HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/22/1988, 1 - CITY ANNEXATION POLICIES M[ 'NG AGENDA
` DATE zZ res ITEM
I #
city of sAn WIS OBIS,
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403.8100
March 14, 1988
TO: City Council
Planning Commission
VIA: John Dunn, CAO
FROM Michael Multari, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: City Annexation Policies
One of the recurring topics of discussion regarding the city's future is annexation. I
would like in this memo to summarize the city's current annexation,policies, look at some
of their implications, and suggest a few ideas which may be worth exploring further.
Existing Policies
The city's adopted policies regarding annexation are located in the general plan,
residing primarily in the Land Use and Water Management Elements. In fact, a good deal
of the LUE's text is devoted to discussion of annexation, expansion, and coordination
with the county to protect the rural areas outside the city's urban reserve line.
The city envisions the urban reserve line as the area where, eventually, city services
will be provided (LUE, p. 11; Water Element, p. 21). Since annexation is a prerequisite
of city services, by implication, the urban reserve is envisioned as the eventual,
long-term city limits (Water Element, p. 21). The urban reserve includes adequate land
to meet the needs of the population envisioned under the adopted annual growth rates-4
percent in the 1970's, 2 percent in the 1980's, and 1 percent in the 1990's. There also
seems to be more than adequate land to meet the needs for non-residential land uses
during this time frame as well.
Annexation within the urban reserve, however, must be coordinated with improvements to
the urban services systems (LUE, p. 9). The LUE designates major "expansion" areas where
the significant residential expansion is to occur; they are the Edna-Islay area
(incorporated in 1960), Orcutt, Margarita, Dalidio and Irish Hills (not to be confused
with the pending golf course proposal which is outside the urban reserve line). The LUE
specifically states that these major expansion areas should not be annexed "until water
supply and treatment and sewage collection and treatment facility needs can be met [for
the expansion areas as well as] for the planned urban use capacity of incorporated areas"
(LUE, p.9). Annexation of any major expansion area must be preceded by the preparation
of a specific plan, as was done in the case of Edna-Islay (LUE, p. 9). The LUE (Hillside
Planning Section) also designated the territory north of the Madonna Inn and West of
Highway 101 as an expansion area requiring the preparation of a specific plan. Further
subdivision or development south of the ranch house road cannot proceed until water
supply is sufficient to meet the needs within the existing city limits as well as the
expansion area. Thus, that portion of the property is treated similarly to the other
major expansion areas. ( LUE pp. 28-30)
/-1
City Annexation Policies
Page 2
The LUE allows annexation of "minor expansion areas" to occur as they enable "more
logical, complete and efficient" urban development. Minor expansions should not be
"restrained or deferred particularly where other growth management and land use
objectives are achieved as trade-offs" (LUE, p. 9). Of particular note, minor
annexations which must correct existing service deficiencies, which might result in some
urban development but would contribute to the creation of open space around the city's
edge in conjunction with that development, or which would help define a logical city
edge, are all encouraged (LUE, pp. 9-10).
The more-recently adopted Water Element is stricter in this regard, however. This
Element states that because of limits on current water supply, even minor annexations
should be postponed until there are supplies equal to estimated demand for all expected
development within the city and the area to be annexed, unless the following conditions
are met:
-The area to be annexed can supply its own water, presumably through on-site wells
and groundwater.
-The city has at least completed the environmental review and authorized preparing
plans for a water-supply project which would provide the needs of potential
development within the existing city limits as well are the area to be annexed.
-The council approves the proposal as part of a specific development project and the
well system meets city standards.
-An independent hydrological study demonstrates that there is adequate water supply
considering both quality and quantity.
-The development is designed to connect to the city water system in the future.
-Developer agrees to guarantee treatment to meet health standards and agrees to bear
the cost of connection to the city system in the future.
There are some minor exceptions to this policy covering, for example, areas which may
already have service agreements with the city (Water Element, pp. 22, 28).
Of particular note, these policies preclude even minor annexations unless and until the
city has prepared plans for a major water supply project (or projects) even if on-site
water for the project is available. I will return to this point again, shortly.
The general plan goes on to emphasize that the success of the city's policies are
contingent on the coordination and cooperation of the county (LUE, p. 1). Without
support by the county, all efforts to avoid sprawl, to create an open space buffer around
the community and to manage the the pace, location and type of growth, will be
jeopardized (LUE, pp. 1, 10, 11).
City Annexation Policies
Page 3
Some Implications of Current Policies
In most ways, the current policies are sound. They provide a reasonable way to
coordinate expansion with the availability of services and with other objectives of
growth management. Their principal vulnerability is in reliance on support from the
county to prohibit urban intensity development around the city's periphery.
For the most part, despite significant differences in perspectives, the county has
largely "held the line". Recently, however, the pressure on the county to allow some
intensification of uses without annexation has increased. In my opinion, the county's
perspective is that a logical place for increased urban development is near San Luis
Obispo. They see the city as not being as expeditious as possible in obtaining necessary
urban services, particularly water, to accommodate paced development within the urban
reserve. Consequently, we are seeing an increase in the number of applications to the
county to amend their general plan to accommodate higher intensity uses in our urban
reserve prior to annexation and increasing indications that the Board will look favorably
on at least some of these applications.
Such general plan amendments are currently being considered by the county for the Madonna
property on Los Osos Valley.Road and the Margarita area. The county is also considering a
similar request for a residential/recreation use adjacent to the city but outside our
urban reserve which is the subject of another item on this meeting's agenda (Irish Hill
Golf Course).
If the county begins to allow significant urban developments near the city, our growth
management programs may be much less effective. We will largely incur the costs of the
new growth but without direct say on what kind of development, where it should take
place, when it should occur, and how it looks. Further, we will not have control over
eventual annexation into the city, payment of fees for the provision of urban services
and infrastructure extensions, type and degree of mitigation of environmental and fiscal
impacts, or the design of the projects to eventually connect to city services and to meet
our community's standards (for aesthetics, fire protection, etc.). Also, we will not
receive any fiscal benefits that might accrue from the new development.
Consequently, continued and improved cooperation with the county is critical. A good
example of this, in my opinion, is the recent work on the "concept" for the Airport Area
Specific Plan. We are creating there a framework for joint planning with shared goals
and approaches.
Another implication of the policies in our Water Management Element is that certain minor
annexations, through which the city could further important goals like open space
preservation, may be precluded until the city actually prepares plans for a major water
project, even if adequate on-site water is available to serve the minor annexation area.
In some cases, the benefits of a minor annexation opportunity may be such that its
consideration is in fact timely even if a large-scale water project is not at hand. More
specific criteria for evaluating these factors in minor annexation probably should be
spelled out.
City Annexation Policies
Page 4
Some Ideas for Consideration
I would like to discuss some ideas about our annexation policies.
1. Annexation "for control". One idea commonly brought up is for the city to change its
basic philosophy toward annexation of major expansion areas (and even beyond) and more
aggressively bring them into the city to gain control over them. The underlying issue is
which jurisdiction, the city or county, is the relevant planning and land use authority.
This idea has merit, but is also has some drawbacks. I would suggest that the most
appropriate forum for the discussion of this approach is the update of the general plan,
which is going on now.
In addition to the Planning Commission's work on the general plan update, there is now
forming an ad hoc advisory committee to help in this effort. The committee is made up of
representatives of a number of citizen and interest groups as well as representatives of
property-owners, the county. the school district, and Cal Trans. The general plan update
process will also include a number of public workshops, study sessions and public
hearings (to begin later this spring). Thus, the general plan update provides some
excellent, and unusual, opportunities for the community to consider basic policy issues
such as this one.
2. Increased Flexibility for Considerine Minor Annexations. There may be some
significant opportunities for advancing the city's long-term goals with regard to open
space preservation, creation of buffers around the city limits, upgrading entryways to
the city, and creating more logical and defensible boundaries for urban development which
will be coming up shortly. The current annexation policies in the Water.Element will
make consideration of these opportunities difficult.
Examples include some items recently submitted to the city. Through these proposals, the
city may be able to obtain commitments to preserve significant open space areas around
the edge of the city.
It may be in the city's best long-term interests to consider these kinds of proposals and
weigh the benefits of annexation now even when major future water supplies are not
clearly in hand. Any proposal which could jeopardize public health or safety would be
excluded; of course, but, in some cases, when the increased demand for water is small
and/or where reliable on-site supplies are available, more flexibility in the current
policy may be warranted.
For example, if significant open space could be preserved, a minor annexation might be
acceptable if it could provide on-site water, even if the city had not prepared plans for
a water supply project for the rest of the city. This intent appears to be reflected in
the LUE policies, but they are superceded by the more recent Water Element policies.
I would suggest that this idea be forwarded to the Planning Commission for comment and
recommendation. The recent applications I alluded to above will provide an excellent
opportunity for weighing the pros and cons of the issues.
3. Continued and Better City/County Cooperation. As noted above, coordination with the
county is vital to the success of our policies regarding management of growth around the
edge of the city. I would suggest we can help improve our relationship through the
following:
City Annexation Policies
Page 5
A. Irish Hill Golf Course. The approach we are recommending is one of cooperation
with the county in joint problem-solving, rather than one of possible antagonism. We
are suggesting that the City Council make no call on amending our current policy at
this time. We recommend that the applicant file dual applications (in the city and
the county), that the county agree to designate the city as lead agency for the
environmental review (an EIR is going to be necessary), and that at least three
alternatives be explicitly covered by the EIR: no project,the project as preferred
by the applicant, and a revised project with clustered housing near the existing city
line and the remainder of the property in a permanent open space easement (which
could include a golf course use, but no housing). Other alternatives may also be
appropriate to investigate (see other memo on this topic in the packet).
After the EIR is done and the data are available, the city and county could better
determine, cooperatively if possible, the best course of action.
B. Airoort Area Specific Plan. As noted above, I believe this is one of the better
examples of city/county cooperation in planning for the city's periphery. The
recently-completed "concept" should be a basis for discussion, refinement (and
possibly negotiation) between the two jurisdictions, leading to a jointly-adopted
plan for the future of this area. We should continue our participation in a
cooperative spirit.
C. MOU. As I have mentioned in other correspondence, I believe that an idea with
considerable merit to at least explore is a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between
the city and the county. Such a document would spell out in a contractual agreement
the respective responsibilities and expectations of the two jurisdictions with regard
to the areas in the urban reserve, and outside it but near the city. The basic
principles would be that the city will eventually service and annex the area in the
urban reserve (existing policy) contingent on availability of resources and in phases
at appropriate absorption levels. The county will preserve the rural character of
land outside the urban reserve line and within the line until annexation occurs.
Considerable work needs to be done in defining what is rural character, phasing of
services and the actual legal limits on such contracts. Interestingly, other
counties facing problems at the urban/rural interface are just beginning to explore
this idea with their cities. I would suggest that you ask the Board to authorize
county staff to begin exploring this idea with city staff and that we report to you
jointly within 120 days on the pros, cons, and alternatives.
Recommendations
1. Direct the staff and Planning Commission to investigate the desirability of providing
more flexibility in the consideration of minor annexations when clear long-term benefits
may result from an annexation.
2. Continue to cooperate in the Airport Area Specific Plan process.
3. Direct staff to prepare a letter asking the Board of Supervisors to authorize their
staff to work with city staff to explore the idea of an interjurisdictional MOU with a
preliminary report covering pros, cons, and alternatives to return within 120 days.
/_S