HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/31/1989, 1 - PLANNING CONCEPTS FOR THE MARGARITA EXPANSION AREA, ALONG MARGARITA AVENUE SOUTH OF THE SOUTH STREE ���B�R��VNIIIII��I IIIyy T MEETING DATE:9
C� 0 S� �U�S �B�Sp� 1-31-89
iCOUNCIL AGENDA REPORT NUMBEi:
FROM: Michael Multari, Community Development Director; BY: Glen Matteson, Assoc. Planner
SUBJECT: Planning concepts for the Margarita expansion area, along Margarita Avenue
south of the South Street Hills.
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
No action is necessary at this time.
DISCUSSION
A planning consultant has asked the city to amend its general plan and to approve a
specific plan for the Margarita expansion area (attached vicinity map). Amending the
general plan and adopting the specific plan would be steps toward annexation and
development of the property. A "specific plan," enabled by state law, shows land uses,
streets, and utilities, in more detail than the general plan but with less detail than
actual construction plans. It also can include phasing provisions and programs for
providing affordable housing and for financing off-site public facilities which serve the
area.
Staff is suggesting an approach similar to that for the Airport Area Specific Plan.
Early in the process, before detailed planning and environmental studies are done, we
would like the council to approve "planning principles" and a conceptual land-use map.
We will be asking Planning Commissioners for their recommendation on these items, and
then return to the council for an action.
The purpose of this meeting is simply to introduce the council to the proposal.
BACKGROUND
Situation
A planning consultant has asked the city to amend its general plan and to approve a
specific plan for the Margarita expansion area (attached vicinity map). Amending the
general plan and adopting the specific plan would be steps toward annexation and
development of the property. The consultant has been retained by two of the three
parties who own land in the specific-plan area. The third owner, while not a client, has
agreed to the designation requested for his property.
A "specific plan," enabled by state law, shows land uses, streets, and utilities, in more
detail than the general plan but with less detail than actual construction plans. It
also can include phasing provisions and programs for providing affordable housing and for
financing off-site public facilities which serve the area.
Staff and the consultant have been discussing planning concepts for the area. The
consultant has submitted a draft specific plan. Staff will ask the City Council for
comments on basic directions before preparing contracts for detailed engineering,
planning, and environmental studies and a draft plan for public hearings.
/m /
.4
�����►bNIVIIIII��� ��Ill city of san Luis osispo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Margarita concept review
Page 2
Data Summary
Owners: John E. King, et. al.; Sierra Gardens of S. L. O. Limited; L. J. Martinelli,
trustee, et. al.; Dolly Garcia, et. al.; Irene Brughelli, trustee, et. al.
Representative: RRM Design Group (Keith Gurnee)
Land Use Element map: interim conservation/open space
Environmental status: Environmental impact report (EIR) to be prepared.
Action deadline: None for general-plan amendment or specific-plan adoption.
Site Descriotion
The site shown in the draft specific plan contains about 151 acres, including much of the
South Street Hills and some gently sloping land to the south. Staff, while working on
the general plan revision and the Airport Area Specific Plan, considered extending the
expansion area east toward Broad Street, to include the Garcia Ranch (attached vicinity
map). The South Street Hills are moderately to steeply sloping, fractured serpentine,
with sparse vegetation. The more level areas are grassland, occupied by a few houses and
outbuildings. Both the hills and the level areas have been grazed, and contain minor,
seasonal creeks. High-voltage power lines extend easterly from Margarita Avenue.
Proiect Summary
The draft plan (attached map) shows about 77 acres of residential development, including
streets, accommodating about 480 dwellings. Densities range from less than one to about
16 dwellings per acre. Seventy-four acres would be open space, including most of the
hill, a narrow flood-water detention basin, and a small neighborhood park combined with a
detention basin. The draft proposes phased development, to be completed in six years.
Planning, History
The gently sloping parts of the draft specific plan site have been designated for
low-density residential use since the city first adopted a land-use plan in 1961. The
easterly extension suggested by staff was also shown that way in 1961, but as
medium-density residential in the 1972 plan, and as open space and rural-industrial in
the 1977 plan. According to the current Land Use Element, adopted in 1977:
This is a "major expansion area," which should be kept in agricultural use until
urban development is appropriate;
The area should not be annexed until a specific plan has been adopted and the city
can provide adequate water and sewer service to the area, in addition to potential
development within the city limits;
The area should be used for housing, with the overall capacity based on low density,
but with a variety of housing types as called for by the Housing Element.
i
The Housing Element (1986) says the area should accommodate about 500 dwellings, with a
range of housing types and densities that could accommodate low- and moderate-income
residents in certain proportions. /_�
���m�►tH�(VIIIII���h �����II city or sun LUIS 0131spo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Margarita concept review
Page 3
The draft Airport Area Specific Plan suggested a residential development spanning the
area shown in the RRM proposal and the Garcia Ranch, and including about 750 dwellings.
Evaluation
The attached conceptual map was prepared by RRM Design Group, while the planning
principles were drafted by staff. We agree on many but not all features. Following are
the main topics which must be addressed before the specific plan can proceed.
Open space protection
Should the area be developed?
The draft plan proposes permanent open space protection for most of the hill within the
planning area, as a tradeoff to development on a saddle of the hill and on the gently
sloping ground. Staff believes the houses within the hill's saddle are not appropriate
and that all of the upper elevations should be kept in open space.
Now is probably the city's last opportunity to create an open space or agricultural
preserve for the nearly level areas. If the city decides to keep this land open, staff
thinks some means in addition to city or county zoning will be required. Possible
techniques include acquisition of fee ownership or easements by the city or a
conservation organization, transfer of development potential, and tax reduction.
If the area is to be kept open, the residential potential would have to be established
somewhere else in order to keep the planned citywide capacity. Most likely, the
relocated residential capacity would have to be in an extension of the urban reserve line
into the Edna or Los Osos valleys. Reductions in citywide residential capacity would
make improvement of jobs-housing balance more difficult, even with reductions in
commercial and industrial potential.
As noted above, the site has been considered a housing expansion area in the city's
general plan and in the draft Airport Area Specific Plan.
Planning area boundaries
How large should the specific-planning area be? If the Garcia Ranch is to be included,
should the specific plan cover it now or can a separate specific plan be prepared later?
The planning area boundaries of the draft specific plan generally follow the boundaries
shown in the city's current general plan Land Use Element. However, in working on the
airport area specific plan, staff has considered enlarging this expansion area to the
east. Under this approach, the hill and the area between Broad Street and the hill would
still be open space, but residential rather than rural industrial would be shown for most
of the gently sloping ground. The residential capacity of the extended planning area,
used to draft the general plan revision, would be 750 to 800 dwellings.
/M
ri
o1H1�III�IIIIIIIU� �� I1 city of san Luis os,spo
Ms ACOUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Margarita concept review
Page 4
Staff thinks some items, such as circulation, parks, and drainage, must be designed for
the whole area. However, a separate but coordinated specific plan could be prepared for
each area, the "Margarita Riviera" and the Garcia Ranch.
Water service
Should the area be developed before the city has enough water to serve existing and
potential development within the the current city limits, plus this expansion area?
Now, the general plan says "no." Since studies have not shown groundwater potential
within the expansion area anywhere near adequate to support proposed development, staff
would be very cautious in considering changes to the current policy. The applicant has
not requested a change to the current policy. The draft plan assumes that adequate water
will be available. However, it also contains a "contingency phasing" that would allow an
initial 60 dwellings, including 20 units of "low- to moderate-income housing," even if no
additional water becomes available. This proposal does not fit either the "major
annexation" or "minor annexation" criteria of the current general plan and would require
a change in policy.
Staff believes citywide groundwater will probably be sufficient only to close the gap
between safe yield and existing demand, and possibly to enable development within the
existing city limits. The Dalidio expansion area may contribute enough groundwater, in
conjunction with wastewater re-use, to enable development of that expansion area (see
separate report on the Dalidio specific plan). Development of additional expansion areas
will have to wait for development of other surface sources, such as Salinas Reservoir
expansion, Nacimiento Reservoir delivery system, or the Coastal Branch of the California
Aqueduct, all five to ten years away.
Staff estimates that water demand under the proposed land-use concept would be about 134
acre-feet per year (AFY). Staff has suggested a dual piping system within the expansion
area, so treated wastewater could be used for park and landscape irrigation. If treated
wastewater was used for irrigation and toilet-flushing (perhaps 60 percent of total
demand) and if development included "state-of-the-art" indoor water-saving features,
potable water demand could probably be reduced to about 54 AFY.
Although development cannot proceed without water, planning for the eventual use of the
land can begin now. Preparation of the EIR and adoption of the specific plan will
probably take several years. Meanwhile, the city is pursuing additional water sources.
It must be clear, however, that development is contingent on actually obtaining adequate
additional water supplies.
Growth rate
How should the area's rate of development be made consistent with citywide
growth-management policies?
RRM proposes a six-year build-out, assuming water is available, with the area being
exempt from any citywide residential controls.
s
1101111111111011city of San lues OBISpo
AD
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Margarita concept review
Page 5
In the general plan update, staff has been working out a thirty-year schedule for all
major residential expansion areas that would allow, for an expanded version of this
expansion area, a 20-year build-out. This area would have from 12 to 21 percent of
citywide housing growth during the four five-year intervals when it would be under
development. Allowed development would accumulate at five-year intervals, with up to 250
dwellings in each of the first and second intervals. (This schedule assumes that housing
would grow at about 1.3 percent per year during the 1990's, rather than the one percent
per year called for by the current Land Use Element, and that the Margarita area would be
one of the first to develop.)
Affordable housing
How much of the new housing should be affordable to low- and moderate-income people, or
suitable for handicapped residents or group housing?
The Housing Element says about one-half of new housing should be for owners and one-half
for renters, the current split. It says expansion areas should include sites suitable
for housing that would be affordable to certain numbers of people in certain income
ranges, which were based on a state-mandated "housing needs plan." The state plan
favored those at the extremes of the income range: "very low" and "above moderate." The
element also says expansion-area developers should actually provide dwellings affordable
to certain residents in certain income ranges,_favoring the middle-income range but also
accommodating what staff and the City Council saw as practical numbers of low-income
residents.
The Housing Element talks in general terms about accommodating the wide range of
household types wanting to live in the city, but does not set targets for numbers of
sites or dwellings for handicapped residents or for such group housing as fraternities,
half-way houses, or homeless shelters.
The draft specific-plan map shows residential densities that could be developed
half-and-half with owner and rental units, though the actual mix could easily be as
skewed as 90 percent owner occupied (if the mobile home park spaces are sold and all the
multifamily land except the proposed Housing Authority site is developed with
condominiums). Market forces seem to be favoring construction for owners. RRM has
proposed making sites available for some low-income housing and some production of modest
housing, but no minimum amounts for renters, handicapped, or for group living.
In drafting policies for all expansion areas, staff has considered requiring some
for-sale units that would be affordable to low-income residents. Overall, the policies
would result in a larger share of affordable housing than proposed by RRM, but less than
now called for by the Housing Element. Staff has also considered requirements for a
small share of residential potential to be set aside for handicapped and group-housing
sites.
I
A summary of the different standards follows.
city of san tins oBispo
ONGs COUNCIL AGENOA REPORT
Margarita concept review
Page 6
Income Catesory Number of dwellings to be produced according to ...
Housins Element. RRM Pr000sal Draft General Plan revision
RRM area Garcia Ranch incl.
Assumed Total Units: 500 480 500 800
Low (less than 80% 75 16 50 80
of county median)
Moderate (81 - 120% 250 125 100 160
of county median)
Airport influence
How will airport operations affect development of the area?
According to preliminary comments from the airport manager, some of the area shown for
mobile-home park development may not be suitable for residential use, while the rest of
the expansion area is suitable for residential development with avigation easements and
noise mitigation. The airport manager also raised the possibility of new development
"retrofitting" existing houses in noise-prone areas to reduce indoor noise exposure.
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
Planning Commissioners discussed this proposal at their January 5 study session.
Commissioners were concerned about the city considering proposals for this major
expansion area before adequate water supplies are programmed. Staff plans to return to
the commission for additional discussion in a few weeks.
NEXT STEPS
The Planning Commission will have another opportunity to send general comments to the
council. Once the council endorses planning principles and the environmental workscope,
a draft environmental impact report (EIR) will be prepared and circulated for public
review. Also, a draft specific plan will be published. After these documents have been
available to the public for a sufficient time, the Planning Commission will hold public
hearings on the specific plan and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City
Council would then hold public hearings before certifying the EIR and adopting the
specific plan. This whole process will probably require about two years.
Attachments: Vicinity map
Draft planning principles
Concept map
Draft EIR workscope i
gm7:marg-cc
VICINITY MAP
POTENTIAL MARGARITA EXPANSION AREA
7—= Possible street extension residential •'"� open space
JLJ �u LA
1 s -:ui Tmm1 J ,c
I � r ♦ CLAM
tt \ d
I
L � '
YP `� L YN
) b
S10M[Rtout
LwrA
t
f
�r �r ►. Y .r/r. _t ► u
VIE
........ • .
•.............
...........
..•�+`Y"r .tea •�♦ I 'i^ (�O
.... ......... .....__.................. .rt r M •n
..................
..................
v _ _
..................... .:::.. ^
ILIC
..rr.. ylw.... :.:::.................. .
........ •lir:' d�Af.'L�:..... . ..............
................................................. ...."::. .....
................................................. :.::. :.':::::':'::::.. .................... ...
................................................ .. .... ....... .r
...................�.....:::::::::::.\.1'••..:....:::••"::.. :.....�.�. .:....•::'icy
................. .............................................•••................
.............................. ............... ............................
................... ...�..�::.... ........ ... ::: •• :rte. y.�.
.......... .......................I...............:::�
..... ............................................ Y
...............
"RRM planning area" .'..':..^ .r '.`.
.. %`.tt. I 1 Ir.J1'�.+r J�.:�.iM, •r�`��""�"L:�.r�+�"' �..".y'►i,
.ice.• ty�- •'./.. /,A�I�� Y ^'� �y .tVy/�-. A. I. 4 :+. .Il llr
... .. �. _ : '. 1 �!ter��ryJ4 .r. a�J► /r�•..+r.'�y;,,r-.r�" r Jr r
.-:w::!?a.i.�':�,. "' ti .. _ ^.�,W /� J�� IL r �+..a �' I+r'r",�. ;v. :+Y �M r^' 1♦t�
�:,�ti♦4:;�t`..'. .. .t Jr. ?�!\ `r 1r. �t r"-;arM r..,.Y, It..w •wpY�
" ;•T'y; :r" "Garcia Ranch extension"
i
MARGARITA AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
PLANNING PRINCIPLES
1. The rate of development in the specific plan area, in combination with anticipated
development elsewhere in the city, should be consistent with citywide growth
policies.
2. Some of the new housing should be and remain affordable to low- and moderate-income
residents (see "Affordable Housing" below).
3. The hills should be kept open and be accessible to hikers.
4. The area should provide its own neighborhood park.
5. The circulation system should provide convenient and pleasant bicycle and walking
access.
6. The road system should accommodate expansion to the east while avoiding through
traffic on local residential streets.
7. Adequate utilities and services should be available at the time of development. An
initial phase of housing affordable to low- and moderate-income residents may be
annexed and developed even if citywide water supplies are not sufficient'for
citywide development potential, so long as the reserve for affordable housing under
the Water Allocation Regulations is available for use in that phase.
8. There should be a dual water system to allow use of treated wastewater or on-site
groundwater, or both, for non-potable uses.
9. Airport noise exposure should be mitigated through construction techniques and
avigation easements should be granted.
10. Landscaping should employ low-water-use plants and irrigation systems.
LAND-USE CONCEPTS
Residential
The area should contain a range of housing types:
Low-density: Detached houses on lots ranging from 4,000 to 6,000 square feet; average
net density of 8 dwellings per acre; some small lots would include floor-area limits to
assure their use for modest-sized dwellings (see affordability section below).
Medium-density: Zero-lot-line houses on small lots (3,200 sq. ft.), and a mobile-home
park.
Medium-high-density: Apartments and "townhouse" condominiums.
Margarita principles
Page 2
Open Space.
Hills: To be kept open above the 15-percent slope break, generally 200 to 225 feet
elevation.
Neighborhood park: A six-acre park to serve the existing and new Margarita
neighborhoods.
CIRCULATION CONCEPTS
A. Prado Road is to be extended as an arterial street with a landscaped median; no
parking; limited driveway access.
B. Development is to contribute to cost of Highway 101-Prado overcrossing and
interchange.
C. Margarita Avenue is to be extended as a collector with a landscaped median,
eventually to connect with Prado Road to the east; no parking; limited driveway
access.
D. Other public streets to be residential locals, with driveways and curbside parking.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING CONCEPTS
A. Housing Authority is to be given a first right-of-refusal to purchase at appraised
value enough land for five percent of total dwellings.
B. Developer to construct and help arrange buyer-qualification and resale-control
program for:
Five percent of dwellings: price limit = 2 X countwide median family income;
Ten percent of dwellings: price limit = 3 X countwide median family income;
Ten percent of dwellings: price limit = 4 X countwide median family income;
With City Council approval, the area could substitute rental housing (minimum
ten-year availability), group housing, or lifecare facilities equivalent to
one-half the number of dwellings called for by this schedule.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT/PHASING CONCEPTS
A. Housing construction should be consistent with the general plan Land Use Element.
B. Hillside open space should be dedicated in fee in the initial phase; neighborhood
park to be dedicated and improved before one-third of development is complete.
LAND-USE SUMMARY
Land Use Category Area Dwellings Residents
(acres)
Proposed "RRM planning area"
Low-density residential 35 230 580
Medium-dens. resid. 18 170 420
Med.-high dens. resid. 6 80 180
Residential total 59 480 1,180
Open space & park 80
Streets 11
TOTAL 150
Potential "Garcia Ranch extension"
Low-density residential 45 260 730
Medium-dens. resid. 5 60 130
Residential total 50 320 860
Open space 148
Streets 12
TOTAL 210
OVERALL TOTAL 360 800 1,980
gm7/marg-prn
On 5 u
I
-C w z
0
CR "t, L�- <
<
> Q
� =
Ru z
<
r• N <
V Z 0
'Z I
I.I..1
OCN OC 0 od 7A Ck 7n OG OC Q Ck <
CL
LU
.0
� -�' a � ' � •�� ��, it .`': ,�.J-
-Z
PL4
4 I
-7-
rw
MARGARITA SPECIFIC PLAN EIR
PRELIMINARY WORK SCOPE
The EIR should answer the following questions:
1. Are any areas of the site proposed for development unsuitable due to soil or
geologic conditions? Would any measures needed to overcome geologic problems have
secondary impacts?
2. Will development of the area compromise the city's ability to provide adequate
utilities and services, particularly water, to the rest of the city? What measures
would most effectively relate allowed development to desired levels of service?
3. Will development reduce air quality?
4. What plants and wildlife will be harmed by the project?
5. What will be the traffic conditions on nearby roads, considering project traffic in
relation to road capacity and expected regional traffic?
A. Specifically, what will be the impact on these intersections:
South Higuera at Margarita, Prado, Madonna-South Street, and Los Osos
Valley Road; —
Prado Road at Highway 101.
B. What would be an equitable contribution to the costs of extending Prado Road
over Highway 101 and east to Highway 227?
6. Are any proposed residential areas unsuitable for residential use due to airport
operations? What measures would reduce undesirable effects of aircraft operations?
7. Will the project disrupt any historical or archaeological resources? How should
such resources which may exist on the site best be protected?
8. Will the high-voltage power lines harm residents?
9. Is the proposed flood mitigation adequate?
10. Is the proposed road-traffic noise mitigation adequate?
11. Will the project harm views of the hills?
12. Considering likely grading operations and typical construction traffic, will
development of the project substantially harm the health or safety of neighboring
residents?
gml/marg-eir