HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/10/1988, 1 - MEETING TO DISCUSS ANNEXATION AND RESOURCES �- - AGEWA _'1
�i►III►IfIIIIIIIIII� ������������IIII►I I IIS ( �Clt O SAn 1S OBISPO
y
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 " San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
May 4, 1988
To: City Council
Via: John Dunn, CAO q
From: Michael Multari, Community Development Director
fit'\
Subject: Meeting to discuss annexation and resources
Last month, we invited several guests to talk with us about the history of annexation
policies in the city. Ken Schwartz, Keith Gurnee, Vic Montgomery, Rob Strong and others
helped paint an interesting and educational picture of the evolution of those policies.
The Council asked for another study session to spend some time discussing the relation
between annexation and resource capacities...a topic we never really got to at the last
meeting. This continued discussion is scheduled for May 10. We expect that the time will
be largely devoted to raising and (to the extent possible) answering questions about
existing resource capacities, and about if and how city expansions can be accommodated
within those capacities. Staff from various departments will be present to help.
This memo is simply an introduction to the upcoming meeting.
Water
Clearly, the most pressing resource constraint we face is water supply. According to
Chapter 2.44 of the Municipal Code, when a proposed new development or expansion could
result in the city's exceeding a resource capacity, various measures must be taken to
alert the council of the potential problem so that "crises" can be avoided. Currently,
the only resource considered in a deficiency condition is water.
In 1984, the Council was apprised of this deficiency condition in accordance with the
code. The Council's response resulted in the preparation of the Water Management Plan
and Water Management Element, studies on groundwater and possible Salinas expansion, the
conservation program, and the drafting of a Water Allocation Ordinance (not yet adopted).
The status of the water situation is discussed in detail in the recently distributed
annual water report so I won't reiterate it here. In sum, however, we are exceeding our
safe annual yield; we have taken measures to encourage conservation and to monitor and,
if necessary, restrict new demand; we have taken several steps to obtain new sources.
Some of the most interesting questions that recur in thinking about possible annexations
and water supply include the following:
1-�
Resources
Page.2
How much water do we need to support "build-out" of the existing city limits?
How much water do we need to support eventual "build-out" of the present urban
reserve?
Answering those questions with some level of confidence is one of the more important
tasks in the updating of the general plan and in the Airport Specific Plan.
In order to answer those questions we need to know the following:
1. How much water do we expect different types and intensities of land uses to require?
In the past, we have tied water demand estimates strictly to population growth,
assuming that commercial, industrial and public facility needs will be
increasing in proportion with new residents. In fact, that is probably not a
completely valid assumption as non-residential demand may be increasing faster
than population. The Water Element says that we should switch from
population-based estimates of water demand to land use-based projections. We
have begun to do that in the monitoring of new development over the past year.
With the help of a computer model, we expect as part of the general plan update
to be able to use this approach for projecting future city-wide water demand.
This approach is especially important in the Airport Specific Plan Area where
there is relatively little residential growth, but significant potential for
non-residential growth.
2. What kinds of uses and how much of them can we still reasonably expect to fit into
the existing city?
Again, as part of our general plan update work, we are answering this
question—and it is not so easy as it may first appear. Here a few things to
consider.
The existing general plan estimated build-out as about 45,600 people. Our
current population estimate is at about 38,500. That would mean that we can
still fit over 7,000 more people (an increase of over 18%) in our existing
neighborhoods. A lot of that increase (say about 1,500) is slated for future
phases of Edna-Islay, but that still leaves about a 15% increase elsewhere in
the city. Intuitively, that seems like a lot. Further, we all, I think, are
hearing increasing concern that existing neighborhoods are too dense, whether
it's too many units on small lots in Old Town or large houses on small lots in
new subdivisions. This concern may result in our evaluating whether we want to
change some of our standards to help relieve feelings of congestion or crowding
there—an important general plan revision question, and one that will affect
the "capacity" of the existing city.
At staff level, we think that the estimate of our current population may be low;
we also think that at least in some neighborhoods remaining capacity needs to be
reconsidered; we also acknowledge that many of the remaining parcels are
difficult ones to develop and that some reduction in capacity should
1�
Resources
Page 3
be built in to our regulations and population estimates. We have just completed
a comprehensive land use inventory, which can tell us more precisely how much
land we have remaining in different land use categories.
Another variable to think about, especially as we move from a water demand
estimate based on population to one based on land use, is the intensity of
future commercial expansion. The vision we have for the downtown in terms of
intensification and/or expansion will be important in estimating future city
water demand.
3. What kinds of uses and how much are going into the urban reserve?
This is clearly among the critical general plan update issues: where do we draw
the urban reserve line and what do we put into it? I suspect that maior changes
to our current urban reserve are unlikely. Further, I think that maior changes
to the already designated expansion areas (Dalidio, Margarita, Orcutt, Irish
Hills) in terms of use or density are not likely either. Thus, much of the
major work will be in the plan for the Airport Area.
A somewhat different kind of question is raised by these issues:
4. What is the relation between possible water supplies and major annexation areas?
There is a prevalent assumption that our ability to obtain supplies and
consideration of annexations are independent. However, they are probably tied
together in at least one, and maybe other, case(s). The Dalidio expansion area
appears to be especially rich in groundwater. It seems to be readily available
and in significant excess above the needs of the development of the expansion
area itself. However, it is highly unlikely that the owners will allow the city
to use any of that water unless at least some urban intensity uses are allowed
to develop there, concurrently. A similar situation may be true in the Irish
Hills area.
At the risk of creating "golden numbers", I would like to give an estimate of water needs
for the build-out of the city and the urban reserve—in doing this I am making several
assumptions some of which I just told you above are probably erroneous. So please, don't
take these numbers as gospel-.they are just to give you an idea and they will be revised
as we continue our general plan work. My assumptions are 1) existing population is
38,500 (probably low); ultimate population of the city limits is 45,600 (probably high);
the urban reserve will accommodate 53,000 people (may be changed with the general plan
revisions); water demand in all sectors will grow proportionately with population growth
(we know it probably doesn't); the present water demand per person ratio reflects future
trends (however, it really doesn't seem to fit well on trend lines extrapolated from past
data.-it's very high now).
With those assumptions, the following would be true:
Resources
Page 4
Condition Water Reouirement (af/vr) Water Available Now Difference
Now 8650 8180 -470
Existing City 10245 8180 -2065
Urban Reserve 11900 8180 -3720
Sewer
Wastewater treatment plant capacity is based on average dry weather flow using a unit flow
rate of 100 gallons per person per day. Again, this makes an assumption that sewage flows
in all sectors will be proportional to changes in population growth...inaccurate but still
useful for giving a general idea about capacity. Recognizing the caveats above,
projections of sewage treatment capacity are as follows:
Condition Caoacity Reouirement (mQd) Current Caoacity Difference
Now 4.4 5.1 t.7
Existing City 5.1 5.1 0
Urban Reserve 5.8 5.1 -.7
It should be noted that certain portions of the treatment will have higher capacities to
accommodate infiltration and inflow. Also, the necessary "expansion" to increase capacity
is relatively easy to accomplish with incremental plant improvements (most likely new
filter and clarification equipment) at the existing site. (And, of course, changes to the
treatment/disposal process are needed now to meet certain water quality standards.)
Other resources
The code, good planning and common sense, tell us that there are other resources whose
capacities need to be considered before allowing growth, whether within the existing city
or in expansion areas. These include drainage, circulation systems, cultural and
education facilities, parks and open space, air quality, fire protection, and police
protection. At this time, none is considered in a deficit situation. However, the
desired current and projected levels of such resources/services are constantly being
re-evaluated. For example, the Fire Master Plan is looking at service needs; the
circulation element is being updated looking at street capacities; we are contemplating a
fresh look at our parks and open space standards; and so on.
It is important to point out that some of these can typically be provided within new
development areas themselves (eg: neighborhood parks, internal circulation systems and
drainage). Others are more area-wide or even regional in scope (eg: circulation and air
quality). In the latter cases, even with careful city planning, undesirable impacts may
occur if we do not get cooperative efforts by our nearby jurisdictions (principally the
county).
Resources
Page 5
We hope as part of the general plan update to as clearly as practical set:forth desired
levels of service, projected demand, and necessary capacities that must be planned,for
and provided to meet those demands for the various resources listed above.
-
I hope this discussion paper is interesting and useful. It reminds us of the number of
issues that need to be consideredwhen doing a. general plan: if you have any questions
or would like more information, please call. Of course, we are.happy to meet with
individual councilmembers outside the formal meetings, if any one of you would like to do
that.
cc: Planning Commission
Management Team
Planners
Mike's/Resources
gnawr