's allowing major development just outside our urban reserve line, where do your fears lead you? Clearly, wherever the urban reserve line gets moved to, the nasty county will start allowing development just outside that new line. Which means the only way to "protect ourselves"would be to annex everything for miles outside the current urban reserve line, by which time we will have destroyed everything we sought to preserve, and we will have succeeded in doing to ourselves exactly what we sought to avoid having others do to us! "FEAR OF THE COUNTY" IS NOTHING MORE THAN THE LATEST MANIPULATIVE TOOL BEING USED TO DISTORT COUNCIL DECISION-MAKING. [Note that the Water Quality Control Board has made clear we do not have to fear urban development just outside our boundaries; no annexation to city, no urban development, they have ruled on a nearby county project.] 8. It is Gad to watch the city's once sterling planning 'policy"devolve into a very base substance. The positive staff recommendation for this project is typical of the debasement that has taken place. I was privileged to watch up close the evolution of the city's planning policies from the early 1970s, to play a major role in that evolution for more than 15 years, and to see this podunk town become a model for good planning recognized both regionally and in a wider sphere. We had many insightful leaders who made this positive evolution possible, including Ken Schwartz (when he was mayor) and planning directors like Ron Young, Rob Strong, Henry Engen, and Mike Multari. But that was then. From my seat on the planning commission in the 1980s, I saw a radical shift when the current city administrator arrived. No longer did established public processes and open public decision-making matter; he set out to subvert those processes and to substitute others of his own making which were more amenable to his personal manipulation. We learned from planning staff, after questioning shifts in what they were recommending to us, that their new mandate was to "facilitate development" rather than to look out for the public Prefumo Meadow Development,Schmidt to Council,Page 2 interest. Then, after three years of public meetings and deliberation by a diverse planning commission that encompassed liberal/conservative/environmentalist/development views concluded with a truly remarkable consensus draft LUE update in 1990;the administrator employed one of his new tools to subvert this work. A Citizens Advisory Committee hand-picked by himself met four times in secret to review and endorse an anti-planning document written by the administrator, and then that document was presented to the Council out of the blue (no one knew it was coming before it turned up at a joint council/planning commission meeting) as co- equal with three years work by the established planning process. The administrative manipulations of planning process have continued, and the city's entire planning program is now a shambles and a laughingstock among those with memories more than five years long. [I thought the whole point of having a city manager-type government was to distance administration from politics. I have never understood why an "administrator" is allowed by elected officials to be the city's unelected chief politician and polic -maker. Perhaps you can fill mein on this sometime.] THIS PROJECT RECOMMENDATION IS PRECISELY THE SORT OF TRASH THAT ONE CAN EXPECT FROM SUCH AN ADMINISTRATIVELY POLITICIZED "PLANNING" PROCESS. 9. The format of the decision the council is being asked to follow has been manipulated to prevent public referendum on the council's decision. The convoluted nature of the multiple resolutions on individual agenda matters followed by a combined resolution is clearly designed to make it difficult or impossible for a referendum to be carried out on this project. This clearly did not happen by chance; it is one more example of administrative arrogance and manipulation of public process -- the on-going practice of this administration to deal in its business/development buddies and to deal out the larger public and its interests. While this may seem clever to the administration, the Council ought to think twice about making its decisions referendum proof, for such actions could come back to bite the council. If the people cannot contest your decisions fair and square through petition and public vote, they will have no recourse but to direct their anger at you personally-- and politically. You would do well, if you approve this obscene development, to make sure that your decision on it is in a form that is easily referendable. Prefumo Meadow Development,Schmidt to Council,Page 3 MEETING AGENDA DATE 'S`/'97 ITEM # For Your Consideration: Some Facts Behind the Claims . COUNCIL. �GG Uirl O IJ FIN DIR AT�RNEY p FIRE CHIEF Submitted by,Friends of Prefumo Creek ❑ PWDIR 1 April 1997 �CLERKORIG ❑ POLICE CHF ❑ MGMTTEAM ❑ REC DIR ❑ C READ FILE ❑ UTIL DIR including: ❑ PERS D!R Gil & Cheryl Hoffmann Sam & Eve Vigil o Christine Mulholland Jim & Chery Longabaugh Karen Johnson Carol Russell Crf4P CLERK ;y CA tAN LUIS UBiSPO, .. . - - t• aha=�..,.. Access to Hilltop "Sites" Developers statement: The developer has escorted people to the top of their property using the paved "Foster" Road from the end of Royal Way, then across dirt roads to their property. The purpose was to show "possible building sites" on top of the mountains. Facts: CDF Developer's Guide, page 10 Section XIII:Access, K: Dead End Roads (Code adopted in 1991 applying to new development) The maximum length of dead-end road... shall not exceed the following cumulative lengths--- Parcels 20 acres or larger -- 5290 feet (1.002 miles) Smaller lots have shorter distances The Foster road (from Royal Way to the end of the pavement at the top) is already 1.04 miles long. The dirt access road on the subject property (accessed near the gate at the first bridge on Prefumo Canyon Road) -- 8 years ago this road was able to provide access to the upper property, but in the last years it has washed out, with 6-12 foot deep canyons, 3-6 feet wide in spots. Currently this road is "invisible" from most locations, and in 1990 the county denied a proposal on this property stating: "The proposed access road to the upper sites will require substantial cut and fill due to extreme slopes (up to 50%). ... shall cause adverse effects on the Irish Hills SRA (Sensitive Resource Area). Reconstruction of this road would definitely require County grading permits and the cost to totally regrade it to CDF requirements of width, maximum grade, and paved surface would be prohibitive.. Therefore: Access to the top is not as easy as commissioners were shown, therefore eliminating easy development on the top of the hills. •, col •X Illegal Grading Nuisance Abatement Order = : (Recorded 12 July 1990, Book 3543, page 746 of Official Records) Developer statement: None Facts: In 1990, the County found that this developer had illegally graded and cleared part of this property, and issued a Notice of Violation. Land Use Ordinance Section 22.01.033(c) prohibits the County from approving a project...for which a Notice of Violation has been issued. A Nuisance Abatement order was then filed, this is a legal lien on the property. Rather than being handled responsibly by the owner, they filed law suit against the county to freeze -the Nuisance Abatement order. (Attachment A: Findings & Order of the Board of Supervisors, 7 Sept 1990) Therefore: By accepting this "gift" as it, the city is accepting full responsibility for this encumbered property. Prior to development in the County, the developer would have to drop their lawsuit against the County,. and clear the encumbrance by satisfying the conditions of the Abatement Order. , :a , � 6 .. - .. .' _ ^.t-•'• r!r X17 •; Table O: What Can Happen in the County Developer statement. If left in the county it could be developed with any of the uses listed in Table O. Perhaps because of the developer's statement, the Planning Commission feared what could happen on this property under County jurisdiction. Fact.- Anything act:Anything proposed for this property in the county would be less destructive than what is proposed in the city. The applicants NEED the city water and sewer, or they would already be doing something in the county. If building on these hillsides was so easy, there would be a string of houses from Prefumo Canyon to Highway 101. Without county permits, only grazing of animals and planting of crops could occur on the property. This is Rural lands, a Geologic Study Area, and a Sensitive Resource Area, all difficult to obtain higher densities or uses in the county. Because of proximity to the creek, .which drains into Laguna Lake, most of the uses that "could" be allowed by special standards or permits would not be allowed. This meadow land is just not suited for most of the "maybe" uses. (Eg., Airfield landing strips, correctional facility, waste disposal site, recycling collection station, manufacturing / processing facilities, pig farms). The concerns of barns, fences, out buildings, horses - these are all less destructive than this project of 38 homes on the meadow. "Ag roads" in this area would require county permits. Therefore: The fear of excessive and inappropriate County development is not based in fact and should be discounted. The County's history with nearby property indicates good stewardship. Don't be misled into giving up the best part of the open space to "save" it. 3 ry- Property Rights Developer statement: "We have held the property for many years, and now want to do something more than to accept the present right simply to fence off four separate parcels and build on each one of them. Then there will be no public use of any of the acreage." Fact: They bought this property as rural land in the county with rights for 2 houses, each with perhaps 1 additional "granny unit". The adjacent Foster property, subdivided in 1988, has numerous strict conditions placed on it by the county, including an open space easement for all but the four 300-foot diameter building sites. It also prohibits secondary residences on the sites. Also required is a photographic survey of each of the lots to assure compliance with the viewshed preservation requirements that the structures will not be seen from the developed areas of the Los Osos valley. Therefore: The City should not increase the entitlement on this land beyond that likely in the county, and receive no more than would be required by the county. In fee ownership does not provide additional benefits to the City beyond those of a public easement. 4 !ice .� .� City & County policies Developers statement: None Fact: The planning commission decided to uphold some General Plan policies and totally ignore others. (Eg. open space vs grasslands) There are 36 inconsistencies with established policies, many more undetermined. This is a very large number of policies that must be changed in order to accommodate the proposed development. Therefore: It is important to uphold all of the City's policies and not focus on one while ignoring all others. There is no one policy which is more important than the rest; the Open Space element and its policies DO NOT override applicable policies in the other General Plan Elements. 5 Legal Public Access Developer statement: Neighbors who have used the meadow as their own private.park, for everything from treehouses to elaborate paintball games could be denied access. The whole thing would probably be fenced off. Fact: This property is not currently fenced or posted, therefore nothing indicates to,the public that they cannot access the property. The recent major paintball game was held with the owners permission, according to game participants. Therefore: If the property owners want to fence it, that is their right. Fencing will not affect the open space. , r i R �yy.r r • ,I,5 T x 141 r • C ' ' I I ': i r !'qtr '{ � 4 }r rl �g �1s1. t- t .•,yr1 -4 Grading on the Landslides Developer statement: They reconstitute slides often. Slides can be repaired and it's beneficial. This is studied and understood and will be stabilized to make it safe for development. Fact: The maps in the EIR show the slides stopping at the upper lot lines. The fact is that each of these slides is supporting the hillside (more slide?) above it. No data has been shown concerning the full extent of these slides. Fence line photographic study. The photos of the leaning fence posts on slide #5 show this slide has been active since the installation of the fence. Slides 1, 2 and 5 were not evaluated in the EIR. Mitigation H-4 in the EIR requires a significant study of geotechnical considerations during the development of the grading and improvement plans. Therefore: The slides are active. There is not sufficient information provided to identify the extent of the grading necessary to stabilize the slopes. Again, the requirement of a further study IS NOT a mitigation. �-'y'R, .. .. .. y •t.:w,e k "Y rbc '.;0 yi Flooding 'r Developer statement:. We conducted.a hydrological HEC2 analysis. ... plotted the water surface profile based on the type of intensities storm for a particular type of duration, specified by normal standards. The information provided by our analysis indicates that the normal project flood, from a major storm, is.contained within.the creekbanks along this area, except at the very westerly end of the project. Fact: Glenn Britton, County Engineering, states there is no stream-gauge or rainfall data for Prefumo Creek and its watershed area. Therefore any data input to the HEC2 model was a guess, not actual recorded data. Personal observation by Carl Calloway indicates that this area has flooded twice that . he is aware of in his 29 years. The westerly end of the project is where the emergency access road exits. A memorandum dated 27 Mrch 1995 from the Fire Department voices many concerns ' about this access, including the impact of potential flooding of the roadway. Therefore: It only takes one (1) real life instance to prove a theory or model wrong. Based on actual flood observations it must be concluded that the creekbank will not contain a flood in this area. a .. .. .. � F.ini.^T�.i.,st�Ni„t.".J-!•Zi','n.t•.':•Yr{j41�• _ -. `434•sy�'^2"vtiJ1Y W�-1 tiy`U .p ._ .• ; - _ ,. t 4 T1 ty,�' j,Yt� r ✓ h�F`�5,Xs7 • r Creekbank erosion Developer statement: None Fact Creekbank erosion will happen - it cannot be stopped. The Army Corps of Engineers will not allow creekbank stabilization unless real property is threatened. At that point the cost to the city will exceed the value of the houses being protected. Therefore: The City is incurring a liability at this time of unknown future cost. _ .. .�.FBF. 'rte i "Li ;r f J.. - •ry ' f d' t ' .•k7C �`. -�r°moi Traffic Developer statement: None Fact: "Paper change" for street designation of Descanso, still means 370 extra cars on the road. The lack of adequate clear sight distance for the left turn to enter the project creates a blind left tum, you cannot see eastbound vehicles. The EIR discusses exiting the project, but not entering, except to say "will be located along a sweeping curve of Prefumo Canyon Road." Therefore: There is nothing being recommended to actually affect the added traffic AND a potentially hazardous intersection is being created. The best mitigation of any problem is avoidance. r< y ?ti.e. 7`n ' ✓.'f' Lr -, %.� J S �i�sF.Tt�"IL : ;�?+.y.`�y5 '�2.i J1��7.s r!� i.�J• 'L •r' ^ 1 r k']�� w�S�+' YAM� -4LLLI t d' �f+af'"'''t yM1�c''�^�e . .. - j � r _ _ ._, t� n ti n x\}Il�e r .,.,'"F�'"2q:RS�. �I�RY �.e:��i�•.'. Biological / Environmental resources Biological / environmental resources have the same legal weight as other issues . described in the EIR. -But since they always seem to get the short end of the deal, by being ignored or swept away, we won't go into as much detail on them. Fact: The EIR states this is a complex, integrated habitat with a diversityof wildlife species. We will lose the entire grasslands (in violation of city policy), we will lose coastal scrub oaks, riparian trees and vegetation, sensitive plants, and by the fracturing of this sensitive wildlive habitat, we will lose species. y - _ - t bL '•8..9+:;•1.; f - ',, .r. .l S .Ys'�t I •5 1 *+. September 7, 1990 §C�,ylgaZS Dhk'21y; COY; Delaney; and pvjcb ABSENT: Johnson In the batter of the Nuisance ) Abatement Nearing for: ) Buena Tierra, a general partnership, FINDINGS AND ORDER OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Respondents. ) The above-entitled matter came on for hearing before the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Luis Obispo August 21, and September 4, 1990, in the Chambers of the Board of Supervisors, County Government Center, San Luis Obispo, California. Respondent, Buena Tierra, a general partnership; represented by John Belsher, Attorney, appeared in person. ' Evidence having been presented on behalf of the Enforcement Officer and on behalf of the Respondent, and the Board having cons ?::red all relevant evidence, the Board does hereby make the following findings of fact and conclusions of law and does render the following decision: FINDINGS OF FACT The Board of Supervisors has reviewed all of the evidence presented at the hearing and based upon its evaluation of the evidence including its evaluation of the credibility of the witnesses, their demeanor and the character of their testimony, finds as follows: j f I Exhibit Page of__ I BUENA TIERRA, A GENERAL PARTNERSHIP NUISANCE ABATEMENT ORDER SEPTEMBER 7, 1990 PACE 2 1. Respondents, Buena Tierra Partnership, a general partnership are the fee owners of certain real property located at -0- Perfumo Canyon Road in Rural San Luis Obispo, California, more particularly described as follows: Lots 55 and 56 of the subdivision of the Rancho Canada de Los Osos y La Laguna, in the County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, according to map filed for record October 8, 1869 in book A at page 84 of ?Maps. Excepting from lot 56 those portions of land as granted to Teakwood Terrace, Inc., a California corporation by deeds recorded January 28, 1971 in Book 1603 at Page 232 of Official Records and recorded September 5, 1972 in Book 1686 at page 569 of Official Records. Also excepting therefrom that portion of land granted to the County of San Luis Obispo by deed recorded October 8,1976 in Book 1921 at page 656 of Official Records. Also excepting therefrom that portions of said lots, included within the boundaries of Map No. SLO 75-53 filed February 28, 1975 in Book 17 at 'page -50 of Parcel Maps. Also excepting therefrom that portion of Lot 56 granted to the City of ,.San Luis Obispo, by deed recorded September 30, 1983 in Book 2526 at page 585 of Official Records. Also excepting therefrom that portion of said lots granted to the City of San Luis Obispo by deed recorded May 14, 1985 in Book 2707 at Page 101 of Official Records. Also excepting therefrom lots 1 thru 8 of Tract 1053, in the County of rxhit�it Page of e.� BUENA TIERRA, A GENERAL PARTNERSHIP NUISANCE ABATEMENT ORDER SEPTEMBER 7, 1990 PACE 3 San Luis Obispo; State of California, according to map filed September 29, 1987 in Book 14 at Page 15 of Maps- Also excepting therefrom that portion of said Lot 55 granted to the County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, by deed recorded May 18, 1988 as instrument 426456 in Book 3145 at Page 336 of Official Records. Said Land is also shown as the remainder parcel on map of said tract 1053 as described above. 2. The above described real property is located outside of the urban reserve line of San Luis Obispo, in an area zoned Residential Rural in a Sensitive Resource Area and Geologic Study Area, in the County of San Luis Obispo, California, under Title 22 of the San Luis Obispo County Code. 3. A -Notice of Nuisance- (First Notice) and a "Notice of Nuisance Abatement" (Second Notice) have been served by the Enforcement Officer on the Respondents as required by sections 22.10.105 of the San Luis Obispo County Code. Further, that on August 21, 1990, the County Board of ' Supervisors held a nuisance abatement regarding the subject property owned by Buena Tierra, a general partnership. At the •very end of the hearing which lasted approximately 5_ hours, John Belsher, attorney for Buena Tierra, submitted a letter, written prior to the hearing, to the Board of Supervisors indicating that the Trust Deed Benificiaries may not have received proper notice of the hearing. In response to this, staff sent certified mail to the Trust Deed beneficiaries a copy of the staff report and notice indicating that the meeting would be continued to September 4, 1990, and that they could listen to the tape recording of the hearing and xh'ihit / Page 3 of�_ BUENA TIERRA, A GENERAL PARTNERSHIP NUISANCE ABATEMENT ORDER SEPTEMBER 7, 1990 PAGE' 4 if they desired, provide testimony and ask any questions of witnesses that spoke in the meeting before the Board of Supervisors.. 4. That sufficient evidence was not provided to clearly demonstrate a grading violation occured on the access roadway in accordance with Section /22.05.026, SLOCC. Respondent has removed, or has permitted the removal of, natural vegetation and has permitted such work on the above described property without first obtaining all necessary permits and appprovals that are required for such work_ Such permits and approvals include an approved Development Plan, Drainage Plan, and Sedimentation and Erosion Control Plan. Said vegetation removal is a violation of Section 22.01.031 (Land Use Permit required), 22.05.036 (Sedimentation and Erosion Control Plan required), 22.05.042 (Drainage Plan required), and 22.05_043 (Environmental Determination required), of the San Luis Obispo County Code. 60. That the respondent has cleared vegetation in an area comprising ' approximately 4 acres, which is also the same approximate area covered by Proposed parcel 4 of tentative Tract 2003, and that sufficient evidence exists .to indicate that said clearing was not for agricultural purposes. Although respondents at various times described different purposes for the extensive site disturbance, such as; staking the site for purposes of conducting a visual analysis; to show prospective purchasers the "lay of the land"; to clear the area of rattlesnakes, and finally; on August 8, I 1990, the day before the Planning Commission 'hearing .on the Development Plan, to clear the area for agricultural purposes, the Board finds that Exhibit Pane o! j BUENA TIERRA, A GENERAL PARTNERSHIP NUISANCE ABATE`fENT ORDER SEPTEMBER 7, 1990 PACE 5 said clearing was done to Clear a site for non-agricultural, residential purposes. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW By virtue of the above findings, a nuisance is found to exist on the above described property under the provisions of San Luis Obispo County Code Section 22.10.150 because work has been performed by or through • I Respondents on said property contrary to the provisions of Title 22 of i the San Luis Obispo County Code. Respondents are found to be legally responsible for the creation of the above nuisance on said property. ORDER i The nuisance shall be abated by the Respondent and each of them, and the use of the property shall be brought into compliance with the provisions of the San Luis Obispo County Code as follows: I. Within fifteen (15) days after the date of this hearing, Owner shall employ a Consultant, approved by the County Environmental Coordinator, to I prepare a Revegetation and Sedimentation Plan (hereinafter referred to as the "Plan") in order to restore the disturbed portion of Owner's Property to its natural condition. Said Plan shall be 'submitted to the County ! Department of Planning and Building on or before September 21, 1990 for review and approval by the County. 2. Within one week after written approval of the Plan by the Director of Planning and Building and by the Environmental Coordinator, owner shall commence implementation of the Plan. Owner shall diligently and in good faith implement said Plan to completion in accordance with the time for iAhibit Pave o BUENA TIERRA, A GENERAL PARTNERSHIP NUISANCE ABATEMENT ORDER SEPTEMBER 7, 1990 PAGE 6 performance established in the Plan. 3. Owner shall apply for and receive land use permit approval as required by Title 22 of the San Luis Obispo County Code prior to-any further site j disturbance on Owner's Property other than implementation of the Plan. 4. If not abated by the Respondents, the Nuisance shall be abated in accordance with the terms of this order. The enforcement officer authorized under the procedures set forth is Section 22.10.050e, to abate the Nuisance by contracting for the correction of the violation in order to bring the property into compliance with the provisions of the San Luis Obispo County Code. 5. The . Planning Director is authorized and directed to prepare the necessary Nuisance Abatement Order for signature by the Chairwoman of the Board of Supervisors and to have it served on the Respondents and owners of the property in accordance with the provisions of the Section 22.10.030 and 22.10.040 of the San Luis Obispo County Code. 6. Authorize the expenditure of $20,000 by the Department of Planning and building to pay the estimated cost of the physical abatement of the Nuisance, if not abated by the Respondent as required above. I All costs of the abatement (including staff" time), will be recovered from the Respondent pursuant to Section 22.10.050 of the Land Use Ordinance of the County of San Luis Obispo, California. I COUNTY OF S IS B PO By: L Chairperson of the board of Supervisors 22931 11 Fxhibit Page —rg— of —g�. .;A Wtvr;; Tor ' (IiEt;r2�4us�:i1 ff7Q@tlrY� •cle;;r ;zed Oe- � r f 0 le 00 : W71- OCY jes- all COUNCIL - -.- CDD DIR-- '- ._..... d�CAO YRN DIR -- --- ----- ----- - -._. .d11CAO----- --❑ FIRE CHIEF - -- ------ [(ATTORNEY 94W DIR r 0 CL ❑ POLICE CHF -- - -- --MAK-1-7-47-71-- - -- - -------------- ---- - - CLLR I - -- - — ti 5 ❑ MGMTTEAM REC DIR --- ❑ C EAD FILE ❑ UTIL DIR -CITYCLERK-------- --- ---- -----------I �, - _ _ -- ❑ PERS DIR._ SAN LUIS OBISPO.CA - 7 �lilbit /Y9� I� 3r' sd 104, 74 W//z6 C V -- t/a- 4ew :;e dl Iii dx., . Nva f �74� nO MEETING AGENDA U1� Lthf. DATE /�i_ITEM # 6 �,>✓t6u.�j blanc,( a5� 1R97 - Please CcrnsL�X- eo 9:e�v.11�.t 4'�- Pie �v�no cL t�Za�A (05-5 t)e arLz c ve c&n o` � __.V J PiCOUNCIL C]'CDO uji j Q1 B"CAO 21FIN DIR Tc, ` , O'ACAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF 1 R ft 0m 000 O'ATTORNEY ❑ PW DIR S L O CA R b`1©S d_CLERKfoRIQ ❑ POLICE CHF A _ CV4t� `y ❑ MGMTTEAM ❑ REC DIR / �Y ❑ READ FILE Q�U'fIL DIR a.� !� :. ❑ PERS D awl- Ar REQECv ��. MAK J l7iLn ar;�2 � Cr Y CLERK SAN,LUIS OBISPO.CA if Yt % cyAvc—, jl�," ?1-o I < la:a Ac OL C7 U st 75 C> Cp cam — . A A gg0 7�IL. ° CL 13 1313 0 T c9 T ?11, A �� j e yam * mzsC (� �o = m a -- T T .... u��. - r-, :�-- %:�? 'Z::_ CD AN Zi "' - ` M > m rlr -lam � Q cr (� 5 Art;a;ri this document for bjhke Courncii eteeting a►, .� ag indzed MARCH 9, 1996 RICHARD A KRAHN 1037 MURL AVE. SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA. HONORABLE MAYOR A. SETTLE MAYOR OF SAN LUIS OBI$PO. DEAR SIR; I IMPLORE YOU TO FOLLOW THE GUIDELINES SET FORTH AS TO BOUNDRIES AND DEVELOPMENT IN OUR FAIR CITY. E PLEASE DO NOT LET GRED OR AVARICE SWAY YOU IN REGARD TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ON PREFUMO CANYON. I REFER TO THE GREED AND AVARICE OF THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY. IT IS NOT I'%N THE BEST INTERESTS OF US WHO LOVE NEARBY NOR THE CITY TO GO AGAINST ITS OWN GUIDELINES AND PERMIT THIS DEVELOPMENT I ASK YOU AS A RESPONSIBLE MAN AND A LEARNED MAN TO EXERT ALL YOUR POWER TO STOP THIS RAPE OF OUR NATURAL GREEN LANDS. THANK YOU FOR AYOUR A ATTENTION. RICHARD A. KRAHN 1 UNCIL CDD DIR CAO UeFIN DIR CAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF C�lATTORNEY O'PWDIR I(CLERWORIG ❑ POLICE CHF ❑ MGMTTEAM ❑ REC DIR OVER ❑ C READ FILE ❑ UTIL DIR MAR 1 4 lyyl rj ❑ PERS DIR ��/� CITY COUNT (`A �aN i P �� Date: 3/15/97 RECEIVED •� —'— R "ii' 11 .,.,r,.. jor :.0 nt P,i REAR 1 4 1`I`1/ ttrruJ c. To: Mayor and City Council,San Luis Obispo carr couNctt. ---- 9 7 From:Vicki and Steve Finson :_.._�_ Re: Proposed Perfumo Canyon Creek Development We are strongly opposed to the proposed Perfumo Canyon Creek development. By way of introduction,we feel it is important for you to know some things about us.We own and run a small business in San Luis Obispo and have lived here for 8 years.We strongly believe that SLO must grow and we support planned growth for our area. We vote and stay apprised of current local events,but this is the first time we have felt this strongly about a local issue.We own a home and live near the proposed project,but would not be able to see it from our home.We are strongly opposed not because it is near to us,but because it is a bad development.The fact that we live nearby has only helped make us more aware of the proposed development The proposed development should not be approved for several reasons. 1. It is an unfeasible place to build a large housing development(i.e. more than 4.houses); it will be packed into a biologically sensitive area between 5 known slide areas and a known flood plan.The developer says this can be"mitigated."Certainly we have all seen pictures of Californian homes demolished by mud slides— those developers also said they had"mitigated"the potential hazards. 2. When the land was purchased the developer Drew that only 4 houses could be built.This is sensible for the land and complies with existing City and County policies. 3. This is a biologically sensitive area! This is a very precious piece of land.Developments have been repeatedly denied here because it is a horrendous idea! Not many areas like this exist in SLO county— let alone so near the City limits.The creek runs almost all year,there are 100 year old oak trees and the wildlife is abundant.This place is unique and cannot be replaced once it has been developed and destroyed. 4. We believe the developer knows that this project would never be allowed without the"carrot"of alleged open space. It has been denied several times and he Mows he needs to"convince"the City to approve it. 5. The developer knows that he has nothing to lose with the"gift"of land to the City.The developer knows that Us"gift"land cannot be developed —it's a very steep,heavily wooded area.The developer knows that current County and City policy prohibit development on the hillside.Even if policies were changed,which is highly doubtful, it would not be economically feasible —or perhaps even impossible with the known slides. The developer is"generously giving land" which has no real value for the developer! 6. At the planning Commission meeting,one of the Board members stated that the City should change its policies to allow acceptance of this proposal because the County could not be trusted; they might change their policies to allow development.This is fallacious thinking.We do not believe that the City or the County would ever allow building on the hillside(the alleged"free"open space),but the Commissioner is incorrect to believe that the land is any "safer"from future policy changes if under City jurisdiction,as evidenced by the fact of this cavalier disregard of existing City policies. 7. The City gains NOTHING from this proposal!The area is already open space under all existing policies! The citizens actually loose open space and loose a very precious area.The City gains the liabilities of public access to a very steep,heavily wooded.area and the liabilities of homes built between slides and a flood plain. Open space has nothing to do with ownership. 8. The City looses the respect of the community.Why spend many years and lots of money to develop a General Plan and policies for planned,consistent growth only to change the plan whenever a new development with incitements is proposed?The URL was specifically moved in 1990 to protect this area! Please ask yourselves an important question: Would you consider approving this huge project,and changing all the policies to allow it,without the acquisition of the hillside area?Please follow the City's policies and your own common sense—protect the SLO environment for the all the citizens you represent! Do not modify the General Plan —do not modify the URL-do not approve this project! ['Alfth this do— c��m t{pr"ure Ca�rxii rnagtip-�-97 *q9-20 February, 1997Date, a��a l��T`-'" ^,e� ?� . Dear Mayor Er City Council Members, v I am absolutely not in favor of annexing land off Prefumo Canyon Rd. so that 38 homes can be built there. This will cause serious hazards with run-off water during rainy seasons and could cause flooding to Laguna Lake Mobile Estates. The plan would engender vast expenses in order to provide water, sewers, fire protection, police protections, schools, Er mail services. It would endanger deer and many small animals who depend on the creek. -It would cause serious traffic on Prefumo Canyon Rd.. Please consider stopping this unwarranted project. Sin ely yours, Donald A Strassburg 1029 Jane Dr SLO FA C3 GDD DIR C�FlN DIR D F�RE CHIEF GKPW DIR ❑ POLICE CHFp D REC DIR �j gv;D UTIL DIR MAK 1 iy71 ❑ PERS DIR ,y ✓uJC CITY CLERK SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA G MEETING AGELaA DATE ITEM # MqR��VF� San 3Luis tObirigespo Alf," CA, 93405 04 March 26, 1997 Dear Mayor Settle and City Council Members: The Prefumo Creek Homes proposal for annexation to the city is not a fruitful idea. The developers seem ripe to approach the city with their plans now that the economy is improved and thoughts of drought has fallen from our immediate memory. New houses will tax our limited water resources. Why give away the water that we have? San Luis residents have been paying high prices for water; to let that water go into county areas is a mistake. Let this property remain in the county and let the developers find their own supply of water for it. There are many areas within the city limits to build. Why change the Urban Reserve Line? This property was left outside the city limits for good reason, so it could remain in a more natural state. Four structures are a reasonable amount to build. No more can be supported there, because of the natural limitations of the site. The city does not need to have control of this property. I fully believe that the natural features will constrain growth on this site. Only the meadow is flat enough to develop; and with threat of landslides and flood, plus limited water supply and difficult sewage restrictions not a great deal can happen. If this is correct, the hillside would stay green, and the meadow would remain quite a bit more pristine with four homes as opposed to thirty-eight. I urge you to vote this annexation down. Don' t allow our precious resources to be spread too thin. There are far too many unmitigated factors in the EIR report. Do not move the Urban Reserve Line, and please uphold the General Plan for San Luis Obispo, the city I love. - Si cerely, IJ F11O0UN: DD DIR n Watkins GeFIN DIR ❑ RE CHIEF Y IVW DIR RIG ❑ POLICE CHF AM ❑ REC DIR ILE ❑ UTILDIR ❑ PERS DIR .. x ,/� FETING/_97 AGENDA _ _ '`' _ITEM # , UNCIL CDD DIR O CAO 91IN DIR IACAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF &"ATTORNEY 010 DIR EVOLERWRIG ❑ POLICE CHF ❑ MGW TEAM ❑ REC DIR ❑ C D FILE_ ❑ LITIL DIR ! ❑ PERS DIR , Mw it ea 1, �n �e�J cr PHONE CALL FOR DATES TIME f' M �/t �a P. OF D C TELEPHONED PHONE RETURNED AREA CODE NUMBER FAX# EXTENSION YOUR CALL PLEASE CALL MESSAGE WILL CALL 00 AGAIN CAME - TO SEE YOU WANTS TO SEE YOU 4 .;.. MEETING AGENDA DATE -7 ITEM #= March 24 , 1997 Dear City Council Members, We are writing to urge you to please vote against the proposed Prefumo Canyon Homes Annexation. This proposal is totally inappropriate to the location for all the reasons with which you are familiar. Please protect this exquisite open space as a natural treasure we all may enjoy. Thank You, OL Allan and Joyce Goldrath 1750 Prefumo Canyon Rd. #3 SLO CA 93405 VPUNCIL CDD DIR FIN DIR Ur CAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF VEY 0'PW QO CLERWNORIG ❑ POLIO CHF ❑ MGMTTEAM ❑ REC DIR ❑- FILE ❑ UTIL DIR + ❑ PEAS DIR .. A y.4v4A _ETING�� AGENDA d c "UNCIL Co�DIR ss'' DATE�ITEM # p�CAO ❑ FIN DIR �7,q� �®l p FIRE CHIEF Cd�ACAO .1, � �,7 1770 Fixlini FOMGMT TTORNEY pIPW DIR ^ ./4. LERWORIG ❑ POLICE CHF co �yy� San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 TEAM ❑ REC DIR March 26, 1997 D F LE ❑ U11L DIR ^a ❑ PERSDIAK -- tGd� Mayor Sett a and City Council Members P.O. Box 8100 San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 Dear Mayor Settle and City Council Members: I am deeply concerned about the possible annexation of 384 acres for the purpose of building 38 residential homes. The property is zoned in the county to build 4 dwellings. This seems reasonable;38 dwellings does not. Because the project is so large,the entrance is proposed on an existing dangerous comer of Prefurno Canyon Road. People walk along this road on daily walks. This is a potential hazard for them as well as the people in cars travelling up the canyon and into the subdivision across the street. I would like to see the City follow the General Plan and not revise it for this proposal. Water shortage will always be a factor in whatever we do with our city. We have already experienced tripled sewer/water bills for the water we now have. What happens if another drought is just around the corner? Are we prepared for that situation as well as taking on new projects that require water too? I have paid dearly for the water I have. I do not want to share it with outside developers who have not paid the price for it. PLEASE do not vote to overextend our resources. There is time to develop our water resources. This is the first step in any project. We can't buy a house until we have the resources to buy it. Annexation of this property is not any different. Thank you for considering my concerns. I hope you can listen to your heart and hear it commanding you to vote NO to this annexation. Sincerely, Zija� 4, Richard E. McQueazy �� MEETINGAGEN — COUNCIL Q'CDD DIR DATE //-/-f7 : ITEM # ER/CAO ❑ FIN DIR l �CAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF rTTORNEY 24PWDIR 1830 Portola .ERKIORIG ❑ POLICE CHF San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 ❑ MGMTTEAM ❑ REG DIR March 26 , 1997 D FILE ❑ UTIL DIR ❑ PERS DIR C��d �/ Mayor Settle and City Council Members ® JeWl 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93403 ryc��No^G ^a Dear Mayor Settle and City Council Members : I do not want the City to annex 384 acres off of Prefumo Canyon Road . Itis a beautiful piece of property that has the potential to sustain 4 houses, but certainly not W houses . Do you realize that an environmentally sensitive creek must be crossed to get to this property let alone building right next to it? Consider the impact of this kind of massive housing on the wildlife habitat and the endangered species of animals that inhabit the area . The run-off of water will be tremendous if the ground is covered with buildings and asphalt . There is first-hand knowlege of this area flooding in the past . Does the City of SLO want to take on this kind of liability?? I am in favor of the city growing and developing, but any sensible person can see that this area is not the place to expand our city. (unless the city bought it for a park) I understand that the city will be responsible for providing these homes with water and sewer . Do we have extra water to spread around? I look at my water/sewer bill and think, "Did the developers also pay for the water that I have been paying triple for because of lack of water in the past? " I 'm..not interested in sharing my highly valued commodity .until another water source is on line . Let the developers pay for the extra water they are going to need . Keep this property in the county. The open space offered in return for the annexation is a ."smoke screen . ' ' Most of the .land is nearly perpendicular, rocky, and covered with sagebrush that will always stay open space no matter who is in control .of it . Thank. you for addressing my wishes . I put my faith in you as my voting representatives that you will vote NQ on the Prefumo Canyon Creek Home annexation . Sincerely, KENDA REcEjvEt) DATEMEETING x_91 ITEM # - — Q z )yy� Jim and Chery Longabaugh 1055 Capistrano Ct. ,1 CITvs9ply k San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93405 March 24. 1997 Dear Councilperson: We are writing to protest the Prefumo Canyon Homes annexation for the purpose of placing 34-38 expensive homes on the site. This area is outside the urban reserve line, and is not included in the city's General Plan. To develop such a beautiful, pristine local habitat would be disregarding the thoughts and wishes of the community, only to line the pockets of the developers. Los Osos Valley Road is already dangerous. We know, because our children have to cross it twice a day on their way to and from school. Development west of LOVR adds to this danger by increasing traffic near the Middle School and C.L. Smith Elementary School. A significant number of elderly people walk Prefumo Canyon now, who would not, and should not, given the added traffic and destruction of the bucolic landscape. The EIR cites many problems and only suggests that engineering can mitigate the potential for mud slides, noise, etc. San Luis Obispo needs growth--we need it personally to survive. This development does very little to help San Luis Obispo--but does significant destruction to the reasons to live and work here. It is nothing more than another nail in the coffin of our quality of life. There should be the next place to be developed and the last place to be developed. This parcel of land should be the last place to be developed. Please be sensitive to the community's desires as put forth in the General Plan, and please be sensitive to the neighborhood's concerns. Let the landowners exercise the zoning rights they acquired when purchasing the property. Don't enrich them by destroying a community treasure. Thank you for your time and concern. --- Sin rely, G� iCOUNCIL CDD DIR` ~� 12 PZ ❑ FIN DIR CHIEF Jim and Lon abau h CAO ❑ FIRE rY g r _TT [3DIR CLERpORIG ❑ POLCE CHF ❑ MGMTTEAM O REG DIR ❑ CR FILE O UTIL DIR ❑ PERS DIR_ March 25, 1997 1595 Cordova Dr. San Luis Obispo, CA Dear Mayor Settle and Counc.il.Members, I am against the Perfumo Creek Homes annexation, The city should not-take responsibility for providing water for this project. The residents of SLO have been paying high costs for their water, and our water sources are limited. Than': you for your consideration. Sincerely, g t Cen to 1595 Cordova Brive San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 MEETING AGENDA him _ DATE /�7 ITEM # m:couNci,, ^on na COUNCIL CYEDD DIR CAO ❑ FIN DIR 2r'ACAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF 0�&TTORNEY ❑�W DIR O'CLERK/ORIG ❑ POLICE CHF ❑ MGMTTEAM ❑ REC DIA ❑ C R FILE ❑ UTIL DIR �4 ❑ PERS DIR gR��U (r�l X4- MEETING. AGENDA ��7 MAJOR V,OOd,�e lL ,yMR95-' NO �A�/�CAT v Y I// ITEM # _ rr Fw'e 15 T 49 Al^y?�1� IS OEl1�/©NESS God. D�S�EG�Kp/N6.. iS BeA�lrFdl.�'�Aal�iSc ��'K�'''uG /N 90LDrRS vJ#O dw4o Ok` 4F_ ouR 400 ✓ATF R fl�}RDL�/'Ay /?� i�[�TET{ dile AS,�/s -Noiv�oreRe /3�'/NG�NG /Jy k05 (m9a &/me-r?Pr,pes) DUR 90U,OHNS E Di GG/Nfr &P OuiC ?ReelOdS 50/L- FO tJ0�r�5 rt�C�1 r�GN lbT N��y vy : AIb- No Wo NEW #wfeS.�� NI{�oR GET SOifF q,4L°K floNc sro � �L.��— QP_5 60,2 T,�6 Rfsr mf yocl soLV4lZr:D L9oUML�/L !'eNaz+zs. N W,4KE GIP 5,4N Cels 0,96PO AFr,02r A Gets US ,/ TLl e CDD DIR ❑ FIN DIR ❑ FIRE CHIEF Y B'�W DIR _ IG ❑ POLICE CHF !v M ❑ REC DIR LE ❑ UTIL DIR MAH ! F7: O PERS DIR CITY CLERK SAN LUIS OBISFO,CA //C�/�%�+ � �iey MEETING AGENDA DATE ITEM # IAVJI Ib� fie:. 1)c Mayor and C►fY ! M Cout)C ltM{ el-s, -1: Qi I a�ClinSi- 411ePre�,,m o Canyon CrEek j otr6 o.n 1 yWi on . flu, C{V sko Od r& -hft cl-n 411E .respo(16 llmj 6pp shouldr1d Inro-uwllces at'2as ween ;1 su�luvnt waw- an lines. -Rits v)eau-t�r piecx• c �ro���-+�( Chou Shay fn ilia CoLjnty. C AO %ODD DIR k ❑ FIN DIR ❑ FIRE CHIEF 0" TT Cd�PW DIR DRIG ❑ POLICE CHFEAM ❑ REC DIR (IIIA}{ [ 15:! ILE ❑ UTIL DIR ❑ PERS DIR CITY CLERK SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA � v� I��G / MEETING AGENDA 6 DATE 1-1-97 ITEM # �; COUNCIL 2rCD0 UIR gtAO ❑ FIN DIR 0'�CAO ❑_ FIRE CHIEF March 25, 1997 �TIowy Cal PW DIR O'ELERKlORIG ❑ POLICE CHF ❑ MGMT TEAM O REC DIR ❑ UTIL DIR City Council of San Luis Obispo ❑ PERS DIR 990 Palm Street - San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Al I live near Prefumo Creek and am writing to let you know my thoughts about the proposed annexation of this area. I'm not an engineer or an expert on land use„•."but it seems like anyone with even a little bit of common sense would took at this land and it would be obvious that it is not a good place to build. If the Council has not made a field trip to look at the land, I would urge that you do so before the meeting on April 1st. I understand that 30-some current land use policies would be violated if this area is annexed and developed. Why is the annexation still being considered if this is the case? The land is low-lying, by a seasonal creek that can flood, and will have limited access in the form of a bridge. Would emergency vehicles be able to get into the area easily when necessary? Would residents easily be able to leave the area in the event of an emergency? Traffic concerns? Ecological concerns? San Luis Obispo has advocated forming a greenbelt area around the city so that current residents and future generations can enjoy our unique landscape. The city certainly will develop over the years, but let's make sure that development occurs in places where it makes good sense and where irrreplaceable habitat is not sacrificed. Sincerely, Donna H. GodfreyA E C E,9 V' U 1750 Prefumo Canyon, #48 MAKL San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 CITY CLERK SAN LU;S OBISPO,CA Deja a r ------ MLbA LNGINEERING PRG PAGE 01 MEETING AGENDA DATE ITEM # ZS March 31, 1997 To: San Luis Obispo City Council and Mayor From: Dorothy Jefferson 1024 Jane Drive Laguna Lake Mobile Estates Regarding: Development in Perfumo Canyowperfumo Creek I have been a resident of San Luis Obispo,and the Laguna Lake Mobile Estates since June of 1995. It has been with sadness that I have watched the beautiful lands ardimd my home disappear as housing developments appeared. I would like to speak-out against further development of the area and ask that the City Council query the recommendation of the PlanningCommission meadow. It is my understanding that the developrs have"rights"regarding only 44homes ander that would be a reasonagle addition. Over the years I have lived in this area I have seen at least one to two deer lying by the side Of the road each year. They are often seen in our park as they come down from the hills in the evenings. Their area has become smaller and smaller with each development and I am definitely against any fitrsher impingement on their habitat, as well as that of other animals who live in the area. Los Osos Valley Road and Perfumo Canyon have become very crowed with traffic at various times of the day,and to encourage mom is not in the best interest of the area and the current residents. We have seen over the years of heavy rains,flooding and erosion of the creek and surrounding area and I personally,living near the creek,would not want to see the possibility of it again flooding due to the fact that because of additional building these was no place for the water to go,except"up and over-flowing the bank"as areas where it had expanded in heavy rain were no longer accessible. The changes that have taken place over the years that I have lived in this beautiful county, have caused me to purchase a home out of the area where I will move within the next year. I do not want to continue to live in an area where"nature"is continually sacrificed for housing which is so close together that you can almost reach out and touch your neighbor's home. I will be sad to leave the area,but not the structures which have marred the beauty that was once apparent. PLEASE SAY`TIO"TO FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF THIS AREA AND ANNEXATION. BCOUNCIL B't uo uln WCAO MIFIN DIR RECE . � TTORNEV D W DIR IEF j F ' r , 1, �w t:Y I CSG O POLICE CHF MAK 3 1 17W ❑ MGMT_TEAM ❑ REC OR ORAD FILE O U11L DIR CITY CLERK _ SRN LUIS OBISPO,CA - ❑ PERS DtRqy p.Dies/ DATE MEETING `!_�. AGENDA ITEM # ♦ JOSEPH E. DELUCIA 1194 Pacific Street, Suite 203 San Luis Obispo ♦ CA ♦ 93401 March 28, 1997 Mayor Allen Settle City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Ref: Prefumo Creek Homes/Open Space Dedication Dear Allen, As a former member of the City's Open Space Finance Task Force, I have a keen appreciation for the value of open space and a sensitivity toward the potential cost to this community. I believe that the Task Forces recommendation fell short of being long-term and broad-based. I was truly hoping for a more creative and visionary solution. That aside, the proposed Prefumo Creek Homes project interests me in the that it provides for an alternative to the outright purchase of open space. We may never reach the financial capabilities to purchase all the open space in our greenbelt and therefore, we look to you to make fair, reasoned and enlightened decisions about projects like this. 57% of the approximate 37,000 acres of designated open space is currently in some form of protection. An addition of 370 acres at no cost to the city seems to be a rather attractive offer. I am lending my support for the project and encourage you to make the same commitment. V truly your rr Joseph E. DeLucia ��CIL 1cao I74IN DIR A p. `r p ATTORNEY 11 FIRE CHIEF F. G I �� � Z 6.) LERKAQRIa ❑ POLIC A E CHF ❑ MGMT TEAM ❑ REC DIR MAH 3 1 19V, ° C R FILE ❑ UTlL DIR CITY CLERK _ ❑ PERS IR SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA r� .4EETING .AGENDA DATE ITEM # 6 .. -SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY 1850 NLS! - DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND BUILDING ALEX HINDS {� UNCIL CDDUIR DIRECTOR J+v �+AD ❑ FIN DIR BRYCE TINGLE VACAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF ASSISTANT DIRECTOR itTTERWORIG ORNEY ❑ PW DIR ELLEN DCARROLL INATORENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATORMarch 11, 1997 ❑ POLICE CHF ❑ MdMTTEAM ❑ REC DIR BARNEY MCCAY CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL 130 D FILE ❑ UTiL DIR Pam Ricci, Associate Planner NORMA SALISBURY Community Development Department`�r ❑ PERS DIq ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES OFFICER 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 jr.�e'� � A Dear Pam: SUBJECT: ALLOWABLE USES ON SITE OF PROPOSED PREFUMO CREEK HOMES DEVELOPMENT WHILE UNDER COUNTY JURISDICTION In response to your requests, here is some generalized information on potentially allowable uses on the site of this project while it is under county land use jurisdiction. Please keep in mind that discretionary permits on such land uses could result in significant conditions or even denial under certain circumstances. This site is designated "Rural Lands" by the county Land Use Element. Urban development is not allowable in this category, or zone, but a number of land uses related to agricultural uses can be approved. The potentially allowable uses are listed below: Agricultural accessory structures (barns ,etc) Agricultural processing (processing and packaging of agricultural products) Animal raising and keeping Crop production and grazing Farm equipment and supplies (at this site, equipment sales probably would not be allowed) Nursery specialties (nurseries, greenhouses, etc) Specialized animal facilities (hog ranches, etc - more intense than animal raising and keeping) Churches Libraries and museums (which display local agricultural, historical, environmental items) Off-road vehicle courses Rural recreation and camping Schools - pre to secondary Temporary events (rodeos, festivals, art shows, etc) Food and kindred products (processing of raw materials grown on-site or adjacent sites) Farm support quarters . Home occupations Mobilehomes (but not mobilehome parks) CouNrY GOVERNMENT CENIER • SAN Luis OBISPO • CAuFORNIA 93408 • (805) 781-5600 • FAx (805) 781-1242 OR 5624 Single family dwellings (very low density) Game preserves Mining Petroleum extraction Outdoor retail sales (temporary retail such as farmers' markets, seasonal items) Roadside stands Waste disposal sites I hope this information is what you need. Call me if you have questions about this matter. Sincerely, �7 Dana C. Ll y Senior Planner MEL,NG AGENDA DATES ITEM # Stacey A. Stack Box 14703 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 April 4 , 1997 City Council San Luis Obispo, CA Dear Council , I am writing as a concerned member of this San Luis -Obispo community. I am also aware of the some of the many issues that are currently facing you as a new board. You have been given a wonderful opportunity to serve this community and ;;your actions will speak for you for many years . I encgurage you to look very carefully at this beautiful area 'before you make your decisions , whether they be about shopping centers , residential housing, golf courses , or any other debilitating development . You .can , as a Board, make intelligent , environmentally sound decisions that will positively affect all of us , and our children, in the years ahead. Recently, I have seen shopping plazas started that use none of the natural environment in the radical bulldozing of development . I am seeing many store closures throughout the town. I see housing developments all around -- who is going to buy all these homes in this community? Please look around before you just blindly follow the leader to sell us all out . I strongly urge you to think of the character of San Luis Obispo as well as your own when deciding our future . Actions do indeed, speak louder than words and many of us are concerned that you take the right actions . How nice it would be to be proud of our San Luis Obispo politicians . Sincerely, �j ice c Gc. �UrCOLIN'IL U CDD UIR Stacey A. Stack GKCAO UIFIN DIR Ef/J 0 ❑ FIRE CHIEF Id ATTMEY ❑ PW DIR C(CLERKIMG ❑ POLICE CHF ❑ MGW TEAM ❑ REC DIR ❑ C , FILE ❑ UTIL DIR h E 0 11 J V ' ❑ PEERS DIR -MAN 3 CrrY CLERK•)j:y/ ��+ SAN UOBIS O.CA Date: 3/15/97 RECEIVED R?t3irt i�i:s 03CUMenl for or MAR 1 4 199/ tut'urlt Ct)!i¢?C!)meetirtg To: Mayor and City Council,San Luis Obispo ctrr courlclt. 09 OA From:Vicki and Steve Finson c1+ 5f Re: Proposed Perfumo Canyon Creek Development V We are strongly opposed to the proposed Perfumo Canyon Creek development. l/ By way of introduction,we feel it is important for you to know some things about us.We own and run a small business in San Luis Obispo and have lived here for 8 years.We strongly believe that SLO must grow and we support planned growth for our area. We vote and stay apprised of current local events,but this is the first time we have felt this strongly about a local issue.We own a home and live near the proposed project,but would not be able to see it from our home. We are strongly opposed not because it is near to us,but because it is a bad development.The fact that we live nearby has only helped make us more aware of the proposed development. The proposed development should not be approved for several reasons. 1. It is an unfeasible place to build a large housing development(i.e. more than 4 houses); it will be packed into a biologically sensitive area between 5 known slide areas and a known flood plan.The developer says this can be"mitigated." Certainly we have all seen pictures of Californian homes demolished by mud slides— those developers also said they had"mitigated"the potential hazards. 2. When the land was purchased the developer knew that only 4 houses could be built.This is sensible for the land and complies with existing City and County policies. 3. This is a biologically sensitive area!This is a very precious piece of land.Developments have been repeatedly denied here because it is a horrendous idea! Not many areas like this exist in SLO county — let alone so near the City limits.The creek runs almost all year, there are 100 year old oak trees and the wildlife is abundant.This place is unique and cannot be replaced once it has been developed and destroyed. 4. We believe the developer knows that this project would never be allowed without the"carrot" of alleged open space. It has been denied several times and he knows he needs to"convince"the City to approve it. 5. The developer knows that he has nothing to lose with the"gift"of land to the City.The developer knows that this"gift"land cannot be developed—it's a very steep,heavily wooded area.The developer knows that current County and City policy prohibit development on the hillside.Even if policies were changed,which is highly doubtful, it would not be economically feasible —or perhaps even impossible with the known slides. The developer is"generously giving land" which has no real value for the developer! 6. At the planning Commission meeting,one of the Board members stated that the City should change its policies to allow acceptance of this proposal because the County could not be trusted: they might change their policies to allow development.This is fallacious thinking. We do not believe that the City or the County would ever allow building on the hillside(the alleged"free"open space), but the Commissioner is incorrect to believe that the land is any "safer"from future policy changes if under City jurisdiction,as evidenced by the fact of this cavalier disregard of existing City policies. 7. The City gains NOTHING from this proposal!The area is already open space under all existing policies!The citizens actually loose open space and loose a very precious area.The City gains the liabilities of public access to a very steep,heavily wooded area and the liabilities of homes built between slides and a flood plain. Open space has nothing to do with ownership. 8. The City looses the respect of the community. Why spend many years and lots of money to develop a General Plan and policies for planned,consistent growth only to change the plan whenever a new development with incitements is proposed?The URL was specifically moved in 1990 to protect this area! Please ask yourselves an important question: Would you consider approving this huge project, and changing all the policies to allow it,without the acquisition of the hillside area?Please follow the City's policies and your own common sense—protect the SLO environment for the all the citizens you represent! Do not modify the General Plan—do not modify the URL— do not approve this proiectl Ral Ilk Y,- r, 1�1Gr 71 7-1. y 2�i Ir ir - .+i'. CCS- j(5 y tY r! 1, - �� �•• •}�,j����L•M(a Ir i. �✓.p y ` { \ ' , JR{ 1:•,'f Y( � � R i 4 I. 'i �S ''r: r r . � i 4r i 1.•� }} tF7���trrs ��if •tJ. r rC�r�t�t;� IS ,fI `�'ll,)r1. i 'A .xJJFFH� y1 t�r1A 1•!� l�.,. ,. ��� � i���� .,�,�: �� �_ _ `�dI .;�'�S,"a r'i-55. I �• ,lr� i r 1 ♦r ! � ... � � r Int . S •M' ..P,, y�1C..i JnT , r L i41'L!� 1t, p:( � ! Y, - �tl�,, !;,•' .mow 1 �? .t +.a tAf 'aAll PIN m IF yS.i r t i i� 1• Iw r Ar `i r 4.M1tr+.tY e„yyln �.ANO V. ..=ir '' .`• , `�j 1 ”'7 i"t''',a .::•: rs •��pp�, • �! 4� (r Ar'k !.fly f>fnt`w"• i}I lI'a IIry .�j r1: .6 tl,1'.� 1.5 ^ r. ;:it'r'.•.:�• 3+ t�FP yy i ya `� 5 r�r�.. t`•, �! r� , r r ,► refa ,y,?F.. i'Y'Qhl � I1j'}S14n '.-.y '' !{F'y11... t �{•' fitY r2 � :. ` r rj♦,?i � f rr, - l J r i_` ` �'.. F f L !{h ♦ }.... 14, f 'N.iliS M',.l•�," �'� O � yy.�i F.: �ca. �Jy'3t�' •';,Y t`"' • . t Sr r ! ,i y>rY M J fi,} ��ar i i 1 + 5� 4� t� '' C�� 1 ,. ' r ; • � � .,. f[�S;eta •Y ¢.. HI � r'-1. u !� �� k9. , ,I yS •,11 .' � .��� � 1 r A t,l t , ,} ^ tr b M1` I Y� "t+rC r i3, r y •+, .,.. {.w r�l ++ r',y rf •`�-'! � Y:.w as:.vi (�� �x'• r SJ•' �°` � :�, q tt c .� •a•�-. � .` � # ,$' ;� `�y~k ,� � r S'�a- ��. p., _ ��._ �r+[p t t�� �r C; T9•. "��r}, W.+l�' l� �t '\ r:• �� r ' ?t,�y J S� 5 ld I y !�,-rt_ rvc `''!3r x, yyrt�. manD r' y �� A1. {w`f,yl' ✓bia a�! ! 4�.�d >r 1�,. ... ' � 1 r Y. 1 ^ -r' '♦,^ it v -.• t L I L a I fps -f ,t t'6 -c 4 ',r r n*rc��.`�P t,. , , ` rt '. c r 7 At',�.:T a 4r:: %•i�,.' — i r` 9'♦ �lA-�-.t f 1. ,,,. � 3. .P _'.aa q,'4t Tjr�4j 3°r' �e- ~ J.� d. r yl IY} � ,�,r�K`r 1 r f.6 �'I Ti f 'G.:;z'! i i^ 1 � r r � TF•1 ry 4�l rl� �`f�. y 1 -7 ~t #t" r ,�- � � y,• t j �� t 'h^,Y✓F't���- ,n f(' '� a��.f `a'V 'Y r r'tir V `ti�'ti-,,y} 1-`� � ' � j � Cin' ^ +t { .ya +��ra SI�^ i a ,-L1C , h A b.• ^� ♦1451 � 1` ' l `i , i � 1 4. �q:: /' � �1�. o) I V/VI A „ r 'ti r V VE♦ ..I ! r� , ��++,, .. f 'I.�'4�i1' 7 j 7ffk r, h 4d rq� ? 'Y'� 1 " •l Y • v c e:' ��f V•�y �r� 1�� 471 �l� ti . .L >r B �.M►1 r 4 �J� - � +�`I h�'P�. . a iSf�e- i ?t �:?`.>r„r .`tKl,�is ? ,-Y�V ,�` - � d ^�Y >.� 1's �� -� ;i• ` I't�. r�r-. ;jE ..�,_. • 4 . r • ZZ 1.•; � r � �iyb•� 'Y� t F d' i i '7 ; .�r'p` J'r4 a^ t['YJk.•r r� ri�'aM- ,4..) ?.! k �L l - 'LJOR6 Q' -v`� r F r�, "iZ r". , �,..•{ v �l, � � ir41��` , ,��: •t'r ry ,:L v+s 1AAn a r. . J�1% al rSY' t - , c �� M41;.:. � v-F�- I 1Cy. F�� r�J,Y't/� A'ir)r� ' C—�7■'�f'^ t ! �;x� - - � r �� h•" j � f • r,r;y t F l' i L' a'aM K Y r ._ ��t :' • - _ Ell SAY ,1".�,.rp - f�.r i ' •[tir etF� h" u IH n.. � rLI �f tr�•n Y �r �A,e:a.l _ - _ _ _ •�C� .r i,r y _-� ;� 1 � - �$+Sy'•Xy +'�y �,�;"4, r� „�"T,$1r�r N_y _ - - - a �.�r�{. .,, irl �,,�� ZI lic �(S' +' ir'' 1� ?1 f 4.,•.1 I`� , 'Ij }1 '1^� G I l _ r, } ,�f - 7 •� ,ry - 1 Yd � (fir Ilr,`1 , � .1 ,'L , ' ( t i� . I rY p i .1 +,. � , : p.'j` •. h J tL ', +i ' � � : tt 1 i 1 q ,y1 'i al ' 1 (•�a �. I fj \., i114 ► 1 I:I YMa '' pl ii �,1 f' I Y 1 '• I 1 4 IA :j11�r 2to/ . 1 � I. vJ ��y - " a •E ,6 rr , , fML 4r f L- r. I'Y 4� ! 1- I• r �. r - •a• C J Y /" 7' , '�_•/�, � � 1 1 l-:; -� 119'yl ';•1`rl _-_ �n1�f{''. .�_ ;� ri MT� � � fi -• 11 �-. \ �- � •� t %{ }1: 1„ I r' �'Vxa ^ a 17":! yl.i! i, �. 'I,�11 -:rK�- '. 4 111 i1, , (r 11 '� ., ,yj7 IYI, ;,. J����'`�� �� .r��'�� 11 ± � ' ,•. `{`A +, •f, `• I� , # • ��'{I ''x i I Lyl t -J;, � , ;rJ•Fx'1 r�:i I I I 1 �, __�_ 'r`./FI Y tNZ ir�� Mtt�'� .1 ' :II;1,7 `,, Ili�I w^}� ' _� I .11 _\,. ` •e. (1. 1' . 1 f tL 1) { I 1 9 � r✓v t I 1 r�! - .�, `f�. , (I 1 L. oll r I II I 1 s�� ; r{i �r�r yj IIII I II r,a r t. i . ::c I � '1 I�'L S''-�i � '��. 7 E ' , �. f c7 1 � , y•_ 1 ._ .(i tt , ; i. '. t, �♦ Ixl,.^ �� `f ,� !r� ,(t : r. , �I.'•� I I IItpII I ! �!1 .`r . X11 r '` 1 1{ r r '� ,�! - ,, h II 1 , 1 r FA• "� �, / '1 f., 1 ��'���' !`� ��� 1.711 }a��t'•ai�1Y '1'4�r �,..�, I .�Sw ,I��' [�It1 -• ,j. 1' t S .L' - 4�11I 1q -'I I I p. 1f .1 117. 41 �+1- L�1 ,�� 1� �-I�� 14p� Si- =r + 5 �� -^ 1'I I i � � ' I I � II r•' v �' �'!� � ,l �l I L•:.' { '��Y •�� R r �t` if. ''. lir Z �•I /♦< 1� , w` ( ) " ryI r �Il rll 11'1 / ��.� 1 '�!.' I , r 4.7 41,f^ o t . to It TA tzl I. tl;ia '1!y1�•n lrlJp'll �� r1� ,.�1' sS$E, ,_ i.{,µ1 Ya.:' •t:: zr'`k r-}, 1�'i`r I- . � r . t -`'� , !�,' - ! � _ ,, 11�. �/� Ilylll .. I I • ., ', L�f IIN It L .'. �. i'I +-r. r r i' I.,......f r _ _ ' r1 •1' "q�t'�t�1' 'f^91 y Y�, � ~} ' -,S .1r1r'�L{ :1 1..-J( _ .�� /. ^ .r.� � ! �"'n, 11� 1 x. �,,, +��� 'el•IY '�'nfL;�,:� ty. .�4. •�. ,�.: `1 .7 , F ��f,y.{,' I 'I. �.: QS1f,7�iS^' �� � :�%.'� SS ;- - ; r. !� 1 � I :-.� F-��� '�r, Irl lI -: f.F � •. Iy�j,'VI �'� ���+ i 'ky gj I lf,• 11 l,.: , -- 1 4'P `.a1 ( 1,. �y, - s-��� -.� t lip xry7j( � 41 ', ' l,I' `'f••�i� `�,�y, h1�t., I- , r i,�t' :' �tl �j 7 j ,L.; � •Ir : �. �•.tlllY r.• ^f � t1 of r,�f F' c �' 'I �, ( L L{. ,.. �. 1•� I �� �� � FY'I�� t� l r r><'••e G ( }' *; {' � Y •1 , ,11 Y• A ey ,�?S I� l•11 ,..y A � 1 •( I r II l0 rt , � 1 i•Ta h� I. r�y 'V.•\h1 t 11{■■1/� -_ ti � 1'•�j. 6� f 1� '�-- r f)�����r �y/Trf .r !%i vt j +Ii1,1 r`,' ��y � F � Of" 4r f 1.,'f ` �U-:.. w- '.', � I •, i_�{1 'I�`� , C .1• f �. ti )! /'a ,� � -t -.:(�,`rella ��� ,.-I�, t IrW i'.l�,'yq 1"' 1` Iyr1 `7 � I!>. � ter} 1 f�..�• .;, I,, � , f �,Ir�.f^C'.h� `I� _ 1 y•�� r L 1 11 ]• �r{ R t I �• i t 1� r Y _ ,- >fi.•� � ,��, r.' ,Z�'• ;ar ,�7t31 'jL{_ .' �. , ' � f '-,i~Yf fir^ .F:, ��' A'ill. � r r Ij. I r t � �" � 3 4) I ! IIt�i'f�db�hll �:d WJE f<1• �:' , -'' ��1 ( -r � . �-. {1-t ' � t ��' 1 + ^/. I J � ,J 1 .��I {�Itir �•,;`rl; r t11,; � f,,.• ,,� tl'37 /rt fay _ , R,♦ r ` I' +� Tr ,' �.� 1 -i"� 1 �,11 ' I'S�IA , 1�� Ia I R)°-'�(4 Y 1 � ' � ��w IJ 71,�( , i j�� s r �- ', '1 w 1•.. 7 ■■r Ask f ' ' I�j `- L i� 1� 1 (�•` l '��� ,1,,,) �i .l '�f r ti .' �� � • !i J J � _ j1� fli 7 k 1 11 1 GGG .}i r �' c ICY��.�r r- y •' ( �} 1 a� • ( { t h � �1 f1 , }}1 4 It -11 It i ar ty.It; TN p. a, rl I� F 11 � •( „fir , 1y \ .Pig 4r� � 131, R t �4, ' 1 ' II 'r,,.�, f • 1�1LI ,i ' h ';.4 � 1/"`wc '`� `,' L'� 1'i ° t Y r n4� a{'i ,. ; , �rr Se•5.. ow." ',A i4r y -a �c -u r I U-R- 1 vt 6 � ���.�'•un, - � \\ . yam. ,_ J. IV a 1 ,• � u �+w� , ill �. % j�l y`�1''`' J�, • � • • ^elf ELEVATION, feet r+, c ,nrn O OSS N V 00 O h �\\ z \ � v .3 � cn \\\ R LQ \ A Q 1�1 u z � 1 o � oa � o \ � u Z r C 1\ H M W Z W � o Oee 5u -� U EM z 94 V � aaG W � � I z i~ m x � o I o � m I E.. I o I � I � a w 0 0 a ;aa� `NOI.LVA919 O A 5 1 5 L A N D 5 C A P E ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING Proposed Prefumo Creek Homes and Open Space Dedication LIST OF ATTACffiVIENTS • Measure O Proponents who Support the Proposed Project • Letter from Dennis Johansen to Mayor Allen Settle • Recreational Users of the Property who Support the Proposed Project 805.541.4509 FAX 805-546-0525 3427 MIGUELITO CT SAN LUIS OBISPO CALIFORNIA 93401 01 April 1997 mn rQ.cvae gem O A 5 I 5 LANDSCAPE .ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING 01 April 1997 City Council Members CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO RE: Proposed Prefumo Creek Homes and Open Space Dedication Dear Mayor Settle and Honorable Council Members, As a former member of the city's Open Space Finance Task Force, I have a heightened level of appreciation for open space in general and, the potential cost to the community. Therefore, I felt that it was important to solicit support for the project from not only the Task Force members, but from those citizens who publicly supported Measure O. I am pleased to submit the names of the following people who are in support of the proposed project and the acquisition of an important piece of the greenbelt. NAME ADDRESS 1. Lauren Brown,Ph.D. 277 Granada, San Luis Obispo, CA 2. Lela&Bernard Burdett 1171 San Carlos, San Luis Obispo, CA 3. Bill Cattaneo P.O. Box 13260, San Luis Obispo, CA 4. Penny Rappa 3933 Hollyhock Way, San Luis Obispo, CA 5. Sally Stoner 755 Azalea Court, San Luis Obispo, CA 6. Bill Coy P.O. Box 111, San Luis Obispo, CA 7. Joe DeLucia 1194 Pacific St. Ste. 203, San Luis Obispo, CA 8. Charlie Fruit P.O. Box 3408, San Luis Obispo, CA 9. Bill Thoma 1663 Colina Court, San Luis Obispo, CA 10. Dan & Liz Krieger 662 Islay Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 11. James Landreth 613 Jeffrey Drive, San Luis Obispo, CA 12. Doug Ell 1276 Sydney, San Luis Obispo, CA 13. Tony Brizzolara P.O. Box 13108, San Luis Obispo, CA 14. Terry Conner 215 Albert Drive, San Luis Obispo, CA 15. Robert Knight 1404 Andrews, San Luis Obispo, CA 16. Wayne Longcrier 1540 Laurel Lane, San Luis Obispo, CA 805.541.4509 FAX 805.546.0525 3427 MIGUELITO CT SAN LUIS OBISPO CALIFORNIA 93401 Ru=M•cavae M7 ;a t 1 February 14, 1997 Dr.Allen Settle Mayor,City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 RE: Emerald Hills Estates and Prefumo Creek Homes Developments Dear Al, I have been watching the Emerald Hills proposal for some time. I was hoping at the time that the City might consider annexation of the parcel, since my own experience with package sewer plants is so negative and also that the city's utilities butt against the development. Jane and I have a package plant in our area in the County, and it seems not if the plant will fail, but when. They take a considerable amount of TLC to keep them running correctly, and I am particularly concerned when the developer puts the plant in and then turns it over to the residents. Certainly the county taking the action they did kind of threw a wrench in all the hard work you and the council have done in the past years concerning a working relationship with the Supervisors and their staff. I was very pleased to read about your call-in and hope the resulting meetings bare fruit. Just today, I came across the proposed Prefumo Creek Homes development which appears to lie across Prefumo Creek from Emerald Hills. According to the information 1 have seen, it appears that the developer wishes to cluster 38 residential lots on 17 acres near the present city border and dedicate almost 370 acres of uplands to the city as permanent open space. 1 believe the open space dedication also includes almost ten acres encompassing what appears to be around 10001inear feet of Prefumo Creek. If the creek is indeed included,then the watershed and potential for stream bed management including sediment controls would be very significant. I think about 20 years ago when you and I were both on the Planning Commission,the amount of siltation in Laguna Lake was a concern before the city then. It certainly hasn't gotten a lot better in the last two decades. Sooner or later, unless the City is able to continue to mitigate the up-stream erosion, mother nature is going to return Laguna Lake to a marsh. 1 doubt the residents of the city will like that, so dealing with the source of the problem now will certainly be the better value than dredging in the future. At the Land Conservancy,we are about to deal with the disbursement of the million dollar plus settlement between the State and Unocal. Some of that money has been earmarked for erosion control and stream bank management along the lower portions of San Luis Creek. While this project and the potential for the city gaining control of this significant portion of Perfumo Creek will not fall within the bounds or time limits associated with the mitigation money, I feel the potential acquisition of this significant portion of Perfumo Creek should be weighed heavily should the potential annexation come before you. As you know, I have been involved with your staff when the City successfully purchased the Maino Property for open space and obtained an easement on the Guidetti property. As a member of the Land Conservancy 1 am very interested in any acquisition of open space in the City's viewshed that can be gotten within reasonable terms. I know the Council's position on annexation is somewhat rigid, but on the other hand,we really need the open space and have very little funds available to acquire it. I know these approaches can be called no other than a quid quo pro, but since God isn't making any additional open space,we really need to apply any amount of reasonableness to acquire it. While,to the best of my knowledge, the Emerald Hills project does not have a dedication of open space associated with it, possibly some form of Transferable Development Credit(TDC) might make the Council members amenable to the annexation. Please feel free to call on me anytime I can be of assistance. Keep up the good work, i en y We (Mark Webster, Andre Guerrero) worked on the Perfumo property on the dates of FEB Stn, 9th 15th, 16th, 22nd 23rd. We arrived at the property at 8 : 00 am and stayed till 5 : 00 p.m. On three Saturdays and Sundays, we encountered these general groups of people : Walkers, Joggers, Mountain bikers . The total number of Walkers we saw & approached to was 21, out Of these 21, 9 signed. Those who did not sign used the general excuse of We oppose all building on this property" or have seen development of beautiful property such as this in =t other areas and am now opposed to it" . A few others stated that they would like more info and we gave them your card (Carol ) . Two walkers remarked that w they wanted trails constructed in the upper mountain area by the city. When we er_nlained that the city would not receive the property to construct the trails until the Annexation, they gave us the cold shoulder and walked away . One lady went so far as to turn around and jog the other way when she saw us coming with clipboards in hand. In many cases the walkers who opposed the proposal didn' t even use the land, it was more of the scenery issue to them. Also many people told us that it would not be possible to fence off & post signs against trespassing if the development was not approved. The general feeling seems to be one of ownership of the property by the people in the surrounding homes . 'y As for the joggers they were much to busy to stop and talk to us, therefore we did not get much input or signatures from joggers . The most cooperative group was the Mountain bikers since the construction does not really affect them or the area they use . All of the 6 mountain bikers we found signed and were happy to do so with very little questions asked. One group that visited on SAT 22nd was a group of paint ballers, some of whom we knew. When informed that the land would be -restricted they all gladly signed on the line . In conclusion we Lind that those who did sign did not take much persuasion or convincina, those who did not sign were hell bent on being disagreeable and condescending, they did not reply with any well thought out or convincing arguments, they just stated that they believe WE (the Developers) are wrong & that they are correct . We both are a little irritated at the fact the people just blocked out what we had to say and the people seemed to be extremely biased on the issue . We will be glad to talk to you about this . If you have any questions or if you wish to further employ us, we are available and can be reached at Rick Webster' s home phone number 541-6528 . Proposed Prefumo Creek Homes Open Space Dedication This proposeJ projectwould use less Man _15 acres out of J84ioia1 acres to develop 33 homes G u The remaining over 369 acres would be preserved an dedicated as Open Space9 allowing public access and use, :We, the under-signed, share thevnsnoan of the future of this project and the community by supporting the developmaeanf of these residential lots and the dedication of Open Space . . . Name Address Tel Bone No. /.SLj /C.�1!✓k3 ��/N V y� %D 3-/�/C/ InIL (g oX , IL 7 2- f42tP SA^IT/4 `limit 52g- Ll 7 I e Sti5-G1 L Il® For further information, please contact Carol Florence at Oasis Associates, Inc. (805) 541.4509 Proposed Prefumo Creek Homes ®pen Space Delca.Lioin Thisproposed project would use less Elias -15 acres out - . - of 3784 ioial acres fo develop 33 hoes o 0 0 he remaining over J69 acres would be preserved and dedicated as Open Space, allowing public access and uuseo de signed, share the vision of the future of this project and e, the unffi _the. community by supporting the development of these residential lots affid the dedication of Open space . . Address Telephone No. o Z 3-�`�3) SY3 Ne�F iib?-� Qlre�cx�e -6-Ro I '3 -2 ,N Ll Q4 'I® ] For further information, please contact Carol Florence at Oasis Associates, Inc. , (805) 541-4509