Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8/12/2020 Item 2, Corey - Staff Agenda CorrespondenceCity of San Luis Obispo, Council Memorandum Planning Commission Agenda Correspondence August 10, 2020 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tyler Corey, Principal Planner VIA: Emily Creel, Contract Planner Shawna Scott, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Planning Commission August 12 and 13, 2020 - Froom Ranch Specific Plan Staff received the following questions from a member of the Planning Commission, and determined it would be helpful to provide these questions and responses to all Commissioners and the public, as the responses offer clarifications and corrections regarding the proposed Specific Plan. 1. Page 2-4: Figure 2-2, Site Plan with Building Heights: Buildings in the R-4 Zone are shown at up to 45’ high, which exceeds the maximum height in the R-4 zone (I recognize that the height limits can be modified through a specific plan), but the staff report (on Packet Page 15) says 35’. Which is correct? Staff Response: Table 2-2 in the Specific Plan (which is also included as Table 2 of the agenda report) is correct; the maximum building height in the R-4 zone is 35 feet. A three-story building may be allowed in the R-4-SP zone; however, the standard height would be limited to 35 feet. 2. Pages 2-5, 2-8: Prohibited Uses in R-3, R-4 and CR zones: is the prohibition of homeless shelters contrary to state law provisions that allow supportive housing by right in multi- family zones and other zones that permit multi-family housing? Staff Response: The City Attorney’s Office reviewed this question and confirmed there are two state statutes that address this issue. Per California Government Code Section 65651, supportive housing, which by definition could include homeless shelters, “shall be a use by right in zones where multifamily and mixed uses are permitted, including nonresidential zones permitting multifamily uses” subject to certain requirements. Additionally, per Government Code Section 65662, homeless shelters, transitional housing facilities, etc. are generally a “use by right in areas zoned for mixed use and nonresidential zones permitting multifamily uses” subject to certain requirements. The Specific Plan will need to be revised as necessary to ensure compliance with these state laws. Planning Commission Agenda Correspondence Froom Ranch Specific Plan Page 2 3. Pages 2-10, 2-11: Affordable Housing. a. How many low and how many moderate-income affordable units are proposed? Staff Response: Based on current assumptions for development within the Specific Plan area, the project would require the following minimum number of affordable units (27): Specific Plan Area Low Income Moderate Income Total Villaggio 5 11 16 Madonna Froom Ranch 4 7 11 Total 9 18 27 b. On what total number of housing units is the calculation based--the proposed or potential number of units? Staff Response: These calculations are based on the maximum (potential) number of residential units that could be developed within the Specific Plan (366 independent units and 38 assisted living apartments in Villaggio and 130 market rate units in Madonna Froom Ranch, R-3-SP zone) and represent the minimum number of affordable units that are required, based on these assumptions. Final inclusionary numbers will be dependent upon actual residential units developed within the projects. An affordable housing agreement will be required for each individual development proposal under the Specific Plan when the applicant seeks entitlements for development. c. It appears that all affordable units will be concentrated in the R-4 area. Will they be intermixed with market rate development? How is the planned distribution of affordable units consistent with Housing Element policies 4.1 and 4.2? I didn’t see a discussion of this in the Specific Plan or in the staff report. Staff Response: Specific Plan Section 2.3 Affordable Housing states that: The affordable housing requirement will be met either by dedicating land to the San Luis Obispo Housing Authority, or other City recognized low-income housing developer, or by building affordable units as part of the development. When land is dedicated in-lieu of providing affordable housing units, all frontage improvements and off-site improvements required to serve affordable housing development shall be installed by market-rate housing developers. The current concept envisions an affordable housing project within the R-4-SP zone to be constructed by a qualified low-income housing developer. In the applicant’s discussions with the Housing Authority San Luis Obispo (HASLO) and People’s Self-Help Housing, those low-income housing developers have indicated that they prefer the affordable units to be aggregated in order to facilitate the need for management and delivery of services to their clients on-site at a single Planning Commission Agenda Correspondence Froom Ranch Specific Plan Page 3 location. The Specific Plan does not limit the R-4-SP zone to the affordable housing units and this 1.8-acre area could accommodate up to 44 units. d. Page 2-11, Airport Compatibility: under “types and intensities of land use,” the proposed residential density listed as 534 and the potential density as 578. It appears that this is the first mention in the Specific Plan that there is a difference between the number of units being proposed and the potential. What types of units account for the difference and where are they located? Is the 44-unit difference due to the affordable units that might not be built with development of the Madonna/Froom portion of the project? I think it would be helpful for this to be explained in Chapter 1. Also, proposed vs. potential units could be noted in Table 1-1, Project Summary, and Table 2-1, Land Use/Zoning Summary. Staff Response: This section of the Specific Plan should only reference the potential number of units (578) and will be corrected. 4. Page 3-19, Figure 3-9, Trailhead Park Concept: a substantial area of the park appears to be composed of buildings, pavement and hardscape, with limited usable recreation area, especially for active recreation to serve the new neighborhood. For example, I do not see any large open areas or fields. a. Will the park have an active recreation area? Staff Response: The public park is not proposed to include a large active recreation area, though Specific Plan policies don’t prohibit that use. A principal goal of the park is to provide connections to the surrounding open space trails; therefore, it’s been conceptually designed as a trailhead park (e.g., increased parking and more limited recreation facilities such as picnic areas, open turf, and playground). b. Will the Madonna/Froom multi-family neighborhood have an active recreation area or areas? Staff Response: The Specific Plan does not include policies requiring an active recreation area within the multi-family neighborhood; however, Specific Plan 4.4 Multi-family Residential Guidelines state that high density housing should provide small private outdoor use areas such as patios, decks, and balconies, developments are encouraged to cluster dwellings around a shared common open space area, and zero lot line development is encouraged as a means of creating more usable outdoor area with small lots. The residents would have access to the public trail along the proposed realigned Froom Creek, the Trailhead Park, and trails leading directly into the Irish Hills Natural Preserve. c. There is an open space area shown between the maintenance access road in the park and Home Depot. Could that area be used for active recreation, perhaps with some grading? Maybe it could simply be a slightly hilly area for playing catch or Planning Commission Agenda Correspondence Froom Ranch Specific Plan Page 4 throwing discs (similar to the grassy knoll next to the Rodriguez Adobe in the Edna/Islay area)? Staff Response: The park plan is conceptual at this time and shows this area as predominantly open with some picnic tables and a play area. The extent of active recreation areas and other park details will be further refined when the detailed park plan is resubmitted for development review. The park is not conceptually designed to provide substantial active recreational areas, but nothing in the Specific Plan prohibits this use. 5. Page 4-5: 4.4.1, 3: Residential developments are encouraged to cluster dwellings around a shared common open space area. Is this proposed and will this be reflected in the concept plan for the Madonna/Froom multi-family neighborhood? Staff Response: This is encouraged through Specific Plan Policy 4.4.1, and future residential development projects will be evaluated for consistency with this policy when they seek entitlements for development. 6. Page 5-14, Figure 5-11, Pedestrian, Bicycle, Transit Network; staff report Figure 7 and staff report text on Packet Page 19: Isn’t a sidewalk to be provided along the LOVR frontage extending to Calle Joaquin? This appears to be what is shown in Figures 5-1 and 5-2 in the Specific Plan and in the Vesting Tentative Tract Map section for the parkway arterial. Figure 5-11 in Specific Plan may need to be revised accordingly. Staff Response: Yes, a sidewalk is proposed along the project site frontage along Los Osos Valley Road (LOVR). Figure 5-11 can be revised to better reflect this. It is intended to be shown on the figure, but it’s under the Class IV bike lane layer in the same location on the graphic. 7. Page 5-16, 5.5.3, Private Trails: I don’t see the trail network in the Life Plan community on Figure 5-11 as stated in text. Can we see this prior to PC meeting? Staff Response: This was a concept included in the original project design, which included extensive trails within the Upper Terrace. However, with the relocation of all Villaggio units below the 150-foot elevation line, the opportunity for this private trail system is more limited. The text reference to private trails within Villaggio will be removed from the Specific Plan. 8. Page 6-6, Figure 6-3, Project Wastewater Generation: The wastewater flows differ from those cited in the text. Is the difference due to proposed vs. potential development? Staff Response: Table 6-3 was updated to reflect the changes in the number and type of Independent Living Dwellings and Garden, Village Suite, and Standard Apartments conceptually proposed within the Villaggio Life Plan Community. Inconsistent text will be corrected to match the table. Planning Commission Agenda Correspondence Froom Ranch Specific Plan Page 5 9. Page 4-13, noise discussion: The following sentence conflicts with the discussion and with Table 3.10-18 in the FEIR: The noise study acknowledged that there would be intermittent noise impacts from truck loading and other activities at the adjacent shopping center, but that the noise levels would not exceed thresholds included in the city’s municipal code. On contrary, the FEIR found that commercial noise levels exceed city standards, and for that reason included MMNO-4. It requires a project-specific noise study prior to approval of park and residential development within the Madonna Froom Ranch to identify mitigation measures for noise from adjacent commercial uses. Mitigation measures may include a sound wall or similar measure along the property boundary with the Irish Hills Plaza. The Specific Plan text should be revised to reflect the conclusions of the FEIR and MMNO-4. Staff Response: The Specific Plan should be clarified accordingly. The Supplemental Noise Study (April 2020) found that interior noise levels would be consistent with City standards based on industry-standard wall-window assemblies. However, design considerations (as described in MM NO-4) would be required to ensure exterior noise levels meet City standards. 10. Page 4-16: Noise Reduction Techniques, Program 4.6.b.: The noise mitigation strategy, " dense vegetative planting," should be removed, as that does not reduce noise levels. Staff Response: We agree that dense vegetative planting does not serve as a barrier that reduces noise levels; however, it can help to attenuate noise over distance in comparison to “hard” sites (sites with a more reflective surface such as parking lots). The Specific Plan should be revised to clarify that dense vegetative planting as a noise mitigation strategy should only be utilized in combination with other identified mitigation measures. 11. Page 6-3, Figure 6-1, Water Supply Plan: There is an inconsistency between Figure 6-1, which shows an 8” public water main and the text, which says 6”. This should be corrected. Staff Response: Villaggio would include 6” water mains; Madonna Froom Ranch would include 8” water mains. This is accurately depicted in Specific Plan Figure 6-1. The text on page 6-1 of the Specific Plan will be corrected to reference an 8” public water main within Madonna Froom Ranch.