HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/30/1993, 3 - AIRPORT AREA ANNEXATION & PROTECTION OF OPEN SPACE SOUTH OF AIRPORT AREA �IIIN�Iyill�lllllllll II MEETING DATE:
city o1 san tui s OBISPO %/-3a <
WEI go COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER:
FROM: Ken Hampian, Assistant City Administrative Officer4 i
Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director �o
Prepared by: John Mandeville, Long Range Planning Manager
SUBJECT: Airport Area Annexation & Protection of Open Space South of Airport Area
CAO RECOMMENDATIONS:
That the City Council:
1, Approve the revised schedule for analyzing and pursuing the Airport Area Annexation
(including the Margarita Expansion Area).
2. Adopt a resolution to initiate the annexation process for the Airport Area.
3. Direct staff to submit the resolution to initiate the annexation process, along with the
required application materials and Plan for Services to the Local Agency Formation
Commission (LAFCo).
4. Receive information regarding alternatives for protecting the open space south of the
Airport Area and direct staff to:
a. work with the County to jointly develop a policy program, in a format similar to
the Ventura County Guidelines for Orderly Development, for orderly growth and
community separators within San Luis Obispo County; and
b. work with the County to adopt a joint policy of non-annexation, non-urban
development, and retention of agricultural and open space uses for the area within
the City's greenbelt south of the airport area.
DISCUSSION
Background
This staff report is a follow-up to the Council's November 2nd review of the Airport Area
Annexation Sub-Committee's progress report. At that meeting the Council determined that
annexation of major expansion areas shall not be approved until a specific plan for the expansion
area is adopted. The Council also directed staff to prepare a resolution of application to the
Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) and to forward an annexation application for
the Airport Area (including the Margarita Area) if this would not risk either premature
expiration of the annexation application or loss of application fees if the annexation was
discontinued after reciept of the fiscal impact study. In addition, the Council continued the
portion of the staff report regarding alternative protection strategies for the rural, agricultural
3-
area south of the Airport Area.
Annexation Schedule Revisions
The Airport Area Planning and Annexation Process schedule presented to the Council on
November 2 has been revised to be consistent with the affirmation of City policy requiring
adoption of specific plans for major expansion areas prior to annexation. The timelines for
various annexation actions have been moved so that the City's final annexation action (protest
hearing/annexation resolution) occurs at the same time the City adopts a specific plan for the
annexation area. (The schedule assumes that a specific plan will be prepared for the entire
annexation area, CSA 22 and the Margarita Area. The time allocated for the completion of a
specific plan for the entire area is expected to be similar to the time required to complete a
specific plan for either area individually.)
By conferring with LAFCo staff, City staff confirmed that it is possible to begin the annexation
application process now, without risking expiration of the application before the annexation can
be completed. According to LAFCo staff, the annexation application can remain active for
twelve months from the date the application is considered complete. The annexation application
package to be submitted to LAFCo at this time is not complete. It will not be complete until
the City submits the prezoning for the annexation area and a tax transfer agreement with the
County. The schedule does not have the City submitting the prezoning to LAFCo or completing
the tax transfer agreement until well within twelve months of completing the annexation.
The schedule revisions show completion of the draft specific plan for the Airport Area under
City lead agency beginning and ending approximately two months later than previously shown
to account of the additional time it appears the property owners will need to agree upon a
funding source for preparing the specific plan and public facilities plan. The Public Facilities
Financing Plan timeline has been moved to correspond to the draft specific plan timeline because
the financing plan will be based upon the public facilities identified in the draft specific plan.
City staff also discussed with LAFCo staff the possibility of having the City's annexation
application fee refunded if the annexation application is discontinued. According to LAFCo
staff, the LAFCo Executive Director has the ability to refund whatever portion of the fee is
unused at the time the application is withdrawn. Because very little work will be done by
LAFCo until the application is complete, most of the application fee can be refunded until that
time.
Follow-Up to Question Regarding Specific Plan Requirement for Annexations
At the November 2 Council meeting, the Councilmembers asked how long specific plans
typically take, and if other cities typically require specific plans prior to annexation.
In response to the question "how long do specific plans typically take", there is no typical
amount of time. The amount of time depends on the scope of the specific plan, the issues
involved (environmental, transportation [involving Caltrans or railroads or public utilities 1,the
number of property owners involved (funding), the extent of controversy or public education
required, and the committment of the community and its decision making bodies. Other
3-C;L
jurisdictions have processed specific plans with a scope similar to the Airport Area in about 12
months. In contrast, the Airport Area Specific Plan effort has already been going for over 7
years. A change in the funding mechanism and City control of the process could make a
dramatic difference.
Previous City Specific Plans have varied in the amount of time required to prepare them. The
South Street specific plan required about 18 months. The Edna Islay Specific Plan required
about 30 months while the Higuera Commerce Park took about 24 months. Preparation of some
specific plans has coincided with the process of deciding substantial land use issues, and
therefore have taken longer than if the basic land use pattern simply followed the General Plan.
The annexation requirements of other cities also vary. Pre-annexation requirements sometimes
depend on the scale of the annexation. For example, developed property would entail few
planning requirements, if any. Project specific annexations would require only a development
plan, while large areas would require more planning such as a specific plan. Some cities allow
an annexation to occur, with the annexed land going into a "holding zone" similar the the City's
Interrim Open Space designation, until a specific plan or development plan is prepared. Still
other cities require only prezoning (probably because LAFCos require it). An exhaustive
survey of California cities could determine what is most common, but the range of procedures
could be broad.
Annexation Application
The Airport Area Annexation Sub-Committee is recommending that the City submit an
annexation application for the Airport Area to LAFCo to demonstrate that substantial progress
is being made toward annexing the area. The annexation application should contain a level of
work that will reflect a committment to an annexation effort by the City. The attached
application materials (Attachment 2) will include most of the information LAFCo requires for
a complete application. The annexation application includes:
- 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
LAFCo will need the prezoning for the annexation area and a tax transfer agreement between
the City and County to complete the application. According to the annexation schedule, staff
will process the prezoning while LAFCo reviews the application material and determines if any
additional environmental documentation is necessary. The tax transfer agreement will be the last
item submitted to LAFCo. After certifying the application as complete, LAFCo will schedule
a hearing to review the annexation application.
Two Part Annexation Proposal. The annexation application is structured to allow for the
possibility that the CSA 22 portion of the annexation may be withdrawn from the process while
3-3
the Margarita Area proceeds. The attached application materials divide the Airport Area into
two parts: Part A (Margarita Expansion Area) and Part B (CSA 22 area). By using this format,
LAFCo can disregard Part B of the annexation materials if the CSA 22 area is withdrawn from
the application process, but continue to use the materials to process Part A for the Margarita
Area. (The reverse, however, would not be possible as it would create an island of
unincorporated territory within the City which is not consistent with LAFCo policy.)
Environmental Determination. As the lead agency, LAFCo will make the environmental
determination for the proposed annexation. Staff has submitted the Land Use Element (LUE)
update environmental impact report (EIR) to LAFCo. LAFCo staff will determine if this
document will be adequate to evaluate the environmental impacts of the annexation. If the EIR
can be used for the annexation, redundant environmental analysis can be minimized. If LAFCo
determines it cannot use the LUE update EIR, a separate environmental document will need to
be prepared.
Plan for Services. 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 prepared for the annexation area. This plan will guide
the actual extension and financing of infrastructure to the area.
Protection of Open Space Character South of Airport Area
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 limits but within the City's greenbelt south of the Airport Area which is under County
control will be retained as rural in character and inclusive of open space; areas 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 urban development
similar to what now exists south of the Airport Area. A summary analysis of the open space
policies of these agencies is provided below. With this as the existing situation, another
L3
approach to protecting the City's greenbelt area south of the Airport Area would be to augment
and reinforce the existing policies so that they are given greater consideration by decision
making bodies.
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 requires that areas not designated for urban uses
be designated as open space. This policy is intended to apply to lands under County jurisdiction
as well as land within the City (e.g. South Street Hills). Open space lands are intended to define
the edges of the City so that the City will remain a comprehensible, identifiable place with
distinct boundaries created by the interface of urban development and rural land uses (Draft LUE
p. 22, Policy C.5).
Draft Land Use Element policy states that areas ouWde the urban reserve line but within the San
Luis Obispo Planning Area should be kept open. 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 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 area shown as City greenbelt in the DOSE 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. If existing
County policies and land use regulations are maintained, 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 a 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
interpretation and a majority vote by the Board of Supervisors.
San Luis Obispo County LAFCo review criteria. 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".
Models for augmenting=n space/rural character 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 area 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 than one city may occupy an
area of interest. The Guidelines' 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 3.
The Guidelines' 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. The primary
difference is the format in which they are presented. The Guidelines are made available as a
brochure and are widely distributed. This contributes to a strong awareness of their existence.
In contrast, policies adopted by resolution or as a part of a general plan are often not as focused
or lose their impact when they are grouped with all the other resolutions or general plan policies.
The Ventura County Guidelines for Orderly Development brochure is provided as Attachment
4.
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:
1. As the County considers a project in the greenbelt area;
3- �
2. When the City reviews a County referral of a project in the greenbelt area; and
3. When LAFCo considers the formation of or change to 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 5.
City/County joint resolution similar to resolution to Rrotect 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 6. 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 adopted by resolution 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, they also provide 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 for protecting the Morros is a broad policy statement which
would primarily serve to increase awareness of existing County and City policies when a project
is proposed in the greenbelt area.
The Ventura County Guidelines for Orderly Development differ from the policies contained in
the other models because of the format in which they are presented and distributed. The
primary difference in format is the Guidelines are presented and distributed as a brochure. This
contributes to a stronger awareness of their existence and perhaps greater attention to their
content as proposals affecting open space are reviewed. In contrast, policies adopted by
resolution or as a part of a general plan are often not as focused or lose their impact when they
are grouped with all the other resolutions or general plan policies.
V—
Summer, 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. These
policies might receive more attention and have greater impact if they were put into a format
similar to the Ventura County Guidelines for Orderly Development and mutually adopted by the
City and the County with changes to the language to make their intent even more clear and
acceptable to both agencies.
In addition, a strong policy statement regarding non-annexation, non-urban development and
agricultural retention for the area south of the Airport Area, similar to the policy shared between
the City of Santa Maria and Santa Barbara County, would also provide a greater degree of
assurance that the rural character of the area would be protected. Because the Santa Maria/Santa
Barbara County policy provides less flexibility than the other policies discussed, the County may
be reticent to adopt such a policy on a widespread basis. For that reason the proposal for such
a policy may receive greater support if its application were more narrowly defined.
Staff is therefore recommending that: 1) the City work with the County to jointly develop a
policy program, in a format similar to the Ventura County Guidelines for Orderly Development,
for orderly growth and community separators within San Luis Obispo County (or at least for
City's greenbelt area); and 2) the City work with the County to adopt a joint policy of non-
annexation, non-urban development, and retention of agricultural and open space uses for the
area within the City's greenbelt south of the airport area.
CONCURRENCES
As mentioned previously, the AAPO, Margarita Area Property Owners, County Planning and
LAFCo staff, and the City Economic Stability Task Force generally concur with the process and
schedule set forth in this report. The property owners also agree with the shared funding
strategy for the Fiscal Impact Analysis/Public Facilities Financing Plan. However, concerns
remain among many property owners regarding the requirement that a specific plan be completed
prior to annexation.
FISCAL RUPACTS
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.
Funding for the 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. If the annexation is terminated
before being completed, than LAFCo can refund that portion of the annexation fees that have
not yet been used for the LAFCo review that has occurred up to the time the application is
withdrawn.
3-!RIO
With Council approval, the application costs will be charged against the $100,000 budgeted in
1993-94 for the Economic Stability program.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Revised Schedule
2. Annexation application materials
resolution of application
annexation area map
annexation area legal description
Justification of Proposal
Environmental Assessment
Plan for Services
3. Ventura County Guidelines for Orderly Development policies
4. Ventura County Guidelines for Orderly Development brochure
5. Santa Maria/Santa Barbara County joint resolution
6. City/County joint resolution similar to resolution to protect the Morros
JM/L:annexrpt.anx
3- �
N i TACHMENT 1
> r—J7
oo C �0oZ
o
�«I p 0
_rI_
cQ ;; E II I I vv v
i ` � O o 03
° oaoav — -- u uwuV) zUN
;..__...
tn
I �
LU ; 1 ( 1 1 1 1 11 I l_
r
I
C -
frA
' o
,
Lu
le)�of
ij .a O .......
i.
J� yON
V.-
.
N
�j N
ISI
Q
aj y y O
L cm O C O v
Q V o C O U C
•t � � y � td
7
v y a rz i
c d 'N c
.1 4 0 = c u 0 �i e o 'v n. aci
it r N U V is. t o
o ° o z °
v m y 9 ci
Lr� C G a s 0. 012 0 p y � 'o o ¢ m D
�3 La3 CC a co0 C4
'r-'• ° Qe i�� a c C7 y Fy °�' c �d y uci 0 H e' m e c c
L
p a F a m .. ay �yjy '-+ a n c a7 � � a a°, � ov
t- �
3 L (: oC 9 .,4 o C Itl �' 7 ' ce G
O y 6
r
ATTACHMENT 2
RESOLUTION NO. (1993 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF APPLICATION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF SAN
LUIS OBISPO REQUESTING THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION
COMMISSION TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS FOR THE AIRPORT
AREA ANNEXATION
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
Airport Area annexation, and
WHEREAS, the City Council has held public hearings on the proposed
annexation; and
WHEREAS, City Council approval is a prerequisite for the San Luis
Obispo County Local Agency Formation Commission to initiate formal annexation
proceedings; and
WHEREAS, notice of intent to adopt this resolution of application has been
given to each interested and each subject agency; and
WHEREAS, the territory-proposed to be annexed is inhabited, and a
description of the boundaries of the territory is set forth in Section 2; and
WHEREAS, this annexation proposal is consistent with the sphere of.
influence of the City of San Luis Obispo;
THEREFORE, BE IT NOW RESOLVED BY THE SAN LUIS OBISPO
CITY COUNCIL AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Findings.
� II
1. Annexation is appropriate since the site is generally contiguous to
incorporated areas of the City in on its north, west and east sides.
2. The annexation area is already partially served by City services, and
is a located within the City's Urban Reserve boundary, which designates
the area for which it is City policy to extend urban services.
3. The annexation area is within the Airport Area Specific Planning
Area, and is being jointly planned by the City and the 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 incorporated area.
5. The proposed annexation will promote the orderly development of
the area in manner consistent with City standards and neighboring City
development, ensuring that the area develops as a visually cohesive part of
the City.
6. The proposed annexation will promote the health, safety, and
welfare of persons residing or working within or in 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.
7. The proposed annexation will ensure the continued delivery of high
quality of urban services to the urban areas of the City.
SECTION 2. Annexation Area Described.
Part A: The area generally bounded by the ridge of the South Street Hills,
existing development on South Higuera and Broad Streets, and a
line running west from the Industrial Way intersection.
Part B: The area generally bounded by a line running west from the
Industrial Way-Broad Street intersection; South Higuera Street; a
line 1/4 mile north of Buckley Road east to the airport; the
southern edge of the County Airport, and Broad Street.
SECTION 3. City Council Recommendation. The City Council
recommends that the Local Agency Formation Commission approve the proposed
annexation subject to property owner compliance with all environmental
mitigation measures certified in applicable environmental impact reports and
pursuant to any pre-annexation agreements between the annexation area property
owners and the City.
SECTION 4. Authorization to Staff to Begin Annexation Process.
The City Administrative Officer and Community Development Director are
authorized to submit required annexation application materials and fees, and to
begin negotiations for transfer of property tax revenue when directed by the Local
Agency Formation Commission, 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 and all supporting
documents to the Local Agency Formation Commission.
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
3'13
take proceedings for the annexation of territory as described in Section 2 and as
shown in Exhibit A, 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 this day of
1993.
Peg Pinard, Mayor
ATTEST:
Diane Gladwell, City Clerk
APPROVED:
L�,,IdAtu ZniA Z4444_f�_
rf)PorPns7Cij Attorney
I j
11 = I I
� •jam" '
a i
=�
a 1 I I I� = I
T O . c I
LWl..:a TY.A,a II
a .
r-. I
17 �..
Attachment = 3
AIRPORT AREA ANNEXATION
Legal Description
All of Lots 29, 30,31,32, 33, 34 41, 42,43 , 44,48-62, 66-86, 103-109
and a portion of lots 64, 65 and 87 and the Tank Farm Road, Santa Fe
Road, Buckley Road, Fuller Road and Hopkins Lane Right-of Ways of
SLO Suburban Tract as recorded in Book 1, Page 92 of Records of
Survey; all of the Vachell Tract as recorded in book 1, page 4 of
Licensed Surveys; all of Lots 1 and 2 of the Sees Tract as
recorded in book 1, page 53 of Licensed; portion of Lot 38 of
Ranchita de Santa Fe; all of the Rodriguez Tract as recorded in
book 1, page 91 of Licensed Surveys; portions of Sections 2, 100
11, 12 and 13 of Township 31 South, Range 12 East and portions of
Section 18, Township 31 South, Range 13 East, all of which said
territory is situated in the County of San Luis Obispo, State of
California, more particularly described as follows:
All of the land bounded by the Southerly existing City Limits and
the courses described as follows:
Beginning at a point on the existing City Boundary per the Los
Osos Road No. 1 Addition, the true point of beginning, said
point being the Southerly Corner of Tract 467, Unit 2 as shown
in Map Book 8, page 73 ;
Thence, southeasterly along the Northeasterly line of Parcel
2 as recorded on parcel map COAL-89-095, book 47, page 41 of
Parcel Maps, to the easterly corner of said Parcel 2, also
being a point on the westerly right-of way line of South
Higuera Street;
thence, southwesterly along the South Higuera Right-of way to
a point opposite the westerly terminus of the course labeled
11L9" on aforementioned Parcel map;
thence, easterly along a line at right, angles the
southwesterly right-of-way of said street to the westerly
terminus of the aforementioned course labeled 11L911 ;
thence southeasterly along the course labeled 11L9" to a point
on the westerly line of lot 3 of the Sees Tract as recorded in
book 1, page 53 of Licensed of Surveys;
thence northerly along said line to the northwest corner of
lot 3;
thence easterly along the northerly line of lot 3 to the
northeast corner of said lot, also being a point on the
westerly right-of-way of Buckley Road;
thence, easterly along a line at right angles to the westerly
right-of-way of said road to a point on the easterly right-of-
way of said road,also being a point on the westerly line of
Lot 19 of the Harford and Chapman's Sub-division;
3-I(o
thence, northerly along the westerly line of Lots 19 and 18
of said sub-division to the Southwest corner of Lot 31 of the
Vachell Tract as recorded in book 1, page 4 of Licensed
Surveys;
thence, easterly along the southerly line of said tract to the
northwest corner of Lot 64 of SLO Suburban Tract as recorded
in book 1, page 92 of Licensed Surveys;
thence, southerly along the westerly line of Lot 64 of said
tract a distance of 794 . 63 ' to a point, said point being the
Southwest corner of Assessor's parcel no 76-382-4 ?;
thence, N 35 31'13"E a distance of 68.72' ;
thence, N 71 14'10" E a distance of 168.42' ;
thence, N 50 3914711E a distance of 151.921 ;
thence, N 77 30'20" E a distance of 350.721 ;
thence, N 80 58' 37" E a distance of 208. 23' ;
thence, N 56 54 ' E a distance of 217. 331 ;
thence, N 46 48' 02" E a distance of 111. 05' ;
thence, N 41 43' 34 E a distance of 114. 371 ;
thence, N 32 321'3611E a distance of 137.271 ;
thence, N 14 00138" E a distance of 86.70' ;
thence, N 87 33' 11" E a distance of 34 .94 ' to the Southeast
corner of Lot 65 of the SLO Suburban Tract;
thence, southerly along the easterly line of Lot 65 of said
tract to the southeast corner of said lot, also being a point
on the northerly right-of-way of Buckley Road;
thence; southerly along a line at right angles to said right-
of-way to a point on the southerly right-of-way line of said
road;
thence, easterly along the southerly right-of-way of said
Road to a point being the intersection of the southerly right-
of-way of Buckley Road and the Easterly right-of-way of
Davenport Road;
thence, continuing easterly on the southerly right-of-way of
buckley Road a distance of 983 . 50'± to the Northwest corner of
Assessor's parcel no. 76-062-34;
thence, southerly along the westerly line of said parcel to
3-17
the southwest corner of said parcel;
thence, easterly along the southerly line of said parcel and
Assessor's parcel no. 76-062-33 to the southeast corner of
parcel no 76-062-33 also being a point on the westerly line of
Parcel 1 as shown on Parcel map No. CO-78-215, book 28, page
84 of Parcel Maps;
thence, southerly along the westerly line of said parcel to
the southwest corner of said parcel;
thence, easterly along the southerly line of said parcel to
the southeast corner of said parcel;
thence, northerly along the easterly line of said parcel to
the northeast corner of said parcel , also being a point on
the southerly right-of-way of Buckley road;
thence, easterly along said right-of-way to the northeast
corner of Parcel 3 of said parcel map, point also being the
intersection of said right-of-way and the southwesterly right-
of-way line of State Route 227;
thence, southeasterly along the southwesterly right-of-way of
State Route 227 to the intersection of said right-of-way and
the northwesterly line of Lot "O" of the Holister Tract as
recorded n book "J", page 361 of Official Records;
thence, continuing northeasterly to the intersection of Lot
"O" of said Tract and the northeasterly right-of-way of said
State Route;
thence, continuing northeasterly along the northwesterly line
of Lot"O" of said tract to the intersection of said line and
the common section line to Section 7, Township 31 South, Range
13 East, Mount Diablo Base & Meridian and Section 18, T31S,
R13E, MDB&M;
thence, westerly along said common section line to the
southwest corner of Section 7, T31S, R13E,MDB&M;
Thence, northerly along the westerly section line of said
section to the northwest corner of the southwest 1/4 of said
section 7, this point also being a point on the Existing City
boundary as shown on the Industrial Annexation filed May 1960.
3—Ig
LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION
County of San Luis Obispo
JUSTIFICATION OF PROPOSAL
The California Government Code requires the Commission to review
specific factors in its consideration of this proposal. Please complete this
form to facilitate our review.
GENERAL INFORMATION
(Note: The annexation area is divided into two parts, 'A'and 'B'. Where information
differs for Part A and Part B, the response is separated for each part to accurately
reflect the conditions of that individual part.l
Name of Proposal: Airport Area Annexation
1 . This application was initiated by:
Petition X Resolution of Application
2. Does the application include 100% written consent of each property
owner in the affected territory? Yes No X
3. State reason(s) for requesting the proposed action.
Part A: The area is surrounded on three sides by urban development
within the City. The area has been planned in the City's Land Use
Element to provide additional housing and residential services which will
improve the City's lobs/housing balance.
Part 6: The area has been experiencing pressure for urban development.
Some prooerties in the area have already developed with urban uses. The
area currently lacks urban services. Annexation will allow for the area
to develop in a more orderly manner according to City standards
compatible with neighboring City development.
4. State general location of affected territory. (from Environmental
Assessment form)
5. Is the affected territory inhabited or uninhabited (less than 12 registered
voters)? The area is inhabited.
6. Do the boundries of the district or city overlap or conflict with the
boundaries of the proposed annexation? No
3-I�
7. Do the boundaries of the territory proposed split lines of assessment?
No
8. Do the boundaries of the territory proposed create an island or
corridor of unincorporated territory or a strip? No
9. If yes, justify the necessity for the boundaries as proposed. NA
10. If the proposed boundary follows a street or highway, does it include
the entire street or highway? Yes - portions of Highway 227/Broad
Street, Yes - Portions of South Hiquera Street. Yes - Portions of
Buckley Road.
11 . Name the city or district(s) which will be affected by this proposal. _
Part A: City of San Luis Obispo. County of San Luis Obispo.
Part B: City. County. and County Service Area 22.
12. Total acreage:
Part A: 423 ac.
Part 8: 1287 ac.
Total: 1710 ac.
LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL
1 . Indicate the General Plan designation of the city (if applicable): The
City of San Luis Obispo is in the process of updating its General Plan
Land Use Element. A draft element has been competed and will
begin public hearings for adoption in October 1993. The update is
expected to be adoped in April 1994, prior to completion of this
annexation. Land use designations in the Airport Area include:
Part A: Conservation/Open Space, Interim Open Space. Business
Park. Recreation. and Park.
Part B: Services and Manufacturing: Business Park: Recreation:
Tourist Commercial: Government Facilities: Neighborhood Commercial:
Medium Density Residential.
San Luis Obispo County: The County's adopted land use designations
are:
Part A: Residential Rural: Residential Single Family: Agricultural: and
Flood Hazard: Industrial.
Part B: Industrial: Agricultural: Flood Hazard: Public Facilities.
3 e2�
2. Describe any special land use concerns expressed in the above
plans.
3. Indicate the existing land use: Existing land uses are as follows:
Part A: Undeveloped/vacant: agriculture; single-family residential;
right-of-ways.
Part B: Undeveloped/vacant; agriculture: office; trades and services;
light industrial (incl. manufacturing, wholesaling, warehousing
storage, trucking. and retention ponds): retail; communications; airport
and related uses: heavy industrial; single-family residential.
4. What is the proposed land use? See the proposed land uses in City
Land Use Element update described in #1 above.
5. Has the affected territory been prezoned: N/A No _X_ Yes
If yes, what is the prezoning title and densities permitted? Council is
scheduled to consider prezoning in January 1994,
6. Describe the specific development potential of the property:
According to the City's Draft Land Use Element the development
potential is as follows:
Part A: Business Park - 58.05 ac: Conservation Open Space -
150.65 ac: Interim Open Space (residential & neighborhood servicesl
- 162.37 ac: Parks - 38.69 ac: Recreation - 6.73 ac: Medium
Density Residential - 1 .71 ac.
Part B: Business Park - 69.28 ac: Service/Manufacturing - 514.82
ac: Tourist Commercial - 13.54 ac: open space - 97.46 ac:
Recreation - 229.46 ac; Medium density residential - 42.46 ac: Low
Density Residential - 34.11 ac; Government Facilities - 222.68 ac.
Below, please provide names and addresses of Applicant's Agent and/or other persons
to whom copies of the Agenda, Executive Officer's report and any required notice of
hearing is to be furnished.
Name Address Phone No.
Ken Hampian (Applicant) City of SLO, P.O. Box 8100, SLO 93403-8100 781-7123
Jeff Jorgensen City of SLO, P.O. Box 8100, SLO 93403-8100 781-7140
Arnold Jonas City of SLO, P.O. Box 8100, SLO 93403-8100 781-7170
John Mandeville City of SLO, P.O. Box 8100, SLO 93403-8100 781-7187
43-e;4
INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Context
Pursuant to CEQA, this environmental assessment analyzes the environmental effects of
changing jurisdiction for the annexation area from the County to the City. This assessment
examines annexing the two parts which comprise the Airport Area: (A) the Margarita Area
and (B) the "CSA 22" Area. No physical changes will result directly from the annexation.
However, annexation may change the ultimate buildout potential of the area. The different
buildout would in turn cause environmental impacts.
Planning Policies
City and County plans for the area have differed substantially in the past. They are
becoming more similar. To the extent that the County's General Plan and the City's
General Plan show the same types and intensities of development for the area, annexation
would make no difference in impacts.
The County's Public Hearing Draft San Luis Obispo Area Plan (January 1993), when
adopted, will establish the buildout potential for the area under County jurisdiction; the
City's Draft Land Use Element (February 1992), when adopted, will establish the buildout
potential the under City jurisdiction. The land use types for the annexation area in both
these planning documents are based on the Airport Area Specific Plan Conceptual Land
Use Plan, and are therefore very similar.
Utility Service
Availability of water and sewer service will largely determine the intensity of development.
Water and sewer facilities for almost all of the annexation area are provided by on-site wells
and septic systems. For the area to develop to its ultimate potential under the County's
Draft Area Plan, a county service area will have to provide new water delivery and sewage
treatment systems. Developing to its ultimate potential under the City's Draft Land Use
Element will require the City extend its water and sewer systems to serve the annexation
area. It probably will cost more for the county service district to provide the same level of
service possible with City systems. The higher cost of services under the county service
district probably will limit services in the annexation area to a level lower than would be
provided by the City. Assuming development potential corresponds with infrastructure
capacity, the development potential in the City will be greater than in the County. Exactly
how much greater is not known at this time.
Previous Environmental Review
The City has prepared an environmental impact report for its Draft Land Use Element
which describes the potential environmental impacts that could result at buildout of the
Element. The responses to the questions in this environmental assessment for the
annexation area are based on the information contained in the County Draft Area Plan and
in the City's Draft Land Use Element and its Environmental Impact Report.
3 0�0�
PART A - MARGARITA AREA
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM
1 . Is the site presently zoned for, designated , or engaged in agricultural use?
Yes X No If yes, explain Most of the land has been „-sed for
cattle F-
2.
2. Will extension of services requested for this proposal induce growth on the
affected property? Yes X No On adjacent properties? Yes X
No UnincorporatecT Incorporated Both
3. Will the proposal require public services from any agency or facility which is
currently operating at or near capacity, i .e. sewer , water, police or fire?
Yes _X No If yes, please explain: Expansion of all City service
capacities will be reguired
4. State general description of topography: rtod'erate to steep slopes on the
South Street Hills; level to gentle slopes with widely spaced stream
channels.
5. Has, or is, an Environmental Impact Report being prepared for this project?
Jan- 1Q94, ('.1xatI bl ;choA Tlrnft F-ru for Land T1_,- Element update, which
includes anneion and development of area.*
6. If so, who is the Lead Agency for the project? City of San Luis Obispo
7. Indicate Environmental Determination. . by Lead
Agency: c
with respect to (project)
dated:
NOTE: Not all projects will necessitate the preparation of an Environmental Impact
Report. In order to make a determination as to whether any significant adverse
environmental impacts may result from the proposed project, this form must be
filled out and submitted to the Executive Officer for evaluation. Final
determination for Negative Declaration status or the need for an Environmental
Impact Report will be made by the Local Agency Formation Commission.
Please answer the following questions to the best of your knowledge. If it is
determined by the Executive Officer that answers are not sufficient or are
incomplete , he will notify you and indicate the areas where further explanation is
needed.
Name and/zr. Description of Project: _Airport Arpa Annexation-Part A (Margarita Arco)
Proposed Development, if any: About 1,100 dwellings of various sizes, types;_small—
neighborhood commercial centers; elementary school; business park.
*EIR supplement anticipated for the required specific plan.
L
Location: Area generally bounded by ridge of Sn1tth cr t Hills: ex;st;no
development on South Higuera and Broad Streets: a e
Industrial Way intersection.
Address:
A. Site Information: ( If more detail is needed , attached sheet. )
1 . Setting: Urban, fringe, or rural fringe
2. Terrain: Level to Gently Rolling (0-10%) most of site
Slopes (10-30%) some
Steep Slopes (over 30%) some
3. Hydrology: Streams, lakes, or marshes on site?
No Yes x
DescrIT Creeks saang. and marshes identified in Cit�Z'c drnfr
Open Space Element and Margarita Area Concept Plan.
4. Proposed grading and land disruption To be avoided on hillsides and minimized
in wetland areas.
S. Vegetation: All natural vegetation already removed
or altered no
Natural vegetation will be undisturbed on hills
*Significant tree-cutting or vegetation E
removal proposed (describe number of..
trees, area affected, etc. ) none
Is land currently under agricultural
use? yes, grazing
*Describe: Most djqturhnncp will be on non-native grassland•RPr_nPnri„P
endemics and riparian areas will be protected.
6. Adjoining land: Same use as proposed? Yes No g
If different use, describe: Commercial agricultural rural indugrrial
(tank farm)
7. Describe any other unique or significant features of the site , including
cultural , historical or scenic aspects: High—voltage power lines•
Acacia Creek; Damon and Garcia ranches.
3a.
B. Please complete the following regarding the project 's potential significant
environmental impacts. Discuss below all items checked Yes or Potentially.
(Attach additional sheets as necessary )
Yes No Potentially
1 . Could the project disrupt or divide an
established community or disrupt orderly,
planned development, or is it inconsistent
with plans and goals that have been adopted
by the community in which the project is
located? _ X
2. Could is cause increased congestion or
result in higher densities than desired by
the community? X
3. Could the project result in the temporary
or permanent displacement or annoyance of
neighboring community residents? - X
4. Could the project have an effect on
natural , ecological , cultural , or scenic
resources of national , state or local
concern? X
5. Is the project in an area characterized 'by
unique physical features? X
6. Is the project near the shoreline, near any
natural or partially channelized flood
plains, or on any hillsides visible to
surrounding properties? X
7. Could any geologic features (slide prone
areas, earthquake faults, etc. ) cause
adverse conditions to result from this
project? X
8. Could the project disrupt or alter the
appearance of the surroundings of any
historic or archaeol i gi cal site? X
9. Could the project affect the potential use ,
extraction, or conservation of a scarce
natural resource? X
10. Could the project affect the continued use
of a recreational area or area of important
aesthetic value? X
11. Could any wildlife or unique vegetative
communities be disrupted or displaced by
this project? X
12. Could any wildlife migration patterns be X
A:�rnhn.i by hhn nnninrf7
Yes No Potentially
13. Could existing noise levels be increased by
this project (including during its construction
period) to the extent that present or future
residents or passers-by would be annoyed to any
degree? X
14. Would recreational or wildlife areas be detri -
mentally affected by noise increases? X
15. Could the project increase air pollution levels
in the area or exceed any existing air pollution
standards ? (Particulate matter (dust) as well
as chemical polIutan is should be considered. ) X
16. Could any unique characteristic be introduced
into the area's atmosphere, such as sonic
booms, radiation, annoying electronic trans-
missions, etc.? X
17. Could the proposed project have any detrimental
effect on existing water quality or quantities,
of either surface or subsurface supplies? x
18. Could the project disrupt or alter any items not
specifically discussed above, including 'Land
Resources, Water Resources, Air Resources,
Noise Levels, or Biological Resources? x
19. Could the project establish any precedents or
facilitate any other projects of which the
impacts of these may be significant? Could
the project serve to encourage development of
already undeveloped areas? (Examples include
the introduction of facilities such as streets,
roads, water mains, or sewerage lines in such
a manner as to facilitate development or
intensification of the use of an area. ) X
20. Could the project generate a controversy? x
21 . Could the project result in inefficient or
unnecessary consumption of energy? X
22. Could mitigation measures minimize or
eliminate such adverse impact on energy
consumption?
Describe: N.A.
3c.
C. If you have answered "yes" to one or more of the prior questions, but still
think the project will not or cannot have any significant environmental
effects, indicate your reasons below:
N.A.
D. If development is proposed for the project site , complete the following
questions. N.A.
1 . Present land use:
2. Describe existing structures on the site- and use of the structures:
3. Type of land use surrounding properties (residential , commercial , etc. ) :
4. Intensity of use of surrounding properties (one-family, apartment
houses; shops, etc. ):
CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the
attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial
evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements , and
information presented are true and correct.to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Date: 10-14-93
Signature
For City of San Luis Obispo
Community Development Department
3d.
Date:
Local Agency Formation Commission
County of San Luis Obispo
Room 370, County Government Center
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Commissioners:
This will serve to notify you of our approval of the annexation of
territory
to
which inc u es our property as listed below.
Assessor's Parcel Nos.
�-a g
LAFCO Environmental Assessment Form
Attachment: Discussion of Potential Impacts
AIRPORT AREA ANNEXATION: PART A - MARGARITA AREA
1. Community goals (see also Introduction)
The City's General Plan has long shown the Margarita Area as a potential residential
expansion. The General Plan says a specific plan for the area must be adopted before
annexation and development. The City is amending its General Plan Land Use Element
and Circulation Element, to enlarge the expansion area and to show more explicitly
major street extensions and land uses,-including parks and some nonresidential uses.
The City is considering amending its General Plan to allow annexation before adoption
of a specific plan, though a specific plan still would be required before development.
The County's adopted plan for the area is similar to the City's. The County proposes to
make its plan for the area basically the same as the City's proposed plan.
The City and the property owners have been working on a draft specific plan for the
area. A concept plan has been endorsed by the City Council to serve as the project
description for further environmental review. The concept plan includes two major
alternatives concerning the alignment for extending Prado Road, as well as several
options concerning local streets and other design features.
2. Community disruption
The proposed Margarita Area Concept Plan is consistent with the adopted General Plan,
in the area adjacent to the existing neighborhood. However, some people living at the
edges of the proposed Margarita Area plan have objected to the extent and intensity of
proposed development. For current residents at the edge, the change from open grazing
land to continuation of a city neighborhood will be substantial, despite proposed design
standards to preserve privacy and principal views and to avoid through traffic on most
existing local streets.
3. Annoyance of neighbors
More intensive development in the Margarita Area and in the rest of the Airport Area
will expose commercial and residential neighbors to the effects of grading, construction,
and related traffic. Even with measures to avoid effects on local residential streets and
across residential property lines, it will not be possible to avoid all annoyance.
3-aq
Annexation Assessment - Margarita Area
4. Natural resources
Industrial or rural residential development under County jurisdiction has the potential to
impact intermittent streams, wetlands (seeps and marshes), hillsides, and historical or
archaeological resources. Development under City jurisdiction probably will be more
intensive overall, but subject to similar or more effective measures to protect the most
sensitive natural areas.
6. Flood plains, hillsides
The area includes hillsides subject to rural residential development under County
jurisdiction. They would be designated open space under City jurisdiction. Much of the
southwestern quarter of the area is within the 100-year flood plain. Most creeks have
not been channelized. The approach of maintaining natural channels, with flood water
detention areas, would be continued under City jurisdiction.
7. Geologic hazards
Like most of San Luis Obispo, parts of the area are subject to intense ground shaking
during an earthquake, and possibly liquefaction. City jurisdiction will not change the
overall level of risk.
8. Historical and archaeological sites
The wood-frame ranch house near Broad Street, dating approximately from the turn of
the century, would be restored and preserved in place, along with its immediate
surroundings.
The area is not particularly sensitive archaeologically. Impacts will be mitigated in the
course of development by standard measures.
11. Wildlife, plant communities
12. Wildlife migrations
See #4 and #6 above.
2
0-30
Annexation Assessment - Margarita Area
13. Noise exposure
Development of more intensive uses in the Margarita Area and in the rest of the Airport
Area will expose commercial and residential neighbors to the effects of grading,
construction, and related traffic.
14. Noise exposure - wildlife & recreation
No existing wildlife or recreation areas are expected to have substantially higher noise
exposure with City jurisdiction and resulting more intensive development.
15. Air pollution
More intensive or more rapid development under City jurisdiction could increase dust
and vehicle emissions during construction, and vehicle emissions and chemical pollutants
due to additional industrial development. Individual stationary source controls,
administered by the Air Pollution Control District, would be the same under City or
County jurisdiction. Trip reduction efforts would be similar.
16. Atmospheric conditions
Certain industries locating in the business park may use equipment that could interfere
with aircraft communication or navigation equipment. Federal regulations are expected
to mitigate this impact.
17. Water quality and quantity
City jurisdiction, over the long term, probably will not make a difference in usage of
area groundwater. Water quality is not expected to be significantly different under
County or City jurisdiction. Avoidance of on-site sewage disposal systems is expected to
result in better water quality than if on-site systems are widely used.
18. Other concerns - electromagnetic fields
More people could be exposed to electromagnetic fields due to more intensive
development near the high-voltage transmission lines. The proposed specific plan will
establish setbacks based on prudent avoidance.
3 ��� I
Annexation Assessment - Margarita Area
19. Precedent, growth inducement
The main incentive for area property owners to annex is more rapid or more intense
development under City jurisdiction and with City services. Avoiding another area of
fringe development beyond the currently designated airport area is a key issue in
deciding appropriate annexation polices and programs. As part of the annexation
process, the City proposes a "greenbelt agreement" with the County to prevent further
urban sprawl in the Edna Valley.
20. Controversy
Annexation is likely to be controversial because it will. be seen as growth inducing and a
fiscal drain for the City. While the City is trying to communicate the situation to
concerned citizens and proposing measures to mitigate these concerns, controversy
cannot be avoided.
pOAARGANNXIES
4 ���
PART B - CSA 22 AREA
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM
1 . Is the site presently zoned for, designated , or engaged in agricultural use?
Yes X No If yes, explain About 50 acres are cultivated; some
grazing
2. Will extension of services requested for this proposal induce growth on the
affected property? Yes �_ No On adjacent properties? Yes X
No Unincorporated X Incorporated Both
3. Will the proposal require public services from any agency or facility which is
currently operating at or near capacity, i.e. sewer, water, police or fire?
Yes X No If yes, please explain: Expansion of all City service
capacities will be required SPP Draft Tann Use Element & Circ ,latinn
Element updates E.I.R.
4. State general description of topography: Level to gently sloping, with
widely spaced stream channels.
5. Has, or is, an Environmental Impact Report being prepared for this project?
City has published Draft EIR which covers annexation of airport area.
6. If so, who is the Lead Agency for the project? City of San Luis Obispo
7. Indicate Environmental Determination. by Lead
Agency: (certification pending)
with respect to (project)
dated:
NOTE: Not all projects will necessitate the preparation of an Environmental Impact
Report. In order to make a determination as to whether any significant adverse
environmental impacts may result from the proposed project, this form must be
filled out and submitted to the Executive Officer for evaluation. Final
determination for Negative Declaration status or the need for an Environmental
Impact Report will be made by the Local Agency Formation Commission.
Please answer the following questions to the best of your knowledge. If it is
determined by the Executive Officer that answers are not sufficient or are
incomplete , he will notify you and indicate the areas where further explanation is
needed.
Name and/.or. Description of Project: Airport Area Annexation-
Part B (CSA 22 area)
Proposed Development, if any: Services & manufacturing - 700 acres; business parks=
_60 acres; Recreation - 270 acres; tourist commercial - 13 acres; medium density
residential - up to 30 acres.
Location: Area generally bounded by a line running wear frnm rhe grnad-Tndustrial
_Way intersection South Higuera St • a line �r mile north of Rurklev Road east to
the airport; the southern edge of the County Airport and Broad Street.
Address:
A. Site Information: ( If more detail is needed , attached sheet. )
1 . Setting: Urban, fringe, or rural fringe
2. Terrain: Level to Gently Rolling (0-10%) X
Slopes (10-30%)
Steep Slopes (over 30%)
3. Hydrology: Streams, lakes, or marshes on site?
No Yes X
Describe: Acacia Creek and minor swales
4. Proposed grading and land disruption To be avoided in riparian areas;
minor levelling and fill in most areas.
5. Vegetation: All natural vegetation already removed
or altered except along some channels
Natural vegetation will be undisturbed
*Significant tree-cutting or vegetation f
removal proposed (describe number of
trees, area affected, etc. )
Is land currently under agricultural
use? about 50 acres
*Describe:
6. Adjoining land: Same use as proposed? Yes No X
If different use, describe: Agriculture rural residential
7. Describe any other unique or significant features of the site , including
cultural , historical or scenic aspects: Union oil tank farm and soil
contamination area; County Airport.
3a.
B. Please complete the following regarding the project 's potential significant
environmental impacts. Discuss below all items checked Yes or Potentially.
.(Attach additional sheets as necessary)
Yes No Potentiallv
1 . Could the project disrupt or divide an
established community or disrupt orderly,
planned development, or is it inconsistent
with plans and goals that have been adopted
by the community in which the project is
located? X
2. Could is cause increased congestion or
result in higher densities than desired by
the community? X
3. Could the project result in the temporary
or permanent displacement or annoyance of
neighboring community residents? X
4. Could the project have an effect on
natural , ecological , cultural , or scenic
resources of national , state or local
concern? X
5. Is the project in an area characterized 'by
unique physical features? X
6. Is the project near the shoreline, near any
natural or partially channelized flood
plains, or on any hillsides visible to
surrounding properties? X
7. Could any geologic features (slide prone
areas, earthquake faults, etc. ) cause
adverse conditions to result from this
project? X
8. Could the project disrupt or alter the .
appearance of the surroundings of any
historic or archaeoligical site? X
9. Could the project affect the potential use ,
extraction, or conservation of a scarce
natural resource? X
10. Could the .project affect the continued use
of a recreational area or area of important
aesthetic value? X
11 . Could any wildlife or unique vegetative
communities be disrupted or displaced by
this project? X .3-35
12. Could any wildlife migration patterns be X
h,, fkn nnninrt?
Yes No Potentially
13. Could existing noise levels be increased by
this project (including during its construction
period) to the extent that present or future
residents or passers-by would be annoyed to any
degree? X
14. Would recreational or wildlife areas be detri -
mentally affected by noise increases? X
15. Could the project increase air pollution levels
in the area or exceed any existing air pollution
standards? (Particulate matter (dust) as well
as chemical pollutants should be considered. ) X
16. Could any unique characteristic be introduced
into the area's atmosphere, such as sonic
booms, radiation, annoying electronic trans-
missions, etc.? X
17. Could the proposed project have any detrimental
effect on existing water quality or quantities,
of either surface or subsurface supplies? X
18. Could the project disrupt or alter any items not
specifically discussed above, including land
Resources, Water Resources, Air Resources,
Noise Levels, or Biological Resources? x
19. Could the project establish any precedents or
facilitate any other projects of which the
impacts of these may be significant? Could
the project serve to encourage development of
already undeveloped areas? (Examples include
the introduction of facilities such as streets,
roads, water mains, or sewerage lines in such
a manner as to facilitate development or
intensification of the use of an area. ) X
20. Could the project generate a controversy? X
21 . Could the project result in inefficient or
unnecessary consumption of energy? X
22. Could mitigation measures minimize or
eliminate such adverse impact on energy
consumption?
Describe: N.A.
3c.
C. If you have answered "yes to one or more of the prior questions, but still
think the project will not or cannot have any significant environmental
effects, indicate your reasons below:
N.A.
D. If development is proposed for the project site , complete the following
questions. N.A.
1 . Present land use:
2. Describe existing structures on the site- and use of the structures:
3. Type of land use surrounding properties (residential , commercial , etc. ) :
4. Intensity of use of surrounding properties (one-family, apartment
houses ; shops, etc. ):
CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the
attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial
evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts , statements , and
information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Date: 10-14-93
Signature
For City of San Luis Obisvo
Community Development Department
3 37
Date:
Local Agency Formation Commission
County of San Luis Obispo
Room 370, County Government Center
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Commissioners:
This will serve to notify you of our approval of the annexation of
territory
to
which inc u es our property as listed below.
Assessor's Parcel Nos.
LAFCO Environmental Assessment Form
Attachment: Discussion of Potential Impacts
AIRPORT AREA ANNEXATION: PART B (CSA 22 AREA)
1. Community goals (see also the Introduction)
The City's adopted General Plan Land Use Element shows most of the Airport Area as
rural industrial, a category for agriculture and businesses needing a lot of space but no
urban services. The City proposes to amend its Land Use Element, to designate most of
the area for urban commercial, industrial, and recreational uses.
The adopted County Land Use Element designates most of the area for industrial use.
The County proposes to amend its San Luis Obispo Area Plan, to designate the area as
proposed by the City.
The City, the County, and the area property owners have been working on a draft
specific plan for the area. A concept plan was endorsed by the City Council to serve as
the project description for further environmental review. The proposed City and County
land use elements are similar to the concept plan.
2. Community disruption
The City's proposed Land Use Element would allow more intensive development in parts
of the area than the City's adopted Land Use Element. Availability of City services may
result in more intensive development than if services are provided by private systems or
a special district under County jurisdiction. To the extent that more traffic is generated
by more intensive uses, there would be increased congestion on roads serving the area.
The City's draft EIR indicates that Broad Street would have unacceptable levels of
service even with proposed trip reduction programs and street widening.
3. Annoyance of neighbors
More intensive development in the area will expose commercial and residential
neighbors to the effects of grading, construction, and related traffic. Even with measures
to avoid effects on local residential streets and across residential property lines, it will
not be possible to avoid all annoyance.
4. Natural resources
Industrial or commercial development under County jurisdiction has the potential to
impact intermittent streams, wetlands (seeps and marshes), hillsides, and historical or
archaeological resources. Development under City jurisdiction probably will be more
intensive overall, but subject to similar or more effective measures to protect the most
sensitive natural areas. -r;�
3
Annexation Assessment - CSA 22 Area
6. Flood plains, hillsides
Much of the western one-third of the area is within the 100-year flood plain. Most
creeks have not been channelized. The approach of maintaining natural channels, with
flood water detention areas, would be continued under City jurisdiction.
7. Geologic hazards
Like most of San Luis Obispo, parts of the area are subject to intense ground shaking
during an earthquake, and possibly liquefaction. City jurisdiction will not change the
overall level of risk.
8. Historical and archaeological sites
The area is not particularly sensitive archaeologically. Impacts will be mitigated in the
course of development by standard measures.
11. Wildlife, plant communities
12. Wildlife migrations
See #4 and #6 above.
13. Noise exposure
Development of more intensive uses in the Airport Area will expose commercial and
residential neighbors to the effects of grading, construction, and related traffic.
15. Air pollution
More intensive or more rapid development under City jurisdiction could increase dust
and vehicle emissions during construction, and vehicle emissions and chemical pollutants
due to additional industrial development. Individual stationary source controls,
administered by the Air Pollution Control District, would be the same under City or
County jurisdiction. Trip reduction efforts would be similar.
16. Atmospheric conditions
Certain industries locating in the business parks or services and manufacturing areas may
use equipment that could interfere with aircraft communication or navigation equipment.
Federal regulations are expected to mitigate this impact.
2 3'�{C�
Annexation Assessment - CSA 22 Area
17. Water quality and quantity
City jurisdiction, over the long term, probably will not make a difference in usage of
area groundwater. Water quality is not expected to be significantly different under
County or City jurisdiction. Avoidance of on-site sewage disposal systems is expected to
result in better water quality than if on-site systems are widely used.
19. Precedent, growth inducement
The main incentive for area property owners to annex is more rapid or more intense
development under City jurisdiction and with City services. Avoiding another area of
fringe development beyond the currently designated airport area is a key issue in
deciding appropriate annexation polices and programs. As part of the annexation
process, the City proposes a "greenbelt agreement" with the County to prevent further
urban sprawl in the Edna Valley.
20. Controversy
Annexation is likely to be controversial because it will be seen as growth inducing and a
fiscal drain for the City. While the City is trying to communicate the situation to
concerned citizens and proposing measures to mitigate these concerns, controversy
cannot be avoided.
pa. \ AtNXIEs
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLAN FOR SERVICES FOR THE
AIRPORT AREA ANNEXATION
1. Water Service
At this time any significant increase in development intensity of the annexation area is
dependent on an imported water supply. The annexation area is adjacent to areas
which receive City water services on the north, west, and east sides. The City is
pursuing additional water supplies from Nacimiento Lake which could be used to
service the annexation area. At such time as additional supplies are available, the
City will be able to extend its water services to the annexation area. The cost of
necessary storage, transmission, and distribution facilities will be shared by the
property owners.
Property owners may retain existing potable water sources provided they were legally
installed and meet County standards at the time of annexation. They may connect to
the City system at their expense at such time as additional water sources are brought
into service by the City for the area in which the property is located. Once connected
to the City system, they may maintain existing non-potable sources only. Upon
development or redevelopment, properties will be subject to all City regulations
regarding water service as would other properties in the City under similar
conditions, including retrofit requirements.
2. Sewer Service
City sewer lines are adjacent to the annexation area on the north, west, and east sides.
In addition, a City sewer line currently serves the County Airport. Property owners
have the option to maintain their existing wastewater systems, but must connect to
the City system at their expense at the time of development or system
failure/abandonment.
Capacity at the City wastewater treatment facility can be added as needed to serve the
area. Additional trunk and lateral pipelines must be extended to service the area.
Upgrading and/or replacement of two sewer lift stations will be required to serve
future development. Property owners will be required to pay their share of the costs
to install these facilities and provide any necessary capacity upgrades to the
wastewater treatment facility. A capital improvement plan and financing plan will be
included as a component of the overall plan adopted to guide development of the
Airport Area. Some of the lots may require ejector pumps to aid disposal of sewage.
3. Fire Protection
City Fire Department personnel and equipment will be expanded as necessary to serve
the Airport Area. Infrastructure including fire hydrants will be installed as
determined necessary by the City Fire Department consistent with adopted fire safety
codes. Future development will be required to meet applicable fire safety building
codes. Property owners are expected to pay for their share of the cost of
infrastructure, equipment, and personnel.
4. Upgrading Structures, Roads, and Other Public Facilities
At the time that properties in the annexation area develop or are redeveloped,
property owners will be expected to dedicate easements and dedicate rights-of-way
and install and pay for all improvements which may be required by permit, law,
rule, regulation, or mitigation measures of the current or future environmental
determination including but not limited to building or remodelling structures, street
widening, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, bike lanes, street trees, street lights, traffic
signals, landscaping, and on-site fire protection.
Improvements to arterial streets and highways could occur prior to full development
of the area if traffic volumes warrant them. The costs for improving streets and
roads and/or installation of traffic signals may be shared by the City, State, and
property owners depending on specific location. Some revenue for these expenses
may be generated by a traffic impact fee or other appropriate mechanism. Private
access from properties to the side streets would be installed at the property owner's
expense when properties are developed.
5. Parks and Recreation
The City provides parks and recreation services, primarily through the Recreation
Department. The City's goal is to provide at least 10 acres of parks per 1,000
residents. The City's existing parkland is adequate to serve existing population.
Additional parkland and facilities will be needed to serve additional population. The
annexation area will include parkland to service population generated by development
in the annexation area. Administration of City parks will be provided by the City
Recreation Department. Maintenance is provided by the City Public Works
Department.
6. Police Protection
Police protection is provided within the city limits by the San Luis Obispo Police
Department. Additional development within the City will require additional staff and
facilities for police protection in order to maintain the current level of service.
Development in the annexation area will be required to provide the resources
necessary to serve the area.
7. Administration/General Government Services
The City will provide administrative/general governmental services.
8. Public Schools
The annexation area is located within the San Luis Coastal Unified School District
(SLCUSD), which serves the cities of San Luis Obispo, Morro Bay, and Los Osos, as
C3-1f 3
well as adjacent rural areas.
9. Storm Drainage
The area will be developed in accordance with previous storm drainage criteria
developed by the County of San Luis Obispo. Any changes to that plan will require
extensive analysis. Facilities necessary for compliance will be provided at property
owner expense.
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.
v 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 3
NXUR4.
C3 O �• y Py rid
'~ W
il. �.
C C
d to
zLM
Lu Lu
QW r o ��t -
�.• I��J '�O 6•t'
''1n * a
t W J
W t.Y
n ► r Y W s
CL u
'ti Y Q LU
�. ....�...... .yf. . ..i o. a LCL
U.
-
E._ y ` LU
e = O t
IL
°
i -
Q 't _
LU
of Z
00 LU
OU Z
f O W m Z w
W FW W LL .
0 Z J: LL O
r OW HZ
a 2 ,L fn
'res.• Q yrj.••'_ = u. O
Lu
gm
346
ATTA6 N M AT
>. m m t m m rm • Q m >� m c m L ' (6 Co pj m 0
O m m m c O m c a -V U o F U m L c m C c . a m ° J a c
c > mm c ° m U. v U. E ° m ccmp 'cma ¢ = aE
tl � v E Em m c m m —mo m m m �� g ca '71i�ca .c cm3� v' � Na 0 �c�d mt°n
m ° mrmtr
nEm
Oam
01
ccE cmc=�mt¢eE�t=Zdic -=m0�Y-0cti >. 0 � mc3-tE^=ac� 0otlTo m ¢`a$UaoUtcc�>cn
O
� 3 m E � cLm �y v = m .
ces om m � *0 0� omEmmmrW9 0 0. scmmctn
0 m °°'c n ° rrnc � v
oc0movo1E r- o �'c c0
cm0 _ ac -2omc m - mc •OScm 0oc > 0 c m 0 c o oo
mmm0moEo $ cycE cm o2j^v5E
— cc cmrz
oac o ° Em � h m vC m 0. S c m c ' E Qmc omca
Co m o � CLa m 9 n_ a - -0oU a0oU;3ia
oa A mnmm
to Z�W m5 'A m c•o� Com En am ¢ m
CIOcmm =0mcmr . E 00020
mc ° c m= afo ` p - EEoU E E o cm c c y m 0 - c E j
m c $ c c'O N c mo U m 0L
sc < m 0 0 cm= r- co m
Ca0 S c* m 3 0 0 0 m m co °acv cin 02 o2 E � � mm �Z C0
ovL c
ccy L4tmav
LI.. � mm ^ ecc ` EeceocZQ1%N
0 -0
_-
-
-
-
-
_
cm as 0
J �tA 2c 3 SUE coif 3 cm `o m � N 3 m mya 3 m m7� Q E> W $ Q 9HAU � U � 03Q)
V +• 1 CD
. ° L O � � � O � C .- CLU _
0 m E O H-0 C H _� V C ° O 0 — -.
Q c 75a C C O U t c10 (D t _U 0 ~ s..
L ° 0 � m N f+19 C Q. Z ° T` LU
LLJ
E CD
ci
aX 0 � = c E n° U n= � � .0 a m m ?�_ -
00 02� 5o 3 m - » NLL.
O O N ° H m w N 0 V ° U W O .._
N > " r ' _
C ° C > > 0 00oazZoocc 0 O C " ^ .Q V N
ammcm0U - � � � 3 � � 0 a ate `LU
:. -
3Lac mcOi = Q� OOoc ° � m >o� Q -- -
ao.¢ mU � c3o � 0EU � � 00Q
AEU
> mc »,'acc 70 C CD
` z 7- C L p O^ + C y L CLO O L c
0 t N
0 .0 = ¢ .o 5 .0
" a000c 00 � tUmm � a0 -
00 0LL.O0oc C9o :;— .r-
10 vm vRA ,� % �
o = .
-1 < E0 mmm + 3w . c
00 - C � OU O 0 ,.0
IL
C 6 .0 0 U C N F •0 U U r 0
CH mvm ° mLmcaOc
a > ° EcC: zw000m o oc �
> momb
7 L h «E m 0 U = S M > E m P
Ev, Ucm � E � a 0 -6
010 >-E - > 0
mao0 ° 0.
� Saom 0 , 0)-0Lmo /�'7
Fo j0 —0 C) � L104) cOno ��TI
6 -2 =1
> U300oC,
om > ° G2E -o = 3 2a3 � 3.� aa
1 ,
LL O OC m O vmi
O 7
C
am a
apCy . 0DC N
UyamaaC - W
(D -0 Z
_.... c .j
m
.,,,ra C m m r .L- w
MZISmrL ' md :. O
mtoacCDC L
mom
mm6-2 O
�t- Z
Q m = m p 8 m
m
` oa. o � v0 *0 FW"
cy3 CCE Z
me -0o " CD
C m o .n o Y 0
..� --..
=cr - Lmmdp 0000Q
Ul CD
_ m °m cm o432�baaBL=.o CO. 7 m > (D L
-g?
C
CCmE �o0tQ u
mo0 Eo
�a-� OooUm ° Pp
YOOC
mZ CL 7O p. 3
k- rrcr� .L
m o 04 CD CL
� om=c ° ymmm
LU
10 cm> o
r> CL
CDam ° Emoc_r00 , Oc c
F- ODCDLoae
0 CD
L :m_�.�.p�.:Cm. m 7 O O m U – o h m Q
°.O ] > U ° U � w -OC U Z
°ate -' CD° ao =' � c� ocCmaam O
w_c_o `c C 3 aD3c p m0 JC
c V
_m wc " LE :ECIC
v Q
mo m O_ m m x m p fl
-(9: .
{.—�"_�•��m�_--_gym.-8`-CD.�� "7
-.,:. cc v x _Q o >> TTc
_.�^`.. C
O OU +p Cm 3U n -00 -
0 .2
H
0 =
QLEZ 03
m -0 �op `
JC NW0m 0 �
oLmm a �Qt U
�cmicm ° cEco ° 3 O
- -00omLmomoU � m a
0 - -0075 QLmCD 0m00 -+
Cp fl.0 C 7C Q
m m
- C > � O00 .000V 'd W
m SCD U-0 ,, C m � p 0 Z
co
c C C O U C - W
U Q m z Q Z a m Q V m
� 33 ° � 0 � ° v -C
(90
E
N Q ? O
00 CIS Q T m C �L•• C m y
- C pft � C 0 .0 � o O >.- - QO O 'd
L c t V j _L C O C x 2 w -0 7 c O Q C m m
my0CQ v' 8 OOC mCuiULO UEa� 0 111
3 Qa> wmQ c m `' � c � $ 0'm X �
Q mj� 00 gp9voO CD cQm0OOZ c 0E Z
O C C -
-- O � �. OEO 0Ca0> .O � O0 � OU a � Op � ZW
O°mmmmQ�w`mvOwr0c � a3cvmm3m _ Camtraamm (DCm V3H� 0 CL (D m 0
QUID � o ° ° 3
sZa � � �
- 00 CD°� � m� ° > m
° a � o0yu' 0r oEt` a mm �ocmE0c ° oa = o ym ^
Q� vmayc � a � Q — pU ° yEEE0
� coooQCD Ua— mJ W
OjO
ix
0L '0 UCD x
2L m W
CL mZ0 ` 00
QaayQLxm -jUOE >'
�L —
N
►-
co
G A [
,A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA N;AR1A AND THE
'BOARD OF SL''?ERVISORS 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 pri;r.e
agricultural or GZhc Operl SPzcz +.:a.., as dCu
uL .u .��..�.. �vvvzIt-
i *11,12
Government Code. i+°hich should be preserved for agricultural or other open
space uses; and,
WHERF-AS, the City Council of the City of Santa Mana and the Board of
Supenisors of the County of Santa Barbara tiNlsh to encourage -,he preservation
of open space and agricultural uses %+:here possible; and
WHEREAS, the area situated generally east of the City of Santa '%Iaria is
daff.cult for either City or for the Count): to ser,-`lce v.-Ith SeWers, Water, 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 e\-eluded from the City's
sphere of influence; and
WHEREAS, the preservation of this open space will assist in controlling
urban sprawl and in defining comm• nit;1 identity and character.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL`:ED, the City Council of the City of Santa
Maria and the Board of Supen-jsors 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-ar.nexarion, 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 NNrith 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,,rarsml!al meso 7671 a o1 pages . Z
To / From
Co, Co.
Dept. iPhone: Ge C� :eviced 'uly 1 , 7')'13
Facer .7 �C -7-50'21Fax ATTACHMENT5 3-56
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.
Sincerely,
Dana C. Lille
Senior Planner
enclosure
ATTACHMENT 6
DRAFT
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of IA-Le City of Santa 'Maria on
the day of 1993.
Mayor
City of Santa .Varia, California
I hereby certify that the foregoing resolurio;i %-vas approved by t:^e City
Council of the City of Santa Maria at a regular mceting held om the
day of 1993 by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution Nvas 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
Re%ised July 1, 1993
N4 if ^r�.he •1 i.,., •:
7 i� ' ;j
6t$ ? y•Wt
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 ;he Ci;y of St.n
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 tl-.e
County of San Luis Obispo and the San Luis Obispo City Council as requir-g particu!%,
attention when making land use decisions; and
WHEREAS, the San Luis Obispo County Open Space Plan identifies within tl�e
undeveloped area of land outside the urban reserve for the City of San Luis Obispo, but wish.
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 Da%enport Crecy
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 Zhe -,ezd lo
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 t::e C:.
of San Luis Obispo conducted by the city as part of its Land Use Element update :-dica:cd th--t
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 preservrj
as much as possible, while respecting the rights of private property o«-ers; and 7.�.•�:µi1
WHEREAS, if not protected through a cooperative effort, the above values cf tl q`fc—Is
will be impaired and may be lost to fuwre generations.
3 ✓3
NOW.THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED BY THMAN LU OBISPO CITY COUNCIL AND
THE SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AS FOLLOWS:
(1) That t::e 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.
(') That the preservation of the community separator/greenbelt is important to all of the
people of the County of Sart 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:
COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO:
Upon motion of Supervisor seconded by Supervisor
and on the following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
A BSEN i':
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 •'
MEETtN(. AGENDA
DATE / -,Z -13 ITEM #
MEMORANDUM
November 23, 1993
TO: City Council
FROM: Ken Hampian, Assistant City Administrative Officer
SUBJECT: Airport Area Annexation Report Addendum
On November 22, 1993, the City Airport Area Negotiating Team met with Airport Area and
Margarita property owners as a part of our continuing bi-weekly discussions. The focus of
the meeting on the 22nd was related to the Margarita Expansion Area, and the potential
for it proceeding in advance of the entire Airport Area Annexation. As you know, our
current direction is to process the entire Airport Area together, with possible separation at
a later time, if necessary.
However, the Margarita property owners feel that they can proceed more expeditiously
independent of CSA 22 property owners. To do so, it would mean that the Margarita area
would need to finance and prepare separately its own specific plan and related
environmental documents. The process of annexation, including specific plan and
environmental review, are the same for a separate or joint effort, so staff questions whether
it is possible to proceed any faster than the current schedule. However, more detailed
evaluation is needed to truly determine the time implications of separate processing.
The schedule before the Council on November 30th assumes that CSA 22 and Margarita
Expansion Area property owners will be working over the next two to three months to
determine the most appropriate strategies for funding the work prerequisite to annexation.
This includes funding of the public facilities financing plan, the specific plan, and
environmental impact report(s). Staff will be working closely with all property owners,
including particularly with the Margarita Expansion Area owners to determine the feasibility
and advantages/disadvantages of this area proceeding separately. A recommendation as to
how best to proceed will be presented to the City Council, most likely after Council action
on the fiscal impact study in January (since property owners are awaiting this action prior
to making final commitments on their funding of planning and environmental requirements).
The scheduling process before the Council on November 30th will not preclude separate
processing of the Margarita Expansion Area.
C. Keith Gurneeaq
Margarita Area Property Owners NCS
O FiN OIR
KH:bw /ICAO O PIKE ONIEtp
Mar.mm ®/ EY 0 PW DIR
d O POLICE ONR
❑ MGMTTEAM ❑ REO DIM
❑ C READ FILE ❑ UTIL DIP
; Fig DPH 3 DIM
1995
,ITY CLERK
MFrTING GENDA�
U. TEM #
112 Broad Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
November 29, 1993
City Council
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Dear City Council Members:
Regarding the discussion of the major annexation issues on the 11-30-93 agenda
(and on upcoming agendas as well):
The council recently unanimously appointed an Environmental Task Force to provide
expert environmental input regarding the general plan update. The ETF has not yet
even met for the first time.
Is it not premature, then, to be making decisions NOW that essentially seal the fate of
the general plan update -- decisions which at this time must be based only upon input
from your pro-growth and environmentally-inexpert staff? What will be the task of the
ETF if decisions it could offer its expertise on are made before is has even been
constituted, let alone given a chance to do its work and offer its insights?
Speaking as one member of the ETF, I must say that I will not only be listening for
responses to these questions, but I will be watching to see signs that indicate whether
the time and effort I am about to donate to this committee will be time and effort well
spent.
Sincerely,
Richard Schmidt
RECEIVED IL WtWDIR
O FN DIR
VQ bob
D FIRE CHIEF
NOV 3 On 10 EY O PW DIR
C1 rY COUNCIL ET CLEAIOOAO O POLICE CHF
STAN LUIS OBL'IoPO,CA O MOW TEAM O REC DIR
OD FILE ❑ UTII DIR
0 PERB DIR