Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
04/03/2001, - 11955 LOS OSOS VALLEY RD (DEVAUL RANCH SOUTH)
�i►II II II IIII ��� � �IIIIIIIIII� city of San luis oBispo 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 March 22,2001 CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE 11955 Los Osos Valley Road (DeVaul Ranch South) TR/PD/ER 87,00 You are being notified that the San Luis Obispo City Council will hold a public hearing to consider Tentative Map and Residential Planned Development for a 13.6 acre site at 11955 Los Osos Valley Road(DeVaul Ranch South),TR/PD/ER 87-00,Jetski Land Development, applicants. The Public Hearing portion of the meeting will be held on Tuesday,April 3,2001, beginning at 7:00 p.m in the Council Chamber at City Hall,990 Palm Street. The public is welcome to attend and comment. Written comments are encouraged. Other items may be discussed before or after this item. Please know that if you challenge this action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised during the public hearing described in this notice,or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at,or prior to, the public hearing. The agenda report,including recommendation by staff, will be available for review in the City Clerk's Office(Room#1 of City Hall)the Wednesday before the meeting. For more information, please contact Peggy Mandeville of the Community Development Dept. at 781-7175. Price, C.M.C. City Clerk // The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. V� Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7410. FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1533 EL TIGRE# A 1533 EL TIGRE# B 1533 EL TIGRE# C SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6440 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6440 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6440 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1533 EL TIGRE# D 1533 EL TIGRE# E 1533 EL TIGRE# F SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405.6440 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6440 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6440 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1533 EL TIGRE# G 1533 EL TIGRE# H 1533 EL TIGRE# I SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6440 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6440 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6440 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1533 EL TIGRE# J 1533 EL TIGRE# K 1533 EL TIGRE# L SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6440 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6440 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6440 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILENUMBER:87-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1533 EL TIGRE# M 1533 EL TIGRE# N 1533 EL TIGRE# 0 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6440 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6440 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6440 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1541 EL TIGRE# 1 1541 EL TIGRE# 2 1541 EL TIGRE# 3 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6441 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6441 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6441 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1541 EL TIGRE# 4 1541 EL TIGRE# 5 1541 EL TIGRE# 6 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6441 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6441 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6442 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1541 EL TIGRE# 7 1541 EL TIGRE# 8 1541 EL TIGRE# 9 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6442 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6442 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6442 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1541 EL TIGRE# 10 1541 EL TIGRE# 11 1541 EL TIGRE# 12 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6442 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6443 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6443 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE.NUMBER:87-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1541 EL TIGRE# 13 1541 EL TIGRE# 14 1541 EL TIGRE# 15 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6443 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6443 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6443 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1541 EL TIGRE# 16 1541 EL TIGRE# 17 1552 EL TIGRE# 1 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405.6443 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405.6443 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6438 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1552 EL TIGRE# 2 1552 EL TIGRE# 3 1552 EL TIGRE# 4 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6438 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6438 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-0438 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1552 EL TIGRE# 5 1552 EL TIGRE# 6 1552 EL TIGRE# 7 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6438 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6438 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6438 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 ' FILE NUMBER:87=00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1552 EL TIGRE# 8 1552 EL TIGRE# 9 1552 EL TIGRE# 10 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6438 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6439 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6439 FILE NUMBER:.87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1552 EL TIGRE# 11 1552 EL TIGRE# 12 1552 EL TIGRE# 13 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6439 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6439 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6439 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1552 EL TIGRE# 14 1552 EL TIGRE# 15 1552 EL TIGRE# 16 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6439 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6439 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6439 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE.NUMBER:87-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1552 EL TIGRE# 17 1563 EL TIGRE# 1 1563 ELTIGRE# 2 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6405 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6444 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-5444 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1563 EL TIGRE# 3 1563 EL TIGRE# 4 1563 EL TIGRE# 5 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6444 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6444 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6445 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1563 EL TIGRE# 6 1563 EL TIGRE# 7 1563 EL TIGRE# 8 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6445 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6445 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6445 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1563 EL TIGRE# 9 1563 EL TIGRE# 10 1563 EL TIGRE# 11 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6446 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6446 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 934056446 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1563 EL TIGRE# 12 1563 EL TIGRE# 13 1563 EL TIGRE# 14 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 934056446 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6447 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 934056447 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1563 EL TIGRE# 15 1563 EL TIGRE# 16 Edwin Ross,Growth Develop.Consultants SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6447 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6447 P.O.Box 3077 Pismo Beach,CA 93448 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1581 EL TIGRE# 1 1581 EL TIGRE# 2 1581 EL TIGRE# 3 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 934056448 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6448 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6448 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1581 EL TIGRE# 4 1581 EL TIGRE# 5 1581 EL TIGRE# 6 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 934056448 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 9340566448 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6448 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1581 EL TIGRE# 7 1581 EL TIGRE# 8 1581 EL TIGRE# 9 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6448 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93465-6463 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6463 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1581 EL TIGRE# 10 1581 EL TIGRE# 11 1581 EL TIGRE# 12 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 934056463 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6463 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 934056463 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1581 EL TIGRE# 13 1581 EL TIGRE# 14 1581 EL TIGRE# 15 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 934056463 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405.6463 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 934056449 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1581 EL TIGRE# 16 1581 EL TIGRE# 17 11545 LOS OSOS VALLEY# D SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6449 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6449 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6470 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 11545 LOS OSOS VALLEY# Al 11545 LOS OSOS VALLEY# A2 11545 LOS OSOS VALLEY# A4 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6470 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6470 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6470 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 11545 LOS OSOS VALLEY# B1 11545 LOS OSOS VALLEY# B2 11545 LOS OSOS VALLEY# C1 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6470 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6470 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6470 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILENUMBER:87-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 11545 LOS OSOS VALLEY# C3 11555 Los Osos Valley Road#201 11549 LOS OSOS VALLEY#102 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6470 San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6471 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE.NUMBER:87-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 11549 LOS OSOS VALLEY#103 11549 LOS OSOS VALLEY#104 11549 LOS OSOS VALLEY#105 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6471 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6471 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6471 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT P.O.Box 3151 11549 LOS OSOS VALLEY#108 11549 LOS OSOS VALLEY#202 San Luis Obispo,CA 93403-3151 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6471 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6471 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 11549 LOS OSOS VALLEY#203 11549 LOS OSOS VALLEY#204 Earthscapes SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6471 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6471 P.O.Box 5405 San Luis Obispo,CA 93406 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILENUMBER:87-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT P.O.Box 3308 Pacific Repertory Opera P.O.Box 5452 San Luis Obispo,CA 93406-3308 P.O.Box 14760 San Luis Obispo,CA 93403 San Luis Obispo,CA 93406-4760 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 11555 LOS OSOS VALLEY#102 11555 LOS OSOS VALLEY#103 11555 LOS OSOS VALLEY#'105 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6472 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6472 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6472 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 11555 LOS OSOS VALLEY#106 11555 LOS OSOS VALLEY#107 11555 LOS OSOS VALLEY#108 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6472 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6472 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6472 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 11555 LOS OSOS VALLEY#110 Mike Gima 11555 LOS OSOS VALLEY#201 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6472 4350 Larkspur Street SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6472 San LUis Obispo,CA 93401 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 11555 LOS OSOS VALLEY#203 11555 LOS OSOS VALLEY#205 Rudy Kappleman SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6472 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6472 P.O.Box 15727 San Luis Obispo,CA 93406 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 11555 LOS OSOS VALLEY#209 P.O. Box 1467 11555 LOS OSOS'VALLEY#212 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6472 San Luis Obispo,CA 93406-1467 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405.6472 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE:NUMBER:87-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 11573 LOS OSOS VALLEY# A 11573 LOS OSOS VALLEY# F 11573 LOS OSOS VALLEY# G SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6473 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6473 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6473 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 11573 LOS OSOS VALLEY# 1 1400 MADONNA P.O. Box 13010 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6473 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6433 SLO,CA 93406 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1460 MADONNA# 1 1460 MADONNA# 2 1460 MADONNA# 3 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6407 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6407 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6407 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1460 MADONNA# 4 1470 MADONNA# 1 1470 MADONNA# 2 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6407 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6450 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6450 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1470 MADONNA# 3 1470 MADONNA# 4 1480 MADONNA# 1 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6450 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6450 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405.6451 i FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1480 MADONNA# 2 1480 MADONNA# 3 1480 MADONNA# 4 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6451 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6451 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6451 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1550 MADONNA 1552 MADONNA# 7 1552 MADONNA# 8 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6435. SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8702 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8702 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1552 MADONNA# 9 1552 MADONNA# 10 1552 MADONNA# 11 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8702 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8702 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8702 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1552 MADONNA# 12 1552 MADONNA# 13 1552 MADONNA# 14 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8702 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8702 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8702 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1552 MADONNA# 15 1552 MADONNA# 16 1552 MADONNA# 17 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8702 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8703 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8703 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FI LE,NLIMB ER:87-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1552 MADONNA# 18 1552 MADONNA# 19 1552 MADONNA# 20 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8703 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8703 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8703 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:8.7-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1554 MADONNA# 1 1554 MADONNA# 2 1554 MADONNA# 3 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8701 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8701 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8701 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE.NUMBER:87-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1554 MADONNA# 4 1554 MADONNA# 5 1554 MADONNA# 6 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8701 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8701 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8701 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1556 MADONNA# 21 1556 MADONNA#22 1556 MADONNA# 23 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8723 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8723 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8723 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1556 MADONNA# 24 1556 MADONNA# 25 1556 MADONNA# 26 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8723 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8723 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8723 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE.NUMBER:87-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1556 MADONNA# 27 1556 MADONNA# 28 1558 MADONNA# 29 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8723 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8723 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8705 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1558 MADONNA# 30 1558 MADONNA# 31 1558 MADONNA# 32 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405.8705 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8706 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8706 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1562 MADONNA# 33 1562 MADONNA# 34 1562 MADONNA# 35 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8707 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8707 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8707 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1562 MADONNA# 36 1564 MADONNA# 41 1564 MADONNA# 42 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8707 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8709 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8709 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1564 MADONNA# 43 1564 MADONNA# 44 1564 MADONNA# 45 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8709 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8709 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8709 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1564 MADONNA# 46 1564 MADONNA# 47 1564 MADONNA# 48 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8710 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8710 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8710 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1566 MADONNA# 37 1566 MADONNA# 38 1566 MADONNA# 39 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8730 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8730 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6730 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1566 MADONNA# 40 1568 MADONNA# 49 1568 MADONNA# 50 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8730 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8711 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8711 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:67-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1568 MADONNA# 51 1568 MADONNA# 52 1568 MADONNA# 53 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8711 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8711 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8711 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1568 MADONNA# 54 1572 MADONNA# 55 1572 MADONNA# 56 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8711 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8712 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8712 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE.NUMBER:87-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1572 MADONNA# 57 1572 MADONNA# 58 1572 MADONNA# 59 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8712 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8712 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8712 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1572 MADONNA# 60 1572 MADONNA# 61 1572 MADONNA# 62 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8712 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405.8713 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8713 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1572 MADONNA# 63 1572 MADONNA# 64 1572 MADONNA# 65 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8713 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8713 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8713 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1572 MADONNA# 66 1574 MADONNA# 67 1574 MADONNA# 68 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8713 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8714 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8714 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1574 MADONNA# 69 1574 MADONNA# 70 1574 MADONNA# 71 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8714 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8714 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8714 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1574 MADONNA# 72 1576 MADONNA# 73 1576'MADONNA# 74 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8714 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405.8727 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8727 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1576 MADONNA# 75 1576 MADONNA# 76 1576 MADONNA# 77 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8727 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8716 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8716 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1576 MADONNA# 78 1576 MADONNA# 79 1576 MADONNA# 80 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8716 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8716 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8716 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1578 MADONNA# 81 1578 MADONNA# 82 1578 MADONNA# 83 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8700 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8717 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8717 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1578 MADONNA# 84 1578 MADONNA# 85 1578 MADONNA# 86 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405.8717 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8717 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8717 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1578 MADONNA# 87 1578 MADONNA# 88 1582 MADONNA# 89 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8717 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8717 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8718 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1582 MADONNA# 90 1582 MADONNA# 91 1582 MADONNA# 92 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8718 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8719 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405.8719 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1584 MADONNA# 93 1584 MADONNA# 94 1584 MADONNA# 95 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8731 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8731 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8731 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT - 1584 MADONNA# 96 1586 MADONNA# 97 1586 MADONNA# 98 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8731 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8720 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8720 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1586 MADONNA# 99 1586 MADONNA#100 1586 MADONNA#101' SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405.8720 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8720 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8720 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1586 MADONNA#102 1586 MADONNA#103 1586 MADONNA#104 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8720 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8720 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8720 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1568 MADONNA#105 1588 MADONNA#106 1588 MADONNA#107 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405.8720 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8720 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8720 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1588 MADONNA#108 1588 MADONNA#109 1588 MADONNA#110 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 934058720 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8720 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8720 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1592 MADONNA#111 1592 MADONNA#112 1592 MADONNA#113 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8722 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8722 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8722 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE.NUMBER:87-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1592 MADONNA#114 1592 MADONNA#115 1592 MADONNA#116 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8722 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 934058722 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8722 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1592 MADONNA#117 1592 MADONNA#118 1592 MADONNA#119 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8722 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8722 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8722 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1592 MADONNA#120 1600 MADONNA 1997 PARTRIDGE SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-8722 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401- SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6323 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1667 QUAIL 1673 QUAIL 1687 QUAIL SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6372 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6372 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6372 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1693 QUAIL 1743 QUAIL 1759 QUAIL SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6372 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6325 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6325 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1781 QUAIL 1797 QUAIL 1823 QUAIL SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6325 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6325 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6341 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1845 QUAIL 1857 QUAIL 1873 QUAIL SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6341 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6341 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6341 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 FILE NUMBER:87-00 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 1583 ROYAL 1591 ROYAL 1597 ROYAL SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6331 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 9.3405-6331 SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93405-6331 004-422-020/FILE#:87-00 053-122-002/FILE#:87-00 053-102-014/FILE#:87-00 ALEXANDER MARSHA L HEIRS OF ETAL AMARAL AW JR&R ANDRE PETER TRE ETAL 1460 GARCIA DR 1597 ROYAL WAY 1801 WOODLAND DR SLO CA 93405-6805 SLO CA 93405-6331 SLO CA 93401-3054 004-122-005/FILE#:87-00 053-113-002/FILE#:87-00 053-102-024/FILE#:87-00 ARMAS CAROL M TRE BECKLUND CLARA M TRE ETAL BLAIR CHARLES V&BERNICE L 1755 PICO CT 1673 QUAIL DR 1 COUNTRY CLUB DR SLO CA 93401- SLO CA 93405-6372 SLO CA 93401-8908 004-022-018/FILE#:87-00 004-422-029/FILE#:87-00 053-102-021/FILE#:87-00 BRIMO MARI-CARMEN ETAL CASEY G CLAYTON ETAL CHOU THOMAS TL TRE:ETAL 1436 GARCIA DR 515 BROAD ST 385 MIRA SO DR SLO CA 93405-6805 SUITE B SLO CA 93401-3820 SLO CA 93405- 053-102-017/FILE#:87-00 053-113-005/FILE#:87-00 004-422-003/FILE#:87-00 CLIFF IVAN S&DIXIE A CUNNINGHAM EVELYN E TRE DALY JAMES C TRE 21 SANTA ROSA#100 428 RUMSEY CT 6092 LEWIS LN SLO CA 93405-1898 SAN JOSE CA 95111- SLO CA 93401-8233 053.113-012/FILE#:87-00 067-231-003/FILE#:87-00 053-510-001/FILE#:87-00 DUTCHMAN BERNARD P&FC DEVAUL.MARGARET R TRE ETAL DEVAUL RANCH LLC 1857 QUAIL DR 618 SERRANO DR 1880 SANTA BARBARA ST STE,F SLO CA 93401-6341 SLO CA 93401- SLO CA 93401-4477 053-113-009/FILE#:87-00 004-431-018/FILE#:87-00 053-113-011/FILE#:87-00 DRANDELL RUTH TRE DRES MILAGROS B TRE EPSTEIN WILLIAM W ETUX 1797 QUAIL DR 1461 GARCIA 1845 QUAIL DR SLO CA 93405-6325 SLO CA 93401- SLO CA 93405-6341 053-102-030/FILE#:87-00 053-113-004/FILE#:87-00 053-113-006/FILE#:87-00 FELICIANO JOHN A&DG TRE FITCH ROBERT J&HELEN W FOX RICHARD L 264 DALY AVE 1693 QUAIL DR 1743 QUAIL DR SLO CA 93401-1014 SLO CA 93405-6372 SLO CA 93405-6325 053-113-010/FILE#:87-00 004-422-022/FILE#:87-00 053-122-001/FILE#:87-00 GREEN THOMAS D&DEBORAH H HAGWOOD BRYAN F&CHRISTIE L HANSEN H JAY&BEVERLEY 1823 QUAIL DR 11860 LOS OSOS VALLEY RD 1591 ROYAL WY SLO CA 93405-6341 SLO CA 93401- SLO CA 93405-6331 004-422-013/FILE#:87-00 004-422-019/FILE#:87-00 004-422-026/FILE#:87-00 HASTINGS VADA 0 TRE ETAL HERNANDEZ CARLOS 0 ETAL HICKEY TERI L 1833 SOLA CT 1448 GARCIA DR 11766 LOS OSOS VALLEY RD SLO CA 93401- SLO CA 93401- SLO CA 93405-6857 053-102-023/FILE#:87-00 053-113-013/FILE#:87-00 004-422-023/FILE#:87-00 HICKS STEPHEN E TRE ETAL HUEBNER BARBARA HULL SCOTT 1257 HANOVER PL 1873 QUAIL DR 1767 PEREIRA DR SLO CA 93401-8207 SLO CA 93405-6341 SLO CA 93405-6862 004-422-041/FILE#:87-00 004-431-017/FILE-#:87.-OO 004.422-006/FILE#:87-00 JOHNSON CECIL&LAURIE KOHLEN KENNETH M&PATRICIA S LACKORE DALE C TRE ETAL 1671 PEREIRA DR 359 LOS CERROS DR 1815 SOLA CT SLO CA 93405-6830 SLO CA 93405-1272 SLO CA 93405-6845 004-422-031/FILE#:87-00 004.422-004/FILE#:87-00 053-102-027/FILE#:87-00 LACKORE DONALD E TRE ETAL LOVELACE THOMAS E MCCORKLE ROBERT E&MARY E 1821 SOLA CT 1731 GOLDEN GATE AV 296 TRAVIS DR SLO CA 93405-6845 SAN FRAN CA 94115-4410 LOS OSOS CA 93402-4316 053402-001/FILE#:87-00 004431-019/FILE#:87-00 053-102-022/FILE#:87-00 MILLER ADELINE MB TRE MUHLETHAL RAYMOND M&PD MURRAY TROY R TRE ETAL 1583 ROYAL WAY 231 MADERO CT %COULL&MURRAY SLO CA 93401-6331 ARROYO GRANDE CA 93420-5512 PO BOX 1007 ARROYO GRANDE CA 93421-1007 053-102-031/FILE#:87-00 053.113-007/FILE#:87-00 053-102-015/FILE#;87-00 NEAL FRANCIS E TRE ETAL NEWGARD CLIFFORD J TRE ETAL NOYES OLIVER ROBERT TRE ETAL 1-A HIGHLAND DR 1759 QUAIL DR 1901 ROYAL WAY SLO CA.93405-1017 SLO CA 93405-6325 SLO CA 93401-6339 053-122-055/FILE#:87-00 004-422-042/FILE#:87-00 004-422-025/FILE#:87-00 PETERSON GB FAMILY REV TRUST RANCHES ANDRES R&FORTUNATA G REICHENBERG STANLEY ETAL 1667 QUAIL DR 1685 PEREIRA DR %BERYL REICHENBERG SLO CA 93401-6372 SLO CA 93405-6830 308 LONGVIEW LN SLO CA 93401- 004-422-039/FILE#:87-00 004-422-024/FILE#:87-00 004-422-028/FILE#:87-00 RF HOMES LLC RIDGWAY IV RODRIGUEZ SERGIO&MARIA DLALD ETAL %RES-CARE,INC 11832 LOS OSOS VALLEY RD 11734 LOS OSOS VALLEY RD 10140 LINN STATION RD SLO CA 93405-6859 San Luis Obispo CA 93401- LOUISVILLE KY 40223 004-431-024/FILE#:87-00 004-422-027/FILE#:87-00 004-422-021/FILE#:87-00 SAN LUIS COASTAL UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST SAUCADO JOSE &GABRIELLA SEXTON MILDRED TRE ETAL 1499 SAN LUIS DRIVE 11748 LOS OSOS VALLEY RD 6545 YOUNT ST SLO CA 93401-3099 SLO CA 93405-6857 YOUNTVILLE CA 94599- 004-422-012/FILE#:87-00 053-113-003/FILE#:87-00 053-102-025/FILE#:87-00 TANGUAY JUDITH A TYLER CATHLEEN J UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS& 1827 SOLA CT 1687 QUAIL DR JOINERS OF AMERICA LCL UNION#1632 SLO CA 93405-6845 SLO CA 93401-6372 117 POOLE ST ARROYO GRANDE CA 93420.3324 053-113-008/FILE#:87-00 053-102-028/FILE#:87-00 053.113-014/FILE#:87-00 VERGARA JOSEPH&JULIE WALL LEONARD W TRE ETAL WEBB JAMES L&JEAN E 1781 QUAIL DR 2862 PREFUMO CANYON RD 1997 PARTRIDGE DR SLO CA 93405-6325 SLO CA 93405-8026 SLO CA 93405-6323 004-422-040/FILE#:87-00 WHITTINGTON DARREN&KIM_ 1659 PEREIRA SLO CA 93405-6830 mr.f`I mu rna1611111111n From Brian Christensen and Michael Sullivan to City of San Luis Obispo. DeVaul Ranch South-Tentative tract map,rezoning to PD Residential,environmental review. Council hearing 03 Apr 2001. 1 SUMMARY (p. 1 of 2) April 2, 2001 From Brian Christensen and Michael Sullivan to Members of City Council: 9(��4M� Abbreviations used: LOUR= Los Osos Valley Road LUE= Land Use Element/Circulation Element DRN = DeVaul ICanct North DRS= DeVaul Ranch South EIR = Environmental Impact Report SR=staff report for City Council hearing of April 3,2001. 1. Even with the additional information provided for this hearing (03 April 2001),a"fair argument" still exists that an EIR, rather than a mitigated Neaative Declaration, is required. The lead agency shall prepare an EIR if the agency is presented with a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, even though it may also be presented with other substantial evidence the project will not have a significant effect.' A "mitigated Negative Declaration" is proper only if it can be clearly shown that all impacts have been mitigated to a level of insignificance, yet that is not the case. For example, the following items show that significant environmental effects will occur. Further explanation is given in end notes. - Prime agricultural land - 1994 LUE update EIR (p. 10) says cumulative loss of ag land is a significant impact requiring a statement of overriding considerations. Loss of ag land from DRS parcel contributes to cumulative loss. Initial Study (SR 3-45) incorrectly states this impact is not significant.' - Biological resources - Mitigation is inadequate; required mitigation monitoring plan is not given. Impact was "Class I" (significant) for DeVaul Ranch North, adjacent to this project. (See item 5) - Traffic' - (A) Traffic model for cumulative impacts assumes certain key road improvements (Prado Rd interchange, etc.) will be built, but they won't. DRN EIR (p. J-14) cites 4 key intersections that fail (LOS F) at buildout with Prado Rd interchange in place; congestion will be worse, now that Prado Rd interchange is not expected to be built soon. (B) LOVR/US101 intersection might reach LOS E (unacceptable); not all potential projects have been included. (C) Staff report (p. 3-3) proposes monitoring of capacity of US101/LOVR interchange. There is no mitigation measure or condition to ensure this will be done or that DRS project will contribute payment for such traffic studies. (D) Until US101/LOVR interchange is complete (2005 or later), traffic congestion will continue for several years, with 4 lanes from LOVR funnelled into 2 lanes on the overpass. (E) Cumulative impacts along LOUR (from US 101 to Madonna Rd) will require widening of US 101 to 6 lanes in the segment north of LOVR. (Madonna/Eagle Hardware EIR 1998, p. V-64). This has not been addressed. No "fair share" payment from DRS project is proposed. (F) DRS project contributes to more pedestrian crossings at LOVR/Madonna Rd, contributing to congestion at that intersection; mitigation is inadequate. (G) Initial Study (SR 3-56, 3-57) omits consideration of fair share payment for impacts to LOVR/Madonna Road, a key site of congestion. - Noise' - General Plan requires noise studies early in the project review process; this has not been done. Potential significant impacts remain, especially along LOVR. - Schools6 - Impact of large new residential project on local schools is not adequately discussed in initial study. Financial crisis at San Luis Coastal School District is not considered. - Water - Retrofits are required to ensure sufficient water (SR 3-5; and condition 17, SR 3-18) but it is not known at time of project approval (April 3, 200 1) if retrofits can meet demand . See condition of approval 4, SR 3-31 and condition 35, SR 3-20. Decision-makers (Council) have no proof at this time that retrofits can compensate for water demand. Also, uncertainties still exist concerning long- range water supplies (e.g., whether, when, and how much additional water will be available from Nacimiento Lake or Salinas Reservoir:) - Wastewater - Condition of approval 6 (SR 3-31) and condition 37 (SR 3-20) indicate that at this time it is not known if the.supporting infrastructure is adequate for wastewater; an engineer's report is required. This information should be available before project approval.' From Brian Christensen and Michael Sullivan to City of San Luis Obispo. DeVaul Ranch South—Tentative tract map, rezoning to PD Residential,environmental review. Council hearing 03 Apr 2001. 2 SUMMARY (p. 2 of 2) - Growth-inducing impacts - Initial Study Item 12a (SR 3-55) asserts the project will have "less than significant impact"for inducing significant population growth. This is inconsistent with the 1994 LUE update EIR (p. 8-1) finding that implementation of the general plan amendment "may induce growth by allowing further residential and nonresidential development in the City and by expanding the City's roadway network." - Air quality - Initial Study (SR 3-46) states, "APCD recommends that site development include mitigation measures to encourage transportation alternatives to the single occupant vehicle and make the project attractive to bicyclists and pedestrians." In other words, mass transit by bus, etc..is encouraged. But this has not been accomplished by any of the mitigation measures 1-42 (SR 3-12 to 3-16) or tentative map conditions or code requirements (SR 3-28 to 3-31). Also, to make the project pedestrian friendly, the DeVaul Ranch North EIR considered a pedestrian overpass over LOVR. This should be discussed for this project, to improve safety and to help traffic flow. - Aesthetics - Site grading (up to 7 feet of fill) will add height to buildings, blocking views of hills from Los Osos Valley Road. It will not be determined until the architectural review stage whether views will be blocked (See Mitigation Measure 9, SR 3-13). This improperly defers mitigation. DRS has aesthetic impacts similar to those of DRN, which were considered Class I impacts (significant, not fully mitigated) in the DRN EIR of 1998.8 2. The environmental review 6 the Planning Commission (PC) was inadeguate.9 - PC never saw or considered the mitigation measures previously adopted for DeVaul Ranch North. - PC ignored statements from Christensen and.Sullivan (10 Jan 2001) that mitigation measures lacked the required monitoring programs. This defect was not corrected until the revised Initial Study (08 Feb 2001) was completed for City Council hearing of 20 Feb 2001. - PC ignored other concerns of the public, such as (a) General Plan inconsistencies, (b) LAFCO's environmental review was inadequate - project had been improperly characterized as rezoning for open space rather than residential use, (c) discussion of alternatives inadequate, (d) responses of consulted agencies had not been disclosed. 3. "Planned Development".site plan should provide more open space. - The site plan tries to achieve maximum housing density, at the expense of on-site open space and recreational areas. 4 The city has failed to abide by the zoning ordinance related to secondary units. - Secondary units are not allowed in PD zone. Zoning ord. 17.21.030(C) - Secondary units must be attached and must provide complete independent living facilities (Zoning Ord. 17.21.020(F)) yet this plan permits non-attached units (See condition 13, SR 3-17). - Secondary units should be counted in calculations of housing density. 5 Impacts on biological resources are not properly,assessed or mitigated. - It is uncertain whether a suitable off-site location can be found and sustained for protection of the tar plants. - City has failed to propose a mitigation monitoring plan at time of approval of Negative Declaration, in violation of CEQA 21081.6. - DRS project has impacts on Congdon's tarplant similar to those on adjacent DeVaul Ranch project, which had Class I impacts (significant, cannot be mitigated to insignificance). 6 Mitigation measures and Mitigation Monitoring Program are inadequate under CEQA standards70. (See notes) From Brian Christensen and Michael Sullivan to City of San Luis Obispo. DeVaul Ranch South—Tentative tract map, rezoning to PD Residential,environmental review. Council hearing 03 Apr 2001. 3 NOTES i CEQA Guidelines 15064(f)(1) defines the "fair argument" rule for the need to prepare an EIR 2 CEQA Guidelines 15073.5(d) - "If during the negative declaration process there is substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the lead agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment which cannot be mitigated or avoided, the lead agency shall prepare a draft EIR and certify ci final EIR prior to approving the project." Etc. See CEQA Guidelines 15070(b) (Mitigated Neg. Dec. is proper only if(a) mitigation measures would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to,a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and (b)there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record,that the project as revised may have a significant effect on-the environment.) 3 -CEQA Guidelines 15064(i)(1): "When assessing whether a cumulative effect requires an EIR,the lead agency shall consider whether the cumulative impact is significant and whether the effects of the project are cumulatively considerable. An EIR must be prepared if the cumulative impact may be significant and the project's incremental effect,though individually limited, is cumulatively considerable. 'Cumulatively considerable' means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. 'Probable future projects' are defined in Section 15130." The 1994 Land Use element/ Circulation Element update EIR stated that loss of prime ag land was a significant cumulative impact. DeVaul Ranch South contributes to that impact. - It was improper for staff to assert that loss of agricultural land was an insignificant impact because the General Plan allowed for the change from agricultural to residential use. See also discussion in Remy, M. 1999. Guide to CEQA, p. 160 - Fad that project is consistent with general plan does notnecessarily mean project cannot have any significant environmental effects; case law is cited. - If public agency is using the "tiering" concept (use of earlier EIR on broad issues, such as general plan amendment, related to later specific project,such as tract map),the agency is obligated to refer to the previous EIR. The later EIR or negative declaration should state that the lead agency is using the tiering concept and that it is being tiered with the earlier EIR. CEQA Guidelines 15152(g). 4 (A) For the cumulative buildout scenario in the DeVaul Ranch North EIR, it was assumed that the following road improvements would be in place: (See DeVaul Ranch North EIR of 1998 at p.J-10): (1) Prado Road/ US 101 interchange, (2) extension of Dalidio Drive as a 4-lane arterial to the Prado Road interchange, (3) Extension of Prado Rd as 4-lane arterial from US 101 to Broad Street, (4) extension of Buckley Road as a 2- lane road from its western terminus to south Higuera Street, (5) Extension of Santa Fe Road to Tank Farm Road and Prado Road, (6),Widening of South Higuera Street from the City limits to the existing 4-lane segment, and (7) Widening of LOVR to 4 lanes from Madonna Rd to South Higuera Street, including a 4-lane avercrossing of US 101. Since the Dalidio project was rejected by Council (13 Feb 2001), it is not likely that the following improvements will be built soon, if at all: (1) Prado Road/ US 101 interchange, (2) extension" of Dalidio Dr. as 4-lane arterial to Prado Rd interchange. (B) The traffic model only includes current list of approved projects. (Staff report 4/03/01, p. 3-2). These currently approved projects do not include the McBride Auto Mall (LOVR/US 101) or commercial development in "The Gap" on Los Osos Valley Road near Auto Park Way, or the Costco project at Froom Ranch. (See traffic report of 3/22/01 by Associated Transportation Engineers; Council Reading file, Staff Report for Council hearing of 03 Apr 2001. According to the traffic report, Level of Service at US 101 / LOVR interchange will C� From Brian Christensen and Michael Sullivan to City of San Luis Obispo. DeVaul Ranch South—Tentative tract map,rezoning to PD Residential,environmental review. Council hearing 03 Apr 2001. 4 deteriorate to LOS E with addition of a shopping center of 66,000 sq ft or a discount store of 92,000 sq ft or a development of 346 single family residences. It is already known that Costco (138,000 sq ft) has an application on file with the city. This project alone will cause USI 01/LOVR interchange to deteriorate to LOS E or worse. The City has a duty to make reasonable forecasts not only of approved projects but of other projects which can reasonably be forecast. "Drafting an EIR or preparing a negative declaration necessarily involves some degree of forecasting. While foreseeing the unforeseeable is not possible, an agency must use its best efforts to find out and disclose all that it reasonable can." (CEQA 15144 - Forecasting). Since the Costco application includes information about traffic, that should be included as part of the total impact on traffic on LOVR and at the nearby intersections and interchanges. (F) DeVaul Ranch North EIR(1998) at p. C-7 and p. J-5 says pedestrian calls for crossing of Madonna Rd/ Los Osos Valley Road will contribute to congestion at the intersection, because of traffic delays for pedestrian crossings. Incremental increase from additional pedestrian traffic from DeVaul Ranch South will make such congestion worse, so mitigation proposed in DeVaul Ranch North EIR Mitigation Measures may be inadequate. 5 See General Plan Land Use Element (Aug1999), p. 91-92, sec. 8.10.1 C (policies for Irish Hills area) - When a Specific Plan is not required, development plans should include "sufficient setbacks for traffic noise mitigation." General Plan requires sufficient setbacks for noise mitigation, but setbacks are presently not sufficient to reduce noise to acceptable levels on LOVR. It may be necessary to redesign the site plan to achieve the noise-standard. See General Plan Noise Element (May 1996), p. 9, Program 2 - Noise Studies -"Where a project may expose people to existing noise levels or projected build-out noise levels exceeding acceptable limits, the City shall require the applicant to provide a noise study early in the review process so that noise mitigation may be included in the project design. The City will maintain standards and procedures for the preparation of noise studies. (See the Noise Guidebook for specifics.)" General Plan requires applicant to conduct noise studies early in the review process. Condition of approval 31 (SR 3-66) delays noise-study until after project approval by City Council. Same applies for condition 22 (noise study for aircraft noise), SR 3-18. 6 Evidence submitted for 2/20/01 hearing (newspaper article, SLO Tribune, 2/20/01) shows.San Luis Coastal School District is in severe financial crisis,with cutbacks in number of teachers required. Proposed large residential project will add to this problem; impacts are not adequately analyzed. 7 Mitigation measure 37 (SR 3-20) and condition 1 1 (SR 3-29) say developer must pay for infrastructure improvements. This is an indeterminate financial obligation, with no maximum cost estimates given.. Mitigation measure 37 has no timetable for payment (but should). S The DeVaul Ranch North EIR found the impacts from the proposed development to the existing Single Family Dwellings along LOVRto be significant and unavoidable, a Class I impact. The impacts from the proposed project will be the same or similar as those of DeVaul Ranch North, so they should be addressed in an EIR. Also, it has not been definitely proven to decision makers (Planning Commission, Council)that the visual impacts of views of hills from LOVR are adequately mitigated. The visual impacts therefore must be fully reanalyzed in an EIR. C o From Brian Christensen and Michael Sullivan to City of San Luis Obispo. DeVaul Ranch South—Tentative tract map,rezoning to PD Residential,environmental review. Council hearing 03 Apr 2001. 5 9 See minutes of Planning Commission hearing of 10 Jan 2001, DeVaul Ranch.South project. See also written comments submitted by Brian Christensen and Michael Sullivan for that hearing. - PC never saw or considered the mitigation measures that had been previously adopted for DeVaul Ranch North, yet approved those as part of DRS mitigation without any knowledge about those measures. See Attachment 10, "DeVaul Ranch Planned Development Mitigation Monitoring Program" of Nov 1998, staff report for City Council hearing of 03 Apr 2001, pages 3-77 through 3-120. This mitigation monitoring plan had not been included in any of the earlier staff reports (Plan. Comm, 10 Jan 2001; Council, 20 Feb. 2001). - PC ignored statements from Christensen and Sullivan that various mitigation measures did not have the required mitigation monitoring program included. This defect was not corrected until the newer Initial Study (08 Feb 2001) was completed. In the newer (08 Feb 2001) initial study, a new mitigation monitoring program has been added. Staff claimed (staff report, 20 Feb 2001 Council hearing) that this change was just a "clarification." In reality, it was a substantial revision, in that new monitoring measures were added where none had existed before. - PC ignored other concerns of the public, such as (a) inconsistency of the project with city's General Plan, (b) environmental review by LAFCO was inadequate because project had been improperly characterized as rezoning for open space rather than residential use, (c) the discussion of alternatives for Neg. Dec. was inadequate, and (d) responses of consulted agencies had not been disclosed. 10 CEQA standards for mitigation: Mitigation measures shall be (a) feasible (CEQA Guidelines 15126.4(a)(1)) (b) fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other legally binding instruments (CEQA Guidelines 15126.4(a)(2)) (c) consistent with constitutional requirements, including (a) having a nexus between mitigation and a legitimate governmental interest, and (b) roughly proportional to the impact. (CEQA Guidelines 15126.4(a)(4)) (e) formulated prior to final project approval and not deferred until some future time. However, measures may specify performance standards which would mitigate the.significant effect of the project and which may be accomplished in more than one specified way. (CEQA Guidelines 15126.4(1)(B)) Performance standards must have meaningful information justifying an expectation of compliance (Sundstrom v.County of Mendocino (1988)) and the performance standards must bearticulatedat the time of project approval (Sacramento Old City Association v. City council of Sacramento (1991)), mentioned in Remy, M. 1999. Guide to CEQA. P. 427 Mitigation monitoring measures shall be (a) fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. CEQA Guidelines 15091(d) (b) designed to ensure compliance during project implementation. CEQA 21081.6(a)(1) Examples of inadequate mitigation measures: As written the mitigation measures for this project do not address the timing, feasibility or enforceability required for each measure. For example, mitigation measure number 2 (SR 3-61) reads, "Plant palm trees to mirror the existing palms across LOVR." To ensure implementation, it should be stated when these trees will be planted, the specifics of the tree requirements (size, irrigation method, maintenance, etc.), who will be responsible for ensuring installation and survival of the trees. It is not adequate to simply review the plans since this does not ensure implementation. Similar defects in mitigation measures are seen in measures 1, 4-6, 10, 13, 14, 21-23, 25, 26, 35, 38 and 40. Also if should be noted that the use of CCRs (conditions, covenants, restrictions) of the private developer is unenforceable since they require action by a third party(See, e.g., mitigation measure 32). From Brian Christensen and Michael Sullivan to City of San Luis Obispo. DeVaul Ranch South—Tentative tract map, rezoning to PD Residential,environmental review. Council hearing 03 Apr 2001. 6 Examples of inadequate mitigation monitoring measures: The city has used a "rubber stamp"'approach to mitigation monitoring, with many monitoring measures just repeating the same thing: "Compliance with this requirement will be monitored by the Community Development Department staff through the review of plans" submitted for building permit, final map, or grading. For example, Measure 4 (SR 3-61) states, "Incorporate landscaping elements including decorative paving, walls;and fencing." The mitigation monitoring is simply a check of plans. There is no way to check for actual implementation, e.g. by a field inspection, and no effective enforcement. Similar deficiencies in monitoring are seen in the following measures: 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21. 22. 23, 24,25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31, 34, 35, 38, 40. Z '� c��` ti✓�F 2.n S 0P5=,/'S ,zo0j G 3 � C7S mt��my n�atrntuirs mc 3 JUID CONSULTANTS TRANSPORTATION PLANNERS FITE April 2, 2001 To: City of San Luis Obispo From: Eugene Jud, Fellow,Institute of Trainsportation Engineers,c/o Jud Consultants 665 Leff Street, San Luis Obispo,CA 93406-1145 (805)545-5919 Regarding: City Council hearing April 3, 2001-DeVaul Ranch South project-"Follow-up Analysis" in Staff report, and report of Associated Transportation Engineers of 3/22/2001 1. Cumulative traffic analrsls The City is attempting to determine levels of service within a time frame between the present and when the US101/L0VR Interchange might reach or exceed Level of Service(LOS) E. The interchange Is not expected to be complete until at least 2004 or 2005. Therefore, the traffic analysis should consider the Impacts not only of approved projects but also of projects which are reasonably likely to be implemented in the near future. This should Include projects with"pending planning approvals"such as the Marriott motel on South Calle Joaquin, and other large projects in the county, e.g. Morbido Tract 2368 which has potential for 475,000 sq ft of industrial/service commercial use. 2. Inbembanne CaRMft Monkorina The.staff report(p. 3-3)says the City will monitor the Incremental Increases in level of service for US101/LOVR InUnhange as new projects receive environmental analysis. Perhaps the City should require a"fair share"financial contribution from those projects that are currently pending approval(such as DeVaul Ranch South)so these funds could be applied to the costs of the necessary fi&n traffic studies. 3 Los Osos VaUev Road Mfideni m and LOW Intu chance Advance Devebomerrt The cost of the US101/LOVR interchange will require additional regional and state funds to fully complete the project(staff report,p.3-4). The staff report says a preliminary"Project Study Report"could be completed soon. It would be advisable to have cost estimates and the Project Study Report available to decision-makers as soon as possible. This infomration on project feasibility and timing might indicate that the pace of development should be slowed if necessary so the LOS of the interchange remains within acceptable limits. 4. Pedestrian I bic�celist concerns The DeVaul Ranch South project should provide better connections for pedestrians and bicyclists. For example,the City should consider a pedestrian bridge to cross LOVR at Madonna Road. The city should require"Class 1"bike paths south of the project,adjacent to the base of the Irish Hills,to connect with other bike paths e.g.the path that will connect San Luis Obispo to Avila Beach. 5 General comments on Btu's Qrcukillon Element of General Plan Too often, the transportation planning of the City and county is driven by land use, rather than by carrying capacity of transportation routes. There should be a balanced approach,so development intensity is coordinated with traffic carrying capacities. There.should be greater emphasis on the creeds of pedestrians and bicyclists. Class 1 bike paths should receive high priority. The city should better integrate mass transit planning with land use decisions. DeVaul Ranch South (and similar projects)should be required to contribute to mass transit funding as a condition of approval. Cmdusious I Recommendations -The City should require an EIR for the DeVaul Ranch south project in order to provide more comprehensive and detailed analysis for traffic planning, not only regarding the US101/LOVR intersection but also for the planning related to transit, pedestrian and bicyclist needs in the LOUR conridor, along Madonna Road, and in other nearby areas. -The city Mould,sometime in the near future,begin the process of revising the Circulation Element of the General Plan to address the concerns stated above in paragraph S. COUNCIL CDD DIR rR" PAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF RECEIVED or IkrATTCRNEY C PW DIR ©'CLERK/ORIG ❑ POLICE CHF Auk f 1 :i 200 ❑ DE RMC DIR R-44UTIL DIR SLO CITY COUNCIL ❑ HR DIR AGENDA M`TII-LO/ ITEM #..� The Marsh Street Parking Structure, Reasons to Move Ahead By Dave Romero - April 3, 2001 1. The appeal of the ARC action has no validity, since .the ARC NCIL DD DIR obligation to follow CHC recommendations. Other items in the R"`" ❑ FIN DIM S�AO ❑ F5E CHIEF appeal have been covered in previous studies. Lzl'ATTORNEY P,15W DIM ERKIORIG ❑ POUCE CH ZEE ❑ REC DIM 2. The location of the expansion complies with the Downtown ❑ uTIL DIM Concept Plan, and with studies that have been carried on regar ® HR DIM this site since the 1970s ✓' dkU VvL, ✓(9 pad' 3. This Structure reaches capacity almost every day. There is a grea need for additional parking in this area of town. . 4. In recent years the City has invested around $2.3 million in studies, property acquisition, reports, EIRs and plans, and around $450,000 in staff time on this project. Most of this will be lost if the project is abandoned. 5. The Copeland Project may well not proceed if additional parking of around 250 space magnitude is not assured prior to start of Copeland's construction. 6. If the Copeland Project does proceed relying on unproven alternative strategies, and they do not prove to be successful, it will be at least 5 years before an additional parking structure can be brought on line. 7. If the parking structure does not proceed, the Business Community may well oppose the operational changes proposed by the City, since they will have lost faith that the City is a good steward of parking funds. 8. Without additional parking, visitors to downtown will become more and more frustrated and will tend to shop elsewhere or park farther into the neighborhoods. 9. The latest design will install a mid-block signal in Marsh. This can be synchronized for the progression of Marsh Street traffic, resulting in smoother traffic flow and increased pedestrian safety. 10. If the Parking structure is dropped at this stage, the general RECEIVED public will become even more cynical regarding the City's ability to solve any of its pressing problems. APR 0 3 2001 SLID CITY COUNCIL MF`NG ' AGENDA DAi c (TEM #� MEMORANDUM CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPOQUNCIL �$D DIR [0 FIN DIR 0 El[i�K��0FIRE CHIEF III PW rp�G'[ERK/0RIG C] PC DIR LICE CHF a---- - AL OHikeHROIR T REC DIR UTIL DIR TO: City Council FROM: Ron Whisenand, Develop nt Review Manag . VIA: Ken Hampian, CAO XF PREPARED BY: Peggy Mandeville, Associate PlannerfO DATE: April 3, 2001 MEETING DATE: April 3, 2001 SUBJECT: Read File DeVaul Ranch South Alternative Ordinance City File Nos.; TR/PD/ER 87-00 Council Member Marx has noted that the draft ordinance for approval of the DeVaul Ranch South Planned Development rezoning does not include the monitoring program with the mitigation measures. The monitoring program can be found in Attachment 6 of the Council staff report for the April 3, 2001 meeting and also in Attachment 11 of the Council staff report for the February 20, 2001meeting. Staff has included the monitoring program language in the attached alternative draft ordinance for your review. The alternative ordinance also includes additional underlined wording to further clarify how the mitigation measure will be monitored through construction of the project should Council wish to include this additional language. Please call me at 781-7177 if you have any questions. RECEIVED APR 0 3 2001 SLO CITY COUNCIL 1 o ORDINANCE NO. (2001 Series) AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO APPROVING THE PROJECT'S MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND AMENDING THE ZONING REGULATIONS MAP TO CHANGE THE ZONING DESIGNATION FROM C/OS TO R-1-PD, R-2-PD AND R-3-PD AT 11955 LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD (PD 87-00; DEVAUL RANCH SOUTH) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on January 10, 2001, and recommended approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and amendment to the site's zoning as shown on Exhibit A and described in Exhibit B and C; and WHEREAS, the City Council has held public hearings on February 20, 2001 and April 3, 2001 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 the proposed revisions are consistent with the General Plan, the purposes of the Zoning Regulations and other applicable City ordinances; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the project's Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact as prepared by staff and revised by the Planning Commission;and 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 Mitigated Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed Planned Development rezoning and vesting tentative map, and reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. The Council hereby adopts said Mitigated Negative Declaration and incorporates the following mitigation measures and monitoring program into the project: 1. Provide a landscape buffer along LOVR and along the south side of the property boundary abutting Froom Ranch. Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement will be monitored by Community Development Department staff through the review of plans submitted for a building permit and on site inspections prior to a Certificate of Occupancy. 2. Plant palm trees to mirror the existing palms across LOVR. Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement will be monitored by Community Development Department staff through the review of plans submitted for a building permit and on site inspections prior to a Certificate of Occupancy. Ordinance No. (2001 Series) J Page 2 3. Coordinate landscape plans for the property with plans submitted for the adjacent DeVaul Ranch North and Froom Ranch. Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement will be monitored by Community Development Department staff through the review of plans submitted for a building permit and on site inspections prior to a Certificate of Occupancy. 4. Incorporate landscaping elements including decorative paving, walls, and fencing. Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement will be monitored by Community Development Department staff through the review of plans submitted for a building permit and on site inspections prior to a Certificate of Occupancy. 5. Install public art at the project's LOVR entry. Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement will be monitored by Community Development Department staff through the review of plans submitted for the final map improvement plans and building permits and on site inspections prior to a Certificate of Occupancy. 6. Create a"maintenance association"to facilitate long term care of landscaping. Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement will be monitored by Community Development Department staff through the review of the project's CC&R's. 7. Eliminate on-street parking on DeVaul Ranch Road between LOVR and Tonini Drive. Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement will be monitored by Public Works and Community Development Department staff through the review of final map improvement plans and on site inspections prior to the City's acceptance of the public improvments. 8. Design the detention basin to appear as a naturally occurring feature and revegetate the perimeter with native plants and trees to further reduce its engineered appearance. Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement will be monitored by Public Works and Community Development Department staff through the review of final map improvement plans and on site inspections prior to the City's acceptance of the public improvements. 9. Limit the height of the three apartment buildings closest to LOVR to 26 feet in height. These building heights shall be considered maximum unless during the architectural review process the applicant can demonstrate through the site plan and architectural design that views of the upper portions of the Irish Hills will not be blocked. Ordinance No. (2001 Series) Page 3 Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement will be monitored by Community Development Department staff through the review of plans submitted for grading and building permits and on site inspections (including framing) prior to a Certificate of Occupancy. 10. Screen from view any necessary water pumps, valves,backflow preventers, and service cabinets. Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement will be monitored by Community Development Department staff through the review of plans submitted for final map improvement plans and building permits as well as on site inspections prior to acceptance of public improvements and a Certificate of Occupancy. 11. Design the detention basin so it does not require fencing. Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement will be monitored by Public Works and Community Development Department staff through the review of final map improvement plans and on site inspections prior to acceptance ofthe public improvements. 12. Submit a detailed landscaping plan for the'LOVR project frontage and the southern edge of the property abutting the Froom Ranch property for review and approval by the City. The plan shall identify evergreen and deciduous plant materials, retaining walls, earth mounding, the horizontal and vertical limits of plantings, and other materials used to effectively screen the parking areas and soften the views of the development,but not hinder views of the hills. Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement will be monitored by Public Works and Community Development Department staff through the review of final map improvement plans and building permits as well as on site inspections prior to acceptance of the public improvements and Certificate of Occupancy. 13. Exterior lighting shall be directed downward and not spill onto adjoining properties. The maximum height of lighting equipment and supporting structures, including fixtures, standard and base, shall not be higher than 20 feet above the finished grade. Lighting levels measured at finished grade directly beneath the fixture shall not exceed 10 footcandles. Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement will be monitored by Community Development Department staff through the review of plans submitted for a building permit and on site inspections prior to a Certificate of Occupancy. 14. All material excavated or graded shall be sufficiently watered with non-potable water 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. Ordinance No. (2001 Series) Page 4 Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement will be monitored by Public Works and Community Development Department staff through the review of final map.improvement plans and grading permits as well as on site inspections conducted during the project's construction. 15. All clearing, grading, earth-moving, or excavating activities shall cease during periods of high winds (greater than 15 mph averaged over one hour)to prevent excessive amounts of dust. Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement will be monitored by Public Works and Community Development Department staff through the review offinal map improvement plans and grading permits as well as on site inspections conducted during the project's construction. 16. If soil materials are transported on or off-site,they shall either be sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement will be monitored by Public Works and Community Development Department staff through the review of final map improvement plans and grading permits as well as on site inspections conducted during the project's construction. 17. 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.. Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement will be monitored by Public Works and Community Development Department staff through the review of final map improvement plans and grading permits as well as on site inspections conducted during the project's construction. 18. 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. Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement will be monitored by Public Works and Community Development Department staff through the review of final map improvement plans and grading permits as well as on site inspections conducted.during the project's construction. 19. On-site vehicle speed during construction shall be limited to 15 mph for any unpaved surface. Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement will be monitored by Public Works and Community Development Department staff through the review of final map improvement plans, grading and building permits as well as on site inspections conducted during the project's construction. 20. All unpaved areas with vehicle traffic shall be watered at least twice per day including weekends, using non-potable water. Ordinance No. (2001 Series) Page 5 Monitoring Program: Compliance with this.requirement will be monitored by Public Works and Community Development Department staff through the review of final map improvement plans, grading and building permits as well as on site inspections conducted during the project's construction. 21. 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. Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement will be monitored by Public Works and Community Development Department staff through the review of final map improvement plans, grading and building permits as well as on site inspections conducted during the project's construction. 22. Prior to issuing occupancy permits for each single family residence, shade trees shall be planted at a rate of not less than 1 tree/4000 s.f. of land. The trees shall be planted to provide shading of the residence in the summer so as to reduce air conditioning requirements and fossil fuel use. Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement will-be monitored by Public.Works and Community Development Department staff through the review of plans submitted for final map improvement plans and building permits as well as on site inspections prior to acceptance of public improvements and a Certificate of Occupancy. 23. Residences shall be equipped with solar-assisted water heaters or similar energy conserving feature consistent with City policies and programs at the time of construction. One method would be to increase wall and attic insulation beyond Title 24 requirements. Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement will be monitored by Community Development.Department staff through the review of plans submitted for a building permit and on site inspections prior to Certificate of Occupancy. 24. Bicycle lockers shall be included in the design of the apartment project. Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement will be monitored by Community Development Department staff through the review of plans submitted for a building permit and on site inspections prior to Certificate of Occupancy. 25. Parking for the apartment project shall accommodate electric vehicles. Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement will be monitored by Community Development Department staff through the review of plans submitted for building permits for the apartments and on site inspections prior to Certificate of Occupancy.. 1 � Ordinance No. (2001 Series) Page 6 26. Site preparation activities (major earthwork) shall be scheduled to occur consecutively rather than simultaneously with the neighboring projects to the north and south. This approach, along with the other air quality mitigation measures, will minimize cumulative PM10 emissions to a less than significant level. Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement will be monitored by Public Works and Community Development Department staff through the review of final map improvement plans and grading permits. 27. At the applicant's expense, a restoration plan shall be prepared by a qualified plant restoration ecologist. The plan shall identify the location of a suitable site ors sites in an open space area off-site (possibly at the City's wastewater treatment plant) where a colony of Congdon's tarplant (Hemizonia parryi ssp. Congdonii) can be established. The restoration plan shall identify the number of plants to be replanted and the methods which will be used to preserve this species in this location. The plan shall also include a monitoring program so that the success of the effort can be monitored yearly over a three- to five-year period. The restoration effort shall be coordinated with the California Department of Fish and Game, the US Wildlife Service, the California Native Plant Society, and the City of San Luis Obispo. Any federal, state or local permits required to commence such a program will be acquired and implemented by the applicant. The mitigation plan shall include the provision for replacement of habitat to the satisfaction of the Natural Resources Manager and the City Council should the initial mitigation program be unsuccessful within five years. Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement will be monitored by the Natural Resources Manager and Community Development Department staff through the review of the restoration plan, monitoring program, final map improvement plans and building permits as well as on site inspections during a three-to five—year period. 28. If any previously undiscovered prehistoric cultural material or buried concentrations of historic cultural materials are discovered during any construction activities, all activities that may disrupt those materials shall cease and the Community Development Director shall be notified immediately of the discovery of archaeological materials. Under most circumstances, the applicant will be directed to retain a qualified archaeologist to immediately visti the site, evaluate the materials recovered, and consult with the Director to determine the appropriate course of action. Under the direction of the archaeologist, a mitigation plan shall be developed and approved by the City pursuant to the City's Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines. Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement will be monitored by Community Development Department staff through the review of final map improvement plans and building permits as well as on site inspections conducted during the project's construction. 29. Soils in the area have a medium to high potential for expansion and contraction. The designs of all foundations, curbs, and other structures shall be reviewed by a geotechnical engineer to r \ � Ordinance No. (2001 Series) Page 7 ensure they are compatible with the soil properties and conditions of the site, consistent with standards of the Building Code. Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement will be monitored by Public Works and Community Development Department staff through the review of final map improvement plans and building permits as well as on site inspections conducted prior to acceptance of public improvements and Certificate of Occupancy. 30. All project related construction activity shall occur between 7 am and 7pm Monday through Saturday, with no activities occurring on Sunday or holidays. City noise regulations related to construction activities shall be posted on site and made available to all contractors and sub- contractors. Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement will be monitored by Community Development Department staff through the review of final map improvement plans and building permits and by the Police Department during construction. 31. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with the City's Noise Element through the preparation of a noise analysis for the apartment portion of the Planned Development. Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement will be monitored by the Community Development Department staff through the review of building permits and on site inspections prior to Certificate of Occupancy. 32. The developer and/or property manager shall disclose to all perspective and actual Leasee/Renters that the subject property is in an airport flight traffic zone and possible noise impacts may occur. This disclosure shall be part of any sales or rental agreements which are signed by the owner or renter. Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement will be monitored by Community Development Department staff through the review of the project's CC&R's. 33. To maintain consistency with policy H 4.2.1 of the Housing Element, the amount of and the specific location of inclusionary housing units should be identified with the consideration of the tentative tract map and approved only if found to be consistent with the City's requirements which includes intermixing the units within the project. Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement will be monitored by Community Development Department staff through the review of the project's inclusionary housing program. Ordinance No. (2001 Series) Page 8 34. The project shall comply with the mitigation measures established for the DeVaul Ranch North project as outlined in the DeVaul Ranch North Final EIR and Mitigation Monitoring Program. Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement will be monitored by Public Works and Community Development Department staff through the review of plans submitted for final map improvement plans and building permits. 35. Soundproofing shall be added to reduce indoor noise from airport operations, where required by the City's Noise Element and the San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Plan. Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement will be monitored by Community Development Department staff through the review of plans submitted for a building permit and on site inspections prior to Certificate of Occupancy. 36. Grant an avigation easement for the protection of the San Luis Obispo County Airport, the City of San Luis Obispo, and the County of San Luis Obispo. Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement will be monitored by Community Development Department staff through the review of the project's CC&R's and updated title report. 37. All project occupants and land uses shall comply with the compatible land use matrix of the San Luis Obispo Airport Land Use Plan. Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement will be monitored by Community Development Department staff through the review of the project's CC&R's and plans submitted for building permits. 38. All exterior lighting shall be shielded down-lights that do not shine skyward or interfere with aircraft flights or aircraft operations. Search-lights and strobe lights shall be prohibited.. Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement will be monitored by Community Development Department staff through the review of plans submitted for building permits. 39. The applicant shall dedicate 63 feet of right of way or as'otherwise required by the City and make ultimate improvements to LOVR along the project's proposed frontage. Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement will be monitored by Community Development Department staff through the review of final map improvement plans and on site inspections prior to acceptance of public improvments. 40. To mitigate potentially significant impacts of excessive speed on the project's residential streets, traffic calming measures shall be included as a condition of the subdivision plans. Ordinance No. (2001 Series) Page 9 Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement will be monitored by Community Development Department staff through the review of final map improvement plans and on site inspections prior to acceptance ofpublic improvments. 41. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall receive approval of a solid waste recycling plan for recycling discarded building materials such as concrete, sheetrock, wood and metals from the construction site. Monitoring Program: Compliance with this requirement will be monitored by Community Development Department staff through the review of solid waste recycyling plans submitted for a building permit and on site inspections during the project's construction. 42.Building plans shall show the location of convenient facilities for interior and exterior on-site recycling for each residential unit. Monitoring Program: Compliance .with this requirement will be monitored by Community Development Department staff through the review of plans submitted for a building permit and on site inspections prior to Certificate of Occupancy. SECTION 2. The City Council makes the following findings: 1. The components of the PD rezoning are consistent with the General Plan which calls for a range of housing types, with low density, medium density, and medium-high density development each occupying about one third of the area. 2. Features of the design (ie. garages at the rear of properties, front porches, pedestrian connections with adjoining properties, private mini-parks, reduced street widths, landscaped parkways, detached sidewalks, secondary dwelling units, and bulbouts) achieve the intent of conventional standards as well as or better than the standards themselves. 3. Mitigation measures have been approved by the City Council in conjunction with the approved Mitigated Negative Declaration. SECTION 3. The Zoning Regulations Map Amendment (PD 87-00) is hereby approved and the property rezoned to Planned Development (R-1-PD, R-2-PD, R-3-PD) as shown on the attached Exhibit A and as described in Exhibit B and C contingent upon final approval of the annexation and subject to the following conditions: 1. Minimum lot widths in the R-2-PD zone shall be 35 feet. 2. A minimum 4-foot wide landscape strip shall be provided between the secondary dwelling unit and the rear property line to allow adequate room for a plant material buffer between the parking space i Ordinance No. (2001 Series) Page 10 and the adjoining property. 3. Minor revisions are needed to the site plan in order for the project to comply with the City's Parking and Driveway standards. 4. Two enclosed parking spaces shall be provided for each single family and duplex unit and one uncovered parking space for each secondary dwelling unit. 5. If the DeVaul Ranch North apartment project is constructed as presently approved, the two projects shall share a common driveway aisle rather than both properties providing side-by-side single loaded driveway aisles. The resulting excess area shall be used for additional landscaping. 6. The apartment project shall maintain the following streetyard setbacks: Los Osos Valley Road frontage: 8 feet; DeVaul Ranch Road frontage: 10 feet; Tonini Driver 6 feet. A minimum 5-foot exterior side yard is required in the R-1-PD and R-2-PD zone. 7. The applicant shall coordinate with the DeVaul Ranch North developers to provide a common landscaping theme along the frontage of LOVR and within the LOVR landscape median. 8. Details of the proposed parking lot screening around the apartment project shall be provided illustrating how the parking lot is screened from public view. The use of walls will not be allowed. 9. To reduce the visibility of the long driveways in the R-1 zone, a landscape mow strip shall be provided down the middle of the driveway.. 10. The project shall include benches next to Lot 31 and with the detention basin area for use as private pocket parks. 11. The project shall include additional traffic calming measures such as bulbouts and stop signs to the maximum extent possible, to the approval of the Public Works, Community Development and Fire Departments. 12. The applicant's affordable housing program shall include 2 single-family homes, 5 duplex units and 6 apartment units as moderate income units and 7 apartments as low income units in the locations as shown on Exhibit"A". 13. A minimum of 13 and a maximum of 17 detached (or attached) secondary dwelling units shall be provided by the developer. 14. Traffic Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures identified under Tentative Tract 2307 (DeVaul Ranch) shall be met and/or guaranteed under a subdivision agreement prior to recordation of the final map for this tract, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and Community Development Director. Ordinance No. . (2001 Series) Page 1 I 15. Bicycle Parking and Storage: Project plans should clearly show how bicycle parking and storage is provided in compliance with Section 17.16.060, Table 6.5 of the Zoning Regulations and with design standards contained in the Bicycle Transportation Plan (1993). 16. Water, wastewater, and traffic impact fees shall be assessed on date of building permit application and paid prior to building permit issuance. 17. Toilet retrofits to satisfy the water allocation shall be completed prior to permit issuance. 18. Apartment buildings at east side of project shall not be constructed across a property line. As shown, an area adjacent to the stairway appears to straddle the property line. 19. A minimum back up dimension between the garage opening and the back of the paved area shall be 24 feet. 20. On lots 20 through 29 cars parked in the driveway will block access to the adjacent garage. Conflicts may be created between neighbors under the proposed arrangement. Greater separation or an additional exterior parking area may alleviate the problem. 21. In the title report for each property and in the project's CC&R's, the developer shall disclose that the property may be impacted by noise or other activities associated with the nearby airport and the adjoining Froom Ranch property is designated for commercial development. Said language shall be to the approval of the City Attorney. 22. In conjunction with the applicant's application for the first phase of building permits, a noise analysis shall be submitted which identifies potential aircraft noise impacts and construction measures proposed to comply with interior noise levels. 23. Fire Department Access: Access shall be in accordance with Article 9 of the California Fire Code. Access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet and shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of a 60,000-pound fire apparatus. The surface shall provide all-weather driving capabilities. Prior to combustible construction all-weather access (i.e. base and first lift of asphalt) shall be installed and serviceable for fire apparatus. "E" Street shall be improved and connected to the adjoining DeVaul subdivision prior to the issuance of any building permits. 24. Water Supplies: Water supplies shall be in accordance with Sections 901 and 903 of the California Fire Code. An approved water supply connected to the City distribution system and capable of providing the required fire flow for fire protection is required. The fire flow shall be determining using Appendix III-A of the California Fire Code. 25. Water lines and hydrants shall be installed, tested and serviceable prior to combustible \ J Ordinance No. (2001 Series) Page 12 construction. All water mains shall be a minimum of 8" in size. Submittal indicates several 6" PVC mains. 26. Fire Hydrants: Fire hydrants shall be installed in accordance with Section 903.4 of the California Fire Code. The location, number and. type of hydrants connected to the City system shall be determined using Appendix III-B of the California Fire Code and the approved City Engineering Standards. 27. The Fire Department shall review and approve the installation and location of all fire hydrants. In addition to internal hydrants the project will require a fire hydrant along LOVR. 28. Fire Protection Systems and Equipment: Fire protection systems shall be in accordance with the California Fire Code and California Building Code as amended by the City. An approved fire sprinkler system shall be required for all structures per City requirements. 29. Fire Safety During Construction: Buildings undergoing construction, alteration or demolition shall be in accordance with Article 87 of the California Fire Code. 30. The irrigation systems for common areas, parks, detention basins, and other large landscape areas shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the standards for reclaimed water use. Appropriately sized reclaimed water mains shall be constructed from the City's trunk system to these irrigation areas. If reclaimed water is not yet available, the system shall be designed and constructed to reclaimed water standards, and temporarily connected to the City's potable water system in the area of the anticipated connection to the reclaimed water system. Appropriate backflow protection shall be in with this connection to the satisfaction of the County Cross Connection Inspector, Henry Ruiz, who can be reached at 781-5567. 31. Potential buyers of lots that have the ability to have secondary dwelling units shall be notified that before a secondary dwelling unit established, the owner shall enter into an agreement with the City agreeing that the property will be owner-occupied and one additional on-site parking space will be provided for the unit.. 32. Should the DeVaul Ranch South planned development not be pursued, the Planned Development zoning for the project shall expire with the expiration of the vesting tentative map. 33. EPA Requirement: General Construction Activity Storm Water Permits are required for all storm water discharges associated with a construction activity where clearing, grading and excavation results in land disturbance of five or more acres. Storm water discharges of less than five acres, but which is part of a larger common plan of development or sale, also require a permit. Permits are required until the construction is complete. To be covered by a General Construction Activity Permit, the owner(s) of land where construction activity occurs must submit a completed "Notice of Intent" (NOI) form, with the appropriate fee,to the State Water Board. Ordinance No. (2001 Series) Page 13 34. Final street tree selection shall be approved by the. City Arborist and Community Development Director. Suitable street trees for the project include Melaleuca linariifolia, Quercus suber, Gleditsia triacanthos, Tipuana tipu, or Tristania conferta (no single species should constitute more than 50%of the total street tree population for this development). 35. Upon development, a water allocation will be required, due to the additional demand on the City's water supplies. Currently, a water allocation can only be obtained through the water retrofit program. The City's Water Conservation division can help in.determining the needed allocation and the necessary number of retrofits. Water Conservation can be reached by calling 781-7258. The cost of retrofitting is directly credited against the project's Water Impact Fees, ata rate of$150 per bathroom retrofitted. 36. Water and Wastewater Impact Fees shall be paid at the time building permits are issued. Currently, the.Water Impact Fee is $6,827 per residential unit, and the Wastewater Impact Fee is.$2,703. 37. The owner's engineer shall submit water demand and wastewater generation calculations so that the City can make a determination as to the adequacy of the supporting infrastructure. If it is discovered that an offsite deficiency exists, the owner will be required to mitigate the deficiency as a part of the overall project. Currently, it is expected that a portion of the existing gravity sewer system will require improvement in order to accommodate the additional flows from this project. In addition, the project developer will be required to pay the project's fair share of the cost to provide additional capacity at the Water Reclamation Facility, the Laguna Lift Station, and possibly the Howard Johnson Lift Station, as well. 38. Water and wastewater facilities shall be designed in accordance with the City's design and drafting standards. The tentative map shall indicate that the minimum design standards can be achieved, . including 8" min. sewer mains at 0.5%minimum slope. SECTION 3. A summary of this ordinance, together with the names of Council members voting for and against, shall be published at least five (5) days prior to its final passage, in the Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance shall go into effect at the expiration of the thirty (30) days after its final passage or upon final approval of the annexation by the Local Agency Formation Commission, whichever occurs later. INTRODUCED AND PASSED TO PRINT by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo at its meeting held on the day of ; 2001, on a motion of seconded by , and on the following roll call vote: AYES`. NOES: Ordinance No. (2001 Series) Page 14 ABSENT: Mayor Allen Settle ATTEST: City Clerk Lee Price APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney Jeff Jorgensen AGENDA._ k- C-::- Brian Christensen and tel C.Sullivan v. Local Agency Formation Con. Sion f S n ul Case Number CV001083,San Luis Obispo County Superior Court Petitioners' request for items to be included in Administrative Record Updated: March 28,2001 18:19 Page 1 of 16 From: Brian Christensen, 818 Pismo Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Tel 805-542-9385 Michael C. Sullivan 1127 Seaward St., San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 Tel 805-545-9614 To: Ray Biering, Deputy County Counsel, County of San Luis Obispo, County - Government Center, Room 386, San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 Tel 805-781-5400 Copies to: City of San Luis Obispo,Attention: City Attorney Jeff Jorgensen, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 Stuart A.Comis(attorney for Jet Ski Land Development#3 of Camarillo,CA and for Mrs.Margaret DeVaul-DeVaul Ranch South project) 300 Esplanade Drive,Suite 1170,Oxnard,CA 93030-1251 Tel 805-604-4100 Martin Tangeman(attomey-for Alex Madonna-Froom Ranch'project), c/o Sinsheimer,Schiebelhut and Bagget,A Professional Corporation, 1010 Peach Street,San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 Tel 805-541-2800 Regarding_ Administrative Record/ Settlement Meeting of 27 Feb 2001 - Brian Christensen and Michael C. Sullivan V. Local Agency Formation Commission of San Luis Obispo Countv,.Case number CV001083 Mr. Biering... `OUNCIL CDD DIP 19'CAo ❑ FIN DIP RECEIVED Abbreviations Used: Q� CAO ❑'FIRE.CHIEF Admin. =administrative RATTORNEY ❑ PW DIR MAR 2 9 2001 CEQA-California Environmental Quality Act CLERK10PIG ❑ POLICE CHF SLO-San Luis Obispo(city or county) oPgPT HEADS ❑ REC DIR SLO CITY CLERK pfd' L1Az61'1F ❑ UTIL DIR ❑ HR DIR The following comments pertain to: V Ma MT;, e� ✓ R. hlhtsetna�� (1) Your original list of items for the Administrative Record, presented by you (Ray.Biering)to us (Brian Christensen and Michael Sullivan) at the settlement meeting on 27 Feb 2001 (2) Your letter to us,dated 16 Mar 2001, with a cost estimate for preparation of Admin. Record (3) You letter to us,dated 16 Mar 2001 (apparently in error; probably the correct date is 26 Mar 2001)with a letter dated 26 Mar 2001 from Gilbert Trujillo, Assistant City Attorney; City of San Luis Obispo to Ray Biering, Deputy County Council, with information on available tapes of public hearings We have examined your original list of items for the Administrative Record, provided by you to us at the settlement meeting of 27 Feb 2001. Using your original numbering system,we have indicated items that we request be.deleted ("DELETE" notation). For certain items, we request clarification before We give final approval of that item (CLARIFY notation). If there is no notation for a particular dem,we agree to tentatively accept that particular item without further negotiation. We also request that additional items be made part of the admin.record ("ADD" notation) and for these we use our own new numbering system. CEQA section 21167.6 (e) gives guidance about the items that the administrative record must include. .s•.uu-['-fns/RT��• • 'J i{ �4 , Brian Christensen and Michaei Sullivan v.Local Agency Formation Commission of San Luis Obispo County, Case Number CV001083,San Luis Obispo County Superior Court Petitioners' request for items to be included in Administrative Record Updated: March 28,2001 18:05 Page 2 of 16 We request clarification for the 18 maps at$10.00 each(your letter of 16 Mar2001). For each of those maps, please specify: a. Map title, date, and source(i.e. which city file or other file?) b. Brief explanation of why map is pertinent to Case CV001083. c. Whether is is possible to obtain or produce a smaller copy of the map(e.g. 8.5x11 inches, or 11 x17 inches)so that the map can be reproduced more inexpensively(by photocopying, rather than by special large- format reproduction processes). General notes: (1) The fist below is tentative, and may be subject to further discussions between Petitioners and County Counsel or other defendants, or may be subject to further Settlement Meetings. (2) All documents such as general plan elements, maps, municipal codes, reports, etc. should be the version that existed as of 16 Nov 2000,the date of the final LAFCO hearing on Annexation 62(Froom Ranch/ DeVaul Ranch South). (3) Regarding oversized documents,such as maps: If it is possible to use regular size paper(81/2 x 11 or 11 x 17)for these(i.e. using smaller originals, or using photocopying to reduce the size of the larger document originals) please do so. We wish to minimize the number of large scale maps because they are very expensive ($10 each). Admin: Record-- Items suggested by County Counsel Ray Bae `ring (Settlement meeting of 27 Feb 2001 , list hand--delivered to petitioners by Ray Biering) Documents used for both Droiects (Froom Ranch annexation; De Vaul Ranch South annexation) 1. City of SLO Land Use Element Petitioners' notes: a The Land Use Element of Aug 1999 was the version that existed on 16 Nov 2000(LAFCO hearing on Annexation 62). ADD: We wish to also include the City of San Luis Obispo Land Use Element of April 1997. This was mentioned in the Petition for Writ of Mandate (15 Dec 2000) at page 38, lines 3 and page 40, line 4-5. This document is necessary to show that certain general plan policies mentioned as part of the Land Use Element of April 1997 have identical counterparts in the Land Use Element of Aug 1999. b. SEE ALSO NOTE REGARDING ITEM 31;BELOW. It is redundant to include the"General Plan Digest" when the identical wording is contained in the individual General Plan elements given in item 1 above and items 2-9 below and items 55 and 56 below. 2. City of SLO Circulation Element 3. City of SLO Noise Element 4. City of SLO Energy Element 5. City of SLO Open Space Element 6. City of SLO Safety Element 7. City of SLO Draft Safety Element 8. City of SLO Water and Wastewater Management Element 9. City of SLO Source Reduction and Recycling Element Brian Christensen and N .el C.Sullivan v. Local Agency Formation Cort, Sion of.San Luis Obispo County, Case Number CV001083,San Luis Obispo County Superior Court Petitioners'request for items to be included in Administrative Record Updated: March 28,2001 18:05 Page 3 of 16 10. City of SLO Zoning Regulations; Feb. 18, 2000 11. 1995 Clean Air Plan (CAP) for San Luis Obispo County 12. San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Plan Petitioners' notes: a. CLARIFY:This should be the Land Use Plan as existed on 16 Nov 2000. We believe that was a draft plan. b. CLARIFY: Is it possible to only use the pertinent portions of the plan,to avoid excess paperwork? Which sections are pertinent? 13. City of SLO Informational Map Atlas Petitioners' notes: a. CLARIFY: We wish to know the size of the atlas-Number of pages, and whether the pages are oversized (larger than 11 x 17 inches). b. CLARIFY: Is it necessary to have the whole atlas, or just the pages pertinent to the Froom/DeVaul Ranch South projects? Which parts/pages are pertinent? 14. City of SLO Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines, Oct 1995 Petitioners' notes: a. DELETE. Is it possible to use only the pertinent portions of these guidelines,to avoid excess paperwork? Which sections are pertinent? We believe this document is not pertinent to any of the legal issues and should be deleted. 15. City of SLO Flood Damage Prevention Guidelines, 1979 16. City of SLO Urban Water Management Plan 1994 17. City of SLO water allocation regulations Petitioners' notes: CLARIFY: These should be as in existence on 16 Nov 2000, date of final LAFCO hearing on Annexation 62 (Froom Ranch/DeVaul Ranch South) 18. City of SLO annualwater resources status report Petitioners' notes: CLARIFY: This should be the most current report that existed as of 16 Nov 2000. 19. Site Soils Engineering Report prepared by GeoSolutions, March 3, 2000 Petitioners' notes: CLARIFY: Where is this document found- In which files? 20. U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service Maps Petitioners' notes: CLARIFY: Where is this document found- In which files? 21. County of SLO land use category map 22. Resolution 8332 adopting the City's Land Use Element EIR and EIR supplement 23. Adopted Sphere of Service and Sphere of Influence Map for the City of San Luis Obispo Petitioners' notes: CLARIFY: Date of document? Brian Christensen and Michae•Sullivan v. Local Agency Formation Commissl of San Luis Obispo County, Case Number CV001083, San Luis Obispo County Superior Court Petitioners' request for items to be included in Administrative Record Updated: March 28,2001 18:05 Page 4 of 16 24: Municipal Code Section 15.04.040 X. (Sec. 3307.2) regarding air quality Petitioners' notes: DELETE. This is part of municipal code and need not be included if current code is the same as this. 25. Traffic Impact fee(Resolution 8406) 26. Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939).. Petitioners' notes: DELETE. This should be excluded from the record. It is superfluous. Laws can be readily found outside the administrative record. 27. SLO Quadrangle Map, effective Jan 1, 1990 28. Final Supplemental EIR for the Madonna/Eagle Hardware and Garden certified by the County Board of Supervisors on November 2, 1999. 29. City of SLO 1944 Land Use/Circulation Update EIR and EIR Supplement 30. County of SLO, San Luis Obispo Area Plan,Jan. 1997 Petitioners' notes: CLARIFY: Is the entire document needed? Or is it possible to just include the pertinent sections? We prefer the latter. 31. City of SLO General Plan Digest. Petitioners' notes: DELETE. This long (339 pages total) document contains the same information in identical wording as in the individual elements of the City's General Plan, as given in items 1-9, above and 55 and 56, below. This is redundant. This item should be EXCLUDED from the record. The only information this document has that is not found in items 1-9,above, and 55 and 56, below, is several maps and a glossary. We would agree to include those items only. 32. City of SLO General Plan Land Use Map Petitioners' notes: a. CLARIFY: This should be the map current as of 16 Nov 2000. 33. City of SLO Zoning Regulations Map 34. Subdivision Regulations Petitioners' notes: CLARIFY: What specific document is this? 35..Subdivision Map Act. Petitioners' notes: DELETE. This should be EXCLUDED from the record. It is superfluous. Laws can be readily found outside the administrative record. 36. California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (2000). Petitioners' notes: DELETE. This should be EXCLUDED from the record. It is superfluous. Laws can be readily found outside the administrative record. Brian Christensen and M. .el C.Sullivan v. Local Agency Formation Corr,. cion of San Luis Obispo County, Case Number CV001083,San Luis Obispo County Superior Court Petitioners'request for items to be included In Administrative Record Updated: March 28,2001 18:05 Page 5 of 16 37. Uniform Building Code, Chapter 16, 17, 18 regarding foundation design. Petitioners' notes: DELETE. This should be EXCLUDED from the record. It is superfluous. Laws can be readily found outside the administrative record. 38. California Energy Code regarding energy conservation. Petitioners' notes: DELETE. This should be EXCLUDED from the record. It is superfluous. Laws can be readily found outside the administrative record. 39. Planning and Zoning Development Law- Permit Streamlining requirements. Petitioners' notes: DELETE. This should be EXCLUDED from the record. It is superfluous. Laws can be readily found outside the administrative record. 40. DeVaul /Froom Ranch Plan for Services Petitioners' notes: DELETE: The"Plan for Services"for Froom Ranch/DeVaul Ranch South was presented as part of the LAFCO staff report for File 8-R-00, LAFCO hearing of 21 Sep 2000. It is not necessary to include an extra copy. 41. DeVaul/Froom Ranch LAFCO application submittal package for annexation Petitioners' notes: a. CLARIFY: What is the date of this document? Submitted by whom... City of SLO? b. The.application submittal package should include g(I documents theft were or are part of the record. 42. Revised Draft Dalidio EIR dated April 2000, Vol I, II,and"Addenda and Errata" Petitioners' notes. DELETE: The Dalidio project is not relevant to the legal issues of case CV001083. The Dalidio EIR was not used as a reference for either of the Negative Declarations (ER 51-00(mitigated Negative Declaration) dated 10 May 2000,for Froom Ranch annexation, or for ER 87-00(unmitigated Negative Declaration)dated 01 Jun 2000, for DeVaul Ranch South a annexation. (See exhibit G, LAFCO staff report for hearing of 21 Sep 2000, LAFCO File 8-R-00). Also,the named Dalidio EIR documents dated April 2000, Vol. I, Il.and Addenda and Errata were never certified by the City; instead,the City Council voted (13 Feb 2001)to reject the EIR as insufficient and inadequate. Therefore, the Dalidio EIR should not be included. 43. DeVaul Ranch North traffic study prepared by Feer and Pehrs Engineers. Petitioners' notes: CLARIFY: What is the date of this study? Is the same study contained in, or summarized in, the Final EIR for DeVaul Ranch North (1998)? Petitioners believe this document is not needed if it is already contained in, or summarized in, the Final EIR for DeVaul Ranch North (1998). 44. Final EIR for.the DeVaul Ranch North development certified by the San Luis Obispo City Council on December 15, 1998. Petitioners' note: ADD: The Mitigation Measures and Mitigation Monitoring plan(1998)for DeVaul Ranch North was contained in a document separate from the DeVaul Ranch North EIR. This separate document(the Mitigation Measures and Mitigation Monitoring Plan)was not referenced in either of the environmental reviews (ER 51-00 of 10 May 2000 for Froom Ranch annexation; ER 87-00 of 01 Jun 2000 for DeVaul Ranch South annexation) but, since the document was apparently part of the environmental review documentation for the DeVaul Ranch North Final EIR of 1998,the Mitigation Measures and Mitigation Monitoring plan (1998)should be included. Brian Christensen and Michae.Sullivan v.Local Agency Formation Commission of San Luis Obispo County, Case Number CV001083,San Luis Obispo County Superior Court Petitioners' request for items to be included in Administrative Record Updated: March 28,2001 18:05 Page 6 of 16 45. City of SLO City Council staff report of December 15, 1998 and attachments. Petitioners' notes: CLARIFY: What does this pertain to... DeVaul Ranch North EIR certification?? 46. City of SLO resolution certifying the EIR Petitioners' notes: CLARIFY: Which resolution? Date? Resolubon number? Subject-Which EIR? 47. City of SLO resolution recommending LAFCO proceedings. Petitioners' notes: CLARIFY: Date? Resolution number? 48. City of SLO ordinance prezoning site Petitioners' notes: CLARIFY: Which ordinance? Date? Which site? 49. City of SLO City Council staff report of Sep. 5, 2000 regarding tax exchange agreement. Petitioners' notes: DELETE. This document is not pertinent to any of the issues of the lawsuit and should be omitted from the record. - 50. Letter from LAFCO dated Aug. 23, 2000. Petitioners' notes: CLARIFY: From LAFCO to whom? Subject of letter? 51. LAFCO staff report. Petitioners' notes: CLARIFY AND/OR DELETE: Which staff report? Date of LAFCO hearing? There were two LAFCO staff reports, one for the hearing of 21 Sep 2000 and one for Brian Christensen's appeal heard on 16 Nov 2000, both part of LAFCO file 8-R-00. If the requested staff report of this item is the same as the one used by LAFCO for LAFCO's hearing of 21 Sep 2000 (File 8-R-00)then this item is redundant and should be excluded. 52. Dept of Agriculture letter dated Sep. 5, 2000 53. Letter to Mayor from Martin Tangeman dated May 8, 2000 54. Letter to Ron Whisenand(City of SLO, Community Development Dept.) from Martin Tangeman dated March 24, 2000 with attachments. Petitioners' notes: CLARIFY: What is summary or subject of letter contents? What do the attachments pertain to? 55. City of SLO Housing Element. Petitioners' notes: See comments above under item 31, General Plan Digest. 56. City of SLO Conservation Element. Petitioners' notes: See comments above under item 31, General Plan Digest. Brian Christensen and M,_ _.al C. Sullivan v. Local Agency Formation Com..__ ion of San Luis Obispo County, Case Number CV001083,San Luis Obispo County Superior Court Petitioners' request for items to be included in Administrative Record Updated: March 28,2001 18:05 . Page 7 of 16 Documents used for Froom Ranch (Source: City of SLO, files of Community Development Dept. for Froom Ranch Annexation) 1. Vicinity map 2. Environmental Initial Study checklist Petitioners' notes: CLARIFY Date of Initial Study? City's ER(environmental review)designation? (ER 51-00??) Subject?(Froom Ranch annexations Is this the same as the Initial Study of 10 May 2000 as shown in LAFCO staff report, Exhibit G, LAFCO hearing of 21 Sep 2000, LAFCO File 8-R-00, Annexation 62(Froom Ranch/DeVaul Ranch South annexation)? 3. Applicant acceptance of mitigation measures. 4. Application materials submitted by applicant. Petitioners' notes: a. CLARIFY: Applicant name? Date application received by city. Subject of application? (Froom Ranch annexation?) b. The application materials should include all documents that were or are in the application file. 5. Planning application comments from City Departments 6. Letters received from public. Petitioners' notes: "Letters received from public"should include, but are not limited to, the following: a. Letter (4 pages)dated 19 May 2000 from Michael Sullivan to Planning Commission for hearing of 24 May 2000(submitted to Planning Commission at the hearing) b. Letter(7 pages)dated 24 May 2000 from Michael Sullivan to Planning Commission for hearing of 24 May 2000(submitted to Planning Commission at the hearing) c. Letter(1 page)dated 29 May 2000 from Michael Sullivan to SLO City(Planning Commission, City Council, Director of Planning and Building, City Attorney) (received by City of SLO Commun. Devel. Dept. on 31 May 2000) concerning decision of decision of Planning Commission of 24 May 2000 for annexation of Froom Ranch. d. Letter dated 05 July 2000,from Gordon Hensley of Environmental Defense Center to City of SLO e. Letter dated July 5, 2000 from Richard Schmidt to City Council (received 05 July 2000 by Council) 7. City of SLO Planning Commission Staff Report of 24 May 2000 and attachments, for Froom Ranch annexation. Petitioners' notes: This should also include the letters from Michael Sullivan (see items 6a and 6b, above) or from any other persons. 8. City of SLO Planning Commission minutes of 24 May 2000 RE Froom Ranch annexation. 9. City of SLO Planning Commission resolution and letter to applicant. Brian Christensen and Michael Sullivan v. Local Agency Formation Commissi of San Luis Obispo County, Case Number CV001083,San Luis Obispo County Superior Court Petitioners' request for items to be included in Administrative Record Updated: March 28,2001 18:05 Page 8 of 16 10. City of SLO City Council Staff Report of June 5, 2000 and attachments. Petitioners' notes: The date specked above(June 5)of the Council hearing is in error; it should be July 5,2000. This was for City Council, 05 Jury 2000, agenda item 4, public hearing for Froom Ranch annexation, prezoning, minor . subdivision, and environmental review (ANNX/R/MS/ER'51-00). This item should also include any and all letters from the public, including but not limited those from Gordon Hensley and Richard Schmidt (items 6d and 6e, above). 11. City of SLO City Council meeting minutes of June 5, 2000 Petitioners' notes: The date specified above(June 5) of the Council hearing is in error; it should be July 5, 2000. This was for City Council, 05 July 2000, agenda item 4, public hearing for Froom Ranch annexation, prezoning, minor subdivision, and environmental review (ANNX/R/MS/ER 51-00). 12. City of SLO City Council Ordinance prezoning site. 13. City of SLO second reading of ordinance staff report and attachments 14. City of SLO City Council Resolution requesting LAFCO proceedings. 15. City of SLO City Council resolutions approving tax exchange. Petitioners' notes: DELETE. This document is not pertinent to any issues of the lawsuit and petitioners request that it be EXCLUDED from the record. 16. City of SLO City Council Resolution approving minor subdivision. 17. Legal ad for 20-day review period. Petitioners'notes: CLARIFY: Date? For which subject matter? 18. Legal ad for Planning Commission Public Hearing Notice Petitioners' notes: CLARIFY: For which planning commission hearing date and item? 19. Legal ad for City Council Public Hearing Notice Petitioners' notes: CLARIFY: For which City Council hearing date and item? 20. Airport Land Use Commission staff report Petitioners' notes: DELETE. This is redundant. This document(apparently for the Airport Land Use Commission hearing of 06/21/00)is the same item as mentioned under item 19 below for DeVaul Ranch South. We do not need two copies of the same document. 21. California Department of Fish and Game Environmental Filing Fee Cash Receipt 22. California Department of Fish and Game Certificate of Fee Exemption 23. Notification of Environmental Determination Petitioners' notes: CLARIFY: Was this for the City of SLO mitigated Negative Declaration ER 51-00 based on Initial Study of 10 May 2000, as seen in Exhibit G of staff report for LAFCO hearing of 21 Sep 2000, LAFCO File S-R-00, Annexation 62 (Froom Ranch/DeVaul Ranch South)? Brian Christensen and Mit.._•I C.Sullivan v. Local Agency Formation Coma.-_.,bn of San Luis Obispo County, Case Number CV001083,San Luis Obispo County Superior Court Petitioners'request for items to be included in Administrative Record Updated: March 28,2001 18:05 Page 9 of 16 24. Letter to Marty Tangeman dated January 11, 2000 Petitioners' notes: CLARIFY: Whom is the letter from? What is the subject matter of the letter? 25. Letter to Marty Tangeman dated March 15, 2000 Petitioners' notes: CLARIFY: Whom is the letter from? What is the subject matter of the letter? 26. Open Space easement exhibit Petitioners' notes: DELETE. This document is not pertinent to issues of Case CV001083. 27. U.S:Army Corps of Engineers,Nationwide Permit for Froom Ranch development 28. Board of Supervisors staff report and conditions for Eagle Hardware Petitioners' notes: CLARIFY: Date of document/date of hearing? 29. Letter from Martin Tangeman dated June 1,2000 with attachments Petitioners' notes: CLARIFY: To whom is the letter addressed? What is the subject matter of the letter? What is the description of the attachments? 30. Certificate of Compliance for Froom Ranch Petitioners' notes: DELETE. This document is not pertinent to issues of Case CV001083. Documents used for DeVaul Ranch South (Source: City of SLO, files of Community Development Dept., DeVaul Ranch South annexation) 1. Vicinity map 2. Environmental Initial Study checklist Petitioners' notes: CLARIFY: Is this the City of SLO Initial Study ER 87-00 of 01 Jun 2000 as seen in LAFCO staff report for LAFCO hearing of 21 Sep 2000, LAFCOFile8-R-00,Annexation 62 (Froom Ranch/DeVaul Ranch South)? There are two other Environmental Initial Study checidists in the file, one dated 16 Nov 2000 and one dated 31 Jan 2001. We believe these are drafts for the final Initial Study checidists of 30 Nov 2000 and 08 Feb 2001, respectively, and the drafts need not be included in the record. 3. Applicant acceptance of Negative Declaration. Petitioners' notes: CLARIFY: Is this the unmitigated Negative Declaration based on the Initial Study of 01 Jun 2000 as shown in the LAFCO staff report for LAFCO hearing of 21 Sep 2000, LAFCO File 8-R-00,Annexation 62(Froom Ranch/DeVaul Ranch South)? Brian Christensen and Michael.Sullivan v.Local Agency Formation Commission of San Luis Obispo County, Case Number CV001083,San Luis Obispo County Superior Court Petitioners'request for Items to be included in Administrative Record Updated: March 28,2001 18:05 Page 10 of 16 4. Application materials submitted by applicant for LAFCO hearing of 21 Sep 2000, LAFCO File 8-R-00, Annexation 62 (Froom Ranch/DeVaul Ranch South) Petitioners' notes: CLARIFY: There is one Planning Application signed 5/12100 by the applicant (R.J. Komorowski of Jet-Ski Land Development) and signed 5/16/00 by the land owner(Margaret DeVauQ. There is another Planning Application that is identical to the one above but has the additional receipt signature of Michael Codron (City of SLO planner) dated 5122/00 and a calculation of fees; this document is contained in City of SLO Community Development Dept file"ER 87-0011955 LOVR Jet Ski Land Dev" in the annexation file for DeVaul Ranch South. We want both of these documents included in the record. Applications materials should include al_I documents that were or are in the application file. 5. Planning application comments from City Departments 6. Letters received from the public Petitioners' notes: CLARIFY: The letters received from the public should include, but is no limited to, any and all letters received from Brian Christensen or Michael Sullivan. 7. City of SLO Planning Commission Staff Report of June 28, 2000 and Attachments. Petitioners' notes: This is agenda item 1, De Vaul Ranch South annexation, 11955 Los Osos Valley Road, ANNX, PD, and ER 87-00 B. City of SLO Planning Commission meeting minutes of June 28, 2000 Petitioners' notes: This is agenda item 1, De Vaul Ranch South annexation, 11955 Los Osos Valley Road, ANNX, PD, and ER 87-00 9. City of SLO Planning Commission resolution and letter to applicant Petitioners' notes: This document is dated 06/30/00. 10. City of SLO City Council staff report August 15, 2000 and Attachments Petitioners' notes: This is agenda Rem 2, DeVaul Ranch South annexation: Consideration of a request to annex and prezone 13.6 acres and environmental review at 11955 Los Osos Valley Road(ANNX/R/ER 87-00) The city council hearing on this matter(DeVaul Ranch South annexation) was continued to 05 Sep 2000 for the°second reading"of the orc inancel373(2000 series) approving prezoning of DeVaul Ranch South to Conservation/Open Space(C/OS)and approving the(unmitigated) Negative Declaration (ER 87-00). 11. City of SLO Council meeting minutes of August 15, 2000 Petitioners' notes: This was agenda item 2, DeVaul Ranch South Annexation: Consideration of a request to annex and prezone 13.6 acres and environmental review at 11955 Los Osos Valley Road(ANNX/R/ER 87-00) 12. City of SLO City Council Ordinance prezoning site and approving Negative Declaration. Petitioners' notes: This was Ordinance 1373(introduced 15 Aug 2000) prezoning the DeVaul Ranch South annexation area to Conservation /Open Space (C/OS) as interim zoning and approving the(unmitigated) Negative Declaration of environmental impact(ER 87-00). The second reading of the ordinance was on 05 Sep 2000. 13. City of SLO second reading of ordinance staff report of September 5, 2000 and attachments . II� Brian Christensen and M. ,61 C.Sullivan v.Local Agency Formation Cori,. _,Sion of San Luis Obispo County, Case Number CV001 083,San Luis Obispo County Superior Court Petitioners' request for Items to be included in'Administrative Record Updated: March 28,2001 18:05 Page 11 of 16 14. City of SLO City Council Resolution requesting LAFCO proceedings Petitioners' notes: This is resolution.9089 dated 15 Aug 2000. 15. City of SLO City Council resolutions approving tax exchange. Petitioners' notes: DELETE. This document is not pertinent to any, issues of Case CV001083 and should be EXCLUDED from the record. 16. Legal ad for 20-day review period Petitioners' notes: CLARIFY: Date? For which subject matter? 17. Legal ad for Planning Commission Public Hearing Notice Petitioners' notes: CLARIFY: For Planning Commission hearing on which date? For which subjecx matter? 18. Legal ad for City Council Public Hearing Notice Petitioners' notes: CLARIFY: For Council hearing on which date? For which subject matter? 19. Airport Land Use Commission staff report Petitioners' notes: This document was already included above. See notes for Item 20, above, under "Documents used for Froom Ranch." (This same document is listed twice, here, and in item 20, above.) 20. California Department of Fish and Game Environmental Fling Fee Cash Receipt 21. Califomia Department of Fish and Game Certificate of Fee Exemption 22. Notification of Environmental Determination Petitioners' notes: CLARIFY: Is this for the unmitigated Negative Declaration for annexation of DeVaul Ranch South,based on the Initial Study ER 87-00 of 01 Jun 2000 as seen in the LAFCO staff report for LAFCO hearing of 21 Sep 2000, LAFCO File 8-R-00,Annexation 62(Froom Ranch/DeVaul Ranch South)? 23. Letter to Jet Ski Land Development, ER 87-00,June 7, 2000 Petitioners' notes: CLARIFY: What is the subject:matter of the letter? 24. Letter dated March 25, 1999 to Margaret DeVaul regarding open space agreement Petitioners' notes: DELETE. This document is not pertinent to any legal issues of Case CV001083. Brian Christensen and Michael C.Sullivan v.Local Agency Formation Commission of San Luis Obispo County, Case Nurnber CV 001083,San Luis Obispo County Superior Court Petitioners'request for items to he included in Administrative Record Updated: March 28, 2001 18:13 Page 12 of 16 Tape recordings for transcripts List of tape recordings stipulated in letter of 26 Mar 2001 from Gil Trujillo / Jeff Jorgensen, City of SLO, to Ray Biering, Deputy County Council: 1. 5 tapes of the 12/15/98 City Council meeting Petitioners' notes: CLARIFY: What agenda item and topic is this? Why is it pertinent? 2. 1 tape of the 1/5199 City Council meeting Petitioners' notes: CLARIFY:-What agenda item and topic is this? Why is it pertinent? 3. 4 tapes of the 5-24-00 Planning Commission meeting Petitioners' notes: This is agenda item 2, Froom Randa, 12395 Los Osos Valley Road, ANNX/R/MS and ER 51-00(Froom Randa annexation and prezoning to Retail Commercial(C-R); minor subdivision to create 4 parcels; environmental review) 4. 2 tapes of the 6128/00 Planning Commission meeting Petitioners' notes: This is for agenda item 1, DeVaul Ranch South, 11955 Los Osos Valley Road, ANNX, PD, and ER 87-00 5. 4 tapes of the 8/15/00 City Council meeting Petitioners' notes: This is for agenda item 2, DeVaul Ranch South annexation. (Prezoning to Conservation/Open Space (C/OS); environmental review ER 87-00) 6. 1 (?) tape of the 9/5/00 City Council meeting Petitioners' notes: DELETE. This is agenda item C-2, DeVaul Ranch South prezoning, second reading of ordinance 1373(2000 series), continued from Council hearing of 15 Aug 2000. According to letter of 26 Mar 2001 from Gil Tnapllo/ Jeff Jorgensen,City of SLO, to Ray Biering, Deputy County Counsel, `the City Clerk informs me that she did not copy the 9.5-00 City Council meeting since it contained a very brief discussion of the tax exchange issue., The City will arrange to copy the 9-5-00 tape upon request of the Petitioners." That being the case, Petitioners do not need the tape of 915100 for transcription, and agree that a transcript of that item is not required for the admin. record. ADD: Petitioners also require tape recordings (for transcripts) for the following public hearings: 7. City of SLO City Council hearing of 05 July 2000 for Froom Ranch annexation -Agenda item 4, Froom Ranch annexation, prezoning, and subdivision (ANNX/RIMS/ER 51-00), 12395 Los,Osos Valley Road LA FCO hearinos 8. LAFCO hearing of 21 Sep 2000, LAFCO File 8-R-00, Annexation 62 (Froom Ranch/ DeVaul Ranch South) 9. LAFCO hearing of 16 Nov 2000, Request for Reconsideration filed by Brian Christensen regarding LA FCO approval of Annexation 62(Froom Ranch/ DeVaul Randa South) on 21 Sep 2000. Brian Christensen and C.Sullivan v.Local Agency Formation Corrr�,ion of San Luis Obispo County, Ca___A umber CV 001083,San Luis Obispo County S,.,_..lor Court Petitioners'request for items to be included in Administrative Record Updated: March 28, 2001 18:13 Page 13 of 16 Additional Documents which Petitioners wish to include in the Administrative Record Documents related to Froom Ranch Annexation - Files of City of SLO Community Development Dept 1. Letter dated 4/17/00 (received 4/18100 by SLO city) from Michael Sullivan RE: Dalidio annexation 2. Letter dated 4118100 (received 4/18100 by SLO city)from Michael Sullivan RE: Home Depot S. Letter dated 5/24/00 from Michael Sullivan to SLO City Planning Commission (for hearing of 5124100) 4. Letter dated 5/29/00(received by City 5/31/00) RE decision of Planning Commission on 5124/00 5. Letter dated 715100 from Richard Schmidt to City of SLO RE open space dedication etc,received by City 7/5100 6. Letter from Richard Schmidt to City of SLO RE Froom Ranch annexation, received by City 7/5100 7. Letter dated 7/5100 from Environmental Defense Center(Gordon Hensley)received by City 7/5/00 8. Letter dated 5/24100 from William Bird RE Froom Ranch, received by City 715/00 9. Letter dated 7/5100 from Orval Osbome(Planning Commissioner) RE Froom Ranch, received 7/5100 10. Letter dated 11/15100 from Michael Sullivan to LAFCO 11. Letter dated 5119100 from Michael Sullivan to SLO City Planning Commission RE Froom Ranch 12. Letter dated 5/24100 from Environmental Defense Center(Gordon Hensley)to SLO City,received by City 5/24/00 13. Letter dated 1/10/2001 from Jerry Kenny (SLO)to Richard Marshall(SLO County)RE LOVR road improvements 14. Notice of LA FCO RE meeting dated 8/23/00 from Paul Hood, executive director, LA FCO for LA FCO hearing of 9/21/00, Annexation 62 15. Minutes from SLO County Board of Supervisors Amended 1118/99 p. 5 16. Memo from Arnold Jonas to J.D.dated 3/2/00 RE Froom Ranch(what do the initials stand for?) 17. Planning application (applicant: Dennis Schmitt) signed received by Ron W hisenand, City of SLO on 2/22100 18. Application# R-51-00 and attachments thereto 19. Letter dated 3/27/00 from Ron Whisenand to Martin Tangeman RE Froom Ranch Annexation 20. Planing application dated 3129/00 with receipt Brian Christensen and Michael C.Sullivan v.Local Agency Formation Commission of San Luis Obispo County, Case N umber CV 001083,San Luis Obispo County Superior Court Petitioners'request for items to be included in Administrative Record Updated: March 28, 2001 18:13 Page 14 of 16 21. Planning application dated 3/15100 with notes regarding Chapter 17 and'16 of City of SLO Zoning Ordinance 22. Prelintnary Development Plan Map dated 3121/00 Sheet 1 of 1 23. Memo From Dan Gilman to Ron Whisenand RE Utilities,dated 11/23/99 24. Planning application letter dated 7121/00 from Martin Tangeman to Peggy Mandeville RE application of 7119/00 25. Staff notes 8x11 yellow 2 pages Froom Ranch Hand written notes of public comments 26. Agenda notes 5/24/00 2 pages 8 112 x 14 Annex 51-00 27. Planning application dated 3115/00(4 pages) with utilities services connection to Froom Ranch annexation site 28. Memo from Ron Whisenand dated 3130100 RE Development Review Committee meeting on 4120/00 29. Memo of 3/20/00 from Darren Drake to Peggy Mandeville,City of SLO, RE Fre Requirements for 11955 Los Osos Valley Road 30. Letter from Martin Tangeman to Peggy Mandeville dated June 1, 2000 RE Annex. 51-00 31. Letter of 5/8/00 from Martin Tangeman to Mayor Allen Settle RE Auto Dealerships at Froom Ranch Documents related to DeVaul Ranch South annexation - Files of City of SLO Community Development Department 1: Community Development Dept. Project Review. 11955 LOUR. Parcel 067-231-003. Date printed: 05/26/00. Application no. 87-00 2. Community Development Dept. Project Review. 11955 LOV R Parcel 067-231-003. Date printed: 02/25/00 3. Plan for Services for Froom Ranch/ DeVaul Ranch South annexation. July 2000. (Already listed above?) Petitioners' Nates: If this is the same as the Plan for Services shown in LA FCO staff report for hearing of 21 Sep 2000, LA FCO File 8-R-00 then it is redundant and can be deleted. 4. City of SLO Planning Commission minutes for Planning Commission hearing of 14 June 2000, Item 2, 11955 Los Osos Valley Rd, ANNX, PD, and ER 87-00 (for DeVaul Ranch South annexation) Petitioners' notes: This item was continued (postponed) until June 28, 2000, so these minutes are probably not needed. We agree to delete them if defendants also agree. 5. All papers in City of SLO Community Development Dept File"ER 87-00 11955 LOVR Jet Slot Land Dev" " in Files for DeVaul Ranch South annexation, i.e. A._Label list(1 page) B. Map- parcel 067-231-003 C. Planning application (typed). Applicant: Jet Sid Land Development# 3 LLC/R.J. Komorowski; showing fees of$11,881 D. Planning application (form)dated received 05/22!00 signed by Michael Codron (City of SLO, Commun. Brian Christensen and Pi__..el C.Sullivan v.Local Agency Formation Corr--sion of San Luis Obispo County, Case Number CV 001083,San Luis Obispo County Superior Cowl Petitioners'request for items to be included in Administrative Record Updated: March 28, 2001 18:13 Page 15 of 16 Devel. Dept planner) with calculation of fees . E. Irish Hills South (Laguna West) planning application(1 page)- Requests for PD rezone and not open space status. F. Fast American title Co= Legal Description of property (DeVaul Ranch South) . G. Initial Study of Environmental Impact(1 page) undated H. Irish Hills South(Laguna West) Initial Study of Environmental Impact (typed) I. Initial planning application materials: ' (1) Planning application signed by applicant 5/12/00, signed by landowner(M. DeVaul) 5/16/00. (A later version of this,showing calculation of fees, was signed received by Michael Codron on 5122100; this should be included.) (2) First American Title Co.-property description(undated) (3) Parcel map-vicinity of Madonna Rd/LOV R(undated) 6. Exhibits accompanying application for annexation of DeVaul Ranch South (1) Exhibit D sketch-road improvement plan,drainage easement-LOVR, 11 Jan 1999 (2 pages) (2) Exhibit C sketch-offer of dedication on LOVR(plan drawing)11 Jan 1999(2 pages) (3) Exhibit B- parcel map and legal description(2 pages) (4) Exhibit A - Legal description of property (5) Faxed letter to Peggy Mandeville 05111/00 From Lynda K Hansen of Seed, Madcall and Cole LLP, Counselors at Law, 1332 Anacapa St.;Suite 200, Santa Barbara 93101 to Charles Eclkberg, Investec Real Estate Companies, 200 E. Carillo St., Suite 200; Santa Barbara, CA 93101 RE: Agreement between the. DeVaul Ranch, LLC and the Margaret DeVaul Trusts and attached agreement(5 pages)dated 25 Mar 1999 7. Letter of 23 Oct 2000 from R.J. Komorowsld,Jet Ski Land Devel. #3 LLC to Peggy Mandeville, City of SLO RE Request for change in water allocation 8. Letter of 01 June 2000 to Mrs. Margaret DeVaul from R. Komorowski RE agreement to proceed with annexation 9. Copy of Planning Application signed by Michael Codron(City of SLO Comrrvm. Devel. Dept) 05/22/00 10. Department of Community Development Planning Application, 11955 LOVR, parcel 067-231-003, received by Michael Codron (City of SLO)on 05/2 /00; contains hand-written notes at bottom. Documents submitted by City of SLO to County Clerk, County of San Luis Obispo 1. Notice of Determination, DeVaul Ranch South Annexation and Prezone, ER 87-00 (unmitigated negative declaration), filed with county clerk 14 Sep 2000 2. Calif. Dept of Fish and Game Certificate of Fee Exemption(De Minims Impact Finding) for DeVaul Ranch South Annexation and Prezone,dated 13 Sep 2000 and filed with county clerk on or about 14 Sep 2000 3. Notice of Determination, Froom Ranch Annexation, ER 51-00 (mitigated negative declaration), filed with county clerk 19 July 2000 4. Calif. Dept of Fish and Game Certificate of Fee Exemption (De Minims Impact Finding)for Froom Ranch annexation,dated 18 July 2000 2000 and filed with county clerk on or about 19 July 2000 Brian Christensen and M el C.Sullivan v..Local Agency Formation Com.- _sion of San Luis Obispo County, Case Number CV001083,San Luis Obispo County Superior Court Petitioners'request for items to be included in Administrative Record Updated: March 28,2001 18:13 Page 16 of 16 Documents submitted to SLO City Community Development Dept for Costco commercial development application at Froom Ranch, and related documents 1. Application(dated 09 Nov 2000; signed by applicant Alex Madonna)to City of SLO (received by City on or about 13 Nov 2000)for Costco commercial project at Froom Ranch, including application form, and information submitted by applicant(project description,traffic info., etc.). Contained in City of SLO File U-1 73-00 12395 LOV R 2. Planning application(dated 09 Nov 2000; signed by applicant Alex Madonna),signed received 13 Nov 2000 by Pam Rica,City of SLO Community Devel. Dept, with list of fees paid. File U 173-00, ARC 173-00, ER 173-00. Application submitted to City on 13 Nov 2000 also included a 23-page document containing information related to(a) Sde location and physical setting, (b) project details, (c) operations description, (d) Traffic information from Krrdey-Hom and Associates(review of existing studies; interviews with city and county staff; existing traffic conditions at highway 101 and Los Osos Valley Road; preliminary site trip generation; traffic analysis and potential mitigation options; conclusions and recommendations; appendix (e pages of traffic data)). 3. These item in City of SLO File ER 173-00 A. Initial traffic investigation report, Oct. 10, 2000 for Costco Wholesale, prepared by Kirdey-Hom and Associates B. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment- Portion of Froom Ranch-12395 Los Osos Valley Road,SLO, CA, by Ideinfelder. Oct 12,2000. With supplemental archaeology survey forMadorma/Eagle Hardware C. Geotechnical nvestigatiop. Costco Wholesale store and gasoline fueling facility. 12395 Los Osos Valley Road, SLO, CA. Project No. 00-008A. Ideinfelder project no. 21-0057-6x.001. By Ideitfelder. Oct 12, 2000. 4. Article in San Luis Obispo Tribune, dated 14 Nov 2000, related to new Costco project at Froom.Randh (Will be furnished by petitioners.) Referred to in hearing of 16 Nov 2000 for LAFCO, Request for Reconsideration of approval of Annexation 62 (LA FCO File 8-R-00)submitted by Brian Christensen LAFCO Documents (Local Agency Formation Commission of SLO County) 1. All documents in LA FCO Fite 8-R-00 for Annexation 62(Froom Ranch/DeVaul Ranch South) 2. LAFCO's"General Standards for the Evaluation of Proposals for the Formation of Municipalities and Special Districts and Annexations" Dated 11/1997, 5 pages total (A separate document, not contained in LA FCO File 8-R-00; available from LA FCO as a general informational document for the public,relating to usual LAFCO procedures for annexations.) - END OF LIST - Please respond as soon a& possible so we may expedite the preparation of the administrati record. 4 � i�,.i I +�_ �1r Dated: ak L Brian Christensen 818 Pismo St.t.,�San Luis Obispo,CSA 933440011 805-542-9385 Dated: Michael C. Sullivan 1127 Seaward St., San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 805-545-9614 al vIG/L h._-=TING AGENDA RECEIVED _ G� Cho DATE .3-01 ITEM#® MAR 2 6 2001 SLO CITY COUNCIL From Brian Christensen and Michael Sullivan to City of SLO- Mar 26,2001 08:56 Page 1 of 3 From: Brian Christensen, 818 Pismo St., San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 805-542-9385; Michael Sullivan, 1127 Seaward St., San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 805-545-9614 mcsgday@earthlink.net To: City Council of City of San Luis Obispo; Ken Hampian, Chief Administrative Officer; Jeff Jorgensen, City Attorney RE: City of San Luis Obispo. City Council hearing of April 3, 2001 (Continuation of hearing of Feb. 20, 2001). DeVaul Ranch South ro'ec (tentative tract map, rezoning from conservation/open space to planned development residential, environmental review, etc.) Members of Council, Mr. Hampian, Mr. Jorgensen Enclosed is a copy of an email message from Mr. Jeff Jorgensen to me. I submit this copy at the request of Mr. Jorgensen. Mr. Jorgensen's message is a reply to a message from me concerning a request to have the Council reopen the public hearing on the DeVaul Ranch South matter on April 3, 2001. In the attached copy of the email, you can see that my original message of 2/22/01 asks Mr. Jorgensen if there were any way available so that we (Brian Christensen and 1) could present testimony that would be placed in the administrative record. Mr. Jorgensen's reply of 2/23101 states, 'The Brown Act allows you to comment on the item at the time it is considered, although your comments will not be formal public testimony unless the Council reopens the public hearing." I In response to Mr. Jorgensen's reply of 2/23, we wrote the City Council on 3/16/01, requesting that the Council reopen the hearing on April 3, 2001. We stated that we thought it would not be fair if the hearing on April 3 were f closed to public comment, in light of the fact that the Council would have additional, new information available on April 3. Our request was a simple, straightforward one: We wanted the opportunity to provide written and spoken comments that would be included in the administrative record. This request was again summarized on page 4 (bottom paragraph) of our letter of 3/16/01. I present this information to you to clarify an apparent misunderstanding of Mr. Jorgensen. Mr. Jorgensen telephoned me on 3/22/01 in an angry mood. i He stated that he thought our letter of 3/16/01 had distorted his words in his email reply of 2123. I From Brian Christensen and Mel Sullivan to City of SLO- Mar 26,2001 08i Page 2 of 3 1 believe it is clear that our concern was that we wouldn't be allowed to present further testimony to be included in the administrative record. Our letter of 3/16 stated, "My understanding from Mr. Jorgensen's reply is that the continuation hearing will be closed to any further comment (written or spoken). I believe that position is unfair and is also inconsistent with the government code, which allows the public to address the item if the item has been substantially changed since the council heard the item. (Government Code 54954.3) The legislative body (council) has the authority to decide whether the item has been "substantially changed." (Govt. Code 54954.3)" In Mr. Jorgensen's telephone conversation with me (3/22), he stated that I should apologize for distorting his words and meaning. I think no apology is required. This seems to be a case of "much ado about nothing." His email reply had stated that "your comments will not be formal public testimony unless the Council reopens the public hearing." Our response to that information was that we requested that the public hearing be reopened so that formal public testimony could be given. Our request was a logical response to the information provided by Mr. Jorgensen. Mr. Jorgensen's claim that we distorted his words seems clearly unfounded. It seems that Mr. Jorgensen owes us an apology. Mr. Jorgensen also stated in his telephone conversation with me on 3/22 that in his opinion, the Council need not reopen the hearing on April 3 because, he claims, the extra information that will be presented to Council is nothing more than a "clarification." We must disagree. The Council asked for further information from staff so that they (Council) might make a better-informed environmental analysis to determine whether an EIR might be needed, rather than a Negative Declaration. Perhaps it is important to note that under the law, "if a lead agency is presented with a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall prepare an EIR even though it may also be presented with other substantial evidence that the project will not have a significant effect." (The Fair Argument Test) (CEQA Guidelines 15064(f)). A so-called "mitigated Negative Declaration" is appropriate only if there is "no substantial evidence in light of the whole record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment" and when proposed mitigation measures would avoid or mitigate the effects "to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur." (CEQA Guidelines 15070(b)) We believe that the "fair argument" from facts we and others have presented clearly shows the need for an EIR. In addition, it is evident that some of the proposed mitigation From Brian Christensen and M1 gel Sullivan to City of SLO- Mar26,2001 08'3 Page 3 of 3 measures would not be sufficient to reduce certain environmental effects to levels that are °clearly" insignificant. The city staff were to bring additional information related to traffic, water sufficiency, parking, street-front design, emergency access, the fate of palm trees along Los Osos Valley Road, etc. In addition, the applicant will also present additional information (e.g. on water and wastewater capacities, etc.) at the April 3 hearing. This additional information is substantitive, and is more than just "clarification." The additional information, taken with the earlier information, can have a significant influence on the decision whether to prepare an EIR or Negative Declaration. The Council has the option of reopening the hearing under Govt. Code 54954.3 (Opportunity for public to address legislative body.) The public, just as well as the Council, has a right to address this new information through public comment in an open hearing. To deny such public testimony seems not only unfair, it is also inconsistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). As the law states, "Public participation is an essential part of the CEQA process. Each public agency should include provisions in its CEQA procedures for wide public involvement, formal and informal, consistent with its existing activities and procedures, in order to receive and evaluate public reactions to environmental issues related to the agency's activities." (CEQA Guidelines 15201). In addition, the public agency must not only accept public comments; under CEQA "an agency must solicit and respond to comments from the public and from other agencies concerned with the project." (CEQA Guidelines 15002(j)) (emphasis added) In Concerned Citizens of Costa Mesa. Inc. v. 32nd District Agricultural Assoc. (1986) 42 Cal 3d 929, the court emphasized that the public holds a "privileged position" in the CEQA process "based on a belief that citizens can make important contributions to environmental protection and on notions of democratic decision making." Respectfully, Brian Christensen Michael Sullivan 818 Pismo Street 1127 Seaward Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 805-542-9385 805-545-9614 �TING AGENDA �E=ITEM #� Richard J. Komorowsld Land Development 484 Mobil Avenue,Suite 19 Camarillo, CA 93010 Tel: (805)383-3377 Fax: (805)987-5068 CIL CDD DIR March 26, 2001 RtAO ❑ FIN DIP ❑ A ❑ FIRE CHIEF Mayor Allen Settle ,^ ANEY ❑ PW DIP 2-tLERKORIG ❑ POLICE CHF City of San Luis Obispo ❑ p£PT HEADS ❑ REC DIP 990 Palm Street . P UTIL DIP San Luis Obispo, CA 93.401 -+ � etze�fi�_ _9 HR DIP r•i5u n e, Re: DeVaul Ranch South Dear Mayor Settle, Since last February, our project planner and the staff of every agency or commission responsible for project review has commented on, made input to and/or approved the - development plan for this project. They include: the Community Development Department,Engineering, Public Works, Traffic, Airport Land Use,Environmental Health, Growth Management, ARC, and Planning Commission. Additionally, outside consultants for environmental studies, biological impacts and traffic analysis have reviewed the project, its impacts and the findings of the various staffs, departments, E.I.R's and commissions. Their reviews of all findings and of all studies and staff reports have concluded that the project is consistent with the intent of the General Plans of the City and County, all City policy for the development of the Irish Hills Expansion Area and that a Mitigated Negative Declaration is the appropriate environmental determination for the project. To date, we have complied with every rule, policy, and guideline for the development of the project. We have incorporated specific design changes as recommended by Staff, ARC, and Planning Commission. We have addressed every honest and objective concern that has been raised regarding the project. We are proud of the work we have done. We appreciate the input and direction we received. We will now stand on that work, the recommendations of staff and the findings of our consultants, as presented in the additional information you requested. The primary purpose of this letter is to address an on-going and bothersome situation. In three very long and complex letters, Messrs. Sullivan and Christensen have raised objections to the project. Without specific, substantive and applicable information to back up their claims or with nothing to rebut staff, consultant, ARC, Planning Commission, and City Council findings, they simply make arbitrary and negative statements. We have distilled their objections into eight points. RECEIVED : MAR 2 6 2001 SLO CITY COUNCIL .. I As taken from their letters, they have said: 1. Staff assumptions regarding traffic are false. [The analysis of 3 EIR's and a current review of those findings based on actual projects and current numbers confirm those findings and conclude there is sufficient LOS capacity to approve the project.] 2. Mitigation Measures and Mitigation Monitoring is inadequate. [ 9 categories of impact were analyzed in the E.I.R. for the DeVaul North PD. 16 areas of impact were reviewed for DeVaul South PD by the same consultant who concluded that the impacts can be readily mitigated and the monitoring program required for DeVaul North is adequate and appropriate for the existing conditions on DeVaul South.] 3. City procedures are inconsistent with CEQA. [The City Attorney and a land use attorney we consulted disagree.] 4. Planning Commission and Council review of the annexation is invalid. [ The annexation process was completed in accordance with the Land Use Element of the General Plan. LAFCO concurred initially and affirmed their decision in a reconsideration hearing.] 5. The project is inconsistent with the City and County General Plan. [The project provides exactly the kind of development called for, Le. a balance of mixed used residential housing.] 6. Revisions to the initial study require recirculation. [ Staff the City Attorney and our environmental consultant disagree.] 7. Staffs environmental determination is wrong. [ Stam the City Attorney and our environmental consultant disagree.] 8. Six impacts that result from the project are Class I and cannot be mitigated. They include traffic, agricultural land conversion, noise, water/wastewater, aesthetics(view), and biological(tar plant). [These points are addressed in the staff report which also includes the findings of the environmental consultants, who addressed the adequacy of all services, the level of all impacts and the mitigation of those impacts.] The essence of our concern with Messrs. Sullivan and Christensen is that most of their statements are arbitrary. They are unfairly critical of staff findings and of consultant reports. You may recall that at the annual Growth Management Review,they said that staff assumptions regarding allocations were incorrect and they said so without reason. It is one thing to justifiably question procedure and be constructive; it is another to be arbitrarily critical and to deny facts. Accordingly we respectfully request that if it is appropriate to the format of next week's hearing, we be given the opportunity to rebut any new public comments. We will be prepared to present a power point summary. In addition to our design team, the traffic and environmental consultants will be present However, we will tailor our presentation to your needs and the constraints of the agenda.We are available to meet with you before the meeting or to respond to any questions you may have by fax, phone or e-mail. Thank you. Yours truly, R.J. Komorowski Jet-Ski Land Development# 39 LLC Managing Member cc: JeffJorgensen Ron Whisenand MEETING AGENDA P Y DATE /tel ITEM # March 30, 2001 3-BeMCIL 2-1515D DIR &-e*0 ❑ FIN DIR Honorable Allen Settle, Mayor EHkm C1 FIRE CHIEF City of San Luis Obispo 13-Ar"O13NEY ED PW DIR O-2tEKORIG ❑ POLICE CHF City Hall ❑ OE DS 13REC DIR San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 �' ❑ UTIL DIR ❑ HR DIR Dear Mayor Settle: 60A44--�� p p-wl)t�� I'm taking this opportunity to provide our thoughts, and support, for the Devaul Ranch South Project. I understand the Council will be taking this issue up during the April 3`d City Council meeting. Unfortunately, I must be in Northern California during much of that week; otherwise I would have welcomed the chance to share my thinking in person with you and the Council. It becomes more evident every day, regardless of what a person does for a living in this community, that a vast array of activities we all do has a direct relationship with the availability and affordability of housing in San Luis Obispo County, and most specifically in the City of San Luis Obispo. This project is extremely important and should be approved. By no means will it satisfy all needs but it is a crucial step in the right direction. Leadership is sorely needed on this issue, and you and the Council have that opportunity on Tuesday evening. In our work, we are assisting people in finding gainful employment...whether they have limited skills or if they are very skilled and lost employment due to reduction in size, or closure of a facility. We also work closely with employers and they have the same challenges that I have, as a local employer: to work here, you must be financially independent or commute every day from a location where housing is more affordable. I read yesterday that during the past 12 months, for every six jobs created in California, only one new home is built. I wish we had companion data for the county, and especially this city, which is still host to nearly 50-percent of all the jobs in the county. No wonder the daytime population of this city more than doubles, not to say what this is doing to air quality. This community needs to house workers and their families, and we support this project. We were pleased to see earlier support expressed by the city's Planning Commission. Thank you, and please let me know if I might be able to assist in other ways. Sincerely, Sin RECEIVED �-2 s MAR 3 0 2001 Lee Ferrero SLO CITY COUNCIL President & Chief Executive Officer 4111 Broad Street ■ Suite A HILL bebi' LPOHArS Cafrfomia ■ 93401 ■ (805)788-2600 ■ Fax(805)541-4117 RECEIVED THIS DOCUMENT Copies of the 3/30/01 Letter to Mayor Settle (re: Devaul Project) were provided to: Councilmembers: Ewan Marx Schwartz Mulholland City Administrative Officer: Ken Hampian tett t�aooumsrn tar AAIn 0rA0 nwst>tQ Richard J. Komorowsld Land Development 484 Mobil Avenue, Suite 19 Camarillo,CA 93010 Tel:(805) 383-3377 Fax:(805)987-5068 FULL COUNCIL HAS RECEIVED THIS DOCUMENT March 22, 2001 R�PCUNCIL I CDD DIR O ❑ FIN DIR Vice Mayor John Ewan PC �AO ❑ FIRE CHIEF City of San Luis Obispo TTOPINEY El DIR 990 Palm Street LERK/0RIG ❑ POLICE CHF REC DIR San Luis Obispo, CA 930401 p� T -e"4_A S [3 UTIL DIR �+ HR DIR Re: Approval of DeVaul Ranch South Dear Vice Mayor Ewan, The purpose of the letter is to address all of the questions that have been raised in reviewing our proposal for the development of DeVaul Ranch South and to identify key factors supporting approval of the project. In continuing the 2/20 hearing, Council directed Staff to provide additional information on 8 items: 1. Cumulative Traffic Analysis 2. Project Water Usage 3. L.O.V.R. Landscape Treatments 4. L.O.V.R. Cross-Section 5. Elevation ofL.O.V.R. Frontage 6. Pedestrian Connections to Adjacent Properties 7. Setbacks from Froom Ranch 8 Potential for Emergency Access to Froom Ranch As regards traffic, we confirmed with Fear&Peers that their original study for the build out of DeVaul Ranch included both the North and South projects at 500 units as projected in the General Plan. The actual total for both projects is 399. The current Associated Transportation Engineers review of the impact of approved and projected projects on Level of Service on L.O.V:& concludes that there is potential for additional construction after all of DeVaul Ranch is built out before the overpass reaches its capacity. In considering water, Staff review of building out all of DeVaul Ranch concluded that the actual combined usage for North and South is just less than what was originally projected for North alone and capacity is available for South to build out now. There is also sufficient waste water capacity. In order to address items 3 through 8, we prepared a booklet of detailed attachments which is included in your information package. =RECEEIVED Staff also identified 8 items for clarification: 1. Adequacy of Environmental Documents 2. Conversion of Agricultural Land 3. Secondary Dwelling Units 4. Adequacy of R-3 Parking 5. Palm Tree Relocation 6. Congdon Tar Plant 7. Mitigation Monitoring 8. Growth Management These items have been addressed in the Staff Report and where appropriate, back up has been included in your information package. Additionally, we have provided you with our PD Justification Statement. It was a required element for submitting the PD application. We trust this information satisfactorily answers all the points raised at the last meeting. We believe approval of the project is justified and respectfully ask for your vote. In completing the Development Plan for this project, we followed the General Plan Guidelines and all City Policy for development. We have relied on Staffis advice and direction,the reports of the Environmental and Traffic Consultants and on the skill and commitment of our Development Team. Lastly we have taken your input and responded accordingly. Please consider the fo to 'ng points s =port for an affirmative vote. 1. The Development is consistent with the General Plan. 2. It enables the immediate buildout of the residential component of the Irish Hills Expansion Area. Such buildout is a goal of the General Plan. 3. The project does not push the overpass to capacity. 4. It provides a mix of affordable and market rate housing types which is consistent with the Land use Element and the I%residential growth goal. 5. The environmental determination of a Mitigated Negative Declaration is the appropriate finding for the project. An E.I.R. is not necessary. There will be a Mitigation Monitoring Program, as was required for DeVaul North. 6. The PD proposal provides two more affordable units that would not be available with conventional development. 7. Water usage has been verified and there is sufficient water available for the project and also sufficient waste water capacity. If you have any reasons not to support the Project,please give us the opportunity to address them with you. We will reply in person, by fax, phone or e-mail. Thank you. 0 R. J. omorowski Jet-Ski Land Development#3, LLC Managing Partner mailbox:/Hard%20 Disk%201998100 He:DeVaul Ranch South Sy9tem%20Fo1der°k20971115a/Pref as! Subject: Re: DeVaul Ranch South Date: Fri, 23 Feb 200108:43:28 -0800 From: "Jeff Jorgensen" <JJORGENSeci.san-Iuis-obispo.ca us> To: <mcsgdayCd_�earthlink.net> The Brown Act allows you to comment on the item at the time it is considered, although your comments will not be formal public testimony unless the Council reopens the public hearing. >>> Michael Sullivan <mcsgdayoearthlink.net> 02/22/01 06:07PM >>> 2/22/01 To: Jeff Jorgensen, City Attorney, City of San Luis Obispo, CA From: Michael Sullivan 1127 Seaward St., SLO CA 93405 mcsgday@earthlink.net 805-645-9614 Jeff. . . Regarding the proposed continued Council hearing for DeVaul Ranch South (Tentative tract map, rezoning, environmental review, etc.) ( continued from 2/20/01) . . . Please let me know if there will be further opportunity for public testimony on the DeVaul Ranch South matter at the next Council hearing on the matter. If public testimony is not going to be permitted at the next Council hearing on the matter, what other ways are available for presenting information to the council so that the information is placed in the administrative record? Which of the following ways would achieve that purpose? A. written or e-mail communication with entire council prior to next hearing; B. written and/or spoken testimony for Council at a "general comment" (non-agenda) period during a regular Council meeting; C. Other? Thank you for a prompt response (written, or by telephone, or by or email.) Michael Sullivan B. ,larch 22, 2001 Page: 1 mailbox:/Hard%20Disk%20199810911 System%20Fo1de x%209711 15a/Pretere nces/