HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/06/1988, 2 - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, PREZONING AND ANNEXATION GP/R 1261 - CONSIDERATION OF ANNEXING 78 ACRES AND AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT AND ZONING MAPS TO CHANGE DESIGNATIONS TO SERVICE-COMMERCIAL (C-S), MANUFACTURING (M-S), RETAIL-COMMERCIAL (C �I��hII�Rllllylll�l�lll ` III MEETING UA 1888
I�II� Ci"J 0f San LUIS OBISpO Sept. 6,
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER:
FROM: Michael Multari, Community Development Director; Prepared By: Jeff Hoole
SUBJECT: �/
General Plan Amendment, Prezoning and Annexation GP/R 1261 - Consideration of annexing 78
acres and amending the Land Use Element and Zoning maps to change designations to
service-commercial (C-S), manufacturing (M-S), retail-commercial (C-R), and
neighborhood-commercial (C-N) between Broad Street and the city limits.
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the annexation by. 1) Certifying the project's Final EIR, 2) Adopting the
resolution amending the General Plan Land Use Map, 3) Passing-to-print the ordinance
pre-zoning the annexation area, and 4) Adopting the resolution recommending LAFCo
approval of the annexation.
DISCUSSION:
This item is returning for council action after several study sessions on annexations and
related issues. The Planning Commission has recommended approval of the annexation with
special conservation provisions, and area property owners have'expressed qualified
support for annexation during several meetings with staff held over the past eighteen
months. At the council's March 22nd hearing, councilmembers voiced concerns with
driveway access to Broad Street, and suggested that staff explore the feasibility of a
frontage road. This report focuses on access issues, summarizes key annexation issues,
recaps public improvements, and lastly, identifies a range of alternatives for dealing
with the annexation.
Since its submittal over two years ago, the Southern California Gas Company annexation
has posed something of a dilemma: it is a 78-acre area which visually and geographically
is a logical addition to the city, yet its annexation has raised policy and timing
questions of considerable complexity. As part of the much larger Airport Area Specific
Plan, the annexation shares many of the same land use and environmental issues; yet due
to its history and location it is unique and without parallels elsewhere in the city.
Moreover, the annexation comes at a time when the city is considering broader, citywide
concerns of managing growth and resources, and preserving open space.
SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
The Final EIR cites several political impacts and recommends mitigation measures in the
areas of traffic, water and sewer service, drainage, and public safety (fire
protection). Preliminary studies suggest that, initially, the annexation would not
significantly affect city costs or revenues; but within three to five years, revenues
would begin to increase much faster than city costs due to increasing property and sales
tax revenues.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT TAKING THE RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The city is under no mandated deadline for acting on the annexation. By not approving
the annexation, either by denying it or by postponing action indefinitely, future
development within the annexation area would proceed under county jurisdiction. As a
4,2�
��uh�►b►i��lllllll�p��u►9�U�N city of san Luis osispo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Page 2
result of less stringent county development standards, the area will likely continue to
be an enclave of substandard development surrounded by the city, but without contributing
property or sales tax revenues to the city. Southern California Gas and four other
properties already have contracts to receive city water and sewer services, and may,
under current policies, individually qualify for annexation on an incremental basis. For
construction timing reasons, the applicant has indicated a preference for proceeding with
the project in the county if the larger annexation is not approved.
BACKGROUND
Situation
This item was continued from the council's October 20th, November 17th, and March 22nd
hearings. During the interim, staff, Planning Commission, and the Council have discussed
citywide annexation issues including annexation history and policies, resource
capabilities, open space preservation, growth management, and the Airport Area Specific
Plan. Previous analyses and staff reports provide a fairly detailed policy context for
this annexation request. Copies of these earlier reports are available in the council
office and the Community Development Department.
The 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) pre-zoning all properties within the
proposed annexation area, and 4) approval of the annexation. 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 Descriotion
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. A significant portion of the annexation area, which was 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.
►►�i�►►��Illlip�I ���`I city of San tui s OBISPO
WMaZe COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Page 3
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
Commissioners considered the annexation at three meetings between January and July 1987.
Due to the project's scope, the commission reviewed the annexation in two parts. At its
April 29th, 1987 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 about water availability and whether it was
fair to add properties to the city which could apply for water when supplies are short.
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.
In staff's view, the key issue is not whether to annex, but rather when to annex.
Since its submittal about two years ago, this annexation has been included in and studied
as part of the Airport Area Specific Plan. Concurrent staff review of both projects has
allowed a much more comprehensive study of the annexation than would normally be
possible. Issues like land use, traffic, and drainage for the 78 acre annexation were
also part of the analysis for some 1,800 acres within the Airport Area.
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.
-3
1111 11/111111 l jcity of San LUIS OBISpo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Page 4
The request raises policy issues regarding the timing and appropriateness of annexation,,
but it does 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, or have city agreements to 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, including retail, manufacturing,.and
service-commercial businesses.
-City sewer and water mains exist 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.
-Commercial development in the annexation area is imminent, and the city would realize
additional sales tax and other revenues through annexation.
Recently, the council approved changes to minor annexation policies contained in the
Water and Wastewater Management Element and the Land Use Element. The changes
allow greater flexibility in approving minor annexations where other public objectives —
particularly open space preservation -- could be achieved through annexation. The
changes will primarily affect fringe area development where creation of a green belt can
most logically occur. The So Cal Gas Annexation would continue to be a unique situation
and an exception to these more general minor annexation policies.
Access and Circulation
Driveway access onto thoroughfares like Broad Street can significantly affect traffic
flow and safety. Studies cited in the EIR indicate that:
1. The number of accidents and accident rates tend to increase proportionally to
the number of driveways and driveway traffic volumes.
2. Street capacity (Level of Service) is reduced as additional driveways are added
and turning movements increase.
3. The number of driveways tends to increase with increased intensity of
development.
Driveway movements for the annexation area were analyzed under three land use scenarios:
the existing county zoning (least intense), staff-modified alternative zoning, and the
applicant's proposed zoning (most intense in terms of development potential). With
driveways allowed on all highway frontages, the number of vehicles entering and leaving
the highway at driveways will be very high for the applicant's proposed zoning scheme --
some 15,000 daily movements, with about 11% of that during peak traffic hours.
����i�► NIIIII�P° ��U�II City of San Luis OBlspo
NNoGe COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Page 5
By comparison, estimated daily driveway volumes for existing and staff-modified zoning
are 2,500 and 4,500, respectively.
Following the last council hearing, staff reviewed access issues with Cal Trans and the
engineering staff. Cal Trans opposed a continuous raised median in Broad Street due to
safety concerns, and also opposes new driveways onto Broad Street. The City Engineer
recommended against the use of a frontage road due to the added complexity of, traffic
movements at the ends of the frontage road. Instead, he recommends that access onto
Broad Street be limited, with internal driveway connections between adjoining properties.
Traffic counts suggest that under present zoning or the proposed pre-zoning, the
estimated number of added driveway movements with full development would not
significantly degrade traffic flow on Broad Street, provided that reasonable access
controls are instituted. Several methods of reducing driveway access onto Broad Street
were explored:
1. Internal Local Street - The EIR shows a new north-south local street between
Capitolio and Industrial Way. Intended to provide a second street frontage for
properties fronting on Broad Street, the concept has several problems:
A. Significant grade differences of up to 6-8 feet would require major grading
and retaining walls with the proposed street alignment.
B. The proposed alignment would conflict with existing or approved development
on six lots.
C. A second street frontage is likely to promote resubdivision of the area
into smaller lots, and result in higher intensity land use than would
otherwise be possible.
2. Frontage Road at Highway 227 - A frontage road paralleling Broad Street
between Capitolio and Tank Farm would separate driveway movements from thru
traffic flow, similar to that used along South Higuera Street for the Higuera
Commerce Park. Frontage roads can include an attractive landscaped parkway, and
when planned early enough, can improve circulation for abutting streets and
properties. This approach, however, also appears to have several drawbacks:
A. Existing or approved development on the Williams Bros. property and
Darrell's Mini-Storage would preclude a continuous frontage road, and would
probably require the city to use its powers of eminent domain to acquire
the additional right-of-way.
B. Traffic circulation at the intersection ends of a frontage road is often
confusing and awkward, with higher accident rates than conventional 3- or
4-way intersections.
C. Due to limited access and the reduced lot area available for development,
property owner objections are likely under either city or county
jurisdiction.
��►►�� ►►�IIIIIII�II°�811����II MY Of san LUIS Oso SPO
MsMa COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Page 6
3. Driveway Access Controls - Limitations may be placed on the location, type,
and number of driveways in the annexation area. Nine of the 13 lots in the
annexation area have Broad Street frontage. Of these, six lots have frontages
on at least one other street.
Staff has prepared a driveway access plan (Exhibit B, attached) which would reduce
traffic conflicts due to turning movements, while still allowing access to all
properties. The plan would establish three access categories:
1. Limited Access - Existing access driveways could be maintained; improvements
or additional driveways would require Planning Commission approval (Lots 1, 2,
3, 93, and 94).
2. Shared or Joint Access - Common driveway for lots 91-92 (Williams Bros.) and
lot 93 (2083 Partnership) would reduce turning movements into or from Broad
Street.
3. Restricted Access - Lots with frontages on Industrial Way and Tank Farm Road
would be denied access to Broad Street (Lots 95, 98/99, and 100). These lots
could be served by an interior common driveway between Industrial Way and Tank
Farm Road.
Staff reviewed the draft driveway plan with property owners at a meeting on June 9th.
Since then, a copy of the plan has been sent to all property. owners for their review and
comment. At the meeting, the chief concerns expressed were by the owners of lots 90-91
(Williams Bros. Market) and lot 92 (2083 Partnership):
1. Both parties expressed willingness to consider a connecting driveway between their
adjacent parking lots, but objected to it being made an annexation.requirement.
2. They expressed concern that an interior driveway might create traffic safety concerns
due to motorists speeding or making unsafe maneuvers.
3. They noted that negotiations would be required between the parties to secure the
common driveway, and were reluctant to make commitments until tenants were firmed up
and negotiations completed. Moreover, they felt that negotiations may be hampered by
making the common driveway mandatory.
Based on discussions with the property owners, staff believes such negotiations have
a reasonably good chance of success. Lots 90/91 and 92 are proposed to have a mix of
mostly retail uses (a large, general merchandise discount store has been discussed
for lot 92), with some office and service-commercial, and the 30 ft. wide interior
driveway could be mutually advantageous to both parties by: added customer
convenience by allowing easy movement between retail stores on adjacent lots, more.
efficient use of parking facilities, and safer exiting since motorists could exit lot
92 to the signalized intersection at Capitolio and Broad Streets via the connecting
driveway.
city or san tins osispo
110094 COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Page 7
The driveway plan here should allow for limited access to Broad Street under two
scenarios:
1) Negotiations for a common driveway are successful: a single, two-way driveway
is allowed on Broad Street.
2) Negotiations for a common driveway are not successful: special driveway
Provisions required to minimize traffic conflicts. These may include two,
one-way driveways (posted right turn only) onto Broad Street, a special turnout
or deceleration lane along Broad Street, and a two-way driveway allowing retail
customer access from Sacramento Drive.
4. Owners of lots 98,99, and 100 believe a driveway onto Broad Street is essential to
develop the property (property owner letter attached). They may be amendable,
however, to a common driveway to limit access on Broad Street. Staff feels a single
common driveway here would be an acceptable compromise for these properties.
Water Allocation Strategy
When fully developed, the proposed annexation could increase the city's total water
demand by about I 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 "F" 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 eight lots must rely on
on-site water and waste disposal systems.
The city's recent groundwater study (John L. Wallace and Associates, March 1988) estimate
that about 1150 acre-feet annually recharges the groundwater basin underlying the Airport
area. The probability of finding groundwater supplies in the annexation area is good;
however studies caution that the quality of the water is variable and typically poorer
(higher mineral content) than other city areas tested.
On-site groundwater may prove to be a reliable source for landscaping and other
non-potable uses. If council supports annexation, a water service plan can be structured
for the annexation area which addresses city and property owner concerns. 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).
B. Use of on-site groundwater for landscape irrigation and non-food processing or
manufacturing.
C. Drought-resistant landscaping and special irrigation measures to conserve water.
��m���Hi�lllll[IIIP° u►���I► city of San LUIS OBISPO
Hiis COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Page 8
D. Verification by city of adequacy of groundwater supplies prior to development
approval.
E. 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 pian 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 2) 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 standards.
Pre-zoning/Land Use
Staff's proposed pre-zoning is-shown in Exhibit "C". It emphasizes
service-commercial/light industrial uses for lots with Broad Street frontage, and
manufacturing for lots with frontage on Sacramento 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 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 approved by the
council. Staff felt that final council action on the annexation was a logical
prerequisite to processing a development agreement.
Public Imorovements
In several meetings with staff, the majority of property owners said they favored
annexation, provided that the allowed mix of land uses was acceptable, and that
annexation costs were not excessive. Staff has prepared cost estimates to clarify the
type, cost, and timing of public improvements (Exhibit "B", attached). In most cases,
the public improvement costs could be deferred until the time of development, or the
���n��►►�IIIII��p �U�N MY Of San IUI S OBI SPO
MiS COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Page 9
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 which need to be
investigated. 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. Existing non-conforming
buildings would be brought up to current standards for fire protection and emergency
access. Property owners would be required to install the improvements under an
amortization schedule based on their buildings' valuation, or at the time of building
remodel, whichever comes first. An explanation and summary of expected property owner
costs are attached.
To mitigate traffic impacts, the several local street improvements are recommended,
including widening and improvement of Industrial Way, contribution toward Sacramento
street extension and the Orcutt Grade Separation, signalization of Capitolio Way/Broad
Street intersection, modifications to the Broad Street median strip to improve left turn
safety, and driveway access restrictions along Broad Street.
FISCAL IMPACTS
City costs and revenues resulting from annexation are estimated to cancel each other out
in the near term. Public costs include electricity (street lighting), utilities and
street maintenance, and police and fire services (already available on a back-up basis
through a mutual aid agreement with the County). City revenue sources would consist
primarily of sales tax ($31,700 during 1986), and a property tax increment allotment from
the County (probably less than $10,000 for the first year, increasing in subsequent years
upon improvement and reassessment of the area's properties).
Expansion of commercial uses, in contrast to residential growth, will bring the city more
revenue (in the form of sales taxes, business license and other user fees, and property
taxes) than it costs in public services. The city could expect significant revenues over
the long term due to commercial development within the annexation area. g
�� /
►►�i ��ll111��pi �����1 City of San LUIS OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Page 10
ALTERNATIVES
Alternatives available to the Council include:
1. Amend the General Plan, pre-zone the property, and approve the annexation as
recommended, or with changes as deemed appropriate.
2. Postpone action on the annexation request, for example, pending further results of
the test well program.
There is no mandated deadline for acting on general plan amendments or annexations,
and the council may defer acting on the request indefinitely, or for a specified
period. Council may wish to postpone action pending completion of new wells and
related distribution system; or until the General Plan update or Airport Area
Specific Plan have received preliminary council review and/or approval. With this
approach, Southern California Gas would need to apply for development approval within
the county to meet its targeted building completion date of late 1989.
3. Deny the annexation.
The annexation area can be expected to develop at a slightly reduced intensity under
county standards, due to the lack of urban services and the additional lot area
required for on-site waste disposal, runoff detention, and wells. Esthetics and
needed public improvements may continue to be a problem under county development
standards. The city will not realize any increased revenues from new commercial
development in the area, despite the fact that it appears to be part of the city, and
is within the market area for the growing Edna-Islay neighborhood.
4. Continue action to date certain.
Council may wish to continue the item to a date certain to allow staff or the
applicant to address specific concerns.
RECON MENDED ACTION
In balance, staff believes the city's interests are best served by proceeding with the
annexation at this time. Many annexation details would still remain to be worked out
with property owners, including water service agreements (possibly included under
property development agreements) and public improvement installation agreements -- both
of which would require council approval.
If council supports the annexation at this time, it should: 1) certify the project EIR,
2) Adopt the attached resolution amending the General Plan, 3) Pass-to-Print the attached
ordinance pre-zoning the annexation area, and 4) Adopt the resolution approving the
annexation.
- v
�oih�►�Ill�lflll���l�►nulll�l city of San lois OBISpo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Page 11
Attachments:
-Draft Resolutions
-Draft Ordinance
-vicinity Map
-Exhibit "A" - General Plan Amendment
-Exhibit "B" - Driveway Access Plan
-Exhibit "C" - Pre-zoning map
-Exhibit "D" - County approved use program for Williams Bros. project
-Exhibit "E" - Proposed Annexation Legal Description and Map
-Exhibit "F" - Water Demand Increase Estimate
-Planning Commission Minutes
-Exhibit "G" - Public Improvement Cost Estimates
-Property Owner Letter re: Driveway Access
jh4/GP 1261
RESOLUTION NO. (1988 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL AMENDING
THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT FROM RURAL-INDUSTRIAL
AND CONSERVATION/OPEN SPACE TO SERVICE-COMMERCIAL/LIGHT INDUSTRIAL
IN THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY ANNEXATION AREA,
3800 BROAD STREET.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the City Council have held public hearings on
this amendment in accordance with the California Government Code; and
WHEREAS, the amendment comes to the council upon the favorable recommendation of the
Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the potential environmental impacts of the change have been evaluated in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the City's Environmental
Guidelines.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council resolves as follows:
SECTION 1. Environmental Determination. The City Council hereby certifies that the
Final Environmental Impact Report for the Southern California Gas Company Annexation
adequately identifies the project's potentially significant impacts, alternatives to the
proposed action, and recommended mitigation measures. The following mitigation measures
are incorporated into the project:
A. Traffic
1. Annexation area properties shall improve Industrial Way, Sacramento Drive, and
Capitolio Way to their planned width and contribute toward the installation of a
traffic signal at Capitolio Way and Broad Street (Highway 227).
2. Driveway access to Broad Street shall be restricted, as indicated in the Driveway
Access Plan Exhibit 'B."
3. Annexation area properties shall contribute toward the extension of Sacramento Drive
through to Orcutt Road, to the approval of the Community Development Director and
City Engineer.
B. Water and Sewer Service
1. Annexation area properties shall enter into a Water Service Agreement with the City,
establishing terms of city water service delivery, water conservation measures and
performance standards, and contingencies in the event groundwater becomes
unavailable.
Resolution No. (1988 Scrics)
Page 2
2. Approximately 1600 linear feet of 12 inch diameter water main shall be constructed
along Industrial Way.
3. Fire hydrants shall be installed in the annexation area as required by the Uniform
Fire Code.
4. Area properties shall contribute toward reasonable and necessary costs for
infrastructural improvements to extend sewer and water services to the annexation
arca.
C. Drainage
1. Annexation properties shall design and install on-site conveyance facilities to
carry increased or re-directed drainage flows within the area.
2. Annexation properties shall contribute toward the cost of increasing the capacity
of downstream conveyance facilities on a pro rata basis, to the approval of the
City Engineer; or shall provide appropriate stormwater retention facilities
on-site or in connection with city-approved regional detention facilities.
D. Public Safety
1. Annexation arca properties shall be brought up to current fire sprinkler and
emergency access requirements. Improvements may be phased, pursuant to
development agreements with the property owners.
SECTION 2. Findings.
1. The measures listed in Section I will adequately mitigate adverse environmental
impacts of the proposed change.
2. The proposed change is consistent with other elements and policies of the General
Plan.
SECTION 3. Adoption.
1. The Land Use Element is hereby amended as shown in Exhibit "A."
2. The Community Development Director shall cause the change to be reflected in
documents which are on display in City Hall and which arc available for public
use.
On motion of , seconded
by and on the following roll call
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT;
a -/3
Resolution No. (1988 Series)
Page 3
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this -- day of
1988.
Mayor - – - -- - — ---
ATTEST::
City Clerk
APPROVED:
City dministrative Officer
City Atte ney
Community Development Director
a- ��f
RESOLUTION NO. (1988 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDING LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION
APPROVAL OF THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY ANNEXATION
(SLO COUNTY ANNEXATION #38) TO THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the City Council have held public hearings on
the proposed annexation, pursuant to California Government Code Section 35121 q. seg.;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and certified the Final Environmental Impact
Report for the proposed annexation, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
Section 15065; and
WHEREAS, on recommendation of the Planning Commission and as a result its
deliberations, the council has amended the General Plan Land Use Map and pre-zoned the
property known as the Southern California Gas Company Annexation; and
WHEREAS, Cit Council
City approval is a prerequisite for for the San Luis Obispo County
Local Agency Formation to initiate formal annexation proceedings;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL AS FOLLOWS
SECTION L Findings.
1. The proposed annexation is unique and does not establish a precedent for future
annexation requests in that:
a. The area is surrounded by and already partially served by city services, and is
a logical addition to the city due to its location and existing development.
b. The annexation area is within the Airport Area Specific Planning Area, and is
being jointly planned by the City and County.
C. The annexation area includes multiple property owners and 14 lots in various
stages of development.
d. Recent county approvals have allowed development of a scale and intensity in the
area comparable to development in the adjacent incorporated area.
��IS
Resolution No. (1988 Series)
Page 2
2. The proposed annexation will encourage higher quality development and allow the city
to secure needed public improvements at a prominent gateway to the city.
3. The proposed annexation will promote the health, safety, and welfare of persons
residing or working within or in the vicinity of the annexation area.
SECTION 2. Annexation Area Described, The Southern California Gas Company annexation
shall consist of that area, covering approximately 78 acres, bounded by Broad Street
(State Highway 227) on the west, Capitolio Way on the north, Sacramento Drive and the
rear of lots 98, 99, 100 of the Suburban Tract in the County of San Luis Obispo on the
east, and Tank Farm Road on the south, as more particularly described on the attached man
and legal descriptions, Exhibit 'T."
SECTION 3. Council Recommendation, The City Council recommends that the Local
Agency Formation Commission approve the proposed annexation subject to property owner
compliance with city requirements regarding special property owner assessments,
environmental mitigation, public improvements, and reasonable and necessary user fees as
described in the project's Final EIR and Council Resolution No. (1988 Series), in
accordance with California Government Code Section 56844 et. seq.
SECTION 4. Authorization to tiff to Begin Negotiations.
1. The Community Development Director is authorized to begin negotiations for transfer
of property tax revenue, and to cooperate with property owners, Local Agency
Formation Commission, and county staff to allow formal annexation proceedings to
progress in a orderly and timely manner.
2. The Community Development Director and the Public Works Director shall, with the
assistance of the City Attorney, shall prepare water service and sewer agreements for
the properties to be annexed. Said agreements shall prescribe the terms under which
water and sewer services will be extended, including, but not limited to: water
hook-up and related utility service fees, costs and payment method for public utility
improvements needed to provide said services to the annexed area, water conservation
measures and performance standards, and contingencies in the event that groundwater
becomes unavailable or unusable in the annexation area.
3. Staff is authorized to draft an ordinance establishing a review process, submittal
requirements, and approval criteria for development agreements, pursuant to
California Government Code Section 65864 gj. meq.
a- ��
Resolution No. (1988 Series)
Page 3
SECTION 4. Implementation. The City Clerk shall forward a copy of this resolution,
General Plan and pre-zoning actions, environmental documents, and all pertinent
supporting documents to the Local Agency Formation Commission.
On motion of , seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of
1988.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED:
City dministrative Officer
City At rney
Community Development Director
ORDINANCE NO. (1988 Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TO AMEND
THE OFFICIAL ZONE MAP TO PREZONE APPROXIMATELY 78 ACRES IN
THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY ANNEXATION AREA.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the City Council have held hearings to consider
appropriate zoning for the proposed annexation area in accordance with Section 65800 ct.
seq. of the California Government Code; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has amended the General Plan for consistency with the
proposed pre-zoning; and
WHEREAS, the proposed zoning has been evaluated in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act and the city's Environmental Impact Guidelines, and a Final EIR
has been certified for the project; and
WHEREAS, the proposed zoning promotes the public health, safety, and general welfare
of the Citizens of San Luis Obispo;
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION I. Zoning Man Designations. That the annexation area be zoned as C-S-PD,
C-S-S, and M-S as shown on the map attached hereto marked "C"and included herein by
reference.
SECTION 2. Planned Develoz)ment (C-S-PD) Reouirements. Development and land uses on
lots 91 and 92, zoned C-S-PD, shall be regulated by the county-approved use permit
(G860522:1A) and development plan (D860154D) for the Williams Brothers Shopping Center;
moreover, said use permit and development shall are incorporated into this ordinance by
reference, and are attached hereto and marked Exhibit "D."
SECTION 3. Special Considerations Zoning. Lots 92 through 95, 98 through 100, and 1
through 4, inclusive are designated with the Special Considerations (S) overlay zoning to
address the following land use concerns:
a -�s
Ordinance No. (1988 Series)
Page 2
1. Regulation of vehicular access to Broad Street (State Highway 227).
2. To allow the city to secure necessary public improvements including but not limited
to: utility extensions or improvements, frontage improvements and street trees,
street improvements and traffic signal installation, Sacramento Drive extension to
Orcutt Road, street lighting, and fire hydrants.
3. To address area-wide drainage problems and the need for a coordinated approach to
handling storm runoff, through on-site are regional detention basins; or through
participation in an Airport Area drainage assessment district.
4. To insure land use compatibility and appropriate land use buffers on lots 98, 99, and
100 in accordance with the city's Edna-Islay Specific Plan .land use policies.
5. To insure the safe, orderly, and attractive development of properties within the
annexation area, consistent with timing and availability of water and sewer services
and the infrastructure necessary to serve the new development.
SECTION 4. Environmental Determination. The City Council has determined that the
project's Final EIR adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts
of the proposed annexation and pre-zoning, and incorporates the following mitigation
measures into the project:
A. Traffic
1. Annexation area properties shall improve Industrial Way, Sacramento Drive, and
Capitolio Way to their planned width and contribute toward the installation of a
traffic signal at Capitolio Way and Broad Street (Highway 227).
2. Driveway access to Broad Street shall be restricted, as indicated in the Driveway
Access Plan Exhibit 'B."
3. Annexation area properties shall contribute toward the extension of Sacramento Drive
through to Orcutt Road, to the approval of the Community Development Director and
City Engineer.
B. Water and Sewer Service
1. Annexation area properties shall enter into a Water Service Agreement with the City,
establishing terms of city water service delivery, water conservation measures and
performance standards, and contingencies in the event groundwater becomes
unavailable.
2. Approximately 1600 linear feet of 12 inch diameter water main shall be constructed
along Industrial Way.
a-Iq
Ordinance No. (1988 Series)
Page 3
3. Fire hydrants shall be installed in the annexation as required by the Uniform Fire
Code.
4. Area properties shall contribute toward reasonable and necessary costs for
infrastructural improvements to extend sewer and water services to the annexation
a rea.
C. Drainage
1. Annexation properties shall design and install on-site conveyance facilities to carry
increased or re-directed flows within the area.
2. Annexation properties shall contribute toward the cost of increasing the capacity of
downstream conveyance facilities on a pro rata basis, to the approval of the City
Engineer; or shall provide appropriate stormwater retention facilities on-site or in
connection with regional detention facilities.
D. Public Safety
1. Annexation area properties shall be brought up to current building sprinklering and
emergency access requirements. Improvements may be phased, pursuant to development
agreements with property owners.
SECTION 5. m entad n. This ordinance, to ther with t ayes and es, shall
i
� 0tel a f be published o e in full, at le three (3) da prior to its final passa , in the
�C i r 0
} Q. Telegra ribune, a ne paper publish and circula d in said c' , and the dinance
Iw�lrj sh go into effe at the expira ' n of thirty (3 days after is passage.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED TO PRINT by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, at is
meeting held on the day of 1988, on motion
of seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk �D
I
I
I
Ordinance No. (1988 Series)
Page 4
APRROVED:
I
i
City A ministrative Officer
City At�r-ney
i
I
Community Development Director
I � '
I
I'
I
i
,I
I
I �
I
i
I
I
I
I
i ,
V
Ole,
b
,M .::;::: `►tip �, .�%O
:i)7•tn;�:.'::i+y;]?:;i�:f:e:::(:i:?:'iii�:ii�:•
::l:li::�:::::.�:i:lf::�::ri:liY''::%:•'T'::'::.t�::i•'::1:'.'..
':•^L::.ti?'ye:ir:::�:ije7Ni?i�:t'i:•r'�:.•:e:;?.:;:;;• 1.�
_____ _ •`:,nip:^•`t•� .;,..t^.::i::-. t1'�`�
�:7i:iei:�::i�eT7l,iii`%?iiir�:•i�:`::`:::.: �� L
n o
� 'i;•+:�..,t'i'cii'+riii`!y :+')e:.+��'w G<. J 6�9
ya::� ,:;:; '":;1.'•:;1.•`::'•'.•':4 s
N -N-SP
rIT
ERM <v GP/R 1261
VICINITY MAP
a -aa
'� r Jr- � � ', ice; 1 Il'• _ -- _ _ _ '�••- f-
r ��-- •'S'yf }i 1 1 1 'I 1 NI 11C1�11 r� y• r r�-
g l 1r-r 1 y\I f1�11,j. II\I.1i1 11 15ji =�r= r r -,r♦ •V ..rrr
WAI
NEI
^:i.
zb
➢ r���JYf�Y%�V7W._• ? '�r O /'ti '=== - --:_ ;,'t '� .I�y� .r��a
... .....:. v. r _�
Amend General Plan from Rural-
Industrial and Interim Conserve-
Indust - _
'€
tion/Open Space to Service-Cm— �•:<,':;
::
mercial/Light Industrial ::i
.... '::ii?:;iii::?:.t:�i?..: ..•.: :i:::ii:iii?E
I
:,.ri::.i`.•..Y r..•.:�:"..:rte .. ..::. •:•...-1:::'�•' ....fl:::.. J^:��::::.
I
yn,1. .. ....... .,r ,.: . .r...... ... -
...:.:
... T.TM."A
114 -
.. _ ..::. .:.:1..:..1......1 . r/ .......
. .. . .. .. .. . . .. ... ..... .. . ._ ... ,.. .... .,..:. . .. �'•r SFii^icct[ FFPc; iFFSiEii::..
.r _..... _. ....:... .. . ... . .
.:...... ..:.:.....:•.....-... .. .. ...-..: ...•....r........ ........ :..... :i4iil is ice...
a.f•r
v
1 ] 1 �4 � l L ?1 ,IFAS J.� ~•4 .p+�ryy^
i"�'�,iti ay, � t�i 3 .y S !(Y 1 • V - .K :+� �`� A L T r '�CIaMI•^ yI.
� �� ,�. Y f - l a vT 6+,�H'F LTi L,y.J ',. tea' f•�I,
,.,c.'';;.. .: :,= ;n.., -�• fir+ w;'u�t
En ejzat plan-lanO use
$ 1 . oo .: BOUND
PUBLIC . , CONSERVATION/OPEN SPACE CITY LIMIT
a variety of ceregones.Most are ,v}'r Areca marked for conser+ativJopeh space are to be
a: 1 preserved generally in their natural stere or in agriculture.All 11= E URBAN RESER\
sj:.IH-Junior High;HS-Semor High other Uses would not be ruled out but generally w"he _ The Yrnit of potarlpd urban u
t6tvh:P-Pohee Statim:H-Hospital 4nvh'ed to low•Impact recreational activities such as rKnrlg \\\\M\ DEVELOPMENT
stables.Creek areas are protected in this aateW-j but the
Seale of the map does not permit graphic'repfesentatron. This The�y hovw Cart
insk
a w be a concant'aton of govern. dewiation includes private end public lands. d huIDa'far uiberh Lm
°Nees plus compatible b ar eases. INYIERIM CONSERVATION/ MAJOR EXPAM
ZA OPEN SPACE �1I �1J urger re of pntartlM au
wrlb
Cultural aCCMfJ6 and
This is the designation given a EBe which will be kept opml until Q\—GT 3 wdrieWpMerlt�
Can pro
I Currsrercial areas besides the Plaza laban zaton is spfn'oV'Iata.such as the expansion areae oul, M�
Sift the present My limns.Specific proposals for tfe9B nixes
RIM be approved alma with the Charge to an urtian lanu'uee _
det:igrhatrm. _ .
ntpoty aM thagrhbdrhddd use are
•RURAL-INDUSTRIAL -
EXh11� .T
7Fia dmaaignewmh is eppAed to erase where Industry ie rrbad
.. w6h fu it .Certain s�intaharty ih k"W uses%a be
w.ri:eLdo
- - - --- -
ehc r tri ti. .w..n a..rs-rh in I i .
« a
y
�i
atloa wntlA NNtll I
m H N
n 3 a
i3
Wcc
V1
S y
w W � hll -.'-5 Cv
Ln
11 °
I Q/ U
a r o
lal
y OI
b - tl '7VIkIISnGNt
CL
N
W
Qm ; ♦ Q
v W
F
O N I Ln S
J f x 2 -
J W i - r
J > = 2 1 `� 1a X N _
L ul
O 0 °' —_
a a ~ 1 0 1N3w35d3 '313'0'd .Q8
Ko _ - --- ------ — rt
7'
y a a 0
1 1 0 llitl,tti J � s T
I Y
1. .
AVM Oilaltdtl0
I
I'
0
N
IL J
z EXHIBIT BtIz
> a a�
August 1988 EXHIBIT B
DRIVEWAY ACCESS PLAN
SOUMMW CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY ANNEXATION
Explanation of Access Categories:
1) Existing Access - Existing access driveways can-be maintained; improvements or
additional driveways require Planning Commission approval (Lots
1, 2, 39 93, 94.)
2) Shared Access - Lots 90/91 allowed two 2-way driveways onto Broad St. , and Lot
92 allowed one 2-way driveway onto Broad St. , with interconnecting
driveway linking the parking area of the two lots with Capitolio
Way.
3) Restricted Access - Lots with frontages on Industrial Way or Tank Farm Road are
denied vehicular access to Broad Street (Lots 95, 98/99, and
100:) These lots could be served by an interior common driveway be-
tween Industrial Way and Tank Farm Road.
Changes to access limitations, or requests for eacceptions to these access limitations
shall require Planning Commission approval, and may be approved subject to the findings
that: 1) the change to access limitations will not significantly increase turning
movements onto Broad Street or cause traffic conflicts, and 2) the change or exception
to limitations is necessary to allow reasonable development, use, and enjoyment of the
property.
EXHIBIT B
a -as
N
d Y^.
1.1V M
f
'-.�•s.vV�'•a'• 5��s r.a��>"r�i'Te.�.�`�ke'6��.J"'f� Y
• � 5' q,
• '��..}.w$. tea') .C. 91�S %•-
y{ a� •
r-
s„ •Y
N_
•
0
•y
PLANNING COWIISSION JUNE 25, 1987
. D860154D PACE 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 _witlo
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 he
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. Fencing around the retarding basin and drainage channel shall he
slatted chain—link, six feet high. The fencing shall accomodate
the finfl 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 R; and from the east side of building R 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.
EXHIBIT D
- v
e
PLANNING 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 to
accordance with the requirements of Section 22.05.024, 22.05.023,
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 Departtment for review and approval before Issuance of a
buiding permit or establishment of the use. The plans shall provide
for the following:
a. Low growing planting along the Broad Street frontage and within, 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. Signs and Lights. Signa 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. All signs shall be at least 10 feet from the property lines.
0
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 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 sever service to the project prior to issuance of
building or grading permits.
12. Required road improvements. 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, gutter, 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.
■ a -a9
■
. g -7
PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 25, 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 the
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.
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.
MID/drt/3413T, a—W 1
1
FEBRUARY 26, 1987
6860522:1 PAGE B F`
PLANNING COMMISSION
EXHIBIT G860522:1A
Amend the San Luis Obispo Area Plan of the county General Plan to revise l
Commercial Service planning area standard no. 2 for the San Luis Obispo
urban area as follows:
Corner of Broad Streetand 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 OTHER
ENTER T, DRIVE-IN RESTAURANTS OR REFRESHMENT STANDS); food and
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 0, Allowable Uses, Part I of the Land Use Element
(Amended 1983, Ord. 2133).
DL/ND/sb/8187j
a -31
a. a Sol `
rI
ff
SH
\ � 1 ✓iso eFa•'*� !•.-.'Cl i\\ �y .., �7. � I '.
1 ,, ma3 11; , •�.:.
E� �j \\Iv ?I � Ila •..� 7 °S} SI �'S�I' . , tlm�z �� ..
,,moi' �•
I l
33a Ie �1
�Yil . '�
is! tL
IF7 11
1 .� t Ri _
_I _ �l0wo
7
rrr
_ 3 F
B111 rill
0, 1
ra:i
��3 q
l�
!!4
UI m �
U O p
6 L
m I
I a w d
1 m O /���y/i�'�v�
3�31FZ
iia
G lltlOtl Wtltlj HNtll
Z m i
Oo _- 0&-%Lg 6595
V/ O fl. u ,et'CLB L'6LLm`i;
0.
a � m o o n
X J m _ FA S e _N
W Z ma °e 0 3 W T m
a
Z ow
- a N C W J C o
N m m C O> f6
a LL O+ t o
05
f. 4 � n
Q OJO q m
Z� Q 0 tz a
LLI U) �a C2 m A :� V J
��
O oU w
a i' z z
V Oa "e. •a ; a0 p
¢¢ p
a I oan :p o e - a o
¢ 0 o V'o I c o
m a
a ami I 1 W.4:1 /0,, ►1'565
"--- -M. 99S AtlM Itlltll NI
�o I __
0
p A
wi
o p
d .5 W a U
O W J W
n G i n Q
O A W O CL
O.
0% N L IU NJ 4.-
O < cn
_ s IF VIS A
J � \ c Co.Q try .� v i z N `n J
c 6 p W A Q
o cu
C6 cs _ (n
W 3
Z f W 0 LL u
O
V J 2 Z tG ?` d
s = z 6 . CU o pl rN b
F V W d P Q Ol ^i Z
V m m m UI r
Lb a a Z P 1N3W3SV3 '3 ? 'Sd a .09
m
e
' 1'
s 00
I o f wnm0am .n �I z o
� 69'681 ary�n„^I 10s'x Z Z w
nm •m
AVM 01'IO11dtl0
f dl W 1 1
0 T 1 3
9 I in o
Q
"\ •la 6 O x 1 W
U 1n I z
co
C/)EXHIBIT E
- I
PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
All portions of Lots 90, 919 92, 939 94, 95 and portions of
Lots 98, 99, 100 and Parcels 1, 2, 3, 4 of Lot 96 (as shown
on Parcel Map Co. 78-33) of San Luis Obispo Suburban Tract
and the existing Right-of-Way of Industrial Way and the
existing Right-of-Way of Highway 227 as illustrated on
attached annexation map and as more particularly described
as follows :
Beginning at the southeast corner of Lot 100 of San
Luis Obispo Suburban Tract, said corner being a corner
of existing city limits ;
Thence, S 65 ° 09 ' 04" W, 573. 18 feet and continuing
along same bearing a distance of 186.88 feet (11
PM 53) to the southwest corner of said Lot 100
which point lies on the easterly Right-of-Way line
of California State Route 227 ;
Thence, S 66 ° 00 ' 00" W, 110. 00 feet along the
perpendicular to said easterly Right-of-Way line
to a point being in the westerly line of said
Right-of-Way (calculated per CALTRANS R.O.W.
227/15) ;
Thence N 24 ° 00 ' 00" W, 696. 22 feet along the
westerly Right-of-Way line of said Highway 227 ;
Thence, along a curve to the right of R = 7055
feet A = 07 ° 18 ' 00" L = 898. 87 feet being said
Right-of-Way line;
Thence, N 16 ° 42 ' 00" W 753 . 72 feet along said
Right-of-Way line;
Thence, along a curve to the left R = 7945 feet
= 04° 48 ' 00" L = 665. 60 feet being said A
Right-of-Way line (CALTRANS R.O.W. 227/15) ;
Thence, N 21 ° 30 ' 00" W, 4. 5 feet± along said-
Right-of-Way line to a point lying in the westerly
Right:--of-Way line (calculated per CALTRANS R.O.W.
227/16) ;
Thence, N 680 30100" E, 110 . 00 feet along a
perpendicular to westerly Right-of-Way line of
Highway 227 to a point in the easterly
Right-of-Way line of said Highway (calculated per
CALTRANS R.O.W. 227/16
XHIBITEE a- y
Thence, along existing City Boundary N 39° 02' 32"
E, 34. 04 feet, said line being the southerly
Right-of-Way line for Capitolio Way, City of San
Luis Obispo;
Thence, continuing along said Boundary and
Right-of-Way line N 65° 10 ' 00" E, 168. 25 feet;
Thence, along said Boundary and Right-of-Way line
following a curve to the right of R = 230 feet
A = 23° 04 ' 26" L = 92. 62 feet
Thence, along said Boundary and Right-of-Way line
following a curve to the left of R = 270 feet
Q = 23° 04 ' 26" L = 108. 73 feet;
Thence, along said Boundary and Right-of-Way line
N 650 10100" E, 299. 66 feet to the northeasterly
corner of Lot 90, San Luis Obispo Suburban Tract
being the intersection point of the southerly
Right-of-Way line of Capitolio Way and the
westerly Right-of-Way line of Sacramento Street
and the existing City Boundary along same;
Thence, following City Boundary and the westerly
Ri�ht-of-Way' line of Sacramento Street S 47°
25 02" E, 1054. 92 feet;
Thence, continuing along said Boundary and
Right-of-Way line at preceding bearing, 259 . 70
feet;
Thence, along said Boundary and Right-of-Way line
along a curve to the right of R = 1402. 39 feet
= 30° 33 '47" L = 748. 07 feet (Official City
Boundary from City Annexation Maps) ;
Thence, continuing along said curve to the right
being a projection of the westerly Right-of-Way
line of Sacramento Street across Industrial Way
Right-of-Way R = 1402.39 feet A = 1° 39 ' 01" L =
40 .39 feet to a point in the southerly
Right-of-Way line of Industrial Way, said point
being the northeast corner of Tract Map 929 of Lot
97 , San Luis Obispo Suburban Tract (calculations
from Official City Boundary from City Annexation
Map) ;
EXI-IIEIT E a -3.S
Thence, S 65° 10 ' 00" W 595 . 14 feet along the
southerly Right-of-Way of Industrial Way being
existing City Boundary;
Thence, confining along same bearing 99. 96 feet to
a point being the northeasterly corner of Lot 98,
San Luis Obispo Suburban Tract (Tr. 929 U2, R.M.
Book 11, page 86) ;
Thence, along a line being the existing City
Boundary and the easterly property line of Lots
98, 99 and 100, San Luis Obispo Suburan Tract
Boundary S 24° 50 ' 20" E, 641. 10 feet and
continuing along same bearing 230. 70 feet and
finally along same bearing 99. 88 feet to the point
of beginning (11 PM 53) including an area of 78. 06
acres more or less , as shown on Proposed
Annexation Map attached hereto and thereby
incorporated herein.
March 11, 1986
EXHUBIT- E a-3�
EXHIBIT "F" - WATER DEMAND INCREASE
Current water demand in the annexation area is estimated to be about 13 acre feet per
year, raising the city's total project annual water demand upon annexation from 8,162
acre feet (projected water use for year ending June 30, 1989) to 8,175 acre feet -- 111%
of estimated safe annual yield (assumes no new supply and no allocations to projects
beyond those approved, but not built; and those in plan check).
Figures developed by the city's EIR consultant indicate that under any one of the three
development scenarios studied, annual water use would range from 100 to 150 a.f./yr.
(excluding lots with existing service committments) at full development. This represents
about a 1 1/4 to 1 3/4% increase over projected 1988-89 water use.
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%.
EXHIBIT- F
a-3�
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 Element map 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
P .C . Minutes
April 29 , 2987
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 .
Comms . Crotser agreed it was a logical annexation, but was concerned with
on-site water availability and favored Alternate 3 , which would allow city
extension of water servici to the entire area.
Comms. Duerk agreed it was a logical annexation, but was concerned with the
water is•sua and discussed timing and development agreements with staff .
Chairperson Kourakis agreed that it was a logical annexation and concurred
with Commr . Duark' 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 Mainline.
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 . Hainliae seconded the motion.
VOTING: AYES - Commrs . Duerk, Mainline, 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.
= a-3y
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 Kourakis 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.
a-yo
I
P.C. Minutes
July 8, 1987
Page 3
Jay Parsons, owner of Lot 21 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 applies nt.
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 :..-..cluded
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
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
-ya
+ 4
- -- - - ----------- -- -------- -- ---- -- -
.r r
r Y n
. --_ _ ------------------------------- -- .
O N
s' • s �p
Z n
w q
" Y� • N 3 r� � m N O � N w N' u
1—r • w! A .� N h � h — — — — .
w .
• n
_ M LLrr ._Y `ate n
i i a •'i : i 1� r r V i � h A N r� �w"r
s — . — n
S � • R .i
• "
r n � y Y w 1 — .� = w h • A A wu
. 71 -
_ _________________ _______ n
Y n
q —
n N a Q n
--------------------------------
N • W.Y H •� Y _ — .. O 1q b n C•
1.1 — • r
• • h Y
—
a ——— ————————————————————————————————— n i o
13
n n
r � e 3 r .1 s '� a �— � � •-- .
r
March 1988
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY ANNEXATION
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT COST ESTIMATES
TYPE O_ k`1PROVEMENT/CALCULATION METHOD
1. Street Frontage Improvements - Curb, Gutter, and Sidewalk = lineal street
frontage (LF) X $2200
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 (spm) 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
EXHHBIT6i ,
Southern California Gas
Annexation - Public Improvement Costs
(GP/R 1261)
Symbols
A. - Acreage
LF: Linear Feet
(R) - 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 LF. 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
S. Hydrants - 7 @ $2600 s $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 @ $7,300 . $5,000
10. Water4&in Extension - .142 (80k) • $11,354 '. •.
TOTAL ESTI"TE11 COSH $116,760 TT
EX. � +
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 1
-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 a $3,000 3
9. Orcutt grade separation: not to exceed SZ500 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.: 521 (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
� 1 4•
10. Wates main extension: .066 (OOk) a $5,280 � 10 _ -, '`,
Lot 93
Page 3
11. Fire sprinkler retrofit: Not known.
TOTAL ESTIMATE $32,446
Lot 94 Union Local - Pipefitters 5.49 A. Installation Timins
1. Frontage improvements: 330 if @ $22 $7,260 2
2. Street Trees: 330/35 x.(150) = S1,131 2
3. Water hook-up: 330 (11.60) = $3,828 + 5.49 (1160) =.561368
3828 + 6368 • $1091% 1
4. Sewer Fees:
Sewer hook-up: 330 (5.88) as 319940 I
Sewer lift stn_ 5.49 (3) (13135) = $2,167
5. Hydrants: I @ $2,600 • S2,600 2
6. Street Extension: .07 (60k) $4,223 3
7. Traffic Signal: .07 (29,700) 329079 3
S. Street lights 1 @ 1,000 • S1,000 3 J
9. Orcutt grade separation: 52,500 3
10. Water main extension: .107 (80k) • S5,600 1
11. Fire sprinkler retrofit: 5,000 @ S2500/S1000 $12,500 3
TOTAL ESTIMATE $53,479
Lot 95 South California Gas 5.34 acres
1. Frontage Improvements: 1122 @ 22 a 524,684 2
Z. Street trees: 1122/35 (150) a 54,809 2
3. Water hook-up. fees: (11.60) 792 59,187 + 5.34 (1160) $6,1.94 a 515,381 - I
4. Sewer fees: hook-up: 792 (5.88) 54,656 1
Sewer lift stn: 5.34 (3) (131.55) $2.107 I
$6,763
5. Hydrants: 1122/300 (2600) $10,400 2
6. Street extension: .068 (60k) . $4,105 3 •I ' �7
7. Traffic signal:- .0684 (29,700) ' $2,032 2 a -L1 /
8. Street lights: 5 @ 1,000 = S5.000 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
r 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: 1
Sewer hook-up: 230 (5.88) $1,352 +
Sewer lift stn-- 5.33 (3) (131.55) _ $2,103 = $3,455 L,(�
5. Fire hydrants: 1 @ $2,600 = $2,600 2 �--1a
I
I
Lot 100
Page S
Installation -Timing
6. Sacramento Drive extension: .068 (60k) _ $4,080 3
7: Traffic signal contribution: ..068 (29,700) _ $2,020 2
S. Street lights: 1 @ 1000 $19000 2
9. Orcutt grade separation: 6.5 . $2- ; 3
10: Water main: .068 (80,000) _$5,446 I 1
TOTAL ESTIMATE 5389452
i
Lot- 100 C Boat Yard .43 A. i
1. Frontage .improvements: 100 (22) °'$2,200 I 3
I
2. Street trees: 100/35 (130) a $450 ! 3
3. Water hook-up 100 (1160)+ .43 (1:160) • $1,659 I 1 '
4. Sewer.fees: hook-Up. 100 (5.88) a $588' I 1
Sewer lift stn; .43 (3) (131.55) Sim
$758
S. Hydrants: n/a 3
6. Street extension: .43/78.06 (60,000) .$331 j 3
i
7. Traffic signal• .005 (29;700) = $164 3
8. Street light: n/a
9. Orcutt grade separation: $2500 i. 3
10. Water main extension: .43/78 (86k) • $441 1
I
11.. Sprinkling: 2500 @ $2500/1000 m $6,250 3
TOTAL ESTIMATE $14,753
I
I
I
Lot 1 United Parcel Service 330 A
1. Frontage improvements: n/a
2. Street trees 259/35 (150) a $1,110 3
i
3.- Water hook-up: 259 (1160) = 3004 + 3828 + $6,832 1 a. l
I
I
o
Lot 1
Page 6
Installation Timina
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
f
a so
� f
w ,
Lot 3
Page 7
Lot 3 Cal Coop' 3.14 A Installation Timins
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
5. Hydrants: 347/300 = I @ $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 = $29000 3
9. Orcutt Road grade separation: $2,500 3
10. Water main extension: .040 (80k) • $39221 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) s 4373 + 3.33 (1160) a $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: 333/78/06 (29700) • $1,267 3
8. Street light 2 @ 1000 . $2,000 3
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
s
al-5�
i
SAFTR
UJCIA HILLS
RECENEt7
AUG 101988
August 2, 1988 may of y"Lias at"spo
Community ardebpment
Mr. Jeff Hook
City Planner
City of San Luis Obispo
P.O. Box 8100
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
Dear Mr. Hook:
I am in receipt of your proposed circulation guidelines for the Southern California Gas
Annexation. I am concerned about how they would apply to our property and that of our
neighbor, Mr. Jones. One of the most important reasons to annex this property was to protect
the entry corridor to the City of San Luis Obispo. To prohibit all access to the subject block
from Broad Street would make development of the Jones property and our property "turn its
back" on the entry to town. This is inimical to the reason for annexing the property.
I understand the desirability of minimizing the number of Broad Street driveways. Perhaps this
block could share one entry/exit on Broad Street.
Finally, it should be noted that APN 76-41-18 does not have either Broad Street or Tank Farm
Road access and APN 76-41-40 and APN 76-41-41 do not have access except to Broad Street.
I haven't discussed this issue with Mr. Jones but will forward a copy of my letter to him.
Thank you for keeping us informed during this lengthy process. Our common goal of making
this important entry to the City an area that everyone can be proud of will eventually be
achieved.
Sincerely
hn D. French
JDF/po
cc: Mr. Jones
a-s3
4058 Broad Street P.O. Box 1796 San Luis Obispo, California 93406 (805) 544.3613
Public Interest i4i,tion CenterPIA'
INCORPORATED of San Luis Obispo County
Post Office Box 15113 • San Luis Obispo, California 93406
Sept. 6, 1988
Mayor Dunin and Councilmembers �DpII"l �y
City Hail
San Luis Obispo, Ca.
The Environmental Impact Report for the proposed Southern
California Gas Company Annexation should not be certified as
adequate as it is grossly unsatisfactory in addressing the
cumulative affect of overdrafting the City's water supply,
particularly since it is dependent upon an obsolescent 13 year
old "Water Supply Yield Study" for the Salinas Reservoir, and
many other questionable assumptions of alternate water supplies,
and of the City's inability to provide water to it's present
residents and undeveloped lots over an extended period of normal
(median of rainfall years) rainfall.
With two more years of only normal rainfall, the City'.s
reservoirs will be dry of useable water, and the City will be
required to live on a small amount of well water, and to look
for other emergency sources. What happened to the City's ability
to survive 6 to 8 years of drought when it has great difficulty in
a period of only 4 years of only normal rainfall? How much is
the Salinas reservoir overrated? And how much of that is due
to unexpected large downstream releases in drought periods to the
Salinas River? A summary of the last four drought periods is
attached and will be discussed later.
The City has asked the public to conserve 25% and to prepare
for possible 50% water rationing next year. With two more normal
rainfall years, the City may have to ration even more by allowing
only 35% of normal useage.
Except for a small amount of well water, the City has no
assurance that it will obtain any significant new source of water
in the next 20 years, although very expensive desalting of sea
water is possible. Lake Nacimiento water is a good possibility
if 3 members of the Board of Supervisors will support a good plan
for its distribution.
... and there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safP, nor politic,
nor popular but he must hake it because his conscience tells him it is right...
Martin Luther King, Jr
The City's well drilling program has been disappointing
because of a variety of problems, including water quality
and quanity.
The City's proposal to raise the height of the dam at the
Salinas reservoir has merit, but it probably has only about 1
chance in three of producing water in a reasonable length of time.
The Morro Bay proposed stream diversion project will probably
be of little benefit to the City and the Whale Rock Commission,
and the City may end up losing more water than it gains because of
hardship pleas by Morro Bay for San Luis Obispo's water,etc.
The proposed State Water Project is very cont�)versial, and it
requires approval by Santa Barbara County agencies if it is to be
practical.for our county. It appears to lack support by any of the .
Supervisor; of Santa Barbara County, and the public in the affected
areas rejected it by a 2/1 to a 3/1 vote in essentially all areas
only 9 years ago.
The City's water conservation program has not been as effective
as hoped for a variety of reasons. If the public sees the City.
Council acting irresponsibly on annexations, the public will probably
reduce its conservation effort; it may demand new leadership on the
Council, and take the initiative and referendum option in an effort
to protect the City.
The next page provides data on the Salinas Reservoir
productivity in four periods of drought. It has too much meaning
to be discussed at this Council meeting, but it should be discussed
at Council Study sessions along with several other important water
matters. it should be noted that in the last three drought periods
the year average :Tater going to storage is greatly reduced from that
of the first period used for calculating the safe annual yield of the
reservoir while the down stream releases have increased in later
periods. Doesn't that indicate a significant decrease in the true
safe annual yield of the reservoir?
Donald I. Smith
for PIAC Board of Directors
DATA ON SALINAS RESERVOIR PRODUCTIVITY IN FOUR PERIODS OF DROUGHT
I. 6 dry winters, 7 summers (1945-1951) (From Salinas Dam "Water Supply Yield Study, 19751Y,;
Water
I)iFLOV
TO STORAGE
RELEASE DOWN Ratio..
years
AC.FT.
AC. FT.
STREAM,Ac. Ft. Av. Storage/Release
(Jun -Jul)
3106.
2404.
702
59-60
3663
2942.
721
1945-46
.7214
6970.
244.
194647
3880
3455.
425.
1947-48
857
331.
526.
1948-49
3757
3172.
585.
1949-50
6993
6541.
452.
1950-51
1.544
1346.
198.
TOTALS 2U45
21815.
2430.
Average 4041.
3636.
405. 9/1
i
II: 3 dry winters, 4 summers (1958-1961 (From Salinas Dam "Water Supply Yield Study, 19750)I
Water
Inflow
To
RELEASE DOWN
Years
1024
Storage
STREAM.
1958-59
3106.
2404.
702
59-60
3663
2942.
721
64-61
963
186.
777
TOTALS 7732
5532.
2200
Average 2577
1844
733 2.5/1
III. 2 dry winters, 3 summers (1975-77) (County Reports, Oct. -Sep)
1975-76 996.
234-
762.
1976-77 1049
24
1024
TOTALS 2045
258.
1787.
Average 1022
129
893• .14/1
IV. Drought of 1986, 879 88 ?. To date, 2 dry winters, 3 su=ners (County Reports (July -Jun)
1986-87 2776 731. 2045
1987-8886_ 1504. 1982
TOTALS 6262. 2235. 4027
Average 3131. 1117 2013 .55/1
SUMMARY: SLO City's Salinas Reservoir Safe annual yield is based on down stream
reuses averaging 405. Acre Feet per year which is supposed to leave the 1
city a safe annual yield of 4800 Acre feet per year (including siltation).
But in the present drought, County Engineering Department has released
an average of 2013 acre feet per year down stream, with large volumes
going into Monterey County in Feb. 1988. How much does this change the
safe annual yield of the reservoir for San Luis Obispo? Why, and to what
extent has the County changed it's down stream release policies in the
last 15 years? What are the Mate authorizations in that respect?