HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/07/1997, 6 - EDNA-ISLAY SECONDARY PLANNING AREA SURVEY RESULTScouncil '1 „y,
j apenaa nEpont �- 6
CITY OF SAN LUIS O B I S P O
FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Judith Lautner, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Edna -Islay Secondary Planning Area survey results
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Initiate the annexation of the remaining property in the secondary planning area of the Edna -Islay
Specific Plan area.
DISCUSSION
Background
As part of its action on the recent El Capitan annexation, the City Council asked staff to survey
the property owners of the remaining land in the Edna -Islay Specific Plan Secondary Planning
Area, to find what interest there is in annexing their property at this time. The survey has been
completed and results compiled.
Evaluation
The Edna -Islay Specific Plan was adopted by the Council in 1982. The plan contains two major
planning areas: the "primary planning area" and the "secondary planning area ". The primary area
is inside the city limits and therefore the first portion to become developed. At this time,
subdivision maps for the entire primary planning area have been approved and most of the site has
been developed. The secondary planning area is that portion that is immediately adjacent to Broad
Street, south of Tank Farm Road. Portions of it are developed under county standards and
zoning, but much of it remains undeveloped. Maps of the primary and secondary areas are
attached. (Copies of the specific plan are available in the Community Development Department
for those who do not have them.)
The specific plan provides greater direction for development of the primary planning area than for
the secondary. In fact, annexation is only peripherally mentioned, and there is no plan for its
orderly entrance into the city. However, it is clear that development of the secondary planning
area in accordance with the specific plan can only be done if the property is annexed to the city.
Private wells and sewer systems cannot serve the density of development envisioned.
In the last year, the City Council has approved two small annexations of property within the
secondary planning area. These two annexations are outlined on the map of the secondary
planning area, attached. Because the Edna -Islay Specific Plan provides a circulation and land use
plan for the area, annexations are simplified and environmental review has been limited to
6-/
Council Agenda Report - Edna -Islay Secondary Planning Area
Survey Results
Page 2
Negative Declarations with mitigation. There are 20 owners of the remaining land in this area.
This means that it is possible that each owner will apply for annexation on his or her own.
Application fees only cover about one - fourth of the actual cost of processing such applications.
The Council was concerned that much time and money would be spent on piecemeal annexations
of parcels in this area.
At the City Council's direction, staff sent out simple surveys to all of the property owners in the
Edna -Islay Secondary Planning Area. The surveys asked two questions: if the property owner
were interested in annexation, and if he or she were willing to pay or share the cost of
application.(See attached survey.)
There are .presently 20 different owners, according to the assessor's rolls. One of the surveys was
returned by the post office with a note that the forwarding address had expired. The remaining 19
presumably reached their destinations.
Of the 19 that were delivered, 15 were returned (79 %). Of those 15, 12 said they were interested
in annexation at this time (80 %), three said they were not. Seven said they were willing to share
the cost of application, seven were not willing to pay, and one did not answer that question.
To avoid the inefficient processing of several small annexations in the near future, the Council
may wish to initiate the annexation of the entire remaining secondary planning area now. If it does
so, the City will be responsible for all application costs involved, including environmental review
and fees to the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo). In addition, the Council would
be required to hold a "protest hearing" if LAFCo approves the annexation, to give individual
property owners the opportunity to protest the annexation.
On the other hand, the processing of one large annexation will take much less staff and Council
time than would several smaller annexations.
The central issue in any annexation is whether there is sufficient water to serve the new
properties. The City Council, in a recent amendment to the Water and Wastewater Element,
allocated a maximum of 300 acre -feet of water to serve new annexations (post - 1994). This water
would be obtained by retrofitting of plumbing fixtures at a two - to-one ratio. This amount is in
addition to 302 acre -feet of water available to serve infill development inside the 1994 city limits.
Fewer than half of the city's plumbing fixtures have been retrofitted. Therefore, it appears that all
of this water can eventually be allocated to new development.
Recent and proposed annexations all are vying for parts of the same 300 acre -feet. The
Goldenrod, TK, El Capitan, DeVaul, Froom, Prefumo Canyon, Dalidio, and Margarita area
annexations together would use more than the amount allocated (see attached memorandum from
Tim Girvin). However, some of these proposals are much farther along than others. Timing will
determine which annexations obtain the water first.
There are also several water projects online, including the re -use of treated effluent, Salinas
6 -o2
Council Agenda Report - Edna -Islay Secondary Planning Area
Survey Results
Page 3
Reservoir expansion, and the Nacimiento water supply project. These three sources are expected
to yield 6,263 acre- feetlyear, sufficient to serve this. and other expansion projects up to the
projected city build -out, plus reserve. However, water from any of these sources is not expected
to be available until the year 2001 or beyond.
The second question is whether the City's sewer system is capable of handling the new properties.
Similarly to the water situation, the answer to this question is a qualified yes. The Utilities
Division says that the area can be served at this time, but that without further improvements,
certain "less than desirable" conditions may result. It may be necessary to assess additional fees to
cover the cost of treatment plant expansion and infrastructure improvements.
Some of the property owners expressed concern that if the property is annexed, they will be faced
with increased costs. For the most part, increased costs will come when the property is further
developed within the city. Development costs will include water and sewer fees, retrofitting costs,
impact fees, costs of public improvements, and construction permit fees, all of which are typical
costs to developers within the city limits. The property owners themselves will decide when they
want to develop their parcels, and therefore when they will incur these types of costs.
There will be minor changes to costs to the property owners who do not choose to develop at this
time:. business taxes, utility user taxes, and other taxes are different within the city limits than they
are in the county. The property taxes will remain the same, because the property will not be re-
appraised simply because it is annexed to the city. Therefore, those owners whose property is
currently vacant will not experience any change in costs at all, while those with businesses or
residences may experience a slight increase.
The General Plan Land Use Element identifies this area as one of many that should be annexed to
the city. Annexation of developable property adjacent to the city limits gives the City control
over future development, including control over uses and appearance of property. It also
provides additional taxes from development of those properties. The question at this time is not if
it should be annexed but when and how.
Benefits of initiating annexation at this time:
Control over development: The City will control the type and design of development that will
occur in the future. Without annexation, the area will continue to develop, but to County
standards which may be inconsistent with City policies and goals. For example, prior to
annexation of the Gearhart property on the north side of El Capitan Way, the County approved a
drive - through convenience store on that site. When the property is annexed to the city, this use
will automatically become non - conforming. Annexation of the remaining area at this time will
prevent reoccurrence of this type situation.
Development consistency: If the Council initiates the annexation of the remaining property to the
city at this time, then future development will be required to be consistent with City policies and
standards. The Edna -Islay Specific plan includes circulation and land use maps which would then
(3
Council Agenda Report - Edna -Islay Secondary Planning Area
Survey Results
Page 4
be followed. Questions about future street connections would be answered because the City's
review process would assure that each development is consistent with the specific plan. Such
assurances are not possible through the County review process.
There is significant interest:. Several property owners are interested in having their property
inside the city limits because of the increased development potential possible with City services
available. Three annexations of portions of the secondary planning area have already been
approved within the last few years and other applications for annexation are being prepared. The
City has no policies to restrict the number of small annexations that take place every year. If the
City Council initiates annexation proceedings, then the smaller proposals will stop trickling in and
staff will be able to focus on a more cohesive whole.
There may be a cost saving. • The City's fee schedule attempts to recover 25% of the cost of any
one application. The more separate annexations there are, the more expensive it is going to be for
the City. Because a specific plan was developed for the property and an Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) completed for that specific plan, staff anticipates that environmental work will
consist of an expanded initial study, rather than another EIR. Even though the initiation would
mean that the City pays for all staff as well as consultant work, these costs are likely to be less
than what the City would incur in staff time alone with many smaller annexations.
Costs to the City of annexation at this time.
Initiation of annexation will require the City to pick up the cost of all application work. This work
includes preparation of environmental documents, coordination of any required consulting work
(anticipated to include traffic, archaeological, and biological studies), and preparation of reports
to the Planning Commission and City Council. For a. project of this size and type, traffic and
biological studies may cost up to $20,000. It also includes all costs of application to the Local
Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo). Annexation fees for property between 50 and 100
acres in size are currently about $3,100.
CONCURRENCES
Other departments have provided information for this report (Utilities, Finance), but have not
been asked to make a recommendation.
FISCAL EMPACT
If the Council chooses to initiate annexation of the remainder of the secondary planning area,
there will be costs to the City for environmental review, for other staff work to process the
application, and LAFCo costs. A thorough analysis of these costs has not been made, but the
direct costs should not exceed $23,100. The LAFCo application amount of $3,100 is available
within existing resources. The specific amount needed for the environmental work, when known,
can be included in the upcoming budget process.
,o/
Council Agenda Report - Edna -Islay Secondary Planning Area
Survey Results
Page 5
If the Council prefers to allow incremental annexations to be processed, the City will be bearing
about 75% of the cost of processing those applications, beyond specialized environmental and
traffic studies, which would be fully paid for by applicants. The added staff costs alone will more
than exceed the proposed $23,100 expenditure to facilitate the single annexation.
ALTERNATIVES
1. The City Council may file the information and take no further action at this time.
Annexations will continue to be processed as received (a fourth one in this area is being
prepared by a local engineering firm at this time) and acted upon individually.
2. The Council may consider adopting a policy to accept applications in this area only if they
include some minimum area of land. Of the 109 acres comprising the total secondary
planning area, about 19 have been annexed. The remainder, then, is about 90 acres. The
Council may want to set a minimum size of 20 - 25 acres, for example. Although staff
would not be able to refuse applications smaller than this size, the Council could deny
them, based on finding that smaller annexations do not provide for an orderly pattern of
development. Property owners would be encouraged to join with their neighbors to save
costs and time to themselves and the City.
3. The Council may direct staff to contact the property owners again to discuss City
concerns and to encourage consolidation of property owner efforts.
Attachments
maps of Edna Islay primary and secondary planning areas
survey results
survey and attachments
memo from Dan Gilmore on availability of water and sewer to this area, September 30, 1996
memo from Tim Girvin on preliminary analysis of projected water use by pending annexations
C/7'J
C)
Z=
z
< <L;
z
L) Zu
L; OZ
wx
mo
fill
to ca
.42
xx
Ip
IN
LLI
C\1
Cl)
4
w
0
z
z
z
ox
mi
am
O
FL
O
O
.o z
a-'a
ZQ=
�
Mm
Its
ki
W �
C7 N
LL.
a
0
Q
6 -� o
W
a�
zz a
w
o
W
z
nz
_Q
J
mJ
D
a
O
<(L
a
0
Q
6 -� o
SURVEY RESULTS
Annexation of remainder of secondary planning area
As of September 5:
Yes to annexation No to annexation Willing to pay Not willing to pay
12 3 7 7
Total responses: 15 out of 19 sent and received (79% return); one returned, address expired
Total "yesO: 12 out of 15 (80 %)
Comments from surveys:
• Since our property is already developed our interest in annexation would be 1) sewer
hook -up of existing buildings, 2) water hook -up for domestic use only
• I feel it is extremely past due that we be annexed into the city. We have been in "limboO
for years as a "secondary" plan area. We are located on a main entrance corridor to the
city. We would like to upgrade the uses and appearance to our property. Without the
utilities and ability to formulate an affordable development plan we cannot proceed. Even
though we have been involved with the AAPOA for years we would like to discuss the
near term zone desination (sic) with the planners. Thank you for your consideration.
•. My only source of income is social security, Therefore, I have no money to pay the
expense of annexation. If annexed I will have to sell.
• If costs are reasonable and we can afford it. We are very interested in having city water
and sewer services. Thank you!
• We are willing to pay a "reasonable" amount. * contingent upon Fuller property being
annexed at the same time.
• We wish to be served with City sewer and water.
• Cannot afford any costs at this time.
• Since city will be receiving benefit in taxes ever after the annexation my assumption is that
city would pay annexation costs and possibly utility hook up costs?
• We request information on the pros and cons of being annexed into city. What regulations
would be different by being in the city.
W/ •9
• The ownership of this parcel consists of three different family members: Ercole Brughelli,
Dolly Garcia and Eileen Damon. We are all in consensus that this piece of land should be
annexed to the city.
w1w
�`�';�I city of sAn Luis oBispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obis o CA 0 nl-'43AO
August 2, 1996
name)'
Eaddress
city
SUBJECT: Annexation ofparcel(s) Z3jparcel numbers)
Dear fflwwamel
We are writing to you because our records show that you own property in the City's Edna -Islay Specific
Plan Secondary Planning Area The Edna -Islay Specific Plan is a document and map showing the City's
plans for an area of about 450 acres, east of Broad Street (Highway 227) (see map of the planning area,
attached). The "secondary planning area" consists of about 109 acres of property that was outside the city
limits when the specific plan was adopted in 1982. A map showing this area in more detail is also
attached.
The City Council recently approved two small annexations in the secondary planning area The Broad
Street Annexation, approved a few years ago, also incorporated a portion of the secondary planning area
(above Tank Faun Road, adjacent to Broad Street). You own property in the remaining unincorporated
area
Because there has been so much interest lately in annexing portions of the secondary planning area, the
City Council is interested in knowing your preferences for your property. Please respond to the two
questions on the enclosed survey, and return it to us by August 30, 1996 in the envelope provided.
Please remember that while annexation of your property may give you access to city services and the
right to develop it under City regulations and zoning, you are in no way obligated to develop it at any
particular time.
If you have any questions about this, please call me at 781 -7177 or Judy Lautner at 781 -7166.
Sincerely,
Ron Whisenand, Development Review Manager
Community Development Department
Attached:
survey
map of specific plan area
map of secondary planning area
return envelope
/D The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. (O • ,
V� Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781 -7410.
city of s Luis oBispo.
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 -3249
Annexation Interest Survey
AN-Whame)
parcel numbers).
I ❑ am ❑ am not interested in annexing my property to the City of San Luis Obispo.
I ❑ am willing ❑ am not willing to pay or share the cost of the application costs involved.
My comments:
Return to:
Ron Whisenand, Development Review Manager
Community Development Department
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. I /�
V Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781 -7410.
_} U VO
U
Lo
N ?
N
Ell m
1 i )r I. I 1l ltl J
I <-�
i �i t:: yf
+ J _ ._ = (/-.�L mil' ; � ^T. �� -� -•±^ ./ i p,..y
t 1
-
=l.
JN
in
<=
z
<
–Y
C
<(
1 =
1
%r
N L
C
`2 U
Lu
ZZ
_} U VO
U
Lo
N ?
N
Ell m
1 i )r I. I 1l ltl J
I <-�
i �i t:: yf
+ J _ ._ = (/-.�L mil' ; � ^T. �� -� -•±^ ./ i p,..y
t 1
-
/ a
JN
in
t
1
1
%r
-
' 771-0-F
1�
.w Y/ 1�1.. ...... •: . :• ::: ::::::.•••::::
•: i }:•::tiff •:::.: �::':..::::
LLI
;sibs �
A 1
LL. ` tl
C
4
W
C)
z
z
Z
J
a.
V
MEW�T
M' New
0
0
0
T
/ a
1
1
%r
-
' 771-0-F
.w Y/ 1�1.. ...... •: . :• ::: ::::::.•••::::
•: i }:•::tiff •:::.: �::':..::::
LLI
;sibs �
A 1
LL. ` tl
C
4
W
C)
z
z
Z
J
a.
V
MEW�T
M' New
0
0
0
T
az
ccac
Q J Q
Z<=
OCCM
lller-
R
i
c
OQ
>Ma
I
W
Q �
Za
w
o
`n
v z
z°
J z
a
®J
GQ
FL
M
°
8
O
V
11
Yn
MEMORANDUM !v,
DATE: September 30, 1996 lie CE' VED
OCT l
TO: Judy Lautner, Project Planner 1996
FROM: Dan Gilmore, Utilities EngineeW OF uculs
�.7rq � /Spp
SUBJECT: Annexations, Annexations
John Moss asked me to respond to your e-mail request dated September 20, 1996. It has taken
me some time to get back to you because we have been working on this very question. The
result of this work is a report that I prepared, dated September 30, 1996. A copy of the report
is attached for your reference.
Your e-mail asks whether or not the City has adequate sewer and water facilities to serve this
area. The first area of concern is water supply. As you know, the City does not currently have
adequate water supplies to serve new development. Development can occur under the Water
Retrofit Program, whereby water allocations can be earned by offsetting the anticipated increase
in demand with water efficient fixtures on a two - to-one basis. Currently, 300 acre -feet are
available for allocation to annexation areas through this program. But, developments like the
DeVaul Ranch could take a significant portion of this water.
Public water and sewer mains exist in Broad Street only up to El Capitan. In addition, the work
documented in the attached report identifies substantial facilities needed for the buildout of the
Margarita/Airport Area. The estimated costs for these facilities are tabulated in the attached
report. Table 9 presents a combined cost for water distribution and wastewater collection trunk
facilities. It is envisioned that each development in the area pay its fair share of these facilities.
The costs in Table 9 are broken down to particular land uses in specific planning areas. Without
these trunk facilities, the existing water and sewer system would most likely have sufficient
capacity to serve this development by itself. But, as more development occurs, that capacity may
not be available. The goal of the attached report was to equitably distribute the costs of these
regional facilities to each potential development. Essentially, the improvements mentioned above
are needed now to ensure that everyone has an equal opportunity and no one is left with an
inordinate burden to provide regional infrastructure.
As the report states, modifications to the Water Treatment Plant (WTP) and the Water
Reclamation Facility (WRF) will be necessary prior to reaching buildout. Current estimates
indicate that these facilities may be needed by the year 2000. The modifications primarily
amount to a new clarifier at each treatment plant. At an estimated cost of $3 million per
clarifier, the costs shown in Table 9 could easily double.
The five basic area (Water Supply, Water Treatment, Water Distribution, Wastewater
Collection, and Wastewater Treatment) have all been addressed above. The sixth component,
Water Reuse, could also be a required part of the project. If the Water Reuse Project continues
4-16
to move forward, we will eventually have reclaimed water distribution facilities that the
developer may be required to connect to for non - potable uses.
With respect to the question of who pays for what, the answer is quite simple. They pay for
everything. Basically they will pay in one of three ways. By paying impact fees and special
assessments, developers will be "buying in" to the existing system, regional trunk facilities, and
treatment plant capacity expansions. The need to install the necessary infrastructure to connect
the development to the trunk facilities is the second way a developer will pay. The third way
these facilities get built is through City funding and CIP projects. This is funded by water and
sewer rate payers.
The short version of all this is as follows:
With the developer providing some level of offsite improvements to connect to the public system,
it is possible for the City to provide the annexation area with water and sewer service. Water
and Wastewater Impact Fees, Lift Station Fees, and possibly additional special assessments will
be required to ensure that any "less than desirable" conditions that the City temporarily accepts
will eventually be remedied.
If you have any questions please feel free to call me at 781 -7208.
cc: Moss, GHenders, DHix
wag: m,,,
9—/-/
Memorandum
December 18, 1996
To: Ron Munds
From: Tim Girvin
Subject: Required Water Allocations for Annexed Properties
There are currently five projects that would require a portion of the 300 acre feet of annexed
water that is available.
TK Commercial Park
This project has received final approval and the developer has retrofit .06 acre feet of
water credits which is required for the self storage complex. The project will need an
additional 6.13 acre feet of water for the Food 4 Less store and 9 acre feet for 150,000
square feet of service commercial development (15.13 acre feet total).
Goldenrod Annexation
This area has been annexed into the City, but developers have not submitted or
received approval for the final map of the development. There are 44 SFR's which will
require 13.2 acre feet of water. The developer will be ready to build in 1997.
El Capitan Annexation
Thirteen SFR's and an approximate 3,000 square foot commercial building will require
4.1 acre feet of water credits. The developer still needs final approval of the tentative
map and will need to receive an official OK from council (Final Protest), but this one
is streamlining and may be ready to build in 1997 also.
Margarita Area
The planner in charge of this project indicated that there would need to be a
combination of ground water, retrofit water, and water reuse in order for this project
to be completed. There is a variety of water use in the specific plan which includes
commercial, industrial and residential. I will only list the residential demand because it
is hard to speculate how much ground water and water reuse will influence the other
uses. A total of 1,042 residences will require 250.74 acre feet of water. This includes
irrigation use which may be reduced if recycled water is used.
Du Vaul Annexation
a total of 444 residences will require 100.2 acre feet of water for the development.
This does not include the park use and is not factored down in the event recycled water
is used.
The grand total of retrofit water needed based on these preliminary calculations is 373.37 acre
feet of water to meet the demands of the identified annexations.
0/-/F