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.