HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/04/1991, 1 - CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION AGENDA FOR NOVEMBER 4, 1991 ��,RI►►►4IIIIIIIIIIA IIIIII f MEETING DATE:
u I��u�► cityo san suis oBispo ��-y-
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER:
FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director ( •
Bill Hetland, Utilities Director /
PREPARED BY: Terry Sanville, Principal Planner
SUBJECT: City Council Study Session Agenda for November 4, 1991
1. Reclaimed Water Line Proposal
The owners of La Lomita Ranch (south of Islay Hill) have proposed that the City support
the construction of a water line that would deliver treated sewage effluent to land outside
the City. In the attached letter (Exhibit 1), the owners representatives (RRM Design
Group) indicate that the effluent would be used to support two golf courses. The routing
of the line could also allow delivery of effluent for irrigation to existing City parks in the
Edna Islay Area and possibly (depending on routing) to parks and open space in the
Margarita Expansion Area. The attached memorandum prepared by Utilities and
Community Development Department staff (Exhibit 2) identifies key policy and
implementation issues. The County Planning staff have also indicated they would be
submitting written comments.
Recommended Action: Invite the owner's representative to make a brief present tion,
discuss key issues as appropriate and provide direction to staff for desired further action.
2. Cal Cities Water Service to the Airport Area
Cal Cities Water Company provides service to properties south of the City in the Rolling
Hills - Country Club Estates area. In August, 1991 the Airport Area property owners met
with Cal Cities representatives to discuss providing water service to their properties. The
property owners supported Cal Cities submittal of an application to the Public Utilities
Commission (PUC) requesting expansion of Cal Cities service area. The attached
memoranda prepared by Administration, Community Development and Utilities staff
(Exhibit 3) discusses key land use and service policy issues.
Recommended Action: Ask City staff to make a brief presentation, discuss pertinent issues,
and provide direction as appropriate.
3. Appropriate Land Uses for the Dalidio Property
A letter from Andrew Merriam (Exhibit 4) asks the City Council to provide guidance
concerning the planning of the Dalidio property as part of the City's LUE update process.
Two options -- Option #1: Urban Emphasis, and Option #2: Agricultural Emphasis -- are
identified. The attached report prepared by the planning staff(Exhibit 5) briefly evaluates
both land use planning options for the Dalidio property and adjoining agricultural
properties.
Recommended Action: Invite Mr. Merriam to make a brief presentation, discuss the
proposals as appropriate, and provide direction to staff for desired further action.
��������►►II�IIIIIIIIIII� ����ll city of san Luis oBispo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
4. Review of City Council Member Maps
At a previous Council meeting, Councilmember Rappa suggested that Council members
map their ideas for the location of the ultimate city limits, urban reserve line, the extent
of city services, the location of a green belt, and the extent of the downtown commercial
area. Staff has received maps from four Council members.
Recommended Action: Invite Council members to discuss their ideas, discuss pertinent
issues, and provide direction to staff as appropriate.
5. Identification of Circulation Element Issues
The Planning Commission recommended draft Circulation Element was distributed to the
Council in September. Council has indicated that after it completes its review of the draft
LUE, it would hold day-long sessions to review the draft Circulation Element.
The City Council briefly discussed circulation issues during one of its Land Use Element
study session. Comments and concerns raised at that meeting are summarized Exhibit 6,
attached. The Council has not identified key issues that they wish staff to prepare
discussion papers on (similar to the Land Use Element review process). The Council
should either identify key issues for staff analysis or decide as an alternative strategy to
focus on key parts of the draft element itself(eg. alternative t—ncnortatio^ programs, street
projects, neighborhood traffic management).
Recommended Action: Review attached Exhibit 6 and identify key circulation issues that
should be reported on, or provide other direction as appropriate.
I
Attachments
Exhibit 1: Memo from Utilities on effluent line proposal
Exhibit 2: Memos from Administration/CDD on Cal Cities water service proposal
Exhibit 3: Letter from Andrew Merriam concerning Dalidio property planning
Exhibit 4: Report from Glen Matteson on Dalidio property planning
Exhibit 5: Memo from Terry Sanville on circulation issues
/-,Z
II�INIIII�IIIIIIIIIp�'I IUIh � MEETING DATE:
Ciof san tuts oBIspo November 4, 1991
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM N
UM/BER:
FROM: William T. Hetland �" Prepared By: Robert A. Livick,
Utilities DirectorWater Reclamation Coordinator
SUBJECT:
Study Session for the proposed use of reclaimed water for the La
Lomita Ranch development, east of the County airport.
CAO RECOMMENDATION: �
Receive report and hear proposal by RRM Design Group regarding the
development of La Lomita Ranch. Consider major issues identified ini
conjunction with the proposal and provide direction to Staff.
DISCUSSION:
BACKGROUND
On October 71 1991 a letter proposal requesting a study session to
consider serving reclaimed water to the La Lomita Ranch development
was submitted to the Mayor and Council. Staff has had previous
discussions with RRM regarding the possible use of reclaimed water
for this development.
On October 16, 1991 City Utilities and Planning Staff met with
County Environmental and Planning Staff to discuss key issues
involved with this proposed development. Council should consider
the following issues in hearing the proposal from RRM Design Group.
A. ADOPTED PRIORIES FOR RECLAIMED WATER USE.
On August 20, 1991 the City Council adopted Resolution 7024
(1991 Series) regarding the priority for reclaimed water use.
The primary category for reclaimed water use is the offset of
existing non-potable demand of potable water, preservation of
the groundwater supply and maintaining a baseline flow to San
Luis Obispo Creek. The proposed use of reclaimed water on La
Lomita Ranch falls within the lowest priority of the potential
reclaimed water uses and under current policy could only be
served if the reclaimed water demand of the higher priority
users is met.
B. CONSTRUCTION OF REQUIRED INFRASTRUCTURE.
The developers for La Lomita Ranch have proposed to construct,
at their expense, an estimated four million dollar reclaimed
water transmission system to the La Lomita Ranch property.
This pipeline could also be used by high priority users within
the City to offset their non-potable demand of potable water.
This would be with the understanding that the developer would
be reimbursed through hookup fees.
C. IDENTIFICATION OF CREEKFLOW REQUIREMENTS.
City Staff is currently working with the California Department
j of Fish and Game (DFG) in order to determine the appropriate
minimum discharge of treated wastewater to San Luis Obispo
i-3
city Of San Luis OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Study Session for La Lomita Project
Meeting of November 4, 1991
Page 2
I
Creek. When this amount is determined, Staff will be able to
quantify the reclaimed water supply potential. This issue is to
be resolved in a future study, tentatively to be completed by
Spring 1991.
D. PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW STATUS.
A California Environmental Review Act (CEQA) review of the
City's reclamation program, regardless of the La Lomita
project, must be performed. How the La Lomita project impacts
the Citywide reclamation program will greatly affect the scope
of the environmental document. Also, since various
developments have been proposed for La Lomita Ranch, the full
scope of the development to be served should be known.
E. FISCAL IMPACTS OF PROPOSED PROJECT.
Besides the construction of the required facilities for the
transmission of reclaimed water to the proposed La Lomita
development site, the City will benefit through the sale of
reclaimed water to the proposed development. This would be two
years of income prior to the completion of the treatment
plant's tertiary facilities. This income could form the basis
for an enterprise fund that may finance a portion of the
remaining reclamation program.
F. INCONSISTENT WITH CITY ORDINANCE
City of San Luis Obispo Ordinance 13 . 16. 010 prohibits any
provision or entitlement to water or sewer service for the use
or benefit of properties outside the City limits. This
conflict with City ordinance would have to be resolved prior to
serving La Lomita Ranch.
G. CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN
The City and County general plan show the La Lomita Ranch as
open space or agriculture.
H. LEAD AGENCY STATUS FOR PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW.
The City would be the logical choice for lead agency if this
project is approved by the Council.
CONCURRENCES:
This report has been reviewed by the Community Development
Department and they concur with the content and recommendations of
this report.
FISCAL IMPACT:
If Council chooses to direct Staff to work with RRM in developing
this use of reclaimed water, the only direct fiscal impact will
IgIIIII��' ��11 MY of San Luis OBISpo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Study Session for La Lomita Project
Meeting of November 4, 1991
Page 3
involve additional Staff time required to coordinate with the
developer.
ATTACHKENTS:
I
1. Wastewater Reuse Proposal for La Lomita Ranch from RRM Design
Group.
2. Letter from County Planning addressing their concerns.
I
I
I
ATTACHMENT I
R RM DESIGN GROUP
,?i.Y;�ct•:i,rir.'r:� E
October 7, 1991
Mayor Ron Dunin
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
SUBJECT: WASTEWATER REUSE PROPOSAL FOR LA LOMITA RANCH
Dear Mr. Mayor and Members of the Council:
After a number of meetings with various members of the City staff and administration, we
have prepared an important proposal that we would like to present to the City at its next
study session. This proposal will involve a major private investment to construct a facility
of great public benefit -- a wastewater trunk line that would convey first secondarily treated
wastewater, and subsequently tertiary treated effluent to La Lomita Ranch for the purposes
of irrigating two golf courses on La Lomita Ranch while serving a number of existing and
future planned parks in the Margarita expansion and Edna Islay areas.
We have attached a map depicting the general alignment of this pipeline that La Lomita
Ranch hopes to construct before the end of 1992. We are currently in the process of
acquiring the remaining increments of right-of-way that will be necessary to construct the
pipeline in this alignment -- conditioned, of course, upon City acceptance of this proposal.
This proposal, coming at a time when the City can ill afford to make an investment like
this on its own, is central to creating a realistic and functional wastewater reuse program
in San Luis Obispo. We have been in close contact with Bill Hetland and Rob Livick of
your staff to work out the details and we are now at a point where we need a conceptual
go-ahead from the City Council to finalize our plans and conclude our negotiations with
the City. At the study session that we ask you hold to consider this item, we will have a
number of exhibits and issues to discuss with you regarding this proposal, including, but not
limited to:
♦ Appropriateness of this wastewater reuse project.
♦ The private financing of this nearly $4 million improvement with the
understanding that we would recapture a portion of the investment that will
not be used by La Lomita Ranch from others that would hook into the
wastewater line as they develop. RECEIVED
•:�_r.South.hi:ccora Sirre.fan Lve Ocvco.Cal:iorma u; 8 1991 /_�
- .7:n ScScc cc.-c Q, OCT••
qo:CZ 'nv
CITY COUNCIL
InM 1 I00 re...r� w.
Mayor Ron Dunin
Page 2
October 7, 1991
♦ The timing of the wastewater line installation.
♦ The purposes for which La Lomita wishes to use this effluent.
♦ The various public benefits and spinoffs associated with this project.
Please let us know if you need any further information from us prior to this study session
which we hope will lead to a firm Council direction to its staff to work with us on the
details and conclude negotiations so that this project might be constructed in 1992.
Otherwise, we look forward to the Council's timely scheduling of this important item.
Sincerely,
RRAZ DESIGN GROUP
'A A000
T. Keith Gurnee
Senior Vice President
Planning Division
cc: Doug Murdock
Jerry Michael
Bill Hetland
Rob Livick
John Dunn
c/kg-nomad.ss
cc
Lu
Fiy
; ulLU
y O m od c i 0.
0 CL
ui
a
OOLu
\ / ,
"PR--
0
."' ,p. ,�.\ '.lam •• �-1... .'
cc Ckc C4 La e
moi.,.. .,�_, i••;:;,"� : _� ' � \ �..,�' ����� � r'. .•\ .\ �..�.�.t .�
ip
sie
.8 '�4 . � '4'�� `,tm •� � � /,f �� 070 ' •:
r�� � '1•' VJ ,. 19. t u ��v
X1 M)rr
kk
�.�� a i I���*r' n' •,� i�r_• .yp•�� R� �. � •.,Y"rl GA' .I `I �• �. . ,•. �,,, ;.• . \`c
—
ee �
JC • i
/ Y����`�J>l - I �.Q-... m � ° �`, �� 111 1 •,
t
1.1r.. �I� L
o ,
Tim: i• s $• fir' O _ O
Pb
` 1//11( ��..•'+ 4
,��e.•'L �••.., .•� �. -:�1 ��4•.' .. �,/nor . � . .1 r.. ��•.\ .. I.i'•' I�g
ATTACHMENT
October 23, 1991
William Heti nu d� Utilities Director MINQ& MM
955 Morro SLJ
trut rim
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
HAND DELIVERED
Dear Mr. Hedund:
SUBJECT: PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF RECLAIMED WATER TRANSMISSION
SYSTEM FROM CITY SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT TO LA LOMITA
RANCH
Thank you for meeting with us recently and providing the opportunity for us to comment on this proposal
by RRM Design Group. The following comments from our planning and environmental coordinator
staffs are based on information about the proposal made available to us by your staff and RRM Design
Group. The issues noted here also reflect the meeting we had with your staff on October 17, 1991.
RRM Design Group proposes the construction of a reclaimed water transmission line through areas in
the city and the county. The stated purpose of this facility is to irrigate parks and other landscaped areas
within the city, and also to irrigate a "sod farm" on the western portion of the La Lomita Ranch, which
is in the county. We also understand that RRM has proposed to develop golf courses and other related
facilities on the La Lomita Ranch, a project identified as "Las Nomadas." The Las Nomadas proposal
for the La Lomita Ranch has not yet been formally submitted to the county, but RRM's staff have met
with county staff to introduce the concept and solicit comments. The Las Nomadas proposal would, in
effect, replace the previous proposal submitted by RRM for a major business park and residential
development on the site.
We identified the following issues when we met with your staff on October 17:
1. Since the proposed reclaimed water transmission line would be constructed by private
parties through areas which are now under county jurisdiction, it will be necessary to
determine whether the city or the county should be the "lead agency" for purposes of
environmental review, and whether county land use, grading and construction permits are
required. It may be possible for a determination that the project is a public facility which
is exempt from county permits, but it is not exempt from environmental review under
CEQA. If the city wishes to be the lead agency for environmental review, then county
staff would recommend a team approach to enable direct participation by county staff.
The procedure established to enable such a team approach would also need to be
approved by the Board of Supervisors.
l/
�- 9
,L•
Bill Hetl"d Page 2
La Lomita Water Line "TMM
October 23, 1991
2. As proposed, the line would extend beyond the city limits to terminate on the La Lomita
Ranch, where it would support development of a sod farm, golf courses and related
facilities, or a business park and residential development. These facts raise the issue of
what the "project" is for purposes of environmental review. Information provided to us
by RRM appear to indicate that the water line is intended to serve the golf courses
project, not just a sod farm. Therefore, the impacts of the golf courses project should
be evaluated as part of the environmental review for the water line. However, if the
reclaimed water line terminated within the city, and did not extend to the La Lomita
Ranch, then environmental review for the water line might not need to evaluate the full
range of project level impacts from the development of the La Lomita Ranch. Growth-
inducing impacts at some level would still need to be addressed.
3. Your staff indicated to us that the amount of reclaimed water which will be available is
not yet known. The available supply and the potential demand for this water for all other
sites within the city limits (or proposed to be within the city limits)should be determined
before this proposal is approved. For example, another future golf course along the
south side of Tank Farm Road is proposed to use reclaimed water, and on a site which
is already within the city's urban reserve line.
4. The La Lomita Ranch property is designated "Agriculture" in the existing Land Use
Element of the County General Plan, which would permit establishment of a sod farm,
but not golf courses. Whether the site should be redesignated to permit the golf course
project has not yet been determined. Alternatively, the city could choose to amend its
Land Use Element to enable annexation and subsequent development within the city.
Extension of the proposed water line to the site could result in expectations that the
ultimate development of the golf courses will be approved.
These comments are intended to aid the city in conducting its review of the proposal by RRM, and are
not intended to convey county support or opposition to the water line or development of the La Lomita
Ranch. We encourage you to continue working toward the application of reclaimed water to irrigate
landscaped areas in order to minimize the amount of potable water used for such purposes.
Again, thank you for coordinating with us on this proposal.
Sincerely,
BRYCE TINGLE
Assistant Director,
Planning and Building Department
cc: Ellen Carroll, Environmental Coordinator
County Board of Supervisors
I�
city of
sAn tuis oaspo
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403.8100
October 9, 1991
MEMORANDUM
To: City Council
From: JohnD
Subject: (1) A tion of Cal Cities Water Company to Public
Utilities Commission for addition of Airport
Area to their service area, (2) Probable forthcoming
application of Cal Cities/Airport Area to County for
State Water allocation released by other areas
These prospective actions raise many issues and implications to
the City.
The attached "thought paper" attempts to identify and to discuss
some of these. It attempts to do so in an objective way.
The question before the City could be put this way: What is best
for the City (including our citizens and those who are not in the
City but who depend on the City) for the long-term: (1) for the
City to attempt to influence the County and other "actors" to take
actions in the Airport Area that are consistent with City desires,
or (2) for the City to become the major actor and to control what
happens in this area through our policy and planning processes?
It is relatively easy to say as an immediate response to the
developing situation, "we will just oppose their application before
the PUC. " First, we might not be successful in doing that.
Secondly, and more importantly, that begs the real question: What
does the City really want to have happen in this area? We should
state not only what we oppose, but what we stand for. This is the
question that the Board of Supervisors is requesting that we answer
or, failing to get an answer from us, they will proceed in their
own way towards what they want for the area (with financial
consequences being very important to. them) ..
The attached paper poses the issues rather than provides an answer.
It is designed for preliminary thought, as a base for later action
(but not much later) action by the Council.
In summary the most immediate question is: What should the City's
position be before the PUC? The second and longer-term question
is: Beyond opposing the expansion of the Cal Cities service area
to include the Airport Area, what is the City's long-term direction
and desire for the future of the Airport Area.
Until we are explicit on the second question, our answer to the
first question will only tantalize or frustrate others. It will
not resolve the dilemma the City faces regarding the future of this
area.
Arnold, Jeff and I are available at your convenience to further
discuss this impending situation and the City's response to it.
JD:mc
c. Management Team
Attachment
d/add[ies
�►►��►��pI�IIiiIII�II�Illll ui�°°II
� Cl of Sal'1 tuis oaspo
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403.8100
October 9, 1991
TO: John Dunn, City Administrative Officer
VIA: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director
PREPARED BY: Terry Sanville, Principal PlannertS,
SUBJECT. Water Service to the Airport Area
The Situation
On August 29, 1991, the Airport Property Owners Association held a meeting at the City-
County Library. One of the agenda items dealt with a proposal that Cal Cities Water
Company provide service to existing and future development in the airport area. From the
presentation made by representatives of Cal Cities Water Company and the ensuing
discussion, I understood the following:
Cal Cities Water Company may provide water service from two water sources — wells
and surface water. Surface water includes water from the coastal branch of the State
aqueduct.
Cal Cities does not currently have surplus well water to sell but has a reservation for
550 acre feet of State water.
It would be the intent of Cal Cities to request the use of State water reservations that
are abandoned by other water agencies in the County -- eg. the Cities of San Luis
Obispo or Arroyo Grande.
Cal Cities Water Company would use State water to serve airport area development
The first step.in enabling.Cal.Cities.to.serve.the.airport area is to request that the PUC
approve an expansion of its service area.
It is not clear what territory would be included in an expanded service area for Cal
Cities Water Company.
It is clear from the discussion, that the proposal by the Airport Area Property Owners
Association to ask Cal Cities to serve the area was intended to secure water service to
enable future growth and to influence the City's water service and resource decisions
-- eg. whether to retain its 3,000 AF reservation of State water.
Page 2 -- Water Service to the Airport Area
Cal Cities would be willing to work on the creation of a County Service Area (CSA)
and the design and construction of a "community" water service system for the airport
area.
Cal Cities Water Company (actually Southern California Water Company) provides
service to over a million California customers. Some of these customers are within city
limits -- eg, parts of Santa Maria and Simi Valley. Cal Cities maintains that other
cities have no problems with their providing service.
By a show of hands, the airport property owners attending the meeting supported Cal Cities
filing of a request with the PUC to expand its service area. Cal Cities representative said
that they could submit a PUC application by mid-September. (To date, the PUC has not
notified the City that an application has been received.)
Policy Issues
The question of services, appropriate land use, quantity and quality of development and
growth management are linked. Given this complicated linkage, there are a number of
related policy questions. Assuming that both the City and County Land Use Elements are
amended to show the same or similar patterns of development for the airport area, then
key policy questions include the following:
1. Should the actions of the Airport Area Property Owners and Cal Cities Water
Company affect the City's position concerning State water? Naciemento water?
Discussion
If the City intends to serve airport area development consistent with the Airport Area
Concept Plan, then it should ensure that it has or will be able to secure sufficient water.
In November, 1990 the City Council established the City's water supply requirements
at 14,400 Acre Feet to meet current general plan needs. Water supply projects were
recently identified in the 1991-1992 Water Operational Plan reviewed by the City Council
on September 3, 1991. Both the State Water Froject and the Naciemento Project were
described within the Water Operational Plan
If the City opts for the Nacieniento Froject..and abandons its State Water reservation,
then Cal Cities could request the use of all or part of the City's state water reservation
If the City maintains its current 3,000 AF reservation, Cal Cities "light still request a
State water allocation from those not used by other agencies -- eg. Arroyo Grande.
2. Does it matter who provides sen1ce to the airport area if both City and County
General Plans show the same type of land use in the area?
2, /-/�
Page 3 -- Water Service to the Airport Area
Discussion
If water is provided by Cal Cities Water Company using State water, urban levels of
develop development would most probably occur under county jurisdiction (assuming
that adequate sewage treatment can also be provided). The quality of service might
depend on the design of the airport area's distribution and treatment system.
In the past, the City Council has voiced concern about the quality of development that.
the County has approved The County is contracting with RRM Design Group to
prepare design guidelines that would apply in the area and focus on standards for
projects that border major street corridors.
Sooner or later the City must face the question: do we want substandard urban type
development under the control of the county (or another jurisdiction) on the periphery
of our City? The City would face the impacts of such development (traffir, air pollution,
sprawl growth, demands on City services) without enjoying the advantages (control of
growth, city planning review, development that meets City standards, and tax revenues).
3. Are there controls on who can provide urban services to the airport area? How does
the PUC process work?
Discussion
When Cal Cities Water Company applies to the PUC to expand their service area, they
must include a service area map and request a 'tariff change." The PUC will notify all
adjacent utility providers (including the City) and place a notice in the local newspaper.'
The Public Utilities Commission is the body empowered to approve or deny service area
expansion.. Cal Cities application cannot be approved in less than 40 days from the
date of filing If there is subsiantial protest, the PUC can suspend the filing and require
a public hearing An administrative law judge conducts the hearing. Following
testimony, the judge will render a decision ,which can be appealed through the court
system. (Note. Mr. Dan Page frons the PUC has already indicated that he will make
sure the Ciry is notified when an application is received)
The PUC will also contact the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) and
ask whether.Cal.Cities is zh.e.Most reasonable-agency to provide service LAFCo will
in tum contact the Ciry for input and comment. The airport area is within LAFCo's
sphere of influence for the Ciry of San Luis Obispo. It has been LAFCo's policy not
to support multiple service providers within sphere of influence areas.
Cal Cities must also receive authority from the appropriate fire jurisdiction, in this case
the California Department of Forestry.
Page 4 -- Water Service to the Airport Area
4. Can the City control the quality and timing of growth in the airport area by
promising services (se%ver and water)? If the City can provide services, will this be
a sufficient incentive for property owners to pursue annexation? Will the provision
of City services be sufficient to area property owners to compensate for limits
Imposed by City growth management policies and design review requirements?
Discussion
If a property owner wants to develop, the attractiveness of annexation will depend on
how much development the City will allow, the type of development allowe4 the timing
of development, and the delivery of services (water and sewer).
If there are competing service providers and the level of service is similar in quality and
cost, then we can assume that the property owner will pick the strategy that will enable
the ultimate level of development with the least constraints -- constraints such as design
controls and non-residential growth management.
However, we have been informed by area property owners that'their current desire is to
be within the Citi.
S. dill Cal Cities service result in the installation of"substandard" infrastructure that
the City may have to take over some day if it fails?
Discussion
Cal Cities service to the Airport Area may result in the construction of infrastructure
which does not meet City standards If the area develops under County jurisdiction,
roadways, sidewalks, water lines, sewer lines, etc. would be constructed to County
standards which may cause problems in the future if the City allows annexation of the
Airport area and assumes responsibility for the infrastructure. 4ccepting responsibility
for maintenance of infrastructure which is not constructed, tested and inspected by the
City can.and has lead to problems such as inadequate pipeline sizes, excessive leakage,
pipelines outside of public right-of-ways; inadequate pavement and street design.
Tlie City could work with the County to establisli mutually-acceptable infrastructure
standards for the Airport Area and develop a master plan for infrastructure. 77nis effort
might be supported by the property owners if the cost of improvements would not be
significantly more than the cost of improvements now required to meet County standards
6. Has the City stated its intent to provide services to the airport area and can it
ensure a time table for these services?
Discussion
The City's Water and Waste Water Alanagement Element (1989) includes the airport
area within its service boundary. However, the current City Land Use Element
designates the area as 'Rural Industrial." By definition, Rural Industrial uses are
11,PIC
._pie
Page 5 -- Water Service to the Airport Area
supported by on-site services. If the City Council adopts a new Land Use Element that
reflects urban uses in the airport area.inside the urban reserve, then it would be assumed
that the City could provide services at the appropriate time.
At its August 26, 1991 day-long study session, the City Council agreed that the Airort
Area Conce tD Plan should be incorporated into the draft Land Use Element. T/te City
and County planning staff are preparing a policy statement that could be incorporated
into both agency's Land Use Elements. This jointly-prepared statement will provide an
opportunity for the City to clarify its intent concerning services to the airport area,
including the issue of 'Miming."
Alternatives
if:
Cal Cities Water Company expands its service area, secures State Water, and serves
the airport area at a competitive cost; and
The County allows urban development in the airport area served by non-municipal
systems; and
Other requisite services (sewage treatment) can be provided via the creation of a
County Service District (CSA).
then the City's ability to control development in the area will be severely impaired. There
are many possible interpretations of what might happen, could happen, or.should happen
if Cal Cities Water Company's service area is expanded. If Cal Cities submits an PUC
application, the City Council may want to:
1. Oppose Cal Cities application and petition the PUC for a Public Hearing.
2. Oppose Cal Cities application, petition for a Public Hearing, and agree to serve the
airport.area in a time frame similar to the availability of State water resources.
3. Work with the County to ensure that any further urban level of development in the
airport area is contingent upon services provided by the City's water and sewer
systems. (If the city fails to provide services within a specified time frame, a CSA
could be created to allow for non-municipal services.)
4. Decide that having more than one water supplier in the airport area is not a problem
(though the experience of other areas indicates that there usually is a problem).
S. Do nothing at this time (with the realization that the action of others will determine
the future situation).
T'S:ts
Letter.wp
MPA
MERRIAM PLANNING
10 October 1991
ASSOCIATES
Mayor and Members of the City Council
San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
RE: Determination of appropriate land uses for the Dalidio Annexation Area
Dear Mr.Mayor and Council Members:
The Dalidios have asked me as their agent to formally submit for your guidance the conceptual land
use options that have been considered for their land adjacent to Central Coast Plaza in the County
of San Luis Obispo. These options are described in much more detail in the attached exhibits but
may be summarized as follows:
Option#1: Urban emphasis. (Total annexation area)This approach assumes the land to be a
valuable urban resource to the City in terms of providing for additional commercial uses(additions
to both the existing regional shopping area and to the auto sales uses next to Auto Park Way),
neighborhood housing as well as low to moderate income apartments and condominiums. The
plan has an extensive neighborhood park and greenway system, highway buffer and dedication of
4 acres of eucalyptus trees as part of a Laguna Park extension.
Option#2: Agricultural emphasis. (Shown for Dalidio ownership only)This option stresses the
preservation of agriculture and open space in the central portion of the area. Only two urban uses
are reserved: Forty acres of commercial land is adjacent to Central Coast Plaza and 13 acres of
land is reserved adjacent to Madonna Road for medium high density residential.
Both options are designed around an extension of Prado Road from a new interchange with U.S.
101 to Madonna Road.
Under option two the City would purchase the agricultural land. The Dalidio's are asking for
$87,000 per acre based upon an appraisal of residential land valued in its unannexed form.
(Annexed and ready to sell to a developer, the land would be valued at a little over three times this
amount).
The Dalidio's desire that the City Council,in light of the General Plan Update now in progress,
give them general guidance on the option that they prefer for the Specific Plan Area so that we may
begin a concentrated effort to get the Specific Plan into the environmental review process in the
near future. We would hope that this guidance could be given in early November 1991.
Sincerely REc;eN ED
for the applicant, OCT 10 1991
CITY COUNCIL
SAN LUIS OBI.SQO, CA
Andrew G. Merriam,AIA,AICP
Principal
7350 Marsh Street San Luis Obispo. California 93407 (805) 543-7057
Andrew G. Merriam. AIA. AICP
Background Information:
Dalidio planning options for annexation to the City of San Luis Obispo.
Option #1: Urban Emphasis
This option optimizes the urban potentials of the site. It calls for an immediate and complementary
addition to the existing regional shopping center complex of 23 acres and an additional reservation
of 17 acres for future expansion in keeping with the population and economic growth of the
community. Private studies indicate that there is potential for the total complex to come on line in a
phased 8 year period with minimal impact on the existing stores downtown. The community
already has the economic purchasing power to support the full forty acres of shopping with some
relocation of the shopping patterns(not 100%) from Santa Maria and Santa Barbara. Any
developer would be expected to work with the City in generating a phasing program that will
provide maximum complementary support for the downtown and existing shopping in the San
Luis Obispo City area.
The development of the Shopping Center Complex will be supported by an new U.S. 101
interchange at Prado Road which will both direct new traffic directly into the shopping centers
parking lot and relieve congestion on the Madonna Road and the Los Osos Valley Road
interchanges for shopping traffic. The extension of Prado Road,already called for in the City's
Circulation Masterplan will also provide residents living in the Southeastern portion of the City and
those in the airport and County Club Estates area a way to bypass the congestion of South Iiiguera
and South Streets in reaching the Freeway and the regional shopping.
A variety of housing is proposed including apartments,single family and below market rate
housing. These units would be close to shopping,a new school and public transportation along
Madonna Road as well as the regional park. In fact it would be hard to define a place in San Luis
Obispo that is better located for access to existing services than this area.
An open space system has been designed to serve the neighborhood and its pedestrian access to
school, parks and shopping as well as providing a visual amenity and uniqueness to the area
Finally there will be provided a significant buffer adjacent to the Freeway(U.S. 10 1) to provide
visual amenity to travellers along the freeway and isolate the homes from traffic noise. In addition
there will be a significant extension of Laguna Lake Park along the southern portion of Prefumo
Creek to connect to a neighborhood park adjacent to a potential new elementary school site.
Page 2 �
z
a :
a `
m
a
U '
! % \ �' y t
..i
1 .. 1� w
1 �U Lu
ZW
a z z o aQ Z
96
Z CA
Ul
to Q o i Vit.
4004 u
CL
in
O O O _v '•c{i..-.1_ ' ,,-bbbbbuuuuu S. :'.�- O
3 0 3� ___ .: I _ j, r.. V.
o z
IL
OTS _ NORUP
i_
no
• .... ;�' P_. .,__y;,:r,i.:p i::�;,;I: '11111 \'� \ �\\��
y,
.o
=.-_
�` �:..�.\ � /::'/moo•a✓
How
I
b
Ai
i
r.
:I
1 c•.
r/
�{r �= • sam_ .`,moi•/i/ \ -/\,
00
�' ,� \ tib S ' "�,•� ` \\ �\ ,,\ •....
Ilk
/-20
TABLE 1:
PROPOSED LAND USES: OPTION #1
(Da"o Specific Plan Area)(1)
(REVISED 10-6-91)
Category Acres to total Prop. Owner
(2)
1. Commercial Retail W 21.4 11.6% Dalidio
2. Commercial 11 15.8 8.5 Dalidio
2a. Commercial Service(d) 5.5 3.0 Madonna
2b.Automotive Commercial 9.5 5.1 McBride
TOTAL COMMERCIAL 52.2 28.2%
3. Medium High Den. (R-3) 4.1 2.2% Dalidio
4. Med. Den. Res. (R-2 PD)(a) 8.0 4.3% Dalidio
5. Med. Den. Res. W 7.6 4.1 Dalidio
5a. Med. Den. Res. (b) 2.0 1.1 Madonna
5b.Med. Den. Res. (b) 5_4 2.9 McBride
Subtotal Medium Density 23.0 12.4%
6. Low Density Residential 20.5 11.1% Dalidio
6a. Low Density Residential 7.3 3.9 Madonna
6b.Low Density Residential 3.2 1.7 McBride
Subtotal Low Density 31.0 16.7%
TOTAL RESIDENTIAL 58.1 31.3%
7. Open Space/Parks(fl 8.9 4.8% Dalidio
7a " " 3.2 1.7 Madonna
8 " " " 7.2 4.1 DalididMcBride
9 " " 5.1 2.8 Dalidio
green belt 5.7 3.1 All
TOTAL OPEN SPACE 30.4 16.5%
10.School 10.0 5.4% Madonna
11.Public Roads:(9) 34.3 18.5% All
Page 4 �
Option #2: Agricultural Emphasis
This option provides the extension of the Regional shopping as proposed in Option#1 which when
fully developed would provide up to$1,000,000 annually to the City of San Luis Obispo general
fund in sales taxes.
This proposal differs significantly from Option#1 in that only the non fanned portion of the
Dalidio land adjacent to Madonna Road of approximately 13 acres would be retained for residential
development--a retirement community has been considered for the site. The balance of the land
would be offered for sale to the City for agricultural/open space uses. Under City control there
would be no further pressure for private development on this 67 acres which includes a four acre
park extension along Prefumo Creek as well as the preservation of an additional 5 acres in.
eucalyptus trees in the residential area.
Cost and Payment Strategy. While the details could vary, payment of the$5.8 million for the
agricultural land could come from the increased sales tax generated by the commercial development
mentioned in the fust paragraph of option#2 over, for example,a 10 year period. This approach
could avoid asking the voters to approve a bond issue or altering other commitments made on the
City's general fund. It is noted that residential land annexed and ready for sale to a developer is
worth in the area of$300,000 per acre. This offer to the City places a value of approximately
$87,000 per acre for the 67 acres or approximately 29% of its annexed value.
Page 5
�z
Qa :
m
I' N ►•
Z
< '
1 ` zQy _
A O
,1 • by �� y
a z i ✓` �; a "�W `o
� a a a � .� \, �` paaZ
moo ;
O
09 U \♦
LU
IL
IL
W
o
LLI
00
00 Ul
a \\
. •"^�{ n`
O �..fg---
'fif.�CC+r:I�''f^:;:•., =:f 1 e.,:P e5se r ''3. \ /,.'0'' /
Ym
'Mal fri.
v7' 2i:.r„ .,1:fi:nit•cTtt�."�iR�•C, 'r�'S � \ \ :.\
i / •.1:t max''
' 1 � �♦ ? rJr 114/ _
fi
bl\
TABLE 2:
PROPOSED LAND USES: OPTION #2
(Dalidio Specific Plan Area)(1)
(REVISED 10-6-91)
Category Acres to total
(2)
1. Commercial: Phase I 21.4 16.5% Dalidio
2. Commercial: Phase II 17.3 13.3% Dalidio
TOTAL COMMERCIAL 38.7 29.8%
3. Medium High Den. (R-3) 12.4 9.6% Dalidio
trees/open space(3.2acres)
4. Agriculture 63.4 49.0% Dalidio
trees/open space(1.8 acres)
5. Park/Open Space 3_8 2.9% Dalidio
TOTAL AGR/OPEN SPACE 67.2 51.9%
6. Freeway access 5.8 4.5% Dalidio
7. Public Roads:
Prado Road extension 4.4
Madonna Road widening 0_9
ROADS TOTAL 5.3 4.1% Dalidio
GRAND TOTAL 129.4 acres 100%
NOTES TO TABLES:
1. The number of units and acreages identified in this table are for the purpose of determining the
general land uses and their attendant impacts. It is possible that the actual number of units or the
square footage will vary slightly up or down as actual site planning takes place.
2. This percentage is based on a base of 185 acres within the Dalidio Specific Plan Area The
individual ownerships, based on a planimeter measurement by area are:
Dalidio 129.4 acres
Madonna 32.2 acres
McBride 23.4 acres
Page 7 Le- p
I,III�I�IIII�IIIIIIIIi�i IUIUMEETING DATE:
punui�
city of san tuts oBispo -5
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM
NUMBER:
FROM: Arnold B. Jonas, Community Development Director
PREPARED BY: Glen Matteson, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Direction for planning of the Dalidio area.
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Discuss options for various land uses within the Dalidio area and
provide direction for staff in revising the Land Use Element.
DISCUSSION
Situation
The Dalidio area is the open land bounded by Highway 101, Central
Coast Plaza, Madonna Road, and Los Osos Valley Road. While the
Dalidio family owns the largest piece, substantial parts are
owned by the McBrides and Madonnas (attached maps) . The whole
area is unincorporated but substantially surrounded by the City.
The adopted City general plan allows, upon annexation,
residential development only, in a wide range of housing types,
averaging about five dwellings per gross acre. The adopted
County general plan and zoning allow the same upon annexation to
the City; without annexation, residential development at about
one dwelling per ten acres could occur.
Deciding policy for the Dalidio area has been a difficult part of
the Land Use Element update. The Planning Commission had
recommended that the whole area be kept open. The City Council's
most recent direction was to show it as an urban expansion area,
but with a generous open space setback along the highway. The
Council did not endorse a land use pattern, but staff understood
the discussion to imply: perhaps 20 acres next to Central Coast
Plaza would be for large retail stores; the southern parts of the
Madonna and McBride properties could be car dealerships (about 12
acres) ; about 30 acres along the highway would be kept open; the
balance would be for a neighborhood park, possibly a school site,
and about 100 acres for residential development.
Andrew Merriam, representing the Dalidios, is presenting two
other options. They both have about 40 acres for retail
development. The "agricultural emphasis" option has a 12-acre
multifamily area and about 67 acres of agriculture and park. It
does not show uses for the McBride and Madonna properties. The
"urban emphasis" option is very similar to the "staff's
understanding" approach described above, except that it has about
twice as much commercial land and only about ten acres of open
space along the highway.
E k4 •.1-'f 1e
�+++��►ni►►IViIIIIIIIP► ��Ulll city of san Luis oBispo
% COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Other land-use options --variations on these proposals-- can be
discussed.
Mr. Merriam is further proposing that the City buy the
agricultural land in the "agricultural emphasis" option for $5.8
million.
Previous Council discussion encompassed a variety of aspects of
potential future use of the Dalidio area, including the following
considerations:
- An interest in preserving agricultural land, protecting the
views and community character along this entrance to the
City, and avoiding increases in traffic, air pollution,
exposure to aircraft hazards, and storm water runoff (which
could otherwise recharge groundwater) that accompany urban
development.
- Developing retail uses to enhance the viability of the
Central Coast Mall which would generate more revenues than
costs for the City, and increase employment opportunities.
To do so, Council has expressed an intent in the possibility
of attracting an additional department store to the area.
- Developing housing to help match the demand for and supply
of housing, including housing affordable to low- and
moderate-income residents, and result in smaller increases
in commuting. However, residential development
traditionally results in more costs than revenues for the
City.
- Substantial development of the area will entail significant
costs for public facilities, such as a highway interchange,
roads, and water supply and sewage treatment capacity, the
costs of which will likely be borne jointly by project
developers and the general community.
The Council also has discussed transfer of development potential
within a site, so that allowing more or different development
than currently allowed on part of a site would be the
compensation for permanent open space protection on the rest of
the site, rather than direct financial compensation.
RECOMMENDATION
Discuss options for various land uses within the Dalidio area and
provide direction for staff in revising the Land Use Element.
Attachment: Merriam proposal
�i►IIII illi Illlll I�III IIIIIII I II�IIIII I I I
II
City of sAn luis oBisw
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
October 24, 1991
TO: City Council Members
VIA: John Dunn, City Administrative Officer
FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director
PREPARED BY: Terry Sanville, Principal Planner
SUBJECT: Circulation Issues
The following summarizes the comments and issues raised by City Council members at a
Land Use Element study session in August, 1991 concerning circulation planning.
CONCERN#1: Narrowing Existing Streets: The City's streets system has surplus capacity
to handle traffic. Streets like Johnson Avenue only have traffic congestion during peak
periods and are underutilized during the rest of the time. We might consider narrowing
these streets and providing more neighborhood amenities.
CONCERN #2: Transit Development: Transit isn't used as much as it could be because
the pattern of urban development is not conducive to transit use. Areas like the Airport
Planning Area should be developed in a way that facilitates transit use; and new
development should support the provision of transit service to these areas.
CONCERN #3: Promoting Alternative Transportation: To reduce the impacts of future
growth, the city should manage growth rates and promote and require the participation in
alternative forms of transportation. We can avoid traffic problems in the future by
employing this strategy.
CONCERN #4: Widening Streets: Widening streets is generally undesirable. It signals
an undesirable change in the community's character. We should use the capacity of the
existing streets fully before we consider increasing their capacity. Also, widening streets
only encourages people to continue to depend on private vehicles.
CONCERN #S: Level of Program Description: We need to better define programs and
projects that will achieve a better modal split for the community.
CONCERN #6: Use of Alternative Fuels: The City should promote the use of alternative
fuels as a way of saving energy and reducing air pollution.
TS:ts
�-a7