HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/21/1992, 3 - GP/R 1261 - CONSIDERATION OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, PRE-ZONING AND 78-ACRE ANNEXATION KNOWN AS THE BROAD STREET ANNEXATION. THE ACTION WOULD AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT AND ZONING MAPS TO CHANGE THEIR DESIGNATIONS TO SERVICE I,INnI�►II�IIIIIIIIII�II�IIII MEETING GATE:
II in��ui►
MY Of san LUIS OBISPO 7-,91- r2--
COUNCIL
2--COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER:
FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director
BY: Jeff Hook, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: GP/R 1261 - Consideration of a general plan amendment,
pre-zoning and 78-acre annexation known as the Broad Street
Annexation. The action would amend the general plan land use
element and zoning maps to change their designations to service-
commercial (C-S-S and C-S-PD) and manufacturing (M-S) between Broad
Street and the city limits.
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
1) Adopt a resolution amending the General Plan Land Use Map from
Rural Industrial and Interim Conservation/Open Space to
Service Commercial/Light Industrial;
2) Introduce an ordinance to print pre-zoning the annexation area
to C-S-PD, C-S-S and M-S as shown on Exhibit "C" ;
3) Approve a model Pre-Annexation Agreement to be entered into
between the City and interested property owners prior to final
annexation; and
4) Adopt a resolution of application to LAFCo, and authorize
staff to submit to LAFCo the final annexation application for
the Broad Street area.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
The report concludes that annexation is appropriate and would be
consistent with city land use and annexation policies, and
recommends that the City proceed with annexation through the Local
Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) . Updated information on the
implications of annexation, environmental issues, public
improvements, and future steps in the annexation are also included.
BACKGROUND
At its June 16, 1992 hearing, the City Council certified the final
environmental impact report (FEIR) for the Broad Street Annexation,
culminating a one-year environmental review process involving
extensive public review and numerous meetings between city staff
and annexation area property owners. In its 1991 workprogram, the
City Council designated the Broad Street Annexation as an "A-1"
priority.
The annexation was originally requested by the Southern California
Gas Company in 1986 and referred to as the "Southern California Gas
Company Annexation. " The City Council has initiated
reconsideration of the annexation after having continued the item
3-/
���min►►►I�IIIIIIIIIII1i°''���I��IIU city of san LUIS OBlspo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Staff Report
Page 2
four years ago. The City, not Southern California Gas Company, is
now the applicant.
The annexation area includes 78-acres which, visually and
geographically, are a logical addition to the city. This is the
first major annexation considered by the City Council since the
Ferrini/Foothill annexations were approved in 1984 , and it is the
first non-residential annexation proposed since the 80-acre Higuera
Commerce Park was annexed in 1972 . As part of the much larger
Airport Plan, the annexation shares many of the same land use and
environmental issues; yet, due to its history and location it is
unique and without parallels elsewhere in the city. Moreover, the
annexation comes at a time when the City is updating several
elements of its General Plan, and facing significant economic
challenges.
SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
The recommended actions are covered by the City Council 's action
to certify the Final EIR taken on June 16, 1992 . The EIR
identifies five significant environmental impacts: traffic, water
and sewer service, drainage, and air quality. Mitigation measures i
are required by the EIR which will prevent these impacts or reduce
their significance to acceptable levels, except for air quality.
In the case of cumulative air quality, there were significant
unavoidable impacts that required a statement of overriding
considerations to be adopted with the EIR (Section 15093 . of CEQA
Guidelines) .
The mitigation measures are implemented by the City (eg. water
retrofit program) and by property owners as a condition of new
development. To meet State law, the FEIR includes a monitoring
program listing persons or agencies responsible for the mitigation
and the timeframe for mitigation.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT TARING THE RECOMMENDED ACTION
The City is under no mandated deadline to pre-zone or annex the
property. By not proceeding with annexation or by postponing
actions necessary for annexation, it will become more difficult to
annex the area or plan for its orderly development as the remaining
vacant properties build out under County jurisdiction. In this
case, future development would proceed under County standards which
are generally more appropriate for non-urban locations. County
government would derive additional revenue which it would want to
retain, if and when annexation eventually occurred.
Whether or not the area is annexed, the City will be impacted by
S4
����►�►�+�iiu►111111111i° II�IN city of San tAS OBISpo
ON COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Staff Report
Page 3
development in the area, given that it is virtually surrounded by
the City. Under less-stringent County development standards, the
area may continue as an enclave of developed and underdeveloped
properties surrounded by the City, but without contributing
property or sales tax to the City.
Data Summary
Project Address: 3800 Broad Street (State Highway 227)
Applicant: City of San Luis Obispo
Representative: Jeff Hook, Associate Planner
County Zoning: Commercial-Service (C-S) and Industrial (I)
General Plan: Rural-Industrial, Interim Conservation/Open Space,
Low-Density Residential (Edna-Islay Specific Planning Area)
Environmental Status: . Final EIR has been certified.
Site Description
The site covers 78. 06 acres and slopes gently down toward Broad
Street. Surrounded by the city on three sides, it is bounded by
Broad Street on the west, Sacramento Drive and Tract 929 (Edna-
Islay Specific Planned Area) on the east, Tank Farm Road on the
south, and Capitolio Way on the north. The site consists of 14
parcels, involving 13 different property owners. About one-half of
the annexation area, once used for dryland farming and grazing,
remains vacant today. Major uses include Williams Brothers market,
Derrell 's Mini-Storage warehouses, Coleman Company, Inc. office
building (EMI offices) , an architect ' s office, Plumbers and
Steamfitters Union building, United Parcel Service, an industrial
building with various uses, and several small houses and utility
buildings.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
At its December 11, 1991 and January 8, 1992 meetings, the Planning
Commission reviewed the DEIR and asked the consultant to provide
more information on the annexation's effects on creeks, water and
sewer capacity, runoff and groundwater recharge, traffic, housing
and funding of public improvements. These and other public
comments have been responded to in the Final EIR. The proposed
pre-zoning strategy was recommended by the Planning Commission as
part of the Southern California Gas Company annexation hearings.
EVALUATION
Staff believes the city's interests are best served by proceeding
with the annexation at this time. The chief reasons to support
annexation appear to be its value as a tool for improved planning
�-3
���H����H►►uIIIIIIIIIP10 ����III city of San Lu1S o81Spo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Staff Report
Page 4
at a prominent city "gateway, " and to implement the city's economic
objectives of the Strategic Planning Program.
As proposed, the annexation appears to be in the city's best
interests because it would 1) promote higher quality development
at the city's edge, 2) allow more effective land use planning
within the urban reserve, and 3) secure needed public improvements
consistent with city development standards. Annexation would not
set a broad precedent for future annexation requests, significantly
increase city costs or resource demand, nor limit council options
in dealing with land use in the airport area.
In staff ' s view, the key issue is not whether to annex, but rather,
when to annex and what improvements to require of property owners.
Since 1986, this area has been included in and studied as part of
the Airport Specific Plan. Concurrent staff review of both
projects has allowed a much more comprehensive study of the
annexation than would normally be possible. Issues like land use,
traffic, and drainage for the 78-acre annexation were also part of
the analysis for some 1800 acres within the Airport Area.
Why Annex Now?
There appear to be three factors supporting annexation at this
time:
1) Timing. Very little development has occurred in the area since
Council last discussed annexation. However two large projects are
expected to start construction this summer. It is desirable to
annex the properties now to ensure that future commercial
developments meet city standards and that they have the necessary
urban services.
2) Property owner support. Of the area ' s 13 property owners, most
have told staff that they still support annexation. Most property
owners agree that the properties are logically part of the city,
and would to develop in the city with reasonable assurances that:
1) urban services would be available under the same rules and
procedures applying to current city property owners; 2) public
improvement costs would be manageable and installation timing
flexible; and 3) pre-zoning allows a broad range of commercial
uses, consistent with both the property owners ' and city objectives
for the area. (Several of these assurances are incorporated into
a "model" pre-annexation agreement, as discussed later. )
3) Fiscal health. More than ever, cities and counties are relying
on sales tax revenue to fund a larger share of public costs.
Commercial properties usually generate more revenues with fewer
public costs than residential properties on an acre-for-acre basis.
�������►�►►►I�IIIIIIIIIIpIIl��ll city Of San Lacs OsispO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Staff Report
Page 5
Moreover, commercial development provides jobs for local residents,
again strengthening the tax base and local economy. Hence, it is
clearly in the city's best interests to annexation this area and
support an appropriate level of commercial development.
Annexation Area Changes
Since the council last reviewed annexation of this area, property
owner Jay Parsons constructed a new 85, 000 square foot industrial
project with self-contained water, sewer and fire suppression
systems. Plans are currently being reviewed by the county for the
following projects in this area:
• Williams Brothers Expansion, Lots 91/92. Building
permits were recently issued for supermarket remodel and
the development of about 135, 000 square feet of retail
space. Construction is expected to begin in Summer 1992 .
• Plumbers and Steamfitters Local #403, Lot 94. The
Union is planning a 65, 000 square foot service-commercial
complex on its 5.72 acre site.
• Southern California Gas Company, Lot 95. A new
administrative facility and corporation yard has been
approved by the County and construction is expected to
begin by the end of summer.
In addition, conceptual plans have been prepared for:
• Mel Jones property, Lots 98 and 99. A large service-
commercial center with a large home improvement store is
in the early planning and design phases for this 11 acre
site.
Planning Factors
This annexation is unique for San Luis Obispo, and does not "fit"
the typical pattern for annexations in that:
■ It involves multiple property owners and 14 lots in various
stages of development.
■ Five of the lots already receive or have city agreements to
receive city water and/or sewer service.
■ The annexation area is within the Airport Specific Planning
Area which involved a cooperative planning effort by the City
and County of San Luis Obispo.
3r�
����►��►�ii►�Illillllllll1°°�u��Ulll city of San LUIS OBISpo
i COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Staff Report
Page 6
■ Diverse land uses are existing and proposed, including
retail, manufacturing, and service-commercial businesses.
■ City sewer and water mains exist in streets on all
sides of the annexation area, except in Industrial Way.
■ Recent county approvals have allowed development of a
scale and intensity in the area comparable to development
in the adjacent incorporated area.
■ Commercial development in the annexation area is
imminent and the City would realize additional sales tax
and other revenues through annexation to help defray City
costs resulting from this new development whether it
occurs in either jurisdiction (eg. costs for public
transportation, street improvements, emergency services) .
DISCUSSION
General Plan
The annexation appears consistent with city annexation and land use i
policies. According to the Final EIR, annexation will not induce
growth since the area is likely to develop with similar, although
somewhat less intensive uses, under County jurisdiction. Under
either City or County jurisdiction, development is expected to
result in similar employment generation and housing demand. If the
area is not annexed, it is expected to develop under County land
use standards which allow a broad range of urban-type industrial,
commercial, and manufacturing uses and served by on-site water and
sewer facilities.
The General Plan land use element map designates most of the Broad
Street Annexation area as "Rural-Industrial. " This designation is
applied to areas where industry is mixed with agricultural uses;
however agricultural uses within the annexation area were
discontinued many years ago. The remainder of the area, adjacent
to the Edna-Islay Specific Plan area, is designated as "Interim
Conservation/Open Space. " This designation is applied to areas
which will be kept open until urbanization is appropriate.
Consistency with Draft Land Use Element
The City' s Draft Land Use Element Map (LUE) designates a mix of
service-commercial and residential land uses, which may not be
consistent with the proposed pre-zoning. In November 1991 the City
Council endorsed a "draft" Land Use Element for environmental
���N�»rullVlllllllll CI C
11°;TUTU Y Of San JI S OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Staff Report
Page 7
review purposes and for initiating public hearings on the draft LUE
and Circulation elements. The draft LUE identifies the portion of
the annexation area bounded by Industrial Way, Broad Street, Tank
Farm Road, and the Edna-Islay specific planning area as suitable
for medium-density residential use. The proposed annexation,
general plan amendment, and C-S-S pre-zoning for this is area is
not consistent with the residential designation shown on the draft
LUE map.
If the City Council supports annexation, it should consider which
land use designation is most appropriate and give direction to
staff so that the proposed general plan amendment/pre-zoning and
draft LUE map designations are consistent for this area. Factors
to consider are discussed below under "Pre-zoning/Land Use. " It
is important to establish the City' s preferred land use designation
at this time so that it can be reflected in the draft LUE and
evaluated as part of the environmental impact report on the LUE.
The County's adopted Land Use Element designates the area
"Industrial" , with the exception of Lots 90 and 91 (Williams
Brothers Market) which is designated as "Commercial Service. " The
annexation area is within the "Airport Area Study Boundary" as
jointly defined by the City and County. If the area is not
annexed, County staff indicate that this area will be incorporated
into the Airport Area Specific Plan as part of the County' s Land
Use Element Update in late 1992 or early 1993 .
The proposed annexation appears consistent with these city General
Plan policies:
a. The city should provide for "future minimized outward urban
expansion within the unincorporated urban reserve which can
be efficiently served by urban "infrastructure" improvements;
b. Urban development should be timed to assure that adequate
water facilities and other public facilities will be available
to serve the future uses in a safe and efficient manner;
C. No annexations of major unincorporated expansion areas should
be authorized until water supply and treatment and sewage
collection and treatment need can be met in addition to the
expected demand of incorporated areas.
d. In designated service commercial/.light-industrial areas, the
City should support the concept of "planned unit" industrial
developments where unified landscaping, signing, building
design, service capabilities and adequate circulation can be
ensured.
,1111i jjIIIIIII1I1111I1 city of San Luis OBISpo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
staff Report
Page 8
e. The City should emphasize the adequacy of landscaping, signing
and building design of service commercial uses which are
situated along entry corridors into San Luis Obispo,
particularly areas within the urban reserve along State
Highway 227, Tank Farm Road, and South Higuera Street.
Water and Sewer
Water Allocation Regulations require a water allocation for all
actions within the city which would increase water use. Build-
out of the annexation area would increase the City's total water
demand by about 183 acre feet, or 2 percent over current levels.
The 183 acre feet of water required for build-out represents
retrofitting approximately 6100 dwellings. New development will
be required to offset the increased water use through retrofitting.
This estimate does not include water savings from on site wells
which are expected to supply non-potable irrigation water. This
could reduce city water demand by up to 30 percent of the total
demand, or about 55 acre feet per year.
Five lots already receive or are eligible to receive city water
and/or sewer services: lots 90-91 (Williams Brothers) , 95
(Southern California Gas Company) , and 98-99 (Mel Jones) . Under
current policies, these lots may be annexed. If not annexed, the
remaining eight lots would have to rely on on-site water and waste
disposal systems.
In the four years since Council last reviewed the annexation, the
City faced serious drought conditions and implemented conservation
measures to balance water supply and demand. This annexation could
seem inconsistent with city efforts to conserve water and limit new
demand; however with the City's mandatory water offset program, new
development will be required to retrofit existing buildings to save
twice as much water as the new development would use.
Consequently, no significant impacts to water supply are
anticipated. On-site groundwater will provide water for
landscaping and other non-potable uses.
Full build-out of the annexation area under City zoning is expected
to increase sewage flow by up to 0. 10 million gallons per day
(MGD) , or 2 .5 times the flows expected under County zoning (due to
existing sewer agreements) . This "worst case" assumes that
properties currently on septic systems convert to sewers, and
represents about 2 percent of the sewer treatment plant's total
capacity. Since properties with existing septic systems would have
the option of continuing to use septic systems which meet current
County standards, actual sewage flows are expected to be less. The
3-�
��+++�»>I►il(VIIIIIIIIIIp1 �U��l city of San ..AIS OBISpo
Nii% COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Staff Report
Page 9
Utilities Director concurs with the report 's findings that
annexation will not, with the proposed mitigation, adversely affect
city water and sewer services.
Development in the annexation area will trigger the need to upgrade
or replace two nearby sewer lift stations. These improvements
would be paid for through sewer impact fees to be developed by the
City and assessed on new development served by the lift station.
City Standards and Requirements
Upon annexation, properties would be subject to the same
development standards and requirements that apply to other city
property owners with regard to water retrofitting, impact fees, and
public improvements like streets, sidewalks, traffic signals, and
utility connections. For example, traffic impact fees (if adopted
by the City) and street improvements would be required at the time
of property development, rather than at the time of annexation.
With new development or with significant remodelling of existing
buildings, new construction would need to meet city standards.
Where the cost of remodelling or new construction exceeded 50% of
a structure's replacement cost, the existing structure would need
to brought up to current codes. Upon annexation, projects
currently in the "pipeline" -- Williams Brothers shopping center
and the Southern California Gas Company Corporation Yard can
proceed under valid County permits issued before annexation. These
projects were reviewed by the City as "County referrals" during
County development review. Depending on when construction actually
began and its duration, it appears that building inspections would
be conducted by both City and County staff under agreements with
the developers.
Final EIR and Mitigation
The mitigation strategy is based on the premise that it is new
development, not annexation per se, that triggers the need for
environmental mitigation. Consequently, most mitigation measures
would be implemented as conditions of approval for new development,
or for redevelopment where the cost of the improvements exceeds 50
percent of the existing structures ' replacement value.
This approach results in a more logical "nexus" between potential
impacts and the recommended mitigation. Properties with on-site
sewer or water systems which meet County Health standards may
continue until such time as the property is redeveloped to the
extent of 50 percent or more of its replacement cost, existing
systems fall below health standards, or the property owner chooses
���n�in►►►�illllll�ll° llUl�l City Of San suis OBISPO
Mii% COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Staff Report
Page 10
to hook-up to City water or sewer. To meet Fire Department
requirements, a total three fire hydrants must be installed along
the frontages of lots 3 , 4 and 93 .
It is anticipated that the City will implement future major street
improvements such as orcutt Road widening and grade separation,
bikelanes on Broad Street, and traffic signals at Broad Street and
Capitolio Way and Broad Street and Industrial Way with revenues
from a citywide traffic impact fee being developed by the City
Engineer and/or development conditions. Additional traffic signal
funding is expected from adjacent properties and from CalTrans.
For example, as a condition of County approval, Williams Brothers
is required to contribute 25 percent of the cost of installing the
traffic signal at Broad Street and Capitolio. Way.
Pre-zoning/Land use
When it reviewed the "Southern California Gas Company Annexation, "
the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the Council amend
the general plan, pre-zone the area for service-commercial and
industrial uses, and proceed with the annexation. Most
commissioners felt that the annexation was consistent with city
policies and in the public' s interest due to the improved
development standards and increased city revenues resulting from
annexation. Dissenting commissioners felt that while annexation
may be desirable in the future, it should be postponed until water
and sewer resource limitations were resolved and the city had
completed its general plan update.
Staff's proposed pre-zoning is shown in Exhibit "C" . This pre-
zoning strategy is consistent with the General Plan and established
land use patterns in the area. It emphasizes service-
commercial/light industrial uses for lots with Broad Street
frontage, and manufacturing for lots with frontage on Sacramento
or Industrial Way. Due to the "S" or "Special Considerations"
overlay zoning, new development would require a Planning Commission
use permit. This would allow special review to address development
concerns of circulation and driveway access, drainage and creek
preservation, public improvement needs (eg. traffic signals, street
improvements, utility extensions) , and land use compatibility.
The Williams Brothers shopping center was approved by the county
with a mix of retail, office and service-commercial uses under a
conditional use permit. It would be pre-zoned C-S-PD with uses and
design guided by the center' s use permit.
The proposed pre-zoning may not be consistent with the City's Draft
Land Use Element which is now undergoing environmental review. The
�' a
�������►�N1�11011111IIN�u►q�ppl city of San _ .AIS OBISpo
NOMM"101COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Staff Report
Page 11
draft plan designates the north one-third (Lots 90, 91, 92) as
Neighborhood Commercial, the middle one-third (Lots 93 , 94 , 95, 11
21 3, and 4) as Services and Manufacturing, and the south one-
third (Lots 98 , 99, and 100) as Medium-Density Residential.
Residential designation was seen as a way to help balance housing
opportunities with increased housing demand due to anticipated
commercial growth.
The pre-zoning strategy follows current land use policies which
discourage new residential development along arterial streets and
emphasize that residential uses should "be insulated from adverse
noise and other traffic impacts. " While some dwellings may be
incorporated into future development of Lots 98 -100 under the
recently adopted "mixed-use zone, " staff believes the preferred
strategy is to pre-zone these lots C-S-S and revise the Draft LUE
accordingly because:
1. Allowed uses under a C-S-S zone are consistent with the Land
Use Element, and less likely to pose land use conflicts due
to noise and traffic.
2 . The Edna-Islay Specific Plan designates this area for service-
commercial uses, and provides for 20-foot buffer zone, in
addition to yards required by zoning, for the C-S lots such
as Lots 98 - 100 that abut residential uses.
3 . Mixed commercial/residential development is possible under the
C-S-S zoning with Planning Commission approval, similar to the
Crossroads commercial center located on Broad Street at Orcutt
Road.
4 . The Medium-density Residential pre-zoning was not evaluated
as part of the Broad Street Annexation EIR, although the
alternatives section did evaluated a mixed-use
residential/commercial land use alternative.
5. Property owners understand and generally support the proposed
pre-zoning strategy, since it was discussed extensively and
ultimately endorsed by the Planning Commission.
Public Improvements
In discussions with city representatives, the majority of property
owners said they favored annexation, provided that the allowed mix
of land uses was acceptable, annexation costs were not excessive,
and annexation occurs in a timely fashion. Only those public
improvements that are immediately necessary to protect life or
property are required upon annexation -- those consist of the
���»�H►�ulllllllllp1°j�IIUIII city Of San US OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
..........%
Staff Report
Page 12
installation of public fire hydrants and service main at Lots 3 ,
4, and 93 . Property owner installation of other necessary but non-
urgent public improvements is deferred until development or
significant remodelling or additions occur, consistent with the EIR
concept.
At the time properties are developed, city code requirements must
be met for fire protection, installation of curbs, gutters,
sidewalks, street lights and street trees. LAFCo can require
individual property owners within the annexation area to meet city
development standards, thus requiring the installation of frontage
improvements, street lighting, fire hydrants, and other typical
subdivision improvements at the time of annexation. However, staff
recommends these changes occur with development as typically
required elsewhere in the city.
Draft Pre-Annexation Agreements
During review of the EIR, some annexation area property owners
requested that the City prepare "pre-annexation agreements" that
can serve to more formally document the responsibilities assigned
in the Final EIR. As mentioned earlier, the Final EIR mitigation
strategy is based on the premise that it is new development, not
annexation per se, that triggers the need for environmental
mitigation.
In response to this property owner request, a proposed model pre-
annexation agreement based on the above strategy has been drafted
(Exhibit G) . The agreement describes the current status of the
properties, the services that will be provided by the City, and
property owner responsibilities (if any) . The text of the pre-
annexation agreement is intended to be identical for all property
owners.
It is not mandatory that all property owners sign and return the
agreement; rather, execution of such an agreement is a matter left
solely to the discretion of the property owner and really depends
on whether or not it adds to their "comfort level" as the City
pursues the final stages of the annexation process. It will be
executed by the City, upon property owner request, when the
annexation is returned to Council for final approval.
Council is being asked to approve the model pre-annexation
agreement provided in Exhibit G. The individual agreement exhibits
for each property owner are available for review in the Council
reading file.
���n�►►ru►�uillllll�i° ���l�l city or San -AS osispo
MoGa COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Staff Report
Page 13
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
This item was continued from council meetings on October 20, 1987;
November 17, 1987; March 22 , 1988; and September 6, 1988 pending
resolution of water/resources issues. Meanwhile, staff, Planning
Commission and the Council have discussed citywide annexation
issues including annexation history and policies, resource
capabilities, open space preservation, growth management, and the
Airport Area Specific Plan. Previous analyses and staff reports
provide a fairly detailed policy context for this annexation
request. Copies of these earlier reports are available in the
council office and the Community Development Department.
Planning Commissioners considered the annexation at three meetings
between January and July 1987 . Due to the project's scope, the
commission reviewed the annexation in two parts. At its April 29,
1987 meeting, the commission focused on general issued like General
Plan policy and implications for water and growth management.
Commissioners felt that the annexation was logical, provided that
water, pre-zoning, and environmental concerns could be resolved.
The commissioners continued the item and directed staff to come
back with specific regarding pre-zoning, environmental mitigation
and public improvements.
At its July 8, 1987 meeting, the commission reviewed specific
mitigation measures, water allocation strategies and pre-zoning
alternatives. Commissioners voted 4-2 (one seat vacant) to
recommend that the City Council approve the annexation and amend
the Land Use Element Map and zoning map to change the designations
to C-S-PD, M-S, and C-S-S (minutes attached) . The majority of
commissioners supported the annexation subject to special
provisions for water allocation, land use and public improvements.
More recently, there have been hearings related to the draft and
final EIR documents, as described in the June 16, 1992 staff
report. Staff has also had a substantial amount of ongoing
communication with property owners and their representatives,
including a joint meeting on May 19, 1992 . One outcome of this
meeting was the preparation of the optional pre-annexation
agreements to more formally document EIR requirements for
interested property owners.
CONCURRENCES
The Fire Department indicated that the installation of three fire
hydrants is necessary to provide city fire protection to annexation
area property owners. Because of the low-intensity of existing
development, Fire Department staff acknowledge that other fire
3-13
�����►�►►�lu1111111�pi ���lll1 city of San tins OBISpo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
staff Report
Page 14
safety improvements such as fire sprinkler retrofitting and private
fire hydrants may be made over an extended period of time as
properties develop or redevelop. Other department which have
reviewed and support the proposed annexation include Public Works,
Community Development, Finance and Utilities.
FISCAL IMPACT
Due to the favorable revenue/cost ratio of the proposed annexation,
staff does not anticipate any adverse fiscal impact to the City.
Public costs of annexation include electricity (street lighting) ,
utilities, and street maintenance, flood control, and police and
fire services. City revenue sources would consist primarily of
sales tax, property tax increment allotment from the County (to be
agreed upon prior to LAFCo action) , franchise tax, utility users
tax, real property transfer tax, and business taxes.
An analysis by the Finance Department shows that initially, City
revenues resulting from annexation would exceed City costs to
provide public services to the area by a factor of 1. 5 to 2 times.
As the annexation area developed, the ratio of revenues to costs
is expected to increase. For example, at build-out, it' s
conservatively estimated that annual gross revenues from the
annexation area would total about $600 to $700 thousand dollars,
or about 2 . 2 to 2 . 6 times City costs.
The proposed mitigation measures require City participation in
several public improvements in the annexation area. These may
include traffic signal installation, sewer and water main
extensions, street and bike lane improvements. The cost of these
improvements will depend on the timing and location of development
in the annexation area, and will be "spread out" over approximately
5 to 10 years necessary for area build-out, and will be reimbursed
to the City through increased tax revenues and user fees in the
annexation area.
NEST STEPS
As mentioned above, if the Council amends the General Plan, pre-
zones the annexation area, and adopts the Resolution of Application
to LAFCo, the annexation application will be submitted to LAFCo.
Following favorable action by LAFCo, the City will conduct a
"protest hearing. " This is not expected to take place before late
1992 . The annexation would then become final, unless objections
were received from owners of property constituting 50 percent or
more of the assessed value of the area to be annexed. Until
annexation proceedings are complete, the County of San Luis Obispo
would continue to process planning and construction permit
3i
���ii��►�►il�llllllllll► IIIIhI city of sar, , ,IIs OBIspo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Staff Report
Page 15
applications, with referrals to City staff for review and comment.
ALTERNATIVES
Alternative actions available to the council include:
1. Amend the General Plan and pre-zone the annexation area as
shown in the Draft Land Use Element Update. This approach is
not recommended because it would be inconsistent with current
Land Use Element policies and would be less likely to achieve
Council goals of annexation for 1) better planning at a major
City gateway; and 2) greater fiscal independence.
2. Postpone action on the annexation request pending further
results of the test well program. There is no mandated
deadline for acting on general plan amendments or annexations,
and the council may defer acting on the request indefinitely
or for a specified period. Council may wish to postpone
action pending completion of new wells and related
distribution system; or until the General Plan update or
Airport Area Specific Plan have received preliminary council
review and/or approval.
3. Deny the annexation. The annexation area can be expected
to develop at a slightly reduced intensity under county
standards, due to the lack of urban services and the
additional lot area required for on-site waste disposal,
runoff detention, and wells. Esthetics and needed public
improvements may continue to be a problem under county
development standards. The City will not realize any
increased revenues from new commercial development in the
area, despite the fact that it appears to be part of the
city and is within the market area for the growing Edna-
Islay neighborhood.
4. Continue action to date certain. Council may wish to
continue the item to a date certain to allow staff to
address specific concerns.
RECOMENDATION
Adopt the attached resolutions and ordinance to amend the General
Plan and pre-zone the annexation area, and to initiate annexation
proceedings with LAFCo.
"����►�Ni�lllllll���° ���ll city of san tuts oBispo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Staff Report
Page 16
ATTACHMENTS
Draft Resolutions
Draft Ordinance
Vicinity Map
Exhibit "A" - General plan amendment, GP/R 1261
Exhibit "B" - Pre-zoning map
Exhibit "C" - Draft Land Use Element Update map
Exhibit "D" - County approved use program for Williams
Brothers project
Exhibit "E" - Proposed Annexation Map
Exhibit "F" - Proposed Annexation Legal Description
Exhibit "G" - Model Pre-Annexation Agreement
Planning Commission Minutes
NOTE: Available for review in the Council Reading File are:
(1. ) Draft Pre-Annexation Agreements for all property
owners; and
(2 . ) the annexation application.
1
RESOLUTION NO. (1992 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT MAP
FROM RURAL-INDUSTRIAL AND INTERIM CONSERVATION/OPEN SPACE TO
SERVICE-COMMERCIAL/LIGHT INDUSTRIAL IN THE BROAD STREET ANNEXATION AREA,
3800 BROAD STREET, (GP/R 1261) .
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the City Council have
held public hearings on this amendment in accordance with the
California Government Code; and
WHEREAS, the amendment comes to the City Council upon the
favorable recommendation of the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has certified the Final EIR for the
Broad Street Annexation and potential environmental impacts of the
annexation and general plan amendment have been evaluated in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the
City's Environmental Guidelines.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
resolves as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings.
1. The proposed general plan amendment is consistent with other
elements and policies of the General Plan, and with the Edna-
Islay Specific Plan.
2 . The proposed general plan land use designation is appropriate
at this location, and will be compatible with surrounding
land uses.
Council Resolution No. (1992 Series)
Page 2
3 . The proposed general plan amendment will not be detrimental
to the health, safety, or welfare of persons living or working
on the site or in the vicinity of the project site.
SECTION 2 . Environmental Determination. The City Council has
considered the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Broad
Street Annexation which addresses the proposed general plan
amendment, and determined that the Final EIR complies with the
California Environmental Quality Act and the City' s Environmental
Guidelines, and has certified the Final EIR, including mitigation
measures and monitoring program as specified in Council Resolution
No. 8023 (1992 Series) .
SECTION 3. Map Amendment. The General Plan Land Use Element
map is hereby amended from Rural-Industrial and Interim
Conservation/open Space to service-Commercial/Light Industrial, as
shown in Exhibit "A. " The Community Development Director shall
cause the change to be reflected on maps on display and published
by the city.
On motion of seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
YES:
NOES:
ABSENT:'
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day
of , 1992 .
3/�
Council Resolution No. (1992 Series)
Page 3
Mayor Ron Dunin
ATTEST:
City Clerk, Pam Voges
APPROVED:
r
Cit Adminis ative fficer
t tto ne
G-r
Communi 6y
Development Director
3�9
-S-
t:•f:•'::ii:'S':�::jY:i[:�••iili ;+jj+i:•:.':ij::.:'i::'r:. '
+ : 1.
2i1
__.�_•_=_ :;i•;;':�.•'.y ;e ii=;;r: r"SN;' ryfry;';'�'�''�'�'NV�- C
..,..•'':ihfe:�%r+�:�Y.`Iji;j;:� J CLP � .
N �fP
a-N-SP
GP/R 1261
VICINITY MAP
. " -�� - Y,'�J9s7i�j�U"��'y��s`��J�'!+Y;_'a r{, .y�}•f{iti};kf:�:;�F;�:' _ _ ,�•
2'� . __ -�_ Y;�3< 3 � D ti, .r{nr':S'.},.::.yr h •,4 y ___ _ __ _ _
_ h
•N
R;:.. �._ .- ~- ' -r-r - J:�r;y r-'ah' S7 i•�a, r/��..r.: r: -_ _-_ _ •,: .. :?;,,�`•:•%';'s
t 3•' ,
r','M.. �'_Iw!'►?1�3!+rU 7- _ jD',�,.)1i...{,,,�+iYv'.a,'�''t' �;�� �'':��.�•'^•.'. - _ i. '_S i.l. ')J%Ji";�',:'•:'S
OR
j.
\�_� ��_ �� v r�!Ji;Y:\• - _ 1`iJ� l �;}:moi? .(:•'1��•y..
Amend General Plan from Rural- =_
Industrial and Interim Conserva- _ -
'`'' tion en Space to Service-Com-
mercial/Light Industrial
........::::::
c :W_-Z:,
.. r
a y7'it'I* .T'�e, =517-1 .+i•�'r R''L• S,'M •T �r)•alr
YLr i g r h :ate• c ;},'' f.G' �"rl
fa•r,.�s.
'Gly"g" �r � � 'vi„� r�,:,e moi•
-�t rr�t, .:J a•�J �4y�y vey.r �i�vray�y.��`
Y eFkr i"raj T�C�y/` `P�y rs,ry� •fS,._' '^•'l!T a•' ^h �2r\..:
,cy� r..n' f•^ 'J�ygq
,'-Yt�_�:yR �� �t." Ti+^
r: `...�{:..+riutvt :!°...'v.�Y1.'✓,4,•'�a,�i=,ii.>•,'y'�ri ;�'I..Q�.•�"p��.],'��y�
j" e'.. :<'� .fC` �.. ,;r:4,1t�(,:,y_r>s.k'1S•y: :yf,�yt,�•Fv e*�'y.� �� ��� s3
��. Ct':• rr..r s4 - /f•.,.. . M Y:;�., G• crr-t:.:..1'L <r L.�'
`�r.t•*. R`,f•�sy'N•.Cc'�('iJ.r'S' `�' _ :'.�,k °6':•:.4.yr".:.:_ I.` .,-.•....,rr,,,p.�:: ,u�,,, y.�, (F`,�Z�4L r•G
i} Lct;;S+'r`R'F Ari; ,�f, -t';c W.• ._...e�j: .,I_ r ''.�•.I "�.hc`� "7•-i�•-c•Z•'t'�•
r 'r SCC�*O�r�A'�i'F r6�c •'"Fr:-.v+v.•�" -rr=+3Nr.,,:Ld:'}.. ®`'. � �:d.t�';',. r���(�r•.y+r���`-t�,�:�'T�••
•� ,.���,C. Yya• c ^. +v .:f.. .I']!y4'K.:rrry f,�:h f•`�'.f'';r�;
Z: �, i.. _yr• r.Ci
per".. r :'S,C...::. "+r+:.:i:6y::'-.4 •Y`s'T •�,,��.,�e�r�J.`. r'•' �n frr �"r G ..n r. :•rrCT.`<'r rA_•. !T�(� •
< cf;• f":' r.,t 1 r '' t.1:...: - •'6': �T- •ri.'.: ff rr(�..`Y-.T
S,T fi'rac�^r' Y.
r 7�-� 1. rfi�T�'ST�4. £.C`�r ,A'^r,(' i:. ..- +,?.�..�:t._r.�^a�' r••.
•L r r rr 'r �• !Y'F£ r1 ,r t� • + ••-rl (.r� rT
�i� in / ( s rte'', . . - I � .M1.e .(1•�'r, ..
^•� '�r•tryf�"��C�.t'j`.f�lr4.,T7�C�r'rt'r rx rYl�C4ri4�r Tt'C�++.}�t'+['I'v-K'`f`:•.. �I�-n(-n rx r,[(CCtf} ;' ��I r(:i'1`i�rr'()r'::L t•i(+!•C'a
fi;F.f �t�yi°r n.,�}{'fY��c�n:y*��.ri'' .��� �t;'•tN`,;,1'"Cr.rFv�.:afs r:r'.�'['r sit*' r�.;r:.'. �-r �'r•� r.n• •+'.
.. /C C�•(ry,- lr:t+ C r per, � f'••� rr,•S/Lys. Ch"f`GI.. R%-,.r• � o 'i'_.r.. G�`. r r4.,
:fi'+ r r ? T r !f::.rr of-r�ieY R"`r7y L(5L'�{, r � r.•r•`iF�
� I r,S •!•: rr�:y- �r t. �1�0'. J ��. r..,.r�' rr(tr. p'. �. f (,,r (-
y S'C. S'((��\- r'� � r((�� �. �..ar�.1'`�C.�m. }�ti".r rki4f^-.r- rv. rt+ 'f r. .c.r. rr•fl]':r.f•.t r�:
S tort r�ir�•`rrt:f.�4 C-+�' t. r`�5+i"!�ri� L.�Prr.'.rte hi(�-V:(•,�.T• �'-:':.1+• r7',' r•i+�'y '!rr�K`• of r. ,,;,..._,r...-n
�i+ iyl:.rF.f'.••. :1:'j��'r C T`i m.�.r r� C,rP�rw_ ':t(�r�: ��C'F�'i• r`rr..:•f f�.-' �Y"5�...L�.,I .Y, I rY.�
rt�rStr �.T•-r YYY•�:,.�' 4 •7 r eY...t j': L�\ '7::
�'r-. •• r.r�' r .w.YJ,:r. ,f Ftr••, r r4it�•♦' 'r�r �( �.. 'I!`
. .,C Y. Y.h:: r�. Rrr:Lr(�,�;�f•�rjr.�•�F-;�'1[��; '•t';r��`�:.:..
7A^ < f•
cd
r^.I'Y'ff T'�'•�6�'!Y r�TtsfC 1• `r r-�`.Y r�
EnEal
planlanO use
$ 1 . oo = BOUND
PUBLIC ••;,- ). +• CONSERVATION/OPEN SPACE --- CITY LIMIT
a vta,ery of categones Most we Areas marled for conservat orVapen space are to ne
e: preselvetl gererally n then natural stale or n agr,cultum All ■tft�t� URBAN RESER\
t ;JH-Jl ligh,HS-Senor Nuhn other uses wollo not be ruled out but generally would be The hnvt of patenuel urban I
c9bQC P-POlce Station,N-HOSPUd hmLed to Iaw-n+pact recrea4anal aCtiv2leS Such as maing
stable..Cres(areas ere Protected m uve cau,•liry but M. ,6XWOLM1111 DEVELOPMENT
scale of tho map does not PCrrnL graPnc retr-t:yentat,an T',•s The tantlmy bemoan Core
a to be a roncentrauon of gwa,n des,grwuor,nckroes prwate anal JX06C land', dasgvrted far coat tae re•
offices Pka Conpauble,Caresses.
INTERIM CONSERVATION/ �� MAJOR EDCPANI
OPEN SPACE Larger areas of enter+tal.
Z/Is TINS a Ile desi nt.m ren areas witch wni, outside clte present rAY 1rn:
106res cultural eas bm s m 046. aP g' x.apt npe,• - before developrner t ran pro
I tvmrerelel areas bes�oes um aa:a uloar*:etwn a apr'un-.LP.sucn;,:.;re ey:,�ns�on areae„�;
S,de the orm;enL C4,Inrm , SIcc11.0 p,'Opm,d,'pr:M1ee1f••'•-••.
must be aUpraved alun,:w,Lh Of!'LFW Je to an n,Len Lt,v i b.,•
ous"t-o+
nasty and hegnbornood use ure t-:-- RURAL-INOUSTRIAL EXHIBIT A
1{ Ttis tt""u 6 apd'ad to mese-nate vtpustry 1e msetl
ORDINANCE NO. (1992 Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
TO AMEND THE OFFICIAL ZONE MAP TO PREZONE APPROXIMATELY 78 ACRES
IN THE BROAD STREET ANNEXATION AREA (GP/R 1261) .
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the City Council have
held hearings to consider appropriate zoning for the proposed
annexation area in accordance with Section 65800 et. seq. of the
California Government Code; and
WHEREAS, the proposed zoning has been evaluated in accordance
with the California Environmental Quality Act and the City's
Environmental Impact Guidelines, and a Final EIR has been certified
for the project; and
WHEREAS, the proposed zoning promotes the public health
safety, and general welfare of the Citizens of San Luis Obispo;
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
as follows:
SECTION 1. Zoning Map Designations. That the annexation area
be zones as C-S-PD, C-S-S, and M-S as shown on the map attached
hereto, marked Exhibit "C" , and included herein by reference. This
pre-zoning becomes effective upon the date of final city council
action on the annexation.
SECTION 2 . Planned Development (C-S-PD) Requirements.
Development and land uses on lots 91 and 92 , zoned C-S-PD, shall
be regulated by the San Luis Obispo County-approved use permit
(G860522 : 1A) and development plan (D860154D) for the Williams
Brothers Shopping Center; moreover, said use permit and development
are incorporated into this ordinance by reference, and are attached
hereto and marked Exhibit "D. "
30?�
Ordinance No. (1992 Series)
Page 2
SECTION 3. Special Considerations Zoninci. Lots 92 through 95,
98 through 100, and 1 through 4 , inclusive are designated with the
Special Considerations (S) overlay zoning to address the following
land use concerns:
1. Regulation of vehicular access to Broad Street (State Highway
227) , including common access provisions and special frontage
design measures to improve traffic safety.
2 . To allow the city to secure necessary public improvements
concurrent with new development, including but not limited to:
utility extensions or improvements, frontage improvements and
street trees, street improvements and traffic signal
installation, Sacramento Drive extension to Orcutt Road,
street lighting, and fire hydrants.
3 . To address area-wide drainage problems and the need for a
coordinated approach to handling storm runoff, through on-
site area regional detention basins; or through participation
in an Airport Area drainage assessment district.
4 . To insure land use compatibility and appropriate land use
buffers on lots 98, 99 , and 100 in accordance with the city's'
Edna-Islay Specific Plan land use policies.
5. To insure the safe, orderly, and attractive development of
properties within the annexation area, consistent with timing
and availability of water and sewer services and the
infrastructure necessary to serve the new development.
SECTION 4. Environmental Determination. The City Council has
certified the project's Final EIR, and based on its review,
determined that the Final EIR for the Broad Street Annexation
adequately addresses the potential significant environmental
impacts of the proposed annexation and pre-zoning, and incorporates
mitigation measures and monitoring program into the project,
pursuant to Council Resolution No. 8023 (1992 Series) .
SECTION 4. Zoning Map Amendment. The Community Development
Director shall amend the Zoning Map to pre-zone the annexation are
�3�3
Ordinance No. (1992 Series)
Page 3
as shown in Exhibit "B. "
SECTION 5. Publication. This ordinance, together with the
names of councilmembers voting for and against, shall be published
once in full, at least (3) days prior to its final passage, in the
Telegram-Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this
city. This ordinance shall go into effect at the expiration of
thirty (30) days after its final passage.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED TO PRINT by the Council of the City
of San Luis Obispo at its meeting held on the day of
1992 , on motion of ,
seconded by and on the following roll call
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor Ron Dunin
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED:
Ci inistr ive Off ' cer
tM�rF
Communi Devel ment Director
vii iiiii. //. \ /i // . / / i / ! . .r :• . �r :' i i r '�/ /
•rrr/r/r+ / / %
.rrrr/rrr
\.
EXHIBIT C
+++/. ,+.. .,• r..:rrrr....
rr/+..../++..r+urrr
rru rrr - +rrrrrrrrrr.rrrr r.rrr.• •rrr / / / /// ///
rr++ii++rrr+ur�4/
..rrrr � .rrrr
..rrrr
r++r ..rrrr rr
1.4
• \\\\\ \\ __ __ __ - \ /+ /// / rrrr r++'/ /// /
I \`.\\\\\ \\\ --- -- + r/,.rrrr\\\\\\ ■
.rrrr
\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\
- _ \\\\\\\\\•, �.`\ \\\\\\•.\\\ \ •,\\\ TANK
®RAPT LUE MAP
i
- - - - --------- - -- ---
GENERAL PLAN
LAND USE MAP \\\\
OPEN SPACE, PARKS A RECREATION COMMERCIAL
— —�--\ Caweraadwopm apace:Law b.W Ndghbwboed:Buatcessae serving and
\ mainopan lwttte prateednn,aw,Wen• compatible wide nearby Musing. W
\ arenot u n and rawalia.a Wnga us maw m Yldiridud celpnbernoed•
are not Mown on Ince map.eat wade ata wrvtrrp bloirresa ,
r.:Ininwucobpo7.TM OponSpeeetw
on \ \
mod n dotallTh map
or,dtewwaw
n mere w104 7M nup nn pro
side Mow,land-usswtegwm w"00
larger punning was podrnoulg). II��II� TmulsC Businesses which primarily
III W lll�� wants VoW s and baYallan,
-: T; Intulm span apses: b a lwW hold �•.\\• i
jspan un41 undo dswlaprnam is sppro-
1/ r
L./1 \ _
General Reull:Depanntem 610.06,ePa.
eWry uwes,W sarlrka,such as buds �■� /'��,■ ■ i`/
and rosteuanu.
Rot., er;'Pub" prlcatery arced r�
` \•\ mnatim brd was.colt outdoors or
\\. \
Ina pwY Wong.
1.?.:a'11.'u•
ONlecs:PrabsebW and financial wrv•
kea
Part:PWdkry stood paha.
Servtewa r manulaswrug: Business /
wrvkes,wndosYYrp ontl Wer d Wgo
coins,and Gplu manufacturing. /
RESIDENTIAL
r �-+ Rural Industrial:Fanning,tsweadbit,w
Rued:Houses onvry largeleu,n■IgG It ♦N,\\\,,,,,
luthat uAdecided,beyond!t WYYias. lew•bMonly indudlid uses reading lou \,\\\'•\\,\,\�
/ r of apnea,bre ro city urJdiaa
Subwhan:Hour an lupe lou.beyond .,\„ \,,,,,,,,•.,v.
PUBLIC ,,..\.....,,.•.,.
cuy uwnY wrvrco.
Covernmonl IasglUes:F Fate Sutton; �'•'
O
asrto7 tlnacMp Matran arts
up lo7 rollings pct"we.
....
OTHER SYMBOLS '
■■■■■■e Urban rawve grra: The boundary \
p ♦,`.,,,,,\♦ deeded tlwcllirrp,roto yrde;upb tg fuss bolwon uow appropriate Ier urban /\
development W won b remain in
A
bcoam dr atlings Per cera '
omurd :\
cpspca anJruses. \\\ \ \
sladeuaY)rlgn dwWy:Anccrted dvo6 rear• •
ocSpecific punales:A sgwd'w pun has
Won nopoletl or N required-a New
%.uplk1gnc.borord"dg,padowod... uass. A spociie plan n a evy
dos,n UtewugurW uws.roatls,uoLL
the omFolandante,m.bu,,Inmo poodwtnnn \�
su general plots,dew nti n proclwry y �'•• \
,ubdrvi,ion w construction puna
n/Iwul :AnoeMddiwWn p _.—.—.—._ City limit:The boundary W the uo wb i
`- W m:u w
lee,W cry sorwrg and potentially eggu.la
'+:::•• ^i Mtlream Oatseilrga Pus aces.
.C•F',117 =•.•c Iw airy uuniae end sorvicea
e::••-
...,\Sc:.,,,�
..• Special deign was: A Place
nuar whets
der,clopmena
un,subject
may pedal ssvaral rypw �•
of un,as p proceed cialdoalgn rseWrs
mems u upldwd n sir Lentl Use Els '
monl I.M. r
PLANNING C01VISSION JUNE 25, 1987
D860154D PAGE 5
EXHIBIT D860154D:A
1. Approved uses: (See attached Exhibit G860522:IA for detailed description)
a. This approval authorizes a shopping center , of approximately
135,000 square feet, which may be occupied by uses as defined by
San Luis Obispo Urban area standard 2 for Commercial Service
without further Development Plan, approval, unless a subsequent
' Land Use Element amendment prohibits any such use.
b. The existing Farmer's Market may continue as approved until
construction displaces the use. Port construction renewal of the
Farmer's Market will require Minor Use Permit approval.
. 2. Review of specific proposed uses: Proposed specific uses of the
structures shall be subject to review and approval of the chanSt. In
building occupancy by the Building and Safety Division of the Planning
Department prior to issuance of a business license. Proposed us#-s
shall also be subject to the review and approval of the Development
Review Section of the Planning Department to determine conformity ..wit;i
applicable Land Use Element planning area standards, Land Use
Ordinance requirements, and conditions of this approval. Uses that
individually, or cumulatively with outer uses, necessitate additional
parking spaces or site improvements other than constructed under this
Development Plan approval shall install such improvements subject to
Planning Department approval prior to establishment or issuance of a
business liccense for the use.
. 3. Approved site plan and required changes. Site development shall be
consistent with a revised site plan to be submitted to the Development .
?eview Section- of the Planning Department for ' review and approval
before application for a building permit. The revised plan shall
indicate the following:
a. renting around the retarding basin and drainage channel shall he
slatted chain-link, six feet high. The fencing shall accomodate
the find basic design and approximately follow the southern
property line from five feet west of the corner near Sacramento
Drive to the parking spaces across from building I; and be set
three feet back from the curbing from that point to the southwest
corner of building H; and from the east side of building H to five
feet from the eastern property line and return to the point of
beginning.. The areas where the fence is set back Erom the curb
and along Sacramento Drive shall be planted in vines or shrubs to
block the view of the fence and at least one access gate shall he
provided Ear basin maintenance.
i
EXHIBIT D
v
PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 25, 1987
D860154D PAGE 6
4. Site grading. Submit grading, sedimentation and erosion control, and
drainage plans prepared by a registered civil engineer and Ln
accordance with the requirements of Section 22.05'.024, 22.05.0239
22.05.036 and 22.05.044 of the county Land Use Ordinance to the
Planning Department for review and approval and obtain an approved
grading permit before the start of grading or issuance of grading and
building permits. If so required, review of the plan shall be subject
to. an inspection and checking agreement with the Engineering
Department. The drainage plan shall address existing run off as well
as increases resulting from new site development.
5. Landscaping plans. Submit landscape, irrigation, and landscape
maintenance plans as required by Sections 22.04.180 through 22.04.186
of the Land Use Ordinance to the Development Review Section of the
Planning Department for review and approval before issuance of a
buiding permit or establishment of the use. The plans shall provide
for the following:
a. Low growing planting along the Broad Street frontage and within 50
feet of the property corners near the street intersections.
b. Trees at an average of 25 feet on center along the remainder of
the property street frontage.
c. Multi—leveled landscaping including trees in the interior
landscaped areas.
6. Landscaping installation. Landscaping in accordance with the approved
landscaping plan shall be installed or bonded for before final
building inspection. The areas shall be landscaped in phases
generally around each building as it is completed. If bonded for,
landscaping shall be installed within 60 days of final inspection and
thereafter maintained in a viable condition on a continuing basis.
7. Signs and lights. Signs and lighting shall be consistent With a
revised sign and lighting plan to be 'submitted to the Development
Review SectioA of the Planning Department for review and approval
before application for a building permit. The revised plan shaLl
include the following changes:
a. Buildings B, D, E and J shall have no more than one wall sign for
each shop except corner shops may have two signs if they have
public entrances on two building faces.
b. All signs shall be at least 10 feet from the property, lines.
x--Hi
PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 25, 1987
D86015 4D PAGE 7
c. The sign on the rear of building C shall be no larger titan 24
square feet.
'i. Sign G at the corner of Broad and Capitolio shall be moved south
approximately 170 feet.
e. Parking lot and exterior building lighting shall be located and
shall be directed downward.
8. Phasing plan. The applicant shall submit a revised phasing plan to
the Development Review Section for review and approval showing the
anticipated order buildings will be constructed along with the parking
and landscaping to be completed prior to final inspection for each
building.
9. Approved architectural design. Building architecture shall be
consistent with the approved architectural elevations.
10. Connection to community water and sewer required. The project shall
be connected to the community water and sewer systems.
11. Proof of water and sewer service. Submit evidence frm the city of San
Luis Obispo indicating that the agency is willing and able to provide
water and/or sewer service to the project prior to issuance of
building or grading permits.
12. Required road improvements. The following road improvements shall be
constructed under an inspection and checking agreement and
encroachment permit issued by the county Engineering Department and
Caltrans to be completed or bonded for prior to issuance of a building
Ipermit:
i
Capitolio flay shall be designed and built to County Engineering
specifications for a three land street near the Broad Street
intersection. The plans shall be submitted to the city of San
i Luis Obispo for comments on compatability with their existing
I street improvements. Offers of dedication necessary to provide
Ithese improvements shall be provided to the County Engineer.
! 13. Curb, gutter and sidewalk. Install concrete curb, Sutter, and
sidewalk. and street paveout on all street frontages of the subject
site under an encroachment permit issued by the county Engineering
Department and Caltrans. Plans for the required improvements shall be
prepared by a registered civil engineer and submitted for review anti
approval under an inspection and checking agreement with the county
Engineering Department and Caltrans prior to issuance of a bui-iing
permit.
EXHIBIT
23029
8 - 7
PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 25, 1987
D860154D PAGE 8
14. Improvement plans and checking. Improvement and other plans required
by conditions no. 14 and 15 shall be prepared in accordance with the
San Luis 'Obispo County Standard Improvement Specifications and
Drawings by a registered civil engineer and submitted to the county
Engineering Department for review and . approval under inspection and
checking agreements. The applicant's engineer, upon completion of the
improvements, must certify to the county Engineering Department that
the improvements are made in accordance with the approved plans.
15. Encroachment permits required. Obtain an encroachment permit from
Caltrans and lengthen the left .turn pocket on Broad Street north of
Capitolio Way by 200 feet before issuance of a building permit'. --
16.
ermit'. "16. Traffic signal participation. Prior to final building inspection the
applicant shall deposit a bond with the city of San Luis Obispo for 25
percent of the cost of installing a turn signal at the intersection of
Capitolio Way and Broad Street.
17. Shared access driveway. The applicant shall execute an agreement to
cooperate on a shared entrance/exit onto Broad Street with the
developer of Lot 92 to the south. This agreement shall provide for
access easements, if necessary, and be in a form acceptable to County
Counsel.
,18. Verification of utility easements. Site plans shall be reviewed by
Pacific Gas and Electric Company. Provide the Development Review
Section of the Planning Department with a letter or other verification
that this project does not conflict with any of their easements and
that proper provisions have been made for siting of electrical
equipment, such as transformers and underground liens.
19. Fire protection. Before final building inspection or establishment of
the use, comply with all Eire protection requirements from the county
fire department.
Airport Land Use Plan Related Conditions
20. Unreflective materials to be used in buildings and signs where
reflection would cause a flying hazard.
21. Soundproofing where appropriate to reduce noise to acceptable level
according to State guidelines.
22. No electro-magnetic transmissions which would interfere with operation
or aircraft.
23. All bulk storage of volatile or flammable liquid to be underground.
24. The property owner shall grant an avigation easement to the county of
San Luis Obispo via an avigation easement document prepared by the
county. The avigation easement document shall be reviewed and
approved by County Counsel prior to issuance of a building permit.
HD/d rt/3413T.
EXHIBIT
'Vol-
yr
FEBRUARY+26, 1987
6860522:1 PAGE 6
PLANNING COMMISSION
EXHIBIT G860522:1A
Amend the San Luis Obispo Area Plan of the county General Plan to revise
Commercial Service planning area standard no. 2 for the San Luis Obispo
urban area as follows:
Corner of Broad Street and Capitolio Way. The following standards apply
only to the parcels at the southeast corner of Broad Street and Capitolio
Way, extending east to Sacramento Way (Amended 1983, Ord. 2133).
2. Limitation on Use. Allowable uses are limited to the following: animal
husbandry services; nursery specialties; broadcasting studios; apparel
and finished products; food and kindred products; furniture and
fixtures; printing and publishing; small scale manufacturing; building
materials and hardware (totally enclosed within a building); EATING AND
DRINKING PLACES (NOT INCLUDING BARS, FACILITIES FOR DANCING OR OTHER
ENTERTAINMENT, DRIVE-IN RESTAURANTS OR REFRESHMENT STANDS); food and
beverage retail sales; furniture, home furnishings and equipment;
general merchandise store (limited to department stores, variety
stores, drug and discount stores, florists and houseplant stores) ; mail
order and vending; service stations; business support services (totally
enclosed within a building); laundries and dry cleaning services;
personal services; public safety facilities; consumer repair services;
accessory storage; warehousing; and wholesaling and distribution, in
accordance with Table 0, Allowable Uses, Part I of the Land Use Element
(Amended 1983, Ord. 2133).
DL/ND/sb/8187j
IIT E.,
33/
31n :u:u
If
wo
li. r r CIS
S! I i:' rr :1 !! -•'s. alp .f� :.1'�• dmox 1 ;
~'\ . L Y:. Il -rr 1 -• y^ 5 e gig
14 w -e e
IL
_.=
S 'ii � .. :III Lc_ 1• Ilj a _i•'J r)��,''1i - 1- i el� � j 1
--._
�
�91;1 i �' �� _cam � :_ --=i�-?- lj�:-�•=� - ._!1 � .� �'�
it
_# '
77
i
.
_ .• ! - 222
Ir.ec if'r X°IN 7tracl , r• ---
it •f w � I � L
422eta mY°Ye
CII
e
7
YI \ \
j�3�2-
RESOLUTION NO. (1992 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF APPLICATION BY
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
REQUESTING THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION
TO TAKE PROCEEDINGS FOR THE BROAD STREET ANNEXATION
RESOLVED, by the City Council of San Luis Obispo, that:
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo desires to initiate
proceedings pursuant to the Cortese-Knox Local Government
Reorganization Act of 1985, commencing with Section 56000 of the
California Government Code, for the Broad Street Annexation; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the City Council have
held public hearings on the proposed annexation; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and certified the Final
Environmental Impact Report for the Broad Street Annexation by
Resolution No. 8023 (1992 Series) , pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act and the City's Environmental Guidelines;
and
WHEREAS, on recommendation of the Planning Commission and as
a result its deliberations, the City Council has amended the
General Plan Land Use Map and pre-zoned properties located in the
annexation area as shown in Exhibit "B" ; and
WHEREAS, City Council approval is a prerequisite for the San
Luis Obispo County Local Agency Formation Commission to initiate
formal annexation proceedings;
WHEREAS, notice of intent to adopt this resolution of
application has been given to each interested and each subject
agency; and
3-33
Council Resolution No. (1992 Series)
Page 2
WHEREAS, the territory proposed to be annexed is uninhabited,
and a description of the boundaries of the territory is set forth
in Section 2 ; and
WHEREAS, this proposal is consistent with the sphere of
influence of the affected city; and
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL
AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Findings.
1. Annexation is appropriate since the site is contiguous to the
City if San Luis Obispo on its north, south and east sides.
2. The annexation area is already partially served by city
services, and is a logical addition to the city due to its
location and existing development.
3 . The annexation area is within the Airport Area Specific
Planning Area, and is being jointly planned by the City and
County of San Luis Obispo.
4. County Land use approvals in the proposed annexation area have
allowed development of a scale and intensity comparable to
development in the adjacent incorporated area.
5. The proposed annexation will promote high quality development
at a visually prominent gateway to the City.
6. The proposed annexation will promote the health, safety, and
welfare of persons residing or working within orin the
vicinity of the annexation area by providing urban services,
including water and sewer service, city police and fire
protection, and general city government services.
SECTION 2. Annexation Area Described. The Broad Street
Annexation shall consist of that area, covering approximately 78
acres, bounded by Capitolio Way on the north, Sacramento Drive on
the east, Tank Farm Road on the south, and Broad Street (State
Highway 227) on the west, including all of Lots 91, 92 , 93, 94 , 95,
Council Resolution No. (1992 Series)
Page 3
96, 98, 99, 100, and a portion of Lots 82 , 83 , 84, 85, 86, 87, and
90 of the San Luis Obispo Suburban Tract, south of the City of San
Luis Obispo, in the County of San Luis Obispo, as recorded in Book
1 of Records of Survey, at Page 92 , and State Route 227 (Broad
Street) , as shown and more particularly described in Exhibits "E"
and "F" attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein.
SECTION 3. Council Recommendation. The City Council
recommends that the Local Agency Formation Commission approve the
proposed annexation subject to property owner compliance with city
requirements regarding environmental mitigation and public
improvements as described in Table 2-2 of the project's Final EIR,
in accordance with California Government Code Section 56844 et.
sea. , pursuant to Council Resolution No. 8023 (1992 Series) , and
pursuant to the pre-annexation agreements between annexation area
property, owners and the City,
SECTION 4. Authorization to Staff to Begin Negotiations.
The Chief Administrative Officer and Community Development Director
are authorized to submit application and fees, begin negotiations
for transfer of property tax revenue, and to cooperate with
property owners, Local Agency Formation Commission, and San Luis
Obispo County staff to allow formal annexation proceedings to
progress in an orderly and timely manner.
SECTION S. Implementation. The City Clerk shall forward a
copy of this resolution, General Plan and pre-zoning actions,
Council Resolution No. (1992 Series)
Page 4
environmental documents, and all pertinent supporting documents to
the Local Agency Formation Commission and property owners within
the annexation area.
NOW, THEREFORE, this Resolution of Application is hereby
adopted and approved by the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo, and the Local Agency Formation Commission of San Luis
Obispo County is hereby requested to take proceedings for the
annexation of territory as described in Section 2 and as shown in
Exhibits "E" and "F" , according to the terms and conditions stated
above and in the manner provided by the Cortese-Knox Local
Government Reorganization Act of 1985.
On motion of seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted thisday of
1992 .
Mayor Ron Dunin
ATTEST:
Pam Voges, City Clerk
Council Resolution No. (1992 Series)
Page 5
APPROVED:
Cit Ad iinis-trlitivLv Office
1 t me
CommunityDevelopment Director
Publi works Director
Utilities Director
_337
L
tA > �
N � 1
CG =
arou wuvd MNV1
O J1'aL i3 r,.Ira
1 O —
ti .:
y
C
8 e ^� n c
C7%
�+ 9
f
CM
C4 3
COi CIO a.n O
cu
IA
t �y
'y V_
R
f fW ¢ E X
_$ r
Q ivx � �sFf,t� • <..
J P
6 ]N J
• (� .. ti r� . r
3`.c E IZ.` a• 4d i � 'P
• -_-� ZiS x Z �a-,fie �, <� ';:` ,,�' �:� �
—_—�0 1N3W35V3 '3'8.7d 09 v'
c !
ro
d v_ y
/>a VA ® s v
ro
AYM
0I1011dVO
O 1
V♦ Vi♦ fl. a I
I � m
Eq
O I
I. � MIT
h: 1
`V
EXHIBff
3 38
Ila+o � IA
Z O] m
O`O 7N
O O r N yM
I • K= nQ
1 O O y$
3 in 2Z m'
Jm
LL z m
° GVOtl Wtl Vtl 11NV1 m WO wm
0
S.L 8'081 M.t0.60.s0s �. O� LLO�
CL
d
a a c t ao
^ 4 N 0
_O .06 :
V C O
ON
cnFL171
s. U :.. 1yyit(���III I
n^ it :.ii = co ° .�
to,
ieS 1 .4Se0L �`.E
o n
w S � �• Lm
d ° W a= ° C
s F C
C
y �• • a W 1 K. w.
V
U) 0Z 111 i. w` /
6 W 1� <W �'S q• \
t C6
F � ..
a
cr
zEll
{.
t 2 S m. T NNN : ai
Y Ij b Q T 1:,: 1
W O LL • IO1r O� S_' O_
z i e o — — — 'e..% I- 1N3W3SV3 3 9'J'd
a •.� � __ W.1 m O
Oa
.o e
1 1 o �.^
1 i Y 0 �w �• �. w"1 w VI
1 11 �y 'neooa :w Om a
wonI r� :: ae�ses.�:rel'•'4^NNe io S:I w
1000{nm. a•y� a P,
AVM
�
°
O1. a .�• «cl o
� y
W m
6 z I = ♦ 1
.,
1_ U)
EX]4f]R -Frr
-- December 30, 1991
PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Ali of Lots 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 98, 99, 100, and a portion of
lots 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, and 90, and the of Industrial Way
right-of-way of the SLO Suburban Tract as recorded in Book 1 of
Records of Survey, at Pg. 92, and State Route 227 (Broad Street) ,
more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at the most easterly corner of said Lot 100, said
corner being a corner of the existing City limits (per
Industrial Annexation of May 1960) ; thence South 65009104"
West (bearings per 11 Maps 53) along the dividing line of
Lots 100 and 101, also being the existing City limits line a
distance of 789 . 97 feet more or less to the most southerly
corner of Lot 100; thence continuing South 65009104" West a
distance of 94. 00 feet more or less to the westerly right-
of-way line of State Route 227 as widened by the State of
California; thence North 11°11'45" West along said State
right-of-way (bearings per State right-of-way map) a distance
of 64. 00 feet more or less to a point that is 55. 00 feet left
of the State centerline at State Station 199+85; thence
continuing along said State right-of-way North 24000100" West
a distance of 611.22 feet; thence continuing along said State
right-of-way on a curve to the right with a radius of 7055
feet through an angle of 07018100" for a length of 898 .87
feet; thence continuing along said State right-of-way North
16042100" West a distance of 753'.72 feet; thence continuing
along said State right-of-way on a curve to the left with a
radius of 7945 feet through an angle. of 04048100" for a
length of 665. 60 feet; thence North 68030100" East a distance
of 15. 00 feet more or less to the old right-of-way line of
said State Route; thence North 21026103" West along old said
right-of-way a distance of 5. 00 feet more or less to the
existing City boundary (per Edna Road Annex #2) ; thence along
said City boundary North 67030100" East (bearings per Edna
Road Annex #2) 84 . 00 feet more or less to an angle- point on
the southerly right-of-way line of Capitolio Way; thence
continuing along said boundary and right-of-way line North
39002132" East a distance of 34. 04 feet; thence continuing
along said boundary and right-of-way line North 65010100 East
a distance of 168.25 feet; thence continuing along said
boundary and right-of-way line on a curve to the right with a
radius of 230 feet through an angle of 23004126" for a length
of 92. 62 feet; thence continuing along said boundary and
right-of-way line on a curve to the left, tangent to last
said curve, with a radius of 270 feet, through an angle of
23004126" for a length of 108.73 feet; thence continuing
along said boundary and right-of-way line North 65010100"
East a distance of 299. 66 feet to the westerly right-of-way
line of Sacramento Street (Old Pacific Coast Railroad right-
EXC IBIT F . . .?-4zo
of-way) being the most easterly corner of said Edna Road
Annex #2; thence along the existing City boundary and the
westerly right-of-way line of Sacramento Street, South
47025102" East (bearings per Public Streets Annex, Parcel C)
a distance of 1,314. 62 feet; thence continuing along said
boundary and right-of-way line on a curve to the right, with
a radius of 1402. 39 through an angle of 32012148" for a
length of 788 . 46 feet, more or less, to the most northerly
corner of Lot 97 of the San Luis Obispo Suburban Tract;
thence South 65010100" West (bearing per SLO Suburban Tract)
along the existing City boundary and the southerly line of
Industrial Way a distance of 700. 26 feet, more or less, to
the most northerly corner of Lot 98 ; thence South 24050100"
along the northeasterly lines of Lots 98, 99 and 100, the
existing City boundary, a distance of 990 feet, more or less,
to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
by
E X11 Mil 1 1T F
PREANNEXATION AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN
THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AND
(PROPERTY OWNER'S NAME)
This annexation agreement is made and entered into this day of
by and between the City of San Luis Obispo, a chartered municipal corporation, (hereinafter
referred to as "CITY"), whose address is 990 Palm Street, PO Box 8100, San Luis Obispo,
California 93403-8100; and (owner's name, legal status, and mailing address) (hereinafter
referred to as "OWNER"), pursuant to the authority of the City Charter and Section 56000 et.
seq. of the California Government Code. CITY and OWNER shall hereinafter be referred to
collectively as "PARTIES."
RECITALS
1. WHEREAS, (property owner name) is the owner in fee of certain real property
in County of San Luis Obispo, commonly known as (street address), (APN #),
further described in the attached Exhibit "A" and referred to herein as the
"subject property"; and
2. WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the proposed Broad Street
Annexation area, as shown in Exhibit "B"; and
3. WHEREAS, to provide for the City's orderly growth and development, consistent
with the General Plan, the PARTIES anticipate that the subject property will be
annexed to the City of San Luis Obispo pursuant to terms and procedures of the
California Government Code 56000 et seq;
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises, covenants and agreements stated
herein, PARTIES agree as follows:
1. URBAN SERVICES. Upon annexation, the property shall receive the full range of
City services, including but not limited to water and sewer services, police and fire
protection, and general government services, some of which are described below in
more detail:
• Water Service. CITY agrees to provide water service as available for fire fighting
and domestic purposes to the subject property upon request of OWNER, subject to the
same laws, rules, regulations and fees applicable to other new subscribers in the City
under similar circumstances, including but not limited to retrofit requirements. Use of
existing on-site ground water or other sources for potable and non-potable purposes may
continue, provided they met County standards in effect at the time of annexation. In
the event of abandonment or failure of well(s), OWNER shall comply with applicable
retrofit requirements of the City in effect at the time of abandonment or failure and may
continue to use on-site ground water or other sources as approved by CITY for non-
potable purposes only, including landscaping, irrigation and manufacturing.
• Sewer Service. CITY agrees to provide sanitary sewer service, as available, to the
subject property upon request of OWNER subject to the same laws, rules, regulations
and fees applicable to other new subscribers in the City under similar circumstances.
Use of existing on-site waste disposal systems which were legally installed under permit
from the County of San Luis Obispo may continue, provided they meet County
standards in effect at the time of annexation. If such systems are abandoned or fail to
meet County standards, connection to City sewer will be required.
• Fire Protection. All existing developments in the annexation area may retain existing
private fire protection and water supply systems provided they pose no threat to public
health and safety and which met County of San Luis Obispo standards in effect at the
time of annexation.
2. COMPLIANCE WITH CITY STANDARDS. Once annexed, the property will be
subject to the same rules, regulations, laws, and fees that would be applied to other
properties in the City under similar circumstances including, but not limited to Building
Code, Fire Code, Zoning Regulations, environmental regulations (California
Environmental Quality Act), fees, and other provisions of the Municipal Code and state
laws. Except as set forth in Exhibit "A," no fees or other requirements shall be
imposed as a condition of annexation.
3. PROPERTY D4PROVEMENTS. At the time of future development or
redevelopment, it shall be the responsibility of the property owner to install and pay for
improvements which may be required by permit, law, rule, regulation or mitigation
measures described in the Focused Environmental Impact Report for the proposed
Broad Street Annexation and referenced in Table 2-2 therein or in any subsequent
environmental determination, unless otherwise specified in the Focused Environmental
Impact Report (certified on June 16, 1992 by Resolution #8023 - 1992 Series).
4. TERM OF AGREEMENT. The annexation shall become effective upon the recording
by the County Recorder of a Certificate. The term of this Agreement shall begin upon
the effective date of the annexation. The Agreement shall remain in effect until
modified or terminated by mutual consent of the PARTIES. In the event the annexation
shall not become effective for any reason whatsoever, this agreement shall terminate
and have no force and effect as if it had never been entered into by the PARTIES.
5. SUCCESSORS, HEIRS AND ASSIGNS. This Agreement shall bind and inure to the
benefit of the heirs, successors, assigns and personal representatives of the PARTIES.
6. AMENDMENT, TIME EXTENSION OR CANCELLATION. This Agreement may
be amended, extended, or canceled at any time by mutual consent of the PARTIES or
their successors in interest.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement is executed on the date above stated at San
Luis Obispo, California.
OWNER
BY:
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, A Chartered Municipal Corporation
BY:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
DEPARTMENT APPROVALS:
City Administrative Officer
Utilities Director
Public Works Director
Community Development Director
Finance Director
Fire Chief
P.C. Minutes
July 8, 1987
Page 2
3 . General Plan Amendment Rezoning and Annexation GP/R 1261.
Consideration of annexing 78 acres to the city and amending the
Land Use Element map and zoning map to change the designations to
retail-commercial (C-R) , Neighborhood-Commercial (C-N) ,
service-commercial (C-S) , and manufacturing (M) ; 3800 Broad
Street; Southern California Gas Company, applicant.
Jeff Hook, Associate Planner, presented the staff report,
recommending that the commission review and consider the adequacy- of
the EIR, and recommend to the City Council approval of the general
plan and water management element amendments, annexation, and
prezoning of the area.
Chairperson Kourakis opened the public hearing.
Vic Montgomery of Richmond, Rossi, Montgomery, representative for
Southern California Gas Company, responded to the staff report and
supported staff's recommendation as the most logical way of
implementing the annexation. He questioned the requirement of
contributing towards the improvement of the South/Broad Streets
intersection given the distance between that intersection and the
proposed annexation area.
Regarding concerns with water allocation, Mr. Montgomery felt
priorities should be given to master plan projects such as Edna-Islay
which are presently underway. The properties involved in the
annexation should be subject to the same water allocation regulations
as other properties in the city.
Ned Rogoway, representative for 2503 Partnership, owners of Lot 92 ,
favored the annexation as the best way to provide city services for
the development of the property. Mr. Rogoway submitted a letter from
the property owners in support of the annexation. He noted the
intent for development of Lot 92 was for a large retail or
service-commercial use physically linked with the Williams Brothers
Shopping Center. In order to pursue their development plans, he felt
it will be necessary to have C-S-PD prezoning .rather than C-S-S as
proposed by staff. He noted that the property owners would oppose
the annexation if the C-S-PD zoning were not recommended.
Tom Courtney, representative for Williams Brothers Markets, supported
the annexation and concurred with staff's recommendation for a C-S-PD
zoning for the Williams Brothers property. He noted there presently
are no agreements between Williams Brothers and with the owners of
Lot 92 for the development of their property.
r
P.C. Minutes
July 8, 1987
Page 3
Jay Parsons, owner of Lot 2, requested clarification of the "S"
overlay zoning. He was concerned with major expenses attributable to
the annexation, such as improvements to Broad/South Streets and
Sacramento and Orcutt Road, fire hydrants, street lights, etc.
Chairperson Kourakis declared the public hearing closed.
In response to a question from Commr. Duerk, Jeff Hook indicated_ that
individual properties involved in the annexation would probably pay a
very small increment towards the total costs of improvement of the
Broad/South Street intersection.
The commission discussed general plan policies in this area and felt
there should be a more coordinated effort between the city and county
to provide consistency for allowed uses in the fringe area.
Commr. Crotser supported the annexation request, since the benefit to
the city far outweighed arguments against it. He moved to recommend
to the City Council amendment of the General Plan Land Use Element
and Water Management Element and prezone the annexation area as
outlined in Exhibit "C"_ in the staff report as recommended by staff.
Commr. Hainline seconded the motion.
Commr. Duerk was concerned with the water issue. She hoped some
mechanism could be worked out so that if allocation became a
necessity, that this annexation would not interfere with on-going
projects or those already in the city. She requested an amendment to .
the motion prezoning Lot 92 to C-S-PD as requested by the applir-.nt.
Commr. Crotser felt a "PD" overlay for Lot 92 was not appropriate for
as part of the annexation request, since it relates to a specific
project and preferred to follow staff's recommendation.
Chairperson Kourakis indicated she would be reluctant to support the
"PD" prezoning.
Commr. Gerety could not support the motion. He was not in favor of
using private well systems. He felt that if the properties were
annexed, they should receive full service from city water. Any
groundwater available for use should be developed by the city for
better control. He indicated that all properties should be _f.-r.cluded
in the annexation request; none should be exempted.
Commr. Schmidt felt providing water to the annexation area raises a
major question of equity and fairness to those already in the city
who are hoping rto develop their properties when allocation
regulations may be in effect. He felt property owners who have been
P.C. Minutes
July 8, 1987
Page 4
in the city should have first call on any available water. He also
questioned whether the amount of groundwater actually available 'was
enough to supply the area and what would happen if it ran out. He
felt that the request was not timely.
Commr. Crotser agreed that water was an issue but it was not so
critical as to outweigh other benefits from the annexation.
Chairperson Kourakis agreed with Commr. Crotser. She felt the two
crucial issues involved were water and long-term planning of the
city's boundaries. She agreed that the entire 78 acres should be
annexed at one time. She supported the motion.
VOTING: AYES: Commrs. Crotser, Hainline, Duerk, Kourakis
NOES: Commrs. Gerety, Schmidt
ABSENT: None (one vacancy)
Commr. Gerety indicated his no vote was not because he opposed the
annexation but because he was opposed to the use of private wells for
groundwater within the city.
The motion passes.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION
Michael Multari reviewed recent City Council actions.
Chairperson Kourakis indicated that a joint meeting between the City
Council and Planning Commission was being planned. A date for the
meeting would be forthcoming.
The meeting adjourned at 9: 20 p.m. to the next regular meeting
scheduled for July 22, 1987, at 7: 00 p.m. in the Council Chamber,
City Hall, 990 Palm Street.
Respectfully submitted,
Barbara Ehrbar
Recording Secretary
MErtNG AGENDA
Mi. 7-ar_9� ITEM # z
IIIIIJ► III�
city of sAn WIS OBISPO
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
COPIFSTO:
❑•Pwam Action FYI
July 20, 1992 12 on ❑ FIN.DUL
ACAO ❑ CHIEF
ATTORNEY IBJ AN DUL
�'CLERK/ORIG. ❑ POLICECFL
MGMr.TEAM ❑ REC DIR
Joe Browning ❑ READFILE ❑ LDIR
Valacal Company _Z; -
25201 Paseo de Alicia, Suite 200
Laguna Hills, CA 92653
t
Subject: Broad Street Annexation
Dear Mr. Browning:
City staff has reviewed the letters dated July 16, 1992 from Susan Erburu Reardon to City
Attorney Jeff Jorgensen and to County Counsel James Lindholm, respectively, regarding
the United Parcel Service's (UPS) concerns with an existing drainage problem in the
Broad Street Annexation area.
It is obvious from reviewing these letters that the problem, as defined by UPS, has a long
history under County jurisdiction and involves several other property owners. You
reference past litigation and strongly imply the potential for future litigation. You indicate
UPS's intention to protest the Broad Street Annexation "until either the County or the City
gives UPS a firm commitment to remedy those drainage problems . . .". You also state
that UPS will not enter into a preannexation agreement with the City until either the
County or the City agree to assume responsibility for correcting the drainage problems.
would like to respond to these points as follows:
1. As we have stated in previous correspondence, the Final EIR mitigation strategy
is based on the premise that it is new development, not annexation per se, that
triggers the need for environmental mitigation. Therefore,for most property owners
in the Broad Street Annexation area, no on-site or off-site capital improvements are
required with annexation. Instead, such improvements will be required in the
future when property either develops or redevelops, with the specific improvements
required dependent upon the nature of the development.
Likewise, the annexation and mitigation strategy are not designed to require a
variety of improvements to correct pre-existing problems or deficiencies, such as
the drainage problem outlined in your letters. However, the Final EIR does
recognize that drainage deficiencies do exist and will eventually need to be
addressed by property owners in the annexation area, either individually or jointly,
dependent upon the desires and level of cooperation existing among the property
owners. R E C F I V F D
JUL 2 0 1992
• CITY CLERK
�A" LL'f2_GB:L,'C. C.>
T �
Page 2
Browning - July 20, 1992
2. The drainage deficiencies described by UPS are clearly pre-existing in nature, and
will be neither improved nor worsened as a result of the annexation itself. In
addition, the history of this problem, as you have described it, clearly shows that
the City has played no role in creating the problem. Therefore, the City will not
agree to assume financial responsibility for correcting the problem in exchange for
UPS's agreement to support the annexation.
3. However, we recognize that UPS is experiencing a drainage problem, and one that
cannot be solved without the cooperation and involvement of others besides UPS.
While the City does not intend to assume financial responsibility for correcting the
drainage problem, we are willing to offer our assistance in both reducing the
immediate problem and in searching for a long term solution. With regard to some
immediate relief, the City would like to offer the following information:
As you noted, UPS is receiving more than its share of water from the area
which then creates problems on other properties. City Engineering staff
concurs that removal or closure of the street drain which leads to your
detention basin will significantly reduce the amount of storm water runoff
onto your property. Once the drain is blocked, additional crowning of the
street probably will not offer any added benefit to your property. Since
Sacramento Drive is a City street, the City is willing to take action to close
this drain permanently, pending a final analysis to confirm that this will have
no negative downstream impacts. At this point, we do not believe that it
will.
Maintaining a berm and ditch along Sacramento Street will assure that run-
off is directed to the creek until curbs and gutters are constructed along
Sacramento Drive northerly of your site. The creek currently receives storm
water from this area and its capacity should not be adversely affected as a
result of this action; water simply will reach the creek by way of the street
rather;than across neighboring properties. Recent inspection of the street
by'City Engineering staff shows that the existing berm and ditch along the
street is sufficient to do this and the City will maintain it so it functions
properly.
4. Once annexed, City staff would be willing to help evaluate drainage options and
mediate solutions among property owners. Although, it would be the property
owners' responsibility to pay for design and installation of any modifications to
properties to accommodate any on-site drainage solutions identified, all would
benefit from the professional expertise of the City's staff at no cost. Hopefully,
having a "neutral" parry to work with you in this problem solving effort would make
a mutual solution possible.
Page 3
Browning - July 20, 1992
5. If you wish to have more formal assurance of the City's intent to assist property
owners as outlined above, this letter can be included as an exhibit to your
preannexation agreement, should you choose to enter into such an agreement.
(As we have stated in a previous correspondence, the execution of a
preannexation agreement is a matter left solely to the discretion of the property
owner, and is not necessary to either demonstrate property owner support or for
the annexation to proceed.)
As you know, the City has worked long and hard with property owners in the Broad
Street Annexation area to secure their support for the annexation. We ask you to
reconsider your possible protest of the annexation since the failure of the annexation to
take place, in our opinion, will have no positive impact whatsoever on the problem you
have identified. In essence, it will simply mean that the status quo will continue. If
annexed, however, qualified City staff can be available to assist you and other property
owners in your efforts to reach a mutually satisfactory solution. This, of course, presumes
an atmosphere conducive to cooperation. We hope this can be achieved.
If you have any further questions, please contact Candace Havens at 544-3656.
Sincerely,
� G -
Ken Hampian
Assistant City Administrative Officer
KH:bw
BROWNING.LTR
C. Jeff Jorgensen
Jerry Kenny;
Wayne Peterson
Jeff Hook
Arnold Jonas
Susan Erburu Reardon
1 V TING AGENDA
op
Iu �T�M #3
GIBSON, DUNN 6 CRUTCHER JU_L-_1---7.1992 T
CENTURY CITY LAWYERS J•S.A.GIBSON.1e52•Ia22
csa c[N*uSY PLPI{ CAST W.C.OUNN,11161.1425
.CS ANGClC5. CALIFC SNI: a0067.3C26 333 SOUTH GRAND AV ENUE OFFICE OF- ALBERT CRyTC MC 9,11160.1411
CG:NGC CCUNYT LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071-3197 CITY RTTOP"Ey
1100 NC.PCAT C[-TCR ".'VC
NCW YORK
NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA LZee O-e295 (213) 229-7000 200 PARK AVENUE
SLCII NTO TCLEX:674930 GIBTRASK LS♦ NCW YORK,NEW YORK 1o1ea-CIS3
ADD CAPITOL MALL WASHINGTON
SLCPLMCNTO.CLLFOCNIA 9511NI4 FACSIMILE: (213) 229.7520 Nebo CONNECTICV7 AVENUE.N.W.
W5-1.070N,D.C.20026-5206
SAN DIEGO
750 B STREET July 16 r 1992 AVENUE LOU�BRUSSELS 222
SAN CICGO.CALIrC RN IA 12101-A605
9•1050 BRUSSELS.SCLGIVM
SAN FRANCISCO PAalS
ONE MONTGOMERY STREET.TELESIS 7CWER COPMTO.
y1D4 AVENUE I D
LFL
SAN raANC$CO. CALIFCRNIA 94104.45CS 11• 15116 PARIS. A.CC
51N JCSC Acdm
LONDON
50 Y+C$T SAN r[RNANoo STREET !1� 3C135 PALL MALI
SAN JCSC CALIr CRNIA 15112 rA
L�amD DjR LONDON SW1Y 5LP
DALLAS ryTI.DIP. HONG HONG
1717 NAI.STREET F 6 CONNAUG.7 PLACC
C•LLAS,TEXAS 751 01-4OCS *T/ IDM TOKYO HONG BONG
DENVER __- NNNO C. r'r' TOKYO
New CALIFORNIA 51RCCT VtZU POI""EQ 1-I.3 MARUNOUCHI. CMIYODA-RV
DENVER,COLORADO eC2C2.2694 0 MGhff.1FAM( REC DIR TOKYO 100.JAPAN
SEATTLE ❑ -F�KfLD�LEEl LDI Arr1UAT[D SAUDI ARABIA OFFICE
999 Iw1RD •VC.UC e/./- �j/ cN•MecR OF COMMERCE BUILDING
Po.Ill 151170
eCATTLC.WASHINGTON 9eIC4.7Ce9 II..JJ
Ill 11454,SAUDI ARABIA
WRITER-5 DIRECT DIAL NUMBER OUR FILE NUMBER
(213) 229-7558 BY UPS OVERNIGHT T 93024-03094
Mr. Jeff Jorgensen
City Attorney
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
Post Office Box 8100
San Luis Obispo, California 93403-8100
Re: Valacal Company ("UPS") San Luis Obispo
Facility--Broad Street Annexation Area
Proceedings .
Dear Mr. Jorgensen:
Our office represents *Valacal Company ("UPS") , the
owner of the,United Parcel Service facility located at 3601
Sacramento'Drive. As you know, UPS's facility is within the
proposed Broad Street Annexation Area, and we have received
the July 1 letter of Ken Hampian regarding the July 21 City
Council hearing on the annexation application.
Representatives of UPS intend to appear at the hearing .and
request an opportunity to be heard regarding certain
concerns they have regarding the effect annexation may have
on the County of San Luis Obispo's present failure to
acknowledge their responsibility to remedy drainage problems
impacting UPS's facility.
Attached is a letter we have sent concurrently to
the County Counsel, which outlines in detail the nature of
those drainage problems. Until either the County or t CEI ravy E 1)
JUL 1 71992
CITY CLERK
SAN LUIS OBMPO,CA
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER
Mr. Jeff Jorgensen
July 16, 1992
Page 2
City gives UPS a firm commitment to remedy those drainage
problems, UPS must oppose the proposed annexation of its
property to the City of San Luis Obispo.
In particular, we not'e'. that the proposed form of
"pre-annexation agreement" between UPS and the City that
will be presented to the City`. Council at the July 21 hearing
does not address at all. what the City's responsibilities
after annexation will be with respect to mitigation of UPS's
drainage problems with the County and the adjoining property
owners. Before UPS could consent to such an agreement, it
must specify either that (a) at the County's expense, the
County will remedy these problems prior to or regardless of
annexation; (b) at the City's expense, the City will assume
responsibility for these problems after annexation; or (c)
the County and City have jointly agreed to a resolution of
these issues which is acceptable to UPS.
Thank you for your anticipated prompt attention to
this matter. If you would like to discuss this matter prior
to the July 21 hearing, please do not hesitate to call me.
Very truly yours
65i1. XaA at -
Susan Erburu Reardon
SER/dar
cc: By UPS �Overniaht:
Mr. Joe Browning
United Parcel Service
Mr. Ken Hampian
Assistant City Administrative Officer
LA921980.045
GIBSON, DUNN b CRUTCHER
yS. •.GIBSON,457-19 i7
CENTIME, cITT LAWYERS
IN.C.DUNN. Ieel•,975
2C29CEN70RT 0.04 CAST 333 501,11M GRAND AVENUC ALeCPT CPU+CMCP. IeG0-,931
OS AMGELC S.CALIrCRN1A 900e7.31Z2e
L"Ncc COUNTY LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90071-3197
COO-C,NPCRT CENTER DRIVE NEW •0P.
NCINPORT BEACM.CiLIrCPNIA 92feC-e39S ;213) 229.7000 2Co P.P. AVE.UC
NEI TOP..NCI •CR. 10100.019]
SACRAMENTO TELEX;ET�930 GIBTPASX LSA
A00 CAPITOL MALLWASMIMGTON
t
SACPAMCNTO.CA ,r ORNIA PEMA FACSIMILE. (213) 229.7520 IC50 CDNNCcTICUT AVE.UC.N.W.
wASM1NGTON.D.C.2003e•530e
a.. CICGO
pPNs S[LS
TSD B STREET July 16, 1992
.AN CICGO.CALIFORNIA 92,01--ICI AVENUELOUIS
p•IC50SBP US SCL S..BELGIUM
SAN rRANCISLO PARIS
CNC MONTGONCRY STREET.TELESIS TCIER
10A AV[NU[ O POIMCAPC
SAN rRaNU5C 0.CA VIDPMIA 94104-4 505 751-0 PARIS.
7.fRAMCL
SAN JCSL LONDON
50 WEST SAN IEPNaNDO STPCET 20135 PALL MAIL
SAN JCS[.C.LIr ORM1A 95113 LONDON SW1Y SLP
CALLAS MOMG.0.0
1717 MAIN STPCCT 0 CONNAVGMT PLACE
DALLAS.7[XAS 75201••005 -ONGDMC.
DCNVCR To.To
Ieol CAL00'"11 STPCCT I•p3 MAPUNOVCMI,CMn ODA•AU
DENVER.COLORADO GC202.2l9A 70.10100.JAPAN
SC AT it[ A1rILUTED SAUDI ARABIA OrrICC
CMAMeEP or CoMMEPCC BUILDING
999 T.1.0 AVENUE
SCA71LC. WASMIMGTcN 9em1GA•7Cl9 P O BOX DI
1A0M uAS..SAUDI •eABIA
WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NUMBER OUP rILE NUMBER
(213) 229-7558 BY UPS OVERNIGHT T 93024-03094
James B. Lindholm, Jr.
County Counsel
County of San Luis Obispo
County Government Center, Room 386
San Luis Obispo, California 93408
Re: Valacal Company ("UPS") San Luis Obispo
Facility, 3601 Sacramento Drive--City of San
Luis Obispo Broad Street Annexation Area
Proceedings
Dear Mr. Lindholm:
Our office represents Valacal Company ("UPS") , the
owner of the United Parcel Service facility located in the
County of San Luis Obispo at 3601 Sacramento Drive. As you
probably are aware, the City of San Luis Obispo ("City") is
currently pursuing an annexation application for an area
which includes the UPS facility property -- referred to as
the "Broad Street Annexation Area. " (For your information,
a copy of the most recent communication from the City
regarding the annexation application is enclosed. )
Regardless of the outcome of that application, UPS
hereby desires to put your office on notice that the County
is presently creating and has in the past created, by both
its actions and inaction, a situation that causes UPS to
experience repeated overflow drainage problems at its
facility. We seek the County's acknowledgment that it is
. '
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER
James B. Lindholm, Jr.
July 16, 1992
Page 2
responsible for assuming the expense of remediating these
drainage problems and that it will work with UPS and other
affected property owners to solve the problems before and/or
regardless of whether any City annexation takes place.
For several years, County officials have been
aware of drainage problems experienced by UPS and other
property owners in the proposed Broad Street Annexation
Area. (The City's proposed annexation map is included for
your reference. ) In addition to UPS at Parcel S, the most
directly affected property owners are the owners of Parcel 2
(Jay Parsens) , Parcel 92 (Gary Holdgrafer-2083 Partnership) ,
and Parcel 93 (Derrel's Mini Storage) . The problems have
been caused when overflow run-off from the property owners
on the City's side of Sacramento Drive, coupled with
drainage from Parcels 2 and 4 , have emptied into the only
retention pond on the north end of the proposed annexation
area, located on UPS's facilty, thereby overburdening the
pond.
UPS believes the County is responsible for this
situation because:
(a) as a matter of general policy, the County has
approved development plans for adjacent property owners that
do not require those property owners to make adequate
provision for their drainage needs;
(b) the County, by its inaction, permitted the
owner of Parcel 92 to change the elevation of his property
so as both (i) to block one of the subsurface overflow
drains in UPS's retention pond; and (ii) to divert overflow
drainage away from a natural run-off path and into UPS's
retention pond; and
(c) the County permitted the owner of Parcel 93
to build his facility across the natural storm run-off path,
by cutting into the side of a hill, thereby blocking off the
other subsurface overflow drain in UPS' s retention pond.
UPS has received complaints from the owners of
Parcels 92 and 93, and indeed became unnecessarily embroiled
in litigation between those two parties in 1987, which has
subsequently been resolved. The County Board of Supervisors
was well aware of this dispute, and appears to have
authorized County action to correct some of the drainage
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER
James B. Lindholm, Jr.
July 16, 1992
Page 3
problems. (See attached Board of Supervisors minutes. )
However, any actions which have been taken clearly have been
insufficient to remedy these drainage problems. Recently, a
neighboring property owner is again threatening litigation
arising from this situation.
More recently (in February 1992) , UPS was informed
by County Engineer Jim Granflat that the County refuses to
take any action to remedy the ongoing problems, despite his
acknowledgment that the only drainage UPS should be
responsible for handling with its retention pond is that on
its own property and from the street run-off generated in
front of its property.
In conclusion, the County should acknowledge its
responsibilities to correct the drainage problems it has
caused. It should not use the pending annexation
proceedings to avoid those responsibilities or to delay
taking action. Thus, I would appreciate it if you would
contact me at your earliest convenience to discuss the
resolution of this matter. Please be advised that UPS
intends 'to take whatever action is necessary to preserve its
rights in this matter.
Very truly yours,
Susan Erburu RearFn
SER/dar
Enclosures
cc: By UPS Overnight:
Mr Joe Browning
United Parcel Service
Jeff Jorgensen
City Attorney, City of. San Luis Obispo
10921980.005