Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/04/1988, Agenda & SPECIAL MEETING OF APRIL 4TH ANNEXATION 40 G�tiy (V* citWfsAn tuis mispo N too it p '-HEARING ROOM • CITY HALL • 990 PALM STREET • SAN LUIS OBISPO • CALIFORNIA '� 0 "Lead Peirson - Item to come back to Council *Denoted action by Lead PeAzon (f�f S O� A G E N DN% a6teru6k - Insonmatc.on Onty SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL MONDAY, APRIL 4, 1988 - 4:00 P.M. - 6:00 P.M. ROLL CALL: Councilmembers Peg Pinard, Vice-Mayor Penny Rappa, Jerry Reiss, Allen K. Settle and Mayor Ron Dunin P U B L I C C 0 M M E N T P E R I O D After the first break or at approximately 5: 15 p.m. , the Council will receive public comment on items of interest to the public within the City's jurisdiction. Comments on items for which a public hearing has been scheduled will be received at that time. A speaker slip (available in the Foyer) must be filed with the City Clerk. B U S I N E S S I T E M 1 . ANNEXATION POLICIES (MULTARI - 442) Continued discussion of annexation policies (con't from 3-22-88) . RECOMMENDATION: Discussion and question/answer period. MULTARI** Discue.a.i.on head. Southern CaP.i.bonn.i.a. GaS annexation to continue U VOGES** through the pn.ocedd. Stabb to make materiae ava.i,P.a.bZe that wad dfacuaded by the dpeakeu. Additi.ona.2 annexation diacu6d�.on to be held pxio,% to acting on apeci.b.ic pupaaa z. C O M M U N I C A T I O N S amok During the balance of this City Council meeting, any Councilmember or the City Administrative Officer may informally update or inform the AIL City Council of written or oral communciations and ask for comment and/or discussion. General direction may be given. An item Ar IL requiring formal approval may be continued to the next Regular meeting, or upon Council consensus, action, including direction to staff, may be taken immediately. (Not to exceed 15 minutes. ) A. ADJOURNMENT. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ) SS CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ) Page 1 of 1 I declare under penalty of perjury that 1 am @iAPloyed by the City of San Luis Obispo in the City We W s Department; and thatI posted �ligen near the front door of City Hall �2�jj V Date Signature FnNG AGENDA. �i�ri�;;illi�plllll;lq`!,;I��i►I�IpI�'�ui';1I�I II I � li . QA■■� APR ITEM # hill ills�l.11' 1.liiil ��tySWIS 01315 Of 1 .•Idy - .III SII III -_ = 990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, Ca 93403 8100 March 28, 1988 To: City Council Via: John Dunn, CAP,' From: Michael Multari, Community Development Director 0A Subject: Special Meeting of April 4 The topic of your special meeting of April 4 is further discussion of annexation policies. It appears that one of the items of interest is the history of the development of our current policies. Attached is a summary memo prepared by Terry Sanville which highlights important events in that history. Terry will be at the meeting to elaborate on the outline if the Council wishes. I've also invited Keith Gurnee (who was on the Council when many of the early annexation policy debates occurred), Ken Schwartz (mayor during this same time) and Vic Montgomery (who was involved in the last few "minor annexations" in the early 1980's) as sort of community policy-historians to help answer questions you may have about how our current set of policies evolved. We will also have some maps which will depict the locations of previous annexations and we can point out the areas where current annexation interest seems to be highest. Also, Bill Hetland will be at the meeting to help answer questions about water and sewer capacities more fully. Please be assured that staff agrees with the perspective that annexation/expansion policies are among the most difficult and important topics facing the community. While evaluation of our current policies is appropriate in the context of a major general plan update, care must be taken before significant changes to the current policies, which have evolved over a long period with much scrutiny, can be properly considered. We expect this evaluation process to be long, careful and involving numerous opportunities for community input before the Council will be asked to make significant decisions. We have introduced these issues to the Council to keep you involved early and throughout the procw a. If there is anything we can do to help you in your thinking about these issue:, pl-vse let us know. For next Monday's meeting, if there is other information you would like us to assemble, pler,�•= call me. Also, I, my staff, and Bill Hetland are all very happy to meet with Cour-i:fiLe�nbers individually to discuss these matters, at your convenience. Just let us know. �P� �iil�E►I!!Iliiillil,ill!!ilil.I jl IIII IiGiIII� , VIII city of sAn Wis aBispo 990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 " San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100 March 28, 1988 TO: City Council VIA: John Dunn, City Administrative Officer Mike Multari, Community Development Director 1V"_l FROM Terry Sanville, Principal PlannertS SUBJECT: Factors Influencing the Development of City Annexation Policy The city's current annexation policy responds to events and circumstances that occurred during the past fifteen to twenty years. The following pages present some of these factors and indicate how the content and structure of current policy may have been influenced. 1. The Danlev Annexation and Contiguous Growth, In 1971, the City Council approved the annexation of land near the county airport and east of Broad Street. The owner wanted to develop a mobile home park on the property. This action was the subject of a successful initiative petition. In 1972, city voters reveresed the council's annexation decision. Concern for annexing "contiguous territory" was one concern. Also, mobile home park development was not favored at that time. 2. Urban Reserve Line and the Eisner Plan, In 1972, the city adopted a new general plan prepared by planning consultant, Simon Eisner. This plan was never adopted by the county. One of the reasons was because it did not include an "urban reserve line" -- a feature included on previous general plans. The city was criticized for not identifying the extent of community growth. 3. Plannine Commission Annexation Guidelines. In 1972, the Planning Commission adopted guidelines for annexations. These guidelines were adopted by the City Council (see Exhibit A). The guidelines required the submittal of a PD (Planned Development) prezoning application. The guidelines also indicate a need to evaluate the adequacy of sewer and water delivery systems as part of the annexation process. This action reversed previous city policy trends of accepting "raw land" annexations -- annexations where a specific development proposal was not part of the application. 4. Laeuna Lake - South Hienera Street Moratorium (1972). Throughout the 1960's the Laguna Lake area grew rapidly. After the water distribution system was field tested as part of the Madonna Plaza Shopping Center project, it was determined that the water systems could not provide adequate service. In November 1972, the city established a two-year building moratorium. Principal issues that surfaced at this time were the city's ability to provide adequate service and problems created by rapid growth. (The concern for rapid growth was carried forward and was reflected in the 1977 LUE's growth management objectives and the subsequent adoption of implementing regulations.) The city spent several million dollars fixing the water system problem including the construction of the Edna Saddle Tank. 1-� Page 2 — Factors Influencing Annexation Policy 5. General Plan Work Program (1973). The city hired KDG Associates (Los Angeles) to prepare a new general plan and regulatory system. (Note: KDG's contract was terminated half way through their work because of failure to perform. City staff completed the general plan.) A guiding principle of the plan's work program was to determine the adequacy of city services and resources to support future growth. The water distribution and sewer collection systems were extensively analyzed along with city fire protection services. More general studies indicated that the city had enough water supply to serve about 42,000 to 44,000 people. At that time some council members felt the numbers were conservative while the planning staff felt that the service capacity could be as low as 37,000. The 42,000 capacity figure was used for subsequent environmental evaluations -- including the evaluation of the Edna-Islay Specific Plan. 6. Ordinance 604-A (1974). In response to the moratorium in the Laguna Lake-area, the city adopted Ordinance 604-A which required that development be tied to the adequacy of services and resources including sewer collection and treatment, and water distribution and supply. This ordinance required that the city begin tracking the community's consumption of water supplies and established "precautionary action" and "critical action" points for water supply. 7. Rural Land Use Element. In the mid-1970's the City Council and Board of Supervisors created a committee to discuss the mutual adoption of a "Rural Land Use Element." The element was to address land use in areas beyond the city's urban reserve but within its planning area — the northern part of the San Luis Creek watershed. With strong lobbying from county committee members and property owners, the committee favored the fracturing of all flat land areas within the planning area into five-acre parcels. No formal presentations of the plan were made and no action taken — primarily because the city could not support such a strategy. 8. The 1977 LUE and Malar Expansions. The staff and council spent considerable time discussing various options for identifying growth areas on the LUE map. Major Growth Areas (Irish Hills, Dalidio, Margarita, Orcutt, Edna-Islay) were designated as "Low Density Residential" areas. Each growth area was given a number (1 through 5). The number indicated the sequence in which these areas would be annexed to the city and/or developed with housing. This strategy did not receive support for several reasons: — The City Council was aware that resources (water, sewage treatment) could not serve all growth areas within the urban reserve line. It was clear at the time that the population capacity within the URL was 53,000 to 55,000. Committing to residential growth without knowing where or when the necessary resources would come from was not an acceptable strategy. — The numeric phasing of growth areas indicated that the Edna-Islay area would be developed after some of the other unincorporated growth areas -- primarily because of its remote relationship to existing city neighborhoods. The owners of the Edna-Islay area strenuously objected, arguing that they had been in the city for since 1960 and should have immediate development entitlements. In response, the City Council supported a strategy of identifying peripheral growth areas as "Interim Agriculture" — implying future annexation and development. However, prior to annexation and development, supplemental water supply and sewage treatment capacity were identified as prerequisites to annexation and development. 1 Page 3 — Factors Influencing Annexation Policy Because, major growth areas are large, the adoption of a "specific plan" (rather than a PD application) was required prior to development. A specific plan was required for the Edna-Islay area with the idea that the plan's "phasing provisions" would control the pace of development. 9. The 1977 LUE and Minor Expansions. During the development of the 1977 LUE various property owners (eg. Ferrini) had discussed annexations with the planning staff. Staff analysis showed that there were small areas, primarily in hillside areas, where city annexation might result in securing open space, completing the city boundary, or improving area infrastructure while not (either individually or cumulatively) significantly depleting water resources. (As part of the analysis, the total water use of these areas was calculated and was felt to be insignificant -- given the water service population estimate of 42,000.) 10. MORGA and Measure G. In the late 1970's state law that defines the annexation process was changed (eg. the Municipal Organization Act — MORGA). MORGA gives the authority for approving "uninhabited annexations" to LAFCo. This feature of MORGA surfaced as part of the city's preliminary evaluation of the Ferrini and Foothill annexations. Prior to the council action of these two annexation proposals, an initiative petition succeeded in adding a provision to the city's charter requiring voter approval of all annexations (except those for permanent public uses). The charter provision (Measure G, 1978) did not include a purpose and intent. However, features of the general discussion of this issue at that time were the desire to control growth, to address resource limitations, and to address the perceived loss of city control of annexations brought about by the implementation of MORGA. Applicants of the Ferrini and Foothill annexations challenged the legality of Measure G and were successful at the state appeals court level. This process took several years. During this time the city had annexed a small parcel on South Higuera Street which was developed for assisted housing by the Housing Authority. 11. Action on Minor Annexation ApnllcationsAfter Measure G was nullified, the Ferrini and Foothill annexations were implemented as "minor annexations." The principal community benefit associated with these annexations was the preservation of hillside open space and the partial creation of a green belt along the north city edge. The city also annexed a small area at the north end of San Luis Drive in return for the preservation of the hillside as open space. In the early 1980's, the City Council considered the annexation of the Irish Hills property (reference current Irish Hills Golf Course application). The proposal was unanimously denied by the council but for opposing reasons — some felt that the staff-recommendation (which included single family homes above Tracts 603 and 608 -- see Exhibit B) was not extensive enough compared with other alternatives; some felt that the city shouldn't expand at all in this area. 12. LAFCo and Spheres of Influence (1984). The statutory authority for annexations lies with LAFCo. LAFCo may authorize uninhabited annexations without city prezoning. However, if they do so, they become the lead agency and responsible for the EIR process. In general, it is LAFCo's policy to require prezonings prior to authorizing an annexation to the city. 1-4 Page 4 -- Factors Influencing Annexation Policy In 1984, LAFCo adopted a sphere of influence for the City of San Luis Obispo after significant review at the city level. The sphere line is very similar to the city's Urban Reserve Line and is supposed to identify potential annexation areas. 13. Annexation Procedures (1986). The Community Development Department prepared annexation procedures in 1986 consistent with adopted policies. A copy of the procedures are attached as Exhibit C. In sum, the procedures emphasize the city's control of the annexation process through prezoning, general plan amendment, environmental review and architectural review processes. This emphasis on city control and use of the prezoning process was based on the feeling that the city's environmental review and design review process was superior to the county's. 14. Water Manaeement Element Refinements (1987). The adoption of the Water Management Element was based on a more specific understanding of the limitations of city water resources. The element's policies place greater restrictions on the city's ability to consider "minor annexations." Applicants for minor annexation must demonstrate the adequacy of on-site water supplies; and the environmental and design work for securing a major new water source must be completed. If Water Management Element criteria are met, than the more general minor annexation policies of the 1977 LUE apply (public benefits in return for city services). The adoption of the Water Management Element did not significantly change the city's annexation policies concerning "Major Annexation" areas. However, the city element does state that the "urban reserve line" is the city's service area — implying that city services will be made available to the airport area -- something not envisioned by the 1977 LUE. Throughout the evolution of city annexation policy, major concerns that have been emphasized from time to time include the following. — "Leap Frog" vs Contiguous Development — Water Supply and Sewage Treatment Capacity — Infrastructure Capacity and Deficiencies -- City Control vs. County Control — The Application of MORGA -- Interim Development Levels -- City-County General Plan Consistency -- Public Benefits vs. Service Obligations — Hillside Preservation and Open Space Planning — Overall Growth Management — Appropriate Land Uses — Clean Urban Edge vs. Suburban Sprawl — Ultimate Size of the City — Inevitable vs. Controlled Growth It is safe to say that these issues will continue to be central to the debate and development of city growth management and annexation .policies. Attachments: Exhibit A — 1972 City Council Annexation Procedure Exhibit B — Previous Staff Recommendation for Irish Hills Project Exhibit C — Annexation Procedures, Community Development Department Exhibit D -- 1977 LUE Annexation Policies Exhibit E — Map of Annexations RESOLUTION NO. 2395 (1972 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUbS CBISPO ADOPTING TI,T. ANNEY.ATION GUIDELINES PROPOSED BY TF:s ?IdU\ND1G COM h ISSIar4. BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follmrs: This Council hereby approves and adopts the criteria set forth in the me::noranch,m dated October 31, 1972, from the City Planning Commission as the City's Official Guidelines as to the type and depth of information which should be prepared and considered in connection with proposals for the annexation of territory to tie City. On motion of Councilman Gurnee, seconded by Councilman Graham, and on rhe following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmen Blake, Brown, Graham, Gurnee and Mayor Schwartz NOES: None ABSENT: None the foregoing Resolution was duly passed and adopted this 6th day of November, 1972. AAyor ATTEST: 1� I APPU(GV'.J ) DC r.'ii D 7:i: tlon•-•raa;•• .•..:vp: ,c r': r : t 'n7�r1 � t ( 1 CONIMUED t -'---- '- - --'-- .. :]l! ,. .:)�.:d•: 'i]•r .".?.'' t Js:s.�., dnaF•}'n C.:.' ., NCJ: Ii_': n!i n.C:'JCrC':utci. 1.�• c', the ridrnanq L'o-7vL1.ssJDn -z5 of tn: undefsca(ldlaa that is :s :nt.,?ntion or t_l7e C: cy C.-3uncil to re7c,:re .,at all annexdtion proposals L-c !'er'erred to the Plann.:na Commission before presentation to the Citu C'),tneiI . This procedure should be followed whether or not the pronosal is formal (i.e. LAFCO approvdl has been given) or informal. The Plannina Cacrm:ssion requests that the City Council recognize this Procedure (by r. so:ution, .: theu so desire: . Tr.e riannir_; ::o:%-ni c.sion :s becoming ;ncredsinalu aware [hat the C: to sne ific o:i•:u to adhere u-) when called upon co make certain deciainns With far-feach'n%i implications. Recent Citu actions with regard t•- di:•isions, planned developments, and annexations are examples. To evoi ' haphazard and illogicdl d•:-c•isior, ma.4ing, the Planninq Commission -esxct- fu.ily recommends to the Cita Council that it adopt immediately the set of criteria outlined below to guide both the Planning Commission and the Citu Council wizen faced with annexation proposals. we believe chat the firmness of this proposal accurately reflects the feelings of the citizenry of San Luis Obispo as evidenced especially by the. special election last summer. PROPOSAL when an annexation to the Ci r.:7 is nromsed in order to accomodate a specific development, the property in question shall be prezoned planned development (plus base wne) , and the annexation and the development pro- posal shall be considered concurrently, the annexation .shall not be approved by the City without concurrent approval of the development Plan, Should the approved development plan not bc, carried out, the City will retain contrcl of subsequent development of the property through retention of the planned development zoning. Me Citu shall require pros - crive developers of land proposed for anner- atzon to Provide the ;,fanning Commission with complete info.<-mation in the .ollow.ing cateaor cs. :his information shall be prepared bu the developer; the Plannin, Commissjon docs not expect Citu staff to do the required anal_isis, but aI .' :acts presented must be verified by statf before pre- sencation cc the :Manning Commission. Information to be given shall include the -following; 1) what statistical effect will the proposed annexation and development have or, the Citu's available water suppl•; and dvailable sewage creat- mant fzcilitier.? Does the Citu have the abilit:l to serve the annexat:opF It it do+.•s, :n wh:3r statistical decree will the nroposerf development rad co Its obi: : t❑ tc rslrvo future development. ' rtakina *ntr- arcount :omm' tmer.t to undr_velnperf arer:x inside the C: tut . 1- '7 Annexa t ion ,;r')liC•J ;; 21 ch�> nrorxse�ei annexation rpaui:'e exnans:on of !x�lite, fire, ...•l;n;:. , -)arc, ree,rc3cion, a: . ;bra: . .srr. T!' sr:, what Wil _ eypansiun be: to th!. C_ ..•. h-.nt'F un a shor-, Ani! .`.T :JdS:Sr' 2) Eten:ze aII anticipated short and long term costs to the Cita not included in 1 or 2 above. 4) what sensitive environmental features are cont.iined within the area? How will the proposed annexation and development affect them? 5) Is the proposed development consistent with the General Plan and with the City's policy of limited and controlled growth? 6) will the proposed development adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of City residents or those expected to reside within the urban reserve line? 7) will the proposed development provide the City with a balanced pattern of land use? 8) what will be the effect of the proposed development on the economic base of the City? 9) List alternatives to the proposed annexation and development (including the alternative of no annexation) and compare the effects of these alternatives with the effects of the proposal. with regard to annexation proposals that do not involve an overall development plan or that are initiated by the City, the Planning Commission may modify the above conditions on an individual basis. 10131172 1-� _ ,VY"I �O ° 01 O ° L � / ,\ 4 O i LAGUN\A E Open Space/Agriculture c/oS-a /C/0 S - 0 �: / LAKE Housing ..� �• e ' Area ; PF c — g 27P of •.r, ,„ - . PF PF R-2 R-2-PO + 9�( ` PF R. Ile 1 -N '4 e. / —40 R—I—!S� 4 a° R-3 R-3- DEPARTMENT OF CUMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT M'-6 POLICIES & PROCEDURES EFFECTIVE DATE: 9/01/86 SUBJECT: Annexations and Prezonings A. DEFINITION Sometimes property owners or public agencies want their land to become part of the City and to receive City services. Before the land is annexed to the City„ city policy requires the basic type of land use be identified by prczoning. B. PURPOSE AND APPLICATION The annexation and prezoning process is to ensure orderly arca growth of the city. It applies to all annexations, although some procedures for the annexation of public lands by publicagencies are different. C. PERTINENT REGULATIONS Municipal Organization Act (1977) (California Government Code 35000) Zoning Regulations (Section 17.70.050 ANNEXATION AND PREZONING) Urban Land Use Element (Annexation Policies) Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) Guidelines and Procedures D. AFFECTED AGENCIES The San Luis Obispo Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) authorizes annexations. The City Council acts on the requests authorized by LAI .,. The Community Development Department prepares staff reports for annc.. .. ..,ns and prczoning applications. Most other city departments arc consulted. E. POLICIES (See the Land Use Element for pertinent policies.) F. PROCEDURES Major steps of the process arc identified below, but details about staffing and notification (described in other procedural statements) are not included. See also Procedures D-8 and D-10. (1) Minor Annexations: Defined in the Land Use Element, generally involve the addition of land for residential development. a. Submit Apolications: Application For Annexation: The applicant submits a letter from the property owncr(s) indicating the property to be annexed and the reason for the annexation. A location map must accompany the letter. All material should be in 8 1/2 x 11 format. A $450.00 fee for annexation is charged. I ,8,as i POLICIES PROCEDUR M-s General Plan Amendment: A planning application is filed. The application includes necessary description and maps ( 8 1/2 x 11 format) showing the change in land use designations on the Land Use Element map. The fee for general plan amendment is changed. General Plan Amendment application deadlines continue to apply (see D-7). "PD Prezoning Aoolication: The PD prezoning enables the city to evaluate an actual development before it agrees to the annexation. The PD prezoning becomes effective upon the date of annexation. ! The fee for preliminary planned development is charged. Schematic ARC Review: The project will be reviewed in a schematic fashion by the ARC. The fee for ARC review is charged. Environmental Review: The standard environmental assessment is performed on all of the applications listed above. The environmental review fee is charged. b. Commission ano Council Actions Planning Commission: The Planning Commission reviews and makes recommendations to the City Council on the PD prezoning and the general plan amendment. Both items arc considered on the same agenda, the general plan amendment being considered first. Both applications are sent to the City Council with a recommendation for approval or denial. The Planning Commission also has to "review and consider" the EIR if one has been prepared by the city. If the city has assumed the lead agency role as defined by CEQA, it prepares an EIR. Otherwise, LAFCo must prepare the required environmental documents. City uncil Action: The City Council reviews the Planning Commission's recommendations in the council agenda report and: Certifies the final EIR if one was prepared for the project; Approves or denies the general plan amendment; If the general plan amendment is approved, then the council approves, conditionally approves, or denies the PD prezoning; j If the general plan amendment is denied, the council cannot approve the prezoning because it would be inconsistent with the general plan as required by city and state law. i I • I I 2- II -s POLICIES & PROCEDURES M C. Aoolication to LAFCo Aoolication by Petition pr Resolution: The property owncr(s) submit an application for annexation to LAFCo. The time between application submission and LAFCo action is about six weeks, but can vary depending on the project. Applications are by petition of the affected property owners. As an alternate, the City can request annexation by a resolution of the City Council, usually when the annexation is for a public project. Plan For Services The LAFCo application must include a plan for services. Under the petition form of application, the property owner(s) are responsible for preparing this plan for the approval of LAFCo. Elections: Depending on whether the area is inhabited or not, a vote of the affected property owners may be required before LAFCo can act on an application. Refer to the appropriate sections of the Municipal Organization Act (MORGA) for requirements. LAFCo staff will take care of this process. Transmittal of City Action: Prior to LAFCo consideration of an annexation, the city transmits all environmental documents and a record of city actions on general plan amendments and prezoning applications. d. Action by LAFCo The commission reviews reports prepared by its staff, considers materials transmitted by the City, takes public testimony, and acts on the application. The commission can: Deny the application; Approve an amended annexation; Approve an application with conditions. If the annexation is approved or conditionally approved LAFCo sends the City authorization to annex the property within a certain time as provided in MORGA. e. Final City Council Action: Within the time periods established by MORGA, the City Council must act on the annexation. State law requires the city to approve uninhabited annexations authorized by LAFCo. i There are at least two public hearings held on the matter. If the City Council fails to act within the time period, the Board of ! Supervisors is empowered to act. I ' 1- �2 POLICIES &'PROCEDUR'ft,'ft> M-6 (2) Major Annexations: Major annexations, also described in the Land Use Element, generally involve large areas to the south and south cast of the City where the City anticipates residential growth subject to (a) securing additional water supply, and (b) preparing a specific plan. a. Initial Applications: Applications are nearly the same as minor annexations. However, a "PD" prezoning application is not required, just a standard prezoning application. A preliminary PD plan is not needed because a "specific plan" will be prepared as a prerequisite to each major annexation. The specific plan shows how the neighborhood will be arranged and how public services will be provided. Future projects (subdivisions, commercial projects, ctc.) must be consistent with the specific plan. The specific plan should be prepared & adopted by the city prior to processing of any annexation application for affected territory (See D-8). b. Environmental Review: Special note - according to state law, residential projects that arc found consistent with an adopted specific plan need no further environmental review. Therefore, annexation requests within major annexation areas may not require environmental review if a specific plan has been prepared & adopted. C. City and LAF o Actions: City and LAFCo actions arc essentially the same as for minor annexations. i i I I I j I ' 1-13 ., r XH I L, .T C. The City should provide for infill, intensification, and expansion within the present City limits and provide for future minimized outward urban expansion within the unincorporated urban reserve which can be efficiently served by urban "infrastructure" improvements. Urban development should be programmed to assure that adequate water supply, sewage treatment, fire and police, schools and recreation facilities and other public facilities will be available to serve the composition and configuration of uses provided in a safe and efficient manner. -- The County should prevent scattered rural residential, industrial or other nonagricultural developments outside the urban reserve. Within the unincorporated portions of the urban reserve the County should work jointly with the City to assure that development proposals are consistent with growth management and land use objectives of the General Plan. The City should coordinate its annexation of any additional territory and its approval of any urban developments in expansion areas within the corporate limits with the improvements if urban service systems. A specific plan shall be required prior to annexation. No annexations of major unincorporated expansion areas should be authorized until water supply and treatment and sewage collection and treatment facility needs can be met in addition to the planned urban use capacity of incorporated areas. No commitments to urban development of incorporated expansion areas should be authorized until water, sewer, access and other public facilities and services can be provided concurrently. -- Specific plans should be required for the Edna/Islay Hill residential expansion area before allowing developments to proceed. -- The major unincorporated residential expansion areas, located to the southwest, south and southeast will have additional public improvement requirements, to be defined in the prerequisite specific plans. Certain minor unincorporated expansion areas, however, predominantly to the northwest. northeast and cast of the City could be considered as appropriate for incidental immediate annexation and urban development provided infrastructure improvements are concurrently constructed to enable adequate urban service. I i Minor expansions to enable more logical, complete and efficient urban development and urban services should not be restrained or deferred, i particularly where other growth management and land use objectives are achieved as trade-offs. a) Where existing deficiencies are corrected by the development, b) Where inappropriate, alternative rural residential development can be avoided by allowing environmentally acceptable urban residential concentration in the City and providing interim or permanent agricultural preservation of the remaining unincorporated portion of the property. and :I 'll-� � L� 4 1 c) Where the annexation and development will provide a more logical, 1 complete and efficient urban edge. d. The city and County should cooperatively refine and delineate - distinctive development policies for the San Luis Obispo Planning Area, distinguishing portions which are inside or outside urban reserve, and City limits. The planning area shall be the upper half of the San Luis Obispo Creek watershed. The urban reserve limit shall define the maximum envelope or area reserved for existing, immediate and/or potential urban developments in the planning area, consistent with this General Plan, and shall be essentially considered the "sphere of influence" of the City of San Luis Obispo. -- The County should encourage only public facility, recreational, agricultural and other nonurban land uses outside of the urban reserve; rural residential or urban uses should be precluded except where existing, and these should be confined to the minimum area mutually determined to be committed by either present development or subdivision improvements. The County should promote permanent or long-term agricultural and/or open space preservation in all areas outside the urban reserve qualifying for such programs. Where rural residential development or nonconforming improved subdivisions exist, 'rural planned development", encouraging clustering of further residential developments, should be employed. For unimproved, existing, nonconforming subdivided areas, the subdivisions should be reverted to acreage or considered for more consistent resubdivision and development. -- The County should evaluate all existing zoning and unclassified areas within unincorporated portions of the San Luis Obispo Planning Area, both inside and outside the urban reserve, and apply appropriate large-parcel zoning, discourage further fracturing of agricultural lands, prohibit additional rural residential development or inconsistent subdivision, and prohibit and abate off-premise billboards or signs. The County should promote both long-term and short-term agricultural and/or open space preservation in all areas within the urban reserve and outside the city limit qualifying for such programs. As required by law, the County should refer all development and subdivision proposals within the San Luis Obispo planning area, to the City for review and comment. For proposals outside the urban reserve, this referral shall be to obtain comments and recommendations concerning plan consistency. For proposals within the urban reserve (sphere of influence), the County shall either ratify the City's recommended action or shall refer the proposal back to the City for further study, recommendation, and report before revising or reversing said action.