SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL - Laserfiche WebLink

This photo is from the Staff report, the red line is Staff's belief of the original slope. I have added the two grey lines showing the actual area which has been disturbed by previous grading. It is a very small section of the overall area which exceeds 25%. What completely debunks this idea of the entire area being graded for the creation of the barn is the olive tree grove and the large oak trees present in the area exceeding 25% slope. According to the previous landowner, the olive trees were planted many years before the barn was constructed. This is also confirmed in the developer's own documentation. Clearly the trees were not disturbed, so the larger slope area outside the grey lines must not have been changed when the barn was built. The Council correctly noted the lots in this area should be excluded during deliberations on November 17th. However, when the revised plan was considered on December 1St, the lots in this area had been moved slightly and renumbered. Still, they encroached on the slopes exceeding 25%. • _ 'Es; ; j 0T . ' — -- r '` f"' •'•1_ °'✓, , •�: ! 1 �, t. ../ i .,�. '--,-►�' 4 4-fit; i r Esc'`_`i�r■�' �y� �' - �1 \ �� :x 04:41 '' ` , f l tiI D per, P!►�. !T- ,i5 _,. 1 7, , 411_44,- .. _....-. . ri 3 9, \V I In this overlay, the previous lot positions are presented with the new lot positions and the area exceeding 25% (shown in red). Notice that the new lot locations of lot 34, 35, 36 and 37 infringe on the 25% slope (35 and 36 encroach almost completely). I believe that the Council and Staff were focused entirely on the access issues for the project and failed to notice that the lots they had removed in the previous meeting had reappeared in the revised plan. These lots all are in violation of Measure PP and therefore, in violation of the General Plan. These violations were noted in the EIR and, consequently, are violations of CEQA as well. The lots must be removed prior to any final approval of this project.