Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
08/19/1997, 1 - PG&E ANNEXATION - CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST TO: 1) ANNEX AND PREZONE 13.1 ACRES OF PROPERTY (FOUR LOTS TOTAL) ON THE EAST SIDE OF SOUTH HIGUERA STREET, SOUTH OF LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD AND WEST OF VACHELL LANE AND 2) ACCEPT AN AGREEMENT WITH
council M .D g_, -� j acEn6a Repout CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Directo�i5/ Prepared By: Ronald Whisenand, Development Review Manage SUBJECT: PG&E Annexation - Consideration of a request to: 1) annex and prezone 13.1 acres of property (four lots total) on the east side of South 111guera Street, south of Los Osos Valley Road and west of Vachell Lane and 2) accept an agreement with the County of San Luis Obispo regarding the property tax revenues and annual tax increment for said annexation. CAO RECOMMENDATION a) Pass to print an ordinance adopting the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and prezoning the annexation area Service Commercial (C-S); b) Adopt a resolution recommending that LAFCO approve the annexation; C) Approve and authorize the Mayor to execute a pre-annexation agreement with the applicants providing for payment of fees consistent with the interim annexation policy; and d) Adopt a resolution accepting the negotiated exchange of property tax revenues and annual tax increment that is required as'a prerequisite to any jurisdictional change, pursuant to the revenue and Taxation Code Section 99; DISCUSSION hiluatio Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) is planning to consolidate certain regional operations at their Vachell Lane site. Future development plans call for the addition of approximately 11,600 square feet of office use, 2,200 square feet of assembly space, and 4,500 square feet of storage. Annexation is desired so that full City services can be provided to the future development. The annexation itself is made up of four parcels totaling 13.1 acres, with PG&E making up the majority of the land holdings (see attached annexation maps). The other properties (Thoma and Schriner) are included in order to make a logical annexation boundary. No further development of these other parcels is proposed at this time. Data Summary Project Address: 4280 Vachell Ln. Applicant: Pacific Gas and Electric Property Owners: Pacific Gas and Electric William and Edward Thoma Ron Schriner Representative: Cannon Associates Council Agenda Report - PG&E Annexation Page 2 Zoning: Commercial Service (C-S) General Plan: Services and Manufacturing Environmental: The Director determined the project required a negative declaration of environmental impact on June 4", 1997. Action Deadline: Legislative projects are not subject to permit streamlining act deadlines. Site Description The area to be annexed consists of four parcels totaling 13.1 acres. The Schriner parcel (APN 076-071-008), is the smallest (500 square feet) and is developed with a well serving off-site uses. The Thoma parcels (APN 076-071-018 & 019), which are surrounded by PG&E property on three sides, are approximately one acre in total area and are developed with an existing residence and barn/accessory structures. The PG&E parcel (APN 076-071-009) is the largest, containing 12 acres, and is developed with 21,000 square feet of warehouse, assembly, and office uses. In addition, the PG&E site contains extensive open parking and storage areas as well as a helipad. Surrounding land uses include agriculture, residential, and other service-commercial and manufacturing operations. Analysis of Annexation and Prezone This annexation request is being made pursuant to the City's recently adopted Interim Airport Area Annexation Policy. This policy allows property to be considered for annexation prior to the adoption of the Airport Area Specific Plan provided certain standards are met. As pointed out in the attached Planning Commission staff report, the proposed annexation meets these standards and complies with applicable General Plan criteria. The applicants (PG&E and Thoma)have agreed to contribute to the cost of preparing the Airport Area Specific Plan, sharing the cost of constructing area-wide infrastructure improvements, and contributing towards open space preservation. Between the two of them, they have already contributed $105,000 to the City towards preparation of the Specific Plan. The remainder of the costs will be paid or bonded for in accordance with a pre-annexation agreement to be executed prior to final annexation. Due to the property's frontage on South Higuera, an "arterial roadway," the property is most appropriately zoned Service-Commercial (C-S). This zoning district implements the General Plan land use designation of Services and Manufacturing. The existing and planned uses of the property are consistent with the purposes of the C-S zoning district. Future development will require possible land use permits and architectural review in accordance with City standards and guidelines. l� Council Agenda Report - PG&E Annexation Page 3 Proper Tax Exchange On August 5, 1997, the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors initiated a 30-day period (August 5 to September 4, 1997) for negotiation of exchange of property tax revenues and annual tax increment for the PG&E Annexation. Prior to final LAFCo action on the annexation, both the City Council and Board of Supervisors need to adopt similar resolutions acknowledging the negotiated agreements between the City and the County related to property tax revenues and annual tax increment. A proposed resolution for City Council adoption is attached. According to the terms of the previously negotiated City/County agreement for properties in the airport area, no base property tax revenue and no annual tax increment shall be transferred from the County of San Luis Obispo to the City of San Luis Obispo. Sales tax, TOT, business, utility, and other taxes accrue solely to the City. The County staff has agreed to this concept and on August 5, 1997 the Board of Supervisors will act on the PG&E Annexation tax exchange consistent with these terms. ALTERNATIVES 1. Adopt a resolution denying the annexation and prezoning and taking no action on the property tax exchange agreement 2. Continue action with direction. Attachments Ordinance adopting the Negative Declaration and prezoning the property to C-S Resolution requesting LAFCO proceedings Resolution accepting exchange of property tax revenues with County Resolution for project denial Annexation Exhibits Planning Commission staff report Planning Commission minutes Initial Study Background material Pre-Annexation,Agreements /-3 ORDINANCE NO. (1997 Series) AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TO AMEND THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP TO PREZONE APPROXIMATELY 13.1 ACRES SERVICE-COMMERCIAL FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4280 VACHELL LN. AND 4313 SOUTH HIGUERA (R/ANNX/ER 57-97) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on July 9, 1997 and recommended prezoning the proposed annexation site Service Commercial (C-S); and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on August 19, 1997 and has considered testimony of interested persons, the records of the Planning Commission hearing and action, and evaluation and recommendations of staff in accordance with Section 65800 et. seq. of the California Government Code; and WHEREAS, the potential environmental impacts of the change have been evaluated in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City Environmental Guidelines. BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1.The City Council finds and determines that the project's Negative Declaration (ER 57-97) adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed project, and reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. The Council hereby adopts said Negative Declaration. SECTION 2. The City Council makes the following findings: 1. The proposed prezoning will not be detrimental to the health safety and welfare of persons living or working in the area or at the site as outlined in the project initial study. 2. Prezoning the site Service-Commercial (C-S)is consistent with the general plan land use designation of Services and Manufacturing which calls for C-S zoning on City arterial roadways in the airport area. 3. Prezoning the site Service-Commercial (C-S) is consistent with the existing and intended uses as well as location of C-S-zoned properties as described in the zoning regulations. 4. A prezoning of Service-Commercial(C-S)is appropriate at the proposed location and will be compatible with surrounding land uses which are primarily industrial, commercial, residential and agricultural in nature. SECTION 3. The annexation area shall be prezoned Service-Commercial (C-S) as shown on the attached map marked Exhibit A and included herein by reference. SECTION 4. A summary of this ordinance, together with the names of Council members voting for and against, shall be published at least five (5) days prior to its final passage, in the Resolution No. (1997 Series) Page 2 Telegram-Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in said city. This ordinance shall go into effect upon the date of final action by the City Council on the annexation. INTRODUCED AND PASSED TO PRINT by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo at its meeting held on the day of 1997, on motion of , seconded by and on the following roll call vote: Ayes: Noes: Absent: Mayor Allen Settle ATTEST: City Clerk Bonnie Gawf APPROVED AS TO FORM: i tt geyJ?gensen /'J EDIT A TJ N m « ILI F ami�e� Of _ 4 ! ng k " $h f V ; 9> � �§; i . .«. dc S2 agga », m� 3f _ Z J ?g� \ U) xu 2 i1i n XW a I � n ..czeo or/wto a.ao.onoon auvo«roa tvm Jtc asoeow I I I I ++ I _ + I ' I a I I I +y 51 e \ 'b3 J •06\\ J�\ v x \ \ a \\ry \\ c \ F o 04 o I \ 3 $ I I a o � c °iobe r' µ6.04* \ •� b� d1S ddl \\ If + OS \ C Jh \ 4 t ls�� RESOLUTION NO. (1997 Series) A RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION BY THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL REQUESTING THAT THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION APPROVE ANNEXATION NO. 50 AT 4280 VACHELL LN. AND 4313 SOUTH HIGUERA (ANNX 57-97); PG&E ANNEXATION WHEREAS,the Planning Commission and City Council have held hearings on the proposed annexation on July 9 and August 19, 1997 respectively; and WHEREAS,the City Council on August 19, 1997, by Ordinance No. (1997 Series), approved a Negative Declaration for the proposed annexation, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15090; and WHEREAS, on recommendation of the Planning Commission and as a result of its deliberations, the Council has approved an amendment of the Zoning Map by prezoning the annexation property to Service Commercial (C-S); 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,the territory to be annexed is inhabited, and a description of the boundaries of the territory is set forth in attached Exhibit B; and WHEREAS, this proposal is consistent with the sphere of influence of the affected city; BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1: Findings. 1. Annexation is appropriate since the site is contiguous to the City on its northwest side. 2. Annexation of the site is a logical addition to the City due to its location, on-site urban development, and availability of services. 3. The proposed annexation will promote the health safety, and welfare of persons living or worldng in the vicinity of the annexation area. SECTION 2: Annexation Area Described. The annexation shall consist of that area, covering approximately 13.1 acres on the east side of South Higuera Street, south of Los Osos Valley Road and west of Vachell Lane, assigned Assessor's Parcel Numbers of 076-071-008, -009, -018, and -019, as shown in the site location map attached as Exhibit A and legally described in attached Exhibit B. SECTION 3: Council Recommendation The City Council recommends that the Local Agency Formation Commission of San Luis Obispo County approve the proposed annexation subject to property owners compliance with City requirements regarding public improvements, in accordance with California Government Code Section 56844 g1 egg. 1-7 Resolution No. (1997 Series) Page 2 SECTION 4: Lmplementation. The City Clerk shall forward a copy of this resolution and prezoning actions, the Negative Declaration of environmental impact, and all pertinent supporting documents to the Local Agency Formation Commission. 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 1997. ' Mayor Allen Settle ATTEST: City Clerk Bonnie Gawf APPROVED AS TO FORM: QYIA��Aj1z;.W64'WES=- "rnffeeor nsen ��o EXIiIBIT A sa'« ShY6� . yy Y > 6 A> E o jagig Y< 11i a ` =g ° ga9hY � ® 1 B .,.... x _ s ash 2$ >` r f_ 1 pSOf. Y zz So� 'Fgp"hY Z 1 Nall WX NOR Z ggg�� I T__�_ _ OtlOH ll3H�tlA ------------ _ .czca e.nrai° ioo.a000w •u.onroe Unn uc OrA4va I I I a, I w I � 0O I � I I I / I �s oIJ W a l o I I EEf2aaa g I I Q 2 o r .00 0-1 ! +o :�520 \ EXHIBIT "B" ANNEXATION to CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO Legal Description Commencing at the southwest comer of Lot 1, designated as corner No. 23 according to the map entitled, "Map of the Partition of Joseph See's land, situated in Section 10 and 15 in T. 31 S., R.12 E.,M. D.M., also Lot No. 5 of the San Miguelito Rancho Subdivision in San Luis Obispo County, Cal.", filed in Book 1,Page 53 of Record of Surveys in the office of the Recorder for San Luis Obispo County; Thence, along the westerly prolongation of the south line of said Lot 1, S 890 18' W, 4.30 feet to an angle point in the southeasterly boundary of the South Higuera Street right-of-way(formerly California State Highway Route 2) as shown on that right-of-way and improvement plan for said Route 2, dated 1927, filed in Book 1 at Page 33 of State Highway Map Books in the office of the Recorder for San Luis Obispo County, being a point on the existing city limit boundary and the True Point of Beginning; Thence, along the existing city limit boundary, being along said southeasterly boundary of South Higuera Street,N 29° 30' E, 175.00 feet to the northwest corner of that parcel of land conveyed to Tony S. Podrerick, etux by Joint tenancy Deed recorded Feb. 1, 1934, as filed in Volume 147 at Page 087 of Official Records in the office of the Recorder for San Luis Obispo County; Thence, leaving said southeasterly boundary of South Higuera Street, and the existing city limit boundary, along the northerly boundary of said land conveyed to Tony S.Podrerick, etux, East, 390.13 feet to the westerly boundary of Buckley Road as dedicated to the County of San Luis Obispo by Grant Deed recorded Oct. 14, 1889, as filed in Book 6 at Page 49 of Deeds in the office of the Recorder for San Luis Obispo County; Thence, along said westerly boundary of Buckley Road, South, 852.74 feet to the southeast corner of that parcel of land conveyed to Pacific Oras and Electric Company by Grant Deed recorded June 10, 1954, as filed in Book 760 at Page 56 of Official Records in the office of the Recorder for San Luis Obispo County; Thence, along the southerly boundary of said parcel of land conveyed to Pacific Gas and Electric Company,West 848.50 feet to the southeasterly boundary of said South Higuera Street right-of- way(formerly California State Highway Route 2); Thence, across said South Higuera Street right-of-way at a right angle, N 60° 51' W, 80.00 feet to the northwesterly boundary thereof, Page 1 of 2 —�D Thence, along said northwesterly boundary of South Higuera Street,N 28°48' E, 64.16 feet to the northerly boundary of the Rancho Santa Fe as shown on said right-of-way and improvement plan for California State Highway Route 2; Thence, continue along said northwesterly boundary of South Higuera Street, and along the northerly boundary of the Rancho Santa Fe, S 69°29' E, 15.16 feet; Thence,N 28° 48' E, 600.00 feet to the northeast corner of that parcel of land conveyed to I B. Black by Grant Deed recorded Dec. 19, 1928, as filed in Volume 59 at Page 305 of Official Records in the office of the Recorder for San Luis Obispo County, and being a point on the south line of the existing city limit boundary for the South Higuera Street Public Housing Annexation to the City of San Luis Obispo, as described by Resolution#4056 (1979 series)filed in Volume 2241 at Page 465 of Official Records in the office of the Recorder for San Luis Obispo County; Thence, leaving the northwesterly boundary of South Higuera Street, along the existing city limit boundary, and along the easterly extension of the northerly line of said land conveyed to I B: Black, S 680 16' 52"E, 50.46 feet to the southeast corner of said South Higuera Street Public Housing Annexation to the City of San Luis Obispo; Thence, along the easterly boundary of said South Higuera Street Public Housing Annexation to the City of San Luis Obispo,N 28°48'E, 120.07 feet to the point of beginning. Containing: 13.1 acres. End Description Prepared by: _QC ' Daniel S. Hutchinson,LS 5139 (expires 6/30/99) S(/RVF Date: \�S. HUT��� 2� � 2 O * N0. 5139 970127neptd« J?9l�OF CAS\F� Page 2 of 2 /��� RESOLUTION NO. (1997 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ACCEPTING A NEGOTIATED EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY TAX REVENUE AND ANNUAL TAX INCREMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AND THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FOR THE PG&E ANNEXATION AT 4280 VACHELL LN.AND 4313 SOUTH HIGUERA (SLO COUNTY ANNEXATION#50) (CITY FILE#ANNEX 57-97) WHEREAS, in the case of a jurisdictional change which will alter the service area or responsibility of a local agency, Revenue and Taxation Code Section 99(b)requires that the amount of property tax revenue to be exchanged, if any, and the amount of annual tax increment to be exchanged among the affected local agencies shall be determined by negotiation; and WHEREAS, when a city is involved, the negotiations are conducted between the City Council and the Board of Supervisors of the County; and WHEREAS,Revenue and Taxation Code Section 99(b)requires that each local agency, upon completion of negotiations, adopt resolutions whereby said local agencies agree to accept the negotiated exchange of property tax revenues, if any, and annual tax increment and requires that each local agency transmit a copy of each such resolution to the Executive Officer of the Local Agency Formation Commission; and WHEREAS,no later than the date on which the certificate of completion of the jurisdictional change is recorded with the County Recorder, the Executive Officer shall notify the County Auditor of the exchange of property tax revenues by transmitting a copy of said resolution to him and the County Auditor shall therefore make the appropriate adjustments as required by law, and WHEREAS, the negotiations have taken place concerning the transfer of property tax revenues and annual tax increment between the County of San Luis Obispo and the City of San Luis Obispo pursuant to Section 99(b)for the jurisdictional change designated as Annexation No. 50 to the City of San Luis Obispo (PG&E Annexation); and WHEREAS, the negotiating parties, to wit: Paul Hood, Principal Administrative Analyst, County of San Luis Obispo, and Ken Hampian,Assistant City Administrative Officer, have negotiated the exchange of property tax revenue and annual tax increment between such entities as hereinafter set forth; and WHEREAS, it is in the public interest that such negotiated exchange of property tax revenues and annual tax increment be consummated. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, as follows: 1. That the recitals set forth above are true, correct, and valid. Resolution No. (1997 Series) Page 2 2. That the City of San Luis Obispo agrees to accept the following negotiated exchange of base property tax revenues and annual tax increment: (a) No base property tax revenue shall be transferred from the County of San Luis Obispo to the City of San Luis Obispo. (b) No annual tax increment shall be transferred from the County of San Luis Obispo to the City of San Luis Obispo in the fiscal year 1998-1999 and each fiscal year thereafter. 3. Upon receipt of a certified copy of this resolution and a copy of the recorded certificate of completion,the County Auditor shall make the appropriate adjustments to property tax revenues and annual tax increments as set forth above. 4. That the City Clerk is authorized and directed to transmit a certified copy of the resolution to the Executive Officer of the San Luis Obispo Local Agency Formation Commission, who shall then distribute copies in the manner prescribed by law. 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 1997. Mayor Allen Settle ATTEST: City Clerk Bonnie Gawf APPROVED AS TO FORM: /Wo ey ff rgensen k/3 RESOLUTION NO. (1997 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING A REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND PREZONING FOR 13.1 ACRES AT 4280 VACHELL LN. AND 4313 SOUTH HIGUERA STREET(ANNX 57-97); PG&E ANNEXATION WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on July 9, 1997 and recommended: 1) prezoning the proposed annexation site Service Commercial (C-S); and 2) forwarding a resolution to LAFCO requesting annexation approval; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on August 19, 1997 and has considered testimony of interested persons, the records of the Planning Commission hearing and action, and evaluation and recommendations of staff, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of a request for annexation and for a prezoning the proposed annexation site to Service-Commercial (C-S), makes the following finding(s): 1. Consideration of this annexation and prezoning request is premature and should not occur prior to completion of an Airport Area specific plan as required by adopted Land Use Element policies 1.13.3 and 7.3. (Council may insert different or additional findings.) SECTION 2. Denial. The request for approval of the prezoning described above is hereby denied. Resolution No. (1997 Series) Page 2 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 , 1997. Mayor Allen Settle ATTEST: City Clerk Bonnie Gawf APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney Jeff Jorgensen A l�1 PTN. 131 S,FL; 7Pµ9P • F— (�A7H C ,4 J V 1:LPAR= Z.'J4 aMAC . TANK FARM ROAD 1 r »a•o r+aAu I MAa riOAeA roi•eA 'a SIY!•V • L 4 ! 5 3 r • SUBURBAN ROAD ` S. :•� J.1.s. sar ar AM i .u.ua J a. JP Jaf.0 e ri CITY LIMIT Q� A +' l7 i lrel zrAL , • < 2, O r I rsiJrnA la c a A a c LOS OSOS VALLEY ROsi 3 :T.00Ar z?Ac a J y •i' 7�+1/�. ' IYRiO PN2039 )aJ I. ►NPB-PI ai..» all 076-071-008 (SCHRINER —WELL SITE) I 076-071-018.019 (THOMA) l 076-071-009 (PG&E) C/ ,.. I I I Z — — - - — — — � — — — — — — - - T — `� �'� • Yy J O HA�FORO & CHAPMAAII S r .4 � Y - U 19 I 2240 AG. 40 ACL I I 11 Ld e � lit PROPOSED ANNEXATION AREA its BUCKLEY ROAD lol n ,. . L I \ 15 1!114 VICINITY MAP ANNX 57-97 NORTH 4280 Vachell Lane +` .���mut.E •, ,,,; == 079-071-008 BUSINESS SCHRINER WELL SITE PARK (to be annexed) ee.on• THOMA ya' PROPERTY (see site plan) w.; 1 is • .yi?M1 .: Us \I FFICE L t _ ;'• �.. - OFFICE ""`• i NJW q _ _ O � HELIPAD JISA.8.0:. RV STORAGE EXISTING BUILDINGS ® FUTURE DEVELOPMENT NPF . laimon SITE PLAN-P.G.&.E PROPERTY ASSOCIATES P.G.&E. Annexation Area 970127Xsitepge.pm5 4/7/97 Q I PG&E PROPERTY .. ,y V ^��•, � ^o•^��.e.m N 9P00'O�E 223.30' \� EXISTING POLE BARN ^ os/ • ' 1i h .v C.0 .4 2v 2 i ? 4ii PG&E PROPERTY ot >s o...ar mwm N PG&E PROPERTY HOMA PROPERTY .:......... . KEY MAP NPF Qannon EXISTING SITE PLAN-THOMA PROPERTY ASSOCIATES P.G.&E.Annexation Area 97012-1Wtethom.pm5 4!7/97 /-19 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ITEM a3 BY: Ronald Whisenand, Development Review Manage i5 MEETING DATE: July 9, 1997 FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director FILE NUMBER: ANNX/R/ER 57-97 PROJECT ADDRESS: 4280 Vachell SUBJECT: Consideration of a request to annex and prezone 13.1 acres of property (four lots total) on the east side of South Higuera Street, south of Los Osos valley Road and west of Vachell Lane. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION Recommend that City Council: a) Pass to print an ordinance prezoning the annexation area Service Commercial (C-S). b) Adopt a resolution recommending that LAFCo approve the annexation. BACKGROUND Situation Pacific Gas &Electric (PG&E) is planning on consolidating certain regional operations to their Vachell Lane site. Future development plans call for the addition of approximately 11,600 square feet of office use, 2,200 square feet of assembly space, and 4,500 square feet of storage. Annexation is desired so that full City services can be provided to the future development. The annexation itself is made up of four parcels totaling 13.1 acres, with PG&E making up the majority of the land holdings (see attached annexation maps). The other properties (Thoma and Schriner) are included in order to make a logical annexation boundary. No further development of these other parcels is proposed at this time. Part of the annexation process involves specifying an appropriate City zoning designation for the site upon annexation. The annexation and rezone requests will also require environmental review. The San Luis Obispo Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) authorizes annexation. In this case, LAFCo proceedings were initiated by the applicant. City and LAFCo policies require that the Planning Commission and City Council determine the appropriate general plan land use designation and zoning for the site to be annexed. LAFCo review will resume once Council acts on the prezoning and agrees to commence tax revenue negotiations. Final Council action is taken on the site zoning after LAFCo review. Data Summar' Project Address: 4280 Vachell Ln. Applicant: Pacific Gas and Electric Property Owners: Pacific Gas and Electric William and Edward Thoma Ron Schriner �-�20 Planning Commission Meeting 7/9/97 PG&E et. al. Annexation-ANNX/R/ER 57-97 Page 2 Representative: Cannon Associates Zoning: Commercial Service General Plan: Services and Manufacturing Environmental: The Director determined the project required a negative declaration of environmental impact on June 4*, 1997. Action Deadline: Legislative projects are not subject to permit streamlining act deadlines. Site Description The area to be annexed consists of four parcels totalling 13.1 acres. The Schriner parcel (APN 079-071- 008), is the smallest (500 square feet) and is developed with a well serving off-site uses. The Thoma parcels (APN 076-071-018 & 019), which are surrounded by PG&E property on three sides, are approximately one acre in total area and are developed with an existing residence and barn/accessory structures. The PG&E parcel (APN 076-071-009) is the largest containing 12 acres and is developed with 21,000 square feet of warehouse, asembly, and office uses. In addition, the PG&E site contains extensive open parldng and storage areas as well as a helipad. Surrounding land uses include agriculture and other service-commerical and manufacturing operations. Prqject Description The applicant is requesting: 1. Annexation of the four parcels with a total area of 13.1 acres; 2. Prezoning of the annexation site to Service-Commercial (C-S); and 3. An environmental determination. EVALUATION General Plan/Interim Airport Annexation Policy Conformance Ultimately this site is envisioned by both City and County land use plans to be annexed to the City. Itis the policy of City Council to process interim annexations of those properties in the airport area which will otherwise develop in the short term within the County (LUE Policies 1.13.3 and 7.3). The interim annexation criteria allows property to be considered for annexation prior to the adoption of the Airport Area Specific Plan provided: 1. It is contiguous to existing city limits; and 2. It is within the City's urban reserve line; and 3. It is near to existing infrastructure; and 4. Existing infrastructure capacity is available to serve the proposed development; and 5. A development plan for the applicant's property accompanies the application for annexation. 6. The applicant(s) agree to contribute to the cost of preparing the specific plan and constructing area-wide infrastructure improvements according to a cost sharing plan maintained by the City. /-4A1 Planning Commission Meeting 7/9/97 PG&E et. al. Annexation-ANNX/RMR 57-97 Page 3 In this case, the properties meet all of the above General Plan criteria for early annexation. The City Engineer has certified that adequate resources exist to serve the site upon annexation, subject to compliance with City water and sewer regulations. Utilities and services available in the South Higuera Street right-of-way can be extended to serve urban development on these sites. Although the PG&E property is the only one with the desire to develop at this time, the others are included for a logical extension of the City limits. In the case of the Thoma property, annexation of South Higuera as planned would create an island and therefore it must come into the City at the same time. Although the Schriner property would still maintain contact with property outside the City limits, it would make sense to annex at this time. This annexation proposal would be similar to that which recently occured with the Spice Hunter property along Tank Farm and Suburban Roads which included property owned by Sonic Cable which had no development desires driving annexation yet was included in order to better shape the City limits. The applicant has agreed to contribute to the cost of preparing the Airport Area Specific Plan, sharing the cost of constructing area-wide infrastructure improvements, and contributing towards open space preservation. Costs have been calculated as follows: 1. 'Utilities - Well water for both potable and irrigation purposes will continue to be used after annexation. The applicants will tie into the City system for fire protection purposes only. No impact fees or water allocations (through retrofitting) will be required until a full hook-up is. requested. The applicant will be required to extend the existing water main in South Higuera to at least the northerly access to the PG&E property. PG&E plans to continue use of the on-site septic tank/leachfield system. Sewer fees (including an upgrade to the City's sewer lift station serving the area) will only be required upon hook-up to the City sewer. 2. Transportation Impact Fees - To be paid for any new development based on the fee schedule in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 3. Open Space Fee-The City's General Plan requires development in the airport area to contribute to the acquisition of open space. The interim policy establishes a fee of$2,500 per undeveloped acre at the time of annexation. Based on a assumption that approximately 10 acres of the PG&E parcel is undeveloped, an open space fee of$25,000 will be required upon annexation. . 4. Deferred Area-Wide Impact Fee - This fee represents the undeveloped portion of the property's share of the cost of area-wide infrastructure for the buildout of the entire airport area, such as major roads, trunk water and sewer improvements, storm drain improvements, and preparation of the Airport Area Specific Plan. Based on the City's Interim Airport Area Annexation Financing Plan, fees to be paid or secured would total $153,270. Compliance with the interim plan would be guaranteed through a formal written agreement between the applicant and the City. These costs and other development issues will be addressed in a "pre-annexation agreement" to be executed prior to action on the annexation by the City Council. Planning Commission Meeting 7/9/97 PG&E et. al. Annexation-ANNX/R/ER 57-97 Page 4 Prezoning/Land Use The City's General Plan Land Use Element applies a designation of Services and Manufacturing to this site. To be consistent with this land use designation the site must be zoned either Service-Commercial (C- S) or Manufacturing (M). The applicant is requesting Service-Commercial zoning consistent with the described purpose and application of the C-S zone as described in the zoning regulations: The C-S zone is intended to provide for storage, transportation and wholesaling as well as certain retail sales and business services which may be less appropriate in the City's other commercial zones. It will be applied to areas designated "service-commercial/light industrial" (now "services and manufacturing) on the general plan map, typically those areas with more public exposure along arterial streets than places reserved for manufacturing. The existing and planned uses of the property are consistent with the purposes of the C-S zoning district. Any planned utility company engineering and administration offices will require approval of an administrative use permit. Qpen Apace Land Use Element (LUE) policies require that annexation and development of properties in the airport area include provisions to help protect open space in the greenbelt near the airport area. The applicant has two alternatives in meeting these policy requirements: payment of in-lieu fees or dedicating an open space easement or fee ownership for land in the southern part of the City's greenbelt. LUE Policy 7.4 Greenbelt Protection Annexation of the Airport Area, whether it occurs as one action or several, shall be consistent with the growth management objectives of maintaining areas outside the urban reserve line in rural, predominantly open space uses. An Airport Area annexation shall not take effect unless the annexed area helps protect an appropriate part of the greenbelt near the Airport Area, through one or more of the following methods: A. Dedicating an open-space easement or fee ownership to the City or to a responsible land-conservation organization. B. Paying fees to the City in-lieu of dedication, which shall be used within a reasonable time to secure greenbelt open space near the Airport Area. In this case, the applicant is choosing the option to pay fees in-lieu of dedication. The above described pre-annexation agreement will ensure payment of the fee consistent with General Plan policies. /-o23 Planning Commission Meeting 7/9/97 PG&E et. al. Annexation-ANNX/R/ER 57-97 Page 5 Environ mental Impacts The attached environmental initial study concludes that annexation will not result in any significant adverse impacts on the physical environment. Potential environmental impacts of future site development not included in the initial study will be evaluated more specifically in a separate initial study once the City receives an application for such development. Preliminary review of conceptual development plans by various City departments indicates that such development could be accommodated by City services. ALTERNATIVES 1. Recommend that the City Council forward a recommendation to LAFCo to deny the requested annexation based on appropriate findings. 2. Continue action with direction. OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS Other department comments are attached to the environmental initial study and support annexation. RECOMMENDATION Forward a recommendation to City Council as outlined at the beginning of this report based on the following findings: Environmental Review Finding: 1. The environmental initial study (ER 57-97) adequately evaluates potential adverse impacts to the environment as a result of the proposed annexation and prezoning. Furthermore, based on information in the application, a field inspection, and a review of relevant references in the Community Development Department, staff has determined that there is no evidence that the project will have any potential adverse effects on fish and wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. Prez Findings: 1. Prezoning the annexation area Service Commercial (C-S) is consistent with the General Plan land use designation of Services and Manufacturing. 2. Prezoning the annexation area Service Commercial (C-S) is consistent with the intended use and location of C-S zoned properties as described in the zoning regulations. /-"s f ' Planning Commission Meeting 7/9/97 PG&E et. al. Annexation-ANNX/R/ER 57-97 Page 6 3. A prezoning of Service Commercial is appropriate at the proposed location and will be compatible with surrounding land uses which are primarily service commercial, industrial, and agricultural in nature. 4. The prezoning will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment Attached: Vicinity Map Annexation/Prezoning Exhibits Applicant's Statements Department Comments Environmental Initial Study ���i�u►►►�i►iiili�lllfllllll8�l p►►►►iiiii►► I IIII IIIA � city Of SAn WIS OBISPO 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 July 17, 1997 Pacific Gas&Electric Co. P.O. Box 592 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 SUBJECT: ANNX,R and ER 57-97: 4280 Vachell Lane Dear Applicant: The Planning Commission,at its meeting of July 9, 1997,recommended that the City Council approve the annexation and pre-zone of your project at 4280 Vachell Lane to Service Commercial (C-S). The decision of the Planning Commission is a recommendation to the City Council and therefore is not final. Your project is tentatively scheduled for review by the City Council on Tuesday, August 19, 1997 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, upstairs City Hall. To confirm this date, please contact the City Clerk's office at 781-7102. In addition, I would like to remind you that the signed pre-annexation agreement must be received by the Community Development Department prior to the Council meeting. A final draft was given ' to your representative at the Planning Commission meeting. If you have any questions,please contact me at 781-7177. Sincerely, R Wald . Whisenan Development Review Manager cc: Andrew Merriam L:57-974=0 OThe City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805) 781-7410. Draft Planning Commi!,b,on Minutes July 9, 1997 Page 13 3. 4280 Vachell: ANNX. R and ER 57-97: Request to annex and prezone to Service Commercial (C-S) 13.1 acres of property (4 lots) on the east side of South Higuera Street south of Los Osos Valley Road and west of Vachell Lane; Pacific Gas and Electric Company, applicant. Commissioner Ewan and Chairman Senn refrained from participation due to potential conflicts of interest. Vice Chairwoman Whittlesey conducted the remainder of the hearing. Development Review Manager Whisenand presented the staff report and recommended the Commission recommend to Council (1) passing to print an ordinance prezoning the annexation area Service Commercial and (2) adopting a resolution recommending that LAFCO approve the annexation. Commissioner Ashbaugh noted a discrepancy between the staff report and the applicant's submittal regarding city services. Development Review Manager Whisenand deferred the question to the PG&E representative. He believes a driving force behind the annexation is a need to obtain sufficient fire flows. They will be proposing to hook up to the city's water main for fire protection purposes. Commissioner Ashbaugh asked if the there was consideration given to the property north of the business park at the comer of Vachell and LOVR for inclusion in the annexation. Development Review Manager Whisenand stated a year ago there was discussion and a request to look a larger annexation area. At that time there was no interest expressed by the owners of the business park. The idea behind the interim annexation policy is to take properties in that have development plans. Commissioner Kourakis asked staff to comment on utilities and water. Development Review Manager Whisenand stated the city has designated 300 acre-foot for new annexations. Assuming all annexations that have been approved have been built, there would be a reserve available for this annexation and others at 242.67 acre-feet. PG&E is estimated by the Utilities Dept. to take 1.11 acre-feet and Thoma is at .6 acre- feet. This reduces the reserve to 232.96 acre-feet. Commissioner Kourakis understands if a piece of property is within the City, the City is obligated to provide services. ��7 Draft Planning Comrm,.,on Minutes July 9, 1997 Page 14 Development Review Manager Whisenand doesn't believe this to be true. The City is required to analyze all new annexations and determine if the existing sewer facilities have the capacity to handle it. Water is different because we have limited reserves. He noted the City has three water projects in the works that would potentially provide additional water resources to the City. There were no further questions/comments and the pubic comment session was opened. PUBLIC COMMENT: Andrew Merriam, applicants'representative, had nothing to add to the staff report. Mr. Merriam stated regarding the development plan, PG&E is planning to consolidate several of their service components on the site. The plans for the buildings are being evaluated; however, they wanted to continue the annexation process. In effect, the plan shown is their development plan. Thoma doesn't have any expansions planned, but clearly they are developed and are operating at reasonable capacity at this point. Mr. Merriam stated it's PG&E's intent to have sewer when the new building comes on line. City staff says they have the right to remain on septic tank until sewer connection is requested. It's basically at the applicants'option. Commissioner Whittlesey asked why C-S was requested. Mr. Merriam stated C-S is more appropriate for Thoma and also covered PG&E's requirements. Development Review Manager Whisenand stated as far as C-S versus M in terms of use, corporation yards are an allowed use in both. Administrative and engineering offices of utility companies requires a director's use permit in the C-S and is not allowed in the M. Seeing no further speakers come forward, the public comment session was closed. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commissioner Ashbaugh moved to recommend to Council passing to print an ordinance prezoning the annexation area C-S and adoption of a resolution recommending that LAFCO approve the annexation as recommended in the staff report. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Jeffrey. Commissioner Ashbaugh feels we need to be careful about the continuing erosion of the edges of the airport annexation. �r 7X Draft Planning Comnubaion Minutes July 9, 1997 Page 15 Commissioner Jeffrey complimented staff on their report. AYES: Commissioners Ashbaugh, Jeffrey, Kourakis, and Vice Chairwoman Whittlesey NOES: None ABSTAIN: None REFRAIN: Commissioner Ewan and Chairman Senn ABSENT: Commissioner Ready The motion carried 4-0. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION: 4. Staff: A. Agenda Forecast: Development Review Manager Whisenand presented the agenda forecast for the meetings of July 23, Aug. 13 and Aug. 27. 5. Commission: Chairman Senn distributed a memorandum he prepared for the Commercial Zoning Workshop and asked Commissioners to fax any changes/deletions. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m. to the next regular meeting scheduled for Wednesday, July 23, 1997 at 7:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Leaha K. Magee Recording Secretary �-,29 I►I►I��I�IIIIII�II���;���� �IIIIIIII IIIA city of sAn tuis oaspo 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1 . Project Title: Pacific Gas and Electric Annexation, Annx/R/ER 57-97 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo 3. Contact Person and, phone Number: Ronald Whisenand, Development Review Manager, (805) 781-7177 4. Project Location: 4280 Vachell Lane 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Pacific Gas & Electric Ron Schriner P.O. Box 592 1749 San Luis Dr. San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 William and Edward Thoma 3562 Empleo St., Suite C San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 6. General Plan Designation: Services and Manufacturing 7. Current County Zoning: Commercial Service 8. Description of the Project: The applicants are requesting annexation of 13.1 acres of property (4 lots total) on the east side of South Higuera Street, south of Los Osos Valley Road and west of Vachell Lane. All lots are currently developed. The PG&E property is the largest of the parcels comprising approximately 12 acres and contains approximately 21 ,000 square feet of warehouse, assembly, and office uses. Future development plans include the addition of 11,600 square feet of office use, 2,200 square feet of assembly space, and 4,500 square feet of storage. No further development of the other lots is planned at this time. These other parcels are being included in the annexation in order to create a logical and contiguous City limits boundary. IOThe City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. Q V� Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805) 781-7410. /�J O i�►II�IIIIIIII�IIIINIIIIII������� plllllllllllll city of sAn luis oullispo 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 9. Entitlements Requested: Annexation, Preioning, and Architectural Review (application to be submitted after annexation) 10. Surrounding Land Uses: Agriculture and other service-commercial and manufacturing operations. 11 . Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): Local Agency Formation Commission �reDThe City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include theZisabled in all of its services, programs and activities. ` Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805) 781-7410. ' �, ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. x Land Use and Planning Biological Resources Aesthetics Population and Housing Energy and Mineral Cultural Resources Resources Geological Problems Hazards Recreation Water Noise Mandatory Findings of Significance b�l+v t\'3v� :•.,;,,L, tr( \�. 4.,P'p'S-0:* ��,�ti Air Quality Public Services Kjy\{ {Y „•, >,j¢f::w\. +t tt.°3:�?+c, :c�p�.��.n�C??:..:: Transportation and Utilities and Service Circulation Systems � =�? ' �° ° •�: � ;�� :�,v 3�.3v.w?atik.. t.:tS:u ;iC`:'.':�::'t:?�Y,.:,f,-�...w•,O�•.:vS: DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a x NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheets have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project May have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or is "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. 3 �_3Z June 4, 1997 ignat a Date Ronald Whisenand, Development Review Manager Arnold Jonas, Community Development Dir. Printed Name For EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the analysis in each section. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, 'cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3. "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced). 5. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist. 6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 4 /-33 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Pcdcrwvy PatentWly L4W Than No Sipfficant Sipffi=t Sipfficant Impact lqm,e Unless Impact ER 57-97: PG&E Annexation mitigation Inoorpouated Hr:.] M ........... l.'.�.'-.'LANO�USEiAND:.PLANNING...... .............. ............... .. ...... ............................ .................. .. .....I I d 50; b1h 1,2, x .......... 5,6 rX.. %. Caafiict..................... ................... o icjw� x adopted by on, ental plans pr a.r v ............. it agenc!pg t Fig.........qkovo� 0. .jq ............ ........... .. ............ . ".CVBeFfia Cbl fthi:axistindildh 'Uselnoth nepimp ti. G.JW1 9:..vieinityi~ 1,2 x ............ ............... .... mpa. .i.� a.agriquitur.0 , :J in x ...�TeSQV r ms j6::;SoI 1; ;t;Jr t rmd lfoM I ibli ........... ........... .... L 66t �i .. .......... .......... ............. .................... land usesP e) Disrupt �r divlt]e ....0h AJ x ....wmw ...ff...1.2 ... .... ........... ...... ............. ......... t bl"'h---d- iT� 01W9ncQmff: or� hh,a -0: U Y.. NA ............... ... ............. ................ ......... ....... .......... Mnofj y:commUh,1fV: .. ..... .... ...... ................... ....... .. ....... Zoning The City's general plan applies a designation of Services and Manufacturing to this site. To be consistent with this land use designation the site must be zoned either Service-Commercial (C-S) or Manufacturing (M). The applicant is requesting Service-Commercial zoning consistent with the described purpose and application of the C-S zone as described in the zoning regulations: The C-S zone is intended to provide for storage, transportation and wholesaling as well as 'certain retail sales and business services which may be less appropriate in the City's other commercial zones. It will be applied to areas designated "service-commercial/light industrial" (now "services and manufacturing") on the general plan map, typically those areas with more public exposure along arterial streets than places reserved for manufacturing. The existing and planned uses of the property are consistent with the purposes of the C-S zoning district. Any planned engineering and administration offices will require approval of an administrative use permit. CONCLUSION: Not significant. Consistency with general plan polices and zoning regulations is best achieved by prezoning the subject property Service Commercial. Agricultural Compatibility CONCLUSION: Not significant. Annexation of developed land will have no impact on nearby agricultural operations. Airport Compatibility On the City general plan land use map and in Figure 9 (Airport Area map) of the Land Use Element , the site is included within the boundaries of the Airport Area. The project site is located in Airport Land Use Area 5 as shown in the Airport Land Use Plan. Office buildings, warehouses and other service uses are all identified as "compatible" in Area 5. Development of the project site will not be subject to review by the Airport Land Use Commission but will require dedication of avigation easements consistent with the County's Airport Land Use Plan. CONCLUSION: Not significant. Annexation, prezoning, and development will not impact airport operations. 5 Issues and Supporting Information Sources sourcaa Potmt=y Potentially LmThm No sipiricaw significant sip ficant Impact ER 57-97: PG&E Annexation mitigation Impact W Land Use Element Policies Ultimately this site is envisioned by both City and County land use plans to be annexed to the City. It is the policy of City Council to process interim annexations in the airport area while simultaneously working toward the goal of preparing a specific plan for this area. Land Use policies have been recently amended to support interim annexations such as being proposed here. CONCLUSION: Not significant. The project will be processed consistent with the adopted Interim Annexation Policy. Other Land Use Element policies are as follows: ♦ 7.4 Greenbelt Protection Annexation of the Airport Area, whether it occurs as one action or several, shall be consistent with the growth management objectives of maintaining areas outside the urban reserve line in rural, predominantly open space uses. An Airport Area annexation shall not take effect unless the annexed area helps protect an appropriate part of the greenbelt near the Airport Area, through one or more of the following methods: A. Dedicating an open-space easement or fee ownership to the City or to a responsible land- conservation organization. B. Paying fees to the City in-lieu of dedication, which shall be used within a reasonable time to secure greenbelt open space near the Airport Area. CONCLUSION: Less than significant. The applicant has two alternatives in meeting this policy requirement: payment of in-lieu fees or dedicating an open space easement or fee ownership for land in the southern part of the City's greenbelt. The applicant is proposing the payment of an in-lieu fee consistent with the rate established by the Council as part of the Interim Annexation Policy. ♦ 7.5 Internal Open Space The areas designated for urban uses, but not necessarily each parcel, should include open areas as site amenities and to protect resources, consistent with the Open Space Element. In addition, wildlife corridors across the Airport Area shall be identified and preserved. CONCLUSION: Not significant. This site is not identified in the Open Space Element as having resources which must be protected. ♦ 7.7 Transit Service Transit service linking development sites with the citywide bus system should be provided concurrent with any additional urban development in the Airport Area. According to the City Transit Manager, transit service is not expected to be expanded in the vicinity in the next 5 years. There is currently a bus stop at the corner of Suburban Road and South Higuera Street and one will be installed at the corner of South Higuera Street and Tank Farm Road. CONCLUSION: Not significant. Additional transit facilities are not expected to be needed for at least 5 years. 6 /-3S Issues and Supporting Information Sources sour= Potmumly Potentially Ims Than No Sipfficud sipfficant sigtiSmnt Impact ria unIm hnpad ER 57-97: PG&E Annexation mitigation Incorpomted ♦ 7.8 Specific Plan The City will prepare a specific plan for land uses, habitat protection, circulation, utilities, and drainage within the Airport Area. The City Council has directed the preparation of a Specific Plan for the Airport Area. The plan preparation, review, and approval process is expected is take approximately two years to complete. The applicant is willing to contribute a pro-rated share of the cost of specific plan preparation. CONCLUSION: Not significant. The project will further the goal of specific plan preparation by contributing a portion of the estimated preparation cost. ♦ 7.14 Open Space Dedication and In-lieu Fees In approving development proposals, the City will assure that Airport Area properties secure protection for any on-site resources as identified in the Open Space Element. These properties, to help maintain the greenbelt, shall also secure open space protection for any contiguous, commonly owned land outside the urban reserve. If it is not feasible to directly obtain protection for such land, fees in lieu of dedication shall be paid when the property is developed, to help secure the greenbelt in the area south of the City's urban reserve line. The City shall set fee levels that would be appropriate in-lieu of open space dedication. CONCLUSION: Less than significant. See discussion under policies 7.4 and 7.5. • 1.13 Annexation and Services ♦ 1.13.1 Water & Sewer Service The City shall not provide nor permit delivery of City water or sewer services to the following areas. However, the City will serve those parties having valid previous connections or contracts with the City. A. Outside the City limits; B. Outside the urban reserve line; C. Above elevations reliably served by gravity-flow in the City water system; D. Below elevations reliably served by gravity-flow or pumps in the City sewer system. CONCLUSION: Annexation into the City is requested to enable compliance with this policy. In addition, the properties are located within the urban reserve line where City Services can be provided. ♦ 1.13.2 Annexation Purpose and Timing Annexation should be used as a growth management tool, both to enable appropriate urban development and to protect open space. Areas within the urban reserve line which are to be developed with urban uses should be annexed before urban development occurs. The City may annex an area long before such development is to occur, and the City may annex areas which are to remain permanently as open space. An area may be annexed in phases, consistent with the city-approved specific plan or development plan for the area. Phasing of annexation and development will reflect topography, needed capital facilities and funding, open space objectives, and existing and proposed land uses and roads. The annexation request is consistent with this policy in so far as it calls for annexation before further urban development that will require City services occurs. Recent applications and inquiries with the City indicate an interest among some property owners to annex ahead of specific plan preparation, so airport area annexation is likely to occur in phases. This process is consistent with the City's adopted Interim 7 1-36 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potammiy Potmtialiy Lm Than I No sip ficad sipificant b*Ld urden ER 57-97: PG&E Annexation ni6ption mqmwt > w Annexation Policy. Services and frontage improvements will be addressed in conjunction with any application for site development. The annexation furthers open space objectives as discussed elsewhere in this section. Proposed land use is consistent with the general plan land use designation of Services and Manufacturing. CONCLUSION: Not significant. Annexation is being requested prior to urban development. Urban development of this site is envisioned in both City and County land use plans and can be accommodated at this location. ♦ 1.13.3 Required Plans Land in any of the following annexation areas may be developed only after the City has adopted a plan for land uses, roads, utilities, the overall pattern of subdivision, and financing of public facilities for the area. The plan shall provide for open space protection consistent with policy 1.13.5. A. For the Airport area, a specific plan shall be adopted for the whole area. Until a specific plan is adopted, properties may only be annexed if they meet the following criteria: 1.The property is contiguous to the existing city limits; and 2.The property is within the existing urban reserve line; and 3.The property is located near to existing infrastructure; and 4.Existing infrastructure capacity is available to serve the proposed development; and 5.A development plan for the property belonging to the applicant(s) accompanies the application for annexation; and 6.The applicant agrees to contribute to the cost of preparing the specific plan and constructing area- wide infrastructure improvements according to a cost-sharing plan maintained by the City. A specific plan for the Airport Area is not likely to be completed for 18 months to 2 years. The applicants request is consistent with the interim annexation criteria listed above. The applicant's compliance with the interim plan will be guaranteed through a formal written agreement between the applicant and the City. CONCLUSION: Not significant. • 1.13.4 Development and Services Actual development in an annexed area may be approved only when adequate City services can be provided for that development, without reducing the level of services or increasing the cost of services for existing development and for build-out within the City limits as of July 1994, in accordance with the City's water management policies. The water management policies may allow part of the water retrofit credit that would be needed for build-out within the 1994 city limits to be used for annexation projects. Water for development in an annexed area may be made available by any one or any combination of the following: A. City water supply, including reclaimed water; B. Reducing usage of City water in existing development so that there will be no net increase in long-term water usage; C. Private well water, but only as an interim source, pending availability of an approved addition to City water sources, and when it is demonstrated that use of the well water will not diminish the City's municipal groundwater supply. Future development on any of the parcels will be subject to City water allocation regulations. The City has restricted the total amount of water available to annexations, including those in the airport area, to 300 acre-feet (Water & Wastewater Element (WWE), Section 8.3 (Table 8) [source 6]). Under current regulations, to obtain water from the city's supplies, a developer must retrofit existing plumbing fixtures (Policy 8.2, WWE). If other 8 �-37 Issues and Supporting Information Sources sources Potmtuuty Potentially LAM Than No Significant sip ficmt sigoiricant Impad Issues Unless Im" ER 57-97: PG&E Annexation mitigation Encorporaw annexations use all of the 300 acre-feet prior to application by this developer for building permit, no water allocations will be issued and no building permit will be issued, until additional water supplies are available or until the City Council determines that additional water will be made available for annexations. Roughly 1200 acre feet of additional water-supply is anticipated in 1999 from the City water reclamation project, some of which is likely to be allocated to annexation areas. CONCLUSION: Not significant. No impact on available water supply is anticipated as a result of annexing the property. Site development under the jurisdiction of the City will be subject to the City's water allocation regulations. • 1.13.5 Open Space Each annexation shall help secure permanent protection for areas designated Open Space, and for the habitat types and wildlife corridors within the annexation area that are identified in policy 6.1.1. Policies concerning prime agricultural land shall apply when appropriate. The following standards shall apply to the indicated areas: D. Airport Area properties shall secure protection for any on-site resources as identified in the Open Space Element. These properties, to help maintain the greenbelt, shall also secure open space protection for any contiguous, commonly owned land outside the urban reserve. If it is not feasible to directly obtain protection for such land, fees in lieu of dedication shall be paid when the property is developed, to help secure the greenbelt in the area south of the City's southerly urban reserve line. CONCLUSION: Less than significant. The project's contribution options to greenbelt open space are discussed above. ♦ 1.14 Costs of Growth The costs of public facilities and services needed for new development shall be borne by the new development, unless the community chooses to help pay the costs for a certain development to obtain community-wide benefits. The City will adopt a development-fee program and other appropriate financing measures, so that new development pays its share of the costs of new services and facilities needed to serve it. CONCLUSION: Not significant. Anticipated infrastructure needs and fees for future development are outlined in comments from the City's Public Works Department. ♦ 1.15 Solid Waste Capacity In addition to other requirements for adequate resources and services prior to development, the City must determine that adequate solid waste disposal capacity will be available before granting any discretionary land use approval which would increase solid waste generation. CONCLUSION: Not significant. Annexation of developed land will not increase the solid waste stream. Solid waste from any future site development will be delivered to Cold Canyon landfill which currently has a capacity to accept solid waste for at least 20 years, based on the current rate of disposal and ongoing trends showing a reduction in per capita waste generation. .2 €> POP. LATION ANO:HQUSING':Woi ld`�the- ro osatc a� GululaUuety............. a#frt ial regloal or local popula#�on 1 x prolectiar s. Induce substant►al growth:to an area elth diFectTy x 9 /-38 Issues and Supporting Information Sources sources Potenh y Po"mialiy IJ'as71isn No Sigoi,icara sipificard significant Impact Issues unicas Impact ER 57-97: PG&E Annexation mitigalion IncommmW ,ndirectly (e g throug.- p QJ0C. . .an undeveloped arca �r major dnfrastructurs3 cf Aisplace . exrsnnq housmi#, sspecwl►y affordable x hous�n 2> . ....,:.. The Land Use Element (LUE) growth management provisions (section 1.0 of the LUE) call for limitations on the number of residences that may be built every year, to maintain an average growth rate of one percent per year during the 1990s. The maximum population projected for the city is 57,700. The current population is 41,943, according to California Department of Finance estimates. This number is a 1.6% increase from the previous year (41,295) but a decrease from two years previously (43,919). CONCLUSION: Not significant. Annexation by itself will not impact population. Jobs created in conjunction with future site development are anticipated to come from the local area (i.e. consolidation of existing PG&E operations at this site). Any expansion in jobs are not likely to be significant and are anticipated to be filled by local residents. ............................ -::::<:::,::>,...: :.......: . ..... . .................................... .. ...:..... 3 G.EOLOGIC;.P..RO.BLEMS. vVould.the .co os.al;result ire or:e.. ose eo le to; otentiaF Impacts:invo.vtn -; so fault rupture? l: 8 x av'sommskin'::. .€'.€ ' '= ?€> < >: > > ' s '>'s'':: ' : 1 x #�) ..... ,c grounij:sFLa g ., cf Se�Smra ground fauure, mclud�ng f quefaction3 1 x d} Seiche, tsunami,;or uolcaiiic hazard? x . NA . e) 'Lantfslides or mudflows�' 1 x f} Ereshon, changes in topography ar unstable soli 1 x conditions from excavation,grading, or fllh g# Subsidence of thif_I W 3 x hlxparsnie sotls? 3 x V: :=lrn ue........................... rc:or h sical.features2 7 x There are no known faults on site or in the immediate vicinity. The site is in Seismic Zone 4, a seismically active region of California, and strong ground shaking should be expected during the life of on-site structures. Any structures must be designed in compliance with seismic design criteria established in the Uniform Building Code. The site is shown on the Seismic Safety Element map as underlain with recent alluvium, which has a high potential for liquefaction. Soils Engineering Reports prepared for the near-by TK Annexation site indicate no likelihood of liquefaction or subsidence, but also note that expansive soils are present in this area. The site is essentially flat with no unique geologic or physical features. A soils engineering report specific to this site will be required with any application for site development. CONCLUSION: Not significant. There are no known geological or soils conditions that would make this site unsuitable for development. Building permits will require site specific testing to ensure compliance with applicable building codes. .... 4 WATER..,;Wouldahe ro :osal resuRm a} ... Changes in abs...... on rates, drainage patterns, or the x rate andi:amoun#vf surface runoNA b}. l xposureofpeople or property to water related x .. hazards succi as flooding? NA cf :Qischarge into surface waters orather alteration.of x surface water quatrty (e.g temperature, dissolved. NA . oxygen of urbidity? ;:. . .. ... d} Changes'n the amount of surface wate '�n any water x body? NA e# Changes'irI currents, or;the course or direction.0.....M.wx 10 x.39 Issues and Supporting Information Sources sources Potcouamy Potentially Lc=Than No sip fiant sip ficda sigi fiant Impact Issues Unless Impact ER 57-97: PG&E Annexation mitigation incorporated .......: ::. mouementst ..: . NA fj. Chang ........ the quantity of ground:.waters,;erthec x through direct addrt�orrs or wtthdrav+raFs,or;hrgygh NA �ntercepIt of ori aqulfar:by cuts nr.excavations:or . thMug heubstan;a�lass of groundwater recharge;. capablhty7 g} Altered dlrecbanr tate of ftgw of groundwater? x NA )mpacts to groundwater duality?. x ....................:.:................................................................................................................... ....................... NA il Substantial reduction m the amount,of groundwater x otherwise avallsble far.' ubltc ra,ater su NA CONCLUSION: Not significant. The site is currently developed with an extensive amount of paving. New structures would not increase the amount of surface run-off or affect drainage patterns. 5. :AIR:f3UALITY: UVould alis ro osal, .... a1..violate,any air guahty standard or contribute to.an x _ ::...: :......:: : ...._...:.. existing;or pro1eCted air iqua lty viotatiorl, GdrttiplsanCa rr NA Wirth APED Enuironmenta..Guldernes►? h} .Expose.............................;receptors to tlo11'tants x ..................................................................................................................................................... .. NA d1 . Alter air,;movemeq. moistures, or temperature, or cause, x any change to climate? NA dl: :Create p. lectlonable odo.:rs? x .........................................................................:.......................................................:................... . . NA......... ................:..:....:............:...:.:.::.:..::......:.:.:.:........:.:...:..:...:.:.:..............:........::...:.: CONCLUSION: Not significant. ........ ....... .... . . . ..... . ............................,....................................... . . ...:i....�...:.:......:.:.:.:...:...:....:..:.:.:.:::.:......:.:.:::....:...:... : ....... : >:a : r::::;::: : > :: : » :............ RAN P RTTI N/. IRCULATI N: €Wou1d,thero osal result.. ...... . . . .........:.:..:.. a).' Increased vehtcte'tnps or;itrafftc congestion? x ..€ .: NA . .. h} Hazards;to afety'from design features,(e.g sharp x curves .dangerous ntersecUorisl or tnCompatlkile uses;: NA ..................................................................................................................................................... . .. . (e.g. farm equipmentllT.... .. cl Inadequate emergency access or access-ta nearby x .... uses? NA d) Insufficient parking,capacity an-site ar off-slteT x :._ NA e) ....Hazards.or barriers for pa estrlans or.b�cycllstsl x ... .,: NA ......:.............:.:...................::..........................:......................................................__.........::.....:.. ..................................................................................................................................................... or ..icts;within...opto...:po.ides;suppor ►ng:A ternatrve € x transportation (e g bus tumouxs„°btcyCle:raCks37 ;; NA g} Raft, waterborne or �r traffic impacts fe.9 x tom NA CONCLUSION: Not significant. If annexed, future site development will be subject to the City's traffic impact fees which were established (Resolution No. 8406) to mitigate the impacts of new development on the City's streets, transit, and bikeway facilities. Air traffic com atibili is discussed in Section 1. 7 BIOLO:GICAL:RE:SOURCE.S .:Would the `ro osal affect ::.. ;:51.'< i[ ndangered.afi:[:eafen'ed ar aEe spec es lar tF°sir:.atiitats x (including but no;t.fl.... plants,.ftsh,_insects,,.: animals arblydst? s_ .. . }I} Locally designated species (e g..hentage treesli'. 7 x 1l /4 Issues and Supporting Information Sources sources FPotentiany Potentially Lass Than No significant significant Significant impact en ER 57-97: PG&E Annexation �� miuggation l lncorporaw c):°Luxally designaied naturai Cgmmunitias (e g oak 1,7 x forest, coastal hahitat, etc)? ..d) Ylletland hataitat (e gash, npar1are and vernal pbol� 1,7 x e) 1N....ne it ersat or nn ration condors? .; 1,7 x CONCLUSION: Not significant. Based on information in the application, a field inspection, and a review of relevant references in the Department, staff has determined that there is no evidence before the Department that the project will have any potential adverse effects on fish and wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. B,::ENERGY ANb.MINERAL'RESO RCEM 1Would 4F e`. ro os'aI :.:: e) .Conflict with adopted energy.conservatwty.p)aris7 x Use norr�.Ohio.le resources m $inrBS#@fbt and x inefficient manner? cl Result rn the foss of avai.ability of a known mirt. ral x resource that would be. fdture value to the regiCn and the:.residents of the?State? = , CONCLUSION: Annexation by itself has no impact on energy conservation. All new buildings will need to meet applicable energy standards contained in Title 24 of the UBC. 9: HAZARDS. would t iiomp6iw ........................ ...s. risk_o::accidental explosion or:release of hazardous 9 x substances {rrtcitiding,but not limited to :od, pesticides, chemicals ar:radiationl� P) Fossrbie'mterference.with an emergency re5p9nsQ plan 9 x or emetg;ency eva......rr.plan? c) The creation of any health hazardar pptent�al.health 9 x .......... ; . .. d) xposure of people o. existing sourcesof potential 9 x health t►azards7 . e) ,Increas@d fire hazard in areas..m............t... h flammable brush, 9 x lass nritreest . ..........:.......:.:....... .:_. Annexation is not anticipated to result in the creation or exposure of people to any known health hazards. CONCLUSION: Less than significant. 10::NOISE: Wouldithe ro osal resultln .. a) Increase'inexisting no�seaevelsT: 1 x b) Exposure of people_to "unacceptable noise levels as 1 x ... defined:b the San Luis I lspo;Genetal Plan Noise Elemeni1 The anticipated service commercial uses are not considered "noise-sensitive" by the Noise Element of the General Plan. Noise-sensitive uses do exist across the street. However the planned office and warehouse uses are not expected to increase the ambient noise levels above those which currently exist in the vicinity. CONCLUSION: Not significant. 1'l i'UBLIC SERV)CES :Wo:Id,tlie proposal hatre en;affect upon, or result in'a nsed.for new,or_altered . ....:,. ovemment services 1n;an of the follawin areas: .. , a) 'Fre protecGgn� x .... .:: . .........;..,,..,..:.,...:.. b)::.Police protectlon7.. ......:_.:..:.:......:.....:.::...:...:.:.........:.::..... . _ ...... ...... _ 9 x c) Schoolai! :.. x A Maintenance.of;public.faFlit�es,.;mCluding roads? 9 x 12 Issues and Supporting Information Sources sources Potentially Potentially I.essThan No signincam Significant Significant Iewact Issues Unless Impact ER 57-97: PG&E Annexation mitigation Incorporated s) ::Other; 'overnmental services; ; 9 x CONCLUSION: Less than significant. Comments from various City Departments indicate what fees, infrastructure, easements and dedications will be necessary to accommodate future site development. .... :;12:; lTILITIES ANDSERVICE SYSTEM$ .Would flie:proposal result In :nee for new systems or.supplies, or'sdbstantfal:alterattons to thelollowtn utilit)e5C ......... ::. a} Power oY natural.gaS� x ID) :GommurncaLans;systems x c .Lnt;ar or . gionai water reatrrlerit nr 19,sttibutibW 9 x faGdities? d1 'Sewer or septic anlcS� 9 x e) .:Starm'water:drainage?. x fl Solid waste.d.�sposah x ;Local orae tona);water:." hese:; 6 x CONCLUSION: Not significant. Annexation will not have any impact on public services. Comments from various City Departments indicate what fees, infrastructure, easements and dedications will be necessary to accommodate future site development. Water supply and consistency with City water supply policies are discussed in Section 1 Land Use. 13.:AESTHETICS 1Nould.the ro osal a} :Affect a cenic vista or scenic.highway3 x b} -Have a:demonstrable negative:aesthetic effect? x .......::...:..::..........................................................................................................................:........ ..... c3. ;Create.ti ht.n{ fared = x CONCLUSION: Not significant. Annexation by itself will have no aesthetic impacts. Future development of the under-developed portions of the area to be annexed will be subject to architectural review and approval to ensure against negative aesthetic impacts. 1:46;;CULTURAL RESOURCES Wotild'the ro osal. ....... .... ay .Disturb,paleontQ!....ical.resourcesT x #y} :Disturb-archaeological rourees;# x . c) ::Affect historical:resourcesZ x d} .:Have the potential to cause a physical change which x would affect unique etFlritc cultural values? e} Restnct;existing;fell.gious orsacred usas'within':the x otentialtm actarea?,. CONCLUSION: Not significant. Future site development will be subject to the City's Archaeological Resource Guidelines. .. .. 15.':RECREATION, Would.ahe ro osal....................................... :.::... : . ...:. ... ......__.. .... ... ..... .... __. . __. _ .__ ;a}€€Increase'the demand:#o'r nefg56orFiood or regions[ ;;;;; ;i:;: x ....................................................................................................................................:.....:.:....... _.. ...........................s oother recreations fac�.it�es? b3 ..:Affectezcrstm rocreational o o'rtunlbesT x Not applicable. :`MANDATORYiFINDINGS OF.SIGNIFICANCE. . .: .. a} Does the.prA)ect have.....t..'.......I.................I..e potential to degrade this x .. .quality of the envrconme... subs antially.reduce the habitat of a fish or wild Re.spectes,cause a fish;or.., wildlife.population to drop below:setf•sustalning;'levels„ threatenstq eliminate, p.p.n pr°animal>ro nmunityr reduce the numf.er or restrict the range of.a rarepr endangered plant or animal or eliminate irttbbrtant examples of theintalor.periods of:.California history or r2histo° 7 ... 13 Issues and Supporting Information Sources sources Potent—,y Potentially LAss Than No sipwicant signTicarn sip ieant impact Impact ER 57-97: PG&E Annexation Unless Incorporated The applicant is requesting approval of an annexation and prezoning. Neither of these requests will result in any direct physical impact to the environment. As discussed above, future development of the project site will not result in any significant environmental impacts. Future development of the remaining properties is subject to California Environmental Quality Act requirements and ma re uire further environmental review. bl . .. Does he pro7ecfihaveafie potenfPal to achieve fiort x erm, to the disadvantage of tong-term, e... ...mental oals� .:, . :.,.... ... Short-term and long-term goals are the same. ct Does the project have impacts that are inddually x litntted, but cumr�latively,cons�darable t"lrulttUli3Lvety eonstderable" means thafthe incrementaEeffectspf a project are ccnslderabte wflen vlev�red In coaaectlon .....M the effects bf the,pi3st Proj9Gts,,the:affects of other currentpro�eCts� aria the:effeCtS'of;pro6;ible. future ro ectsf The annexation will not result in any potentially significant impacts to the environment. As stated above, the annexation and development proposal is in compliance with adopted policies .related to growth management and resource availability. ..............:..................................... aes e'prgfee ;. ave envvdnmenta a ,acts w...ch wl x Cause sutistantiat:adverse effects qn human tlelr►gs, either directf oiandirectl'3 There are no known significant hazards associated with annexation. 14 /-y3 17. EARLIER ANALYSES. Eerlet analysis may_be used where;; pursuant to the tiering, program EIRx or ether:CEQA process, one or:. more effects#save leen adequately enatyzed'in an earGet E[R or Negaitive©eclaration. Section1S.0..6......a....................).......4.......3... ..... 63c) #3} . In this case a..: cession.shouts rden. the fotlowi %tears, ..:.i . , at >EaHier irnat sis Lsed. adent� earlier anal ses and state�?ivisere tfie are evadable`:#or review. . '. :; NA . bl ampacts;adequately addressed tde�Which effects'from the above:checklrst were within the scope of and edequateiy°analyzed in ars earlier document pursuant'1c. applscabfe Legal standards, and state whethersuch affects were addressed Wm ation measures.based:on at e.ear6er:anal. tis. NA cl ffects that are 'Less than SignifCart. with Mi gatron 9nccrporated," de;scnbe the rirmgat�on msasutes vvh�chi were incorporated;or refined from the earf;er document and the extent to which:th address site=s ecrfrccond�tions of the ro ect NA Authority: I?ubtic Resources Code Secbans 21083 anrf 2108? :Reference Rublrc:Resources Code Secttans 210$0{cl, 2 tA80 1, 1Qso 1 210$2 1,;;21083,210.8 3, 210.95, 321U94, T151, Sundstrorir vvvii.2y of,Mendoc►nq, 2i�2 Cal< App, 3d 296`(19881,leonoffi i� Mon Ve €Board of.'Su ecvisbrs,::Z22 Oat..A" . 3d 1337 (19901_. 18. SOURCE REFERENCES 1. City of San Luis Obispo General Plan: Land Use, Circulation, Noise, Energy, Open Space, Seismic Safety Elements 2. City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations 3. Soils Engineering Report for TK Commercial Park Tract 2202, prepared by Terratech, Inc. Project No. 1_0929 4. County of San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo Area Plan, January 1997 5. City of San Luis Obispo Source Reduction and Recycling Element 6. City of San Luis Obispo Water and Wastewater Element 7. City of San Luis Obispo Informational Map Atlas 8. San Luis Obispo Quadrangle Map, prepared by the State Geologist in compliance with the Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, effective January 1, 1990 9. City Department Comments ATTACHMENTS: Project statement and site location maps City Department Comments MICHAEL F. CANNON, PE ANDREW G. MERRIAM, AIA, AICP ayIClOI^l DANIEL S. HUTCHINSON, LS ASSOCIATES -- June 27, 1997 ENGINEERS PLANNERS SURVEYORS Ron Whisenand Current Planning Manager Department of Community Development City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 RE: PG&E Annexation and Prezone-ANNX/R 57-97 Dear Ron: Thank you for the opportunity to meet with the Development Review Committee meeting on the PG&E annexation project. As you stated at the meeting,the PG&E annexation request will be heard by the Planning Commission on July 9 and the City Council on August 19. LAFCO can conduct their hearing on August 21 if the exchange of property tax revenue between the County and the City can be negotiated prior to the LAFCO hearing. I would appreciate any effort on the City's behalf to adhere to this schedule which allows LAFCO to hear this item at their August meeting. Sincerely, Andrew G. Merriam,AIA,AICP Principal RECK " ED 960916\whise l.doc O 1997 CITY OF SAM LWS CBSPO BUILDING DMS 364 PACIFIC STREET SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 CELEBRATING 805.544-7407 ��j11I FAX 805.544-3863 rues of%wia /r 4.< MICHAEL F.CANNON, PE ANDREW G. MERRIAM, AIA, AICD DANIEL S. HUTCHINSON, LS A sus on�n PROJECT STATEMENT Pacific Gas & Electric Annexation Project Background ENGINEERS Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E)is planning to consolidate its regional utility PLANNERS operations at the Vachell Lane site. This consolidation will result in the need for approximately 16,000 additional square feet of floor area which in tum will cause SURVEYORS increased demands on the existing water and septic systems. In lieu of investing in an upgrade to these aged systems, PG&E requests city services to satisfy its need for future improvements. Based on these circumstances, PG&E requests annexation of their facility to the City of San Luis Obispo. Proposed Annexation This application requests annexation of 13.1 acres of property (4 lots total) on the east side of South Higuera Street, south of Los Osos Valley Road and west of Vachell Lane. APN 076-071-09 is owned by PG&E. APN's 076-071-18 and 19 are owned by Thoma Electric. APN 076-071-08 is a well site owned by Robert Schriner. PG&E's request includes these adjoining parcels because together they form a logical contiguous city boundary line. PG&E's property is approximately 12 acres in size and contains approximately 21,000 s.f of existing warehouse, assembly and office uses. Future development plans include the addition of 11,600 s.f of office use, 2,200 s.f. of assembly space and 4,500 s.f of storage. Thoma Electric's property is approximately one acre in size and contains a residence and bam. No additional development plans are proposed at this time. The Schriner property is approximately 500 square feet in size and contains a working well. Proposed Zoning The current County zoning is Commercial Service. The applicant is requesting City zoning of C-S, Service Commercial. The site is located on South Higuera Street, a designated commercial arterial street. Utilities The site is presently served with utility company power,telephone and natural 364 PACIFIC STREET gas. The existing buildings are served by an on-site well. PG&E proposes to SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA request city water service to maintain water quality and ensure adequate fire 93401 flows. PG&E also requests city sewer services and will discontinue the use of its septic leach field. CELEBRATING 805.544-7407 a,.20 ..,.,. FAx 805.544-3863 YEARS OF uwia -AHI ERA COAr MERCE PARKElm \...\....\\ .\..\.\..\\...\\\\ \........\\....\\ .\..\\\\.\\\....\. TANK FARM ROAD — r�;� . SUBURBAN ROAD / SPECIFIC PLAN AREA 1111111% Mile leek.'RmURL (URBAN RESERVE LINE) J PROI�ECT SITE (to remain SERVICES & `\ \ \ �\MANUFACTURING) �\ Low density. Services and Manufactu tg Detached houses with yards; up to 7 Business services, wholesaling and Solas dwellings per acre. of large items, and light manufacturing. (Note: see policies for airport area.) \\ Medksn density. Buokwas Park \\\\ Small—lot houses or attached dwellings An area to be kept in low Intensity uses \\\� with yards; up to 12 Iwo—bedroom until developed as a campus—like setting:' dwellings per acre. under a master plan. Land Spaces Land It open epees Land to remain open for the protedlon, Land to be kept open until a certain type use, arid:enioyrnent•of natural resources. of urban development is found to be NIP they are not shown on this map,. appropriate.. all creeks are within this category. 91 : Mamion GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS ASSOCIATES P.G.& E. Annexation Area 970127\genp1an.pm5 V7!97 , W C—S W S 4�a �C SP :. ••�+ / G12ANADA D12NE ►J�• •y _- C-S C-S-SP- s C-S-P \ / �S — 2 — S y r e �o C—Ts /OS-2 TANK n'�Q M -SP J TANK FARM ROAD _ I— / R- C S �C—T � �7 SUBURBAN ROAD I �e Wos t 10 PD vhf:• \n••{ Lu } Ic {M1 • �M1 J Lu PROJECT SITE PREZONE TO C—S BUCKLEY ROAD R-1 LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL R-2 MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL C-N NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL C-S SERVICE COMMERCIAL C10S CONSERVATION/OPEN SPACE M INDUSTRIAL S SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS SP SPECIFIC PLAN NPF PD PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ®cam on CURRENT ZONING -CITY ASSOCIATES P.G. & E. Annexation Area 970127Uty=ne.pm5 4!7/97 Mu RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: City of San Luis Obispo City Clerk's Office 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 APN: 076-071-009 PRE-ANNEXATION AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AND PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC This annexation agreement is made and entered into this day of , 1997, by and between the City of San Luis Obispo, a chartered municipal corporation, (hereinafter referred to as "CITY") whose address is 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California 93401; and Pacific Gas and Electric Company, located at 4280 Vachell Ln, San Luis Obispo, California (hereinafter referred to as "OWNER"), pursuant to the authority of the City Charter and Section 56000, et. Seq., of the California Government Code. CITY and OWNER shall hereinafter be referred to collectively as 'PARTIES." RECITALS WHEREAS, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, is the owner in fee of certain real property in the County of San Luis Obispo, commonly known as 4280 Vachell Ln., APN # 076-071-009, further described in the attached Exhibit A and referred to herein as the "subject property"; and WHEREAS, the subject property is proposed for annexation to the City of San Luis Obispo (City File No. 57-97): and WHEREAS, to provide for the City's orderly growth and development, consistent with the General Plan, the PARTIES anticipate that the subject property will be annexed to the City pursuant to terms and procedures of the California Government Code 56000 et seq; WHEREAS, the specific plan and area wide planning and infrastructure fees set forth in Section . 2 of this agreement apply only to the Pacific Gas and Electric Company portion of the annexation, with fees relative to the Thoma property to be by separate agreement and the Schriner property to be applied based upon the fees in effect at the time of future site development; NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises, covenants and agreements stated herein, PARTIES agree as follows: 1. URBAN SERVICES. Upon annexation, the property shall be entitled to the full range of City services, including but not limited to water and sewer services, police and fire protection, and general government services, some of which are described below in more detail: Water Service. CITY agrees to provide water service as available for fire fighting and domestic Pre-annexation Agreement: Pacific Gas and Electric Page 2 purposes to the subject:property upon request of OWNER, subject to the same laws, rules, regulations, and fees applicable to other new users in the City under similar circumstances, including but not limited to retrofit requirements. Any connection to City water will require extension of the water main in South Higuera Street to at least the northerly access to the PG&E property, and provision of a City standard hydrant at the location. Water line extension on Vachell Lane would not be required if the South Higuera Street extension were of adequate size to meet fire flow requirements. PG&E would be responsible for constructing the pipe to its City- required size (12" assumed), with reimbursement by the City for any oversizing above that required for PG&E's fire flow requirements (10" assumed) per adopted policy. PG&E would be entitled to reimbursement from any "non-participating" parties that make direct service connections with a 15-year period, pursuant to City regulations, based on the cost of the "PG&E required" pipe size. Use of on-site ground water or other sources for potable or non-potable uses may continue for existing development on site, provided they continue to meet County Health Department standards. In the event of abandonment or failure of well(s), OWNER shall comply with applicable State and County regulations regarding well abandonment. Non-potable water may be used for landscape irrigation. Sewer Service. City agrees to provide sanitary sewer service, subject to the extension of an adequate main by PG&E or others, to the subject property upon request of the OWNER subject to the same laws, rules, regulations, and fees applicable to other new users in the City under similar circumstances. Use of existing on-site septic waste disposal systems, which were legally installed under permit from the County may continue for existing development, provided they meet County standards in effect at the time of annexation. If such systems are abandoned or fail to meet County standards, connection to the City sewer system will be required. Fire Protection. City agrees to provide fire protection service, as available, to the subject property upon request of the OWNER subject to the same laws, rules, regulations, and fees applicable to other new users in the City under similar circumstances. Development on the subject property must connect its fire suppression system to the water main in South Higuera Street and will be charged a monthly fire protection service fee. 2. SPECIFIC PLAN AND AREA WIDE PLANNING AND INFRASTRUCTURE FEES. Airport Area Specific Plan and Infrastructure Fee. This $15,327.00 per acre fee (interim fee) is the estimated apportioned cost of area-wide planning and construction of infrastructure within the Airport Annexation Area (including specific plan preparation, water and sewer system improvements, circulation system improvements, and storm drain system improvements). OWNER hereby agrees to contribute $107,289.00, based upon the size of the undeveloped portion of the OWNER'S lot - 7 acres. OWNER has previously paid a deposit of$100,000.00 towards area-wide planning and construction of infrastructure, which shall be credited towards this cost. The remaining balance of$7,289.00 shall be paid in full, or secured by a letter of credit, prior to final Council action on the PG&E Annexation, and said letter of credit shall be in effect for a period not less than 5 years from the date of completion for that annexation. OWNER may elect i'so Pre-annexation Agreement: Pacific Gas and Electric Page 3 to pay this fee at any time within the five year period and retire the letter of credit. Within the next eighteen to thirty months (but not later than five years), the City expects to adopt a finalized specific plan and infrastructure improvement fee (Finalized Fee), form an assessment district or similar funding mechanism (District), or implement some combination of these two approaches, in order to finance these planning and improvement costs. In the event that the Interim Fee is paid in full prior to the adoption of a Finalized Fee or the formation of a District, all obligations under any such future Finalized Fee or District will have been fully satisfied by payment in full of this Interim Fee amount. If the OWNER chooses not to pay the Interim Fee prior to the adoption of a Finalized Fee, payment in full of the Finalized Fee amount adopted as it applies to this project will be required at that time, and the letter of credit will be retired. In the event that a District approach is adopted by the City in funding the airport area specific plan and infrastructure improvements instead of (or in combination with) a Finalized Fee, OWNER and their successors agree to support the formation of such a District. 3. OPEN SPACE. This $2,500.00 per acre fee is the apportioned cost for acquisition of an open space buffer to the south of the Airport Area as required by the General Plan. OWNER agrees to contribute $17,500.00, based upon the size of the undeveloped portion of the OWNER'S lot - 7 acres, prior to final Council action on the PG&E Annexation. 4. COMPLIANCE WITH CITY STANDARDS. Once annexed, the property will be subject to the same rules, regulations, laws, and fees that would be applied to other properties in the City under similar circumstances including, but not limited to Building Code, Fire Code, Zoning Regulations, environmental regulations (California Environmental Quality Act), fees, and other provisions of the Municipal Code and State laws. 5. PROPERTY EM PROVEMENTS. At the time of future development or redevelopment, it shall be the responsibility of the OWNER to install and/or pay for improvements and fees which may be required by permit, law, rule, regulation, or mitigation, unless otherwise specified in an adopted Airport Area Specific Plan and the certified environmental review document for that specific plan. 6. TERM OF AGREEMENT. The term of this agreement shall begin upon the effective date of the annexation. The agreement shall remain in effect until modified or terminated by mutual consent of the PARTIES. In the event the annexation shall not become effective for any reason whatsoever, this agreement shall terminate and have no force and effect, as if it had never been entered into by the PARTIES. Pre-annexation Agreement: Pacific Gas and Electric Page 4 7. SUCCESSORS, HEIRS, AND ASSIGNS. This agreement shall be recorded with the County Recorder and shall bind and inure to the benefit of the heirs, assigns, and personal representatives of the PARTIES. S. AMENDMENTS, TIME EXTENSION OR CANCELLATION. This agreement may be amended, extended, or canceled at any time by mutual consent of the PARTIES or their successors in interest. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this agreement is executed on the date above stated at San Luis Obispo, California. ALL SIGNATURES MUST BE NOTARIZED OWNER BY: CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, A Chartered Municipal Corporation BY: Mayor Allen Settle ATTEST: City Clerk Bonnie Gawf APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney Jeff Jorgensen RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: City of San Luis Obispo City Clerk's Office 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 APN: 076-071-018 & 019 PRE-ANNEXATION AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AND WILLIAM A. THOMA AND EDWARD C. THOMA This annexation agreement is made and entered into this day of , 1997, by and between the City of San Luis Obispo, a chartered municipal corporation, (hereinafter referred to as "CITY") whose address is 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California 93401; and William A. Thoma and Edward C. Thoma, located at 3562 Empleo Street, Suite C, San Luis Obispo, California (hereinafter referred to as "OWNERS"), pursuant to the authority of the City Charter and Section 56000, et. Seq., of the California Government Code. CITY and OWNERS shall hereinafter be referred to collectively as "PARTIES." RECITALS WHEREAS, William A. Thoma and Edward C. Thoma are the owners in fee of certain real property in the County of San Luis Obispo, commonly known as 4313 South Higuera Street, APN # 076-071-018 and 076-071-019, further described in the attached Exhibit A and referred to herein as the "subject property"; and WHEREAS, the subject property is proposed for annexation to the City of San Luis Obispo (City File No. 57-97): and WHEREAS, to provide for the City's orderly growth and development, consistent with the General Plan, the PARTIES anticipate that the subject property will be annexed to the City pursuant to terms and procedures of the California Government Code 56000 et seq.; WHEREAS, the specific plan and area wide planning and infrastructure fees set forth in Section 2 of this agreement apply only to the Thoma portion of the annexation, with fees relative to the Pacific Gas and Electric property to be by separate agreement the and Schriner property to be applied based upon the fees in effect at the time of future site development; NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises, covenants and agreements stated herein, PARTIES agree as follows: 1. URBAN SERVICES. Upon annexation, the property shall be entitled to the full range of City services, including but not limited to water and sewer services, police and fire protection, and general government services, some of which are described below in more detail: /-53 Pre-annexation Agreement: William&.Edward Thoma Page 2 Water Service. CITY agrees to provide water service as available for fire fighting and domestic purposes to the subject property upon request of OWNERS, subject to the same laws, rules, regulations, and fees applicable to other new users in the City under similar circumstances, including but not limited to retrofit requirements. Any connection to City water will require extension of the water main in South Higuera Street to the southerly property line and install City standard hydrant(s) to the satisfaction of the Fire Department. OWNERS would be responsible for constructing the pipe to its City-required size (12" assumed), with reimbursement by the City for any oversizing above that required for OWNERS fire flow requirements per adopted policy. OWNERS would be entitled to reimbursement from any "non-participating" parties that make direct service connections with a 15-year period, pursuant to City regulations, based on the cost of the "OWNERS required" pipe size. Use of on-site ground water or other sources for potable or non-potable uses may continue for existing development on site, provided they continue to meet County Health Department standards. In the event of abandonment or failure of well(s), OWNER shall comply with applicable State and County regulations regarding well abandonment. Non- potable water may be used for landscape irrigation. Sewer Service. City agrees to provide sanitary sewer service, subject to the extension of an adequate main by OWNERS or others, to the subject property upon request of the OWNER subject to the same laws, rules, regulations, and fees applicable to other new users in the City under similar circumstances. Use of existing on-site septic waste disposal systems, which were legally installed under permit from the County may continue for existing development, provided they meet County standards in effect at the time of annexation. If such systems are abandoned or fail to meet County standards, connection to the City sewer system will be required. Fire Protection. City agrees to provide fire protection service, as available, to the subject property upon request of the OWNERS, subject to the same laws, rules, regulations, and fees applicable to other new users in the City under similar circumstances. Development on the subject property must connect its fine suppression system to the water main in South Higuera Street and will be charged a monthly fire protection service fee. 2. SPECIFIC PLAN AND AREA WIDE PLANNING AND INFRASTRUCTURE FEES. Airport Area Specific Plan and Infrastructure Fee. This $15,327.00 per acre fee (interim fee) is the estimated apportioned cost of area-wide planning and construction of infrastructure within the Airport Annexation Area (including specific plan preparation, water and sewer system improvements, circulation system improvements, and storm drain system improvements). OWNERS hereby agrees to contribute $7,663.00, based upon the size of the OWNERS' lot - 1/2 acre. OWNERS have previously paid a deposit of$5,000.00 towards area-wide planning and construction of infrastructure, which shall be credited towards this cost. The remaining balance of$2,633.00 shall be paid in full, or secured by a letter of credit, prior to final Council action on the PG&E Annexation, and said letter of credit shall be in effect for a period not less than 5 years from the date of completion for that annexation. OWNERS may elect to pay this fee at any time within the five year period and retire the letter of credit. Pre-annexation Agreement: William&Edward Thoma Page 3 Within the next eighteen to thirty months (but not later than five years), the City expects to adopt a finalized specific plan and infrastructure improvement fee (Finalized Fee), form an assessment district or similar funding mechanism (District), or implement some combination of these two approaches, in order to finance these planning and improvement costs. In the event that the Interim Fee is paid in full prior to the adoption of a Finalized Fee or the formation of a District, all obligations under any such future Finalized Fee or District will have been fully satisfied by payment in full of this Interim Fee amount. If the OWNERS choose not to pay the Interim Fee prior to the adoption of a Finalized Fee, payment in full of the Finalized Fee amount adopted as it applies to this project will be required at that time, and the letter of credit will be retired. In the event that a District approach is adopted by the City in funding the airport area specific plan and infrastructure improvements instead of (or in combination with) a Finalized Fee, OWNERS and their successors agree to support the formation of such a District. 3. OPEN SPACE. This $2,500.00 per acre fee is the apportioned cost for acquisition of an open space buffer to the south of the Airport Area as required by the General Plan. OWNERS agree to contribute $1,250.00, based upon the size of the OWNERS' lot - 1/2 acre, prior to final Council action on the annexation. 4. COMPLIANCE WITH CITY STANDARDS. Once annexed, the property will be subject to the same rules, regulations, laws, and fees that would be applied to other properties in the City under similar circumstances including, but not limited to Building Code, Fire Code, Zoning Regulations, environmental regulations (California Environmental Quality Act), fees, and other provisions of the Municipal Code and State laws. 5. PROPERTY IMPROVEMENTS. At the time of future development or redevelopment, it shall be the responsibility of the OWNERS to install and/or pay for improvements and fees which may be required by permit, law, rule, regulation, or mitigation, unless otherwise specified in an adopted Airport Area Specific Plan and the certified environmental review document for that specific plan. 6. TERM OF AGREEMENT. The term of this agreement shall begin upon the effective date of the annexation. The agreement shall remain in effect until modified or terminated by mutual consent of the PARTIES. In the event the annexation shall not become effective for any reason whatsoever, this agreement shall terminate and have no force and effect, as if it had never been entered into by the PARTIES. 7. SUCCESSORS, HEIRS, AND ASSIGNS. This agreement shall be recorded with the County Recorder and shall bind and inure to the benefit of the heirs, assigns, and personal representatives of the PARTIES. Pre-annexation Agreement: William&Edward Thoma Page 4 8. AMENDMENTS; TIME EXTENSION OR CANCELLATION. This agreement may be amended, extended, or canceled at any time by mutual consent of the PARTIES or their successors in interest. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this agreement is executed on the date above stated at San Luis Obispo, California. ALL SIGNATURES MUST BE NOTARIZED OWNERS BY: BY: CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, A Chartered Municipal Corporation BY: Mayor Allen Settle ATTEST: City Clerk Bonnie Gawf APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney Jeff Jorgensen