HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-19-2015 PH2 Director JohnsonCOUNCIL MEETING: .iT e
[TEM NO.:,_ P Fi �-
----, MAY 18 2Q15
say r"F '7 � Y
-' council mEmoIZAnbum
DATE: May 18, 2015
TO: Mayor and City Council
VIA: Katie Lichtig, City Manager 11�k 4--t
FROM: Derek Johnson, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: May 19th Council Meeting - PH -2 — OASP Tract Maps (Righetti /Jones)
Council received a letter from the applicants on Thursday afternoon, May 14th addressing their
unresolved issues relating to Planning Commission recommended conditions of approval. This
agenda correspondence refers to the letter from the applicants previously distributed by way of
agenda correspondence.
In addition to this letter, staff and the applicant have continued discussions over concerns, and
Staff has identified some recommended changes to the tract conditions that are presented as
"Erattal Corrections" at the conclusion of this correspondence.
May 14, 2015 Council Letter
1. Infrastructure Phasing and Timing
The applicants have presented a series of maps with their preferred phasing of the construction of
infrastructure to serve their projects. In simple terms, the applicants are advocating a three -
phased completion of various road, transit, water, wastewater, parklands and trail improvements
that roughly coincide with their final map phasing request. At the heart of the applicant's issue is
concern over "front loading" too much infrastructure in the earliest phase of the project that may
render the project economically infeasible.
Staff agrees that construction of infrastructure should be phased; however at this time, there isn't
enough information and too much variability in how the immediately adjacent surrounding tracts
could be constructed to establish a definitive phasing and timing plan. Evaluation of potential
infrastructure phasing and timing details can't occur until the applicant submits their final map
and detailed engineering. It is also very important to understand that phasing of infrastructure
improvements must respond to mitigation measures that are designed to protect the health, safety
and welfare of the community and the natural environment.
The applicant's request is to combine the phasing of the Righetti and Jones Tracts for mutual
benefit of costs and infrastructure implementation, however, each tract has their own set of
1 A list of corrections or an appendix published to supplement or replace portions of a journal or text.
OASP Tract Maps (Righetti /Jones) Memorandum Page 2
conditions of approval and must be approved in a manner to provide for standalone
implementation and independence; should phases be sold or one tract lags behind
implementation from the other. This has been a common occurrence in the expansion areas of
the City.
The Planning Commission action included additional condition language that adds flexibility for
the applicants to present infrastructure phasing plans at the time they complete detailed
engineering, finalize cost estimates and present those for review as a part of the initial final map
submittal. Righetti condition Nos. 116 and 117, and Jones condition Nos. 94 and 95 have been
included to address these future considerations.
2. Fair Share/Reimbursement
The applicant has indicated concerns over their fair share of potential infrastructure costs and are
requesting consideration for reimbursement agreements and fee credits. Reimbursement
agreements and fee credits were in fact a stated strategy in the OASP to finance infrastructure.
Staff agrees that the applicants may be entitled to reimbursements and credits as provided by the
Subdivision Map Act and the City's Subdivision RegulationsZ; however at this time, there isn't
enough information to establish any details for reimbursement or credits. Evaluation of potential
reimbursement agreements, fee credits, or modifications of the public facilities financing plan
(PFFP) should not occur until the applicant submits detailed engineering, cost estimates, and a
financing program proposal thus allowing the City to determine if such improvements qualify for
reimbursement and if so, how much.
3. Off -site Street Frontage Improvements
The applicant has made the following comment and conclusion:
"We request that any conditions for street frontage improvements be limited only
to the Righetti and Jones parcels that are a part of this tentative map application.
This is consistent with City policy. We respectfully disagree with any condition
that requires us to complete off -site street improvements for the benefit of other
OASP properties we do not own nor are associated with this application. "
This statement does not reflect the common City practice to require projects to complete offsite
improvements for environmental, safety and service level requirements based on the impacts
from that particular development. For example, the Costco development was required to re -align
Calle Joaquin adjacent to Highway 101 and Los Osos Valley Road as part of their development.
The same was true for the Chevron Tank Farm development which is required to provide off -site
road improvements at several off -site intersections including Higuera Street and Tank Farm
Road. In this particular case, offsite requirements are needed to provide necessary infrastructure
to serve the development and to ensure safe transitions between onsite frontages and offsite areas
including new street accesses, mitigation requirements established by the OASP EIR,
compliance with engineering standards, and providing connectivity to adjacent tract areas. In
order to deviate from these best City practices, it would require additional environmental review
2 See SLOW 16.20.110.
OA
OASP Tract Maps (Righetti /Jones) Memorandum
Page 3
and would be a significant shift in City practice and policy as contained in the OASP PFFP3 that
is not recommended given the amount of information.
In addition, timing of each tract and their sub phases create a number of scenarios that could vary
substantially regarding locations and timing of needed public facilities and amenities. Conditions
have been written to be general in nature to encompass the flexibility needed by the applicant
and City to ensure the orderly development of the OASP. Righetti condition Nos. 116 and 117,
and Jones condition Nos. 94 and 95, allow for discretion in the level of improvement
requirements at the time that this information is provided.
The following changes to conditions are being recommended after reviewing the letter dated
May 14, 2015 from the applicant team:
Errata Corrections
1. MM AES -3.1. "Residential Building Heights shall not exceed 25' as measured above
average finished grade." (applicable to Attachments I -A and I -B)
2. Jones COA #8 add reference to "... Lots 31 and_32 ..." under Jones Ranch private
open space maintenance (applicable to Attachment I -C)
3. Jones COA #9 add reference to "... Lots 31 and 32 ..." under Jones Ranch private
open space /wildland fuel management /reduction maintenance
(applicable to Attachment I -C)
\ \chstore7 \cdd \cd- plan \ddavidson \council \agenda correspondence may 19 2015 - revised.doc