HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/02/1993, 3 - AIRPORT AREA ANNEXATION/MARGARITA EXPANSION AREA Ill�^lyllll�llllln� I MEETING GATE:
c� o san Luis OBIsPO I -
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER:
FROM: Ken Hampian, Assistant City Administrative Officer'
Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director
Prepared by: Ken Hampian, Assistant City Administrative Ofic
�r
John Mandeville, Long Range Planning Managq?: ,
Bill Statler, Finance Director, , ?
SUBJECT: Airport Area Annexation/Margarita Expansion Area
CAO RECOMMENDATIONS:
That the City Council:
1. Approve the overall strategy and schedule for analyzing and pursuing the Airport
Area Annexation, which includes the Margarita Expansion Area.
2. Direct staff to prepare for the Council meeting of November 16, 1993 a resolution
of application to the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo), to forward an
Airport Area/Margarita Annexation Application and Plan for Services.
3. Approve and authorize the Mayor to execute an agreement with Angus McDonald
& Associates in the amount of $15,000 for the preparation of a fiscal impact study
(Phase A), and for the potential preparation of a public facilities financing plan
(Phase B) which will cost between $50,000 to $75,000 depending on the scope of
services required.
4. Direct staff to work with both Airport Area and Margarita property owners and
County of San Luis Obispo staff to establish the City as the lead agency for the
preparation of the Airport Area/Margarita Specific Plan after completion of the
fiscal impact study, assuming that the City decides to continue with the annexation.
5. Direct staff to amend certain text in the Draft Land Use Element, as recommended,
in order to clarify the City's intentions relative to the timing of annexation and
development in the Airport and Margarita Areas.
6. Receive information and provide direction concerning existing and potential policies
for assuring open space on the southern boundary of the Airport Area (the
"greenbelt").
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
This report represents a major step toward the annexation of the Airport Area, which
includes the Margarita Expansion Area. City efforts to pursue annexation were precipitated
by recent LAFCo actions related to a request by County Service Area 22 (CSA 22) to
expand its powers to provide water and other urban-type services, and thus possibly develop
within the County at some future time. In April, the City officially opposed the CSA 22
��BI�1�11►�Illlll�ll�n llplll MY Of San L.AIS OBISPO
Smis COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
request.
In June 1993, the City Council took several actions to clarify the City's intent to pursue
annexation in a timely way. As a result, LAFCo deferred its decision on the request until
March 1994. In the meantime, the City and the property owners are to show "substantial
progress" toward annexation. With such progress, it is the City's position that the CSA 22
request for an expansion of powers should be denied.
The Council appointed a Subcommittee to serve with City staff in negotiations with Airport
Area Property Owners. These discussions have resulted in an agreed upon strategy and
schedule for analyzing and pursuing the Airport Area Annexation. A process has been
established in lieu of a binding legal agreement, as originally requested by the property
owners. The process is ambitious, but preserves all appropriate fiscal and environmental
procedures and safeguards. The first of these will be completion of a fiscal impact study
by January 1994. If, after receipt of the fiscal information, the City decides to continue with
the annexation, this report recommends that the City assume lead role responsibility for all
specific planning that follows.
On October 5, 1993, the City Council endorsed processing the Margarita Expansion Area
Annexation as a part of the overall Airport Area schedule; however, the Council also
directed that the process be structured so that the Margarita Area could proceed
independently, if for whatever reason the annexation of the CSA 22 portion does not go
forward. The annexation application and other supporting tasks have been structured
consistent with this direction.
Pursuant to earlier Council direction, certain Draft LUE text amendments are
recommended to clarify the City's goals regarding the Airport and Margarita Areas. This
report also details existing open space policies relative to the southern boundary of the
Airport Area, and outlines alternatives for augmenting those policies to better assure a
permanent "greenbelt". This follows up on the Council's June actions, which included a
specific motion to require open space/greenbelt assurances as a part of any eventual j
annexation.
The total City "upfront" cost of the recommended actions is $24,000. This consists of
$15,000 for the first phase of the fiscal impact study, and $9,000 in annexation application
fees (which will eventually be reimbursed by property owners, if the annexation is
completed). Funding is available in the Economic Stability Program budget to support these
costs. Subsequent costs, including the completion of the second phase of the financial
analysis (the Public Facilities Financing Plan) and further Specific Plan work will be paid
for by the property owners. Efforts are underway at the present time to analyze various
mechanisms available to the property owners to eventually cover these costs.
J
�I������iiuuIlllllUll�° �INl11 city o� sar k .JI S 081 sp0 . .
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DISCUSSION
Background
ound
For many years, the Airport Area has been included within the City's planning area, and the
City's long range intention to eventually include the area within the City's boundaries has
been expressed in various planning documents (e.g., the Adopted Land Use Element) and
by prior Council actions. The 1,700 acre area is generally bounded by the "South Street
Hills", South Higuera Street, Broad Street, and Buckley Road. What we call the "Airport
Area" is also inclusive of the Margarita Expansion Area, which the City has intended to
annex in the nearer term, and the recently annexed Broad Street Area (approximately 700
acres and 80 acres respectively).
For purposes of this staff report, references to the "Airport Area" will mean that portion of
the area which rests within County Service Area 22 (CSA 22). This excludes most of the
Margarita properties, and the Broad Street area (since it has already been annexed).
Although several aspects of the Margarita Expansion Area will be addressed in this report,
a significant LUE policy issue which impacts the timing of annexation for the area is
addressed in a separate report on the November 2 agenda. The boundaries of both the total
Airport Area and the smaller CSA 22 are shown in Attachment 1.
Although the inclusion of the Airport Area within City boundaries has been anticipated in
both the current and draft Land Use Elements, until recently the City had not established
an explicit timeframe for annexation. This lack of a timeframe was due in part to a lack of
available resources to serve the area, particularly water. Following the City's rejection of
State Water in late 1992, in early 1993 the Airport Area Property Owners (AAPO) began
to take steps toward securing water independent of the City, and planning for development
in the County, if City annexation appeared unlikely in the foreseeable future. The most
significant step taken was the filing of a request with the Local Agency Formation
Commission (LAFCo) to expand the powers of CSA 22 to allow the CSA to deliver water
service, which they propose to secure through an allocation from Lake Nacimiento (1,210
acre feet). The CSA, which was created in 1984, is presently only empowered to provide
planning services (e.g., specific planning, environmental documents).
LAFCo initially considered this request on April 15, 1993 but deferred a decision for two
months in order to allow time for the City and CSA property owner representatives to
clarify the City's intentions regarding the eventual annexation of the area. This deferral was
made in large part as a result of the City's official protest of the requested expansion of
powers for CSA 22. The City's primary rationale for opposing the request was that the
granting of additional powers could help set the stage for substantial urban-like development
on the City's perimeter, with the City experiencing all of the negative impacts of such
development and none of the benefits (land use control, property and sales tax revenues).
In addition, the Mayor pointed out that it was the City's intention to initiate the annexation
process in the nearer term,even if this was not formally expressed in existing planning documents.
rii�ililVll111►� IIIIIN city Of San IS OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
In order to demonstrate the City's intentions in advance of a June 17th LAFCo meeting to
reconsider CSA 22's request, on June 9, 1993, the City Council took the following actions:
1st Motion:
Conceptually endorse the initiation of steps necessary for the annexation process to
incrementally develop property referred to as the Airport Area.
2nd Motion:
1. Incorporate into the General Plan Land Use Element (LUE) updated, refined
policies and goals for development of the Airport Area under City jurisdiction,
including a specific program for annexation and incremental development of, and
provision of urban services to, properties within the Airport Area.
2. Notify the Local Area Formation Commission (LAFCo) of the City's continued
opposition to modification of County Service .Area 22 (CSA) to allow the CSA to
provide water to included properties.
3. Work with the property owners, or their representatives, of appropriate properties
within the CSA to develop a mutually satisfactory written agreement for
implementation of the annexation program incorporated in the adopted LUE. .
4. Airport Area Property Owners' Association acknowledges they will pay their share
of costs of annexation, infrastructure, and services.
I
5. Concurrent with annexation, enter into a Memorandum of Agreement/contract with
the County to assure that areas outside the City's sphere of influence, and under
County control, will be retained as rural in character and inclusive of open space;
areas within the City's sphere and under City control, will accommodate reasonable
urban development, but will also include open space and greenbelts.
In light of these actions, and as a result of a follow-up presentation by the Mayor and City .
Administrative Officer, on June 17th LAFCo deferred a decision on the expansion of powers
for approximately nine months during which time the City and the Airport Area Property
Owners are to make "substantial progress" toward annexation.
Airport Area Property Owner Negotiations
The Council appointed a Subcommittee consisting of Vice-Mayor Roalman and
Councilmember Romero to serve on a Negotiation Team with City staff. Staff members
appointed by the CAO to the team include Ken Hampian, Jeff Jorgensen, John Mandeville,
and Mike McCluskey. Since July, the City team and Airport Area Property Owners have
met on a bi-weekly basis. Representatives of the Margarita Expansion Area were consulted
city o� San ]S OBISpo
MoGe COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
during these discussions, and formally included in the meetings beginning on October 25th.
Several status reports have been provided by the Council Subcommittee to the full City
Council regarding the nature and status of the discussions. Rather than restating the
progression of "events" since July, this report will focus on the results of these discussions
thus far, and the related actions recommended at this time.
Results/Recommended Actions
So far, the discussions between the City and AAPO have been very productive and positive.
However, rather than negotiating some form of legally binding agreement, the parties have
instead developed a process for moving forward which preserves all appropriate City
procedures and considerations (e.g., fiscal, environmental). The process is designed to move
through the various steps toward annexation in a timely manner, and with a shared goal of
ultimately achieving annexation,as long as there are no compelling reasons for either party
to withdraw. It does, however, also allow opportunities for each party to terminate the
proceedings at several points along the way, if circumstances dictate (e.g., undesirable fiscal
impacts; property owner protest).
The actions being recommended to the City Council in this agenda item are intended to
represent a "first major step" on the part of the City toward annexation. Taken together,
the actions reflect good faith in moving ahead, but with prudence and "due diligence" in fully
evaluating the costs, benefits, and environmental consequences of the potential annexation.
Each of these recommended actions is discussed in more detail below:
Annexation Process and Schedule: As mentioned earlier, in contrast to a binding legal
agreement, the Negotiation Team and AAPO have agreed to a process and schedule toward
annexation (Attachment 2). The City's Negotiating Team feels that the establishment of an
agreed upon"process" for annexation (as opposed to a legally binding agreement) is the only
realistic and manageable way of proceeding. CSA 22 consists of approximately 239 property
owners. In addition, this matter involves other government agencies and complex planning,
environmental, fiscal, and governmental procedures and decisions. Attempting to craft an
agreement acceptable to all parties, and doing so in advance of the previously referenced
studies and decisions, is not realistic. The AAPO agrees. However, they are asking that the
City eventually prepare a"preannexation agreement" (similar to the ones used for the Broad
Street Annexation), which property owners can choose to execute prior to annexation, if
desired. If the City and the property owners ultimately decide to prepare preannexation
agreements, this would occur during the latter stages of the annexation. Conceptually, the
City Negotiating Team has no objection to preparing such agreements, provided that they
are truly necessary. This can be decided by both parties later, in light of subsequent actions
and information.
With regard to the Margarita Expansion Area, as outlined in a previous correspondence j
from Margarita Area Property Owners, they would like to proceed consistent with the
attached schedule, but with the flexibility to continue toward annexation if for whatever
3-
Il��►�i�►��IUIIIIIN�p��IIUIII city Of san L.-OS OBIspo
Nia; COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
reason the Airport Area Annexation fails to go forward. As noted later in this report and
in the companion agenda item, the annexation application and related documents will be
crafted to allow for the discreet processing of Margarita Expansion Area, if this becomes
necessary. Until such time, however, there are a number of advantages offered by combined
processing, including better planning and analytic data, lower costs, higher administrative
efficiency, and overall faster action.
Council approval of the recommended process and schedule will, in the opinion of all
parties involved, represent a significant step forward and offer a tangible demonstration of
the City's intentions. The schedule was not only developed in consultation with the AAPO
and Margarita Expansion Area property owners, but with the input of County Planning staff
and the LAFCo Executive Director. Because of the significance of the City's actions, rather
than waiting until March or April of 1994 to outline our progress to the LAFCo Board, the
LAFCo Executive Director has suggested that we schedule a study session in the coming
weeks so that the City's Negotiating Team can provide a status report. The Team feels that
this would be very beneficial, and asks for the Council's concurrence.
Annexation Application/Plan for Services: To implement the City's desire to demonstrate
to LAFCo that "substantial progress" is being made to annex the Airport Area, a resolution
and supporting materials necessary to initiate the annexation process is being prepared.
The City's annexation application will include:
- a City resolution
- map showing annexation area
- legal description of annexation area
- LAFCO justification of proposal questionnaire
- environmental assessment form
- filing fee
- Plan for Services
Originally, it was staff's intention to include the resolution of application and annexation
application/plan for services with the November 2nd set of actions. However due to
workload and noticing requirements, the resolution and application materials will not be
before the Council until November 16 (a resolution of annexation application requires a
public hearing preceded by a 15-day notice period).
Even after the November 16 action and submittal, the annexation application will not be
totally complete until later, when the City submits prezoning for the annexation area,
completes a tax transfer agreement with the County, and provides any additional information
requested by LAFCo. However, the November 16 materials will be sufficient to initiate the
annexation process. LAFCo will not schedule a hearing until the application is complete.
According to the annexation schedule, staff will process the prezoning for the annexation
area while LAFCo reviews the application material submitted and determines if any
additional environmental documentation is necessary.
II����HIIVill1111�p ���ll city of San ..AIS OBISpo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Staff has submitted the LUE update EIR to LAFCo to determine if this document will be
adequate to evaluate the environmental impacts of the annexation. If the EIR can be used
for the annexation, little additional environmental work will be required. If LAFCo
determines it cannot use the LUE update EIR, a separate environmental document will
need to be prepared.
The annexation application shall be structured to allow for the possibility that the CSA 22
portion of the annexation may be withdrawn from the process while the Margarita
Expansion Area proceeds. The application materials will break down the total Airport Area
into Part A (Margarita Expansion Area) and Part B (CSA 22). By using such a format,
LAFCo can disregard the Part B component of the annexation materials if CSA 22 is
withdrawn from the application process, but continue to use the materials to process Part
A for the Margarita Expansion Area. (The reverse, however, would not be possible.)
The City's annexation application will also include a Plan for Services which is a description
of how the City will provide services to the entire annexation area. The Plan for Services
is broad in scope, describing in a very general way how each of the following services will
be provided to the annexation area:
- water service
- sewer service
- fire protection
- upgrading structures, roads, and other public facilities
- parks and recreation
- police protection
- administration and general government services
- public schools
A much more detailed Public Facilities Plan, including financing mechanisms, will become
a key component of the specific plan to be completed for the annexation area. This plan,
which is Phase B of the fiscal consultant contract, will guide the actual extension and
financing of infrastructure to the area.
Fiscal Impact Analysis/Public Facilities Financing Plan: Two important factors for the
Council to consider as part of this annexation are its fiscal impacts on the City and the
options available for financing the facilities necessary to serve this area that will ensure that
development "pays its own way" and will not burden existing residents and businesses.
To meet this information need, the City issued an RFP on September 28 to three firms
specializing in this type of analysis who have previously worked for the City in a
policy/planning context:
■ Roberta Mundie & Associates (general plan update - commercial growth scenarios
fiscal impacts; affordable housing study)
l���i�i�►��IVIIiIII�Ih ►IIUIII city of san L,Ais oBispo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
■ Economics Research Associates (open space financing plan; Dalidio property values
and fiscal impact analysis)
■ Angus McDonald & Associates (fiscal impact workshop; strategic planning program)
Prior to its release, the RFP was extensively reviewed by a review team composed of Bill
Roalman, Dave Romero, Ken Hampian,John Mandeville, Mike McCluskey, and Bill Statler
as well as by the property owners' representatives. Additionally, a copy of the RFP was
provided to Council members as a part of an October 5 Council Subcommittee status report.
In follow-up discussions with the property owners' representatives, it was agreed to include
three members from their group in the process to observe, ask questions of the consultants,
and offer comments to staff and the Council Subcommittee.
As part of the evaluation process, pre-proposal interviews were held with each firm to
answer any questions they had regarding the City's RFP. Additionally, these interviews
provided the review team with an opportunity to ask the firms about their ability to perform
this work, their relevant experience, and the general approach they would take.
On October 19, formal proposals were received from each of the firms, and were evaluated
by the above parties on October 22. Based on their understanding of the work required by
the City, the responsiveness of their proposal, their experience in successfully performing
similar services, their proposed approach in completing the work, and competitiveness of
their fees, it is recommended that the Council award the contract to Angus McDonald &
Associates (Attachment 3).
As described in the RFP, there are two distinct phases to this work:
A. Fiscal impact analyse This phase will focus on the operating costs and revenues that
can reasonably be expected over the next ten to fifteen years. This work will be
completed within 45 days after authorization to proceed, and the results will be
available for Council review as part of their decision-making on going-forward with
the annexation in January of 1994.
B. Public facilities fuiancing plan This phase will identify the costs and method of
financing the facility improvements necessary to serve this area. Work on this phase
will not begin until completion of Phase A services and authorization from Council
to proceed. It will take 120 to 150 days to complete, and will be prepared
concurrently with the specific plan.
Phase A services will cost $15,000 and Phase B services will cost between $50,000 and
$75,000 depending on the scope of service required, as detailed by Angus McDonald &
Associates in their proposal. It is recommended that Phase A services be financed by the
City, since this is essentially information that only the City needs and wants. Funding is
I����►�H�IVIIIII�II�I AMY Of San . JS OBISPO
diftin COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
available through the economic stability program, which has a current balance of$100,000.
It is recommended that the subsequent Phase B services be funded by the property owners
as part of specific plan preparation costs.
Specific Plan Lead Role: The lead agency for the Airport Area Specific Plan is the agency
which has approval authority. It follows that the specific plan should be prepared
incorporating land uses and development standards that are consistent with those of the lead
agency. In addition, the lead agency controls the processing of the specific plan, including
consultant selection, review and revision of draft materials, environmental review and the
public hearing process. The benefit to an agency of being the lead agency for a project is
that the agency can make certain that all of its concerns are fully addressed before a project
is approved.
Up to this point, the Airport Area has been under County jurisdiction and the County has
been the lead agency in preparing the Preliminary Specific Plan and the Airport Area
Specific Plan Conceptual Land Use Plan. The City has been involved in an advisory and
review and comment role. The City has been the lead agency for preparing the conceptual
land use plan for the Margarita Area. If the draft and final specific plans for the Airport
Area, including the Margarita Area, are prepared with the County as the lead agency, the
City would participate in the role of review and comment. However, according to the
attached recommended schedule for annexation (which is targeted to occur prior to approval
of the specific plan) the City would become the lead agency at the time annexation is
completed, before the final Airport Area Specific Plan is ready for adoption. At that point,
if the draft specific plan has not been prepared consistent with City standards addressing all
of the City's concerns, it would have to be revised before being adopted by the City.
Depending on the extent of the revisions, additional environmental review could be
required. Making these revisions at this stage in the process would likely result in expense
and delay.
Two alternatives to preparing a draft specific plan and later doing a substantial revision to
comply with City requirements are 1) prepare a draft specific plan with components for
satisfying the requirements of either the City or County, with the City and County acting as
co-lead agencies, or 2) prepare a draft specific plan with the City is acting as lead agency
based upon the assumption that the annexation will be completed. The first alternative also
involves greater time and expense than preparing a single specific plan, but would probably
not delay completion and adoption of the specific plan as much as changing lead agencies
after annexation is completed. The second alternative would minimize the effort, expense,
and time involved in completing the specific plan, but will require the Airport Area Property
Owners to make a commitment to the annexation.
For the reasons stated above, staff recommends that the City be made the lead agency for
the specific plan. However, at this time, the CSA 22 property owners do not want to limit
any of their options for obtaining services and completing the specific plan. According to
the CSA 22 property owners representative, the property owners will wait to decide on the
-9
IuNai�lil(VIIII��U��I j��d��� City Of San L AIS OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
lead agency issue until the fiscal impact report for the annexation is completed and the City
decides to continue with the annexation. County planning staff have no objection to this
approach or timeframe, and supports an eventual City lead role, once it is clear that
annexation will most likely occur.
It has always been the City's intention to lead the Margarita Specific Planning effort.
However, firming this up can also await completion of the fiscal impact study, especially
since determining the method for specific plan funding by property owners will depend in
part on the number of property owners participating.
LUE Text Amendments: In response to the Council's direction to incorporate into the
Draft Land Use Element refined goals and policies for annexation and development of the
Airport Area under City jurisdiction, staff has drafted appropriate changes to Section 10
(Airport Area) of the Draft Land Use Element (Attachment 4).
The revised policies state that the City anticipates that it will annex the Airport Area by
about 1995. The revised programs state that the City will complete specific plans for the
Margarita Expansion Area and the rest of the Airport Area, and that the City will annex the
entire area and accommodate development incrementally, consistent with growth
management policies, the City's ability to provide adequate services, protect resources, and
have development pay its own way.
If directed to do so by the Council, staff will present the revised policies to the Planning
Commission for recommendation to Council as a part of the Commission's overall
recommendation on the Draft Land Use Element. No significant adverse environmental
effects or physical changes are anticipated from the policy changes, therefore no further
environmental 'review will be required for the policy changes.
With regard to the Margarita Expansion Area, a change is needed in existing LUE policy
relative to the requirement for an adopted specific plan prior to annexation. This policy
modification is addressed in a separate report on the November 2 agenda.
Greenbelt Policy Status and Options:
Introduction. The June 9th Council direction included that concurrent with the annexation,
the.City should enter into a memorandum of agreement with the County to assure that areas
outside the City's sphere of influence under County control will be retained as rural in
character and inclusive of open space; areas within the City's sphere of influence and under
City control will accommodate reasonable urban development, but will also include open
spaces and greenbelts.
In reviewing the existing open space protection policies of the City, County, and LAFCo, it
was found that all of the agencies currently have policies that would discourage south of the
Airport Area urban development similar to what now exists within the area. With this as
!D
�Il�hni�N►�IIIIIIUI�I ��III MY Of San _JIS OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
the existing situation, another approach to protecting the City's greenbelt area would be to
augment the existing policies so that they are given greater consideration by the individual
agencies.
Basic City land use/open space policy. Generally, the City's primary open space policy that
applies to the area south of the Airport Area is that areas not designated for urban uses will
be designated as open space. Open space lands are intended to define the edges of the City
so that it will remain a comprehensible, identifiable place (Draft LUE p. 22, Policy C.5).
The Draft Land Use Element policy regarding areas outside the urban reserve line but
within the San Luis Obispo Planning Area, is that the land should be kept open, and prime
and potentially productive agricultural land should be protected for farming. Scenic lands,
sensitive wildlife habitat, and undeveloped prime agricultural land should be permanently
protected as open space (Draft LUE p.11, Policy 1.5.A).
One of the objectives contained in the adopted Open Space Element is to coordinate open .
space planning between the City and County, and for the City and County to work to insure
that their open space programs for the urban fringe are compatible (Open Space Element
p.7, Objective 7.3). The Draft Open Space Element (DOSE), July 1993 version, identifies
a greenbelt and outer planning area around the City in which specific open space resource
policies are to apply. The DOSE states that the City will work with and encourage the State
and County to maintain the greenbelt and outer planning area primarily for rural uses,
agriculture, watershed and as a separator between urban communities.
Basic County land use/open space policy. The County land use policies for the City's
greenbelt and planning area are basically consistent with the City's policies. The County
Framework for Planning directs the County to maintain a distinction between urban,
suburban, and rural uses (p. 5-2). The County's land use plan for the City's greenbelt area
does not allow for expansion of suburban subdivisions. Some 20 acre parcels located on
relatively poor agricultural land may divide into 10 acre parcels, but only in a few areas.
Prime agricultural areas may in some cases be divided down to 20 acre minimum parcels
sizes, but only where it can be demonstrated that these parcels will remain viable for
agricultural uses. Because these areas are prime ag lands, it would be difficult to change
the land use designation to allow a more intensive land use and a smaller parcel size would
not be allowed. Based upon existing County policies and land use regulations, it is very
unlikely that development similar to what now exists in the Airport Area will occur again
south of the Area.
City control of greenbelt area in the County is not possible. According to County Counsel
staff, the County cannot give up its land use authority to the City. Ultimately, a property
owner in the County will always have the right to request a general plan amendment, and
the Board of Supervisors will ultimately be responsible for approving or denying the request.
Therefore, whatever assurance the City seeks to have through an "agreement" will be
subject to a majority vote of the Board of Supervisors.
I�����►�►��IIIIII�Ip ����N city of san b.AIS oBIspo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
San Luis Obispo County LAFCo General Standards. The County Local Agency Formation
Commission has adopted general standards for evaluating, processing, and preparing
proposals for its consideration. Two of these standards are particularly consistent with the
City and County policies described above. General Standard # 6 states that "urban
development within cities is preferred by the Commission to such development in
unincorporated territory". General Standard #7 states that "the Commission will recognize
and preserve clearly-defined, long-term agricultural and open space areas established by the
County".
Possible models for augmenting greenbelt protection policies. Staff explored 3 existing joint
City/County open space protection mechanisms. The 3 models were:
■ The Ventura County Guidelines for Orderly Development;
■ The joint greenbelt resolution shared by the City of Santa Maria and the County of
Santa Barbara; and
■ The joint resolution for the protection of the Morros recently adopted by the City of
San Luis Obispo, the City of Morro Bay, and San Luis Obispo County.
A brief description of each of these models follows:
■ Ventura County Guidelines for Orderly Development. The Ventura Guidelines
consist of policies adopted by Ventura County, the County LAFCo, and all cities in
the County. The basic goal of the Guidelines is that urban development should be
located within incorporated cities whenever and wherever practical.
The Guidelines divide Ventura County into geographic areas including cities, city
spheres of influence, areas of interest, and unincorporated communities. An area of
interest is defined as an area which is important to a community's identity. No more I
than one city may occupy an area of interest. The Guideline's policies are divided
into the categories of "General Policies", "Policies Within Areas of Interest", and
"Policies Within Spheres of Influence". The individual policies are shown in
Attachment 5.
The Guideline's policies are similar to the policies and standards already adopted by
San Luis Obispo City. and County and the County LAFCo and would generally be
consistent with the greenbelt and open space protection policies of the San Luis
Obispo agencies. If San Luis Obispo City, County and the County LAFCo adopted
similar enhanced policies, they would be referred to and provide guidance in the
following situations:
J a
L
il�h�i�H��IIIIIIIII► ��III MY Of San _.AIS OBISPO
Ooze COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
1. As the County considers a project in the greenbelt area;
2. When the City reviews a County referral of a project in the greenbelt area;
and
3. When LAFCo considers the formation of any special district or service area
which would provide urban services in the greenbelt area.
Joint Greenbelt Resolution Between the City of Santa Maria and the County of
Santa Barbara. The Santa Maria/Santa Barbara County joint resolution was drafted
to protect a large agricultural area east of the City which both the City and the
County would like to preserve by discouraging urban development and the
accompanying pressure to annex to the City. The City and County, with the support
of the Santa Barbara County LAFCo, have jointly developed a "non-annexation",
"non-urban development", and "retention of agricultural use and open space" policy
to apply to a defined greenbelt area. Once adopted by the City and County, the
resolution will be sent to Santa Barbara County LAFCo. A copy of the Santa
Maria/Santa Barbara County joint resolution is provided as Attachment 6.
■ City/County joint resolution similar to resolution to protect the Morros. A third
model explored by City and County staff is based on the recent joint resolution by
the City of San Luis Obispo, the County, and the City of Morro Bay for protecting
the Morros. An example of what such a resolution would contain is included as
Attachment 7. Because this resolution is closely modeled after a resolution
previously approved by both the City and the County, it is likely that it could also be
approved.
Similarities and differences among the models explored. All three models basically consist
of policies that apply to a specified area. The difference between the models is the degree
of specificity contained in the policies and the degree of flexibility the policies allow. The
Ventura model contains the most specific policies. However, even though the Ventura
Guidelines contain the most specific policies, it also provides flexibility by using "should"
instead of"shall" in certain policies. For example, the third Sphere of Influence policy states
that land "should" be annexed to the City prior to being developed for urban purposes or
receiving municipal services. The word "should" in a policy generally implies that the
directive is to be followed in the absence of contravening considerations. It therefore allows
the County to override the policy if a good argument can be made to do so. The Santa
Maria/Santa Barbara County joint resolution has only one policy, but the policy is less
flexible and more directive. It states that for the defined area the City and County will
share a non-annexation, non-urban development, and retention of agricultural and open
space uses policy. The draft San Luis Obispo City/County joint resolution is a broad policy
statement which would serve primarily to increase awareness of existing County and City
policies when a project is proposed in the greenbelt area.
Il����► ��IIIIII�I� ��U�ll city Of San L AIS OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Summary. The City, the County, and LAFCo all currently have policies that would
discourage urban development at the City's urban fringe similar to what exists in the Airport
Area. The policies are generally consistent with the policies reviewed in the models
examined. Given that these policies exist, State law requires that new policies must be
consistent with existing policies, or that any inconsistency caused by a new policy be
corrected by deleting or modifying existing policies. The models reviewed above provide
alternatives and additions that can be made to existing City, County, and LAFCo policies
and standards.
Staff is requesting Council direction relative to working with County staff to develop
additional or new policies, if desired.
I
FISCAL IMPACT
For Fiscal Year 1993-94, the Council budgeted $100,000 in general fund monies to the
Economic Stability Program (page D-107 of the 1993-95 Financial Plan). This appropriation
was intended to serve as "seed money" in advance of City receipt of its Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) entitlement funds. CDBG entitlement funds are
expected to be available in 1994-95, the second year of the 1993-95 Financial Plan. In
August, the Council preliminarily allocated $120,000 in CDBG funds toward the 1994-95
Economic Stability Program.
As mentioned earlier in this report, the recommended actions require funding for the Phase
A fiscal impact analysis ($15,000) and, after November 16, annexation application fees,
which will total $9,000 ($3,000 for the Airport Area and $6,000 for the Margarita Expansion
Area). The annexation application fee cost will be tracked and eventually recovered from
property owners as a part of any final financing strategy for planning and public
improvements, if annexation occurs. j
With Council approval, these costs will be charged against the $100,000 budgeted for 1993-
94. Although Council has generally intended to determine the allocation of these funds
after considering all of the recommendations of the Economic Strategy Task Force, timing
is such that support for these costs is required prior to that time. As pointed out in the
Concurrence section of this report, however, the ESTF forwarded an early position to the
Council strongly in support of the City proceeding with the annexation and thus the
expenditure is consistent with this recommendation.
CONCURRENCES
As mentioned previously, the AAPO, Margarita Expansion Area Property Owners, and
County Planning and LAFCo staff concur with the process and schedule set forth in this
report. The property owners also agree with the shared funding strategy for the Fiscal
,, ,�I�il� ►!illlllll �IIIIIII city Of Sar) IS OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Impact Analysis/Public Facilities Financing Plan.
With regard to the overall concept of annexing the Airport Area, in May the City's
! Economic Strategy Task.Force advanced an early and unanimous recommendation to the
Council in support of this goal. Their recommendation was included by the City Council
among the actions taken (Motion 2, Action 5). On October 1, 1993, the ESTF issued its
final report, an excerpt of which is outlined below:
'The Task Force would like to emphasize that we believe that this is another area
where more can be achieved through compromise than through conflict or
inaction. If the City reaches an appropriate agreement to annex the area, then
the City can control land uses in a way that assures appropriate open spaces
within the boundaries of the Airport Area, and through the implementation of
joint City-County policies, a greenbelt on its southern edge. If community conflict
causes inaction, then the area will continue to develop within the County in the
current piecemeal and substandard manner. Eventually (and while it may take
a number of years), the area will build out with the development impacts felt by the City
while the revenues flow to the County. If the City decides at that juncture to annex, it
! is highly unlikely that the County would be willing to transfer these revenues to the City;
I instead, the City will inherit costly service responsibilities to a developed, substandard
area."
CONCLUSION AND FOLLOW-UP
IThe above argument essentially summarizes the reasons why the City Council has decided
to proceed towards annexation. However, the Council has also made it clear that the City
should proceed in a deliberate and analytical fashion, so that all appropriate environmental
and planning processes are protected, and subsequent decisions are based on vital fiscal and
environmental information. Staff believes that the actions now before the Council are
consistent with these goals. With Council's concurrence a public hearing will be scheduled
for November 16 to take action on the Annexation Application and Plan for Services.
Afterward, the City's Negotiating Team will brief the LAFCo Board on our current status
in a study session to be held late November or in December. The results of the fiscal
impact analysis will be available to Council in January 1994, which represents the next .
important decision-making point concerning the Airport Area Annexation. In the meantime,
the City Negotiating Team will continue to meet with both AAPO and Margarita
representatives. A particular focus of our continuing discussions shall be on finding an
appropriate and equitable financing mechanism for the parties involved, since most
subsequent costs will be the responsibility of the property owners. j
i
i
��S
��� ►�►►►��IIIIIUIp118111 city Of San Lays OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
ATTACHMENTS
1. Area map
2. Proposed Annexation Process and Schedule
3. Contract with Angus McDonald & Associates for Fiscal Impact Analysis/Public
Facilities Financing Plan
4. LUE Text Amendments
5. Ventura County Guidelines for Orderly Development Policies
6. Santa Maria - Santa Barbara County Greenbelt Resolution
7. City - County Joint Resolution Example
On file in Council Office: Proposal from Angus McDonald & Associates for preparation
of a fiscal impact analysis and public facilities plan for the Airport Area.Annexation.
I:airport.rpt
I
�lo
r P Lim II rJ
I
I
�`) I .
�,
s
a
F� N
a =
N
(7 a L
a
cc h J O
W Q a
LJ
LJ
--- m o
a a
� Q �
a
a
Stlwll W]Ox SIX3
Ly-
a a �u a
¢ CL (n
t
u P+OSE3d�3r �(y
Q O
illMll IIIJ 9M11.'.IM]
W ^
Cil_
S 113H:?VA m IZ
E
Attachment 1 3
_� - -- ..............._. ._. :..
- -
C78l_ _ _ _ _-. 1 r N
Q rcc A zep I 4 yc uy _
1 G O^ O7
_ % E G —
� --+=c -Fr `o °`o A �, ° 'd c e * :p
to
c yQ ° Ey ! ❑ u �9w
L
-0 rY, N f
_ _ �: 4
E— _
Wd` ❑ Su�.ciT r a a-2uaN � �� - .
ca c
c c
ZQ
CNcm
— -
i .
{
... .......:__i. .- _.. .. _. .--- -
I
4.
- 7
z J ,
:
d i m
Y
• .Z I 1 — I ___ __ _ ...__._.... _...-.-
Y
J m Cwl
I ;
J
V
In r
Q C
Nn
W yl
/ a � CC U
Z b N C A a
r O W m G J N v
G
2• u4
a 9 U U u0 F o o O E
v
Or s° G " Ndo t
�� 9 d C d S 6 p y N y O O Q O• C
u u 4 a C 0
e o ,v
TL
a m c `o w ° = a - N m w
4 x y W L N N O v 9 O V C r O
q cc ¢ p .. I S Np,
_ 'C c
°p a s o t K a 5 E o
a C ❑ al Q y ❑ A 6 w �, ❑ ❑ N Q u .� u. U - rai F- J c
a ; TTACHMEENT 2
to
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into in the City of San Luis Obispo on this day of
. by and between the CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, a municipal corporation,
hereinafter referred to as City, and ANGUS MCDONALD & ASSOCIATES, hereinafter referred to as
Contractor.
WITNESETH:
WHEREAS, on September 28, 1993,City requested proposals (RFP) for preparation of a fiscal impact
analysis (Phase A services) and public facilities financing plan (Phase B services) for the proposed airport area
annexation per Specification No. 93-48.
WHEREAS, pursuant to said request,Contractor submitted a proposal which was accepted by City for
said services.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual promises,obligations, and covenants hereinafter
contained, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date this Agreement is made and
entered, as first written above, until acceptance or completion of said services.
2. INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE. City's RFP Specification No. 93-08, City's RFP
Addendum dated October 11, 1993,Contractor's proposal dated October 15, 1993, and Contractor's Addendum
dated October 25, 1993 are hereby incorporated in and made a part of this Agreement.
3. CITY'S OBLIGATIONS. For providing services as specified in this Agreement, City will pay
and Contractor shall receive therefor compensation in the amount of$15,000.00 for Phase A services and
between $50,000.00 to $75,000.00 for Phase B services depending on the scope of services provided as detailed
in the Contractor's proposal.
4. CONTRACTOR'S OBLIGATIONS. For and in consideration of the payments and agreements
hereinbefore mentioned to be made and performed by City, Contractor agrees with City to do everything
required by this Agreement and the said specifications.
5. AMENDMENTS. Any amendment,modification,or variation from the terms of this Agreement
shall be in writing and shall be effective only upon approval by the City Administrative Officer of the City.
6. COMPLETE AGREEMENT. This written Agreement, including all writings specifically
incorporated herein by reference, shall constitute the complete agreement between the parties hereto. No oral
agreement,understanding,or representation not reduced to writing and specifically incorporated herein shall be
of any force or effect, nor shall any such oral agreement, understanding, or representation be binding upon the
parties hereto.
7. NOTICE. All written notices to the parties hereto shall be sent by United States mail, postage
prepaid by registered or certified mail addressed as follows:
City City Clerk
City of San Luis Obispo
P.O. Box 8100
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403
ATTACHMENT 3
Contractor Angus McDonald
Angus McDonald & Associates
1950 Addison Street
Berkeley, CA 94704
8. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT. Both City and Contractor do covenant that each
individual executing this agreement on behalf of each party is a person duly authorized and empowered to
execute Agreements for such party.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this instrument to be executed the day and
year first above written.
ATTEST: CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
A Municipal Corporation
By:
Diane Gladwell, City Clerk Peg Pinard, Mayor
PROVED AS TO FORM: CONTRACTOR
T
By-
f .
/ger, C' Attorney
dao
Land Use Element Upda... Revision
AIRPORT AREA
Introduction
The City and the County have been concerned especially with resolving consistent
policies for the airport area (Figure 8).
POLICIES
10.1 The airport will continue to serve the region, as provided in the approved Airport
Master Plan.
10.2 Development should be permitted only if it is consistent with the San Luis Obispo
County Airport Land Use Plan. Prospective buyers of property which is subject to
airport influence should be so informed.
10.3 The City intends to annex airport area land which is inside the urban reserve ;
e;.;C ;tyataeates::aecatza:
11::be;; ecp ag e � y: bt 99 The County should not approve urban
development in the airportarea. Urban development should be within the City
limits. The City may annex areas which are not planned to be developed, and it
may annex potential development areas before it has adequate water and sewer
treatment capacity to serve them. However, urban development should occur only
when adequate City water and sewer service are available. Special districts should
not be formed or enlarged to provide water or sewer service within the airport
area.
10.4 Areas which are designated for eventual urban development may be developed
during the interim with rural residential or rural commercial uses. In such areas,
County development standards and discretionary review should assure that
projects will not preclude options for future urban development consistent with
the City's planning policies and standards. Before any discretionary County land-
use or land-division approval for such areas, a development plan for the site
should be prepared, showing that circulation, utility, and drainage proposals will
be compatible with future annexation and urban development.
10:— If the Gityhas $9t made-subs fegr-ess teward
4er. urban develepmew in designated pfffs of the air-pert area by the yeaf
City J a G aty sh ld a :a. } a pl wVpelieies . d laad ase
f.
10.6 Transit service linldng development sites with the rest of the community should be
provided concurrent with any additional urban development in the airport area.
rl or.
:::.;;:.:::;: ..:.::.....::::::::::.
Neuf development within the urban reserve a ";T v� i;a�;: ;the:".C.;p::;:.:::::;:
10.E 6 any P PPY.::. ::::::::::::::::.:...:..........:.
GMAARPr.REV ATTACHMENT 4
Land Use Element Upa....; Revision
ecomply should com 1 with M the Son 669 Obispo Gemmunity Desig
Plan; Wh—ieh to be adepted by the Gettaty. TWs plan establishes standards for
roadway cross-sections, bus stops, walking and bicycle paths, landscaping, view
protection, setbacks, preferred site layouts, and architectural character.
10.5 The City and Getin may prepare a specific plan or a plan for roads, utilities, and
drainage within the airport area.
10.9 8Business parks may be developed in areas designated for them. Business parks are
to accommodate research and development and light manufacturing in a campus
like setting. They should provide high quality design of public and private
facilities. Land designated for business parks should not be further divided until
the City approves a master plan for, and annexation of, the business park.
10.40 9The large recreation space shown in the airport area is to be a golf course,
irrigated with nonpotable (probably reclaimed) water.
10.E Q: The large services and manufacturing area north of the recreation area is
to remain a petroleum tank farm during the planning period. Any more
intense use or commercial development would require an amendment to
this element.
::::_:::..a,...v.vm a w:en.:.,a..v a.v..nv.a...n..........v. :....:.:..n..:....:..<:...n,,,,,':.v......Y„"C;,,,,,;,,,,,,,,,Y:•YNJY>;,>,>:. ...,... .
,,. ........... ... ..m.... .......... .... ....v.:....:..... .... .................:.J.`;....:.:.Y:Y"::::::Y:::{..:.":�::�<.�::�:,'t'::::Y::::'::�:F�•.'::::'.� :Y::! .,:::::Y:..,:..:Y>Y`::Y:.:
€l. l Araxt�rtzt tfi apn3rt ata strtc IreonstexYt nthrowt . aagexneztt
c h ec ss cs m t g rea o�t3 tb a t`res. ]ui*
.jv'�i:�`:••�Y:�.:.YY.7:�i:i`::i`i:i;,.:.�a} Y.: 4.Y.. .v. .. .... .. ..... .: ... ... n..... ..:Y.. ...
t
.... ....................... ... .. .. ...... .:...:n:,,.y.v y::::ny:. ::::ny: :::::v:::::::::n.:::::::::.ry:::::::::y:..:::i:.::: {..ii:�i:':i,i: !:.i:':Jii:'.`:�"': ii:^YYY:.i:.::.::'..Yi:':
.. ....:...:....v. :. '.: _:i. 'Y. .....
� .� :M.Yn��+n:v::�:Y..vny.Y�.{+ }/.,�:::..: •�.Ya(y..:. �_�... ..::..: .::�:..: .:..:: :...iY...:..:....i:'
12 was ceveopezonfc tncucfe:open.spaces as site arnen�ttes and to protect
T`
resrs; as p�pied[ti theprt Space Element:
Programs
10.1 The City will
afea ...10 w
._n.,.>::,.,Y:.: ... :><:;<.;:.:>::
:,.. :.a.;.;, ;:•:.::::::VI..::::h::Y::::..:.:...R:::.Y':...::::::::.::.:i:>'•n`v ::: .:...:::::•:,:.::C:::::::.::...: ;: Y::,:i: `..
spe pans t az ,expt� mea 2d l`oze of the av
A ..
10.2 The City will work with the County to
.v.ng.»n::.gfhttl
line serviair
ces are . i p.:
ca..Yiniiii.Mt.........................
n; QS:''':tii'�.:ie•ila•!Y%rpox
w:...... .............................................h
tttp ETeznegtillics. [to be changed for consistency
:.Y Yri•::.C::.0.....:.......... { •.r.....:n•:..n::n,..,,.,..,n Y
with draft Ci culation Elemen ]
10.3 The City will annex the area in ,
..n.,.,.. .......... .,..na:<;.YY:.... :........ ...::.....,y.. .:.:.:... ...:..:.............:..... ._ _...
• • • y:�..n: oa::::,.Y'.::::..........:..:. ..:...... :5::;..
anc ac x�xrxodate n€ eent develnent canststet Yw}t
....:..�:.....,.a..:,v. incl�tdut5 t�rtse coric�ririii� ad�uhcy�f :
the; agem�rit p�1tt��,
GMAARPT.REV
3��
VENTURA COUNTY GUIDELINES FOR ORDERLY DEVELOPMENT
(policies adopted by county, cities, and county LAFCo)
GENERAL POLICIES
• Urban development should occur, whenever and wherever practical, within
incorporated cities which exist to provide a full range of municipal services and
are responsible for urban land use planning.
• The Cities and County should strive to produce general plans, ordinances and
policies which fulfill these Guidelines.
POLICIES WITHIN AREAS OF INTEREST
• Applications for land use permits or entitlement shall be referred to the City for
review and comment.
• The County is primarily responsible for local land use planning, consistent with
the general land use goals and objectives of the City.
• Urban development should be allowed only within existing "communities" as
designated on the County General Plan.
• Unincorporated urbanized areas should financially support County-administered
urban services which are comparable to those services provided by cities.
POLICIES WITHIN SPHERES OF INFLUENCE
• Applicants for land use permits or entitlement for urban uses shall be
encouraged to apply at the city to achieve their development goals and
discouraged from applying to the County.
• The city is primarily responsible for local land use planning and for providing
municipal services.
• Prior to being developed for urban purposes, or to receiving municipal services,
land should be annexed to the City.
• Annexation to the City is preferable to the formation of new or expansion of
existing County service areas.
• Land uses which are allowed by the County without annexation should be equal
to or more restrictive than land uses allowed by the City.
• Development standards and capital improvement requirements imposed by the
County for new or expanding developments, should not be less than those that
would be imposed by the City.
ATTACHMENT 5
J:13
of r h.., r'.l_il
DRAFT
A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MARIA AND THE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
ESTABLISHING A GREENBELT AND BUFFER FOR THE
AREA EAST OF THE CITY OF SANTA MARIA
WHEREAS, a greenbelt can be defined as an area consisting of prime
agricultural or other open space land, as defined in Section . 6.064 of the
Government Code, which should be preserved for agricultural or other open
space uses; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Santa Maria and the Board of
Supervisors of the County of Santa Barbara %,ish to encourage the preservation
of open space and agricultural uses where possible; and
WHEREAS, the area situated generally east of the City of Santa Maria is
difficult for either City or for the County to service with sewers, »eater, police,
fire protection or other municipal services and is now devoted to agricultural
pursuits; and
'WHEREAS, all. adopted community and regional plans designate the area
for agricultural and open spaces uses, and the area is excluded from the City's
sphere of influence; and
WHEREAS, the preservation of this open space will assist in controlling
urban sprawl and in defining community identity and character.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Santa
Maria and the Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Barbara do hereby:
(1) Declare that the lands in this area are worthy of retention in
agricultural and other open space uses for the overall best interests of the City,
the County and the State;
(2) Establish this greenbelt and agree to a policy of non-annexation, non-
urban development and retention of agricultural and open spaces uses for the
territory as shown on the map attached as "Exhibit A" of this resolution; and
(3) Request that the Local Agency Formation Commission endorse this
greenbelt and continue to act in a manner consistent with the preservation of
the described lands for agricultural and other open space purposes.
The Clerks are directed to send a certified copy of this resolution to the
Local Agency Formation Commission.
Post-it'brand fax transmittal memo 7671 n of pages.
To pro
i
Go ls� ' 7L0
Dem phone _ Revised July 1, 1993
Fax 11 7 Y OaJ Fax ATTACHMENT 6
DRAFT
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Santa Maria on
the day of 1993.
Mayor
City of Santa Maria, California
I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was approved by the City
Council of the City of Santa Maria at a regular meeting held on the
day of 1993 by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was duly and regularly adopted by the Board of
Supervisors of the County of Santa Barbara, California, on the day
of. 1993.
Chair
Board of Supervisors
H
Revised July 1, 1993
TOTAL P.U2
ALL
law U
.ra•
Department of Planning and Building
San Luis Obispo County
Alex Hinds, Director
Bryce Tingle, Assistant Director
Barney McCay, Chief Building Official
Norma Salisbury, Administrative Services Officer
September 12, 1993
John Mandeville, Advance Planning Manager
Community Development Dept
P.O. Box 8100
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
Dear John:
SUBJECT: DRAFT GREENBELT RESOLUTION
Attached is a first draft of a joint resolution regarding the "greenbelt" around the City of San
Luis Obispo for your review and revision, as we recently discussed.
As you can see, the resolution does not establish new land use policies for the county or the city.
However, it could raise awareness among city residents, elected city and county representatives
and their staffs that the area around the city contains important public values that warrant special
consideration under the framework of existing city and county policies and regulations.
While County Counsel has not yet reviewed it, I believe they probably will not have any
concerns about this draft. It is modeled after another resolution recently prepared by us, and
approved by counsel, that addresses the importance of the Morros. I did not wish to have
counsel review too many drafts, nor did I wish to delay our collaborative work on the document.
However, I suspect that you may wish to propose revisions to the resolution, both in form and
substance, and that the resolution will need review by both city and county legal staffs.
Separate from the resolution, I also intend to provide you with a summary of existing county
policies and regulations which have the net effect of protecting the greenbelt.
SSceiely,
Dana C. Lilley. _j—
Senior
JSenior Planner
enclosure
ATTACHMENT 7
Countv Government .=enter San Luis Obisro California °_3408 (8051 7P.
I?:,
RESOLUTION NO. _
JOINT RESOLUTION BY THE COUNTY AND THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
RECOGNIZING THE UNDEVELOPED AREAS AROUND THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AS
A COMMUNITY SEPARATOR/GREENBELT WITH IMPORTANT AGRICULTURAL, SCENIC
AND ECOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The following resolution is now offered and read:
WHEREAS,the general plans for both the County of San Luis Obispo and the City of San
Luis Obispo have policies that encourage the preservation of agriculture, open spaces, scenic
resources, plant and animal habitats, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance; and
WHEREAS, there are areas of the county that due to their special agricultural, scenic,
habitat, historic or aesthetic value should be recognized by the Board of Supervisors of the
County of San Luis Obispo and the San Luis Obispo City Council as requiring particular
attention when making land use decisions; and
WHEREAS, the San Luis Obispo County Open Space Plan identifies within the
undeveloped area of land outside the urban reserve for the City of San Luis Obispo, but within
the San Luis Obispo Planning Area of the county Land Use Element, these special values
including the scenic backdrops comprised of the Cuesta Ridge, Irish Hills and Davenport Creek
Hills, and the major natural landmarks of the Morros; and
WHEREAS, attendees of an April 5, 1989, public workshop on the update of the San Luis
Obispo Area Plan of the county Land Use Element identified as an important issue the need �o
preserve a greenbelt of agricultural and open space areas around the City of San Luis Obispo;
and
WHEREAS, a majority of respondents to a 1988 opinion survey of residents of the City
of San Luis Obispo conducted by the city as part of its Land Use Element update indicated that
the city's greatest strength was its natural beauty, including clean air and open space; and
WHEREAS, future proposed development projects may raise land use and environmental
issues pertaining to agriculture, the flora, fauna, biological environments and historical
significance of this community separator/greenbelt, including, but not limited to each project's
individual effect, the cumulative effect and the precedent setting effect of development outside
of the urban reserve around the city; and
WHEREAS, the rural character of the community separator/greenbelt should be preserved
as much as possible, while respecting the rights of private property owners; and
WHEREAS, if not protected through a cooperative effort, the above values of td(Moi s
will be impaired and may be lost to future generations.
��7
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED BY THLMAN Li OBISPO CITY COUNCIL AND
THE SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AS FOLLOWS:
(1) That the San Luis Obispo City Council and San Luis Obispo Couunty Board of
Supervisors acknowledge that the community separator/greenbelt requires particular study and
attention when making land use decisions.
(2) That the preservation of the community separator/greenbelt is important to all of the
people of the County of San Luis Obispo.
(3) The City Council and Board of Supervisors expresse their mutual interest in working with
the each other for the protection of these special values.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO:
Upon motion of seconded by
and on the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAINING:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of 1993.
Mayor Peg Pinard
ATTEST:
[SEAL]
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL EFFECT:
JEFF JORGENSEN, City Attorney
Dated:
2
F % t^ ;
COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO: iphd
Upon motion of Supervisor seconded by Supervisor
and on the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAINING:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of 1993.
Chairman of the Board of Supervisors
of the County of San Luis Obispo,
State of California
ATTEST:
County Clerk and Ex-Officio Clerk
of the Board of Supervisors,
County of San Luis Obispo,
State of California
[SEAL]
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL EFFECT:
JAMES B. LINDHOLM, 1R.
County Counsel
By:
Deputy County Counsel
Dated:
3
FROA UNOCAL LAND B DEU CO _ 10.29. 1995 13:2 5
a4EETINGIAGENDA
Unocal Land A Davelopnferld . #
Unocal Corporation
201 SouLh Miller,Suite 208
Sanla Marg,California 93.454
Telephone 805 928.0270
Fax(005)926.6246
KtUEI VED
U N O CA 1. 76 . QCT 2 91993
SAN CITY LUIS OSISPo, CA
October Twenty-Ninth, Nineteen Nincty-Three,
Honorable Mayor& Members of City Council
Michael a e19gi Cit of San Luis Obispo
V1w Presidont y p
ProDorly DovoloP"+cnt S Coloay ,.:r.:;
990 Palm Street. a��;,..,,._ 0 131171,�R
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 W 0 ❑ ;Iw IR .
ad11 -,I `I
!l
CLE"i h?a; C+ PC:L'
Re: Airport Area Annexation and Union Oil Comjlany Property �� ❑ f,C„�,,_.., I•
r Lai
Dear Council Members:
To date,Union Oil Company of California, dba Unocal, ("Unocal")and its dcsignatod
representative, Stepben B. Barasch, AIA APA has taken an active role in the Airport Area
Annexation discussions with the City and County of San Luis Obispo over the past four(4)month
period.
You may also be aware that Unocal owns approximately 255 acres of partially improved and
unimproved property on both tLe north and south sides of Tank Farm Road in the unincorporated
porated
portion Of'San Luis Obispo County. This large singularly owned property consists of numerous
individual legal parcels located within the 1700 acre airport annexation project area currently
being considered as a possible addition to the City of Salt Luis Obispo.
After attending several annexation related meetings, reviewing t11e County of San Luis Obispo's
pending land uses fur the area and revicwiug a draft of the City of San Luis Obispo Council
Agenda Report dealing with the Airport Area Annexation, Margarita expansion area, Unocal has
reviewed both the sLort turd long terin uses of this property.
It now appears that the generally adopted County land use designation for the Unocal property of
open space/recreation uses may be adopted by the City of San Luis Obispo as a part of the
specific Airport Area Specific flan. It also appears that the highest potential alternative land use
designation for the Unocal property would be a commercial/service designation (City of San Luis
Obispo C-S zoning regulation)allowing only a slightly higher intensity of use than the underlying
industrial zoning which.currently exists within the San Luis Obispo County Land Use Element.
At present, it appears that there are few, if any, direct benefits for Unocal in the proposed City of
San Luis Obispo's•annexation of the airport area in terms of"value added" property entitlements
or land use potentials. In fact, it now appears that Unocal may be placed in a position to
contribute lteavily to any proposed public utility asscs t11cm district wllcti in fact there are no
FROM UNOCAL LAND L DEU CO 18.29. 1993 13125 P. 3
October 29, 1993
Airport Area Annexation
Page 2
immediate plans to develop any large portions of the property for anything other than petroleum
pipeline related uses. .
Unocal also has no immediate plans to devclup a gulf course or any other recreational oriented
use on the property, nor will Unocal allow any outside party to do the same for several years.
Therefore Unocal has concluded there are few direct benefits to its shareholders resulting from
.the City elf San Luis Obispo annexing any or all of ilie 255 contiguous acres managed by Unocal
Land and Development Compuny in the future.
If however, it can be demunstrated that Unocal's property could be toned to allow for the
development of a significant purtiun of its laud huldings at a higher intensity than is currently
allowed under the San Luis Obispo County Zoning Ordinance then we would reconsider our
current position in regards to the Airpurt Area Annexation process.
Please contact Stephen Barasch at his San Luis Obispo office at 544-2600 or I at 925-0270
should City Council or City staff members have any further questions regarding this letter or our
current position on the proposed City annexation of our property.
Ynurs truly,
Michael A.Bi gi
Vice President, Property Development & Salcs
MAB:cic
cc: Stephen B. Barasch, AIA APA
Keith Gurnee,RRM Design Group
Ken Hampian, Assistant City Administrative OMce
Arnold Jolles, Community Development Director