Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-17-2016 Item 1, CodronCouncil Memorandum DATE: May 16, 2016 2-0110 COUNCIL MFET iNG: C2 ITEM NO.' ---A MAY 17 2015 TO: City Council VIA: Katie Lichtig, City Manager FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director ENC: West Creek Transportation Demand Management Program SUBJECT: May 17, 2016 Agenda Item #1 — West Creek VTM#3083 — 1299 Orcutt Road Staff has received a request from a Councilmember for the following information and is distributing it to all Councilmembers regarding the subject project. Question/Comment: 1. .At,lordable housing: Please explain how the requirement of 26 affordable units that would normally be applied (15% of the total project) is reduced only to six. The formula provided on p. 188 of the staff report does not compute mathematically (25.8 x .25 + 6.45 = 6). Also - what measures are proposed to assure long-term affordability of the 10 units that are indicated as being provided? Staff Response: The correct formula is 25.8 x .25 = 6.45, or rounded to 6 required units. The "+" sign was a typo, and 6.45 required units is rounded down under city practice. The 15% standard under the OASP applied to the West Creek proposal results in 25.8 required affordable units. Pursuant to the Housing Element, Appendix N, a project's Inclusionary Housing requirement can be adjusted based on the average square footage of the proposed units in the subdivision. The Housing Element policy acknowledges that generally smaller units will maintain a lower sales value, bolstering the "affordable by design" principles of the Housing Element. In the case of the West Creek project, the average size of the proposed residential units is 1,256 square feet. This adjustment lowers the required units to 25% of the otherwise required 25.8 units, or 6.45 units, rounded down to 6. The applicant has exceeded the requirement and proposed 10 affordable units in the project, all of which will be long-term deed restricted under the City's Housing program. 2. CirculcuionlSecondary Access: The recommended deletion of any requirement for secondary access would enable development of a 172 -unit neighborhood served by a single access road that could fail in an emergency situation. Please explain why staff is recommending deletion of this requirement. How can we assure the safety of residents in West Creek Council Agenda Correspondence 5-17-2016 Page 2 this area if there is no established secondary access, pending development of neighboring properties? Staff Response: Fire Department staff reviewed the subdivision snap and deemed it in compliance with Appendix D of the Fire Code in regards to fire department access. Section D107.1 of the Fire Code requires secondary fire department access where the number of dwelling units exceeds 30, unless otherwise exempted. The approved map indicates that the access will be provided off Orcutt Road in the proximity of Lawnwood; the secondary access will connect in the future to other proposed or entitled subdivisions as part of the overall circulation for the Orcutt Area. This is one of the exemptions under the Code when fire apparatus access roads will connect to future development, which is the case with West Creek subdivision as the Orcutt Area develops. The Code contains an additional exemption from the 30 -dwelling requirement for secondary access where "all dwelling units are equipped with automatic fire sprinkler systems". Fire sprinklers have been required in San Luis Obispo since 1990 and all units in the West Creek development will be sprinklered. 3. OASP Consistency: There is very little discussion of the consistency of this project with the Orcutt Area Specific Plan in the CAR, and no findings are proposed in the Council resolution regarding general or specific plan consistency. Doesn't the Subdivision Map Act require that we make findings that a subdivision map is consistent with the general plan and the applicable specific plan? Reviewing the Planning Commission Staff Report and Errata in Attachment g, I do not see a reproduction of the Land Use Diagram or the Circulation Element from that plan, although I understand that variations are being made due to the consolidation of the Maddalena and Mid -State (Gray) properties. Staff Response: City Council packet pages 17-18-19 include a summary of policy consistency, and refer to a more detailed analysis of project consistency with the OASP appearing in the Planning Commission staff report of April 13`t', located in CC packet pages 187-198. Page 2 of the proposed Council Resolution for action on the Vesting Tract Map (Attachment lb — CC packet page 36) includes a series of findings addressing General Plan and OASP consistency for the West Creek proposal. The Land Use and Circulation Element exhibits are found on CC packet pages 77-78-79. On packet page 77 is a presentation of the underlying Land Use Map from the OASP for the West Creek properties (formerly the Maddalena and Mid-State/Gray properties). The OASP Circulation Plan Figure 5.1 is included in the CAR on packet page 16. The packet page 77 exhibit describes the extension of "A" Street in a northerly direction, aligned between the former separate owner's properties as called for in the OASP. The exhibit on packet page 77 also describes the R-4 multi -family land uses in orange, and the R-2 single-family land uses in yellow. Packet page 78 describes the applicant's proposed pattern of development, which focuses and consolidates the multi -family (orange) uses to areas generally north of the East Orcutt Creek waterway. This "consolidation" of multi- family uses north of the creek is the direct result of moving the extension of "A" Street in West Creek Council Agenda Correspondence 5-17-2016 Page 3 side of the creek in a slightly westerly direction, to align with the westerly extension of "A" Street. The composite exhibit on CC packet page 79 overlays the proposed pattern of land uses (in black lines) with the OASP land use plan (colors), to allow a comparison of existing and proposed land use configurations. 4. Density: The discussion of Policy Consistency on p. 18 of the CAR states that "Project density, including the provision of affordable housing units, is at the high end of the expected density range established under the OASP... "I note some discrepancies between the proposed project and the OASP density standards. o The R4 density is to be consistent with the Zoning Regulations. Is it? There are conflicting references to R3 densities; I would like to be assured that this project is taking full advantage of the densities that are made possible in this, one of the very few R4 properties in the City. o The OASP calls for a total of 143-157 du's, with 52-54 in the R2 zone and 91-103 in the R4 area. The West Creek project proposes instead 172 units, with 67 sfu's in the R2 zone, and 105 condominiums in the R4 zone. Please explain the increase in permitted units. o In the GASP, p. 3-4, Table 3. 1, R2 areas are to have a maximum 5,000 sf in size. The project proposes 23 single-family lots that range in size from 4,500 to 7,239 sf. Please explain this discrepancy. Staff Response: Table A-2 of the OASP articulates the various assumptions included in the Specific Plan about gross and net buildable areas, and resulting densities, for all land uses as a function of "estimated" development patterns. Table A-2 also notes that "actual development areas and numbers will vary" as a result of more detailed studies under the subdivision process. The comment correctly notes that the OASP estimated up to 103 R- 4 units and up to 54 R-2 units, for a combined density of up to 157 units based on the early studies for the GASP. A more precise calculation for the West Creek project reveals: 3.07 acres R-4 (MFR) neighborhood x's up to 24 units/ac = 73.68 or 74 units 7.87 acres R-2 (SFR) neighborhood x's up to 12 units/ac = 94.44 or 94 units Combined density = 168 units The proposed density of 172 units represents an increase of 2.4 % over the range (which could be attributed to the additional 4 affordable units), and given the wide ranging variety of unit sizes and overall design features, staff believes this modest increase of 4 units is in substantial compliance with the estimated and calculated ranges of the GASP. Concerning the lot sizes for the SFR neighborhood (R-2), while 8 lots do exceed the 5,000 sq ft maximum standard, the overall average for these lots is 4,045 sq ft, well below the standard of 4,500 sq ft. For the most part the larger 8 SFR lots are either corner lots, lots located adjoining paths and open space, or lots located on knuckle roadways, each of which condition tends to result in an "irregular" lot size, generally larger than a more traditional rectangular lot. Again, given the small number of these variations, staff believe the overall design including these minor exceptions are consistent with the spirit of the OASP community design goals, and therefore in substantial compliance with the policies concerning lot sizes and density ranges. West Creek Council Agenda Correspondence 5-17-2016 Page 4 S. Planning Commission Minutes: The minutes provided in Attachment h are draft minutes. Please provide the final, approved minutes to the Council. Staff Response: Approved PC minutes are not yet available and will be considered at the Planning Commission meeting of May 25tH 6. Parrs Facililies: The Parks and open space proposed in this site are sufficient to have been approved by the P&R Commission, but I question the degree to which they will serve residents of the existing mobile home parks - particularly the one that fronts on Bullock Lane, but shares a rear property line with this project. Are there any provisions to establish internal pedestrian connectivity between either of these adjacent neighborhoods and the park facilities along "A" Street", without going out to Orcutt Road and being exposed to all of the traffic on that facility? Staff Response: The publically-accessible parklands proposed by the applicant meet OASP criteria for the subdivision, but also offer the opportunity for use by nearby residents. The applicant has proposed that a pedestrian connection be created between the mobile home park to the immediate west and the open space areas bordering "A" Street, so that they would not have to use Orcutt for access. This matter (including easements as may be necessary) would be detailed in the final park plans prepared and presented to PRC and CC for consideration prior to recording a final map. 7. Parking Lor the R4 project: The proposal to provide 12 parking spaces in the PG&E easement on the south side of the project concerns me, in that these spaces are a considerable distance from the condominiums. Please comment. How far away are they? Will they have signs clearly establishing that they are for the exclusive use of the condominium owners? Can we reasonably expect that they will satisfy the demand for parking for those owners? Staff Response: These "remote" parking spaces are almost 1,000 feet from the center of the multi -family neighborhood. These spaces would be reserved via signage (or striping, or both) for the designated MFR residents. This program for parking is a plan conceived under a Transportation Demand Management Program (TDMP) proposed by the applicant, and incorporated into their Project Description for the application. As presented, the applicant believes his buyers and residents will find the flexibility of the overall TDMP, and the "remote" parking option in particular, a welcome method of reducing the costs of purchase and rental values in the MFR neighborhood. As recommended by the Architectural Review Commission, the TDMP provides for a Transportation Coordinator to be designated by the Homeowner's Association (or Parking Management Entity) to provide regular management of the overall parking program, and to address problems and needs as they arise. The TDMP also provides for an annual report on the success of the TDMP, including the parking program, to the Community Development Director, who in turn is empowered to modify and revise the program as reasonable and appropriate. The TDMP was not included with the Council attachments, so we are including it with this Memorandum. West Creek Council Agenda Correspondence 5-17-2016 Page 5 City staff from the reviewing Departments will be available at the Council meeting for additional questions. Please contact Michael Codron(mcodroriCa?slocity.org) or David Watson, Contract Planner (daveCo).watsonplanning.us) should there be any questions.