Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
10/07/1997, 1 - BRADLEY (TOUCHSTONE) ANNEXATION ANNX/R/ER 80-97: CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST TO: 1) ANNEX AND PREZONE 9.6 ACRES OF PROPERTY (TWO LOTS TOTAL) ON THE WEST SIDE OF BROAD STREET, NORTH OF TANK FARM ROAD (3985 BROAD STREET); AND 2) ACCEPT AN AGR
counciL _ j acenaa Repoin �10� CITY O F SAN LUIS O B I S P O FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director (,u° Prepared By: Pam Ricci,Associate Planner P� _ r SUBJECT: Bradley (Touchstone) Annexation ANNX/R/ER 80-97: Consideration of a request to: 1) annex and prezone 9.6 acres of property (two lots total) on the west side of Broad Street, north of Tank Farm Road (3985 Broad Street); and 2) accept an agreement with the County of San Luis Obispo regarding the property 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. 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 Situation The applicants are proposing to annex the property at the northwest comer of Tank Farm Road and Broad Street into the City of San Luis Obispo. A development plan has been submitted along with the annexation request which shows five buildings in a U-shape pattern with the majority of the parking concentrated in the northern and middle portions of the site. The total floor area of these five buildings would be 135,000 square feet. The applicant envisions a range of uses at the site with more of a retail orientation for Building A, a combination of office and industrial in Building B, and service and warehousing types of uses in Buildings C, D, and E. Three access points to the site are shown, one in the northeastem corner off of Broad Street, and two along Tank Farm Road. Part of the annexation process involves specifying an appropriate City zoning Touchstone Annexation Page 2 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 Summary Project Address: 3985 Broad Street Applicant: Johanna Bradley, et. al. Representative: Rogoway Planning Group Zoning: Commercial Service(C-S) General Plan: Services and Manufacturing Environmental: The Director determined the project required a negative declaration of environmental impact on August 18'b, 1997. Action Deadline: Legislative projects are not subject to permit streamlining act deadlines. Site Description The area to be annexed consists of two parcels totaling approximately 9.6 acres. The property is currently developed with a retail nursery. Surrounding land uses include residential, office,retail commercial, service commercial,and open space. The Public Works Department has noted that annexation maps and legal descriptions will need to be updated to show an extended portion of the intersection at Tank Farm Road and Broad Street within the annexation area. Staff has consulted with the applicant to obtain the corrected documents and will insert them as attachments to the appropriate resolutions. 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. Touchstone Annexation Page 3 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. 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. The Planning Commission determined that the most appropriate zoning category for the site is 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. Property Tax Exchange On October 7, 1997, the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors is expected to initiate a 30-day period (October 7 to November 6, 1997) for negotiation of exchange of property tax revenues and annual tax increment for the Touchstone 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 October 7, 1997 the Board of Supervisors will act on the Touchstone 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 /-3 Touchstone.Annexation Page.4 Planning,Commission staffrepoit including.Initial'Study Planning Commission minutes Pre-Annexation Agreements 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 9.6 ACRES SERVICE-COMMERCIAL FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3985 BROAD STREET (R/ANNX/ER 80-97) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on August 27, 1997 and recommended prezoning the proposed annexation site Service Commercial (C-S); and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on October 7, 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 80-97) 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. 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 descnbed in the zoning regulations; 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, office, and retail in nature; and 4. The prezoning will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment. 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. Ordinance No. (1997 Series) Page 2 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 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: ty�'' o y r7o r nsen EXHIBIT A I � \ sas30E- seo.4' � `� ` o � o � of 2 y 0 CL a N o , pIt t. � p TQ 8 � n 4y � .p T I y No 2 1 '�l•�., ,� 2923.24 _ ` T-- '' :�:: L ST. farce '-�.Fr7td?liei 'r}: B+2 OA. 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. 49 AT 3985 BROAD STREET; BRADLEY(TOUCHSTONE)ANNEXATION (ANNX 80-97) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and City Council have held hearings on the proposed annexation on August 27, 1997, and October 7, 1997 respectively; and WHEREAS,the City Council on October 7, 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 uninhabited, 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 working in the vicinity of the annexation area. SECTION 2: Annexation Area Described. The annexation shall consist of that area, covering approximately 9.6 acres on the west side of Broad Street (Highway 227), north of Tank Farm Road,assigned Assessor's Parcel Numbers of 076-381-014, as shown City Council Resolution No. (1997 Series) Page 2 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 et 1�• SECTION 4: Implementation. 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: ,Pty1do#y r J ensen EXHIBIT A bl S 2C'SO E SBO.G• o � 0 ti a � 11 n • cI To Z `o y w d 0 No` 2 88 `h ca B2OA EXHIBIT B. Legal Description Portions of Lots 81, 82, 83 and Tank Farm Road Right of Way as delineated on the Map of the San Luis Obispo Suburban Tract recorded in Book 1 of Record of Surveys at Page 92 in the Office of the San Luis Obispo County Recorder and on the State Highway 227 Right of Way Maps on file in Ilio CALTRANS District 5 Office, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the northwesterly corner of said Lot 83; thence southeasterly along the westerly line of Lots 82 and 81 South 24°50' East 580.6 feet to the northerly line of said Tank Farm Road; thea Ice continuing South 24'50' East along the Westerly line of Lots 82 and 81 40.00 feet to the Srnithr-1Iv line of Tank Farm Road; thence along the Southerly line of Tank Farm Road North 65 IO' East 615.06 feet more or less to a point on the Westerly Right of Way Line of State Route 227 whirls bears South 66°00'West 150.00 feet of Station 197+98.68 according to the Right of Way Maps $1.0 227-Post Mile 11, sheet 11 of 21, California; thence along said Right of Way according to said mals South 24 00' East 10.00 feet and North 66 00'east 35.00 feet to a point on said Rigfil of Way which bears South 66°00'West 115.00 feet of Station 197+88.69 according to said CALTRANS Right of Way Map; thence North ZV 00' West 50.00 feet to a point in the Northerly Line of Tank Farm Road which bears South W 00'West 115.00 feet of Station 198+38.69 according to CALTRANS Right of Way Map; thence along the Westerly Right of Way line of said Route 227 and Present City Limit of the City of San Luis Obispo the following Bearings and distances, North 19642' 17' East 50.66 feet; North 11° 11'45 . West 112.81 feet and North 240 00'West 433.26 feet to the intersection of said Right of Way Line and the Northerly line of said Lot 83.Thence Westerly along said lot line South 65' 10'West 704.74 feet, more or less to the Northwesterly comer of said Lot 83 and the point of beginning and containing 9.97 Acres more or less. 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 BRADLEY(TOUCHSTONE)ANNEXATION AT 3985 BROAD. STREET; SLO COUNTY ANNEXATION#49 (CITY FILE#ANNEX 80-97) 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. 49 to the City of San Luis Obispo Bradley (Touchstone) 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. City Council Resolution No. (1997 Series) Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE TT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, as follows: 1. That the recitals set forth above are true, connect, and valid. 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 City Council Resolution No. (1997 Series) Page 3 ATTEST: City Clerk Bonnie Gawf APPROVED AS TO FORM: OA-,LA ZA- ity o y J ensen RESOLUTION NO. (1997 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING A REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND PREZONING FOR 9.6 ACRES AT 3985 BROAD STREET (ANNX 80.97); BRADLEY(TOUCHSTONE)ANNEXATION WHEREAS,the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on August 27, 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 October 7, 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. 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 Resolurion No. (1.997 Series) Page 2 ATTEST: City Clerk Bonnie Gav f - APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attomey Jeff Jorgensen CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT rrEM u BY: Pam Ricci, Associate Plannerm MEETING DATE: August 27, 1997 FROM: Ronald Whisenand, Development Review Manage✓, FILE NUMBER: ANNX/R/ER 80-97 PROJECT ADDRESS: 3985 Broad SUBJECT: Consideration of a request to annex and prezone 9.6 acres of property (two lots total) on the east side of Broad Street, north of Tank Farm Road. SUIVEVIARY 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 The applicants are proposing to annex the property at the northwest corner of Tank Farm Road and Broad Street into the City of San Luis Obispo. A development plan has been submitted along with the annexation request which shows five buildings in a°U"-shape pattern with the majority of hte parking concentrated in the northern and middle portions of the site. The total floor area of these five buildings would be 135,000 square feet. The applicant envisions a range of uses at the site with more of a retail orientation for Building A, a combination of office and industrial in Building B, and service and warehousing types of uses in Buildings C, D, and E. Three access points to the site are shown, one in the northeastern comer off of Broad Street, and two along Tank Farm Road. 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 anxation. 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 &mmary Project Address: 3985 Broad Street Planning Commission Meeting 8/27/97 Bradley Annexation-ANNX/R/ER 80.97 Page 2 Applicant: Johanna Bradley, et. al. Representative: Rogoway Planning Group Zoning: Commercial Service (C-S) General Plan: Services and Manufacturing Environmental: The Director determined the project required a negative declaration of environmental impact on August 18t°, 1997. Action Deadline: Legislative projects are not subject to permit streamlining act deadlines. Site Description The area to be annexed consists of two parcels totaling approximately 9.6 acres. The property is currently developed with a retail nursery. Surrounding land uses include residential, office, retail commercial, service commercial, and open space. Project Description The applicant is requesting: 1. Annexation of the two parcels with a total area of 9.6 acres; 2. Prezonimg of the annexation site to Service-Commercial (C-S); and 3. An environmental determination. EVALUATION General Plan/Interim AiMort Annexation Policy Conformance 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 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. In this case, the properties meet all of the above General Plan criteria for early annexation. The City �O Planning Commission Meeting 827/97 Bradley Annexation-ANNX/R/ER 80.97 Page 3 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 are available in the Broad Street right-of-way and will be extended along Tank Farm Road with development of this site. The property is within the urban reserve line and is adjacent to the existing City limits which runs along the west side of Broad Street across the frontage of this lot. The annexation of this property would result in a logical extension of the present City limits boundary consistent with applicable policies of the General Plan and the City's Interim Airport Area Annexation Policy. 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 - The applicants will tie into the City system for fire protection and development purposes. Impact fees and water allocations (through retrofitting) will be required upon development. The applicant will be required to extend a water main along Tank Farm Road to the western limit of their property. The City currently has reserved 300 acre feet of water for annexation development through the retrofit offset program. The annexations which have preceded this request include TK @ 15.19 acre feet, Goldenrod @ 13.2 acre feet, El Capitan @ 4.1 acre feet, Ernie Ball and Spice Hunter/Sonic @ 11.0 acre feet, Prefumo Creek Homes @ 17.0 acre feet, and PG&E/Thoma @ 2.3 acre feet. Development on the Bradley property is projected to require approximately 20.9 acre feet. The total water use attributable to recent annexations, including the subject project, is 83.1 acre feet. Therefore, 216.9 acre feet remains to serve development of future annexation sites. The applicants are also proposing to hook into the City's sewer 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 the 9.6 acres of undeveloped (the existing nursery will be eliminated and none of the existing buildings or infrastructure will be re-used), an open space fee of $24,000 will be required upon Council approval of the annexation. Planning Commission Meeting 8/27/97 Bradley Annexation-ANNX/R/ER 80-97 Page 4 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 $147,139. 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. 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 tervices and manufacturing I 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. Some of the planned uses may involve use permits by either the Administrative Hearing Officer or the Planning Commission. All new development will be subject to architectural review. Open Space 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 � -aa Planning Commission Meeting 8/27/97 Bradley Annexation-ANNX/R/ER 80-97 Page 5 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. Environmental 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: Planning Commission Meeting 8/27/97 Bradley Annexation-ANNX/R/ER 80.97 Page 6 1. The environmental initial study (ER 80-97) 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. Prezoning 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; 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, office, and retail in nature; and 4. The prezoning will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment Attached: Vicinity Map Applicant's Statements Annexation/Prezoning Exhibits Department Comments Environmental Initial Study 0 w . J T ,G, o o s • O Wa �i O O S� 7. S W _ t d 3'w �a a tiy4 �� 1�1�4b C'S- Q OJ o O VICINITY MAP 1/''`!P R 80-97 - NORTH 3985 BROAD -a.3 W pY ¢0GO i pLPN0 V P G ¢ Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director City of San Luis Obispo Department of Community Development 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 May 16, 1997 Re: Touchstone Property Annexation Dear Mr. Jonas: As stated in the attached application, Johanna Bradley, representing the owners of the property (Touchstone property) located at the northwest corner of Broad Street and Tank Farm Road, are requesting prezoning of the property to Service-Commercial, annexation of the property to the city, and eventual submission of a development plan or use permit as the case may require. The purpose of this letter is to briefly outline the property owners' reasons for these requests and their plans for future development within the city's boundaries. The Touchstone property is of paramount importance in the future annexation and development plans for the Airport Area. Situated at the intersection of the largest north/south and east/west arterials in the Airport Area, this property has the potential to be a key player in the future development of business and industry in the city. The property currently is occupied by a nursery and small storage yard, and consists mostly of vacant land. The owners envision a development that would be aesthetically pleasing, while providing space for clean industry, commercial services and small scale retail. Prezoning to S/M Designation The city has already proposed a Services and Manufacturing designation on the property when annexation occurs. The County has recently designated the property in the Commercial/Service category, supporting a similar designation of land uses. The property owners are requesting a prezone to Service-Commercial consistent with the land uses desired by the city and county. ROGOWAY PLANNING GROUP 412 Marsh Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 /r q (805)546-9300 (Fax542-9949) / o� Annexation The property owners are requesting annexation of the property to allow them to develop with the benefit of city services. The parcel meets the criteria for annexation in that it is adjacent to the current city boundary, and sewer and water service are located in Broad Street, which borders the property. The interim annexation strategy criteria are discussed below. Development Proposal The attached concept plan illustrates the type of development which the property owners envision pursuing. The Marigold Center, a large retail center currently under construction directly across Broad Street from the site, will provide a wide array of retail stores and prepared food services. The Touchstone proposal will provide a complementary mix of proposed uses, ranging from industrial and professional office space. and high technology companies to small retail and a restaurant/catering business to serve the tenants and surrounding community. Along Broad Street, a two story building with a combination of office and retail space which may include a convenience store at the north end and a second story patio for tenant use. Along Tank Farm Road, another two story structure will house primarily office and manufacturing space. And on the west side of the property, Structures with easy access service bays could be used for light auto service, commercial services, light manufacturing, warehousing, etc. Construction of the project will be phased to reduce up front capital expenditure and facilitate leasing. The concept plan includes an area plan detailing the relationship of the project to the surrounding community, specifically the Marigold Center. Additionally, a site plan and a building massing plan are provided to assist in assessment of the proposal. Consistency with City Interim Annexation Strategy The city has proposed a list of six factors to be considered in accepting interim annexations. The first four of these factors, contiguity to city limits, location within the URL, proximity to existing infrastructure and adequate infrastructure capacity, have all been met. The fifth criterium, intent to proceed with development will be agreed to by the property owners. Sixth, the issue of contribution is in need of clarification. The March 11, 1997 staff report, which addresses airport annexation issues states on page six, "After annexation, the amount contributed to the specific plan will be credited to the Area Wide Annexation Impact Fee at the time of property development." However, funding for the specific plan has already been procured. The property owners will agree to fund their fair ��pZ� share of the specific plan, given that the funds will be credited to the Area Wide Annexation Impact Fee. Please notify us if this is not acceptable. Conclusion The Touchstone property owners would appreciate consideration of this proposal in conjunction with other interim annexations and the entire Airport Area issue. If any further information is needed please contact us without hesitation. Respectfully Submitted Ned Rogowa , AICP Rogoway Plan ing Gr up cc: Johanna Bradley Charles Crotser �—ca2A a List of Uses to be encouraged for the Touchstone property. Services (Commercial) Advertising and related services (A) Airport related services (PC) RECEIVED Ambulance (A) Vet/Animal Hosp. (A) Auto Repair (Limited to: ) JUN 1 2 W Small parts repair Sound repair/install CM OF SANw Alignment/lube (No Engine/body) Catering services (A) Computer/Hi tech services and repair (A) Credit reporting (A) Equipment rental (A) Laboratories (inside) (A) Offices: Eng. , Arch. , Contract. (no yard) , etc, (No medical, financial, legal, etc. ) Photo copy/printing (A) Photo finish (A) Small appliance repair (A) Services (Industrial) DISTRIBUTION: Building maintenance (A) 50% Comm. Services Delivery (A) 20% Pers. Services Cabinetmaking (A) 20% Ind. Services Exterminator (A) 10% Other Light Mfg.of Commercial goods (D) Mfg. electronic components and software (A) offices: Mfg agents (A) Printing (A) Lge appliance repair (A) Distribution Antennas (D) Mfg. small Commercial goods (A) Retail sales, small Hard products (A) Retail sales, household/office products (A) Temporary Sales (D) Tax services (A) Personal Services Health Club (A) Detective/Security (A) Public Assembly (PC) Restaurant/lunch counter/coffee shop (D) Quick-stop (7-11) sales (D) Cleaners (A) Video shop (A) Business schools (A) Travel agent (A) O� I qL 8$ I I I I � fi � • I I � 524.30E SBO.G• Va � y oI v► 0 Ito u I r C v o I � y a a k � I Sa o � Y � I � n Ni a . o`y c p N Q O4 ? I a 2 �n I n"• C • 1 O — C 8 7 i. P I R!'00. ON ': ' ;.::;,rte//� � / ::.f;%% L/ LZ ........... ®r, ............ bii I *pp\\\\g, gm-, /W NN Z nil 11KIR Rh S2 17 ac. 1. HIM: UJ co z Us < iff z ...... F7 z p (Svw-zvs xed`•ire-m(soe1 PSB Mye3*MS Pm LCL xzm4!HN=?=Q! aS IOM voI lU&S livs0doxa. �{ o o IVIS ! �L vxaNmv df10a�J JNINNVId AVNODOH alloismrioi 6 I I I ZONEF T VIZA LANDSCAM LANDSCAM I cctv+noNt�t �- onsxrloN rasa i j i I 1, lA87@!C a I I • •II •I II III i _ a_ BUMDING 1.111 I III �� I i FF Q { L m®.L vaLL �iYY'A w� lYM1DaG f lN7SaG SIILa11C (� i (�/ � x I - _-�•...• __�� r C ._�.••._ _ 6,61w. ........ ZI O EC `j caL C 1 'COT r mow.. S Ifs Ji- •� FE4{DYff. Z LO , -J- .� �P• I O C'.7 (�• O 1� �J �OolEm($ab Ala _-_ - II 1 .Illil I IliiA nvc 11 I.I X11 I II �II�1 e7///LQ�N =F=ING 1 T• • r�r 1 1 i I no s �� � r�o. n. li��.+ LID. .0LL WLL• (LL! AVMIIOtll) 133!1! avOYa- 11JJ.. 1•, ------- •"-•ti iI I u I I I I I I I I I u I I I I I I I I I j ulnmmU . • — i of a+�+H+O +Ii+IO+H+HEO o `; sj z I �nlnlnnnnlllnnlnnn .. !� jniwaLm RLwiwiaLun w e .•-ii j x I I I 111111 III III I I I III �.-_ I a a 1 =G (6966495 IRd)Damsts(me) PWI Wm3IM1 Pm Liz F TAH 7O uO[9T75*M ",Ies¢ 96� �soaoxa N izvxaxxv O o-0 dnotfoJNWWi"._`AtlM000lf axoasHanoi a . LU IL{L IL ILL ' IL LL LL LL 0V 6C6 C6 .(ydyl fd 0 us t9 W 1 <6 „: 4N p m0 P N N U5 'g O 'vml+l GP W t� ' O In CI N P P P N W J J J J V 6 r I�q Nti N Nti j j j Q rzc o� o 'o° o 0 o d o gg zm z zd, w w 0 ?= e cc > > ¢ ¢ ¢ J H 4 G l/1 < LL¢WWLLLL0 O ¢O¢O 69 U OV 'mU oow - ¢¢O�O . v i a o 3 a v Q 0¢ '0 n i Z OJ 7 Z J Z W Zw ZW DOW L W IR Q GI O O q O O N -•�— ( LZZ AdMH0IH ) Z33Id1s Qd021 S I 1 - --- --------- -- w K Y o WZ _ ...... m m - 1 � c co O m ! I I c m 1 I 1 � I O• • 1 I I III 0 N 1 8uMmd :1 I : 1 X a1 Z — 1 a ' F ' I o I I 1 I : 1 I pmp.O K FJ K O X I : I N I • 1 C I• 1 � 8unlsed ao Soldm3 aBrJo)S ',I I Z I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I—I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 111111-I- —;_'_ s!=3!P'o'*90 M tms ° (61,66-M■ed)00£6-MLq 8) Pte!U=:I VM.L P=LZZ Scmgsm jo aopm=ul 6� LOM% i>�s zvsoaoua M ° '° anodoort!wMa xvnn000a JIlvxammv axossxoaos 6 ' 1 _ \\ \. A - L j;. / \ t = Q 4v 1,l AT /�3a STATE OF CAUFORNW--BUSINESS,TRANSPr—ATION AND HOUSING AGENCY PETE WILSON, Govemor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPOnjATION FIE ^ c 1, 54N'LUIS OBISPo 934015415 y C ' r E D EPHONE: (805) 5493111 .0 (805) 5493259 JUS 1 71991 INTERNET httpy/www.dotca.gov/disto5/ ( ��LUIS S OBIS O July 14, 1997 5-SLO-227-11.73 Touchstone Annexation (ANNX, ER, R 80-97) Mr. Ron Whisenand City of San Luis Obispo Planning 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 Dear Mr. Whisenand: Thank you for inviting Caltrans staff to participate in the Development Review Committee Meeting held on July 10 for the above referenced project. District staff always appreciates the opportunity for early input on developments which may impact State Highway facilities. As mentioned by our staff who attended the meeting, Caltrans requests that the applicant sponsor a traffic study. The following is a artial list of items this study should include: 1. An accurate site and vicinity map that shows existing geometric conditions on Route 227 and Tank Farm Road. It should also depict all existing and proposed points of ingress and egress. 2. A description of existing operational characteristics including signal timing/ phasing. 3. A description of the proposed development and its total proposed trip generation. There should also be a breakdown of peak hour and directional split analysis. Directional analysis should be supported by sound data and reasoning. 4. An operational analysis with the proposed project with and without mitigation. 5. A cumulative analysis per CEQA Guidelines 15130. 6. A description of all traffic mitigation measures including a discussion of funding mechanisms and financial responsibilities. /`3� Mr. Ron Whisenand July 14, 1997 Page 2 7. All analysis must be conducted with 1995 Highway Capacity Manual methodology except for any weave analysis which should use the 1995 Highway Design Manual. 8. All traffic data, counts, etc. must not be more than two years old. This is by no means an exhaustive list of the elements in a traffic study. In fact, District staff is available to work cooperatively with City staff to develop a scope of work much in the same way the Froom/Devaul Ranch traffic study scope of work was designed. You may be aware that Caltrans Route Concept Report for Route 227 indicates that this corridor, from Orcutt Road south to the vicinity of the Airport shall be widened to six lanes. It is the Department's position that because the need for this widening will occur as a result of development and local land use decisions, this widening should be 100% locally funded. It is also the Department's position that the City and or County should plan for this financial necessity prior to the annexation of any land in the airport area. hope this letter makes clear Caltrans position with respect to this annexation and development request. Should you have further questions or comments about our position please contact me at (805) 549-3683. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, Newland District 5 Intergovernmental Review Coordinator cc: Deb Larson, SLOCTY ENG SStrait, SSandeman, GGibbs, CLarwood, TRochte, SJ Chesebro sLo-227-11-7 Awc MEMORANDUM TO: Ron Whisenand, Department of Community Development FROM: Spencer Meyer,Fire Department SUBJECT: 3985 Broad Street,Bradley Annexation DATE: July 3, 1997 ACCESS: All proposed access ways (within and around this project) should conform to all current San Luis Obispo Fire Department Development Guidelines. Required access ways (fire lanes) shall have minimum unobstructed width of 20 feet. Dead-end access ways/roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with an approved turn-arounds. All primary access ways within this project should be designed as fire lanes. Required fire access ways (with minimum width) shall be posted with the appropriate signage to prohibit parking. Project appears to be within the Fire Department's four minute emergency response time. FIRE-FLOW: New public and private distribution mains will be required(e.g. Tank Farm Road and when private driveways/development are excess of 300 feet from a street) and shall be capable of supplying the required fire-flows. HYDRANT LOCATIONS: Public and private fire hydrants will be required(e.g. Tank Farm Road, State Highway 227 and when private driveways/development are excess of 300 feet from a street) Fire hydrants should be spaced per SLOFD Development Guidelines (maximum of 225 foot intervals)and shall be capable of supplying the required fire-flows. It should be noted that State Highway 227 and Tank Farm Road are considered Major Roadways, fire hydrants on opposing sides of the roadways may not be used when determining required hydrant densities. �-3s General Notes: (1) All structures should be protected with approved automatic fire sprinkler systems per NFPA 13. (2) If additional traffic control signals are installed, emergency preemption devices(e.g. Opticom systems)will be required to expedite emergency access. (3) Agricultural or commercial areas (such as barns, storage/repair/parking areas and old fueling or similar facilities/areas) shall have environmental assessment(s)prior to any building or development. Areas shall be reviewed for historically common contaminants found in those areas(such as heavy metals, solvents,pesticides,herbicides,asbestos,fuel hydrocarbons, etc.). (4) Plans lack the detail to definitively assess the proposed project for all Fire Department concerns with reference to life-safety and fire protection. c: Jerry Kenny Engineering Department Dan Gilmore, Public Utilities Department Ron Hanson, Fire Department l�� MEMORANDUM Utilities � ,jwbin.eM To: Ron Whisenand, Planning From: Dan Gilmore, Utilities Engineer Date: July 10, 1997 Subject: - I DUGFf STbN� AXN&V-A-r1oN The applicant shall be required to install a waterline along the property's frontage on Tank Farm Road. The size of the water main shall be determined by the Utilities Department, with the City paying for the difference in cost due to up-sizing of the line beyond that needed to serve the development A portion of the cost to install these facilities could be reimbursable by the owner of the property on the other side of Tank Farm Road if that property is annexed and subsequently develops. Water and wastewater facilities currently exist in Broad Street along this frontage. Wastewater facilities along the Tank Farm frontage will not be required at this time, since the ultimate improvement of Tank Farm Road is envisioned to include a large diameter trunk sewer at this location. Instead, the applicant will be required to support and participate in an assessment district or other financing mechanism to fund the ultimate wastewater collection facilities for this area. Prior to the construction of the gravity trunk sewer in Tank Farm Road, wastewater from the proposed development would be tributary to the Tank Farm/Rockview Lift Station system. This system was determined to be at or very near capacity. Recent developments in the area are or will be contributing additional flow to the lift station system, pushing the lift stations to capacity. If no capacity exists in the existing lift station system, the developer will be responsible for the design and provision of sufficient facilities to accommodate the project. Water and Wastewater Impact Fees will be charged at the time building permits are issued. In addition, a Lift Station Fee will be charged for the ongoing maintenance and repair of the Tank Farm/Rockview Lift Station system. Any improvements to the lift station system to accommodate this development would be credited towards the Lift Station Fee. Other comments will likely follow the submission of improvement plans. If you have any comments or questions,please feel free to call me at 781-7208. /-37 II C4 of sAn luis oBispo 955 Morro Street • San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Memorandum To: Ron Whisenand, Development Review Manager From: Tim Girvin, Utile es Conservation Technician Subject: Estimated Water Use for Bradley (Touchstone)Annexation Area I have assigned water use amounts to the Touchstone Annexation Proposal based on the project summary provided. This amount of required water is an estimate using the water use factors provided in the guidelines of our Water Offset Program. Below is a breakdown of water use by specified use in each building: Building A: Specified Use Size Water Use Factor Total Required Retail 12,000 sf .088/1000 sf 1.06 of Restaurant 10,000 sf 1.32/1000 sf 13.2 of Office/Industrial 22,500 sf .06/1000 sf 1.35 of 18,500 sf 1.11 of Building B: Office/Industrial 43,200 sf .06/1000 sf 2.59 of Building Q Service/Warehouse 7,200 sf .056/1000 sf .40 of Building D: Service/Warehouse 14,400 sf .056/1000 sf .81 of Building E: Service/Warehouse 7,200 sf .056/1000 sf .40 of Total Water Use In Acre Feet (af) ................................. 20.92 of © The 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. I►i�����hI�II�IIINflllllll!II��������QIII►►►�► 11 �I city of sAn luis oBispo lit No 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1 . Project Title: Bradley (Touchstone) Annexation, Annx/R/ER 80-97 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo 3. Contact Person and, Phone Number: Pam Ricci, Associate Planner, (805) 781-7168 4. Project Location: 3985 Broad 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Johanna Bradley, et. al. 350 Cameron Ave. Santa Maria, CA 93455 6. General Plan Designation: Services and Manufacturing 7. Current County Zoning: Commercial Service 8. Description of the Project: The applicants are requesting annexation and prezoning of 9.6 acres of property (2 lots total) on the east side of Broad Street, north of Tank Farm Road. The property is currently developed with a nursery which will be eliminated once commercial development occurs. Future development plans include the addition of approximately 135,000 square feet of commercial space. The applicant envisions a range of uses at the site with more of a retail orientation for Building A, a combination of office and industrial in Building B, and service and warehousing types of uses in Buildings C, D, and E. The zoning that is being requested is Service Commercial (C-S). 9. Entitlements Requested: Annexation and Prezoning. Future development will be subject to Architectural Review and possible further environmental analysis. V� The 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. 10. Surrounding Land Uses: Retail commercial, service-commercial, residential, and open space. 11 . Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): Local Agency Formation Commission 2 /-fid 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 Air Quality Public Services Transportation and Utilities and Service Circulation S stems Y 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 August 18, 1997 *ignat 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 Issues and Supporting Informa, .. Sources sources Potei. ,lotentmy Less an No Bally Significant Significant Impact ER 80-97: Bradley Annexation Siler- Unless Impact cant mitigation Issues Incorporated ND. USE AND PLANNING - Would the proposal: ., a) Conflict with general plan designation of zoning? 1,2, x 4,5 b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies x adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c) Be-incompatible with existing larid use in the vicinity? 1,2 x d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e,g. impact x to soils or farmlands, or impacts from°incompatible land: uses? e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an x established community (including a aow-income or NA minority community)? . Zoninq The City's general plan applies a designation of Services and Manufacturing to this site. To be consisten 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 applicatio 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 planned uses of the property are consistent with the purposes of the C-S zoning district. Some of the planned uses may require the processing of an Administrative or Planning Commission Use Permit. CONCLUSION: Not significant. Consistency with general plan polices and zoning regulations is best achieve by prezoning the subject property Service Commercial. Agricultural Compatibilitv CONCLUSION: Not significant. Annexation of this underdeveloped land will have no impact on agricultura 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 as shown in the Airport Land Use Plan. Office buildings, restaurants, retail stores, 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 ofavigation 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 Informal.,,. Sources Sources Pote.. Potentially Less Than No tially Significant Significant Impact Signifi- Unless Impact ER 80-97: Bradley Annexation cant mitigation Issues Incorporated 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 suppo 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 annexe area helps protect an appropriate part of the greenbelt near the Airport Area, through one or more of th 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 parl of the City's greenbelt. The applicant is proposing the payment of an in-lieu fee consistent with the rat 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 sit 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 resource 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. There are currently transit stops at that have developed on the east side of Broad Street. Future development of this corner may require the dedication and placement of appropriate transit facilities to the satisfaction of the City's Transit Manager. CONCLUSION: Not significant. The need for additional transit facilities will be reviewed at the time development of the property is proposed. 6 /`�7 7 Issues and Supporting Informa. .. Sources Sources Poteh- Potentially Less Than No tially Significant Significant Impact ER 80-97: Bradley Annexation Signifi- Unless impact cant mitigation Issues Incorporated ♦ 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 i 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 protectio for any on-site resources as identified in the Open Space Element. These properties, to help maintai the greenbelt, shall also secure open space protection for any contiguous, commonly owned Ian outside the urban reserve. If it is not feasible to directly obtain protection for such land, fees in lieu o dedication shall be paid when the property is developed, to help secure the greenbelt in the area soul of the City's urban reserve line. The City shall set fee levels that would be appropriate in-lieu of ope 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 lin which are to be developed with urban uses should be annexed before urban development occurs. Th City may annex an area long before such development is to occur, and the City may annex areas whit 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 wil reflect topography, needed capital facilities and funding, open space objectives, and existing an proposed land uses and roads. The annexation request is consistent with this policy in so far as it calls for annexation before further urba 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 are annexation is likely to occur in phases. This process is consistent with the City's adopted Interim Annexatio Policy. Services and frontage improvements will be addressed in conjunction with any application for site 7 /- 44s_ Issues and Supporting Informa.. Sources sources Pot. aote�ly Less Than No tially Significant Significant impact ER 80-97: Bradley Annexation cant - Unless impact cmitigation Issues Incorporated 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 a this location. ♦ 1.13.3 Required Plans Land in any of the following annexation areas may be developed only after th City has adopted a plan for land uses, roads, utilities, the overall pattern of subdivision, and financing o public facilities for the area. The plan shall provide for open space protection consistent with polic 1.13.5. A. For the Airport area, a specific plan shall be adopted for the whole area. Until a specific plan i 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 fo 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 applicant 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 whe adequate City services can be provided for that development, without reducing the level of services o increasing the cost of services for existing development and for build-out within the City limits as of Jul 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 b 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 i long-term water usage; C. Private well water, but only as an interim source, pending availability of an approved addition t 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 of the property 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 30 acre-feet (Water & Wastewater Element (WWE), Section 8.3 (Table 8)[source 51). Currently, the City has approved annexations that would amount to 62.2 acre feet of water usage. It is anticipated that the planned uses of this property would require approximately an additional 21 acre feet of water. This additional demand is still well below the City's 300 acre foot limit. Under current regulations, to obtain water from the city's supplies, a developer must retrofit existing 8 /-4110 Issues and Supporting Inform&. .. Sources Sources Pote. Jotendally Less ThanfNo tially Significant SignificantImpact ER 80-97: Bradley Annexation Signifi- unless Impact cant mitigation Issues Incorporated plumbing fixtures (Policy 8.2, WWE). If other annexations use all of the 300 acre-feet prior to application b 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 b made available for annexations. Roughly 1200 acre feet of additional water supply is anticipated in 199 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 allocatio regulations. ♦ 1.13.5 Open Space Each annexation shall help secure permanent protection for areas designated Ope Space, and for the habitat types and wildlife corridors within the annexation area that are identified i policy 6.1.1. Policies concerning prime agricultural land shall apply when appropriate. The followin standards shall apply to the indicated areas: D. Airport Area properties shall secure protection for any on-site resources as identified in the Ope Space Element. These properties, to help maintain the greenbelt, shall also secure open spat 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 grope 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 ne development, unless the community chooses to help pay the costs for a certain development to obtai 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 Cit must determine that adequate solid waste disposal capacity will be available before granting an 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 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. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population 1 x projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or x indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or major infrastructure? 9 Issues and Supporting Informal.,,.. sources Sources Pote :otentially Less 11M No tially significant Significant Impact ER 80-97: Bradley Annexation cant unless Impact cant mitigation Issues Incorporated c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable' x housing? The Land Use Element (LUE) growth management provisions (section 1.0 of the LUE) call for limitations o 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. Any expansion in jobs are no likely to be significant and are anticipated to be filled by local residents. 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal-result in or..expose people to potential.impacts involving: a) Fault-rupture? 7 x b) Seismic ground shaking? 1 x c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? 1 x d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? x NA e) Landslides or mudflows? 1 x f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil 1 x conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? g) Subsidence of the land? x h) Expansive soils? x i) Unique geologic or physical features? 6 1 x There are no known faults on site or in the immediate vicinity. The site is in Seismic Zone 4, a seismical) active region of California, and strong ground shaking should be expected during the life of on-sit structures. Any structures must be designed in compliance with seismic design criteria established in the Uniform Building Code. The site is essentially flat with no unique geologic or physical features. A soil 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. Would the-proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the x rate and amount of surface runoff? b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards x such as flooding? c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of x surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water x body? e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water x movements? NA f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through x direct additions or withdrawals; or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? x NA 10 ,/p —�t O Issues and Supporting Informa, Sources Sources Potta,- Atentially Less Than No tially Significant Sip fficant Impact ER 80-97: Bradley Annexation Signifi- Unless Impact cant mitigation Issues Incorporated h) Impacts to groundwater quality? x i) Substantial reduction in the NA amount-of groundwater x otherwise available for public water supplies? NA CONCLUSION: Not significant. The site is currently under-developed with very little impervious surface. Any future development will likely increase the amount of surface water run-off. The applicant development plan calls for the development of on-site retention basins in order to capture on-site surfac run-off and meter off-site drainage to levels that presently exist. Drainage plans and hydrologic analysis wil need to be submitted with any future development proposals. 5. AIR QUALITY.. Would the-proposal:. X . a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation (Compliance NA with APCD Environmental Guidelines)? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants' x NA c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause x any change in climate? NA d) Create objectionable odors? x CONCLUSION: Not significant. NA 6. TRANSPORTATIONMIRCULATION. :Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? x NA b) Hazards to safety from design features. (e.g..sharp x curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses NA (e.g. farm equipment))? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby x uses? NA d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? x NA e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? x NA f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative x transportation (e:g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? NA g) Rail, waterborne or.air traffic impacts (e.g. compatibility x with San Luis Obispo Co. NA The Community Development Department has heard from Caltrans requesting that any future developmen be subject to the preparation of a traffic study. The area has been extensively evaluated in the past Therefore it is unknown to what level area-wide traffic needs to be evaluated. The scope of work will b developed based on plans that are prepared for actual development of the property once annexed. CONCLUSION: Not significant. Future traffic analysis will be required upon submittal of a specific development proposal.. If annexed, future site development will be subject to the City's traffic impact fee which were established (Resolution No. 8406) to mitigate the impacts of new development on the City's streets, transit, and bikeway facilities. Air traffic compatibility is discussed in Section 1. 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal affect: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats 6 x (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals or birds)? b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? 6 x 11 Issues and Supporting Informa,.,,.. oources Sources Pot. rotemially I.essThan No ,'ally Significant Significant Impact ER 80-97: Bradley Annexation Sign's- unless Impact cant mitigation Issues Incorporated c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g, oak forest; 1,6 x coastal habitat, etc.)? d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool? 1,6 x e)_ Wildlife,dispersal or migration corridors_? 1,6 x CONCLUSION: Not significant. Based on information in the application, a field inspection, and a review o relevant references in the Department, staff has determined that there is no evidence before the Departmen that the project will have any potential adverse effects on fish and wildlife resources or the habitat upo which the wildlife depends. S. ENERGY AND:MINERAL RESOURCES. Would;the„proposal.: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? x b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and x inefficient manner? c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral x resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? CONCLUSION: Annexation by itself has no impact on energy conservation. All new buildings will need t meet applicable energy standards contained in Title 24 of the UBC. 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of-accidental explosion or release of hazardous 8 x substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? b) Possible-interference with an emergency response plan 8 x or emergency evacuation plan? c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health 8 x hazard? d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential 8 x health hazards? e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, 8 x grass or trees? Annexation is not anticipated to result in the creation or exposure of people to any known health hazards. CONCLUSION: Less than significant. 10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in- a) Increase in existing noise levels? 1 x b) Exposure of people to "unacceptable” noise levels as 1 x defined by the San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise Element? The anticipated service commercial uses are not considered"noise-sensitive" by the Noise Element of the General Plan. Noise-sensitive uses do exist on the adjacent property and further east behind existing commercial development along the Broad Street corridor. The planned uses are not expected to increase the ambient noise levels above those which currently exist in the vicinity. CONCLUSION: Not significant. 11.PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas:. a) fire protection? 8 x b) Police protection? 8 x c) Schools? 8 x d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? 8 x e) Other governmental services? 8 x 12 /— Issues and Supporting Informa. .. Sources Sources Potei.- totentialty Iessnan No tially Significant Significant impact ER 80-97: Bradley Annexation Signifi- unless impact cant mitigation Issues Incorporated CONCLUSION: Less than significant. Comments from various City Departments indicate what fees, infrastructure, easements and dedications will be necessary to accommodate future site development. 1'2..UTILITIES AND SERVICE.SYSTEMS. Would'the proposal result in a need'for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the fo0owng.utilities. a) Power or natural gas? x b) Communications systems? x c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution 8 x facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks? 8 x e) Storm water drainage? x f) Solid waste disposal? x g) Local.or regional water supplies? _ . : 5 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 t accommodate future site development. Water supply and consistency with City water supply policies are discussed in Section 1 Land Use. 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposalo a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? x b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? x c) Create light or glare? x CONCLUSION: Not significant. Annexation by itself will have no aesthetic impacts. Future development of the area to be annexed will be subject to architectural review and approval to ensure against negative aesthetic impacts. 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? x b) Disturb archaeological resources? x c) Affect historical resources? x d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which x .would affect unique ethnic cultural values? e) Restrictexisting religious or sacred uses within the x potential impact area? CONCLUSION: Not significant. Future site development will be subject to the City's Archaeological Resource Guidelines. 15. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the-demand for neighborhood or regional parks x or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? x Not applicable. 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the:project have the.potential to degrade the x quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? The applicant is requesting approval of an annexation andprezoning. Neither of these requests will result in any direct physical impact to the environment. As discussed above, future development of the project sit 13 /-!S7/ Issues and Supporting Inform&,.,,. Sources Sources eoti :otemially Less Than No tially Significant Significant Impact ER 80-97: Bradley Annexation Signifi- Unless Impact cant mitigation Issues Inconpontted will not result in any significant environmental impacts. Future development of the remaining properties i subject to California Environmental Quality Act requirements and may require further environmental review. b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short= x term,.to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? Short-term and long-term goals are the same. c) Does the project have impacts that are individually x limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means-that-the incremental effects of a project are.considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects; the effects of .. other current projects; and the effects of probable future..projects) 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 managemen and resource availability. d) Does the project have environrnerital effects.which will x cause substantial adverse effects on human beings; either directly or indirectly? There are no known significant hazards associated with annexation. 14 17. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the :tiering, program.'EIR, or other CEQA process, one o more-effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier,EIR:or,Negative Declaration. :Section 15063 (c) (3 (D). In this case a discussion should-identify the following items: a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are.available''for review. NA b) Impacts adequately addressed. Idenfify which effects from the.above checklist were within the scop of and adequately analyzed in an .earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and stat NA whether such effects.were,addressed by mitigation measures ib''ased,on the earlier analysis. . . c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant:with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which wereincorporated or refined_ from the:earlier document and the extent t which they.address_site-specific conditions of the project. NA Authority: Public Resources Code Sections 21083 and 21087. Reference: Public Resources Code Sections 21080 (c), 21080.1, 21080.3, 21082.1, 21083, 21083.3, 21093, 321094, 21151; Sandstrom v. County of Mendocino,-202 Cal. App. 3d 296 (1988); Leonofff v. Monterey Board of Supervisors, 222 Cal. App. 34.1337 (1990). 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. County of San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo Area Plan, January 1997 4. City of San Luis Obispo Source Reduction and Recycling Element 5. City of San Luis Obispo Water and Wastewater Element 6. City of San Luis Obispo Informational Map Atlas 7. San Luis Obispo Quadrangle Map, prepared by the State Geologist in compliance with the Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, effective January 1, 1990 8. City Department Comments ATTACHMENTS: Project statement and site location maps City Department Comments l�J FROM : PHONE NO. : 805 473 3537 DRAFT' SAN OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION MEFTING MINUTES AUGUST 27,1997 CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p m an wedncsday, August 27, 1997 in Council Chambers of City Hall, 990 Palm Strcet, San Luis Obispo, California. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners John Ewan, Mary Whittlesey,Paul Ready, David Jeffrey, John AshbwSk Janet Kourakis,and Chairman Senn(Arriving at 8:00) Absent: None Stag' Present: Assistant City Attorney Cindy Clemens, Development Review Manager Ron Whisenand, Associate Planners Pam Ricci and Glen Matteson,Community Development Director Arnold Jonas,Long-Range Planning Manager John Mandeville, Recording Secretary Leaha Magee,and Parking Manager Keith Opalewski. ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA: The agenda was accepted e_a presented. APPROVAL OF THE WFFMTfES: The Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of July 9, 1997 and July 23, 1997 were approved as amended. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA rMMS: There were no public comments made at this time. PUBLIC BEARINGS: 1. 3985 Broad Street: ANNX.ER and R W97: Request to annex approximately 10 ages of land into the City of San Luis Obispo, review emrironmental impact determination 1 FROM PHONE NO. : SW 473 3577 of atnrexation and prezone property to Service Commercial (C-S);Johanna Bradley. applicant. Vice Chairwoman conducted the hearing until the arrival of Chairman Senn at 8:00_ Assoc. Planner[Ricci presented the staff report and recommended the Commission recommend that Council pass to print an ordinance prezoning the annexation area Service Commercial(C-S)and adopt a resolution recommending that LAFCO approve the annexation. Coamessiouer Kourakis asked if the Commission is also reviewing the site plan. Planner Ricci stated the site plan is a requirement under the preannexation policy and to be submitted with the request for annexation. Devel. Review Mgr. Whisenand stated the site plan will go to the ARC. Commissioner Kouralds asked if it would be possible to turn this into all retail or is the developer larked into the distribution of uses as shown in the report and site plan. Devel.Rcvitw Mgr. Whiscnand replied it would not be locked into those uses under the C-S Zone_ It would be locked in with the C-S prezoning to any use allowed in the C-S district. Commissioner Whittlesey noted there would be no grandfathering of the uses if there were changes to the zoning. Devel. Review Mgr. Whisenand added action taken this everting would not lock in the-site plan or uses shown. Commissioner AsMmugh rinds the proposal more characteristic of a P-D because of the range of uses proposed. Commissioner Ready noted in reviewing the comments from the DOT,it's contemplated MWY 227 may be widened to sic lanes. Ile asked if this needs to be addressed by the Commission. Devc 1. Review Mgr. Wlusenand stated Caltrans has discussed this in their plans and the City has its own plans. We've conducted several traffic studies and adopted a circulation element. He's not sure:or the ultimate build out of Broad St. in regards to the number of lanes. In terms of this project, it's similar to what happened across the street at Marigold where some frontage itrtprovements were required. 2 FROM : PHONE NO. : SOS 473 3537 commissioner Ready asked if it would be appropriate at this point in the process to consider snore form of dedication so that if widening is ncrosary it wouldn't involve problems associated with condemnation. Devel.Review W. stated Public Works manages the circulation element and requires dedication Commissioner]eMey asked if the Commission should address firture development of Tank Farm Rd. Devel.Review Mgr. stated the Circulation Element and the GP covers this concern. Commissioner Kouralds asked if the sidewalk will be lost on Tank Farm. Devel.Review Mgr. Whisenand doesn't bolieve there's enough detail on the site plan to determine setbacks, heights, etc. Commissioner Whittlesey asked staff to comment on the trafficstudy. Assoc.Planner Ricci stated the scope of study hasn't been determined. Commissioner Whittlesey asked if the water allocation calculation is an estimate. Devel.Review Mgr. Whiseoand replied yes. Commissioner Whittlesey asked about the abrogation easement Devel. Review Mgr.Whisenand stated it's typically a required condtion of approval of the County. Commissioner Whittlesey asked if it's a condition of annexation. Devil.Review Mgr. Whisenand replied no. There were no further questions/comments and the public comment session was opened. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Bea Coats,Rogoway Planning Croup, stated the owners have wanted to annex and develop for some time. They realize this is an important intersection and want to produce a landmark development that will be recognizable and well respected. They don't have any desires for a retail center or other retails uses. The proposed uses listed are primarily service oriented. The owners are interested in high-tech and software-/computes-type uses. The site plan is intended to be conceptual and further issues can be addressed at the development stage. 3 /—S4� FROM PHONE NO. : 805 473 35 7 Ned Rogoway,Rogoway Planning Group, stated they've been working with thier client for 7 years. They've decided on Service Manufacturing because it suitable for the intent and uses. The driveway entrance on Broad is directly across the street from the entrance of the Marigold Center and there's an outlet at the other end of the parking lot. They feel their plan manages and controls the traffic. They have complied with the substantial setbacks on Broad and Tank Farm and can avAm"nodate any improvemebts on both streets. The area between the building and the road is shown to be a drainage basin with landscaping. Seeing no further speakers come forward, the public comment session was closed. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commissioner Ready moved to forward a recommendation to the City Council ac outlined at the beginning of the staff report based on the findings incorporated in the staff report on pages 5 and 6;amending Finding 1 on Page 6 to include the additional language suggested by staff relative to the Commission concurring with the recommendations of staff,and adding Finding 5 stating that no findings are hereby made with respect to the applicants proposed uses.. The notion was seconded by Commissioner Kouralas. Commissioenr Ashbaugh is comfortable with ARC review of the uses. Commissioner Jeffrey favors an S Overlay because there would be Commission review, but based on the uses applied for,he sees no use for this at thi%time. Commissioner Ewan questions the types of uses that will be allowed in warehouse facilities. Ire can support the motion. Commissioner Kourakis believes there could be land use issues dealing with mixed uses on a site and movement of vehicles on site. Commissioner Whittlesey is concerned about annexing in a piecemeal fashion. She's concerned about acquiring contiguous proerty.infrastructure service,and water service. AYES: Commissioners Ready, Kourakis,Ewan, Jefft",Whittlesey,and Ashbaugh NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Chairman Scan The motion carried 6-0-1. Z 525 Cerro Romauldo Avenue: A 96-97: Request to allow the modification of a previously approved administrative use permit to allow a school at a church;R-1 Zone; Philip G.Norton,applicant. a 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: 076-381-014 PRE-ANNEXATION AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AND JOHANNA BRADLEY, WILLIAM EDWARD.McBRIDE, AND LOUISE TOUCHSTONE HUGHAN 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 Johanna Bradley, William Edward McBride, and Louise Touchstone Hughan, located at 350 Cameron Ave., Santa Maria, California, 93455 (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, Johanna Bradley, William Edward McBride, and Louise Touchstone Hughan are the owners in fee of certain real property in the County of San Luis Obispo, commonly known as 3985 Broad Street, APN #076-381-014, 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. 80-97); 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; 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: Pre-annexation Agreement Johanna Bradley et al. 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 Tank Farm Road to the southwesterly 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, provided they continue to meet County Health Department standards. Use of . groundwater for new development will comply with applicable City policies. In the event of abandonment or failure of well(s), OWNERS 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, 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. 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 fire suppression system to the water main in Broad Street and Tank Farm Road 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 $15,538.00 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 $149,165.00, based upon the size of the OWNERS' lot - 9.6 acres. Such payment shall be paid in full, or secured by a letter of credit, prior to final Council action on the Bradley 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. 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 .-9 Pre-annexation Agreement Johanna Bradley et al. Page 3 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 $24,000.00, based upon the size of the OWNERS' lot - 9.6 acres, 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 firture 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 successors, 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. 1-60 Pre-mmation Agreement:Johatma Bradley a al. Page 4 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this agreement is executed on the date above stated at San Luis Obispo, California. ALL SIGNATURES MUST BE NOTARIZED OWNERS BY: Johanna Bradley BY: William Edward McBride BY: Louise Touchstone Hughan CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, A Chartered Municipal Corporation BY: Mayor Allen Settle ATTEST: City Clerk Bonnie Gawf APPROVED AS TO FORM: /YM096r7l��e en mEETING AGENDA DATE /o- - 7 ITEM # MEMORANDUM aOUNC:L lef CDD DIR 0 ❑FIN DIR KACADATE: October 6, 1997 oRNEY r ❑FIRE CHIEF CLERKIOAI13 Fw DIR a ❑POUCE CHF TO: Mayor&Council 0 MgMT TEAM ❑REC DIR moi — ❑unL DIR ❑ VIA: John Dunn, C ❑PERS DIR�� FROM: Arnold B. Jonas, Community Development Director J BY: Ronald Whisenand, Development Review Manager SUBJECT: Bradley Annexation/Prezoning Continuance The City has received the attached request for continuance for the Bradley Annexation and Prezoning item on the Council's public hearing agenda for tomorrow night(Public Hearing Item No. 1). The applicant's representative has indicated that they need additional time to complete the pre- annexation agreement that is required for this interim Airport Area Annexation. Staffwould therefore recommend that the Council continue this matter to a date uncertain. City staff has advised the County of the continuance, and has requested that the negotiation period for the exchange of property tax revenues and annual tax increment, scheduled for tomorrow's Board of Supervisors agenda, be postponed as well. Once the signed agreement is received from the applicant,staff will once again place the matter on your agenda for review and consideration. cc: Bonnie Gawf, City Clerk RECEIVED o c T . 6 1997 SLO CITY CLERK v...a.—vv—v/ 1V: C3F1 P.02 Oil Av" a o�- cn i NTNG Pam Ricci City of San Luis Obispo Department of Community Development 99C Pa=_m Street San Lu:.s Obispo, CA 93401-3249 October 6, 1997 Re: Touchstone Property Annexation Dear Ms. Ricci: • As discussed in our telephone conversation of this morning, the applicant has requested clarification of capital improvement development fees as they relate to the interim annexation fees. Regretfully, we must therefore request an extension of the City Counci_ hearing date for the Touchstone annexation application until these issues can be clarified to their satisfaction. We would ask that the hearing, currently scheduled for October 7, 1957, be continued to a future date. We will notify you, as well Cn as provide a signed and notarized copy of the annexation agreement, when we are ready to proceed. At that time we will Uj reouesl: that a new hearing date be scheduled. Thank ;you for honoring this re est. Ben Coats Rogoway Planning Group cc: Johanna Bradley ROGOWAY PLANNING GROUP 412 Marsh Street San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 (805)546-9300(Fax 542-9949)