Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/05/1989, 2 - PLANNING CONCEPTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FOR THE MARGARITA EXPANSION AREA, EAST OF MARGARITA AVEN I�uIIII �_ "'"�IIIIII�I�I�III "J MEETING DATE: Ci'�/ of San LUSS Og,sPO Dec. 5, 1989 COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER: FROM: Randy Rossi, Interim Community Development Director BY: Glen Matteson, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Planning concepts and environmental review for the Margarita expansion area, east of Margarita Avenue (SP 14041 GP/R 1403) . ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER'S SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION Give staff direction on the planning parameters and basic features of a specific plan, and the scope of an environmental impact report. SUMMARY DISCUSSION A planning consultant representing some of the Margarita expansion area's property owners has asked the city to amend its general plan and adopt a specific plan for the area (following vicinity map) . These actions would be steps toward eventual annexation and development. A "specific plan" 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 public facilities on and off the site. This proposal was presented to the council in February as an information item, with no action requested. Tonight's item is an opportunity for the council to give direction on basic questions about development of the area before staff does more work on preparing a draft plan .for public hearings and contracts for environmental studies. Completion of a draft specific plan and draft EIR would probably require about six months, with another roughly nine months for public review and hearings, based on previous experience with specific plans. If the City Council believes consideration of the specific plan is premature, further action will be postponed. If further consideration is postponed, the council should say under what conditions it would be resumed. The Planning Commission has conducted a public hearing and forwarded comments on the proposal. These major issues have been identified: timeliness of the proposal, considering the city's water and sewer service capacity; growth rate; affordable housing; neighborhood character; neighborhood park space, location, and design; drainage and flooding; construction and resident traffic; emergency-vehicle and bus access; airport noise and safety; hillside open-space protection; wildlife habitat; power line safety. � ��IIII�Ip�q�p► city pf san tuts osispo NNIMN COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS The proposal involves many potentially significant impacts on the environment, public services, and city finances. Staff thinks that trying to quantify these impacts now would be premature, but believes that none are so severe or so far beyond feasible mitigation that they should prevent continued planning efforts at a deliberate pace. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT TARING THE RECOMMENDED ACTION There is no urgency in giving the requested direction. However, if the city does not start to plan for development of the expansion areas there may be a rush to plan several areas at once, when adequate water and sewer service capacity are imminent. Also, construction of modest housing to keep pace with increasing employment and college enrollment might be delayed. � IIII��II��(�I�p lll�ll� city of San LUIS OBISpo i COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT REPORT ORGANIZATION Below is an outline of this report. The issues under "Evaluation" are ordered so that the most fundamental questions can be answered first. Also, discussion of design issues at this time would be unnecessary if the council decides consideration is not timely or the basic approach is flawed. OUTLINE Page Background Data Summary 4 Situation 4 Site Description 6 Planning History 6 Project Summary 7 Evaluation 1. Timeliness/commitment 8 A. Utility capacity 8 B. Policy commitment 8 C. General plan update 9 2. Planning area boundaries 9 3. Open space protection / parks 9 A. Basic land-use choice 10 B. Hilltop development 10 C. Hillside development 10 D. Neighborhood park it E. Wetlands 11 4. .Density & neighborhood character 12 5. Mixed use/service convenience 12 6. Growth rate 13 7. Transportation A. Pedestrian & bikes 14 B. Traffic circulation 14 C. Transit 15 D. Emergency access 15 S. Affordable housing 15 9. Water service for housing 16 10. Overall water demand 17 11. Drainage & flooding 17 12. Energy conservation & solar 18 13. Air quality 18 14. Airport relationship 18 15. Schools 18 16. Responsibility for preparation 19 Other Department Comments 19 Citizen Participation 20 Alternatives 20 Staff Recommendation 21 I 3 .2'3 QW11,W11$ city of san tuis oBispo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT BACKGROUND Data Summary Owners: "Margarita Riviera" area: J. E. Ring, et. al. ; Sierra Gardens of S. L. O. Limited; L. J. Martinelli, trustee, et. al. ; Damon/Garcia Ranch area: D. Garcia, et. al. ; I. Brughelli, trustee, et. al. Representatives: RRM Design Group ("Margarita Riviera" area) Terry Simons (Damon/Garcia Ranch area) Land Use Element map: interim conservation/open space; conservation/open space; rural industrial Environmental status: Environmental impact report (EIR) to be prepared. Action deadline: None for general-plan amendment or specific- plan adoption. Situation In September 1988, a planning consultant representing some of the Margarita expansion area's property owners proposed that the city amend its general plan and adopt a specific plan for the area. These would be steps toward eventual annexation and development. A "specific plan" 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. The proposal was introduced to the council and the Planning Commission in January and February. This early review is an opportunity for the council to give direction on basic questions about development of the area before staff does more work on preparing a draft plan for public hearings and contracts for detailed environmental studies. If the City Council believes consideration of the specific plan is premature, further action will be postponed. The Planning Commission has conducted a public hearing and forwarded comments on the proposal. These major issues have been identified: timeliness of the proposal, considering the city's water and sewer service capacity; growth rate; affordable housing; neighborhood character; neighborhood park space, location, and design; drainage and flooding; construction and resident traffic; emergency-vehicle and bus access; airport noise and safety; hillside open-space protection; wildlife habitat; powerline safety. 4 -/� dmWjIRIIpij�,$ city of San tuts OBISpo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Margarita concept review VICINITY MAP iL3 ,_x All . ElW2W,214 \` 1 1 lYY[ f:t J OYN \.fi / Z. ;r by 3TONERIo6E OR i 7 r r /�r .r• t N 1 r,,,..1 .•.r Wr .., � • HA ^'•.r. .'�'� J�•� � Y �\ MWWftRVkNffeA .•••. a .+.r r 7jV \ I ` rCYTi 7 1 is�:�S'•:;•:::�:• rte\ r '^^ .�.� U SN CRIVE 1 :: ':;}::•':• ':•}:?r •:•:'?:: r ,r�r QI 1 ::fir•.?:?{:; ::�'???;•':s�:'.;:: r~,:••^,.��' f �-1• \• ��w\4 LVIPITA OLIO - j O ,fir•::�:? }:� :;� xr."',jr 11 r y,r.ti .►"a►•"` /�,�,r \ �'�f %'�►4 .. t'� Y .YCt,Ri T• r u : '•!J:'J:: .?'}Ji:�: �:':• ~'•�y� Jar J�1 �,r +\w.�JW.� \ 4%�• IN • .. '� :'�:??'???�::?'•.`'•• : :•:• ••'•'••:';•: rY r~^nom^rr .� x. �' � i:;:# tib. :°:•:,�:• ; ( 3d8R3'Idl2M = 1 %tiff.?•:•.:::: :�ti:•:�::vy.y}:;'?,syl,�, .:•. MNL I► •� �'^� , Laid ' W' D •• W,Y����E�� r �r•ems �„� � �'- ,y� Ramat EG7 F :SNER LN 41�MOW IIIIII11011p city of san tuis osispo =ONNGs COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT The proposal was introduced to the City Council on January 31. The council did not express a consensus, but discussed issues of resource adequacy and neighborhood design. The council may identify desired features that have been overlooked and note aspects which may not be acceptable. The council may also suggest topics for the environmental study (draft workscope attached) . RRM has submitted a draft specific plan (distributed previously) , which includes much description of current conditions and justification for their proposal. The applicant has revised the proposal since the Planning Commission hearing. Staff recommends that council provide policy direction, which would be reflected in a document with a format similar to adopted specific plans. This new draft specific plan would be evaluated in an EIR and presented for public hearings. Site Description The site shown in the applicant's proposal contains about 151 acres, including much of the South Street Hills and gently sloping land to the south. The expansion area shown in the currently adopted general plan Land Use Element extends a little farther to the east than the applicant's property, and includes part of the Garcia ranch (vicinity map) . The draft Airport Area. Specific Plan and the draft Land Use Element update (July 1989 map) show a further extension to the east, including more of the Garcia ranch. 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 along the Margarita Avenue alignment. The area is bordered by the northern slopes of the South Street Hills, single-family housing tracts, mobile home parks, industrial uses, and vacant land. 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 was shown as medium-density residential in the .1972 plan, and as open space and rural-industrial in the 1977 plan. According to the current i Land Use Element, adopted in 1977: 6 _� ���►�►i�lllllll�� ���ll city of San Luis OBlspo RIM COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT The hills should remain undeveloped, consistent with the Hillside Planning Program's development limit line; This is a "major expansion area, " which should be kept in agricultural use until urban development is appropriate; No part of 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 as well as to all. 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. 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. The draft Airport Area Specific Plan suggests a residential development spanning the area shown in the RRM proposal plus the Garcia Ranch, and including about 750 dwellings. Project Summary RRM has asked that the city change its general plan Land Use Element map for the expansion area from interim open space to various residential densities. The RRM proposal shows about 78 acres of residential development (including streets) , accommodating about 490 dwellings. Densities range from less than one to about 16 dwellings per net acre (development site, excluding streets) . Seventy-three acres would be open space, including most of the hill, a narrow flood- water detention basin, and a five-acre neighborhood park, part of which would also serve as a drainage detention basin. RRM proposes phased development, to be completed six years after starting. The attached conceptual map was prepared by RRM Design Group, while the planning principles were drafted by staff with advice from the Planning Commission. (RRM's bound report was distributed previously.) Evaluation Following are the main topics which should be addressed before the specific plan proceeds. For each topic, we note points of view expressed during the Planning Commission hearing. 7 -� 1111111,0111 I city of san tuis 0131spo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT 1. Timeliness of consideration / extent of commitment A. Utility capacity Should the city be planning for substantial development, considering the water and sewer situation? The proposal assumes that water service eventually will be provided by the city, as its sources are supplemented. The city does not have sufficient, reliable water supplies to serve existing customers; the proposed expansion area cannot provide enough groundwater for urban development. The city wastewater treatment plant hydraulic capacity is sufficient for development of the area, though the level of treatment does not meet state standards. Also, full development of the area could use up treatment plant capacity before all potential development in the existing city limits occurs. . In the Water and Wastewater Element of the general plan, the city has made a policy commitment to providing services sufficient for development within the urban reserve over the next 25 years, including this area. Prospective water sources have been identified, though none sufficient for full development of the urban reserve have been secured or approved. Expansion of the wastewater treatment plant capacity has been proposed in the adopted Wastewater Management Plan. Staff thinks that although development of the area should not proceed without adequate water and sewer service, planning for the eventual development of the land can begin now. B. Policy commitment Would proceeding with a specific plan make it hard to reject or change the proposal in the future? Authorizing staff to proceed with work on the specific plan and EIR does not commit the city to adopting the plan by a certain date or in a certain form, or at all. Also, even if the specific plan was adopted today, the commitment to development of the area would be only that which is spelled out in the plan, which can be tied to availability of resources, an earliest start date, and maximum growth rates. Some planning commissioners were concerned that a plan adopted soon might be inappropriate by the time development could ` actually occur, possibly five years or longer from now, depending on water sources and wastewater treatment capacity. Staff would note that the specific plan could include an expiration or p 8 '0 MY Of San LUIS OBISPO NiiN COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT comprehensive review date. Also, at any time, the city may initiate an amendment or consider anyone's proposal for an amendment. C. Relationship to general plan update Is it timely to consider a specific plan for this area before the general plan update is completed? on one hand, the general plan update may set new policies for development of the expansion areas. On the other hand, those policies could be worked out with this area as a model. The RRM proposal is not consistent with several features of the existing plan, though the overall concept is close. The city faces several other proposals for expansion at its edges, with varying degrees of conformity with the current general plan. Considering the many valid approaches to resolving the issues which have been raised, staff sees the timing of specific-plan consideration in relation to the general-plan update as a judgment to be made by the council. There is no harm either in proceeding or in waiting. 2. Planning area boundaries Assuming that further consideration is timely, 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? RRM's planning area boundary does not go quite as far east as the expansion area shown in the city's current general plan Land Use Element. In working on the airport area specific plan, the city and county have considered enlarging this expansion area further 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 by city staff to draft the general plan update, would be 750 to 800 dwellings. Staff thinks some items, such as basic circulation, should be designed for the whole area. However, separate but coordinated specific plans could be prepared for the "Margarita Riviera" area and the "Garcia Ranch" area. 3. Open space protection / parks I RRM's proposal shows permanent open space protection for most of the hill within the planning area, as a tradeoff for development on a saddle of the hill and on the gently sloping ground. q 9 j. / CIt/ Of San IUIS OBISpo COUNCIL AGENOA REPORT A. Basic land-use choice After looking at RRM's proposal, while considering the Land Use Element update, the Planning Commission tentatively endorsed a Policy calling for .protection of prime agricultural land around the city; the commission has not yet considered applying this Policy to the draft land use map. Most of the gently sloping soils north and east of Margarita Avenue are designated "prime" or "of statewide importance" by the California Department of Conservation, though they are not irrigated or cultivated. If the city prefers to keep the whole expansion area 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 or transfer of development potential. If the area is to be kept open and the currently planned citywide housing capacity is to be maintained, the residential potential of this area would have to be established somewhere else. Most likely, the relocated residential capacity would have to be in an expansion of the urban reserve 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. B. Hilltop development The proposal for houses in the saddle clearly conflicts with the hillside planning section of the general plan. Houses in the saddle would be remote from water and emergency services, require grading of an access road, and would reduce the visual and habitat qualities of the area. 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. C. Hillside development The Planning Commission was concerned with how far up the hillside lot lines or grading for houses could go and still be consistent with hillside planning policies. After reviewing the discussion of the Margarita area in the Land Use element, the larger scale hillside planning maps, and Exhibits 8 and 10 of the "Margarita Riviera" draft, staff believes the proposed lots on the northern and northeastern edges of the residential area substantially comply. A more refined determination would be made after adoption of the specific plan, when tract maps are submitted. However, the draft specific plan does not appear to build in a conflict that might require future adjustments in street or lot location. 10 — cot .l® u�illllli�liOffis�q�llll MY of san 1U1S osIspo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT D. Neighborhood park The Margarita area does not h7ave neighborhood park. The city's Parks and Recreation Element says it should, and that providing new neighborhood parks in areas lacking them is the city's highest park-development priority. The park should be eight to nine acres, based on an eventual population of 3,000 for the whole area and a standard of 2.5 acres of neighborhood park per 1000 people living within the park's service area. The proposed park is five acres, which would meet the standard for the area excluding the potential Garcia ranch development. According to the Parks and Recreation Element, credit is to be given for accessible "passive use" open space, which can include hillsides and hill tops. While most of the hills would not be within the defined boundaries of the neighborhood park, they would be dedicated to the city. Staff believes the amount of neighborhood parkland and other open space meets the intent of the general plan. At the Planning Commission hearing, the location and accessibility of the park were questioned. Some thought the park should have more street frontage, rather than being bordered by houses. RRM's revised plan shows a different location for the park, within the neighborhood rather than at its edge. Some neighborhood residents thought having a restroom or a baseball field in the park would attract users not living in the neighborhood. Staff thinks neighborhood parks can be used by other than neighborhood residents without reducing their enjoyment for those living in the area, and that a restroom should be available. Staff does not support or oppose a ball field; if one is provided, we would not want lighting, scoreboard, or bleachers that would lead to levels of activity which would be incompatible with the neighborhood. (See also Parks and Recreation Commission comments, page 20.) E. Wetlands Some relatively small areas near the base of the hills had saturated soils, even in this spring following three dry years, and plants and birds that might indicate wetlands habitat. The habitat appears to have been degraded by intensive livestock use. Staff has not determined whether these areas fit the criteria for wetlands used by state and federal agencies. If they do meet the criteria for wetlands, protection or replacement may be required. The EIR will answer this question, though an earlier answer could help avoid redesign. I 40%11pwlgj city of san tins owspo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT 4. Density and neighborhood character The Land Use Element says the number of dwellings allowed in expansion areas should be based on low-density residential capacity --a maximum of seven dwellings per net acre-- with a range of housing types to meet the demands of various income levels. The Housing Element says this expansion area should accommodate about 500 dwellings; RRM proposes 488. However, the expansion area identified in the Land Use Element is about one- third larger than that shown in RRM's proposal. The general plan's estimates of development potential are based on an expansion area of about 100 acres, of which 70 percent would actually be developed with housing, at an average density of seven dwellings per acre. RRM's draft specific plan reflects about 71 acres of land (excluding the one-acre hilltop lots) , of which 82 percent would be developed at an average density of about eight dwellings per acre. In staff's view, the overall. density substantially conforms with the general plan, and a higher number of dwellings is an acceptable result of a street system more efficient than that assumed in the general plan. This basic general-plan conformity issue cannot be ignored, but. the policy is subject to interpretation and amendment. Perhaps a more pertinent question is, "Are the type and arrangement of development types acceptable?" In a specific plan, rather than an abstract concept of density, "what you see is what you get." The proposed range of densities is similar to that found in neighboring development, which includes houses, apartments, mobile-home parks, detached condominiums (Villa Fontana) , and attached condominiums. Also, the area would provide a housing type (zero-lot line) not currently available. In principle, staff supports a wide range of compact residential development, for efficiency of land and energy use. However, two compatibility issues have been noted: multifamily or small-.lot development reducing the value of existing, detached houses; large houses with scale and overlook problems being built on small lots, where more modest houses were anticipated (as in the Stoneridge area) . RRM's "Margarita Riviera" document noted setbacks and coverage limits about equal to conventional zoning, but no additional height or floor-area standards. Staff would be more comfortable with height or building floor-area limits, or both, to assure that the dwellings remain modest (in cost and neighborliness) , particularly for those lots adjacent to the existing houses. 5. Mixed-use and convenience of services The Planning Commission has been discussing the desirability of mixed-use neighborhoods, and the appropriate scale and type of nonresidential uses to serve residents. The South Higuera area 12 044•1 111111111111111! city of san Luis ompo MM COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT lacks a neighborhood commercial center (anchored by a supermarket) though it has several strip commercial centers. The southeast corners of the Higuera-Prado and the Higuera Margarita intersections would have been logical places for neighborhood centers, but other types of development have already been approved. Extension of Prado Road will eventually give residents access to the Madonna Road Plaza and South Broad (Williams Brothers) centers, and there is still space for small convenience stores along South Higuera. Staff does not support including substantial retail uses within the residential expansion area, since they would attract traffic from outside the area. However, a neighborhood center could be designated along the extension of Prado Road, in an area otherwise shown for commercial or industrial use in the proposed airport area plan. The council has asked that space for a commercial center for this neighborhood be addressed in the Land Use Element update. 6. Growth rate How should the area's rate of development be made consistent with citywide growth-management policies? There are a number of approaches. RRM proposes a six-year build-out, assuming water is available, with the area being exempt from any citywide residential growth controls. If this was the only area under development, this approach would result in a residential growth rate of about one- half percent. However, development in the existing city limits, minor expansion areas, and other major expansion areas may be occurring at the same time. RRM's phasing proposal would probably be inconsistent with existing and proposed general plan growth policies, if other areas are under development. In the general plan update, staff has worked out a possible thirty-year schedule for all major residential expansion areas that would allow, for the enlarged 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. Staff's recommended 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 expansion areas to develop. (Staff's proposed schedule would result in an overall, citywide housing growth rate slightly less than one percent over the 30-year planning period. ) I In reviewing the general plan update, the Planning Commission has favored strict adherence to one-percent annual housing growth. That approach would not affect the overall buildout period or the 13 -/ ►�illil( i ill city of san tuns ompo Mi;% COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT proportion of citywide growth taken by this area. The Planning commission also favored a logical sequence for development of the expansion areas, but has not recommended an order. If that approach is carried out, this area's proportion of citywide development would vary significantly during from the beginning to the end of the citywide buildout period. 7. Transportation A. Pedestrians and bikes This area could provide many opportunities for walking and bicycling, as alternatives to cars for recreation and commuting. RRM's proposal recognizes these opportunities to the north and east, but is not explicit toward the south. Staff and the Planning Commission, in discussing the Circulation Element update, agreed on the desirability of pedestrian/bike connections to the recreational and employment facilities contemplated for the airport area. These might even include grade-separated paths across the arterial Prado Road. Staff and several commissioners favored pathways allowing residents of the existing mobile home parks and Villa Fontana to walk to the park without using major streets. Staff would urge the developer and the neighboring owners to work out pathways to allow this. This approach would help each development feel more like part of a continuous neighborhood, rather than a walled enclave. B. Traffic circulation The circulation layout is generally good, allowing convenient access while avoiding through traffic on local residential streets. RRM's revised plan shows a full street connection to an extension of Prado Road, providing a route in addition to Margarita Avenue. This will address several staff and neighborhood concerns on emergency access and neighborhood traffic impacts. Suggestions for further improving accessibility are: Rather than using cul-de-sacs, extend one or more streets parallel to Margarita Avenue to the east (as stub streets in this development) ; Extend the first street east of Calle Jazmin to Margarita Avenue; Provide at least pedestrian and emergency-vehicle access to the mobile home park site from the north; 14 _ 41111 111l p11Ail 11il city Of San SUS OBISPO COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Provide a pedestrian path from the west end of the cul-de- sac south of Margarita Avenue to the path leading north to the park. C. Transit The primary obstacle to providing bus service within the expansion area has been addressed by creating a loop from South Higuera. D. Emergency access The primary obstacle to providing emergency access or an evacuation route for the area if Margarita Avenue was blocked has been addressed by providing an alternate route via Prado Road. 8. 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 adopted 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." That 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 construct dwellings affordable to 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. RRM's 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, though many condominium projects appear to have a high proportion of renters. RRM has proposed making sites available for some low-income housing and some production of modest housing, but no minimum amounts that would actually be produced for low-income occupants or for renters, handicapped, or for group living. 15 -/ 11I1I911pWfcity of San tins OBISPO MIGe COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT In drafting land-use-element update policies for all expansion areas, staff considered requiring some for-sale units that would be affordable to low-income residents. Overall, the new 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 land potential to be set aside for . handicapped and group-housing sites. While we have not achieved the Housing Element's affordability targets, we have not had the opportunity to try in a major expansion area. There is no formula which will give the "right" answer for this issue. It is a matter of judgment, considering market forces, developers' costs, and the added land value conferred by the city in annexing and providing services. The Planning Commission favored staying with the Housing Element targets until this topic is further examined as part of the general plan update. Here is a summary of the different standards: Income Category Number of dwellings to be produced according to Housing Element RRM Pronosal 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) Above moderate 175 339 350 560 9. Water service for affordable-housing phase The draft specific plan proposes that an initial phase encompassing affordable housing be annexed and become eligible for any available water allocation, before the city has enough water to serve existing and potential development within the current city limits plus this whole expansion area. Now, the general plan says not to do this. In the general-plan update, staff has considered a policy which would be more open for such annexations for affordable housing, but which would be coupled with a tighter policy than now in effect to assure that development does not cause safe yield to be exceeded. 16 �•� �� ��►illlll�lp ��lil city of San Luis osispo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT The applicant has not requested a change to the current policy concerning the whole expansion area. The draft plan assumes that someday adequate water will be available. However, the draft plan does contain a "contingency phasing" that would allow an initial 60 dwellings, including 20 units of "low- to moderate- income housing," to be built even if no additional water becomes available. This 60-unit proposal does not fit either the "major annexation" or "minor annexation" criteria of the current general plan and would require a change in policy. 10. Overall water demand Recent council actions on water allocation policy will prevent development of this area until normal demand and safe yield are in balance. The broader question, being addressed in the Land Use Element update, is whether an expansion area can develop before the city has enough water for all potential development within its limits, plus the expansion area. The Dalidio expansion area may contribute enough groundwater to enable development of that area. Development of additional major expansion areas probably will have to wait for development of other surface water 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 total water demand under the proposed land- use concept would be about 130 acre-feet per year (AFY) . Staff has suggested a dual piping system within the expansion area, so treated wastewater from the city's plant could be used for non-potable uses. Use of treated wastewater for yard irrigation is probably not feasible, considering the level of treatment needed for water likely to come in contact with or to be consumed by people. However, if treated wastewater was used for park and parkway irrigation and toilet-flushing, and if the development included "xeriscaping" and "state-of-the-art" indoor water-saving features, potable water demand could probably be reduced to about 70 AFY. 11. Drainage and flooding The overall approach of collecting and detaining storm drainage appears acceptable, though specific designs must be refined, and there may be opportunities for off-site detention (and groundwater recharge) in open space portions of the airport specific plan area. Development of this expansion area can correct some. existing flooding problems at the edges of the existing development. 17 �?-/ 411f.W11111 city of san tuts o61sp0 COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT 12. Energy conservation and solar opportunities The compactness of the new development, location on south-facing slopes, and north-south orientation of the long dimension of most of the small lots will all help with energy conservation and solar opportunities. 13. Air quality More development will not make the city's or the region's air quality better than it is now. Overall, more development will impede efforts to attain the air quality standards that we do not meet. However, failing to provide housing for additional workers and students in San Luis Obispo, even at reduced rates of growth, would result in more air pollution from school and job commuters than if the workers and students had the opportunity to live closer to their destinations. To the extent that people relocate to this area for retirement or for home-based occupations, providing more housing will add to the number of pollution sources. Staff hopes to have a more thorough evaluation of these issue as part of the general plan update. Specific plan features which could address air quality concerns include bus routes and stops, pedestrian and bicycle paths, day care facilities, and solar energy use. 14. Airport relationship This area is subject to noise from overflying aircraft as well as aircraft warm-ups and maintenance at the airport. According to preliminary information for an updated airport plan, most or all of the site would be acceptable for residential use, with mitigation of ,indoor noise levels and avigation easements to protect the airport from nuisance complaints. Councilmembers and Planning Commissioners have expressed concern about outdoor noise exposure. Staff expects this issue to be addressed in the EIR. 15. Schools Development of the area will add substantial elementary school enrollment. The school district has not requested a site in this area. Options for increasing school capacity to serve this area include additional classroom space at Los Ranchos or Hawthorne schools, reopening Emerson School, or building a new school in the Dalidio area (a site was requested, and incorporated in the latest version of the draft Dalidio Specific Plan) . 18 .A? 6911,1IIIIIi�PnR IU city of san Luis o131spo Guam COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT 16. Responsibility for preparation So far, the draft specific plan has been the product of private consultants working for some of the owners of property within the expansion area. Ultimately, the specific plan will be the city's document. There are a number of ways to proceed: A. Have RRM revise the draft in line with council direction, and provide or supervise development of any additional information which is needed. B. Have staff produce the revised draft, with consultant assistance as needed. Options include informal cooperation with RRM, or working under a consultant services agreement with RRM or another firm or firms selected by the city. If the property owners were not willing to fund such an arrangement, the city could "advance" the cost of preparing the specific plan, and recover the cost through fees to be paid by future development in the specific plan area. C. Turn the .whole preparation effort over to a consultant, under formal city contract. Considering our experience with the South Street, Higuera Commerce Park, and Edna-Islay specific plans, staff would prefer option B, having authority for the future drafts with technical help from consultants, including RRM. How the Garcia Ranch owners want to be involved will influence this decision. Also, no matter how the specific plan is prepared, the EIR will be done under city supervision by an independent consultant having no connection with the owners or representatives, with the cost born by the applicants. (If the general plan update occurs ahead of further specific-plan consideration, the EIR for the update could cover most of the areawide and cumulative impacts of developing this expansion area. ) OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS The Fire Department is concerned that expansion areas mitigate the need for additional fire protection services. For this area, the Fire Department recommends sprinklers for all new buildings, and adequate alternate access. These recommendations area reflected in the draft "planning principles." The Transit Manager recommends that the street system provide a loop route, on other than local residential streets, for bus service. As details are refined, bus pull-outs, shelters, and benches should be indicated. 19 gmlv �� lldlll city of san tins oBispo Mi;% COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Specific comments provided by other city departments, primarily regarding lot design, drainage, and streets, have been provided (attached) . CITIZEN PARTICIPATION Planning Commission After two study sessions, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 10, and voted four to three to recommend that work on the specific plan continue. The commission also voted unanimously to forward to the council all comments from the hearing. Several neighborhood residents spoke. Planning Commission minutes are attached. Parks and Recreation Commission RRM presented the proposal to the Parks and Recreation Commission on November 1, at that commission's request. The commission expressed several major concerns with the park: 1. Location --the park would better serve the multifamily residential area if it was closer to it. 2. Function - should the park serve just the Margarita Avenue area or the whole South Higuera area? 3._ If the park serves as a staging area for hiking on the hills, parking or other impacts may disrupt the neighborhood. 4. Is the area shown for park facilities suitable, considering slopes and the natural drainage course? 5. To avoid isolation, should the park be on an arterial street (Margarita Avenue) rather than residential side streets (Calle Malva and Calle Jazmin) ? 6. Having streets on three or four sides of the park would make it more open to police observation. ALTERNATIVES The council may give staff direction on any of the issues raised and pose additional issues. The council may continue action. 20 1-.20 ��� ��li►►�uUl�l�lll, in�u►I city of san Luis oBispo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT • STAFF RECOMMENDATION Here is a recap of staff's preferences: 1. Direct staff to continue work on the specific plan, in concert with the general-plan update, but as a lower priority than the general plan update itself. 2. Have staff prepare the draft specific plan, with technical help from consultants as needed. 3. Include the Garcia Ranch area, at least schematically. 4. Have staff determine whether the wet areas on the site are "wetlands" requiring habitat protection or replacement, before refining the draft plan on which the EIR will be done. 5. Endorse the attached planning principles, which would: A. Avoid the hilltop houses. B. Support the basic scheme of densities and lot sizes, but with added height and floor-area controls to assure modest dwellings and neighborhood compatibility. C. Make the area subject to whatever citywide residential growth-rate controls emerge from the general-plan update. D. Extend walking and bicycle paths to the south, to connect with destinations in the.airport area; study the feasibility of grade separation at Prado Road. E. Provide a public street connection from Margarita Avenue to Prado Road (reflected in RRM's revised plan) . F. Have the area meet the affordable housing standards of the adopted Housing Element, or other standards which may emerge from the general-plan update. G. Not make a water-service exception for an early phase including affordable housing. I 21 �'�� IIP° '► �U city of san tins oBispo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Attachments: Draft planning principles Land Use Summary Concept maps: (1) "revised plan;" (2) "original draft" Draft EIR workscope Comments from other departments Planning Commission minutes, 5-10-89 Distributed previously: Draft "Margarita Riviera" specific plan (RRM publication) gmD: marg-cc.vp 22 MARGARITA AREA SPECIFIC PLAN PLANNING PRINCIPLES 1. The specific plan will include basic land-use and circulation concepts for the whole expansion area identified in the Land Use Element. 2. The rate of development in the specific plan area, in combination with anticipated annexation and development elsewhere in the city, will be consistent with the general plan's citywide growth_policies. 3. A substantial share of the new housing will be, and remain, affordable to low- and moderate-income residents, consistent with the Housing Element. 4. The hills will be kept open, consistent with hillside planning policies. They should be accessible to hikers, but activities which would harm wildlife habitat and rare plants should be avoided. 5. The area will have a neighborhood park, accessible to and of sufficient size for the whole Margarita neighborhood. 6. The area will have convenient and pleasant bicycle and walking paths, including connections to surrounding recreation facilities and employment centers. 7. The development will include suitable bus routes and pavement, convenient pedestrian access from dwellings, and lighted shelters from sun, wind,.and rain. 8. An extension of Prado Road will carry through traffic; local streets will provide circulation throughout the expansion area, while discouraging through traffic. 9. A public street connection between Margarita Avenue and Prado Road will be provided with the initial phase of development. 10. Adequate utilities and services will be available at the time of development: water, sewer, trash disposal, streets, transit, fire, police, and schools. 11. There will be a dual water system to allow use of treated wastewater or on-site groundwater, or both, for suitable non-potable uses. 12. Airport noise exposure will be mitigated through construction techniques. 13. Landscaping will employ low-water-use plants and efficient irrigation systems. 14. There will be a range of compact, modest housing forms. Residential density will be about seven dwellings per acre, including residential building sites and the neighborhood park, but excluding dedicated hillsides and streets. 15. Drainage channels will be unlined. 16. The development will contribute to off-site improvements needed to mitigate impacts of the project. 17. Trip reduction programs will be established for the area, coordinated with citywide programs. J-v?3 i LAND-USE SUMMARY .Land Use Category Area Dwellings Residents (acres) Proposed 'Margarita Riviera area' Low-density residential 12 80 250 Medium-dens. resid. 45 380 840 Med.-high dens. resid. 2 20 40 Residential total 59 480 1,130 Open space & park 73 Streets 18 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 Potential entire expansion area Low-density residential 57 340 980 Medium-dens. resid. 50 440 970 Med.-high dens. resid. 2 20 40 Residential total 109 800 1,990 Open space 221 Streets 30 TOTAL 360 gm7:marg-prn a - � f � r v.' w /!j"�� ( r �` �� jef�f'1+,+ `- a 'ter 'r �1!ls •��- .. f J•' t �." '�rp,.�-• �ai,��i `o-E/ +t.'3~i F rpp'// K• 5 t o 5- t W4 (.i Av Ir- tj= c MARGARITA SPECIFIC PLAN EIR PRELIMINARY WORK SCOPE (based on RRM's revised plan) The EIR should answer the following questions. Geoloev and soils 1. Are any areas shown for development unsuitable due to soil or geologic conditions? Would any measures needed to overcome geologic problems,,such as excavation or fill in areas of highly expansive soils, have secondary impacts? Air auality 2. Will development reduce air quality, in comparison with the "no project" alternative? Specifically, will the housing development significantly change vehicle-miles travelled, considering various assumptions about local employment and college enrollment growth and occupancy by retired or home-employed households? 3. What offsets are available, or can be made available, to assure that any added pollution from the project will not delay attainment of air quality standards? Wildlife and habitat 4. Are any of the wet areas near the base of the hills "wetlands" requiring protection or replacement under state or federal policies? 5. Will viable, local populations of any grassland bird or animal species be significantly affected by development? 6. What limitations on use of the open space area are desirable to protect any rare, serpentine-associated plants? 7.. If treated effluent from the city's wastewater treatment plan is diverted from stream disposal to nonpotable uses within the project, what will be the effect on downstream fish and wildlife habitat (and other water users)? Traffic. g. 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 the level of service at 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 west over Highway 101 and east to Highway 227? Should later phases of of the project be contingent on completion of these connections? /j Human health and safety 9. Are any proposed residential areas unsuitable for residential use due to existing or anticipated airport operations? What measures would reduce undesirable effects of aircraft operations? Will there be undesirble effects of outdoor noise exposure, even if such exposure does not exceed the city's adopted noise-exposure standards? 10. Will exposure to the fields of the high-voltage power lines harm residents? 11. Is the proposed road-traffic noise mitigation adequate? 12. Considering likely grading operations and typical construction traffic, will development of the project harm the health or safety of neighboring residents? Archaeological & historical resources 13. Will the project disrupt any historical or archaeological resources? Will the city's standard archaeological mitigation adequately protect them? Dr ina a & flooding 14. Is the proposed mitigation to avoid flooding at the project site and downstream adequate? 15. Will the project mitigate pre-project flooding conditions in the existing, neighboring development? Aesthetics 16. Will the project harm views of the hills from existing streets or developed areas? 17. Will the proposed sound-mitigation walls and setbacks allow views of the hills from the proposed streets? Public utilities and services 18. Will development of this area deplete water or sewer service capacity available to existing city customers or potential development within the existing city limits? Specifically, will sewer lift-station capacity be substantially committed? 19. Will solid waste landfill capacity be sufficient? Should there be mitigation, beyond existing recycling programs? 20. Will school capacity be adequate? City and school district finances 21. Considering facilities actually provided by the developer, will (existing) school district fees and (existing and contemplated) city infrastructure fees compensate for the added capital costs of serving this area? gm7:marg-eir of �a�CJ ��i�lllllllllllllNIIII���� �IIIIIIIIIIIf city of sAn WIS OBISPO 955 Morro Street • San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 December 14, 1988 MEMORANDUM TO: Glen Matteson, Community Development Department FROM: Dave Romero, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Comments Regarding Administrative Draft for Margarita Expansion Area 1. Page 21, Items 3 & 4 I do not believe the subdivision ordinance allows 4,000 square foot lots or 3,200 square foot lots. I believe it is a serious error to allow this size of lots in an area that has substantial slope, part of which approaches hillside standards. There are unending problems occurring with .such densities for individual properties. �` . I believe this is overbuilding at its worst. 2. Page 29, 4.2, eighth line Prado Road is currently paved 64 feet (not 30 feet) curb to curb. 3. Page 30, second paragraph, under B Although I have no objection to the developer proposing to use hillside street standards,' they should be applied as they are intended in the Code. Only hillside cul-de-sacs in terrain, with slope in excess 'of 15%, can eliminate parking on one side and install 4 foot integral sidewalks. 4. Page 31, first paragraph The developer is proposing to eliminate parking on Margarita in front of existing developed properties. I would anticipate a strong objection from these property owners with a small likelihood that this parking elimination will be approved. 5. Page 31, D Although the Public Works Department agrees with the developer that Prado Road should be extended as. an arterial, the Circulation Element shows Prado would be extended as a two lane collector. Does the Circulation Element have to be changed to correspond with the developer's plan and the Public Works Department long term desire? 02 -a29 Margarita Page Two 6. Page 36, paragraph 4 The report lists improper storm drain connections as a probable cause of storm water infiltration into the sewer system. We have smoke bombed the entire sewer system and have televised a great deal of it. We havenever found a storm sewer cross connection into the sanitary system. I do not believe this statement should be included as a "probable cause". 7. Page 41, E The metered outflow from the detention basin which drains into both the Calle Malva and the Calle Jasmin storm drains is in agreement with the proposal the staff would like to follow, however, Exhibit 2.5 does not correspond with the system described. S. Page 42 The most difficult flood problem we have in the neighborhood relates to inadequate capacity of the natural drainage swale. through the Martinelli and Unocal Oil properties, south of Prado Road. The developer of the Margarita property should include studies, a recommendation and construct facilities as needed to provide a solution to this problem, which will be aggravated by this subdivision. 9. Page 51 An earth channel solution along Prado Road will not be acceptable. If the drainage is to follow along the right-of-way of Prado Road, it shall be placed underground. Drainage through the neighborhood park ballfield should be carried around the perimeter of the play area in a concrete lined channel, so as to minimize erosion or growth of aquatic plants. 10. Exhibit 7 It is important that we have street circulation to provide for a looped water system, sewer and storm drainage routes within public right-of-way, convenient_ traffic access, and emergency ambulance, fire and police access. It is my recommendation, therefore, that either Calle Malva or Calle Jasmin be stubbed through to Prado Road and that the most easterly street in the subdivision be stubbed through to Prado Road. Finally, one of the two cul-de-sacs extending toward the east should be stubbed out into property in the east. a?-3l> Page Three -- 11. Exhibit 17 OExhibit should be modified so as to show a concrete lined channel which will carry minor flows around the play area. Lane Wilson may have additional comments regarding this neighborhood park. 12. Exhibit 21 The hillside standard applies only to hillside cul-de-sacs and probably does not apply to any of- the streets within the subdivision. The developer should follow the standard on Page 406 in the Municipal Code. 13. Exhibit 25 The storm drainage system shown does not correspond with the storm drainage system described on Page 41.. l`J c: Jerry Kenny Wayne Peterson margarita/dfr#14 0?-3/ �III�IIIlilillll�P��I���IB�� ��IIII I � IIL�� III cityof sAn WIS OBISPO 25 Prado Road • San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 November 14, 1989 MEMORANDUM TO: . Randy Rossi �^) FROM: Lane Wilson�tw SUBJECT: Margarita Riviera Upon .review of the proposal for Margarita Riviera, I have the following comments that I hope will be considered. The proposal concept is wonderful - six plus acres of neighborhood park which would be fully developed, seventy plus acres of open space - great ! What's really great is the attitude of the owners and planners to work with the Parks and Recreation Commission and staff from the start to insure that a quality project that meets all. concerns is the final product. 1 . How much land and/or dollars would the developer be required to provide? 2 . The park land should be useable with flat play areas and no major changes in grade such as gullies. 3. It would be best if the park was bordered by streets. Access, parking and safety for both users and residents would be improved. 4. Combing the park and drainage retention basin may or may not be a good idea. Surface drainage in a recreation area is a nuisance. It can be a muddy mess with insect problems and uncontrolled weed growth. Also, a drainage channel disrupts the park use because of the change in grade. When it rains, the drainage channel fills with debris and oil from off the streets. Meadow Park is a great example of each of these facts. Nuisance water channels should be underground and/or in concrete gutters. 5. This park will become a major entrance to the open space. This should be considered. The existing road should be �_3a i Margarita Riviera Page 2 improved to allow service vehicles access to the hill top. A developed area should be considered on the hill top. This could include observation points, picnic and barbecue areas, turf and play equipment . Adequate parking for the park and hill top viewpoint is necessary at the park. 6. Noise generating facilities such as basketball courts and play area should be located away from residential use. 7.. Design notes - The six foot project fence should be the property of the homeowner. It should be- constructed out of concrete block and/or metal railing. The paths should be constructed of concrete as should the basketball court. 8. Restrooms/Park Buildings - If .restrooms or other facilities such as a park multipurpose building or a daycare center are to be ,built, they should be near the street and parking for convenience, safety and observation of undesirable activities. The Parks and Buildings Division has a proposed standard criteria for restroom design that we would like to use. This criteria should mitigate many of the restroom related l�1 problems. 9 . The development of the park needs to be to City standards. . 10. We need to establish open space policies and standards that deal with all of the situations that are to be encountered with open space. You have my thoughts on this on file from Stoneridge and Terrace Hill. 11 . This will be a large addition to the park system. . Additional personnel will be required to maintain this property as well as additional funds for materials and supplies. This impact should be -discussed in the impact statements. dh margarita.wp/lw*5 �•33 � l\ P.C. Minutes May 10 , 1989 'age 2 . Item 2 . Public Hearing : Margarita Area Specific Plan .. Consideration of pT nn ng print ple a M'argarrta xpans on area . The area is open land located generally east of Margarita Avenue , and south from the ridge of the South Street Hills . The commission ' s action will be a recommendation to the city council . Once endorsed by the council , the planning principles will direct preparation of a special plan for development of the area and an environmental impact report . Owners of the area have submitted a draft specific plan showing about 480 dwellings to be built over about 6 years . ( GP 1403 and SP 1404 , RRM Design Group , applicant. ) Chairperson Duerk noted receipt of a letter from Mr . and Mrs . Durand . Michael Multari introduced the item. Glen Matteson discussed the proposed. specific plan.. He discussed issues needing to be addressed regarding ultimate use , water shortages , and growth management . The commission discussed and clarified with staff General Plan and specific plan concepts. lommr . Schmidt questioned the likely flexibility of changing a Specific Plan in the future . Chairperson Duerk opened the public hearing . Keith Gurnee , applicant' s representative , 108 Broad , discussed the project background , timing , specific plan choice , and planning parameters . He felt ,prior planning procedures were appropriate and efficient and that the future EIR and subsequent hearings would handle issue.s such as housing and water . He felt some of the planning principles were too 'strict , e . g . affordable housing percentages. He discussed the open space area for pedestrian trails . Mike Rabe, 350 Calle Lupita , was concerned with new houses overlooking existing ones , storm drainage , and the types and quality of affordable housing. He was concerned about the development being compatible with tract housing , traffic problems on Margarita , and open space preservation . Don Diamond, 3170 Calle Yomaldo, was also concerned with circulation , favoring a loop to Higuera Street. Richard Askew, 3135 Calle Jasmine, was concerned with drainage and circulation problems . Kareii -'emerge * � eUhmpt i **aa list of neighborhoo�! comments n ^egarding concern about emergency access if Margarita Avenue was DiOCKra , street deterioration with construction traffic , and the park attracting • 02_,3 P.C. Minutes May 10, 1989 ge 3 . those who did not live in the neighborhood . She also thought the density was too high and did not want the bus loop reinstated . Sydney Salinger , 3220 Calle Malva , was concerned about units being rented to students . John McDonald , 3170 Calle Jasmine , was concerned with flooding and noted that developing adequate water sources would take a long time . He said young and old residents favored close bus access . He thought there may be too much mobile-home development . Kirby Jansen , 369 Calle Lupita , agreed with previously stated concerns , as well as schooling options for additional children and stressed the need for another major access road . Don Smith , Vista Lago , wos said there would probably be^water for this development for 10-20 years . Mr. Gurnee discussed the possibility of workshops to be held with the neighborhood to address concerns . Melanie 8illig , 1460 Mill , felt the proposed specific plan was premature in relation to the General Plan update . She felt the water shortage was r--ritical and additional supplies should be reserved for the community and ( t committed to future plans . She was also concerned that about 20 lots sppeared not to meet the Land Use Element ' s hillside planning policies and she noted the lack of solar consideration or development innovations in the plan. She questioned how the area could be acceptable for houses but not for a school , due to airport operations . She questioned who would pay for serving the area , whether this should be a major annexation area , and the reason for increasing the citywide growth rate from 1 % to 1 . 3% in the Land Use Element update. She favored a cluster design , a healthy percentage of affordable housing , and unlined swales . She thought the city should evaluate the cumulative impacts of approved development before considering this plan . Roy Hanff, 569 Lawrence, did not feel it was the right time for annexation , considering water and sewer issues . He also thought the minimum lot size should be 6 ,000 square feet or 4, 500 with the PD. He questioned guarantees for affordable housing . Chairperson Duerk closed the public hearing. Commr . Kouraki.s felt processing the specific plan was not timely in terms of the General Plan update. She thought it was presumptuous to outline affordable housing programs at this point . She questioned sewer treatment plant capacities and service deficiencies . She suggested dealing with it as a study plan , as part of the general plan update . She questioned where residents would work and shop. �-3S P. C . Minutes May 10 , 1989 Page 4 , Commr . Roalman agreed that processing the plan was not timely because of the Land Use Element update and the fact that there was no clear idea of where the water would come from. Commr. Crotser felt the area could be developed with residential uses in concept and thought consideration of the specific plan could proceed . He felt it could be processed separately from the Garcia parcel and that no development should be done until water and sewer sources were tied down . He felt the 1 % growth rate was acceptable and agreed that the neighborhood character should be maintained . Commr. Karleskint did not feel it was timely for processing , due to water and sewer issues and the General Plan update . He was also against making it a study plan . Commr . Hoffman agreed with the study plan concept and was concerned with the detail level in the specific plan . Commr. Schmidt agreed that it was .not timely to process because of the General Plan update and the utilities and area capacity . He also felt processing a project that would not happen for 10 years is not good planning . He felt the annexation should be in phases . He was unhappy with the lockstop progression of the Edna-Islay specific plan. Staff discussed possible intent for the Edna-Islay study plan option . Chairperson Duerk felt parallel work could happen between the General Plan and the specific plan , as long as key communication continued . - Commr. Crotser noted the EIR and public hearings would provide valuable information while still working on the General Plan . Commr. Kourakis moved to recommend that council consider this item as a study plan to be used in conjunction with the General Plan update process . Commr. Roalman seconded the motion . VOTING: AYES - Commrs . Kourakis , Roalman , and Schmidt. NOES - Commrs. Crotser , Hoffman , Karleskint , and Duerk . ABSENT - None. The motion fails. Commr. Crotser moved to recommend to council that it was timely to consider this application . Commr. Duerk seconded the motion . After discussion of intent, the motion was withdrawn . Then the motion was re-inLrcduced and re sccc-ded with the •clarifir.ation that it was only to lecide whether commission discussion of the plan contents could continue. J P . C . Minutes May 10 , 1989 P—ae 5 . VOTING : AYES - Commrs . Crotser , Duerk , Hoffman , and , Karleskint . NOES - Commrs . Kourakis , Roalman , and .Schmidt . ABSENT - None. The motion passes . The commission went on to discuss plan contents . Commr. Karlskint favored: A street connection from the area to South Higuera, in addition to Margarita Avenue; Addressing the identifieddrainage problems; Mitigation for construction traffic; Reconsidering the need for restrooms in the park; Making the development more like the existing houses in Camino Estates and less like the mobile home parks; tf A better definition of "affordable housing; No building on the saddle. An evaluation of how road noise could be mitigated with greater setbacks or alternate sound wall design that would be more attractive; Commr. Schmidt favored: i Consideration of including neighborhood facilities (such as churches); Restoring wetlands and protecting habitat, including through drainage detention basin design; Incorporating solar access design in the lot layout; No building in the saddle; Avoiding grading above the hillside protection limit; Clarifying treatment of the drainage swales; Checking the feasibility of building on the small lots, and of making future additions to the houses, without exceptions to setback requirements; Having parking for multifamily developments at the interior of projects rather than along the street, and evaluating how this would effect interior green space; Clarifying and considering alternatives to sound wall design; Making the neighborhood park more accessible to the whole neighborhood, through location and/or layout; Having more stub streets to extend into future development areas;. Phasing annexation with actual development; Having the rate of annexation and development consistent with citywide growth policies; Requiring adequate services and facilities to be available at the time of annexation; Evaluating sewer lift-station capacity; Calling the lowest density category something other than "low density," to avoid confusion with different limits in the Land Use Element and Zoning Regulations. identifyit,d sc-.l --g= !- :%tmcnt impacts; Following the affordable housing standards of the adopted Hous n;; v-37 P.C . Minutes May 10, 1989 Page 6 . Commr. Roalman favored: In the EIR, looking at airport noise exposure, air quality, landfill capacity, traffic impacts if road extensions through the Garcia Ranch area do not occur, San Luis Creek hydrology (considering treated wastewater diversion), emergency services, and school enrollment, and fiscal impacts; Consideration of ensuring neighborhood and community feeling through additional land uses and community facilities; Planning for bus routes. Commr. Hoffman favored: Linking Margarita Avenue and Prado Road; Stub streets toward the Garcia Ranch area; Stopping residential lots at the base of the bill; A minimum lot size larger than 3,200 square feet; No development on the saddle; Planning for solar access; Assuring 20-foot setbacks to garages; Holding the planned one percent citywide growth rate. Commr. Kourakis favored: Avoiding off-lot drainage through people's yards, as in Stoneridge; Including community facilitiies; Better defining proper open-space uses; Evaluating the downstream effects of diverting effluent from the creek for irrigation; Evaluating airport noise exposure; A street system that provides reasonably accessible bus routes; An evaluation of air quality impacts in light of recent state requirements; Not identifying specific airport noise mitigation until the EIR is done; Evaluating whether park standards have been met; Having a fiscal impact analysis. Commr. Crotser favored: Better access to the park by the whole neighborhood, possibly by trails t1 rough the existing mobile-home park boundaries, More linkage to the Garcia Ranch area; Trail links to the recreation and employment facilities anticipated for the airport area; No annexation of parts of the expansion areas until water and sewer capacity are . adequate for the whole city; Unlined drainage swales; Having the EIR address all concerns raised in neighbors' testimony. ' In response to Chairperson Duerk's question, the commissioners expressed a concensus for: No exceptions to water-related annexation limits, for affordable housing development; ' Keeping the one percent citywide growth rate for the 1990's. and tieing this area to the citywide rate; Dealing with the share of affordable housing as a citywidc policy; Carefully evaluating the future of the airport in relation to nearby development; Evaluating fire-service impacts in the EIR. P.C . Minutes May 10, 1989 Page 7 . mmrs . Karleskint and Roalman felt the area had to be considered in )onjunction with the Garcia Ranch. Commrs . Crotser , Kourakis , and Duerk felt it could be handled separately with a good circulation system. Commr. Duerk noted that Erwin Willis of the Fire Dept . wanted to include fire protection mitigation . Roy Garcia , adjacent property owner, felt his proposed plans needed to be considered also , especially in terms of the traffic pattern . He wanted to proceed with a separate but concurrent document. Chairperson Duerk closed the public hearing . Commr. Schmidt moved that the commission forward all comments and EIR concerns to council . Commr. Crotser seconded the motion . VOTING : AYES- Commrs . Schmidt, Crotser , Hoffman , Karleskint , Roalman and Duerk . NOES - Commr. Kourakis. ABSENT - None . C'e motion passes. !hairperson Duerk moved to recommend to council that further consideration of the specific plan is timely . Commr. Crotser seconded the motion . VOTING: AYES - Commrs . Duerk , Crotser , Hoffman , and Karleskint . NOES - Commrs . Kourakis , Roalman , and Schmidt. ABSENT None. The motion passes. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION Commr . Kourakis asked for a brief staff report to come back to the commission on the present capacity of the sewer treatment plant and the demands of projects " in the pipeline" . She was concerned that the sewer situation now is like the water situation a couple of years ago . Staff recapped council highlights and previews of upcoming meetings . The meeting adjourned at 11 : 30 p.m. to the next regular meeting of May 24 , 7ao , spectfully submitted , Lisa Woske Recording Secretary MEETING AGENDA DATE 1�3e9 ITEM # J CITIZENS' PLANNING ALLIANCE of San Luis Obispo County Post Office Box 15247 San Luis Obispo, Ca . 93406 December 3,1989 To Honorable Members of the City Council , Citizen' s Planning Alliance of San Luis Obispo County has several concerns about the proposed specific plan for the Margarita expansion area . As the General Plan of San Luis Obispo is currently being updated by the Planning Commission and will reach the City Council very shortly, it seems inappropriate to begin the EIR for the expansion area until the update is completed,While this is not an application to process a city annexation, we also have concern about moving foreward with a proposal which will become an annexation until there is adequate supplemental water . At a more appropriate time, however, we believe that the proposal for a specific plan authored by the city has merit . Public authorship in the public interest has the potential for resulting in planning which is better coordinated with the city' s. .General Plan and which is designed from a city wide planning perspective,a perspective which we cannot expect from private individuals whose interest is site specific , Sincerely, ` f Mela ' e Billigr— Presi t Citizens' Planning Alliance 7:,Oanotes action by Lead Person I . �a by: RECEIVE® 'rvncil CAO I rf DEC 5 1964 :y Atli. I:,iZ. ossl cm CLERK SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA � � 3v ,�