Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/17/2020 Item 17, Codron Council Agenda Correspondence City of San Luis Obispo, Council Memorandum Date:November 18, 2020 TO:Mayor and Council FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director Prepared By:John Rickenbach, Contract Planner VIA:DerekJohnson, City Manager DJ SUBJECT:Item #17–SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT AND VTTM NO. 3142 FOR A SITE WITHIN THE SAN LUIS RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN (1035 MADONNA) Staff received the following questions, regardingItem #17–Specific Plan Amendment and VTTM No. 3142 for a site within the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan. The questions arelistedbelow with staff’s response shown in italics: 1)The modifications are reducing traffic impacts, presumably due to reduced square footage of commercial space, but it seems out of scale. The commercial area is a little smaller, but packet page 340 shows going from 842 employees down to 624. What is that based on? The revised project would reduce thecommercialsquare footage potential in the SP areato 139,000 SF (GeneralPlanpolicy 8.1.4 had assumed up to 200,000 SF), and office potential from 150,000 SF (per GP Policy 8.1.4) to 97,000 SF. By applying standardemploymentassumptionstocommercialand office uses, the Addendum prepared for the revised trafficmitigation concept (August 2020) reported the reduction in employment potential in the area.Notethatemploymentinformationwaspresentedin theAddendumfor informational purposes only, and updatedtrafficimpacts were based on projectednon-residentialsquare footage, not employment. 2)The follow up on that question is that a reductionin traffic impacts reduces the mitigation requirements from installing the intersection improvements to paying a fair share, but the fair share seems low. Are contributions based on a point in time some years ago, or do they reflect the significant construction costs we are seeing now? If they had been required to make the actual improvements, would they be bound to actual costs? SL Ranch was only responsible for 5% of the construction costs (~$42K). If they would have constructed the improvements as originally intended, they would have been reimbursed for all but 5% of the costs through the City Transportation Impact Fee program. With the change in land use, the queuing impact at the NB right-turn lane is no longer triggered at this time. There are future improvements planned at this intersection, but they are not needed until 2035, and may be able to be deferred longer if the City is successful with reaching our non-auto mode share targets. With the amended agreement, SL Ranch will pay $42K into the City Fee Program as their fair share towards these future improvements. It should also be noted that if SL Ranch had constructed these improvements, it would have removed 5-6 mature cypress trees. Item #17–Specific Plan Amendment and VTTM NO. 3142 for a site within the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan (1035 Madonna)Page 2 3)“Horizontal Mixed Use” here looks a lot like a multi-family project located next to a car- focused strip mall. The plan specifically encourages mixed use including vertical mixed use and pedestrian amenities. I see some benches and changes of paving, but do we have more tools or strategies to encourage more innovative, pedestrian-centric design? Multi-story construction could allow for more plaza space or other amenities. The location of the project and its orientation to the residential neighborhood was considered by staff and the Planning Commission. The project is adjacent to a riparian feature (a drainage channel that will be improved significantly), and a pathway leading to open space areas, the neighborhood park, and other neighborhood amenities. In addition, vehicle circulation within the commercial project is designed to access the site via driveways east of the multi-family site reducing the amount of vehicle traffic adjacent to the housing. If theSpecificPlanAmendment and VTTM are approved, the applicantwillberequiredto submit aDevelopmentPlan, which will address the detailed design issues associated with future development, including pedestrianconnections, building design and architecture, parking, landscaping, lighting, and other elements that will be evaluated in the context of residentialproject objectives. This application will be reviewed by the ARC and will ultimately return to the Planning Commission for final approval ensuring that these design details will be carefully reviewed. 4)The number of affordable units required is still 60, correct? If adopted, theycouldaddup to 17 more affordable units, but what would motivate them to do so? I get it that clustering the affordable units allows for PSHH to offer services and programming, but I don’tsee how this shift otherwise improves the project for our affordable housing goals. The existing DevelopmentAgreementand Affordable HousingPlan requires 34 deed- restricted affordable units in the residential zones, and the option to build 34 inclusionary units or pay in-lieu fees to satisfy the requirement in the Commercial (NC) zone. The developer is working with a non-profit partner (People’s Self Help Housing Corporation or PSHHC) to build all of the required units at this location, plus additional units (between 4 and 17) depending on what works best for the project in terms of both design and financing (the project is expected to be competitive for a 9% tax credit award). Therefore, the motivation to provide additional units will be based on what is best for the future residents of the project and the ability of PSHHC to finance project construction.