Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/19/1998, 4 - CONCEPTUAL REVIEW OF THE DRAFT MARGARITA AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AS THE PROJECT DESCRIPTION FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT council Hdz l , q j acEnba RepoRt `"� CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FROM: Arnold B. Jonas,Community Development Director �j D Prepared By: Glen Matteson, Associate Planner Com» / SUBJECT: Conceptual review of the draft Margarita Area Specific Plan as the project description for an environmental impact report CAO RECOMMENDATION Approve the draft specific plan as the project description for the environmental impact report (EIR). Provide direction to staff for the EIR to reflect the following changes or alternatives to the draft specific plan: 1. In the Special Use area,require the setback to any additional parking near Acacia Creek to be 35 feet rather than 20 feet,consistent with the rest of the Acacia Creek corridor. 2. Realign the Neighborhood Green so it follows the existing Swale as much as possible, thereby keeping the Swale open, and possibly narrow the green. 3. Assure that lighting outdoor public areas will not cause glare for the sky or residential areas. 4. Include a linear park extension connecting the Neighborhood Green with the school. 5. Consider an alternative of smaller parcels and more intense use for part of the Business Park. 6. Consider an alternative of allowing a wider range of uses for the Business Park, including the additional uses allowed by the current County land-use designation. 7. Consider an alternative of not completing the Prado Road extension as part of Phase 1. 8. Clarify that the Prado Road extension will be paid for by all areas which it benefits(regardless of alignment). PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The eight items listed above are also recommended by the Planning Commission. The following two items are recommended by the Planning Commission, but are not supported by the CAO. These differing recommendations are explained under the "Concurrences" section of this report (page 11). A. Show the Prado Road alignment which intersects Broad Street at Industrial Way as the project,and instead show the northerly alignment as an alternative. B. Have the EIR evaluate an alternative of Prado Road extending directly east through the Martinelli property,rather than turning diagonally through it. Council Agenda Report-Margarita Area Specific Plan conceptual review Page 2 REPORT-IN-BRIEF The Margarita Area contains about 400 acres of mostly undeveloped land lying outside the city limits, in the southern part of the community (Vicinity Map, page 15). Council has initiated annexation of this area. The annexation cannot be completed until the Council approves a draft specific plan. Once a draft is approved, annexation can happen, with a Conservation/Open Space prezoning given to the properties in the Margarita Area. After the specific plan is adopted, the ultimate zoning will also be adopted. The City can then provide services and begin to approve development. Following previous Council direction and building on work by the land owners' consultants, staff has prepared a draft specific plan which is consistent with the General Plan (with the possible exception of the recommended Prado Road alignment, which could require a General Plan amendment). Staff is asking Council to approve the draft Margarita Area Specific Plan, so it can be the project description for the environmental impact report (EIR) that will evaluate it and the Airport Area Specific Plan. The draft document includes several alternatives. This meeting is an opportunity for the Council to identify any basic features which should or should not be included in the draft plan, so the EIR will have the proper scope. The Planning Commission had an initial look at the draft plan in April and noted some items to be refined or added as alteratives. No fundamental changes to land use were recommended. The main issues, identified partly in response to land owner concerns,are: • Allowing the number of dwellings that the General Plan calls for, and a range of housing types and costs,but possibly with a different distribution of densities; • Choosing an alignment for Prado Road that is good for areawide circulation and that does the least harm to natural features and the future residential neighborhood;. • Assuring adequate public facilities will be available and that the pace of development will be consistent with the General Plan, while having those who benefit from the facilities pay for them. Council is not being asked to resolve these issues at this meeting. Staff and the Planning Commission believe the draft plan is adequate for continuing the planning effort and completing the EIR,with relatively minor recommended changes and additions. More information on utilities and financing is needed before the specific plan can be adopted. When that information, as well as the draft EIR and comments and responses, are available, the specific plan will return to the Planning Commission and the City Council for detailed discussion and public hearings. Those hearings could lead to adoption in the winter of 1999, with actual development to start soon after. DISCUSSION Purpose of this Meeting This meeting is an opportunity for the Council to identify any basic features which should or should not be included in the draft plan, so the EIR will have the proper scope. There will be ample future opportunities to discuss details, once the EIR has been circulated and the draft plan returns for hearings (Attachment # 1, Process Summary). A page-by-page critique at this time Council Agenda Report-Margarita Area Specific Plan conceptual review Page 3 would be unnecessarily time consuming. In response to previous City Council direction, City staff has prepared a draft of the Margarita Area Specific Plan (dated April 1998, and previously distributed). Council approval of a draft plan is an initial step in planning for the Margarita Area It is a necessary step for combining the Margarita Area Specific Plan and the Airport Area Specific Plan in one environmental review process. In connection with preparing the Airport Area Specific Plan, an environmental impact report (EIR) will be written to cover both specific plans. Council approval at this time is important to keep the overall planning efforts for the southern part of the city on schedule. Following Council approval of the draft Margarita Area Specific Plan, the planning process will continue with input from the environmental impact report, utility services plan and financial plans, and additional public hearings by the Planning Commission and the City Council (Attachment#1,Process Summary). A specific plan shows land uses and public facilities such as roads in more detail than the General Plan, but typically in less detail than subdivision maps and construction plans. It is a means to implement the General Plan, including the timing and funding of development and open space protection. The Margarita Area Specific Plan has been worked on for several years, initially by consultants to the four groups of property owners. The proposed draft is largely consistent with the previous work, which staff has revised to optimize consistency with the General Plan. The General Plan says the Margarita Area should be a residential neighborhood, with substantial open space and a business park. The Land Use Element contains policies detailing the specific plan content requirements. These policies, and how the proposed draft addresses them, are described below. The draft specific plan does.not yet address utility services at the level of detail necessary for its adoption. That information will be developed by concurrent work on the Airport Area Specific Plan and be added to the draft Margarita Area Specific Plan when it is available. The General Plan also says the Margarita Area can be annexed once the City Council approves a draft specific plan as the project description for environmental review. Annexations that are approved prior to final adoption of the specific plan will be given a Conservation/Open Space prezoning. After the specific plan is adopted,the ultimate zoning will also be adopted. The City can then provide services and begin to approve development. At this time two of the property owners have indicated in interest in annexing once the draft is approved. Annexation of any of the properties in the Margarita Area is not before the Council at this time. Annexation proposals would be considered at future public hearings. Data Summary Owners: Roy & Dolly Garcia, Douglas & Eileen Damon, and other family members; Sierra Gardens (Richard DeBlauw and others); John King; San Luis Tallow Company, and members of the Martinelli family; City of San Luis Obispo Representatives: John French for Damon and Garcia families; John Wallace & Associates and Joe Cardoza for Martinelli's City Zoning: outside City jurisdiction;no zoning action proposed at this time f3 Council Agenda Report-Margarita Area Specific Plan conceptual review Page 4 City General Plan: Open Space; Residential Neighborhood; Business Park; Recreation; Park County Area Plan: Agriculture; Residential Single Family; Recreation; Commercial Service Environmental determination: EIR in preparation Action Deadline: The legislative action of adopting a specific plan is not subject to State Permit Streamlining Act time limits. Site Description The Margarita Area, in the south-central part of San Luis Obispo, encompasses about 400 acres, bounded generally by the ridge of the South Street Hills, Broad Street, the Unocal property north of Tank Farm Road, and the developed area along South Higuera Street. Topography ranges from steep, rocky hillsides to nearly level alluvial soils.Nearly all the area is used for cattle grazing. It contains a rendering plant, a pet-grooming and boarding business, a self-storage facility, a few houses,and high-voltage power lines.Acacia creek flows through the eastern part Project Description The specific plan aims to create a new neighborhood. It designates about 166 acres as open space, mainly on the hills, and about 31 acres as parks. It can accommodate up to about 1,200 dwellings, ranging from apartments over businesses, through attached or small-lot dwellings, to detached houses. Sites are available for an elementary school and small businesses to serve the neighborhood. The Business Park and the mixed-use areas can include a variety of work places. Prado Road (extended) will provide the primary access to the area from other parts of the city, and will connect the southeastern and southwestern parts of the city. A "main street" will be the primary route within the neighborhood, while local and collector streets will generally form a grid extending from the main street. Policy Background Overall Capacity and Land Uses The basic land-use categories are set by the General Plan Land Use Map. The overall residential capacity of 1,100 to 1,200 dwellings is also prescribed by the Land Use Element (policy 2.3.3 and Table 3). Substantially more or fewer dwellings than identified in the Land Use Element would not be consistent with policies in that element and in the Housing Element Each new residential neighborhood is to include a wide range of housing types and costs, and supporting uses such as parks, elementary schools, and shopping and services to meet the daily demands of neighborhood residents. To meet General Plan policies for housing variety and affordability, nearly 75 percent of Margarita Area dwellings could be on small lots or attached. The compact housing and mixed-use main street also will be conducive to walking, cycling,and transit,to help meet Circulation Element objectives for a smaller share of all trips to be made by motor vehicles. Neighborhood Pattern Many General Plan policies combine to shape the Margarita Area Specific Plan. The current draft Council Agenda Report Margarita Area Specific Plan conceptual review Page 5 reflects staff s best integration of all the applicable policies. These policies include the following. 2.3.1 Residential Expansion Areas: A specific plan is required, and must include a phasing scheme, open space protection, bikeways, walkways, active and passive park space, and amenities for public transportation. The draft plan has these features, including identified phases, various open-space categories,the locations and widths of bikeways and walkways,and locations of bus stops. 2.2.6 Neighborhood Pattern: Development should extend or create a neighborhood character. While the draft plan responds to the existing Margarita Avenue development, it does create a new neighborhood character. The "neotraditional" principles embodied in the draft have been proven effective in creating a sense of place within an urban area. The uses and development types shown in the plan would create well defined areas within the neighborhood. (Also, many individual neotraditional components are encouraged or required by other policies.) Essential features of a residential, mixed-use neighborhood contained in the plan include: a focal public space (the neighborhood green and neighborhood commercial area); an elementary school and park; a consistent street pattern; not being divided by an arterial road. 2.1.3 Neighborhood Traffic: "Neighborhoods should be protected from intrusive traffic. All neighborhood street and circulation improvements should favor the pedestrian and local traffic. Vehicle traffic on residential streets should be slow. To foster suitable traffic speed, street design should include measures such as narrow lanes, landscaped parkways..." In addition to not routing the arterial.street through the neighborhood,the-draft plan shows landscaped medians for the arterial and parkways for the local streets, and intersection "bulb-outs." It notes that detailed elements such as roadway pavement changes will be included as development plans are approved. 2.1.4 Neighborhood Connections: "All areas should have a street and sidewalk pattern that promotes neighborhood and community cohesiveness. There should be continuous sidewalks or paths of adequate width, connecting neighborhoods with each other and with public and commercial services to provide continuous pedestrian paths throughout the City." The draft plan aims to provide well-connected development, without giving dominance to cars. For example, bike and walking paths would continue where some existing local streets would terminate,to avoid cut-through car traffic. 2.2.1 Mixed Uses and Convenience: "Neighborhoods shall include a mix of uses to serve the daily needs of nearby residents, including schools, parks, churches, and convenience retail stores. Neighborhood shopping and services should be available within about one mile of all dwellings..!' Y Council Agenda Report-Margarita Area Specific Plan conceptual review Page 6 2.2.7 Housing and Businesses: "Where housing can be compatible with offices or other businesses,mixed-use projects should be encouraged." The draft plan acknowledges that the Marigold Center (about 1.3 miles from the farthest new houses) will be the main neighborhood-serving commercial area, but the plan provides a small, centrally located site for neighborhood businesses. The commercial or office-type uses allowed along the main street also could serve the neighborhood, though they are intended mainly to provide places where residents can live next to or close to their work places. 2.2.5 Street Access: "New residential developments, or redevelopment involving large sites, should be designed to orient low-density housing to local access streets, and medium- or high-density housing to driveways accessible from collector streets. Major arterials through residential areas shall provide only limited private access or controlled street intersections." The proposed relationships between residential densities and street types, as well as the development standards,follow this policy. 2.2.8 Natural Features: "Residential developments should preserve and incorporate as amenities natural site features, such as land forms, views, creeks, wetlands, wildlife habitats, and plants." 2.2.11 Site Constraints: "Residential developments shall respect site constraints such as property size and shape, ground slope, access, creeks and wetlands, wildlife habitats, native vegetation,and significant trees." The draft plan follows these policies mainly by keeping the creeks —including the smaller, seasonal ones—and the hills open. 2.2.10 Compatible Development: "Housing built within an existing neighborhood should be in scale and in character with that neighborhood. All multifamily development and large group-living facilities should be compatible with any nearby,lower density development." The draft plan aims for compatibility with the existing Margarita Avenue houses by having low-density development adjacent and by requiring special setbacks. The land use pattern and design standards will allow variety within the new development, while avoiding abrupt changes in building mass and spacing. 2.3.2 Separate Paths: "Within the major expansion areas, bicycle and walking paths which are separate from roadways should connect residential areas with neighborhood commercial centers, schools,parks and,where feasible, other areas of the City." The draft plan shows actual routes within the specific-planning area,and desired connections to points outside the planning area 76 Council Agenda Report-Margarita Area Specific Plan conceptual review Page 7 Providing Public Facilities The specific plan has been drafted to conform with adopted policies on the adequacy and funding of public facilities, including the following: 1.0.1 Growth Management Objectives: The City shall manage its growth so that ... the demand for municipal services does not outpace their availability. 1.13.4 Development and Services: Actual development in an annexed area may be approved only when adequate City services can be provided for that development, without reducing the level of services or increasing the cost of services for existing development and for build-out within the City limits as of July 1994, in accordance with the City's water management policies... 1.14 Costs of Growth: The costs of public facilities and services needed for new development shall be borne by the new development, unless the community chooses to help pay the costs for a certain development to obtain community-wide benefits. The City will adopt a development-fee program and other appropriate financing measures, so that new development pays its share of the costs of new services and facilities needed to serve it. Parks The Parks and Recreation Element calls for 10 acres of park land per 1,000 residents. The draft plan provides for about 12.acres per 1,000 residents. (The owners will be compensated for the excess.) The Margarita Area is one location being considered for sports fields. The area designated "Park," along with part of the Neighborhood Park and part of the elementary school site, with some overlap of a storm drainage detention area, could provide the desired number of sports fields. A small part of the total park space is in the unbuildable power-lines easement. Land Owner Concerns Some Margarita Area land owners have stated preferences for land uses different from those shown in the current draft. In some cases, their preferences were shown in earlier drafts or sketches prepared by the owners' consultants,though they have not been shown in plans adopted by the City. Main areas of concern are summarized below. The "Dispersed Density Alternative" at the end of the draft plan illustrates one approach to addressing the major concerns. Staff, however, recommends the draft being presented as better implementing all the applicable General Plan policies. • Concern: There is a smaller capacity for dwellings in the northwest part of the planning area (King property)than in an earlier layout; it appears that the street layout would accommodate fewer lots. Explanation: The current draft plan keeps creek channels open, as required by the General Plan Open Space Element (policy 3.2.1) and Land Use Element (policy 6.4.5). Also, it provides space behind the hillside houses for grassland management and fire protection. Council Agenda Report-Margarita Area Specific Plan conceptual review Page 8 These features limit the area that can be designated residential. The previous (RRM Design Group) draft did not show local streets, and it estimated the number of dwellings by applying the General Plan's residential density categories to gross area, including the land that would be needed for streets. This approach is not consistent with the General Plan, which bases density on net area, excluding public streets. The current street layout aims to maximize the number of lots while: complying with proposed minimum lot dimensions; minimizing creek crossings; avoiding storm runoff drainage from higher to lower lots and massive grading; aligning streets with existing and proposed streets on neighboring property;preserving an option for a private street or common driveway to serve conventional lots or a cluster development for the area between the creeks. (Private streets are included in net area when determining the allowed number of dwellings.) The "Dispersed Density Alternative" shows Medium-density Residential rather than Low- density Residential for some of this area, thereby increasing the allowed number of dwellings without expanding the overall area designated for residential use(map near the back of the draft plan). • Concern: There is no commercial designation for the southeastern part of the planning area (Damon-Garcia property, at Broad Street opposite Industrial Way). Explanation: None of the City's General Plan land use maps have shown a commercial designation for this area. The adopted General Plan shows part of the area as Park and part as Recreation, consistent with the previous draft specific plan. The Recreation designation allows `publicly or privately owned recreation facilities, either outdoors or buildings in a park setting." This could accommodate private (for profit) recreational use. The County's Land Use Element has the same designation. There is ample land designated commercial along Broad Street north and south of this area The "Dispersed Density Alternative" shows a larger Neighborhood Commercial area, and a commercial concession as part of the Park area The Neighborhood Commercial development in this alternative is not as central to the neighborhood, would attract traffic from Prado Road, and would not work in combination with the Neighborhood Green to create a neighborhood focal point. e Concern: The residential designation in the northeastern part of the planning area is smaller than in previous drafts, and too small to accommodate the Housing Authority's desired development of 20 dwellings(Damon-Garcia property at Broad Street and Rockview Place). Explanation: The specific plan map is more precise than the General Plan map. The area designated Medium-density Residential in the specific plan reflects the location of the creek and the part of the hill that slopes steeper than 25 percent, which appears to be unstable. There are about 1.4 acres outside the creek corridor and with less than 25 percent slope. This area and density would allow the equivalent of 17 two-bedroom dwellings. A Housing Authority project would be entitled to a density bonus of 25 percent, allowing the equivalent of 21 two-bedroom dwellings. • Concern: The neighborhood park and elementary school are proposed on the land that is most desirable for residential use(south-central part of Damon-Garcia property). 'f 8 Council Agenda Report-Margarita Area Specific Plan conceptual review Page 9 Explanation: The currently proposed locations follow from desires to group the designations that could provide play fields, to have separation from the power lines, aircraft noise and bazard exposure, and the industrial park, and to maintain the main-street character in the central location (which was previously considered for the school). Actually, while school district staff have said the school site is acceptable,they have noted a concern with the amount of grading that may be required. • Concern: The high-density, low-cost housing should be close to Prado Road, with lower density shown for the main street area(southwestern part of Damon-Garcia property). Explanation: Key goals of the General Plan and the specific plan are to create a neighborhood that is comfortable for a wide range.of residents, and which emphasizes travel other than by car. This approach is sometimes called "new urbanism" or "neotraditional." The proposed locations of the higher density residential designations support the main-street character, which is important in meeting the goals. The higher density development is to be well designed and maintained, reflecting desirable aspects of San Luis Obispo's old town and downtown. These aspects would not be reinforced by being closer to the arterial Prado Road. Locating the higher densities near an arterial road would discourage walking by the people living in those areas. While the higher density dwellings can be more affordable than detached houses on large lots,there will not be a concentration of subsidized housing. The "Dispersed Density Alternative" shows the higher density along the Business Park and Prado Road,rather than along a"main street"interior to the neighborhood. Roads The Circulation Element calls for an extension of Prado Road. The Circulation Element shows the extension intersecting Broad Street at Industrial Way. Since the Circulation Element was updated in 1994, staff has given more thought to the community's arterial street system. As a result, the draft specific plan shows a more northern alignment that intersects Broad Street midway between Industrial Way and Capitolio Way. This northern alignment provides better spacing between the new intersection and the Tank Farm Road intersection.Also, it offers a more feasible route for a further extension to the east, into the Orcutt Area. However, the northern alignment may entail more impacts from crossing the Acacia Creek corridor and from grading at the toe of the hill. Also, it divides the park space. The EIR will evaluate the alternative Industrial Way (central) alignment, as well as a southern alignment that would bring Prado Road down to Tank Farm Road. Considerations in choosing an alignment are discussed further under the "Concurrences" section of this report. The extent of connections with the existing El Camino Estates development along Margarita Avenue has been an issue. During neighborhood meetings several years ago, several residents opposed having any through streets. The General Plan says"Neighborhoods should be protected from intrusive traffic." (LUE policy 2.1.3) However, the General Plan also says "All residential development should be integrated with existing neighborhoods" CUM 2.2.6), and "All areas should have a street and sidewalk pattern that promotes neighborhood and community cohesiveness. There should be continuous sidewalks..." (LUE 2.1.4) The draft plan aims for consistency with these policies by having short extensions of Calle Malva and Margarita Avenue Council Agenda Report-Margarita Area Specific Plan conceptual review Page 10 as full streets, while other new streets provide the main routes for the newly developed area, and by extending Calle Jamin as pedestrian and bicycle ways only. The EIR will examine the option of having pedestrian,bicycle, and emergency access extensions only from the existing streets. The General Plan does not address alleys directly. The draft plan allows alleys, and encourages them as a way to create more pedestrian-friendly streets. Generally, public alleys have not been used in recent development. Some Margarita Area landowners and others have expressed concerns about safety and maintenance of alleys. However, there are several examples of alleys being used successfully in San Luis Obispo, including Peach Street near the railroad, and the newer houses opposite Meadow Park on Meadow Street. Also, the private drives in nearly all recent, large condominium projects are designed and function much like traditional public alleys. Drainage Parts of the El Camino Estates development and Rancho San Luis mobile home park have long experienced minor flooding because of altered or inadequate drainage from neighboring land in the Margarita Area Residents are rightly concerned about the effect of substantially increasing the impervious area on that land. Not all the engineering details of drainage solutions have been worked out. However, the overall approach will result in solutions. Runoff from the hills and the area to be developed will be directed into channels and pipes of sufficient capacity. Peak flows will be detained in basins and gradually released so they will not worsen down-stream flooding. The detention basins may be developed as shown in the draft plan. The EIR will evaluate the option of fewer, larger basins (or even a single basin) to serve both the Margarita Area and the Airport Area The draft plan allows for interim drainage solutions to provide flexibility for the early stages of development The draft plan identifies alternate uses for the detention basin areas if they are not needed as part of the drainage solution. Housing Affordability Consistent with the General Plan Housing Element, the specific plan calls for ten percent of the new dwellings to be affordable for lower-income residents, and 20 percent for moderate-income residents. (See page 47 of the draft plan for an explanation of income and price limits.) The land owners have expressed concerns about the proportion of required affordable dwellings, their effect on the prices of other dwellings in the planning area, the possible need to include affordable dwellings in each project or ownership in the planning area, and the procedures for making affordable dwellings available to qualified occupants. As drafted,the requirement would apply to each phase. Each phase encompasses several owners, and sufficient medium, medium- high, and high-density residential development to allow the affordability goals to be met The existing San Luis Obispo Housing Authority could help with the procedures to qualify occupants. The owners also have questioned whether the requirements for land dedication and providing public facilities will make unfeasible the required amount of affordable housing. While the general requirement was based on a quantified analysis,a quantified analysis for the specific plan area is not available at this time. Staff is currently working on an implementation program for the Housing Element's inclusionary housing policies. In the coming year this will be brought before the Council. At that time the City Council may consider revising the policies on the share Council Agenda Report-Margarita Area Specific Plan conceptual review Page 11 of affordable housing in all annexation areas. One option suggested by an owner would be to have the draft plan's increased potential for dwellings through transfer of development credit instead be available through affordable dwellings. As drafted, the specific plan follows the General Plan guidance to be a potential receiver site for transfer of development credit. CONCURRENCES Planning Commission Recommendations Not Recommended By CAO On April 22, 1998, the Planning Commission discussed the draft specific plan and largely accepted it. The Planning Commission voted six to none (Commissioner Whittlesey absent) to send to the City Council those comments listed as items 1 through 8 under "CAO Recommendation" of this report. The same vote included the following two items, listed as "A" and"B,"which are not part of the CAO recommendation. A. Show the Prado Road alignment that intersects Broad Street at Industrial Way as the project,and instead show the northerly alignment as an alternative. Explanation The EIR and future staff reports will thoroughly evaluate the impacts and the advantages and disadvantages of each of these two alignments, as well as a third, southern alignment, regardless of which route is shown as the project or as an alternative in this draft. The central and southern alignments are shown on map pages presenting alternatives, at the end of the draft specific plan. The Circulation Element shows the central alignment, intersecting Broad Street at Industrial Way. So did the previous draft specific plan prepared by the owners' consultants. While staff was working on the current draft specific plan, the Public Works Director recommended the northern alignment as a way to better space major intersections along Broad Street (for smoother traffic flow) and as a better way to achieve a future connection with the Orcutt Area. The Orcutt Area is a residential expansion area identified by the General Plan, similar to the Margarita Area, located south of Orcutt Road and east of the railroad, extending from the Southwood Drive neighborhood to the Edna-Islay Area. An arterial or collector street extension of this alignment would provide a more direct connection from the Johnson Avenue neighborhood and the Orcutt Area to the recreation, shopping, and employment uses developed in and planned for the Margarita Area and the Airport Area, as well as Highway 101 and the Madonna Road shopping area. Thus, this alignment would provide a benefit to the Orcutt Area that the other alignments would not Also, a more direct route means fewer turning movements and less congestion, and therefore less air pollution. The northern alignment would allow a stub street extending west from the existing, signalized Industrial Way intersection, providing controlled access to the potential sports fields site. Wherever a sports fields complex is developed, it will attract many trips by drivers concerned with safety. A stub street at the Industrial Way intersection would enable better traffic management for Broad Street and Prado Road by avoiding access to sports fields parking from those streets. Any driveways using the Prado Road extension close to Broad y�r Council Agenda Report-Margarita Area Specific Plan conceptual review Page 12 Street would lead to conflicting turning movements in high-traffic locations. The Planning Commission majority thought the northern alignment would undesirably divide the parks and open spaces that the specific plan shows for the eastern end of the area. Commissioners were concerned with how a road there would change the appearance of the area and the creek habitat. An arterial road would be a tight fit between the Acacia Creek corridor and the hill, particularly if it must meet the design criteria for a State highway. (Making the Prado Road extension Highway 227 has been discussed, though the local Caltrans director has stated his preference against such status.) B. Have the EIR evaluate an alternative of Prado Road extending directly east through the Martinelli property, rather than turning diagonally through it. Explanation The Martinelli's advocate the "straight-through" alignment as a way to minimize the amount of their land taken by the road extension and to make the most use of a water line easement and road improvements that have been located along this alignment. The Circulation Element of the County's General Plan shows this alignment. (The City objected to this alignment during the County's 1996 hearings.) Earlier work by RRM Design Group included this alignment as an option, using a"parkway" design with frontage roads through the residential and mixed-use parts of the neighborhood. Staff did not include this "straight-though" alignment as an alternative, because alternatives examined in an EIR are those which have the potential to reduce impacts. This alignment would increase impacts for the future neighborhood. This alignment would not be consistent with the General Plan (Policy 2.1.3), which says "Neighborhoods should be protected from intrusive traffic. All neighborhood street and circulation improvements should favor the pedestrian and local traffic... To foster suitable traffic speed, streef design should include measures such as narrow lanes ..." Also, it would very difficult to meet the standards of the General Plan Noise Element for the residential and mixed-use development along the main street if it became the Prado Road extension. To keep the ETR cost within budget, a limited number of alternatives can be examined. If the "straight-through" alignment is to be considered by the EIR, it should be sufficient simply to state the inconsistencies with the General Plan just noted. All affected City departments have not reviewed in detail the consequences of those items recommended by both the CAO and the Planning Commission. That review will occur as the EIR is prepared. However, the following concerns are noted, mainly so that those who have been following the evolution of this specific plan will know that they have not been overlooked: • The Neighborhood Green can be shifted to more closely follow the existing swale. This waterway would be an amenity and it would be desirable to keep open. However, it is not classified as a creek and therefor need not be kept open for consistency with the General Plan. Depending on the precise location of an existing water distribution main in this area, it may not be possible to both shift and narrow the Neighborhood Green. • A linear park connecting the Neighborhood Green with the elementary school site (in addition to the trail in the power lines easement) raises the issue of a separate path having Council Agenda Report-Margarita Area Specific Plan conceptual review Page 13 many street crossings at points other than street intersections, which can be a safety concern. This concern may be addressed by the mid-block bulb-outs called for by the draft specific plan, and other measures. • The alternative of smaller parcels and more intense uses for the Business Park probably will be limited to the northeastern section of the Business Park, where there is less potential for incompatibility with airport operations, and therefore inconsistency with the Airport Land Use Plan and State airport planning guidelines. Smaller parcels and more intense uses would be more compatible with the architectural character of residential and mixed-use areas planned for the opposite sides of streets in this area. Also, allowing more intense development at this comer of the Martinelli property could be an incentive for relocating the tallow works. • Expanding the range of uses for the Business Park to include all those allowed by the County's "Commercial Service/Business Park" designation raises issues of consistency with the City's General Plan. Examples of uses allowed by the County designation include equipment rental, fumigators, doctors and lawyers offices, specialty stores, supermarkets, department stores, and warehouse stores. It should be sufficient for the EIR to note that these uses would not be consistent with the City's General Plan. Planning Commission Concerns Not Referred as Recommendations In addition to the items listed in the "CAO Recommendation" and "Planning Commission Recommendation,"Planning Commission discussion reflected the following concerns: A. The EIR should cover the maximum potential for build-out. Explanation: It will. The maximum build-out is the proposed project, with the recommended alternatives for the Business Park. The EIR will not consider a build-out capacity larger than allowed by the General Plan. B. Credit should be given for storm-water detention areas. Explanation: Storm-water detention areas are basins which hold peak runoff and release it over hours or days, reducing maximum downstream flood flows..The type of shallow basins recommended for the Margarita Area may accommodate other uses, such as sports fields or wildlife habitat There is no policy that requires or prevents giving detention areas credit as open space,park space, or simply components of an areawide drainage system. As part of the combined planning effort for the Margarita Area and the Airport Area, there will be evaluations of financing arterial streets, water and sewer trunk lines, and major storm drainage facilities,including detention areas that serve many parcels, similar to the evaluation done for parks and the school site in the Margarita Area (Appendix B of the drift plan). These evaluations will not be part of the EIR. These evaluations may or may not lead to recommendations for assigning costs or credits for the drainage detention areas within the Margarita Area. As noted in the draft specific plan, detention areas planned for the Margarita Area may be eliminated in favor of detention basins serving a larger area. y-/3 Council Agenda Report-Margarita Area Specific Plan conceptual review Page 14 C. Other information, including financing public facilities and the financial feasibility of . affordable housing requirements, will need to be available before a decision to adopt the plan can be made. Explanation: In connection with planning for public facilities in the Airport Area, there will be a proposal for financing the public facilities which serve several properties. The Council- approved work program does not include an assessment of affordable housing in the Margarita Area. However, city-wide requirements for affordable housing may be considered when an ordinance concerning projects' responsibilities to help provide affordable housing comes to the Council in the next few months. Architectural Review Commission (ARC) The ARC has not reviewed the draft specific plan.ARC review will be scheduled before the plan returns to the Council for hearings. County Airport Land Use Commission City staff has been in regular contact with County staff for the Airport Land Use Commission. However, this commission has not reviewed the draft specific plan. This commission's review will be scheduled Before the draft EIR is written and before the plan returns to the Council for hearings. An update of the County Airport Land Use Plan is pending before this commission. The outcome of that update could affect the Airport Area Specific Plan and the Margarita Area Specific Plan. FISCAL IMPACT There are no fiscal impacts associated with approving the draft specific plan as a project description for the EIR work. Fiscal impacts of future development in the planning area will depend on the specific types of uses to be developed, City service levels, State rules governing revenue and spending over the years of development, and tax sharing agreements between the . City and the County. As a rude, revenues from residential development do not fully offset the costs of services.However,a fiscal study for the last General Plan update and a preliminary fiscal study for annexing the Airport Area and the Margarita Area concluded that, in general, annexing to encompass a balance of residential and commercial development would not be fiscally harmful, and could be beneficial (Mundie & Associates, 1991, and Angus McDonald & Associates, 1994). In addition, there are other community objectives to be achieved through the eventual annexation of the Margarita Area. ALTERNATIVES The Council can decide to not approve the draft specific plan. That could delay annexation by those owners who may want to annex. (During the General Plan update, the potential for annexation before adoption of the specific plan was proposed by the land owners and enabled by the Council as a way to help the owners finance completion of the specific plan and EIR.Now that the City has taken over these efforts, the owner's desires for annexation timing generally Draft Planning Commission Minutes April 22, 1998 Page 11 5. Staff: A. Agenda Forecast: Development Review Manager isenand presented the agenda forecasts for the meetings of May 13, 1998, May 27, 1998, and June 10, 1998. Commissioner Ewan noted he 'll be absent May 13, 1998. BUSINESS ITEMS: 3. Margarita Area: SP 1404: Review of the Draft Margarita Area Specific Plan; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. This is an opportunity for Commissioners to provide comment to the City Council before the environmental impact report is written. Commissioner Ashbaugh arrived at the meeting at 9:14 p.m. Chairman Senn commented this is this Commission's first review of a specific plan and asked for representative comment after the staff presentation. Associate Planner Matteson presented the review and recommended forwarding any Commission comment on the draft specific plan to the City Council. John French, representing the Garcia and Damon families, stated a major concern is housing affordability. Other concerns are drainage, shared costs of Prado Rd., parkland dedication/costs, and density. There are four densities for this project. This is unusual and we may be trying to accomplish too much with multiple density levels. However,the draft specific plan clearly meets Council's intent. Il Draft Planning Commisbion Minutes April 22, 1998 Page 12 John Wallace, Martinelli family representative, stated the cost of development has to be looked at as an issue. He's concerned about development fees in excess of$20,000/unit in addition to infrastructure development and land holding costs. Low- and moderate- income affordable housing may not be able to be financed through this project. He reserved further comment to a later time. Commissioner Ewan asked for comment on the ratio of low-income housing. Associate Planner Matteson stated the requirement of 10% low- and 20% moderate- income housing is set in the General Plan for residential annexations. Commissioner Jeffrey asked if this specific plan meets the recently adopted parkland acquisition policy. Long Range Planning Manager Mandeville replied yes, and the location of the parkland is recommended by the Parks and Recreation Department Commissioner Jeffrey asked who will be responsible for maintaining open space. Associate Planner Matteson stated the draft specific plan doesn't identify which party will maintain open space areas. It's open for discussion. Commissioner Ashbaugh asked if mobile homes sites can be used for meeting the affordable housing requirement. Associate Planner Matteson stated most mobile home parks are-developed at 8-10 dwellings/acre and would fit within the medium-density category and manufactured housing would be subject to the same standards as conventional housing. The owners have not expressed any interest in mobile home park development. Commissioner Ashbaugh asked that the mobile home park aspect be addressed. This seems to be an easy way to meet affordability requirements. He noted the TDC part of the plan is a positive feature and asked if it could be expanded beyond the 100 units. Associate Planner Matteson stated the LUE identifies the TDC capacity and this is the direction staff followed. Commissioner Marx asked if the contemplated business park would include manufacturing. Associate Planner Matteson replied yes, it would allow a range for light manufacturinglindustrial uses. 12 #-/6 Draft Planning Commrsion Minutes April 22, 1998 Page 13 Commissioner Marx expressed a concern about possible impacts of manufacturing uses close to residential uses. Manager Mandeville stated the plan contains special design standards for interfaces between residential and business park areas to minimize conflicts. Commissioner Jeffrey asked if thought was given to a neighborhood mental care facility. Associate Planner Matteson replied no,this wasn't included. Chairman Senn referred to Paragraph 2.6, Page 21, and asked if additional business park uses could be added and where this list of uses originated. Associate Planner Matteson replied adding that in the future, uses that are clearly different from uses shown on the list would require an amendment to the specific plan. The list of uses came from an examination of the city's service, commercial, office, and manufacturing zones and business park plans from other areas. Manager Mandeville stated the uses listed were drawn from existing districts that would best fit the kinds of uses that would be consistent with business parks as described in the General Plan. Chairman Senn is concerned about limiting the project by processing an EIR based upon the uses listed. Long Range Planning Manager Mandeville stated the uses listed in the plan would be the ones evaluated in the EIR changing the list later could required additional environmental review at that time. Chairman Senn asked if calling out minimum parcel widths/lot sizes, Page 22, is too limiting and asked if broader language would be more appropriate. Long Range Planning Manager Mandeville stated the EIR will look at alternatives. The list of uses doesn't need to be changed in order to have the EIR adequate for subsequent modifications of parcel sizes. Associate Planner Matteson stated parcel sizes won't have a big influence on the character of the uses for purposes of environmental review. Chairman Senn stated there are businesses which need smaller parcels. Many lots in the city are too large and expensive for purchase/development. There were no further comments/questions and the public comment session was opened. 13 Draft Planning Commission Minutes April 22, 1998 Page 14 PUBLIC COMMENTS: Joe Cardosa, 684 Rancho San Luis Obispo, concurs with the concerns expressed by the Commission. John Wallace, Martinelli family representative, is concerned about the alignment of Prado Rd. and noted the Martinellis have extended Prado Rd. as an improved roadway under a previous county approval and a portion would be abandoned with this concept and utilized for the residential area to the north or the business park to the south. The county has adopted the straight alignment utilizing the existing alignment and this alternative should be included in the E1R. He noted the plan does not speak to credit for drainage detention facilities and this should be analyzed. The lower left comer of the Martinelli property is a designated area for storm water detention. He stated there is confusion as to what's considered an active or passive park. Costs comments have been aimed at affordable housing, but there are other fees dealing with parks, schools, and development infrastructure. The $20,000/unit figure is excessive in terms of trying to make the project pay for itself. He questions if there will be assistance from the general community because Prado Rd. will become a major arterial. Developers paying 100% is not the intent of community participation or use of traffic impact fees with other developments. Concerning the Business Park, he suggested the EIR consider allowable uses contained in the updated San Luis Area Plan for the county. He questions the removal of the rendering plant in phase one and nonconforming uses. He is concerned about the phasing timeline of Prado Rd. Flexibility is needed to be able to afford infrastructure costs. Commissioner Jeffrey questioned the relocation of the detention basin. Commissioner Ashbaugh asked for comment on parcel sizes in the business park. Mr. Wallace stated from the intent of CEQA, flexibility is needed for later decision making. It would be a good idea to include some modification of Business Park minimum lot area. John French, Garcia family representative, described the existing drainage Swale and explained the concern about incorporating trails and linear parks. Financial matters concerning park dedication, timing, reimbursement, fees, the toxic study are not acceptable to the Garcia family, but there are approaches that will work. It's not fair for the Garcias to give up their property and get paid back over an indefinite period of time, but Financial topics are not issues for the EIR. Commissioner Marx asked if water course areas are considered creeks. 14 p �f�O Draft Planning Comm.osion Minutes April 22, 1998 Page 15 Mr. French stated water from the ridge area sheet flows. He hasn't seen signs of swales. He agrees with Mr. Wallace's comments regarding the alignment and costs of Prado Rd. Commissioner Marx asked if the detention basins are currently designated wetlands. Mr. French doesn't believe the area would be classified as a wetland. Seeing no further speakers come forward, the public comment session was closed. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Chairman Senn asked if the Commission has the ability to make economics a part of the EIR. Long Range Planning Manager Mandeville stated the Commission can request an economic study to be done, but he noted the airport area consultants will be providing certain infrastructure financing plans and that would be the correct time to review the costs. Chairman Senn asked if it would be reasonable to address equitable means of dealing with contributions for public facilities and related issues. Long Range Planning Manager Mandeville replied yes, that has been done in regards to the parkland and school site dedications. Chairman Senn expressed concern with the costs associated with the alignment/construction of Prado Rd. Long Range Planning Manager Mandeville stated Prado Rd. will be funded by all the areas receiving benefit. He explained the General Plan policy. Chairman Senn requested individual comments to pass along to Council. Commissioner Ewan questioned the viability and need of requiring electric garage door openers for garages with access from alleyways. He's concerned about properly addressing the effects of public park/street lighting in the EIR and a realignment or piping of existing waterways and creeks. The Commission supported the concerns expressed by Commission Ewan. Commissioner Marx is concerned about hillside development and the privacy of lower properties and the protection of views. 15 q Draft Planning Commisbion Minutes April 22, 1998 Page 16 Associate Planner Matteson noted development will not exceed the elevation limit line established in the General Plan. Commissioner Marx supports the amount of open space devoted and doesn't believe it should be reduced. Commissioner Jeffrey believes there should be flexibility in relation to working with open space. The issue of credits for dedication of open space needs to be addressed. The Commission supported concerns expressed by Commissioner Marx. Commissioner Marx stated the setback for the Acacia Creek should remain the same throughout the planning areas including the Special Use area. She's concerned about the proposed alignment of Prado Rd. crossing the creek. This should be addressed by the EIR. The Commission supported concerns expressed by Commissioner Marx. Commissioner Marx questioned "wetlands that cannot be maintained" on Page 7. Wetlands are protected by law and should be identified and maintained in their own location wherever possible. There shouldn't be the assumption that wetlands cannot be maintained and the project design should accommodate wetlands, not the other way around. Manager Mandeville noted wetland mitigation/relocation is possible under Federal rules. Commissioner Marx is concerned about the location of the sports field in relation to the creek area due to runoff issues. The Commission supported concerns expressed by Commissioner Marx. Commissioner Marx believes space for a community center, as mentioned, is appropriate in a park location. Associate Planner Matteson stated the Parks and Recreation Department did not support this idea in an earlier drag The Commission did not support this concern expressed by Commissioner Marx. Commissioner Marx supports the idea of a linear park especially in terms of getting kids to school safely. 16 Draft Planning Commi..,ion Minutes April 22, 1998' Page 17 Commissioner Marx believes creek restoration with native vegetation is necessary and wants to be sure changes in the plan don't degrade the creek or hillside. Commissioner Ewan feels the bicycle linear park coming through the medium-density area should be addressed by the EIR. The Commission supported concerns expressed by Commissioners Marx and Ewan. Commissioner Jeffrey is concerned about clarification of maintenance responsibility for open space and creek corridors. The Commission supported the concern expressed by Commissioner Jeffrey. Commissioner Jeffrey is concerned about Item 1.5.3 on Page 7. He questions if there would be a shift of neighborhood impact by frequency of use, traffic impacts, and possible city contribution for development. Commissioner Ready has concerns about the limitation contained within the plan on parcel sizes with respect to the business park. He suggests more general language such as,"as appropriate." Commissioner Marx feels the EIR could look at different parcel sizes. The Commission would like an alternative to have smaller parcel sizes and possible higher density in the business park. Commissioner Ready would like uses to be analyzed for the proposed business park within the proposed specific plan to be increased to encompass the types of uses included in the county's business park designation. The Commission supported Commission Ready's suggestion. Commissioner Ready would like economic feasibility of the affordable housing requirement to be addressed. Chairman Senn suggested that appropriate credits and economic analysis be completed to help address the viability of meeting the affordable housing goals of the city. This additional information should parallel the EIR. The Commission supported Commissioner Ready and Chairman Senn's suggestions. Commissioner Ashbaugh would like the project description to consider the alternative location of Prado Rd. and its alignment with Industrial Way. He prefers the Margarita 17 Draft Planning Commission Minutes April 22, 1998 Page 18 specific plan propose the Prado Rd. extension to intersect with Broad St. at Industrial Way. Commissioner Ewan would be concerned about additional traffic at the Industrial Way interchange. Commissioner Marx has concerns about the impacts on wetlands and the creek. The Industrial Way alternative seems more practical. She doesn't support the northerly orientation of Prado Rd. Chairman Senn doesn't support changing the project description, but supports Commissioner Ashbaugh's suggestion as a project alternative. The Commission supported the concerns expressed by Commissioner Ashbaugh. Commissioner Marx has a concern about the level of manufacturing in the proposed business park. Chairman Senn is concerned about the high-density mixed uses, Paragraph 2.4; the neighborhood commercial uses, Paragraph 2.5.1; the business park uses, Paragraph 2.6.1; and the parcel sizes, Paragraph 2.6.3. He believes an alternative should be inserted that is more general and that lets standards be determined at a later date based upon the then prevailing market and the perception of the occupants in the neighborhood or what's needed in the community a long as the proposed development is not more intense then as provided for in the EIR. Chairman Senn reiterated Messrs. Wallace's and French's concerns as being (1) the project needs to address affordable housing, (2) how the cost and infrastructure shall be equitably borne, (3)appropriate credits for stone water detention facilities, (4)open space maintenance, (5) Prado Rd. alternative alignment. that doesn't bisect the Martinelli property diagionally, (6)Prado Rd. phasing,and(7)TDCs. The Commission concurred that an alternative should address the strongest potential development of the site/maximum potential build out. Commissioner Ready moved to forward the draft specific plan together with the Commission's comments to the City Council The motion was seconded by Commissioner Ashbaugh AYES: Commissioners Ready, Ashbaugh, Marx,Ewan,Jeffrey, and Chairman Senn NOES: None REFRAIN: None 18 ,W1,2 Draft Planning Commiasion Minutes April 22, 1998 Page 19 The motion carried 6-0. Commissioner Whittlesey was absent. 4. 610 Monterey Street: C/PC: General Plan Conformity Report for property acquisition; O-H Zone; ity of San Luis Obispo, applicant. Associate Planner Matteson presen \e report and recommended determining and reporting that the City Council that the proposed property acquisition conforms with the General Plan. 1 i i There were no comments/questions ands he public comment session was opened. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments made. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commissioner Marx moved to recommend that th City Council Vprove of the RUchase of this pWgM. The motion was seconded by C missioner Jeffrey. 19 ��3 Council Agenda Report-Margarita Area Specific Plan conceptual review Page 15 have shifted to being subject to City jurisdiction.only when there are assurances of development entitlements.) The EIR could be completed without Council approval of the draft specific plan, using staffs draft and the Planning Commission comments. Regardless of Council action at this meeting, the annexation and specific plan must return to Council for action before the status of the area that is now under County jurisdiction can change. The Council may direct that additional changes or alternatives be included for evaluation by the EHL Changes or alternatives that depart substantially from the General Plan would require amendments to the General Plan before being adopted as part of the specific plan. (If the norther Prado Road alignment is to be shown in the adopted specific plan, staff expects to recommend an amendment to the Circulation Element showing it as part of a connection with the Orcutt Area.) Attachments #1 Process Summary flowchart #2 Correction list for draft specific plan #3 Draft Planning Commission minutes for April 22, 1998 Distributed previously: Draft Margarita Area Specific Plan Vicinity Map �� Cal P a 1 am Lift eevnmti seftLoa rOOM �,.,.,:, YO,NO TAMC F lirbatt Reaerve Line rt - Attachment#1 .. FEE Cv � Cc C so C O oo c C d C c ' tea. cN � � ' E — /_. N •� V O O Y. - w ' CL C V •� ` 0 ' C fl. w V O WL N O O ® � d O) ' a � CL CD rn o m � = m Lw •L , > w o ® � � is. N E 1cc4cE CF CL aCo � m •p N O d a. CL 3 � a aIs ' co) _ - n m _� v_ . a c W .� p � "�- � ._.. O L N 0 . CLwo cc Aa � o W z r 0 cm sovm x C a ® co — -- r •U s.It. L y � � a cda � Ls � p � � c Q M6oCL a 3 CL _ a 0 V p to v V W d � % A Q 3 +•% ev U'E o LW O ® flI INNER o � � ® � E coao C _ v �.+ � E � � �> a �' � c. d v ® �S. m0) ® C v ®'cam E N C E ate ® L' Attachment#2 MARGARITA AREA SPECIFIC PLAN COUNCIL REVIEW DRAFT-APRIL 1998 . CORRECTIONS Page Item Correction 3 Right column In the first paragraph, the last sentence should be"Construction. can start in 1999 and is expected to be completed no sooner than 2008.°This is consistent with Table 7, Phasing. 36 Figure 14 The local street cross-section should include a note that the tree on the left is in a "bulb-out.' 56 Right column In the last credit, Strike"through" between "Tables" and"2..." Appendix B, page 7 It was not the City's intent that the school district levy a fee in Paragraph "G,° last addition to the current State-enabled impact fee based on building sentence floor area, or that the district be involved in reimbursements among land owners in the planning area. �ab