HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/19/1988, 6 - MOZART FESTIVAL FUNDING Nrtt I INN A"NOA .
D�,i E AL�o �e Resoorld by:
�L CAO
❑city any.
96wk•aee.
Ifl 5. P6,%&uor,••)
❑
❑ F;1e✓
July 18, 198
To : Mayor Ron Dunin a
:Members of th^e S s bispo City Council
From: Jack Gat
�Jt• C
Subject : Mozart ' estival Funding
I am writing this,, letter as a private citizen of San Luis Obispo .
Unfortunately I will be out of town on Tuesday, July 19th, when
the Grants-in-aid are reviewed, or I would be at the Council
meeting.
It is vitality important that the City help fund the Mozart
Festival . Local gavernment financial support, both City and
County, has a far reaching impact on major contributors . The .
National Endowment for the Arts , The California Arts Council,
and :many major corporate contributors are interested in know-
ing whether there is financial sup-)ort from local government.
Thus , whatever the City contributes is a positive statement to
many other significant supporters .
This event is a major tourist attraction. It is estimated that
1200-1500 tourists attend the Festival. The amount of money
spent during Festival , eek by tourists on this cultural event
far exceeds the requested City grant.
The City must actively sup:)ort cultural events . A well rounded
Community has many diverse functions and the City would not be
contributing its share culturally if it does not support the
:Mozart Festival .
The City has an obligation to support excellence - and the
:Mozart Festival is cultural exce.li�,.ncp1 I urge you to pro-
vide funding for this worthwhile event.
RECEIV1ED
JUL 1U1988
CITY CLEPK
SAN LUIS OP!FP O C°
���H�ir►►►�IllliflllP���"q���ll city of San LUIS OBISpo
iWNGs COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
PREVIOUS REVIEW
On May 11 and 25, the Planning Commission considered the proposed minor annexation
policies. Suggested amendments to the policies drafted by staff have been incorporated
into attached Figure A. The commission recommends that the City Council adopt the
proposed policies (Vote: 5 - 1, Roalman dissenting, Gerety absent).
Comments and concerns raised by individual commissioners include the following:
1. Section 2.D. limits minor annexations to areas where the natural slope is less
than 15%. This policy should be more flexible to allow the city to consider steeper
sloping areas. (Commr. Gerety)
2. It is not appropriate for areas annexed to the city to be served by on-site water
supply. (Commr. Gerety)
3. This proposal will send a mixed message to owners of property peripheral to the
city. (Commr. Roalman)
4. There is a concern for the "size" of developed area that would be allowed by the
proposed policies. 25 acres of development may be too much. (Commr. Schmidt)
EVALUATION
The 1977 Land Use Element includes policies that address minor expansions (see Figure
B). However, these policies (1) do not clearly identify the desired public benefits; (2)
do not clearly locate or define "minor annexation"; and (3) were adopted at a time when
water supply problems were less critical than they are today.
The following paragraphs present and evaluate a new policy that allows for the
consideration of minor annexation proposals. Staff feels that now is an opportune time
to consider policy refinements.
It should be acknowledged that new policies adopted at this time might require refinement
as part of the city's general plan update program. In a sense, the proposed minor
annexation policies described herein can be considered as "interim" policies and can
change as the city adopts a more comprehensive growth management program.
New minor annexation policies must provide a clear definition of what they are and
establish criteria for evaluating applications. The following are examples of factors
that may be used to define and evaluate proposals.
Possible Definine Factors
These factors help answer the question:"What is a minor annexation?"
1. Size of annexed territory
2. Size of proposed developed area (gross acres)
3. Location (specified on map and/or described in LUE text)
4. Land Planning Objective (residential, non-residential, open space)
5. Ratio of developed area to open space; the amount of open space; open space
characteristics.
6. Service capability
���n�ir►►��IIIII��� ���U city Of san LaIs OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Page 3 -- GP 1380: Minor Annexation Policies
Included in the policy statement shown on Figure "A" are italicized numbers in
parentheses. These numbers refer to following paragraphs that evaluate specific aspects
of the policy and offer alternatives. Alternative strategies for acting on minor
annexation policies are also presented.
1. Inhabited v. Uninhabited Territory. The term "territory" is used by LAFCo to
describe land that is added to a city through the annexation process. "Inhabited"
territory has 12 or more registered voters residing within it while "uninhabited"
territory has less than 12.
The recommended policy would enable either type of territory to be considered. If
the city does not want to incorporate substantial residential populations (and
housing) approved under county jurisdiction, it could specify "uninhabited" as part
of its minor annexation policy.
2. Oven Space Green Belt. Creating a green belt surrounding the city is a land use and
growth management objective central to the recommended policy statement. Consistent
with this policy, the city might approve the addition of minor amounts of development
at its periphery if a permanent urban edge would simultaneously be created through
dedication of open space. The recommended policy would allow for changes to the
urban reserve to encompass these minor expansions.
The city could establish other land use and growth management objectives as a basis
for considering minor annexations. These are alluded to in the first paragraph of
the recommended policy's intent statement. Examples include the provision of housing
affordable to low-income people or annexation to enable the development of facilities
benefiting the neighborhood or the community such as a neighborhood park or a major
recreational facility.
3. Contieuous Territory. This provision would require that territory to be annexed be
contiguous to developed land within the city. There may be some instances where
an annexation could be proposed where the territory is separated from the city by
existing open space (eg. in hillside areas). This provision would preclude isolated
annexations from occurring unless compensating public benefits were clearly
identified (reference paragraph 2 of the proposed policy).
4. Major Annexation Area Exclusion. The Land Use Element map identifies four major
expansion areas — Irish Hills, Dalidio, Margarita, and Orcutt. These areas are
targeted for incorporation pending the adoption of a specific plan for each and the
provision of a major supplemental water source.
Annexation of parts of these areas as "minor annexations" would fragment the planning
and development of these areas. Furthermore, the basic open space objective of the
recommended policy might be inconsistent with the city's long-range intent to
accommodate urban development in these major expansion areas.
Annexing parts of these major expansion areas as agricultural reserves pending future
development is a possible strategy. However, when territory comes into the city and
is targeted for future urban use, there is an expectation that urban services (water
supply) are available. If future urban use is anticipated, LAFCo will require the
city to submit a "plan for services" as part of any annexation resolution.
Annexation of agricultural areas as "holding areas" will require evaluation of the
legal, fiscal and political limitations and opportunities of such a strategy.
�►�►��i�i►�IIIII�IIIi �l�lll city of San Luis OBispo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Page 4 -- GP 1380: Minor Annexation Policies
Staff suggests that amendments to the city's policies concerning major annexation
areas be considered as part of the overall general plan update.
5. Size of Develoned Area. The recommended policy specifies an urban area limitation
of 25 acres. If developed with single family homes, this area might accommodate 100
dwellings or more (depending on land characteristics and net acreage available for
development). Since the recommended policy also requires the provision of on-site
water service (or a compensating reduction in current city water consumption
off-site), municipal water service limitations would not limit the size of
annexations to be considered.
The issue of size is a choice that is not necessarily tied to municipal resource
constraints. One function of an urban reserve line (URL) is to direct urban growth
inside the line and to prevent sprawl. The addition of major territory to the
periphery of the city would change the form of the community and discourage infill
within the existing urban reserve line. Major expansions into the Chorro, Los Osos,
or Edna valleys could induce growth on neighboring properties and further encourage
suburban sprawl or peripheral development in the county.
An alternative strategy might be to limit the size of the developed area or the
intensity of urban uses to that which can be served by on-site water and sewer
systems. However, these areas might be larger than what some would consider "minor"
annexations. The term "minor annexation" implies the addition of a small amount of
territory -- although, to date, no one has defined what small is.
Another way to think about the issue is that size is not important if the public
benefits are judged to exceed the public costs and a permanent urban edge similar
to the current urban reserve is formed through the annexation process.
6. Slope Limitations. The recommended policy would limit development of annexed
territory to land with natural slopes of 15% or less. This limitation is to preclude
development of sensitive hillside areas. Sensitive hillside areas that should be
preserved as permanent open space were identified in the city's 1983-84 Hillside
Planning Program. At that time the city held numerous public hearings and
established a precise location for the urban reserve line and the zoning limit of
hillside development. Land beyond the urban reserve was designated as permanent open
space. The open space areas generally have slopes greater than 15%.
The Hillside Planning Program identified several small areas at the base of the hills
that might be considered for annexation (eg. territory east of Alrita Street above
Johnson Avenue, territory west of Prefumo Canyon Road at the base of the Irish Hills,
territory west of the Stoneridge Subdivision an Broad Street at the base of South
Street Hill). It was assumed that these limited city expansions would lead to the
preservation of significant hillside territory and would complete the city's urban
edge.
7. Open Space Preservation. The recommended policy requires that at four times as
much open space be preserved as the amount of land developed within the annexed
territory. For example, if 25 acres (the maximum) was developed with housing, than
at least 100 acres would have to be preserved as permanent open space, to help form
the green belt.
����i�i�►►►�IIIIIII�P ���III City Of San LUIS OSISPO
MoGa COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Page 5 -- GP 1380: Minor Annexation Policies
If a specific minor annexation proposal could not provide the required open space
within its boundaries, the sample policy would allow for "off site" open space
preservation.
The application of this provision reinforces the objective of preserving open space
to form a green belt surrounding the community. The best way to control the urban
edge is to consider annexations that incorporate both appropriately located open
space and development area. Determining the required amount of open space is a
choice similar to determining the maximum amount of development allowed within
annexed territory.
One policy alternative would be to describe the type of open space that the city
desires and leave the evaluation of its worth and appropriateness to the public
hearing process. For example, the recommended policy could state that a
"substantial" amount of open space should be preserved. The definition of
"substantial" would be left to the hearing process. The policy could also describe
the quality of open spaces that are desired such as scenic hillsides, lakefront,
creek areas with established riparian habitat, or agricultural lands where
preservation would meet the city's open space and growth management objectives. All
of these qualitative statements could provide the Planning Commission and the
City Council with useful "statements of intent." However, they would not provide
applicants with a minimum standard to achieve.
8. Water Use. Water consumption within the city has exceeded the safe annual yield
of existing water supplies. Policies within the Water and Wastewater Management
Element state that the city should consider annexations only when design and
environmental studies for a new water supply meeting the needs of the whole city have
been completed. These studies could take several years to complete.
The application of the current water management policies would preclude the city from
considering minor annexation requests at this time. One way to address the dilemma
of public benefits vs. the availability of water is to require that minor annexations
provide their own water or take actions elsewhere in the city to reduce water
consumption. These actions could "offset" the increase in demand for municipal water
service from development within annexed territory.
The objective of these water service provisions is that there would be no net
increase in demand for municipal water supplies.
9. Council Policy Exceptions. The city may receive a minor annexation proposal that
does not meet all the criteria presented in the recommended policy. However, the
proposal may have significant unanticipated public benefits. Paragraph #3 of the
recommended policy would enable the city to approve an annexation when it determines
that annexation will provide compensating public benefits. Compensating public
benefits include low-cost housing, mitigation of environmental problems, or
improvement of neighborhood quality.
This provision adds flexibility to the policy. It would be the responsibility of the
applicant to demonstrate the value of compensating benefits. It also creates
somewhat of an open ended situation since compensating benefits are only broadly
described. Again, the value of compensating benefits claimed by an applicant would
be determined as part of the hearing process (/0
����N�►�►►►�IIIIIfI�II��u������Il city O� san LUIS OBISPO
NONZe COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Page 6 -- GP 1380: Minor Annexation Policies
10. Impact on the Gas Company Annexation Proposal. The proposed policies were
designed to address fringe area development and the creation of a green belt. They
were not designed to accommodate commercial annexations such as the Gas Company's
proposal on Broad Street that is interior to an established commercial area. The gas
company proposal would continue to be an exception to the minor annexation policies.
However, as previously stated by staff and the commission, there are good reasons for
considering this proposal an exception:
It is surrounded on three sides by commercial development in the city and city
utilities are already extended beyond the subject area.
Several of the properties included in the annexed territory have pre-existing
agreements with the city for municipal water service.
Commercial development in the county is imminent and there are taxing benefits
that the city would gain through incorporation.
There are no other properties similar to the gas company annexation area.
ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES
The city could:
1. Take no action to change its minor annexation policies.
Adopted watez management policies would preclude the city's approval of pending
minor annexation applications, while denial, in some cases, could encourage
development under county jurisdiction. In response to this problem, the city
could try to focus public attention on the problem of the county's willingness
to accommodate development in fringe areas.
2. Adopt new minor annexation policies by amending the Land Use Element and the
Water and Wastewater Management Element. (This is the staff and Planning
Commission recommended option.)
The city could approve minor annexations when specified criteria are met and
public benefits are provided. Minor annexation policies adopted prior to
updating the Land Use Element could continue to be refined as part of that
updating process.
3. Defer consideration of annexation proposals and policy changes and consider new
policies as part of the overall Land Use Element update process.
Both major and minor annexation policies could be considered as part of a
comprehensive policy package. However, action on upcoming annexation
applications would probably be deferred or exceptions to the water element
policies would have to be granted.
4. Retain the existing minor annexation policies in the Land Use Element and amend
the Water and Wastewater Management Element to allow the city to consider minor
annexations. Designate specific minor expansion areas on the LUE map that would
be eligible for consideration. r^
(V
����►�►n►�i�lllllllllP�'�mq�I�IlI city of San LUIS OSISpO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Page 7 -- GP 1380: Minor Annexation Policies
This strategy would require the city to research all possible expansions, gauge their
benefits and impacts, and establish specific limits. In hillside areas, this has
already been done and took about two years to complete.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Review the proposed minor annexation policy, ask questions of staff, suggest alternatives
as deemed appropriate and adopt the attached resolution making pertinent amendments to
the Land Use and Water and Wastewater Management Policies.
Attachments Resolution approving new minor annexation policies
Figure A: Minor Annexation Policies (as recommended by Planning Commission)
Figure B: Amendments to the Urban Land Use Element
Figure C: Amendments to the Water and Wastewater Management Element
ER 27-88 Initial Environmental Study
�-7
RESOLUTION NO. (1988 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL AMENDING
THE GENERAL PLAN URBAN LAND USE AND WATER AND WASTEWATER
MANAGEMENT ELEMENTS TO INCLUDE MINOR ANNEXATION POLICIES
(GP 1380)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the City Council have held hearings to consider
amendments to the Urban Land Use Element and Water and Wastewater Management Elements as
shown on Figurea A, B, anc C, attached; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments has been evaluated in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act and the city's Environmental Impact Guidelines, and a negative
declaration has been granted by the city; and
WHEREAS, the city council had found that it is appropriate to establish new minor
annexation policies to control peripheral development and to establish a permanent green
belt at the edge of the city; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed general plan amendments promote the
public health, safety, and general welfare;
BE IT RESOLVED by the San Luis Obispo City Council as follows:
SECTION 1. Section C.l.b. of the Urban Land Use Element is hereby amended to include
policies shown on Figure A, attached and incorporated by reference.
SECTION 2. Sections C.l.b. and C.S.b. of the Urban Land Use Element are hereby
amended as shown on Figure B, attached and incorporated by reference.
SECTION 3. Policies 1.8.C. and 3A.A. of the Water and Wastewater Management Element
are hereby amended as shown on Fibure C, attached and incorporated by reference.
SECTION 4. After City Council review and consideration, the determination of the
Community Development Director to approve a negative declaration is hereby confirmed.
Resol_ut_ion No. (1988 Series)
Page 2
On motion of Councilperson , seconded by Councilperson
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES°
NOES`.
ABSENT:
the foregoing .Resolution was passed and adopted this. - - day of 1988: .
- Mayor. --. --
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED:
City Adm aistraiive Officer
city Att"r -ey ---
Community Development Di?ector
FIGURE "A": PROPOSED MINOR ANNEXATION POLICIES
(Add the following to Section C.l.b. of the Urban Land Use Element.)
-- The city's water demand exceeds its supply at this time. During this situation,
annexations which could significantly increase demands on water supply through the
introduction of more urban scale development should not occur. However, minor
annexations which could help create a green belt around the city, and/or result in
other substantial public benefits, and which do not significantly increase water
demand may be considered by the city.
-- A minor annexation is the incorporation of territory (1) to the City of San Luis
Obispo which involves only a relatively small amount of urban intensity development.
The principal purpose for allowing such annexations is to help establish a permanent
open space green belt surrounding the city although other significant public benefits
may justify approval of a minor annexation.(2) The green belt is to provide a
permanent edge to the city's urban area and to maintain the city's rural setting by
preserving scenic hillsides and open agricultural land.
-- A minor annexation area shall:
a) Be contiguous to existing developed land within the city. (3)
b) Be located outside the major expansion areas shown on the Land Use Element Map
(4).
c) Accommodate no more than twenty-five acres for urban development. Urban
development includes all areas devoted to building sites, public and private
roads, parking, drainage improvements, all paved areas, utility easements and
required yards and setbacks. (5) (Urban development areas must be
contiguous to existing developed land within the city.)
d) Enable urban development only in areas with natural slopes of 15% or less.
(6).
e) Include the preservation of permanent open space equal to at least four times
the amount of developed area proposed to be annexed. This standard is to be
considered a minimum, except as provided under subsection 3 (D) below; the
council may require the inclusion of additional open space if it is deemed
useful to meet the intent of this policy. For example, if a more logical edge
to the green belt, formed perhaps by a ridgeline or other natural or man-made
feature, can be created by adding area beyond the minimum standard, then this
additional open space may be required by the council.(7) This open space
area:
(1) May be provided within the annexed territory or in other areas consistent
with the Land Use Element map; and
(2) Shall be secured by dedication of fee title or perpetual easement.
f) Avoid increased demand for city water supplies, either by using an on-site water
source or by providing water use reductions within existing developed city areas
equivalent to the amount of water used by proposed development within the area
to be annexcd.(8) 6 '.10
Figure A -- Minor Annexation Policies
Page 2
-- The City Council may exempt an annexation proposal from meeting some of these
criteria if it determines that the annexation will provide compensating public
benefits that outweigh an inability to meet one or more of the criteria. (9)
Compensating public benefits include:
a) Housing affordable to low-income people, managed by a public or nonprofit
agency.
b) Mitigation of significant preexisting environmental problems.
c) Actions that significantly improve the quality of life within existing
neighborhoods.
d) Open space which may be of less area than the usual standard (four times the
developable area) but which is of high value to the community; examples would be
prominent visual or aesthetic features, sensitive habitat areas, areas with
special recreational potential, areas with sensitive historical or
archaeological resources or areas especially vulnerable to imminent development.
If the city has adopted a development moratorium because of limited water supply, the
City Council shall not exempt a minor annexation proposal from the requirement to
provide on-site water source or off-site water service reductions.
FIGURE B
(Delete the following from Sections C.l.b. and C.5.b. of the Urban Land Use element.)
Mi r x a�io s to obi le'mo/re/foOcar;
FIGURE C
(Amend Policy 1.8.C. and delete policy 3.4 A.of the Water and Wastewater Management
Element)
Policy 1.8 The city will not annex an area unless the safe annual yield of
available citywide water supplies at least equals estimated water
requirements for all development, consistent with the Land Use
Element, within the city including the annexed area. The only
exceptions to this policy are:
A. Areas which have prior agreements for water service.
B. Minor infill parcels within areas which have prior agreements for
water service, as provided in policy 1.3.
C. Areas which:
1. Provide their own water from groundwater resources. or
2. Provide water use reductions within existing developed city areas eauivalent
to the amount of water used by proposed development. or
3. Are exempted by the City Council consistent with minor annexation policies
contained in Section C.1 b. of the Urban Land Use Element, and as provided in
policy 3.4.
Policy 3.4 The city does not encourage but may consider wells to provide domestic
water for a private development within the city. Such a well may be
operated by the project owner only for the owner's use. If the well
serves any user in addition to the project owner. it must be operated
by the city (Policy S.l) Such wells may be used only when:
e C4 has,4t &Easy completed'e�vironmen I rev. w nd/
o zed pie ri g �1ani foF a alcr-supply proje or prq�jects
w is would ro� the-safe n"I .yield a ed o s ppp rt Po4enual
n d�v o eft ` thin tkf ty j{itoitsl%in u� th prftord;
a d de el mint.7ro�eet / /�
A.0. The City Council approves the well proposal as part of a specific
land-development project approval, and the proposed well system meets
all city standards;
8,J. A qualified, independent hydrological investigation demonstrates
that the well(s) reliably can provide sufficient quality and quantity
of water for the proposed land-development project.
CyPf. The owner or developer financially guarantees any treatment system
required for the well water to meet state and federal standards and
any cost of future connection to the city water system. (Users of the
well water would bear additional costs of treatment.)
0.0 The well-water distribution system or a separate system is
designed and constructed, or a separate system is provided, to
eventually be connected to the city water system. 4
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
(ER 27-88)
A. Community Plans and Goals
Land Use Element
The proposed new policies will require amendment to two sections of the Land Use
Element. The new policies would replace existing minor expansion policies in Section
C.L(c) (pages 9 and 10) and would clarify the objective of minor annexations. The
creation of an open space green belt to contain urban expansion would become an integral
part of a minor annexation applications unless overriding public benefits were accepted
by the city.
An existing LUE policy in Section C.5 (b) (page 21) would be eliminated. The existing
policy states:
Minor expansion areas which may eventually be used for residential development are
located on the slopes of Bishops Peak, the Santa Lucia Foothills east of Johnson
Avenue, and on the South Street Hills/Rockview area.
By eliminating this policy, the city could consider annexations that include limited
commercial development at the city's periphery where a permanent open space green
belt can be created. Also, minor annexation proposals would not be limited to the areas
identified in the existing policy. However, the criteria included in the proposed
policies would preclude urban expansion in steep hillside areas or the creation of
isolated pockets of urban development. Furthermore, the scale of these urban expansions
would be specifically limited (a 25-acre limit is recommended).
The result of these policy changes is that the city may receive minor annexation
proposals at locations unanticipated by the 1977 LUE. These proposals may propose
expansions to the city's Urban Reserve Line (URL) but could accomplish a principal
objective of creating a open space green belt and directing growth within the URL.
Water and Wastewater Management Element
The existing Water and Wastewater Management Element contains policies that would defer
consideration of minor annexations — even those that provide their own water supply —
until after.
The city has at least completed environmental review and authorized preparing plans
for a water-supply project or projects which would provide the safe annual yield
needed to support potential land development within the city limits, including the
proposed land-development project.' (Policy 3.4, paragraph A, page 28)
The impact of this existing policy is to delay the city's consideration of minor
annexation proposals. The proposed LUE policies would require amendments to Policy 3.4
to eliminate paragraph OA.*
In sum, the elimination of the Paragraph "A' could enable peripheral growth of the city
that, under existing policy, would be delayed. This accommodation of peripheral growth
would not increase the use of city water supplies since on-site wells or /I�
Page 2 — Initial Environmental Study. Minor Annexation Policies
or water conservation 'off sets' would be required of any minor annexation proposal (see
proposed paragraph 2.F). However, jj on-site wells serving minor annexation areas are
considered as 'interim' solutions to be eventually replaced by city service, than minor
peripheral expansions will eventually increase the city's demand for water supplies.
It is likely that some minor annexation proposals will be inconsistent with LAFCO's
adopted 'Sphere of Influence Plan' for the San Luis Obispo area. Amendments to that plan
concurrent with LAFCo's consideration of annexation proposals would have to be pursued.
LAFCo's require the city and/or an applicant demonstrate that services are adequate to
accommodate proposed development. These determinations would be made as part of the
city's 'prezoning' and environmental review process (reference paragraph B below).
It is also likely that some minor annexation proposals will be inconsistent with the
city's Land Use Element map (eg. proposals that affect territory beyond the existing
Urban Reserve)_ To achieve consistency, appropriate amendments to the LUE will have to
be pursued concurrent with these proposals.
Conclusion: The proposed policy changes do not significantly impact existing city land
use and growth management or water manag:ment policies. To minimize impact on municipal
water supplies, each proposal should be evaluated to demonstrate the long-term
reliability of on-site water supplies.
Consistency with LAFCo's Sphere of Influence Plan and with the city's General Plan Urban
Reserve policies can be achieved as part of the annexation process.
B. Ponulation Distribution and Growth.
The proposed policies will encourage limited outward expansion of the city. However, in
the process a more permanent edge to the city could be created. There would be a
limited increase of population at the city's periphery. However. it is anticipated that
these population concentrations will be within the general service areas of schools and
municipal services such as fire protection. The precise impacts will be evaluated as
part of the city's review of specific annexation proposals.
Conclusion:
Given the criteria incorporated within the proposed policies (eg. slope limitations,
development limitations, on-site service requirements, open space dedication
requirements), the population effects of this policy (cumulative effects) are not
considered significant
C. Land Use Transportation and Services
The use of land within potential minor annexations is unknown at this time.
Therefore, the compatibility of a particular minor annexation proposal with existing land
use cannot be determined. Appropriate zoning designations, intensity and site design
standards will have to be established as part of the city's consideration of each
proposal. (It is assumed that, consistent with existing policy, the city will continue
to require a 'PD' (Planned Development) Prezoning Application to be filed as part of a
minor annexation request.)
4
Page 3 — Initial Environmental Study: Minor Annexation Policies
Environmental review of individual proposals will determine whether they are consistent
with established neighborhood land use patterns and whether proposed development is
compatible with adjoining uses. Also, the city will have to gauge the impact of a
specific proposal on the reduction of productive agricultural lands. The agricultural
value of peripheral areas and an appraisal of competing objectives (agricultural land
preservation vs, limited urban development and creation of a green belt) will have to be
made on a case-by-case basis.
Because of limitations on scale and location, minor annexations proposed consistent with
the new policy should not significantly impact exiting street systems or public
services. However, a site-specific and neighborhood-specific analysis of each annexation
proposal must be conducted as part of the city's evaluation of minor annexation proposals
with mitigation incorporated at that time.
Conclusion: Determining land use, circulation, and service impacts at this time is too
speculative and should be done when the city reviews specific proposals.
D. Wildlife and Habitat Impacts
Impacts on these resources will be dependent on the specific location and design of an
annexation proposal. However, criteria included within the proposed new policies would
help to reduce the potential for significant impacts. For example, the preservation of
substantial open space is required of proposed annexations. Candidate open space areas
include scenic hillside areas, lake front lands, or major creek corridors.
The proposed policy would require new development to be contiguous to existing developed
areas within the city and located in areas where natural slopes are less than 15%. While
expansions of the city's urban area will displace some wildlife and reduce habitat, the
new policies would limit these expansions (through the creation of an open space green
belt) and would preclude the creation of isolated pockets of development in habitat
areas.
Conclusion: Determining impacts on wildlife and habitat will be requires at the time
that a proposal is submitted to the city for processing.
RECOMMENDATION
Grant the project a negative declaration recognizing that:
1. Environmental assessment will be required for each minor annexation proposal.
2. Any exceptions to the minor annexation criteria will require specific evaluation
of impacts.
3. Consistency with the city's land use element map and with LAFCO's Sphere of
Influence Plan must be achieved as part of the prezoning and annexation process.
TS:ts
W vl
Respond by: IVIM 1 INN IW C,"i'l LL
ouncil
DATE JK 19
ee ITEM # S�
CAO
❑Caor
1053 Islay cerkorl _
San Luis Obispo CA 93401 S. lVeA,//E'1SnAJ
July 17, 1988 0 <f
Mayor Ron Dunin and Members of the City Council :
As a taxpayer and as a volunteer member of the Mozart Festival Board of
Directors for the past two years, I have felt a great deal of concern
about the Promotional Coordinating Committee's current recommendations for
Grants-in-Aid.
It seems inconceivable to me that there has been no funding allocated by the
PCC for the Mozart Festival , and because I have wanted to understand how
this could happen, I requested printed PCC guidelines and other materials
for review. I have also discussed the historical background of the program
with City Council members from 1970 when the PCC was created.
Frankly, I still don't understand the basis for the PCC's actions. Are there
other guidelines being used, or is the PCC following unwritten policies
about funding "new ideas and groups, and not funding established organiza-
tions such as the Mozart Festival?
The concept of being a facilitator for new groups is fine, but this is not
spelled out in the material supplied to me by City Hall . If anything, the
Mozart Festival would seem to fit all definitions to qualify for PCC
endorsement as well or better than most other applicants on the current list.
Apparently, if there is no Mozart grant allocated, then there is no City
support elsewhere in your Budget. This constitutes quite a negative state-
ment being made to other government and private sources for grant money.
Governmental bodies, such as the California Arts Council , always consider
what kind of local support is being given before deciding what kind of
"matching funds" will be made available.
I urge the Council to respond to these concerns and reconsider the PCC
recommendations.
In a more long range sense, I also urge the Council to consider the clarifi-
cation of the written PCC guidelines, possibly creating a framework of
two levels of funding: 1 )for fledgling groups (including more specific
timeframe definitions of how long "new is new"; and 2) for established
and major cultural organizations such as the Mozart Festival , the Symphony,
and the Art Center.
All of us who are the individual donors and the hardworking volunteers who
make the events actually happen need to know that our City Government shares
our commitment and goals for the quality of life in San Luis Obispo.
These next few years, until the new Performing Arts Center becomes a reality,
call for the utmost sensitivity for the fundraising demands that will be
made on all of us. Your consideration at this time will be most appreciated.
Sincere
RECEIVED
Mar ha .
Sincere
4t�_ JUL 1 6 1988
544-6018 or 756-2165(Daytime) CITY CLERK
SAN LUIS 0815130.CA
1 rd DATE '� 19 .88 ITEM #
oundl cno
0%Any. 957 West Stree'
Cork-ong. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
5• July 19, 1968
r•
City Council Members
City of San Luis Obispo
City Hall
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Dear Council Members:
Having observed the recent allocation of city tax revenue suggested by the
City Promotional Coordinating Committee to the various "Arts ' groups, I
am prompted to write. I served on the Promotional Coordinating Committee
on two occasions for a total of five ;ears.
During my tenure on the P.C.C. , I was distressed each year at the annual
hearina to see a number of citizens representing groups with a proven "track
record" of artistic contributions to the community patiently waiting to
present their cases for city funding. They were always in competition for
city funds with groups who were new to the community. Many of these groups
had limited artistic experience but were proposing new projects that would
"improve the quality of life" in San Luis Obispo if only they could have
city money. I distinctly remember Arne Nyback patiently sitting for over
two hours on several occasions to make a simple request for monies for the
Art Center. I felt that those groups who had already contributed so substantially
to the quality of life in the city deserved better treatment from the city
council ; indeed, public recognition for their service to San Luis Obispo.
My belief was subsequently confirmed by the city council which recommended
that established groups be placed on a "line item" basis for city funding.
New, emerging groups who were requesting city monies ( "seed money") , presented
their requests apart from the established groups. This system of funding
arts groups was unfortunately recently overturned and the very situation
that was most feared has come to pass. Important established organizations
are now perceived as a threat to new groups.
The San Luis Obispo County Symphony, the San Luis Obispo Mozart Festival ,
and several other successful cultural organizations, are now deprived of
receiving City funds with the misguided judgment that they are now successful
and no longer in need of the relatively small , but necssary, financial support
from the City of San Luis Obispo.
The P.0 C-: memb'ers who made this recommendation to the city council were
apparently unaware,:-'or oblivious, to the fact that many of these organizations
survive by receiving large amounts of funds awarded from granting organizations
like the=Cal-ffornia: Arts Council . All these granting agencies expect proof
of loca.11��overnmental support. -
The denial �this year of the previously of`ered funding by the City Council
of San Luis Obispo to those groups who continue to add so much to our community
will seriously jeopardize their funding from other sources. It is certainly
a step backwards in the maintenance of the quality of life in this community.
RECEIVED
J U L 1 91988
CITY CLERK
GAN L WS IXOSCO CA
City Council Members
July 19, 1988
Page Two
I urgently request the city council to reconsider its funding recommendations
for Arts Groups this year. While the city funds previously allocated to
these established groups may seem small , the funding support and the very
survival of these groups is a crucial one.
Most sincerely,
Ronald V. Ratcliff-