HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/22/1988, 3 - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY ANNEXATION "4EETING AGENDA.
LATE MAR 22 .S ITEM
itcityLuis oBispo o san
—=�--- 990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
March 22, 1988
TO: Planning Commission and City Council
VIA: Michael Multari, Community Development Director
FROM Jeff Hook, Associate Plannee
SUBJECT: Southern California Gas Company Annexation
SITUATION
At its July 8, 1987 meeting, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council
approve this request to annex and prezone 78 acres within the city's urban reserve. On
November 17, 1987, the City Council continued the annexation to allow for completion of
the preliminary draft of the Airport Area Specific Plan, and to allow more time for the
new councilmembers, particularly, to become more familiar with the numerous issues. This
memo highlights some of those issues; attached is the previous staff report and PC
minutes as background.
This annexation presents an unusual set of circumstances which make its consideration
appear timely: it is located within the city's urban reserve, and already partially
served by utilities; it is commercially zoned in the County, partially developed with
commercial, office, and industrial uses; it is bordered on three sides by developed
parcels within the city limits; utility lines extend around and beyond the annexation
area; and it is located at a visually prominent gateway to the city. This is the first
commercial annexation proposed since the Higuera Commerce Park annexation in 1972.
Current Status
The project's final EIR is complete, but is not yet certified. Certification would
normally be done at the same time council takes final action on the request. The council
is tentatively scheduled to consider the annexation again on April 5th and/or 19th. If
the council supports the annexation, it must amend the General Plan and the Water
Management Element, and pre-zone the 78 acre annexation area. The recommended pre-zoning
designations are shown in the attached map, Exhibit "A." If approved by the city, the
annexation would then be considered by LAFCo for final approval and processing of the
jurisdictional change.
EVALUATION
Planning commissioners and staff support the annexation; it would promote higher quality
development at the city's edge, allow greater city control over land use within the urban
reserve, and secure needed public improvements consistent with city standards. The
proposed pre-zoning is consistent with the preliminary land use recommendations in the
concept for the Airport Area Specific Plan. Because this annexation request involves
circumstances that are unique to this area, the annexation would not set a broad
precedent, nor limit council options in dealing with growth management in the urban
reserve. /
SoCalGas Annexation
Page 2
Key Issues
The Planning Commission identified•water allocation, land use, and public improvements as
the annexation's key issues. Most commissioners believed that these could be resolved
through use permit review as new projects are built on vacant lots, or through
development agreements with owners of developed properties. Five lots already are served
by, or are eligible to receive city water and sewer services. Under the staff's and
planning commission's recommendation, the remaining nine lots would, upon annexation,
also be eligible for city services. City water would supply domestic uses and fire
protection; on-site wells would be used for landscape irrigation and non-food processing
or manufacturing. When fully developed, the annexation area could increase the city's
total water demand by about 1 to 1 1/2%. With groundwater use and reasonable
conservation measures, the annexation will not significantly jeopardize water supplies or
hinder efforts to manage water supply and demand.
Properties would be subject to the city's water allocation ordinance if it is adopted.
New development could be subject,to the same permit restrictions or ranking as other
developments elsewhere in the city. For properties without existing service commitments,
water service agreements would specify terms of city water service, and would require
that property owners show that adequate groundwater exists for landscaping and other
non-domestic uses.
Land Use
The proposed pre-zoning emphasizes service-commercial/light industrial uses for lots
facing Broad Street, and industrial uses for lots facing Sacramento Drive or Industrial
Way. The Williams Brothers shopping center was approved by the county with a mix of
retail, office, and service-commercial uses under a conditional use permit. It would be
pre-zoned as C-S-PD, with uses and design guided by the center's use permit.
Owners of the adjacent 10 acre site are interested in developing a 90,000 sq. ft. general
merchandise retail store, retail shops, and related business services, and intends to
file development requests with both the city and county. Presumably, the planned uses
would be of a scale and character consistent with the C-S zone -- retail sales of home
improvement items, appliances and furnishings, and general merchandise sales (examples
might include such tenants as K-Mart or Builder's Emporium). Under the proposed C-S-S
pre-zoning, the project would need a Planning Commission use permit.
The property owner's representative, Ned Rogoway, has submitted a draft development
agreement which describes the development, public and private improvements, annexation
requirements, and terms of the agreement. If the council favors such an agreement, an
enabling ordinance to allow development agreements would first need to be passed, as
required by the Government Code. Staff felt that final action on the annexation and
review of the draft agreement was necessary before initiating a new ordinance.
Public Imorovements
Most property owners within the annexation area support the annexation -- at least in
concept. In several meetings with staff, the majority of property owners said they
preferred annexation, provided that the allowed mix of land uses was acceptable, and
annexation costs were not excessive. Staff has prepared cost estimates to clarify the
3-z
SoCalGas Annexation
Page 3
type, cost, and installation of public improvements (Exhibit "B", attached). In most
cases, the public improvement costs could be deferred until the time of development, or
the costs amortized over some fixed (say five-year) period to bring existing development
up to city development standards. Costs per lot range from a low of about $14,700 to
$59,000. These costs have been reviewed with the property owners.
The timing and method of payment for the improvements could be tailored to get the most
critical improvements, such as water and sewer infrastructure or fire protection, at or
shortly after annexation. As a condition of annexation, LAFCo can require individual
property owners within the annexation area to meet city development standards — thus
requiring the installation of frontage improvements, street lighting, fire hydrants, and
other typical subdivision improvements.
Environmental Mitigation
Development within the annexation area, whether under city or county jurisdiction, is
expected to cause adverse impacts to traffic, utilities, and drainage. The EIR
recommends several specific measures: additional fees would be assessed for traffic
signal installation, extension of Sacramento Drive to Orcutt Road, and the Orcutt Road
Grade Separation project. A new water main would be installed in Industrial Way between
Broad and Sacramento, and a coordinated, area-wide approach to drainage would be
implemented, consistent with the Airport Area Specific Plan. Individual lots would need
to provide on-site detention, participate in a program of regional detention basins in
the airport area, or contribute to downstream drainage improvements to reduce runoff and
allow groundwater recharge.
To minimize traffic conflicts, access onto Broad Street would be limited, and restriping
of Broad Street would provided controlled, left turn pockets instead of the existing
continuous left turn lane. During use permit review, driveways onto Broad Street may be
coordinated with adjacent lots, restricted, or if alternated access is available,
prohibited for traffic safety.
Several alternatives are available to the Council:
1. Amend the General Plan and pre-zone the properties as shown in exhibit "A" to allow
the annexation to proceed.
2. Amend the General Plan, pre-zoning the property to allow some other mix of uses, such
as C-R-PD or C-N-PD uses.
3. Continue consideration of the annexation until after the General Plan update, and
adoption of the Airport Area Specific Plan.
4. Deny the General Plan amendment as being inconsistent with General Plan policies
regarding growth and water management.
Under alternatives 3 and 4, development of the Southern California Gas project and Lots
98-99 would be eligible to receive city water, and could proceed after securing county
approvals.
33
SoCalGas Annexation
Page 4
This is presented as background for .the council's discussion of this issue. No specific
action is required at this time. Staff recommends that the council:
1. Advise staff and property owners what additional information is needed to help
you make a decision; and
2. Continue to a public hearing for April 5 and/or April 19.
Attachments:
-Exhibit "A" - Annexation area/pre-zoning
-Exhibit "B" - Public Improvement Cost Estimates
-Previous staff report, including memo from M Multari re: annexation
-Planning Commission Minutes
Note: EIR previously distributed to council members.
jh3/socalgas
3-�
` C6
OL
otloB NOVA ANVI 1 `
1 .` j.• I I
y
4•
N �
CL
O - x: Sf a3�F. xY y
g Q Y �Fc 3''•�E `'yYr r
FN_ •s:.a':;.:.5:::::."
O .+ Y
�i
01
IMN
O9 O� 5?.: .a:E:..'.:.:�:.:e<&:isY;F•ik'u;'f6s•E�%>•egs:e:K9:�S°iff' .
A N \r k �'...'::N:'.�,�iC+':":::::ir..v..�..�Yff:':::f:,�';,a')�':::S`•Stif3. ':0�'.
ro
Al
MEMO
all... ix
,a
...
O � 9�$J9�lQ+Y n 3 �p'+�•0'S q�� yt,Y.. ' T
�i
M 4A ¢>>3'ik?;;,'t^ciij;;«;:Q:Fti?' ""
..........
a .
klli:P:ro R
;.tiL.�:.:i°....s�/c:E+cuf.a.: x•Y...::.:..:... .....F::p;:�
U ::y:��:;:,,r;.y::„��%xxrl R.�aS.:�:.y;g.°, a�A• IE of �:
W y ;Yii°:$x�:rj?fb?Ii�'s� ::i:f:hSE[i�'ii`ii'F.3f3'"5<�k''!i"S'fa",$iz •� I .a -
0 1N3W35V3 1'7•0•dcc
AS
Cl)
AVM OI'I011dro
Cl) O 1
N. cc
cc
a�
0
T
y
l V �
QATE-
011.��► city of San LUIS osIspo - MEETING-
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MM NUMBER:
FROM: Michael Multari, Community Development Director By: Jeff Hoo �—
SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment. Prezonin¢. & Annexation GP/R 1261 - Consideration of annexing
78 acres and amending the land use element map and zoning map to change the designations
to service-commercial (C-S), manufacturing (M), retail-commercial (C-R), and
neighborhood-commercial (C-N) between Broad Street and the city limit
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
1) Introduce the item and take public comment, and 2) Continue the item to the
November 17th Council hearing.
BACKgflu1OUYO:
i a ion
Southern California Gas Company wants to r o its corporation yard fromWe
es nt
location at Broad and Santa Barbara Street ! �`
Broad Street and Industrial Way. The site is locate ou 1 s, wt i
city's urban reserve. The applicant requests annexation of this parcel, plus 13 adjacent
parcels owned by others.
The annexation request involves four council actions: 1) review and certification of
the EIR, 2) amending the General Plan from "Rural Industrial" and "Interim
Conservation/Open Space" to "Service-Commercial/Light Industrial", 3) amending the Water
Management Element to allow use of groundwater in the annexation area, and 4) pre-zoning
the annexation area. The annexation also requires approval by LAFCo, the Local Agency
Formation Commission.
Data Summary
Project Address: 3800 Broad Street (State Highway 227)
Applicant: Southern California Gas Company
Representative: Victor Montgomery, RRM
County Zoning: Commercial-Service (C-S) and Industrial (I)
General Plan: Rural-Industrial, Interim Conservation/Open Space, Low-Density Residential
(Edna-Islay Specific Planning Area)
Environmental Status: Final EIR pending certification
Site Description
The site covers 78.06 acres, and slopes gently down toward Broad Street. Surrounded by
city on three sides, it is bounded by Broad Street on the west, Sacramento Drive and
Tract 929 (Edna-Islay Specific Planned' Area) on the east, Tank Farm Road on the south,
and Capitolio Way on the north. The site consists of 14 parcels, involving 13 separate
property owners. Much of the site, once used for dryland farming and grazing, remains
vacant today.
Major uses include Williams Brothers market, Derrell's Mini-Storage warehouses,
California Cooperage building (EOC offices),
architect's office, American Tank and Mill, Pipe and Steam Fitters Union building, and
several small houses and utility buildings.
(4411111,f l city of san Luis osispo
WO f
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Page 2
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
Commissioners considered the annexation at three meetings between January and July. Due
to the project's scope, the commission reviewed the annexation in two parts. At its
April 29th meeting, the commission focused on general issues like General Plan policy and
implications for water and growth management. Commissioners felt that the annexation was
logical provided that water, pre-zoning, and environmental concerns could be resolved.
The commissioners continued the item, and directed staff to come back with specifics
regarding pre-zoning, environmental mitigation, and public improvements.
At its July 8th meeting, the commission reviewed specific mitigation measures, water
allocation strategies, and pre-zoning alternatives. Commissioners voted 4 - 2 (one seat
vacant) to recommend that the City Council approve the annexation and amend the Land Use
Element Map and zoning map to change the designations to C-S-PD, M-S, and C-S-S (minutes
attached). The majority of commissioners supported the annexation subject to special
provisions for water allocation, land use, and public improvements.
Commissioner Gerety supported the annexation but objected to the planned use of private
wells to meet some of the annexation area's water needs. Commissioner Schmidt opposed
the annexation at this time due to concerns with equity and implementation of the
proposed water allocation plan.
EVALUATION
Summary
The chief reason to consider annexation appears to be its value as a tool for improved
planning at a prominent "gateway." As proposed, the annexation is not likely to
jeopardize the city's water management efforts, or significantly increase city costs or
revenues. Annexation appears to be in the city's best interests because it would: 1)
promote higher quality development at the city's edge,.2) allow more effective land use
planning within the urban reserve, and 3) secure needed public improvements consistent
with city development standards. Annexation would not set a broad precedent for future
annexation requests, nor limit council options in dealing with growth management in the
airport area.
This report highlights the key annexation policy issues, and then focuses. on mechanisms
to address the above concerns. In addition, a general discussion of annexation, Exhibit
F, has been included as background for this item.
V
����� n►INlllpu�i�� city of sa►n tuts oBispo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Page 3
Annexation Background
This is the first large annexation proposed since the Ferrini/Foothill annexations were
approved by the city in 1984, and it is the first non-residential annexation proposed
since the 80-acre Higuera Commerce Park was annexed in 1972. The request raises policy
issues regarding the timing and appropriateness of annexation, but it docs not "fit" the
typical pattern for annexations in that:
-It involves multiple property owners and 14 lots in various stages of development.
-Five of the lots already receive city water and/or sewer service.
-The annexation area is within the Airport Specific Planning Area, being jointly prepared
by the city and county.
-Diverse land uses are existing and proposed, with retail, manufacturing, and
service-commercial uses planned.
-Sewer and water mains are existing in streets on all sides of the annexation area.
-Recent county approvals have allowed development of a scale and intensity in the area
comparable to development in the adjacent incorporated area.
Water Allocation Stramay
When fully developed, the proposed annexation could increase the city's total water
demand by about 1 to 1 1/2%. This estimate excludes potential demand from parcels with
existing service agreements and secondary residential water demand offsite. With
conjunctive groundwater use and reasonable conservation measures, staff does not feel the
annexation would jeopardize water supplies or hinder efforts to manage water supply and
demand. Exhibit "E" discusses water demand increases anticipated with this annexation.
Five lots already receive, or are eligible to receive city water and sewer services:
lots 90-91 (Williams Bros. Market), 95 (Southern California Gas), and 98-99 (Mel Jones).
Under current policies, these lots may be annexed. The remaining ninelots must rely on
on-site water and waste disposal systems.
Water Management Element policies prohibit annexation of these niite lots, unless the
area to be annexed can provide its own water supply to meet city standards, and provided
that the city has conducted environmental review and prepared construction plans for
major new water supplies. On-site groundwater may prove to be a reliable source for
certain uses, however preparation of construction plans for a major new water source is
probably five to ten years away.
i►I��-MR0li111 city of san LUIS OBISpo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Page 4
Annexation of these minelots would require amending the Water Management Element to
allow use of groundwater before plans for a major water-supply project have been
prepared. A suggested text amendment is shown in Exhibit "B."
If council supports annexation, a water allocation plan specifically for the annexation
area may be appropriate. The plan could be implemented through development agreements
with individual property owners as a condition of annexation. Such a plan should include
these features:
A. Use of city water for fire protection and domestic purposes (drinking, sanitary uses,
food processing).
Several commissioners questioned the appropriateness of groundwater use due to
questions of water quality or reliability. There seemed to be some support for
conjunctive use of city water for fire protection and domestic use, and groundwater
for irrigation and other non-potable uses. Well records suggest that groundwater
supplies of sufficient quality and quantity for landscaping and non-domestic uses are
available.
B. Use of proven on-site groundwater for landscape irrigation and non-food processing or
manufacturing.
C. Drought-resistant landscaping and special irrigation measures to conserve water.
D. Verification by city of adequacy of groundwater supplies prior to development
approval.
E. Recorded agreements between city and property owners which define:
1. Terms and conditions of city's water service.
2. Property owners' rights, limitations and responsibilities.
3. Contingency plan describing measures to be taken if groundwater supplies fail or
become unusable for any reason.
F. Properties would be subject to the city's water allocation ordinance. As such,
developments could be subject to the same building permit restrictions or ranking as
other developments elsewhere in the city.
Under this scenario, the agreement could be secured two ways: 1) as a condition of
annexation (for fully or partially developed lots ), or as a condition of use permit
approval for vacant "S"-zoned lots. Lots with existing service commitments would not
require a water service agreement, but would be subject to all other city policies
regarding water allocation, conservation, and development controls.
3
S
city of San Luis OBI SPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Page 5
Other mechanisms are possible. For example, development agreements between the city and
property owners could link specific developments to the city's water service.
Development standards, phasing, land use, and terms and conditions of water service may
be spelled out in a development agreement between the city and individual property owners
prior to final LAFCo action on the annexation. Planned development rezoning at the time
a new development is proposed may also prescribe the terms of water services.
Pre-zoning/Land Use
Staff's proposed pre-zoning is shown in Exhibit "C", and is explained below. It
emphasizes service-commercial/light industrial uses for lots with Broad Street frontage,
and manufacturing for lots with frontage on Sacramento or Industrial Way. Lots 90-91
(Williams Bros.) are designated as a planned development, with a mix of
retail-commercial, office, and service-commercial uses under a county-approved
development plan, shown in Exhibit "D.' j�^F..T•� �� � .
1. General Plan Land jig Designation: The site is designated as Rural-IndustrialAin
the General Plan, and C-S and M zoning would be consistent with this approach. This
zoning strategy is consistent with other segments of Broad Street to the north.
2. Retail-Commercial M Service-Commercial: Expansion of C-R zoning may be ill-timed.
With development of the San Luis Mall the city has sufficient C-R zoned land to
accommodate comparison retail uses downtown and in three shopping centers. Moreover,
the city's Goals For Downtown discourage proliferation of C-R zoning outside of
existing centers.
A C-S-PD will allow a broad range of commercial uses at the Williams Bros. center.
Uses consistent with the county-approved development plan, or with the base zoning
would be allowed. Supermarkets, restaurants, department and variety stores, offices,
and auto repair and related uses examples of allowed or conditionally allowed uses in
the C-S zone.
3. Neighborhood-Commercial: Property owners propose about I1 acres of
neighborhood-commercial zoning. The Land Use Element discourages C-N centers over
five acres in size, assuming that larger centers are more likely to cater to
city-wide or regional shopping needs.
The southern portion of the city appears deficient in C-N zoning, however the
proposed Williams Brothers center and the five acres of C-N at the southeast corner
of Tank Farm Road and Broad Street would appear adequate to meet neighborhood needs
in the Edna-Islay and nearby unincorporated areas.
3-/
uai�NN�p�i� ► city of san Luis osispo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Page 6
4. Environmental concerns: The proposed pre-zoning minimizes environmental impacts from
development, while allowing a wide range of economically viable uses appropriate to
the area. The EIR indicates that the applicant's proposed pre-zoning would result in
substantially greater traffic impacts than staff's proposed scheme.
For example, full development under county zoning would add about 8000 trips daily to
adjacent streets -- a 52% increase over existing levels on Broad Street, adjacent to
the project. The staff's recommended pre-zoning is estimated to increase daily trips
by about 9500, or 61%. The applicant's pre-zoning is estimated to add about 17,000
trips daily to adjacent streets, a 110% increase over existing traffic volumes.
5. :S" Overlay Zone: Safe, orderly development of the annexation area requires that
certain public improvements be installed prior to or concurrent with development.
Upsizing of utilities, frontage improvements, street widening, signalization, fire
hydrants, and other related public improvements will be necessary in the annexation
area.
The S overlay zoning is desirable because: a) public improvements can be secured
with new development, b) water management concerns can. be addressed, and c) proposed
uses and development plans will be reviewed for land use compatibility, traffic and
visual impacts (along Broad Street entryway to the city), and to better integrate new
and existing development in the annexation area.
Environmental Mitisation
Development within the annexation area is likely to cause adverse impacts to traffic,
utilities, and drainage. Upgrading of existing non-conforming buildings to meet
significant health and safety standards in the Building and Fire Codes will also be
necessary.
To implement the mitigation measures, staff proposes using two approaches, depending on a
lot's development status: 1) for developed lots, property owners would •enter into an
agreement with the city specifying the terms and mitigation requirements prior to final
LAFCo action on the annexation, and 2) for vacant or underdeveloped lots, property owners
would provide mitigation as a condition of use permit approval for new developments.
Based on the EIR's findings, city policies and standards, and staff's analysis, the
following mitigation measures are recommended:
3-
city o f sa►n tuts oB�spo
%
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Page 7
Traffic
A. Widening and improvement on project side of Industrial Way and Sacramento Drive to
planned width.
B. Pro rata contribution toward the installation of a traffic signal at Capitolio Way,
extension of Sacramento Drive to Orcutt Drive, and provision of landscaped median
island on Broad between Capitolio and Tank Farm Road.
C. Pro rata contribution for intersection improvements along Broad Street at Orcutt
Road, South Street, and Tank Farm Road.
D. In lieu of an interior street, limitations on driveway access to Broad Street to
minimize driveway conflicts. During use permit review, driveways onto Broad Street
may be restricted or, if alternate access to a collector was available, prohibited
for traffic safety. The EIR consultant concurs with this approach.
Utilities
A. Construction of 1,600 lineal feet of 12" diameter water main along Industrial Way.
B. Installation of about 15 fire hydrants in and adjacent to the annexation area.
Drainage
A. Installation of on-site retention basins to reduce the rate and amount of runoff, or
B. Participation in a program of regional detention basins through the Airport Area
Owners Association, or by
C. Designing and installing channel and culvert improvements for major drainage ways
adjacent to and serving the annexation area, or by
Building and Fire Code Imnrovements
A. Evaluation of non-conforming buildings for conformance with significant health and
safety provisions, with emphasis on installation of fire protection systems and
adequate driveway access. Property owners to install necessary improvements, to city
approval, under an amortization schedule based on the buildings' valuation, or at the
time of building remodel, whichever comes first.
i�alllplli�� city of San tins OBISpo
A0094 COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Page 8
FISCAL IMPACT
City costs and benefits resulting from annexation are estimated to cancel each other out
in the short term. Public costs include electricity (street lighting), street
maintenance, and police and fire services (already available through mutual aid
agreement). Public revenues would consist of sales tax revenue ($31,700) during 1986,
and property tax increment allotment from county (probably less than $7500 for the first
year, increasing in subsequent years upon reassessment of properties).
In meetings with staff, property owners have expressed concern over possible private
costs associated with annexation. The chief concern seems to be with "up front" costs
which may be incurred which cannot be amortized or otherwise absorbed into regular
development or business costs.
There are two categories of public improvements necessary -- standard development
requirements which are normally required for any new project or subdivision in the city;
and mitigation measures which address the specific impacts of this annexation.
Standard Develooment Reauirements
These improvements are normally installed prior to or concurrent with new development:
-Frontage improvements: Dedication, street paveout, and installation of new curb,
gutter, and sidewalk where required.
-Street ree : installation of street trees at one per 35 lineal feet of frontage.
-Water hook-uo = defrays city costs of operation and maintenance, and development of
new supplies.
-Sewer hook-uo fee: defrays city costs of operation and maintenance, and improvement of
treatment facilities.
-Sewer main installation: Installation of an 8" sewer main in Industrial Way between
Broad and Sacramento Drive to serve the annexation area.
-Sewer lift station maintenance and improvement of lift station facilities serving
Broad Street area.
-Installation pf Street Lights.
-Fire hydrants: required by the fire code @ 1/300 I.f. of frontage.
-Building sprinklers: applicable only for retrofit improvements.
3—/
�illill '� I CI
ty Of Sal i LUIS OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENOA REPORT
Page 9
Mitigation Measures
These improvements may be required prior to development, or-may be installed in phases to
coincide with increasing impacts (eg. traffic improvements). Typically, these
improvements benefit a larger area than just the annexation area:
-Water main replacement in In u i 1 Wav: required to upgrade water pressure and
provide a "looped" fire protection system for annexation area.
-lZontributi ii toward AiRW it Broad and a i li Wav: About 1/3 of signal's total cost
would be paid by property owners in annexation area.
-Contribute n toward cost QUE eat n in Sacram_o Drive r
a key circulation link for the annexation area, and would substantially� llmprove existing This is as
and future traffic conditions. Annexation property owners would pay a portion of the
extension's total cost.
-Contribution !war extending m dian planter in Broad &= a we n CUgglio Way an
Tank Farm Itoa The median would limit left turns and provide protected left-turn-only
pockets at street intersections, and Possibly, with CalTrans approval, at major
driveways.
-COntrlbnrinn toward installing th rc tt Road Grade
part of a larger area which could ener�his improvement,rand contribute lon area is
-pro-rata basis (using traffic generation or acreage percentages) to establish fees.
-Contribution toward intersection im rovementc
restriping, and minor repaving _U Broad �Qmlatt Road: Widening,
P g is required to improve intersection flow and safety.
-Participation in Drainage Imnro=ement District or incremental n- 'Le a retenti n time
2 development: 'Flooding is a problem downstream of this development. New development
should not significantly increase runoff unless downstream drainage capacity is
increased.
Worst-case assumptions were used in preparing preliminary cost estimates. For example,
it was assumed that existing frontage improvements on Sacramento and Industrial Way would
need replacing to accommodate street widening, a recommended traffic mitigation measure.
Estimated private costs for public improvements ranged from about $15,500 to $67,500 per
lot, with the average cost being about $45,000 per lot.
Where Possible, costs of mitigation measures/public improvements should be deferred until
the time of development. Such costs could be amortized or phased through agreements with
the city prior to or concurrent with annexation (for developed properties), or concurrent
with new development to make costs more affordable while insuring orderly installation of
infrastructure.
�� ` �hIIIOpii�U city of San IDIS OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Page 10
Staff is preparing a lot-by-lot estimate of public improvement costs. The estimates will
be included with the November 17th council staff report.
ALTERNATIVES
The Council may continue, deny, or approve the annexation with or without conditions.
Any action to approve the annexation would require final approval by LAFCo. Staff
supports a continuance to: 1) allow public comment prior to detailed council review,
2) allow additional time for council study of this item, and 3) coordinate timing of
General Plan amendments so that all amendments to be acted upon by council during this
calendar year are considered concurrently.
RECOMMENDATION
1) Introduce the item and take public testimony, and 2) Continue GP/R 1261 to the
November 17th hearing.
ATTACHMENTS
-Vicinity Map
-Exhibit "A": General Plan map amendment
-Exhibit "B": Water Management Element text amendment
-Exhibit "C": Staff recommended pre-zoning map
-Exhibit "D": County approved use program/Williams Bros. lot -Exhibit "E":
Water demand increase estimates
-Exhibit "F": Annexation Policy Discussion
-Planning Commission Minutes
(Note: Final EIR under sent separately)
jh:3/GP1261
3—/ 5�
/.
rr }i
.,.r,ertrt+?liiir?;rr F��:ir,•i;4 �. L� }}
'.+6J+L:f::+++:iitiii'/•:;.'!ii?::;I•::i;.
1,.J.
y:rr+RN+rr'?r:yrpyn:.T:,:•',li••::..
• .,iilrr�fif�'ril:•:;•�?rt•i�%�tJ�fi:i;.,,
'. % J.rr•:iF•it•`.i+�T?•i6??i:.t.J:+::i;:. '
Ti; rrr%rr '1,•?:r:'i„i i:7.::.:..^: . ::
'r,•t':tt+' l:r Y:t:,T:l:i::""I r.::{.
+:r:f%�r%^?i?ir,r?NJii+:.t.t•Y:F:i,:£ry:u;.
T.:t.:;J.:,:IiCI• yTrv:. •Nh.•:+�
•':%.�::`?r:?rc�rR+?r7:t:•.f„;`?li::.r:F�t�1:%6.R.
•rr rt�,j F:r,iT'+T; '9J:C..0
' yC•r
'?I:f�t 'y F••^rfC.yil,'r�jCf?rei:1;•...y.T.$.... '
:.•l:T�t:?J r:J`:
p.
:iTr;•N;;::1jTt+i:;N?C:i?T?.1•�:?p"?+„7�F•`+::C+J,+S+:•' V�
i'i+i�r',?+e:J.!ri7,•7???iCR,i?)+%
.... 'iiy?•M1•7'?iir' 0�1\\• �� \
?. . .ri?rr:i;,J,•;:. VG
,•' r+�rlWCreill;?'rN• _,+6 q.
?..?iryr?I,•Tr.:. •'i'1`i�r: G1•�G
•r: ;:??ri:?Jilt•'?? N OBE
p .A....try,::+::::N?:Ii,,.rrA.
N \N-SP
<` GP/R 1261
VICINITY- MAP
3'/6
5:^{,'�- � `FFG ! �� �� `•..�� ,^ `
_. � .f..,•{,7� i.reG�rtss-'s ..' •1. �2ij.'irt�[':''t"\ E•h•�� �. ,
u _ • I • ^C.;� :541. �"P'
�4
µ�
�`N Y���S-j j„4`t4�f(w.� 1;.! `�y�y ' Za53'k�r �• '.� .
�,�,y��.�L ,��a`�� Y�� i .'�y4X�'•`�•\'�. gyp"--'��y_�il 'L., .ar�3r •L�,;,'�J iJ �y
I i / .� i 1 � 1'l� titre > 1�11't�rrfh+t�i�!ti a�x,�Sh+FIr� ��a u�y+„'�•<-ar�r �,��i .,�f�
1'�iT . wT'• :s � ' 1 g tn.} . �, `+�r�.�'��Y`;�•C`IY��F'j'��'4 �w�!7�.n�}^•y},�r= • -.•�-
• ��w�,�' •e/�`o-�0rr�•YE k �W Qsr �i°i.. ,`P'itkor 'r' r(,1 +rfi"�.1' •�"i•A.f •f�+ 1 ! .ii
.c:r• �, ai- ...x rf r�+y y','}cTrci rr �•-.Tc+' 1 ,S ci'�` r'
•�`av' ti= � '�^�h� ♦� •.rl'wM �f ' �_Y.F;� re 1 „ Irry�y�, �� �'"n... 'a')�m.�.r 1 •Rj' w� n Y
- '3 Jy. l:r ? �a a11.a. •s.. r �� I• •a aY'• \ I.• f wt !
�?r"i,�'`t�'�3�:��y* F`�-•�. �� µ '� "' tf^v.''�:��P ..�''t:�r���„"";:.,�Se.t.7>��} '�"wr �T�r„���ea .a'��. ',a a}?��.�
_ --S5,,T`.A -'Y �H".G�•h]y� f��w W'YTi..��� b 4!a uYf`� lL� -�'��5 i71r �n'T� r \! �a ••-
wZ�ia� } Icy[ t��j� 7� •51 � 1}• �]'�-. tiJ�i 7. � � •w`i
J.�,�• �S�N�v�.��.]+-• �.3�y�i�-l• • jY;�a��.rS���y�">S�,.yi - `�i�L .T}.� �.
7 � �4 'il*Tti�7 w" rs yy�-t�..X,�_6YLY � I � i i` `, r� •`?.��, c `
r
•
sa • e
1 1
-- A _ - - - _ NUN
All 6
_ -
WATER Mac,>zEIT ELF?.09 -- TExr �ra1 7> rr
3. Water Suoolies: Suoolemental Sources
Policy 3.1 In deciding appropriate sources of supplemental water, the city will
evaluate impacts on other users of the water and other environmental
impacts, total and unit costs, reliability, water quality. development
time, and quantity available.
Policy 32 All potential supply alternatives will be explored. City efforts to
provide supplemental water supplies will generally follow the
priorities below. While the city has taken some action on a range of
potential sources, it cannot pursue each potential source with equal
effort. The priorities are intended to focus city efforts on those
sources which will: (1) be able to supply water earlier even though
the amounts are relatively modest; (2) require the least capital
funding; (3) cause the least environmental impact, in terms of both
the project sites and commitment to growth-inducing resource
expansions; (4) offer the most city control. The order indicates
general priorities, not a strict sequence.
More efficient use of existing supplies (conservation);
More complete use of sources already used by the city; °
Development or reactivation of sources in and near the city; '
Development of other new sources within San Luis Obispo County
Development of new sources outside San Luis Obispo County.
Policy 3.3 The city will not compete with local agricultural use of groundwater
or damage wildlife habitat through reduced stream flows in obtaining .
long-term sources of supply.
Policy 3.4 ;The city. does7notT.encourage but may consider wells to provide domestics
water-for a;private development within the.city..= Such a"well may Abe- '
operated by the project owner only for the owner's use. If the well
serves any user in addition_.to• the project owner,..it.must beoperated
by the city (Policy 5.1) 'such wells may be'used.only:when:a
,A—,The city has at'least`completed environmental review and
authorized,prepar�ng;plaas,(or:a-water-supply.project,or projects
which •would-provide the safe annual yield needed to support potential I
land development within the city limits,'including the proposed
land-development project., or when•the we11 is located within the area
Added Text known as the Southern California Gas Co. Annexation Area, shown in Exhibit
H. The City Council approves the well proposal as part of a specific
land-development project approval, and the proposed well system meets
all city standards;
C. A qualified, independent hydrological investigation demonstrates
that the well(s) reliably can provide sufficient quality and quantity
of water for the proposed land-development project.
D. The owner or developer financially guarantees any treatment system
required for the well water to meet state and federal standards and
any cost of future connection to the city water system. (Users of the3VY
well water would bear additional costs of treatment.)
EXHIBIT B
26
• V
t
00 +V» u`V
O 3 »
.' eta
.� ° °a
u.> > O y V e 9 e,
0 N C .�..
Z E p l 06 V O n w
. 0 e 03 06
m 0 O - - _` ° 3
� � o
co Z cis W IC w
mm ., a O o'
C� m q r O. V
V �W�++ E a 00 V co o 3 M Y Y
.. ® . a
V 0 a O a a0 .. V V N V V •. v 10
m tR tR
.. V .r V a a a = YL = = =
- 3 0 r�
o O V
a W � vej co
mu ° a. e e ` e `9 omm
D R1 �. a to Z .O 3 0 o N es Wo
CL
O a
a °e
m a »
a V
.r O E.2 W
,WA
v! `' m °
Y
as r C V O
i° y V O
z J2
0 u Ov E
CL O O O 31. O O E Y
rao
cis
U) C6S
..
/W oo q) 0aa0 do owe
ii
Us &. 0 V y m 0 OD m e » 3
V .V. O - p p �O„ Gal u
C eE 9a.0
ti �O 3 " W O V 6i J2u Y F• ti w N
V
d z u � yW L:
4u
L O CIS so
6 °i =
IL Q Ou CS 06 0 CL 40
> '0 mLdmOs Haemo
> >0 4) 040 0 0 O " as O Oae ` u
O »
r
E.2
CL-
mu w=W.s 0
_ E
�. U � 0 „ a mY >. e3 ° uu ..�
W >. a b. V >% al a 3yoErwoa
C6 ccnF3=
.r of N Nf t1i V V
L. 9 Y Y m �••• V n V n
u n cc`c c
A V M C
N 9CC O\ 4 Y Z Y Y C
r0 00
O C -� a a a
• � L. ..» � � �.. O 7 � V � co •� O d O al
rU ° � � nr
IV V T r �p V 00 >+. .O V CL 00
!es- H « - 2 G� 0
CL 06
� � ate ^ � b u a ;^` T` C
0 ai a b 7 'vi 3 Q 0 7 Q eo e
O. CO G CL V w 'O m ? a) � V m ? Vb
a 7 » V �' u y °O V 't7 K �' ao V •t7 u ° 02ao2Ze
.» m Z v � K .p.. es m oil y " °� y �cis V Q ' am•: u : °°
Ua. e a. 0
mmUm00 . a Id3
v v � aov Qm-m
a
ao ; ;° . ° c
.00 O\ VU o ° e•_
o
V u .T V p y a) V p O y V V
= dV •p C6 CL yam ... u � � tr 7 W � C... 7 1° C_= > > ac
h m o a O V O 0 0 ,,,, OF; • O o a
Q./ a � •� N oVi HN m y '7.�,,, �O„ = y .T�.. +m+ ° � eoe �
W Q a > ' O •\» r 7 `` '' aO. 7 ° er O aO = ;°u u rn D
y VS. V .O d r7 O .0 O .0 co
n vu� ° ou
w 0 O .. N d p Y r
M
3 aGa�am F � Fits F3 � os F3 = oa z° s = oa � _Q
25 3 �/i
PLANNING C01011SSION JUNE 25, 1987
0860154D PAGE 5
EXHIBIT D860154D:A
1. Approved
(See attached Exhibit G860522:1A for detailed description)
a. This approval authorizes a shopping center , of approximately
135,000 square feet, which may be occupied by uses as defined by
San Luis Obispo Urban area standard 2 for Commercial Service
without further Development Plan, approval, unless a subsequent
Land Use Element amendment prohibits any such use.
b. The existing Farmer's Market may continue as approved until
construction displaces the use. Port construction renewal of the
Farmer's Market will require Minor Use Permit approval.
2. Review of specific proposed uses: Proposed specific uses of the
structures shall be subject to review and approval of the change in
building occupancy by the Building and Safety Division of the Planning
Department prior to issuance of a business license. Proposed uses
shall also be subject to the review and approval of the Development
Review Section of the Planning Department to determine conformity -withe
applicable Land Use Element planning area standards, Land Use
Ordinance requirements, and conditions of this approval. Uses that
_ individually, or cumulatively with outer uses, necessitate additional
parking spaces or site improvements other than constructed under this
Development Plan approval shall install such improvements subject to
Planning Department approval prior to establishment or issuance of a
business liccense for the use.
3. Approved site plan and required changes. Site development shall be
consistent with a revised site plan to be submitted to the Development
?eview Section- of the Planning Department for ' review and approval
before application for a building permit. The revised plan shaLl
indicate the following:
a. ?ening around the retarding basin and drainage channel shall be
slatted chain—Link, six feet high. The fencing shall accomodate
the find basic design and approximately follow the southern
property line from five feet west of the corner near Sacramento
Drive to the parking spaces across from building I; and be set
three feet back from the curbing from that point to the southwest
corner of building H; and from the east side of building H to five
feet from the eastern property line and return to the point of
beginning. The areas where the fence is set back from the curb
and along Sacramento Drive shall be planted in vines or shrubs to
block the view of the fence and at least one access gate shall he
provided for basin maintenance.
3-2u
EXHIBIT D
a
G860522:1 FEBRUARY -269 1987
PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 6
EXHIBIT G860522:1A i
Amend the San Luis Obisp Area Plan of the county General Plan to revise
Commercial Service plannin area standard no. 2 for the San Luis Obispo !'
urban area as follows:
Corner of Broad Street and itolio Way., The following standards apply
only to the parcels at the so theast corner of Broad Street and Capitolio
Way, extending east to Sacrament Way (Amended 19839 Ord. 2133).
2. Limitation on Use. Allowable sea are limited to the following: animal
husbandry services; nursery 's cialties; broadcasting studios; apparel
and finished products; food kindred products; furniture and
fixtures; printing and publis small scale manufacturing; building
materials and hardware (totally a lowed within a building); EATING AND
DRIMU:NG PLACES (NOT INCLUDING , FACILITIES FOR DANCING OR OTHER
ENTPBTAIti1�NT, DRIVE-IN RESTAURANTS OR REFRESB2II+N'P STANDS); food and
beverage retail sales; furniture, me furnishings and equipment;
general merchandise store (limited o department stores, variety
stores, drug and discount stores, floris s and houseplant stores); mail
order and vending; service stations; bus as support services (totally
enclosed within a building); laundries nd dry cleaning services;
personal services; public safety facilities; consumer repair services;
accessory storage; warehousing; and wholesaling and distribution, in
accordance with Table 0, Allowable Uses, Part I\of the Land Use Element
(Amended' 1983, Ord. 2133).
DL/ND/sb/8187j
v
r/
PLANNLYG COMMISSION JUNE 259 1987
D860154D PAGE 6
4; Site grading. Submit grading, sedimentation and erosion control, and
drainage plans prepared by a registered civil engineer and in
accordance with the requirements of Section 22.05'.024, 22.05.028,
22.05.036 and 22.05.044 of the county Land Use Ordinance to the
Planning Department for review and approval and obtain an approved
grading permit before the start of grading or issuance of grading and
building permits. If so required, review of the plan shall be subject
to an inspection and checking agreement with the Engineering
Department. The drainage plan shall address existing run off as well
as increases resulting from new site development.
5. Landscaping plans. Submit landscape, irrigation, and landscape
maintenance plans as required by Sections 22.04.180 through 22.04.186
of the Land Use Ordinance to the Development Review Section of the
Planning Department for review and approval before issuance Of a
buiding permit or establishment of the use. The plans shall provid.e
for the following:
a. Low growing planting along the Broad Street frontage and withiiL 50
feet of the property corners near the street intersections.
b. Trees at an average of 25 feet on center along the remainder of
the property street frontage.
c. Multi—leveled landscaping including trees in the interior
landscaped areas.
6. Landscaping installation. Landscaping in accordance with the approved
landscaping plan shall be installed or bonded for before final
building inspection. The areas shall be landscaped in phases
generally around each building as it is completed. If bonded for,
landscaping shall be installed within 60 days of final inspection and
thereafter maintained in a viable condition on a continuing basis.
7. Signa and lights. Signs and lighting shall be consistent with a
revised sign and lighting plan to be submitted to the Development
Review Sectiod of the Planning Department for review and approval
before application for a building permit. The revised plan shaLl
include the following changes:
a. Buildings B, D, E and J shall have no more than one wall sign for
each shop except corner shops may have two signs if they have
public entrances on two building faces.
b. &11- signs shall be at least 10 feet from the property lines.
`4./
PLANNING COMKISSION JUNE 259 1987
D860154D PAGE 7
c. The sign on the rear of building C shall be no larger' than 24
square feet.
d. Sign G at the co r of Broad and Capitolio shall be moved south
approzimately 170 et.
e. Parking -lot and exte for building lighting shall be located and
shall be directed d rd.
8.' Phasing plan. The applican shall submit a revised phasing plan to
the Development Review Sect n for review and approval showing the
anticipated order buildings wi 1 be constructed along with the parking
and landscaping to be comptet d prior to final inspection for each
building.
9. Approved architectural design. Building architecture shall be
consistent with the approved archi ectural elevations.
10. Connection to communitywater and ewer required. The project shall
be connected to the community water a sewer systems.
1 11. Proof- of water and sever service. Su t evidence frm the city of San
Luis Obispo indicating that the agency s willing and able to provide
water and/or sewer service to the p ject prior to issuance of
i building or grading permits.
1 12. Required road improvements. The following oad improvements shall be
construct under an inspection and checking agreement and
encroachment permit issued by the county E ineering Department and
Caltrans to be completed or bonded for prior i? issuance of a building
lpermits
Capitolio Way shall be designed and built to County Engineering
I specifications for a three land street near the Broad Street
intersection. The plans shall be submitted to the city of San
Luis Obispg for comments on computability with their existing
street improvements. Offers of dedication necessary to provide
these improvements shall be provided to the County Engineer.
13. Curb, gutter and sidewalk. Install concrete curb, Sutter, and
sidewalk- and street paveouc on all street frontages of the subject
site under an encroachment permit issued by the county Engineering
Department and Caltrans. Plans for the required improvements shall be
preparedby a registered civil engineer and submitted for review and
approval under an inspection and checking agreement with the county
Engineering Department and Caltrans prior to issuance of a buiding
Ipermit.
1
i
PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 259 1987
D860154D PAGE 7
c. The sign on the rear of building C shall be no larger than 24
square feet.
d. Sign G at the corner of Broad and Capitolio shall be moved south
approximately 170 feet.
e. Parking lot and exterior building lighting shall be located and
shall be directed downward. .
8. Phasing plan. The applicant shall submit a revised phasing plan to
the Development Review Section for review and approval showing the
anticipated order buildings will be constructed along with the parking
and landscaping to be completed prior to final inspection for each
building.
9. Approved architectural design. Building architecture shall be
consistent with the approved architectural elevations.
10. Connection to community water and sewer required. The. project shall
- be connected to the community water and sewer systems.
11. Proof of water and sewer service. Submit evidence frm the city of San
Luis Obispo indicating that the agency is willing and able to provide
water and/or sewer service to the project prior to issuance of
building or grading permits.
12. Required road im rovements. The following road improvements shall be
constructed under an inspection and checking agreement and
encroachment permit issued by the county Engineering Department and
Caltrans to be completed or bonded for prior to issuance of a building
permit:
Capitolio Way shall be designed and built to County Engineering
specifications for a three land street near the Broad Street
intersection. The plans shall be submitted to the city of San
Luis Obispo for comments on compatability with their existing
street improvements. Offers of dedication necessary to provide
these improvements shall be provided to the County Engineer.
13. Curb, gutter and sidewalk. Install concrete curb, Sutter, and
sidewalk- and street paveout on all street frontages of the subject
site under an encroachment permit issued by the county Engineering
Department and Caltrans. Plans for the required improvements shall be
prepared by a registered civil engineer and submitted for review and
approval under an inspection and checking agreement with the county
Engineering Department and Caltrans prior to issuance of a buiding
permit.
PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 259 1987
D860154D PAGE 8
14. Improvement plans and checking. Improvement and other plans required
by conditions no. 14 and 15 shall be prepared in accordance with the
San Luis 'Obispo County Standard Improvement Specifications and
Drawings by a registered civil engineer and submitted to the county
Engineering Department for review and approval under inspection and
checking agreements. The applicant's engineer, upon completion of the
improvements, must certify to the county Engineering Department that
the improvements are made in accordance with the approved plans.
15. Encroachment permits required. Obtain an encroachment permit from
Caltrans and lengthen the left .turn pocket on Broad Street north of
Capitolio way by 200 feet before issuance of a building permit.
16. Traffic signal participation. Prior to final building inspection the
applicant shall deposit a bond with the city of San Luis Obispo for 25
percent of the .cost of installing a turn signal at the intersection of
Capitolio Way and Broad Street.
17. Shared access driveway. The applicant shall execute an agreement to
cooperate on a shared entrance/exit onto Broad Street with tie
developer of Lot 92 to the south. This agreement shall provide for
access easements, if necessary, and be in a form acceptable .to County
Counsel.
18. Verification of utility easements. Site plans shall be reviewed by
Pacific Gas and Electric Company. Provide the Development Review
Section of the Planning Department with a letter or other verification
that this project does not conflict with any of their easements and
that proper provisions have been made for siting of electrical
equipment, such as transformers and underground liens.
19. Fire protection. Before final building inspection or establishment of
the use, comply with all fire protection requirements from the county
fire department.
Airport Land Use Plan Related Conditions
20. Nonreflective materials to be used in buildings and signs where
reflection would cause a flying hazard.
21. Soundproofing where appropriate to reduce noise to acceptable level
according to State guidelines.
i
22. No electro—magnetic transmissions which would interfere with operation
or aircraft.
23. All bulk storage of volatile or flammable liquid to be underground.
24. The property owner shall grant an avigation easement to the county of
San Luis Obispo via an avigation easement document prepared by the
county. The avigation easement document. shall be reviewed and
approved by County Counsel prior to issuance of .a building permit.
MD/drt/34131,
. 1
i is
G860522:1 FEBRUARY-269 1987
PLANNING. COMMISSION PAGE S
i;
f;
EXHIBIT G860522:1A
Amend the San Luis Obispo Area Plan of the county General Plan to revise j
Commercial Service planning area standard no. 2 for the San Luis Obispo i
urban area as follows:
Corner of Broad Street and Capitolio Way. The following standards apply
only to the parcels at the southeast corner of Broad Street and Capitolio
Way, extending east to Sacramento Way (Amended 1983, Ord. 2133).
2. Limitation on Use. Allowable uses are limited to the following: animal
husbandry services; nursery specialties; broadcasting studios; apparel
and finished products; food and kindred products; furniture and
fixtures; printing and publishing; small scale manufacturing; building
materials and hardware (totally enclosed within a building); EATING AND
DRINKING PLACES (NOT INCLUDING BARS, FACILITIES FOR DANCING OR THEEL
ared
ENTERTAINMENT, DRIVE-IN RESTAURANTS OR REFRESHMENT STANDS); food
beverage retail sales; furniture, home furnishings and equipment;
general merchandise store (limited to department stores, variety
stores, drug and discount stores, florists and houseplant stores); mail
order and vending; service stations; business support services (totally
enclosed within a building); laundries and dry cleaning services;
personal services; public safety facilities; consumer repair services;
accessory storage; warehousing; and wholesaling and distribution, in
accordance with Table 09 Allowable Uses, Part I of the Land Use Element
(Amended 1983, Ord. 2133).
DL/ND/sb/8187j
a o L
". �d �d'
a
ID
I
5! t i;. •I • =j iyF i' al 5i�a ijir r
/` � Y•, !F til II iF ':`1F''. � { g$�$: $
••. .mss°'. 1 U. ° C •.' A41 - "� '•�`
7 77
All�a
'r ,S.�+
�''qq3t+t�� _JlF�4'C
il
+_Fi. — it•j - c5
44
:.I F
pp
ILLL tYe891p
sJ_,
a
u+
Sl
Orad
EXHIBIT "E" - WATER DEMAND INCREASE
Current water demand in the annexation area is estimated to be 13 .4
a. f. , raising the city's total water demand upon annexation from
8,570 acre-feet (projected 1987 demand) to 8,583.4 acre feet -- 105%
of safe annual yield.
Figures developed by the city's EIR consultant indicate that under
any one of the three development scenarios studied, annual water
consumption would range from 100 to 150 a. f./yr. (excluding the sites
with existing service commitments) at full development. This
represents about a 1 3/4 - 2% increase over projected 1987 water
demand.
These estimates are based on worst case assumptions. For example, a
service-commercial demand factor of 1.97 a. f./acre/yr. was used by
the consultant, about 150% higher than the 0.77 a. f./A/yr. demand
factor developed by staff for use with the Water Management Element.
Moreover, if the possibility of using on-site water for irrigation is
considered, demand estimates could be reduced by at least 33%.
mak
EXHIBIT E
gilllfllilflllll��
i city o
sun luis OBISPO
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 •San Luis Obispo,CA 93403.81oo
April 23, 1987
TO: Planning Commission
FROM Michael Mnitari, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Annexation Discussion
San Luis Obispo's approach to annexation, or expansion of the municipal limits and
services, is becoming an increasingly important topic as land within the existing city
becomes built-out while pressure for more urban development along the city fringe
increases. The annexation question is complicated by the city's current water situation,
where supplies are already strained for even the existing municipality, much less for new
customers outside current service limits. I thought that a paper on some of the issues
related to annexation might be useful for the commission in thinking.about the Southern
California Gas Company proposal and about annexation policy generally.
A. Current Condition& Two major variables will determine how important annexation
questions are to a community: (1) the level of development pressure in the city and
region; and (2) the degree of city and county cooperation regarding growth in the
urban reserve. The higher the demand for development and the less coordinated are
the county's and city's growth philosophies, the.more critical will be the
community's annexation programs and policies..
In San Luis Obispo,.there is high development4emands which is unlikely'to..diminish
soon as the city finds itself the governmental, cultural, service, and business'.
center of a rapidly growing region: Recently, county and city:growth. policies.have
been reasonably well coordinated, both jurisdictions recognizing that urban-intensity
uses should be located within the city where urban-level services can be provided.
However, the county's resistance to urban development pressures will`be increasingly
difficult to maintain particularly if the city does not provide adequate sites or
support services for what might be viewed as reasonable and appropriate growth near
the city and within the urban reserve line...
The reasons. oi'this .may be clearer if.we look•at.'the situatio"from the county's
perspective...Consider,.yourself,to be a,supervisor with a 'pro-growtV;'philosbphy.
You would tend t6 support development.proposals, generally:='Further;:if:.:you:.were a
supervisor with'a 'slow-growth' philosophy.,and you looked at San'tiiis:Obispo from a
county-wide 'Perspective,.You-Would.likely; eventually, conclude that:continued. �
urban-type growth in this region is best accommodated near existing cities,:within
their urban reserye'.lines:rather::than.scattered (sprawled?) throughout more rural
This; in.fac is the count s '` lic and,.accordin ` '
hinterland! t; Y'. ,po Y gly ;one can.expect
he county's,arillinguess;to:;limii development.around our fringe::tolncmmsingly..; '
erode. Therefore, the city's;current:ipproach-of..relying primarily.on the county.to°.39
adhere to city.land'1ise.plaaning.aad developmentpolicies,in:'.the,urbtia,:. eserva'is
worth examining.
I
Annexation Discussion
Page 8
In all respects, this is a logical extension of the current city limits. What
complicates the decision is the water situation. If the city does not have adequate 4
water to accommodate growth in its existing incorporated limits, should it extend its
boundaries to increase the potential demand? There are essentially four ways of j
looking at the dilemma:
4
1. Recommend denial of the annexation based on the policies in the Water Management It
Element which preclude annexation except for areas with existing service
agreements or for areas supplying their own water, after the city has done the
environmental review and has developed construction plans for a major new source
of water.
2. Recommend approval of the annexation based on the finding that the annexation is
acceptable for a variety of reasons (discussed above and in the accompanying F
staff report) and that this is an area where existing service agreements have
been extended. this would take either a liberal interpretation of the Water
Element policies regarding areas with existing service agreements in that only
five of the thirteen properties have such agreements, or it would require a
policy change.
3. Recommend approval of the annexation and concurrently recommend a policy change.
allowing connection to the city water system in this case.
4. Recommend approval provided adequate on-site water supplies are demonstrated to
exist. This would also require a change of the policy which precludes use of
on-site groundwater until the city has construction plans for a water supply
project which can satisfy the potential water demand for the existing city
limits and for the area to be annexed.
In this last option, it would probably be appropriate to allow use of existing city
water for fire flow purposes only, if necessary.
It appears from discussions with at least some of the property owners, any strategy
for annexation which also restricted development opportunities beyond the options
currently available in the county would be protested strongly.
G. Next Sten
Both the Planning Commission and City Council have suggested that an examination of
policies regarding annexation and growth at the city edge is timely and should be
incorporated into next year's work objectives. It seems that it would be useful to
analyze the value of (I) differentiating water from other services in the review of
annexation requests; (2) methods for controlling the pace and intensity within
annexed areas; and (3) differentiating the treatment of certain commercial/industrial
areas from residential ones.
3'.30
f
Annexation Discussion
Page 7
With the exception of some fire flow conditions, these problems are not impossible to
overcome, but they may be costly to achieve. The city's Water Management Element
does include policies which require any on-site system to address most of these
concerns. For example, on-site water wells can only be approved if an independent
hydrological analysis demonstrates to the city's satisfaction that wells can provide
sufficient quality and quantity even in drought times; that the owner guarantees
treatment to state and federal standards; and, that the distribution system be
designed to be compatible with the overall city system.
In light of these considerations, the city may want to examine the policy which
allows on-site water only after the city has prepared plans for a new, large-scale
supply source and evaluate a less strict policy which could allow on-site wells even
if the city supplies are unchanged. The city could establish additional criteria for
allowing such an approach, for example, only for projects contiguous'to existing
development or only for non-residential projects.
A different but related issue concerns the fire flow problem. If the city does allow
on-site well usage for domestic use, it may want to also permit extension of water
mains for hydrants and, if necessary, sprinkler systems only. These would only be
utilized, of course, during emergencies (or tests) and would probably not represent
significant, long-term and continual increases in water demand.
Finally, as discussed above, there may be some merit in differentiating commercial E
and industrial annexations from residential ones. f
F. Southern California Gas Comoanv Annexation as a Case Study
The annexation request currently before the city is not a particularly good
representative of the kinds of annexations likely to be considered in the near
future. The "Southern California Gas" area has the following constellation of
features, which, in combination, constitute a rather unique case:
1. It is entirely for commercial and light industrial development.
2. The city has already extended water service agreements to five of the thirteen
properties. I
3. Ownership is highly fragmented and no overall development plan or phasing plan
has been suggested by the property owners.
4. Given the range of allowable uses under the county and city regulations, many
potential projects would be permitted in either jurisdiction and annexation does
not appear critical to the development plans of the owners.
5. The area is essentially surrounded by already incorporated land and the city
utility systems extend around and beyond it.
6. The area is along one of the major entryways into the city and helps shape
visitors' initial impression of San Luis Obispo.
331
Annexa 'on Discussion f
4
Page 6
4. Combinations of all these could be employed.
In any approach, the first step would be to clearly articulate the purposes of the
controls on pace and intensity. Is it to limit water demand? Is it to preserve a
"hard-line" edge to urban type development adjacent to rural areas or open space as
opposed to non-contiguous sprawl? Is it to ensure infrastructure is installed which
can meet the demands of new growth? Is it to help assure a continued small-town
character? The goal(s) intended by the controls on pace or intensity may help
determine the approach used.
E. Water supply and Annexation
One of the principal reasons for limiting annexations is that the city does not have
adequate centralized water sources to satisfy potential demand within the existing
city limits, much less outside those present boundaries. The recently adopted Water
Management Element states that annexation will not be permitted until the city has
supplies to meet the potential drrmand of the existing city as well as for the annexed
areas, with a few explicit exceptions:
1. Areas with prior water service agreements; or
2. Minor infill parcels within areas with service agreements and which are less
than an acre in size;
3. Areas which provide their own water and, if among other considerations, the city
has completed the environmental review and plans for water supplies sufficient
to meet potential demand of the existing city limits and any area to be annexed.
It is clear that exception (3) cannot be utilized unless implementation of a large
water source occurs, and this does not seem likely for .the next few years.
However, as discussed above, the county routinely allows projects to occur using
on-site ground water sources. The intensity of development in residential areas is
considerably less than that which would be allowed in the city; but, the practical
effect on limiting the intensity of non-residential development is not so
significant. Thus, development which might otherwise be ripe for annexation might
not be accepted by the city because of reliance on on-site groundwater. Yet, some
developments may, in fact, occur anyway, because the county acknowledges on-site
groundwater as an acceptable source (Note: this situation does not present so acute
a problem in areas where the allowable intensity of development outside the city
limits is significantly lower than that allowed by the city).
The liability of the city's allowing on-site ground water is that while water supply
is independent from the city's central system, if quality and quantity of the private
supplies deteriorate during drought times, the city may be called upon to extend
service from our already-strained central supplies. Further, maintenance management
and quality control can be difficult because of fragmentation of the small-scale
systems. The design of the private distribution system would have to be compatible
with the city's centralized one, should eventual combination be desired. Also, city
standards for fire flow are often impossible to achieve without connection to city
mains.
3-32vow
Annexation Discussion
Pagc 5
D. Controlling the Pace and Intensity of Development in Annexed Areas
It is possible for the city to expand its limits and concurrently regulate the pace
and development within those limits. Many "tools" are available to implement this: i
1. Land use designations could be developed to place certain areas in "holding
zones." These would allow some kind of reasonable economic use of the land now
(e.g., agriculture, rural-density residential) until more intensive development
were "ripe". It seems that holding zones which reduced the allowable intensity
of development below that currently permitted by the county would be vigorously
opposed, unless some clear timeline were established under which the property
would be released from the holding zone for more intensive use. For example, a
major residential area could be reserved until some date certain (e.g., 1992) or
until some other criteria were met (e.g., demonstrable housing need, i
availability of water, construction of a new school, etc.). The likelihood of
the release conditions being met would determine whether property owners would
find this approach acceptable or not.
i
2. Within annexed areas, specific plans or PD's could be used to regulate both pace
and intensity. This approach was employed in the Edna-Islay area, where the f
development was broken down into "phases". New phases could not begin until
earlier ones were completed and/or until certain infrastructure facilities had
been installed (e.g., water lines). This approach is easier when the annexed
area is under one, or only a few, ownership(s). In that case, some development
can occur on at least some portion of each person's property even if other
portions are reserved. In the case of highly fragmented ownership, agreeing on
which properties are allowed to develop sooner becomes more difficult in that
some people are permitted to put their land in more intensive use which others
nearby have to wait. Another approach would be to set certain limits of
intensity such as number of units, land area covered or converted, or total
water use in the area and develop a. phasing schedule for certain levels within i
those limits. For example, a plan could say no more than 25 units/year, or no
more than ten acres developed before 1990, or no more than 5.0 acre-feet of
increased water demand before some time limit, etc. In this manner, the phasing
is set out not by geographic area but by a schedule for these other criteria of i
intensity. Then property owners within the plan area would compete among
themselves to develop within those limits. This might encourage ill-timed or G
improperly planned projects submitted simply to meet certain deadlines, and it
could result in added pressure on the city to approve such projects even if not
appropriate because to do otherwise would jeopardize a potentially valuable
entitlement. However, this need not be an overriding problem invalidating a
phasing approach based on intensity criteria.
r,
3. Similar to the latter approach above, the city could employ a growth-management
r;
type of ordinance either for the city as a whole or for annexed areas P
specifically. The city could then set limits on development and also a
"point-system" or other type of rating or priority-setting technique for new
projects. Points could be awarded in such a way as to make development farther I°
from the existing development edge less competitive than those which are infill
or clear extensions of the urban fringe. Our current growth management
ordinance incorporates elements of this strategy. ��
Annexation Discussion
Page 4
C. Residential versus Commercial/Industrial Areas
i
In thinking about annexation policy, it may be useful to differentiate areas which
would be primarily developed for residential uses from those which would be primarily
of a commercial or industrial nature. Generally speaking, the differences in
intensity of development allowed by the county versus those allowed by the city are
more pronounced and easier to quantify for residential development. For example, the
county will generally not allow "urban" level density outside the city limits. This
criterion is tied directly to lot size and the allowable number of units per acre, a
clear measure of intensity of development. Accordingly, property-owners in
residential areas have a strong incentive to wait for annexation because the
intensity of development, and value of the land, would increase significantly.
On the other hand, the differences between commercial or light industrial projects
allowed by the county versus those allowed by the city are not so clear. Meaningful
standards of development intensity are difficult to establish. Thus, many
non-residential projects in. the county are no different in terms of type or intensity
from those permitted in the city (e.g_, Williams Brothers, UPS). In these cases, ,
there is little incentive for property-owners to wait for annexations, if annexation
means restrictions on their ability to develop in a timely manner. For example, if
city policies preclude use of on-site wells for water, while at the same time the
city cannot offer water service connections because of centralized supply
limitations, owners of commercial or industrial properties outside the city limits
would be unlikely to support annexation--at least without some definite time line
within which full services (and development entitlements) would be available.
Furthermore, in general, commercial and industrial uses need less water than
residential ones (and, usually, even less water of high quality). Thus, the use of
on-site ground water may be more acceptable for projects in these sectors than for
large-scale residential development (there are exceptions, of course, and some
non-residential projects can be quite water-intensive, such as some kinds of
restaurants, motels, some kinds of car washes, food processing industries and
others).
Lastly, in terms of service impacts and revenue generation, non-residential projects
tend to be net "winners"--that is, generate more revenues than service costs. Many
residential projects, unless carefully formulated, will, in the longer term, be net
losers".
In summary, it seems that non-residential areas have the following characteristics i
different from residential'ones: (1) development of comparable intensity is almost
as likely in the county as it is in the city, so the value of a slower annexation
policy to regulate the pace of growth is diminished; (2) non-residential development
tends to be more suitable for reliance on on-site ground water, in that less water
and less high-quality water is needed to support them, generally, than is needed for
larger residential developments; (3) non-residential developments are more likely to
clearly 'pay their way" in terms of fiscal impacts than residential ones. j
In combination, these factors could argue that an approach which allows A
non-residential areas to be annexed more easily (e.g., without increased centralized
water supplies) than residential areas may have merit. ����
i
Annexation Discussion
Page 3
i
that continued commercial/industrial growth without corresponding residential
development exacerbates an already acknowledged problem of lack of adequate housingin
i
the community (note, however, that this approach is a sound one from a fiscal i
standpoint; see 3 and 4 below).
2. The significance of this point depends on the differences between city and county
standards. The city is generally perceived as more strict, but based on recent
county projects, this conclusion is not so clear. A "good" project in the county is
probably roughly equal to a "good" project in the city; a "bad" project in the county j
is probably a lot worse than a "bats" project in the city. Real differences may be '
fire protection standards (sprinkler requirements), aesthetics (architecture, open j
space, and landscaping treatment) and sewerage.
i
3. & 4. From a fiscal impact standpoint, most new industrial and commercial projects
generate more revenues than service-related costs. Over time, most residential
development becomes a net fiscal loser. The city does provide some fire and police
services through mutual aid in peripheral areas, but in general, this is probably not i
significant.
5. Significance again depends on difference between city and county standards and
philosophy. See 2 above.
6. Problems related to infrastructure deficiencies can frequently be mitigated by j
conditions imposed on the project (e.g., share in the cost of signalization or
intersection improvements). Again, importance of this depends on difference between
the city's and the county's willingness to impose such mitigations. Traditionally,
the city has been seen as more strict in this regard (i.e., more willing to impose
more extensive mitigations if deemed necessary).
7. Stricter annexation policies, while development continues on the periphery in the
county, increases the possibility of lack of coordination with the city policies and
plans. This can apply to land use goals and objectives (e.g., offices in new
Williams Brothers project or auto dealerships on lower Broad Street) as well as to
infrastructure capacities and design. Expanding municipal boundaries gives the city
control and better opportunity for coordination. The significance of this point
depends, again, on the level of city-county coordination and compatibility of
standards and philosophies.
One area where a more liberal annexation policy could result in a more fragmented,
less uniform infrastructure system is water supply and distribution during our
current situation. If annexation and development is permitted without new,
centralized water sources, those areas may be reliant on their own water systems
(e.g., on-site wells and project-specific treatment and distribution systems). This
could result in management, maintenance, and quality control difficulties. These arc
not insurmountable but could be costly. A policy of slower annexation tied to the
city's obtaining new centralized water sources would avoid these problems as the
community-wide water system is expanded.
8. See all of above.
i
Annexation Discussion •
Page 2
B. Pros and Cons of Different Annexation Philosophies. The following lists some of the
outcomes expected from different annexation philosophies (more restrictive versus
less restrictive) with some comments about their implications.
I
More Restrictive Annexation Philosophy Less Restrictive Annexation Philosophy
I. Tends to slow peripheral urban 1. Type, intensity, and rate of
growth; residential densities are peripheral development within city's i
typically lower, while control. If urban services are
commercial/industrial not so well available, there may be greater pressure
differentiated. Type, intensity and for urban-intensity development.
pace primarily in county control. Residential density of permitted
developments generally higher.
2. Projects may not meet to city 2. Projects must meet city standards.
standards.
3. City receives no direct revenues from 3. City can receive revenues.
peripheral development.
4. Lower service demands and costs 4. New demand for city services.
(although some may result from mutual
aid agreements or other service
commitments in some cases).
5. Fewer aesthetic controls. 5. Stronger aesthetic controls.
6. Usually weaker mitigations to offset 6. Usually requires stronger mitigations
infrastructure impacts. to offset infrastructure impacts.
7. City plans, goals, and policies less 7. City plans, goals, and policies more
likely to be met; less coordination likely to be implemented; land use and
in land use and infrastructure infrastructure planning within one
planning and development (Exception: jurisdiction's central. Better
water systems). coordination (Exception: water
systems).
I�
8. City absorbs many of the costs of 8. City absorbs those costs but gets
peripheral development (more traffic, more of the benefits.
congestion, pollution, visual
impacts) but fewer benefits.
Comments on the Table
I
1. The difference between the intensity of commercial/industrial development in the
county versus the city is not so apparent or significant (e.g., Williams Brothers,
Cal Cooperage, UPS correspond to analogous neighborhood or service commercial
projects in the city). Differences in residential density allowed in the two
jurisdictions can be significant. Some differentiation between commercial/industrial
area annexations versus residential areas may be useful. A problem that arises is '�j►
I
P .C . Minutes
April 29 , 1987
Page 3 .
VOTING: AYES - Commrs . Crotser, Duerk, and Hainline.
NOES - Commrs . Gerety and Kourakis .
ABSENT - Commrs . Dettmer and Schmidt.
. The motion passed .
Item 2 . Public Hearing: General Plan Amendment , Rezoning , 6 Annexation
GP/R 1261 . Consideration of annexing 78 acres to the city. and
amending the Land Use Elementmap and zoning map to change the
designations to retail-commercial (C-R) , service-commercial (C-S) ,
and manufacturing (M) ; 3800 Broad Street; Southern California Gas
Company , applicant . (Continued from January 28 , February 25 , and
March 25 , 1987)
Michael Multari introduced the item.
Jeff Hook presented the staff report, discussing key annexation issues .
Chairperson Kourakis opened the public hearing .
Vic Montgomery, applicant' s representative, felt a policy decision needed
to be made initially on the annexation question , and then deal with
individual parcel problems of prezoning and environmental mitigation. He
felt the area was unique and was not precedent-setting . He did not agree
with past city annexation policy and was in favor of the staff solution for
timing and development agreements . He discussed the applicant ' s intent for
annexation.
Tom Courtney, 870 Industrial , discussed Williams Brothers ' prior position
of annexation support . He stated Mr . Williams was now concerned with
traffic circulation and road access and was withdrawing his support .
Staff discussed zoning mitigation measures and felt that the market ' s
concerns seemed premature.
Commr. Hainline questioned the market' s circulation design.
Merle Williams stated he was in favor of annexation , but not without
satisfaction on his circulation concerns . Staff responded that they did
not recommend the interior street through Williams ' property and favored an
alternate route that avoided the property. Mr . Williams was satisfied with
that solution.
Chairperson Kourakis closed the public hearing .
Commr . Gerety asked staff if the city would be responsible if future
development had groundwater problems . Staff responded that the city could
have an agreement that would not hold the city liable , but that it may be
difficult for the city to refuse to help out in times of emergency of
5r37
P .C . Minutes
April 29 , 1987
Page 4 .
shortage.
Commr. Gerety felt the annexation was logical and favored Alternate 4 to
allow temporary use of groundwater supply while protecting city
responsibility until the city had an alternate water source.
Commr . Crotser agreed it was a logical annexation , but was concerned with
on-site water availability and favored Alternate 39which would allow city
extension of water service to the entire area .
Commr. Duerk agreed it was a logical annexation, but was concerned with the
water issue and discussed timing and development agreements with staff .
Chairperson Kourakis agreed that it was a logical annexation and concurred
with Commr . Duerk' s concerns . She moved to approve Alternate 4 and
directed staff to come back with specifics regarding pre-zoning and
mitigations/conditions .
Commr. Gerety seconded the motion.
VOTING : AYES - Commrs . Kourakis , Gerety , and Duerk.
NOES - Commrs. Crotser and Hainline.
ABSENT - Commrs . Dettmer and Schmidt .
The motion passed .
Staff clarified that the action did not mean the commission recommended
approval of the annexation yet , but that staff was . directed to continue
analysis of the annexation.
Commr. Duerk moved to postpone voting on the EIR consideration.
Commr . Hai-aline seconded the motion.
VOTING : AYES - Commrs . Duerk, Hainline , Crotser , Gerety and Kourakis .
NOES - None .
ABSENT - Commrs . Dettmer and Schmidt .
The motion passes .
NEW BUSINESS
1 . Public Art Program. Consideration of requesting the City Council
establish a matching fund for public art as part of the budget process .
Jeff Hook presented this item , which was prepared and recommended by Commr .
Duerk.
P.C. Minutes
July 8, 1987 ,
Page 2
3 . General Plan Amendment. Rezoning and Annexation GP/R 1261.
Consideration of annexing 78 acres to the city and amending the
Land Use Element map and zoning map to change the designations to
retail-commercial (C-R) , Neighborhood-Commercial (C-N) ,
service-commercial (C-S) , and manufacturing (M) ; 3800 Broad
Street; Southern California Gas Company, applicant.
Jeff Hook, Associate Planner, presented the staff report,
recommending that the commission review and consider the adequacy of
the EIR, and recommend to the City Council approval of the general
plan and water management element amendments, annexation, and
prezoning of the area.
Chairperson Rourakis opened the public hearing.
Vic Montgomery of Richmond, Rossi, Montgomery, representative for
Southern California Gas Company, responded to the staff report and
supported staff's recommendation as the most logical way of
implementing the annexation: He questioned the requirement of
contributing towards the improvement of the South/Broad Streets
intersection given the distance between that intersection and the
proposed annexation area.
Regarding concerns with water allocation, Mr. Montgomery felt
priorities should be given to master plan projects such as Edna-Islay
which are presently underway. The properties involved in the
annexation should be subject to the same water allocation regulations
as other properties in the city.
Ned Rogoway, representative for 2503 Partnership, owners of Lot 92,
favored the annexation as the best way to provide city services for
the development of the property. Mr. Rogoway submitted a letter from
the property owners in support of the annexation. He noted the
intent for development of Lot 92 was for a large retail or
service-commercial use physically linked with the Williams Brothers
Shopping Center. In order to pursue their development plans, he felt
it will be necessary to have C-S-PD prezoning rather than C-S-S as
proposed by staff. He noted that the property owners would oppose
the annexation if the C-S-PD zoning were not recommended.
Tom Courtney, representative for Williams Brothers Markets, supported
the annexation and concurred with staff's recommendation for a C-S-PD
zoning for the Williams Brothers property. He noted there presently
are no agreements between Williams Brothers and with the owners of
Lot 92 for the development of their property.
3-3�
P.C. Minutes
July 8, 1987
Page 3
Jay Parsons, owner of Lot 2, requested clarification of the "S"
overlay zoning. He was concerned with major expenses attributable to
the annexation, such as improvements to Broad/South Streets and
Sacramento and Orcutt Road, fire hydrants, street lights, etc.
Chairperson Kourakis declared the public hearing closed.
In response to a question from Commr. Duerk, Jeff Hook indicated that
individual properties involved in the annexation would probably pay a
very small increment towards the total costs of improvement of the
Broad/South Street intersection.
The commission discussed general plan policies in this area and felt
there should be a more coordinated effort between the city and county
to provide consistency for allowed uses in the fringe area.
Commr. Crotser supported the annexation request, since the benefit to
the city far outweighed arguments against it. He moved to recommend
to the City Council amendment of the General Plan Land Use Element
and Water Management Element and prezone the annexation area as
outlined in Exhibit "C" in the staff report as recommended by staff.
Commr. Hainline seconded the motion.
Commr. Duerk was concerned with the water issue. She hoped some
mechanism could be worked out so that if allocation became a
necessity, that this annexation would not interfere with on-going
projects or those already in the city. She requested an amendment to
the motion prezoning Lot 92 to C-S-PD as requested by the applicant.
Commr. Crotser felt a "PD" overlay for Lot 92 was not appropriate for
as part of the annexation request, since it relates to a specific
project and preferred to follow staff's recommendation.
Chairperson Kourakis indicated she would be reluctant to support the
"PD" prezoning.
Commr. Gerety could not support the motion. He was not in favor of
using private well systems. He felt that if the properties were
annexed, they should receive full service from city water. Any
groundwater available for use should be developed by the city for
better control. He indicated that all properties should be included
in the annexation request; none should be exempted.
Commr. Schmidt felt providing water to the annexation area raises a
major question of equity and fairness to those already in the city
who are hoping to develop their properties when allocation
regulations may be in effect. He felt property owners who have been
3—P
P.C. Minutes
July 8 , 1987
Page 4
in the city should have first call on any available water. He also
questioned whether the amount of groundwater actually available was
enough to supply the area and what would happen if it ran out. He
felt that the request was not timely.
Commr. Crotser agreed that water was an issue but it was not so
critical as to outweigh other benefits from the annexation.
Chairperson Kourakis agreed with Commr. Crotser. She felt the two
crucial issues involved were water and long-term planning of the
city's boundaries. She agreed that the entire 78 acres should be
annexed at one time. She supported the motion.
VOTING: AYES: Commrs. Crotser, Hainline, Duerk, Kourakis
NOES: Commrs. Gerety, Schmidt
ABSENT: None (one vacancy)
Commr. Gerety indicated his no vote was not because he opposed the
annexation but because he was opposed to the use of private wells for
groundwater within the city.
The motion passes.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION
Michael Multari reviewed recent City Council actions.
Chairperson Kourakis indicated that a joint meeting between the City
Council and Planning Commission was being planned. A date for the
meeting would be forthcoming.
The meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m. to the next regular meeting
scheduled for July 22, 1987, at 7:.00 p.m. in the Council Chamber,
City Hall, 990 Palm Street.
Respectfully submitted,
Barbara Ehrbar
Recording Secretary
3-¢/
:- 7
- -- -- - --- - - -- -
- - ----------- -- -- ---- - ---- - ------
it
t -- - ----------- -- -- ---- - ---- - -----
it Tl'-2 tt z
-- --------------- ------ ---- --- - --
itit Y Y i1 O n
li Y tl
I' 1 J'1 'a O N f MJ ."� '1 q � 1M
11 J J Y :1
I
rs
Y
n
i
.r -_--- --—--—-- -------— ----- — -__-_- II 4
y
ti •� `s J n 'ia N ti v n n .V v N A v n
Q � r Y ii
't 6 it
„ tt
n u '
II 11 7 O
0 O ? 6 pO 0, O j 3
II ty tz ^ on
O O O O O 0 O '\i' O O O 11
a 1 'S• Inl '� 17 � � Y! �f — 1 N N aY
11 H � li it
Y
Y[S 11 11 _ 11
Z 11
— it
it
— 11
a n n — u
1 i
V li W �� it YP'Y � V � •ai Y9 a � N ? � t
a X Rlfl � 6 11 11 y2
n C_
Y !t _ _ Y Q
11
11 11 "
it to li O pe J o Q O O �+ ii
11 y Y N N � < •f nA � � O � O 1 y
11 = %1 N N = = N N N N .•1 11 !
11 'Z 11 J
1
-- ---------------------
t Y
It 11 �
11 L
" y tl n `9 •f O n N f M �] 11 .Ts O
11 y — It n a.Y
11 {P 11 N Y Oz
i1 A +I
1 !1
---- ---------------- -- - --- - ---- --
-
________________ __ _ ___ _ ____ __
1 11
---- ------------- ------
Y
a
e i II
ii
.t y a � v m .v .ve .•]r n � It
ti C
17 Y
t, u n y Y
n
O _ 11 �.• J
I Y r
11 �L
1 y
11 .7 II
I
- 1
^ 1
--
March 1988
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY ANNEXATION
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT COST ESTIMATES
TYPE OF IMPROVEMENT/CALCULATION METHOD
1. Street Frontage Improvements - Curb, Gutter, and Sidewalk = lineal street
frontage (LF) X $22.00
2. Street Trees (installed behind sidewalk) = LF 35 X $150
3. Water Hook-up Fee - LF of frontage where water service extended (on corner lots,
the longer of the two frontages) X $11.60 + size of property in acres (A) X $1160
4. Sewer Hook-up Fee - includes frontage and sewer lift station fees = LF X $5.88 +
A X 3 (gpm) X $131.55
5. Fire Hydrants = LF/300 X $2600
6. Street Extension - Portion of Sacramento Drive to Orcutt Road = A/ 78 (total
acreage in annexation area) X $80,000
7. Traffic Signal @ Broad Street and Capitolio Way (1/3 of total $90K cost, balance
paid by state and city) = A/78 X $29,700
8. Street Lighting = No. of street lights required by city X $1000
9. Orcutt Road Grade Separation = Not to exceed fee of $2500 per lot.
10. Industrial Way Water Main Extension - Install 1600 l.f. of 12" diameter water
main along Industrial Way = A/78 X $80,000
11. Fire Sprinkler Retrofit (existing commercial buildings only) - Gross square
footage of building / 1000 X $2500
NOTE: These costs are estimates and do not include: design/engineering costs,
permit costs, inflation cost factor, unknown conditions and/or clean-up,
site preparation, grading, and related development costs except for
frontage improvements; actual construction bid costs for specific
improvement items may vary significantly.
jh3/socalcosts
Southern California Gas
Annexation - Public Improvement Costs
(GP/R 1261)
Symbols
A. - Acreage
L.F.- Linear Feet
(K) - Thousands of Dollars
Installation timing code: 1 - At time of Annexation; 2 - At time of property
development; 3 - deferred installation/payment within 5 years of annexation.
Location/Identification Lot Area Installation Timine
Lot 90-91 Williams Brothers (') - 11.07A.
1. Frontage Improvements - s/w, curbs, gutters 1
-1950 L.F. @ $22 = $42,900
2. Street Trees @ 1/35 L.F. 1
-1950/35 ($150) _ $8,357
3. Water Service Hook-up (Filliponi property only) 1
-215 (11.60) + .87 (1160) _ $3,503
-Intensification of exist = $5.000
$8,503
4. Sewer Fees 1
-Lift Station (Filliponi property only) - .87 (3) (131.55) _ $343
-Sewer hook-up - 215 (5.88) _ $1,264
-$343 + $1,264 = $1,607
5. Hydrants - 7 @ $2600 = $18,200 1
6. Sacramento Dr. Extension 3
(.143) (60k) _ $8,592
7. Traffic Signal @ Capitolio 2
-(90,000 total cost less 67% state/city funding)
-(.143) (29,700) _ $4247
8. Street Lighting 3
8 lights @ $1,000 = $8,000
9. Orcutt Grade Separation 3
-2 lots @ $2,500 = $5,000
10. Water Main Extension - .142 (80k) _ $11,354 1
TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS: $116,760 r I B
Public Improvements
Page 2
Lot 92 - Holdgrapher Property - 9.73 A. Installation Timing
1. Frontage improvements 687' @ $22 = $15,119 2
2. Street Trees 687/35 (150) _ $2,944 2
3. Water hook-up 400 (11.60) + 9.73 (11.60) _ $4,640 + $11,287 = $15,927. 1
4. Sewer Fees I
-Sewer hook-up 687 (5.88) _ $4,040
-Sewer lift stn. 9.73 (3) (131.55) _ $3.840
$7,880
5. Hydrants: 687/300 (2600).= $5,200 2
6. Sacramento Drive extension: 9.73/78 (60k) _ $7,485 3
7. Traffic signal contribution: .124 (29,700) _ $3,683 2
8. Street Lights: 3 lights @ 1000 = $3,000 3
9. Orcutt grade separation: not to exceed $2,500 3
10. Water main extension: .125 (80k) _ $9,979 1
TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS $73,717
Lot 93 Darrel's Mini-storage - 5.21 A.
1. Frontage improvements: n/a - already improved
2. Street trees 330/35 (150) _ $1,414 (credit for existing trees possible) 3
3. Water hook-up 330 (11.60) + 5.21 (1100) _ $9,872 1
4. Sewer Fees:
-Sewer hook-up 330 (5.88) _ $1,940 1
-Sewer lift stn.: 5.21 (3) (131.55) _ $2,056 + 1,940 = $3,990
5. Hydrants: 330/300 (2600) _ $2,600 1
6. Sacramento Drive Extensions: 5.21/78.0 (60k) _ $4,008 3
7. Traffic signal contribution: .06 (29,700) _ $1,782 3
8. Street lights: 1 @ $1,000 = $1,000
9. Orcutt grade separation: $2,500 3
10. Water main extension: .066 (00k) _ $5,280 1 345
Lot 93
Page 3
11. Fire sprinkler retrofit: Not known.
'TOTAL ESTIMATE $32,446
Lot 94 Union Local - Pipefitters 5.49 A. Installation Timing
1. Frontage improvements: 330 if @ $22 = $7,260 2
2. Street Trees: 330/35 x (150) _ $1,131 2
3. Water hook-up: 330 (11.60) _ $3,828 + 5.49 (1160) =$6,368
3828 + 6368 = $10,196 1
4. Sewer Fees:
Sewer hook-up: 330 (5.88) _ $1,940 1
Sewer lift stn.: 5.49 (3) (131.55) _ $2,167
5. Hydrants: I @ $2,600 = $2,600 2
6. Street Extension: .07 (60k) _ $4,223 3
7. Traffic Signal: .07 (29,700) _ $2,079 3
8. Street lights 1 @ 1,000 = $1,000 3
9. Orcutt grade separation: $2,500 3
10. Water main extension: .107 (80k) _ $5,600 1
11. Fire sprinkler retrofit: 5,000 @$2500/$]000 = $12,500 3
TOTAL ESTIMATE $53,479
Lot 95 South California Gas 5.34 acres
1. Frontage Improvements: 1122 @ 22 = $24,684 2
2. Street trees: 1122/35 (150) _ $4,809 2
3. Water hook-up fees: (11.60) 792 = $9,187 + 5.34 (1160) _ $6,1.94 = $15,381 - 1
4. Sewer fees: hook-up: 792 (5.88) _ $4,656 1
Sewer lift stn: 5.34 (3) (131.55) _ $2.107 1
$6,763
5. Hydrants: 1122/300 (2600) _ $10,400 2
6. Street extension: .068 (60k) _ $4,105 3
7. Traffic signal: .0684 (29,700) _ $2,032 2 /f
S. Street lights: 5 @ 1,000 = $5,000 2
Lot 95
Page 4
Installation Timing
9. Orcutt grade separation contribution: $2,500 3
10. Water main extension: .068 (80k) _ $5,477 1
TOTAL ESTIMATE $81,151
Lot 98-99 Mel Jones 11.11 A.
1. Frontage Improvements: 1452 x 22 = $31,944 2
2. Street trees: 1452/35 (150) _ $6,223 2
3. Water hook-up: 660 (11.60) _ $7,656 + 11.11 (1160) _ $20,544 1
4. Sewer fees: hook-up: $ 8,538 1
Sewer lift stn.: $ 4.385
$12,923
5. Hydrants: $13,000 2
6. Sacramento Drive extension: .142 (60k) _ $8,520 3
7. Traffic signal contribution: .142 (29,700) _ $4,217 2
8. Street lights: 4 @ 1000 = $4,000 2
9. Orcutt grade extension: Two lots @ $2,500 = $5,000 3
10. Water main extension: .142 (80k) _ $11,360 1
TOTAL ESTIMATE $117,731
Lot 100 A & B Santa Lucia 5.33 A
1. Frontage improvements: 230 (22) _ $5,060 2
2. Street trees: 804/35 x 150 = $3,446 2
3. Water service fees: 230 (11.60) _ $2,668 1
5,33 (1160) _ $6.183
$8,851
4. Sewer fees: I
Sewer hook-up: 230 (5.88) _ $1,352 +
Sewer lift stn.: 5.33 (3) (131.55) _ $2,103 = $3,455
S. Fire hydrants: 1 @ $2,600 = $2,600 2
5
Lot 100
Page 5
Installation Timing
6. Sacramento Drive extension: .068 (60k) _ $4,080 3
7. Traffic signal contribution: .068 (29,700) _ $2,020 2
8. Street lights: 1 @ 1000 = $1,000 2
9. Orcutt grade separation: 6.5 = $2,500 3
10. Water main: .068 (80,000)-= $5,440 1
TOTAL ESTIMATE $38,452
Lot 100 C Boat Yard .43 A.
1. Frontage improvements: 100 (22) _ $2,200 3
2. Street trees: 100/35 (150) _ $450 3
3. Water hook-up 100 (1160) + .43 (1160) _ $1,659 1
4. Sewer fees: hook-up: 100 (5.88) _ $588 1
Sewer lift stn.: .43 (3) (131.55) _ $170
$758
5. Hydrants: n/a 3
6. Street extension: .43/78.06 (60,000) _ $331 3
7. Traffic signal: .005 (29,700) _ $164 3
8. Street light: n/a
9. Orcutt grade separation: $2500 3
10. Water main extension: .43/78 (80k) _ $441 1
11. Sprinkling: 2500 @ $2500/1000 = $6,250 3
TOTAL ESTIMATE $14,753
Lot 1 United Parcel Service 3.30 A
1. Frontage improvements: n/a
2. Street trees 259/35 (150) _ $1,110 3
3. Water hook-up: 259 (1160) = 3004 + 3828 + $6,832 1
C5'0
Lot 1
Page 6
Installation Timing
4. Sewer fees hook-up: 259 (5.88) _ $1,523 1
Sewer lift stn.: 3.30 (3) (131.55) _ $1.302
$2,825
5. Hydrants: 1 @ $2,600 3
6. Street extension: .042 (60,000) _ $2,520 3
7. Traffic signal: .042 (29700) _ $1,247 3
8. Street lighting: 1 @ 1000 = $1,000 3
9. Orcutt Grade: $2,500 3
10. Water main extension: .042 (80k) _ $3,385 3
11. Sprinkler retrofit: 10,000/1000 (2500) _ $25,000 1
TOTAL ESTIMATE $49,019
Lot 2 Jay Parsons 5.17 A
1. Frontage improvements: n/a
2. Street trees: 351/35 (150) _ $1,504 2
3. Water hook-up: 351 (11.60) = 4072 + 5.17 (1160) _ $10,069 1
4. Sewer fees: - hook-up: 351 (5.88) _ $2,064 1
Sewer lift stn.: 5.17 (3) (131.55) _ $2.040
$4,104
5. Hydrants: 351/300 (2600) _ $2,600 2
6. Street extension: .066 (60,000) _ $3,974 3
7. Traffic signal: .066 (29,700) _ $1,960 3
8. Street lighting: 2 @ 1000 = $2,000 3
9. Orcutt Road grade separation: $2,500 3
10. Water main extension: .066 (80k) _ $5,303 1
TOTAL ESTIMATE $34,014
��9
Lot 3
Page 7
Lot 3 Cal Coop 3.14 A Installation Timing
1. Frontage improvements: n/a
2. Street trees (partial credit given for exist. trees):
347/35 (.8) (150) _ $1,190 3
3. Water hook-up: 347 (11.60) = 4025 + 3.14 (1160) _ $7,667 1
4. Sewer fees: - hook-up: 347 (5.88) _ $2,040 1
Sewer lift stn.: 3.14 (3) (131.55) _ $1.239
$3,279
a
5. Hydrants: 347/300 = 1 @ $2,600 3
6. Street extension: .04 (60,000) _ $2,414 3
7. Traffic signal: .04 (29,700) _ $1,188 3
8. Street lighting: 2 @ 1000 = $2,000 3
9. Orcutt Road grade separation: $2,500 3
10. Water main extension: .040 (80k) _ $3,221 1
11. Sprinkler Retrofit: 10,000 /1000 (2500) _ $25,000 3
TOTAL ESTIMATE $51,059
Lot 4 Offices 3.33 A
1. Frontage improvements: n/a
2. Street trees (partial credit): 718/35 (.80) 150 = $2,462 3
3. Water hook-up: 377 (11.60) = 4373 + 3.33 (1160) _ $8,236 1
4. Sewer fees: - hook-up: 377 (5.88) _ $2,217 1
Sewer lift stn: 3.33 (3) (131.55) _ $3.531
$5,748
5. Hydrants: 718/300 (2600) _ $5,200 3
6. Street extension: 3.33/78.06 (60,000) _ $2,560 3
7. Traffic signal: 3.33/78/06 (29700) _ $1,267 3
8. Street light 2 @ 1000 = $2,000 3
3-Z
Lot 4
Page 8
Installation Timing
9. Orcutt Grade separation: $2,500 3
10. Water main extension: .043 (80k) _ $3,415 1
11. Sprinkler Retrofit: 10,000/1000 x $2500 = $25,000 3
TOTAL ESTIMATE $58,388
jh;#4gasannex