HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/10/2001, B6 - PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF APPLICATION TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT TEXT, TO ALLOW DEVELOP Council M tivaD" July lo,of
j acEnaa uEpoizt It=N.mb.r 8(,
CITY . O F SAN LUIS O B I S P O
FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Direc r
Prepared By: Glen Matteson,Associate Planner
SUBJECT: PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF APPLICATION TO AMEND THE GENERAL
PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT TEXT,TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT IN THE
ORCUTT AREA AHEAD OF SPECIFIC-PLAN ADOPTION(GPA 72-01)
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Encourage the applicant to withdraw the application and to work toward timely adoption of the
specific plan and acquisition of resources to support development.
DISCUSSION
Data Summary
Applicants: People's Self-Help Housing and Lathrop Capital Group
Representative: RRM Design Group (John Knight)
Owners: All owners of land in the designated Orcutt Area could be affected
Environmental determination: No environmental determination has been proposed.
Action deadline: State law does not set a processing deadline for amending the General Plan.
Background on Process
Usually a general.plan amendment application would come to the Council as a hearing item,
following Planning Commission consideration. In this case, the applicant requested and staff has
accommodated an earlier review. Council's early direction will allow the applicant and staff to
avoid unproductive effort if the Council does not anticipate being able to approve the application.
Situation
The Land Use Element of the General Plan requires specific plans for the large, mostly
undeveloped areas next to the city where development and open-space protection are intended to
occur (policy LU 1.13.3, in Attachment #2). Specific plans typically show proposed land uses,
public facilities, and design standards in more detail than the General Plan, but in less detail than
subdivision maps and construction plans. For San Luis Obispo, each specific plan also typically
involves several land owners and many years from adoption to full development. Specific plans
are required for the Margarita Area,the Airport Area, and the Orcutt Area(map, Attachment#1).
Until the 1994 Land Use Element revision, specific plans were required before annexation or
development in the Irish Hills, Dalidio, Margarita, and Orcutt areas. With the 1994 revision:
• The Irish Hills Area was identified as a special design area, for which one specific plan
could be done, or one or more development plans would be required, depending on
whether it was annexed as one piece or several. (Development plans often cover the same
topics as specific plans,but usually apply to a single property). f—
\J I
Council Agenda Report—Safety Element update
Page 2
• The Dalidio Area was largely eliminated as a residential expansion area, while a
development plan was required for the commercial part of the Dalidio property.
• The Margarita Area was allowed to be annexed, in whole or parts, as soon as the Council
endorsed a draft specific plan, but development must wait until the specific plan is
adopted.
• For the Orcutt Area, there was no change to the requirement for a specific plan for the
whole area before any part is annexed or developed.
• The Airport Area was identified as an annexation area, for which a specific plan was to be
adopted before it was annexed in whole or in part. However, a following amendment
removed the "TK" (Food-4-Less) project site from the designated Airport Area. Another
amendment created the potential for annexation and development ahead of specific plan
adoption if certain criteria were met, in the so-called "interim annexations."
The City is working on a specific plan for each of the following areas, with plan status as noted:
Area Status Adoption Anticipated
Margarita Area Council endorsed draft in 1998; Mid 2002
418 acres, nearly one-half EIR publication expected mid-
open space and parks; up to July; airport compatibility issues
1,200 dwellings of various must be resolved (revision in
types, an elementary school, progress).
and a business park
Airport Area Hearing draft and EIR to be Mid 2002
1,000 acres; about 1/3 open published mid-July.
space, 1/3 commercial and
industrial; 1/3 airport uses
Orcutt Area Draft from proponents May Late 2002
231 acres; about 1/3 open 2000; workshops with owners
space; up to 700 dwellings of late 2000 thru early 2001;
various types revised draft for initial Council
review antici ated fall 2001.
The applicant has applied for an amendment to the Land Use Element policy, to allow properties
within the Orcutt Area to be annexed and developed before the specific plan is adopted, if they
meet certain criteria (Attachment #2). The amendment process itself is fairly time consuming and
expensive, and this would be a substantial departure from current policy. Therefore, the applicant
has requested and staff has agreed to bring the item to Council for an initial response. If Council
believes the amendment could not be supported, informing the applicant now will avoid
unnecessary effort in that direction. If Council believes the amendment could be supported, the
application would proceed through.the normal course of environmental review, staff evaluation,
and Planning Commission hearing and recommendation, likely returning to Council for action by
the end of the year. With this course, the applicant probably would file annexation, pre-zoning,
and subdivision applications for concurrent processing.
The applicant proposes that 40 percent of the dwellings built on a site that is enabled by the
policy amendment be affordable to those with incomes at or below the countywide "moderate"
level. (The basic City requirement is that 15 percent of the dwellings be affordable.)
rip~�
I ,
Council Agenda Report—Safety Element update
Page 3
Evaluation
One of the applicants' motivations in making the subject application, and a key factor cited in
support of it, is provision of affordable housing. The Council has identified affordable housing as
a high priority, and several General Plan policies encourage it. A fundamental way for the City to
help increase the supply of affordable housing is to annex and zone land so suitable densities and
levels of service are available.
At the same time, the City has chosen to require specific plans where there is a particular need
for areawide planning and coordination among property owners extending over several years as
an area develops. This coordination typically affects owners within the specific-plan area and
close to it, and involves open space, streets, pedestrian and bike paths, water, sewer, stormwater
drainage, parks, and schools..A specific plan is a vehicle for deciding the types and amounts of
dedications, improvements, and impact fees that will be necessary to provide services and enable
developments that meet city standards. The General Plan encourages new development to be part
of a neighborhood pattern. Specific plans also help achieve this desired pattern. If one ownership
within a large development area proceeds ahead of an areawide plan, there may be deficiencies,
inequitable requirements, or poor design choices that become apparent as other ownerships in the
area develop.
The three specific plans under preparation, Margarita, Airport, and Orcutt, are linked. Changes to
one could lead to changes in the others. Such changes could affect some basic land-use choices
as well as infrastructure design and costs. For example, because the Airport Area is downstream
from the Orcutt Area, storm drainage and sewage collection decisions in the Airport and
Margarita areas could affect the type and location of facilities in the Orcutt Area. Also, the school
district has indicated that a new elementary school will be needed in the southern part of the City
if substantial residential development occurs there. The draft Margarita Area Specific Plan shows
a school site, but it may be rejected by the State Department of Education due to airport
compatibility concerns. If the Margarita Area site is rejected, the Orcutt Area would need to be
re-examined as a potential location. Accommodating a school in the Orcutt Area, not anticipated
in previous drafts of the specific plan, could in turn affect street locations and residential
densities. Another example is the possible loss of residential capacity in the Margarita Area due
to airport compatibility. While the Orcutt Area is also subject to airport land-use planning
policies, it appears to have more flexibility than the Margarita Area to accommodate higher
densities. As a result, some residential capacity may be transferred to the Orcutt Area.
To allow development of a property ahead of specific-plan adoption, one of the applicant's
proposed criteria is that the applicant agrees to help pay for areawide infrastructure according to a
cost-sharing plan maintained by the City. Such a cost-sharing plan does not exist now, but would
be developed based on the draft specific plan. However, an interim cost-sharing plan would not
necessarily reflect the version of the specific plan that is ultimately adopted.With adoption of the
proposed criteria, an applicant would need to agree to something that is not completely defined.
Another of the applicants' proposed criteria is adequate infrastructure capacity. Adequacy of the
City's water supply is a key concern. As discussed in Council agenda reports for July 12, the
amount of water available for development is less than would be needed for the various projects
now in the planning process or pursuing building permits. Also, it has become very hard for
builders to find properties whose owners are willing to have them retrofitted for the water credits
needed to obtain permits. The supplemental water source likely to be available soonest, water
reuse, is expected to be on-line 2003 at the earliest. The Local Agency Formation Commission, a
Council Agenda Report—Safety Element update
Page 4
countywide body whose approval is needed for annexations, has expressed increasing reluctance
to approve annexations considering the City's water supply situation. There is little to be gained
for a property proceeding through site-plan approval ahead of specific-plan adoption, if
annexation and building permits are delayed due to lack of water.
In addition to the issue of citywide resource availability, designing systems for water distribution,
sewage collection, and storm drainage ahead of a specific-plan, on a piecemeal basis, is
inefficient and problematic. The City's Utilities Department, in particular, believes that staff
resources are used more efficiently in preparing a specific plan than in responding to individual
annexations before the specific plan is adopted. Also, systems installed on an interim basis may
be less than optimal, shifting costs to others in the area or to ratepayers if the initial installations
or fees prove to be inadequate.
A third applicant-proposed criterion is that there be a development plan for the property. This
relates to another concern of LAFCo and the City: maintaining logical city boundaries and
avoiding islands of unincorporated territory. Annexing just the property that the applicants are
interested in would result in the parcel to the west being an island of unincorporated land.
Including the parcel to the west with no development plan and no commitment for 40 percent of
the dwellings to be affordable would not meet the proposed criteria. The proposed amendment
does not address this type of internal inconsistency.
In summary, the applicant proposes breaking out Orcutt Area properties from the specific-plan
requirement, subject to criteria like those applied to Airport Area "interim annexations."
However, unlike the Airport Area, County-approved development is not imminent in the Orcutt
Area (due to both adopted County policy and practical considerations). The small likelihood of
County-approved development, along with the City's experience in accommodating Airport Area
interim annexations, makes it reasonable to maintain the requirement for a specific plan, even if
it potentially delays the production of housing.
CONCURRENCES
The concerns of all City Departments are reflected in the discussion above.
FISCAL IMPACT
The recommended action will have no fiscal impacts. The alternative of allowing individual
annexations to proceed ahead of specific-plan adoption could increase City costs, because
application fees do not cover the full cost of application processing.
ALTERNATIVES
Council may encourage the applicant to proceed with the amendment process and a specific site
proposal. Council may continue action.
Attachments
#1 Orcutt Area Vicinity Map
#2 Applicant's statement with proposed text
Orcuttlgptextcandoc
. 1
«<Ila
■.■ X11� G���
•� / 1111111��i �
�0♦0;1#;!:,go �
♦i�i`�♦i11� •
� ,111 ♦.;♦ �
■■■■Emu
►. �
Lf
as e4► �v��
In
awl ;Orcutt?� .
;•�Areav .
\1
ATTACHMENT 2
R R %11 D f S I G N G R O U P
PURPOSE STATEMENT
PREPARED : MAY 16, 2001
Summary: The purpose of the General flan Text Amendment is to facilitate the development of
affordable housing within the Orcutt Specific Plan Area. The amendment is requested jointly by People's
Self Help Housing and the Lathrop Capital Group(the Applicant). Although the amendment would affect
all properties within the Specific Plan Area, the Applicant is specifically interested in an 11.6 acre +/-
property located near the intersection of Johnson and Orcutt. Development on the property would include
both single-family and multi-family units.
The estimated total unit count will likely be between 65 to 80 total units. The 3 proposed lots would
include the following:
Lot Owner/Applicant Use Acreage Units
#1 People's Self-Help Housing Multi-Family (affordable) 3.2 30-40
#2 Lathrop Capital Multi-Family market rate 1.9 10- 15
#3 Lathrop Capital I Single-Family market rate 4.2 25
City Right ofWPublic Streets 2.3 -
Total 11.6 1 65-80
Under the proposed plan, approximately 45% to 50% of the development would be built with affordable
housing units.
Applicable General Plan Policies: The City's General Plan has multiple policies that encourage and
support development of affordable housing. Key policies are noted below.
o City is required to actively seek ways to provide affordable housing(Society and Economy Goal
18).
o Growth rate cap excludes affordable housing(LU 1.11.2).
o The City will help conserve and increase opportunities for affordable housing(LU 2.5./H2.2.3.).
o New developments required to provide 5% low and 10%moderate income units(H 2.3.1).
Note that the Housing Element requires only 15% low and moderate-income units. This would result in
the development of 10- 12 affordable units compared to the 30-40 units proposed by the Applicant.
Key Points: It makes sense to development this particular site for affordable housing based on the
following key points.
• The development would be consistent with General Plan policies encouraging affordable housing.
• The site is contiguous to existing City limits and City infrastructure.
• The Applicant will remain obligated to pay or construct their fair share of the Specific Plan
infrastructure and amenities.
• The City will send a clear message to that it will support affordable housing.
- !/ ATTACHMENT 2
PURPOSE STATEMENT
PREPARED: MAY 16, 2001
Proposed Annexation Policies: Annexation policies in the Airport Specific Plan currently allow
properties to annex and develop in advance of the completion of the Specific Plan. The Applicant
proposes that these policies be applied to the Orcutt Specific Plan Area with the addition of a requirement
for a high level of affordable housing. This will set the bar high enough to ensure that traditional market
rate projects are unable to develop in advance of the Specific Plan Adoption. Policies #1 - #6 are taken
directly from the Airport Specific Plan Policies. Policy #7 is added to mandate the development of
affordable housing.
1. Contiguous to City limits.
2. Within the URA line.
3. Located near infrastructure.
4. Infrastructure capacity available.
5. A development plan is included with application.
6. Applicant agrees to contribute to cost of preparing the Specific Plan and constructing area-wide
infrastructure improvements according to a cost sharing plan maintained by the City.
7. Applicant agrees to construct a minimum of 40% of the units as affordable housing units.
n/1400047/ProducVApplication/jk-Purpose Statement
6 - 7
ATTACHMENT 2
R R Nt D r_ s i c ` c. 1z o u P
PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN TEXT LANGUAGE
PREPARED: MAY 16, 2001
The attached text change is intended to facilitate development of affordable housing in the Orcutt Specific
Plan area. When adopted, the amendment will allow development meeting specific criteria to proceed in
advance of the adoption of the Orcutt Specific Plan and EIR. Additions are shown in bold italic.
Deletions are shewn in st:Fike out-.
LU 1.6.3: Interim Uses
Expansion areas should be kept in agriculture, compatible agricultural support services, or open-space
uses until urban development occurs, unless a City-approved specific plan provides for other interim uses
or interim annexation policies have been adopted by the City Council.
LU 1.133: Required Plans
Land in any of the following annexation areas may be developed only after the City has adopted a plan
for land uses, roads, utilities, the overall pattern of the subdivision, end financing of public facilities for
the area,or interim annexation policies have been adopted by the City Council.. The plan shall provide
for open space protection consistent with LU policy 1.13.5.
A) For the Airport area, a specific plan shall be adopted for the area. Until a specific plan is adopted,
properties may only be annexed if they meet the following criteria:
I) The property is contiguous to the existing city limits;and
2) The property is within the existing urban reserve line;and
3) The property is located near to existing infrastructure; and
4) Existing infrastructure capacity is available to serve the proposed development;and
5) A development plan for the property belonging to the applicant(s) accompanies the
application for annexation;and
6) The applicant(s) agree to contribute to the cost of preparir_g the specific plan and
constructing area-wide infrastructure improvements according to a cost-sharing plan
maintained by the City.
B) For the Orcutt expansion area, a specific plan shall be adopted for the whele area.befeFe an t
^R'�- Until a speci.7c plan is adopted, properties may only be annexed if they meet
the following criteria:
1) The property is contiguous to the existing city limits;and
2) The property is within the existing urban reserve line;and
C6/ —�
0''`e ATTACHMENT 2
PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN TEXT LANGUAGE
PREPARED : MAY 16, 2001
3) The property is located near to existing infrastructure;and
4) Existing infrastructure capacity is available to serve the proposed development;and
5) A development plan for the property belonging to the applicant(s) accompanies the
application for annexation;and
6) The applicant(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.
7) The applicant(s) agree to construct a minimum of 40% of the units as affordable.
housing.
C) For the Margarita Area, annexation may not occur until the City Council has approved, as the
project description for environmental review, a draft specific plan. Further development shall not
occur until the City has completedenvironmental review and adopted a specific plan. (This area
shall be zoned Conservation/Open Space upon annexation, and shall be zoned consistent with the
adopted specific plan upon adoption of the specific plan.)
D) For any other annexations, the required plan may be a specific plan, development plan under
"PD"zoning,or similar development plan covering the entire area.
n/1400047/Product/Application/jk-GP Text Language 5-16-01
� -9
p IUIIo�I�I /U �' 0 Q
MEN •f, o
_ ma,
4,
.. M ,LII_JIS
Fm
Lnwmvood
I I
r / , ;
p.
/
•
I
I`" •. •�
\
tt A 4
r
!
o e fz®
.f � e &
N
tf� O Q
f!I A
W 1NG AGENDA
DA1 E7-=ITEM#
EaA smon July 10, 2001
JOIDUNCIL DD DIR
City Council Members C 0 ❑ FIN DIR
Pf� A O ❑ FIRE CHIEF
ENGINEERS City of San Luis Obispo UORNEY ❑ PW DIR
City Hall, 990 Palm Street UML_ERK/ORIG ❑ POLICE CHF
PLANNERS San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 ❑ DIP-PIT DS ❑ REC DIR
❑ UTIL DIR
SURVEYORS Re: Review of Lathrop/Orcutt Annexation: Item#6 ❑ HR DIR
Mayor Settle and Council Members:
As you may know, Cannon Associates represents three of the 13 landowners in
the Orcutt area. I am also speaking for several additional owners who requested
that I express their concerns in a letter to you. We are opposed to this piecemeal
approach to annexation in the Orcutt Area.
J
U We are not opposed in principal to the Lathrop/Peoples Self Help housing
C= j development application. All of the Orcutt owners wish to annex and develop
W
O their land in the near future as soon as the required planning and environmental
`W 0 review process can be completed. We are opposed to this attempt to break ranks
in what has until now been a mutual process of preparing a Specific Plan thereby
V meeting the General Plan requirement. Almost all of the land owners have
requested the right to annex independently. Staff response has consistently cited
the General Plan requirement for a Specific Plan which covers the numerous city
requirements for an integrated street,park, utility, and drainage systems as well as
meeting a mutually agreed upon(but not necessarily liked) phasing plan and
public facility financing plan.
We believe there are three valid reasons not to accept the Lathrop proposal:
• The integration of the physical planning issues will not be assured. (For
364 PACIFIC STREET example,the proposed street design does not take into account what will
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA happen on the neighboring property controlled by Patti Taylor.)
93401 . The financing and phasing plans will not be worked out and agreed upon by
all concerned. There is concern that all the property owners share an equitable
805 544-7407 distribution of costs and development phasing. We feel it unfair that this site
FAx 805 544-3863 should move to the head of the line regarding phasing without taking into
account the efforts of others in the Specific Plan Area.
SODS BUSINESS PARK NORTH • This approach makes a mockery of the General Plan and the two-plus years of
SUITE 102 effort made by the property owners and City staff to prepare a Specific Plan
BAKERSFIELD, CA 93309 which is within months of being submitted for environmental review and
approval. In fact, we believe that this move would not be considered
661 328-6280 legitimate by LAFCo since the Lathrop parcel would enclose the Maddelena
FAx 661 328-6284 parcel (which is in the County) with City land.
VJWW.CdnnOndSS000OfiI PROVIDING SERVICE SINCE 1976
l
®annon setter to City Council Members
A S S O C I A T E S Re: Review of Lathrop/Orcutt Annexation: Item#6
July 10,2001
Page 2
In conclusion, while we all wish this process were more expeditious,this is the
wrong time and the wrong place to split out a parcel from the Specific Plan
process. The Specific Plan is so close to final processing that this action,we
believe, is breaking with the spirit of the General Plan and those who have abided
by the rules, unfair to the other landowners in the Orcutt Area by potentially
burdening them with extra costs, and detrimental to the citizens of San Luis
Obispo who expect the General Plan to provide long-range direction.
We request that the City Council support staff recommendation.
Sincerely,
Andrew G. Merriam,AICP
Principal, Director of Planning
95-03191Agency/Counal Letter 7-1 MIA=