HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-12-2017 PC Correspondence - Item 1 (Peck)
July 11, 2017
San Luis Obispo City Planning Commission
c/o Doug Davidson, Secretary
919 Palm Avenue
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Re: Possible Modification to Avila Ranch Development Plan
Thank you for the time that you have taken to review our development plan and the public
testimony associated with it. We have found that over the 75+ individual, public an d group meetings
that we have had on the project, that each one has made the project a little bit better. The Planning
Commission’s hearings on June 28th and June 29th were no exception. In consultation with City staff we
have provided more detail and/or made revisions to the project that address various public comments
and the Planning Commissioner’s individual comments.
We have made revisions or addressed the seven comment areas that staff identified, and have
proposed four more areas for revision. The features described herein are above and beyond those
normally required of development projects; consequently, if these additional features are desired they
would need to be included in the Development Agreement that will be coming before the Planning
Commission in August. The details of these revisions are included on the attachments to this
correspondence, and are summarized below:
1. Infrastructure Timing and Connectivity. The EIR and the Development Plan identify how the
offsite improvements are being installed ahead of actual need and to address existing
deficiencies. Staff will provide a summary.
2. Affordable Housing. We have proposed changes to increase the number of inclusionary
units on the site to a total of 67 (from a previous total of 45), including an increase of 2 lower
income units, and an increase of 20 moderate income units. We have also increased the
number of Workforce units under our special WHIP program to 25, from a previous total of
19. In total, there are now 92 Low, Moderate or Workforce units that are restricted in one
way or another (and the WHIP units provide a down payment assistance program). The
term for the affordability covenants for the Workforce units has been increased to ten years
2 2
from five years. Changes have been made to the average unit size for selective housing
types to compensate for this increase, but the overall average square footage for the project
has increased less than five percent.
3. Modal Split and Impact Fees. The proposed AASP fees provide for more than 20 percent for
bike facilities. These fees are being wrapped in to the citywide AB1600 study.
4. Sustainable Farming. The agricultural portions of the site would have an ag conservation
easement, and potentially an operating covenant that would ensure that the site would be
farmed in a sustainable way per USDA NIFA Sustainable Agriculture Program, or the
California Sustainable Agriculture Program, and that there would be a regular pattern of
planting and harvesting on the site per sustainable agronomic practices.
5. Additional Park in Phase 1. We reviewed the feasibility of deleting lots in Phase 1 for
another park site, but found that to be infeasible because there was no alternate location for
these units in Phase 1 of the project. Note that all units in the project are no more than 600
feet from a public park, and 90% of the units are within 300 feet of a public park , well within
the guidelines established in the City’s regulations. The west side of Earthwood has safe
access to the park facilities on the east side of Earthwood due to a speed table. However,
the existing paseo between Lots 132 and 149 can be modified to provide for a CFD-
maintained “tot lot” and gathering area with other “meeting place” furniture, by re-orienting
the porches on Lots 132 and 149 to Delta Drive and creating a 40’x60’ common area. We
believe that this achieves the same objective. See the illustration attached.
6. Greywater Use. We have explored the feasibility of low tech (clothes washer wastewater for
landscape irrigation), and higher tech (Nexus onsite greywater treatment) options, recently
and during the development of the project. Use of the low-tech method would require
onsite storage and surge tanks which require immediate use or sanitation (even if the plants
to not require it!!). The higher tech approach has been investigated (including a site visit at a
Kaufman and Broad project in north San Diego County) and this was deemed to be infeasible
since the system is costly ($10,000 per dwelling unit), requires homeowner expertise to
ensure sanitation, and can only practically be used to recycle water to fill toilet tanks. This
technology may provide an opportunity for R-3 and R-4 units, or large single-family lots (of
which there are precious few in the project), but that may also require special permitting for
onsite wastewater treatment. The project will use 35 percent less water than typical
households in SLO, and half of the water demand will be satisfied with recycled water.
Based on these facts, the project meets the objectives of reducing wastewater flows already.
7. Buckley Road Bike Safety. We concur with this concern, and will comply with the applicable
design standard for Class I and Class II (and potentially Class IV) bike facilities that are in
3 3
effect at the time the improvement plans are approved in the County or the City, as
appropriate.
8. Bike connectivity. We will complete the Chevron portion of the Tank Farm Creek bike path
to improve connectivity subject to the following: 1) city provides the right of way; 2)
connection is made in conjunction with Phase 4 (onsite Tank Farm Creek bike path will be
completed in Phase 3); 3) any right away expense should be paid for by the general fund and
any bike and ped improvement should be included within the reimbursement agreement; 4)
City will ensure that the cost of the improvements will be completely reimbursed by the end
of the buildout. (The Land Conservancy and SLO Bike Club have noted that the portion of the
Bob Jones Trail between the Octagon Barn and the Buckley Extension is a missing link. The
County currently has a ROW reservation (but not an irrevocable offer) for this area. We will
construct this subject to ROW being provided. ROW should/could be acquired at the time
Buckley Extension ROW is secured from the same property owner.)
9. E-Bikes. E-bikes have been identified as a potential asset to increase the range and
frequency of bike usage, including work trips and weekly shopping trips. We will provide one
e-bike for each single family detached unit (R-1 and R-2), and a pool of e-bikes for the R-4
and R-3 units, at an initial rate of one e-bike per seven units (28 e-bikes for the R-3, and 18 e-
bikes for the R-4). The R-4 and R-3 owners/HOAs would be responsible for operation of this
pool.
10. Owner-Occupancy Restriction in R-1 and R-2. Single family detached units (R-1 and R-2) will
contain restrictions in their CCRs and purchase agreements so that these units will be
restricted to owner-occupants only for the first five years after sale, thereby giving priority to
owner-occupants as opposed to investor-owners. In the case of units with Accessory
Dwelling Units (ADUs), the Principal Dwelling or the ADU will need to be occupied by the
property owner. Combined with the local preference program described below, this will
ensure that the units are not acquired for short-term speculation or for investment
purposes. Given the significant potential rental components in the R-3 and R-4 areas, it is
not believed that this owner-occupancy commitment will reduce the needed rental units,
and will address the city’s policy to increase the number and percent of owner-occupied
units in the community.
11. Local Preference. Program 10.4 of the City’s Housing Element encourages residential
developers to “…sell or rent their projects to those residing or employed in the City first
before outside markets”. To that end, an interest list has been developed for the project.
Local workers on this list will be given priority for available units. Eligible employees will
include those in businesses in the City, any employers that are customarily counted as “local”
4 4
employers in the City’s annual General Plan Status Report such as Cal Poly, California Men’s
Colony, Cuesta College, and business parks in the County on South Broad Street. New
employees with bonafide employment offers will be considered “existing employees” as
well.
This effort will accomplish three important objectives: 1) use the new housing to address the
current imbalance between existing jobs and housing; 2) ensure that, to the maximum
extent practicable, that the increased housing in SLO results in a decline in the current
commute traffic; and, 3) reduce perceived and actual competition from outside buyers in the
initial offering and sales.
Thank you again for your comments. We look forward to your comments on our proposed
revisions.
Thank you,
Stephen J Peck, AICP
For Avila Ranch, LLC
Proposed Changes to Avila Ranch Development Plan
1. Infrastructure Timing and Connectivity. Include an estimated housing absorption
schedule, and relate it to projected citywide capital improvements, including roadways
and bike facilities, showing this information on a map, in order to better understand long-
range connectivity and potential gaps.
2. Affordable Housing. Applicant to work with City staff to implement additional
opportunities to maximize the number of affordable housing units include in the devel-
opment.
Avila Response: Our approach to this is three-fold: 1) based on discussions with City staff,
the inclusionary total requirement has been adjusted to 67 total units (from a previous
total of 45). This requirement will be met by providing 32 lower income units (from a
previous total of 30) and 35 moderate income units (from a previous total of 15), skewing
the affordable housing to the lower end of the affordability scale. Attachment A shows
how these units would be provided in the project. This has been achieved by increasing
the size of some other product types in the development, but the average square footage
across the entire project has increased 3.5% to 4% and is still under 1,600 square feet; 2)
the 0.3-acre interim fire station site would be dedicated to the City and earmarked for re-
use as lower income or mod income deed restricted units, providing another 4-7 density
units on this site. This site could also be used for a community facility or a common play
area (it was originally shown for an added park after use as the fire station). However,
because these units are some time in the future, they are not counted towards the pro-
ject’s inclusionary housing requirent; 3) the Workforce Housing Incentive Program would
be expanded to 25 units (from 19 units) with affordability levels pegged at 4.2 times 140%
of median family income. 13 of these units would be provided in the R-2 Pocket Cottages
and 12 of these would be provided in the R-3 Townhomes. Maximum down payment as-
sistance under the WHIP would change to $20,000 each (from $25,000 each) and mini-
mum affordability period would be extended to 10 years instead of 5 years. During this
period subsequent buyers would need to qualify as having Workforce Income levels . The
down payment assistance could be rolled over any subsequent buyers with a Workforce
Income. Total affordable housing units subject to either longer term or near-term price
restrictions would be 92 units.
3. Modal Split and Impact Fees. Impact fees should be connected to modal split
objectives.
Not sure how this applies. The AASP fees currently exceed 20% bike and transit mode
share.
4. Sustainable Farming. Include provisions to encourage sustainable farming prac-
tices within designated open space areas wherever appropriate. Sustainability is better
than organic according to farmers.
Avila Response: The site has been successfully and professionally farmed for more than
100 years. The parcels that are created for the ag uses would be retained by the current
owner and lease-farmed, as is the currently the case, or the parcels would be sold to a
farmer. The site would have an ag conservation easement, and potentially an operating
covenant that would ensure that the site would be farmed in a sustainable way per USDA
NIFA Sustainable Agriculture Program, or the California Sustainable Agriculture Program,
and that there would be a regular pattern of planting and harvesting on the sit e per sus-
tainable agronomic practices. We do not see this as an ag education center (go to SLR for
that), but as an assurance that the site will be farmed in an ongoing pattern in a agro-
nomically responsible way.
5. Parks. Applicant to work with City staff to explore the potential for an additional
pocket park in the vicinity of Lots 130, 131 and 132 in the proposed Vesting Tentative
Tract Map.
Avila Response: It’s not possible to relocate lots 130, 131 or 132, and we do not see the
need for more parks in this development. This project provides four times the park acreage
compared to any other area of town, and five times the onsite park acreage as San Luis
Ranch. All units are no more than 600 feet from a public park, and 90% of the units are
within 300 feet of a public park. The west side of Earthwood has safe access to the park
facilities on the east side of Earthwood due to a speed table. However, the existing paseo
between Lots 132 and 149 can be modified to provide for a CFD-maintained “tot lot” or
gathering area with other “meeting place” furniture, by orienting the porches on Lots 132
and 149 to Delta Drive and creating a 40’x60’ common area. See Attachment B for an
illustration.
6. Greywater Use. Consistent with the adopted Climate Action Plan, include provi-
sions in the Development Plan to encourage the use of greywater wherever appropriate.
The referenced policy states that projects should use greywater or onsite rain gardens.
Half of the project’s water use is city recycled water, and rain gardens are used as part of
the landscape design. We have explored the feasibility of low tech (clothes washer
wastewater for landscape irrigation), and higher tech (Nexus onsite greywater treatment)
options. Use of the low-tech method would require onsite storage and surge tanks which
require immediate use or sanitation (even if the plants to not require it!!). The higher tech
approach has been investigated (including a site visit at a Kaufman and Broad project in
north San Diego County) and this was deemed to be infeasible since the system is costly
($10,000 per dwelling unit), requires homeowner expertise to ensure sanitation, and can
only be used to recycle water to fill toilet tanks. Pumping of water is required into second
stories, and is deemed to be wasteful. This technology may provide an opportunity for R-
3 and R-4 units, or large single-family lots (of which there are precious few in the project)
but we are not convinced, as yet, that the risk of unsanitary conditions is warranted. The
project also will use 35 percent less water than typical households in SLO, and so the pro-
ject meets the objectives of reducing wastewater flows already.
7. Buckley Road Safety. Include provisions in the design of Buckley Road improve-
ments that enhance public safety. These could include, but potentially not be limited to
rumble strips.
We will comply with the adopted City or County street standard in effect at the time of PIP
approval.
In addition:
8. Bike connectivity. We will complete the Chevron portion of the Tank Farm Creek
bike path subject to the following: 1) city provides the right of way (we don’t propose to
try to do that because we already have); 2) connection is made in conjunction with Phase
4 (onsite Tank Farm Creek bike path will be completed in Phase 3); 3) any right away ex-
pense should be paid for by the general fund and any bike and ped improvement should
be included within the reimbursement agreement; 4) City will ensure that the cost of the
improvements will be completely reimbursed by the end of the buildout.
The Land Conservancy and SLO Bike Club have noted that the portion of the Bob Jones
Trail between the Octagon Barn and the Buckley Extension is a missing link. The County
currently has a ROW reservation (but not an irrevocable offer) for this area. We will con-
struct this subject to ROW being provided. ROW should/could be acquired at the time
Buckley Extension ROW is secured from the same property owner.
9. E-Bikes. We will provide one e-bike for each single family detached unit, and a
pool of e-bikes for the R-4 and R-3 units, at an initial rate of one e-bike per seven units (28
e-bikes for the R-3, and 18 e-bikes for the R-4) The R-4 and R-3 owners/HOAs would be
responsible for operation of this pool.
10. Buckley/227 Improvements. We will provide our funding for Buckley/227 up front
in a lump sum as part of the first final map fees, subject to the City, County and/or SLOCOG
coming up with a financing plan and implementation schedule for the Buckley/227 im-
provements. Otherwise, these improvements would be funded through building permit
fees, as is currently proposed by the PFFP update.
11. Owner-Occupancy Restriction in R-1 and R-2. A purchase restriction and CCR pro-
vision will be added to all R-1 and R-2 lots that will require owner-occupancy only for the
first five years after first sale.
Un
i
t
s
A
v
g
S
i
z
e
T
o
t
a
l
F
l
o
o
r
A
r
e
a
N
e
t
A
c
r
e
s
N
e
t
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
N
o
m
i
n
a
l
Ad
j
u
s
t
m
e
n
t
Fa
c
t
o
r
Re
q
u
i
r
e
d
L
o
w
M
o
d
R-
1
A
l
l
e
y
3
3
2
,
2
5
0
7
4
,
2
5
0
4
.
7
0
7
.
0
2
4
.
9
5
1
.
2
5
6
.
2
2
.
1
4
.
1
R-
1
F
r
o
n
t
6
8
2
,
2
5
0
1
5
3
,
0
0
0
8
.
0
7
8
.
4
3
1
0
.
2
1
.
2
5
1
2
.
8
4
.
2
8
.
5
R-
2
P
o
c
k
e
t
7
6
1
,
2
0
0
9
1
,
2
0
0
5
.
6
5
1
3
.
4
5
1
1
.
4
0
.
2
5
2
.
9
0
.
9
1
.
9
R-
2
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
2
2
1
1
,
7
5
0
3
8
6
,
7
5
0
2
1
.
6
4
1
0
.
2
1
3
3
.
1
5
1
.
0
0
3
3
.
2
1
1
.
0
2
2
.
1
R-
3
D
u
p
l
e
x
3
8
1
,
7
5
0
6
6
,
5
0
0
4
.
1
1
9
.
2
5
5
.
7
1
.
0
0
5
.
7
1
.
9
3
.
8
R-
3
T
o
w
n
h
o
m
e
1
5
9
1
,
3
7
5
2
1
8
,
6
2
5
7
.
3
0
2
1
.
7
8
2
3
.
8
5
0
.
2
5
6
.
0
2
.
0
4
.
0
R-
4
1
2
5
8
5
0
1
0
6
,
2
5
0
4
.
0
4
3
0
.
9
4
1
8
.
7
5
0
.
0
0
-
-
-
To
t
a
l
7
2
0
1
,
5
2
3
1
,
0
9
6
,
5
7
5
5
5
.
5
1
1
2
.
9
7
6
7
2
2
4
4
No
m
i
n
a
l
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
1
0
8
Ta
b
l
e
2
A
A
d
j
u
s
t
m
e
n
t
(
4
1
)
Re
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
6
7
In
c
l
u
s
i
o
n
a
r
y
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
R-
2
P
o
c
k
e
t
Co
t
t
a
g
e
(
2
B
R
)
R-
3
T
o
w
n
h
o
m
e
(1
B
R
)
R3
To
w
n
h
o
m
e
(2
B
R
)
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
e
d
R
-
4
U
n
i
t
s
(
w
i
t
h
Ma
r
k
e
t
R
a
t
e
Un
i
t
s
)
1
Do
n
a
t
e
d
1
-
Ac
r
e
R
-
4
S
i
t
e
2
To
t
a
l
U
n
i
t
s
To
t
a
l
U
n
i
t
s
7
2
0
No
m
i
n
a
l
@
1
5
%
1
0
8
Ta
b
l
e
2
A
A
d
j
u
s
t
m
e
n
t
6
1
.
7
%
To
t
a
l
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
6
7
67
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
d
-
I
n
c
l
u
s
i
o
n
a
r
y
Lo
w
2
2
82
4
3
2
Mo
d
e
r
a
t
e
(
8
0
%
-
1
2
0
%
)
4
4
9
9
9
8
3
5
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
d
-
O
t
h
e
r
0
Wo
r
k
f
o
r
c
e
(
1
2
0
%
-
1
6
0
%
)
(
W
H
I
P
)
2
5
1
3
1
2
2
5
To
t
a
l
9
2
2
2
0
9
2
1
1
6
2
4
9
2
No
t
e
s
1.
R
-
4
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
o
n
L
o
t
3
6
0
t
o
h
a
v
e
t
h
e
s
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
e
d
a
n
d
o
p
e
ra
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
4
9
m
a
r
k
e
t
r
a
t
e
u
n
i
t
s
.
2.
L
o
t
3
0
0
o
f
V
T
M
t
o
b
e
d
o
n
a
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
.
Av
i
l
a
R
a
n
c
h
I
n
c
l
u
s
i
o
n
a
r
y
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
P
r
o
p
o
s
a
l
Re
q
u
i
r
e
d