Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/19/2002, B1 - OBTAINING COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION ACCEPTANCE OF A REVISED DRAFT MARGARITA AREA SPECIFIC 1 i council " `°'"Mar. 19, '02 j acEnaa uEpont CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FROM: Ken Hampian, City Adrpinistrative Officer, and John Mandeville, Community Development Director )9"TH, Prepared By: Glen Mattesoniate Planner SUBJECT: OBTAINING COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION ACCEPTANCE OF A REVISED DRAFT MARGARITA AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AIRPORT LAND USE SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION(MARXISCHWARTZ) 1. Direct staff to revise the draft Margarita Area Specific Plan, to conform to the airport compatibility standards and conceptual map that are recommended by the committee of Airport Land Use Commission and City Council representatives (attachments#1 and#2). 2. Direct staff to work with staff of the County Airport Land Use Commission, to formalize an agreement allowing the revised draft Margarita Area Specific Plan to be evaluated under the adopted (1973) Airport Land Use Plan and the proposed standards and conceptual map. DISCUSSION Situation For several decades, the City's General Plan has said that much of the community's future housing should be built in the Margarita Area, and that a specific plan for the area must be adopted before development can begin. A specific plan spells out future development in more detail than the General Plan, especially with regard to providing infrastructure. In 1998, the City Council endorsed a draft specific plan, to serve as the project description for an environmental impact report. That draft reflected an in-progress draft of the Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP), as well as adopted City planning policies. The ALUP is a State-mandated plan that the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) must use in determining if a proposed City action is compatible with the Airport. In 2001, the ALUC determined that the draft specific plan was not consistent with the ALUP. At about the same time, the ALUC proposed an amendment of its 1970's-vintage ALUP; the amendment would have required a dramatic reduction of residential development capacity in the Margarita Area. Response While State law allows the City to override an ALUC determination, that course of action was not desired by either agency. So, the City Council and the ALUC each named members to form a committee, charged with outlining land uses for the Margarita Area that would meet both agencies' goals. That was a significant challenge, considering the need for housing, desires for high-quality neighborhood design, and various development constraints, including physical site conditions and airport noise and hazards. Over the last four months Vice-mayor Marx and Councilman Schwartz, three ALUC members, and staff representatives met several times and outlined several options. 1 Council Agenda Report—Margarita Area Airport Compatibility Page 2 At the last committee meeting on February 28, Council committee members stated that they would have preferred more housing in the Margarita Area. ALUC committee members stated that they would have preferred less. At that meeting, both groups said that the compromise reached was acceptable. They agreed to recommend certain standards (Attachment #1) and a conceptual map (Attachment #2) to their respective bodies. The ALUC representatives said they would also recommend to the full ALUC that it review a revised draft Margarita Area Specific Plan under the adopted (1973) ALUP rather than the pending, more restrictive ALUP amendment. This approach is justified, they thought, because the Margarita Area has been in the planning process for a long time and would be seen as a continuing matter before the ALUC. ALUC representatives also indicated that the proposed standards and conceptual map substantially comply with the adopted ALUP. The ALUC members further indicated that minor changes to the land use concept that are equally compatible with the Airport, such as increasing densities in the far northwest corner of the area, could be accepted. If Council concurs, staff will explore this in preparing the revised specific plan. Agreement by the full ALUC would be formalized in a document to be drafted by staff of the two agencies. The ALUC is scheduled to meet March 20 to consider the committee recommendation. Formal action on a City-ALUC agreement, and adoption of the pending ALUP amendment, would probably occur at the ALUC's April meeting. ALUC representatives have expressed a preference to reflect the agreed-upon status of the Margarita Area in a document separate from the amended ALUP, to avoid possibly having the Margarita Area cited as a precedent for other areas where specific planning has not proceeded as far. However, both City and County staff have concerns about whether the agreement can be effectively accomplished without some direct reference within the amended ALUP itself. City staff will work to reconcile these differing positions in a manner that will adequately protect the City's interests, prior to amendment of the ALUP. The recommended conceptual plan differs from the 1998 draft specific plan in the following principal ways: • More open space in the south-central part of the area; • Reduced residential densities in the middle of the area; • Increased residential densities toward the base of the hills; • No schools or public-assembly uses such as churches(school site already rejected by State Department of Education process); • Small expansions of the Business Park area to the north and east; • Emphasis on two poles of residential concentration and a central space for small-scale businesses, rather than a multi-block "main street" corridor; • Avoiding structures and large trees in some of the more level open space areas and in some of Prado Road's median. For comparison, map Attachment #3 shows, at the same scale, the land use layout previously endorsed by the City Council. Table Attachment #4 compares the numbers of dwellings allowable in various airport compatibility conditions. Larger scale color maps showing the two versions of the plan, and a map highlighting the areas of difference, are available in the Community Development Department.. 61 Z i Council Agenda Report—Margarita Area Airport Compatibility Page 3 Next Steps If the City Council and the ALUC accept the committee's recommendation, staff will revise the draft specific plan for consideration by the ALUC, the City Planning Commission, and the City Council at future public hearings (probably starting in June). The environmental impact report for the previous draft Margarita Area Specific.Plan has already been published, with a note that a revision for airport compatibility was anticipated.. The EIR is expected to adequately address Margarita Area impacts, because the revision would not change the treatment of sensitive habitats, or substantially alter circulation features or development capacities. FISCAL IMPACTS Reaching agreement with the ALUC would greatly reduce the chances for costly litigation involving a City override or other challenges possibly involving the landowners, but specific savings cannot be identified at this time. Staff costs to prepare a revised plan have already been anticipated in the Community Development Department budget. Future City costs for park or open space maintenance are a consideration. The conceptual plan does not identify a specific treatment for the additional open area, which previously was shown for residential use. Staff anticipates showing park-like planting for the edges of this area, with the middle part a more natural landscape (like the northern part of Laguna Lake Park, and possibly a site for sensitive plant species mitigation). That approach would reduce development and maintenance costs, in comparison with developing the whole area as a conventional city park. Since new development must pay its own way, different unit costs for public facilities are not a direct City budget concern. However, costs for major public facilities such as the Prado Road extension, the backbone water and sewer system, and storm drainage are largely fixed, so reducing the number of dwellings could increase the average cost per dwelling. That could affect housing affordability. Staff has estimated that the revised plan would accommodate about 23 percent fewer dwellings. On the other hand, an increase in business-park building area is expected, which would help offset the reduction in funds from dwellings. As a result, the cost of public facilities per dwelling is expected to increase above previous estimates, by some amount less than 23 percent. A refined estimate will be prepared for the revised specific plan. Likewise, the fees that would equalize the economic burdens among owners for parkland, for example, will need to be revised. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION The Planning Commission and other advisory bodies will be further involved as the revised specific plan proceeds through hearings. The Margarita Area property owners have been informed of the subcommittee action and notified of this Council meeting. 6/-3 Council Agenda Report—Margarita Area Airport Compatibility Page 4 ALTERNATIVES The Council's action alternatives are: A. Continue this item, which would further delay resolution of the land-use issues; 13. Reject the committee recommendation and give further direction to staff on planning for the Margarita Area in relation to the ALUC's mandatory airport compatibility review. Attachments #1 —List of Margarita Area planning principles and recommended airport compatibility standards #2—Map: recommended Margarita Area conceptual land use #3 —Map: Draft land use layout referred to the ALUC in 2001 (Council 1998 endorsement) #4—Table comparing residential development capacity by airport compatibility factors Umasp\aprevcandoc Attachment#1 Planning Principles for the Margarita Area 1. Extend and connect access, utilities, and development between previously developed areas. 2. Provide a substantial number of dwellings for those working or attending school in San Luis Obispo. 3. Provide a range of housing types, to accommodate various household types and income levels. 4. Provide a strong sense of neighborhood identity and focus through: a. A variety of visual and physical connections; b. Appropriate and compatible mixing of uses; c. Sufficient density to encourage frequent interaction among residents in public spaces. 5. Protect rare plant communities on the hills 6. Protect unstable areas of the hills as open space. 7. Protect highly visible areas of the hills as open space. 8. Protect waterways as open space corridors for wildlife habitat and movement. 9. Avoid substantial impacts to the solar exposure, privacy, and views of existing dwellings near Margarita Avenue. 10. Avoid emphasizing the power lines (especially the towers) in views from and within the area. 11. Encourage walking, cycling, and bus riding for trips to, from, and within the area. 12. Provide access from neighboring residential areas, while avoiding excessive through motor- vehicle traffic in the existing and new residential areas. 13. Provide multiple access routes for safety and for dispersion of local traffic. 14. Provide an arterial road for east-west circulation (connecting Broad Street with a Highway 101 interchange), while avoiding through traffic in the existing and new residential areas. 15. Encourage energy efficiency and the use of solar heating and natural cooling. 16. Be compatible with existing and planned airport operations: Planning Standards for Airport Compatibility 1. Prohibit schools or public-assembly buildings in the specific plan area. 2. Prohibit buildings in the State Airport Land Use Planning Handbook's "Outer Safety Zone." 3. Prohibit dwellings in Airport Land Use Zone 3. 4. Prohibit dwellings in the area with 60 dB CNEL or higher noise. 5. In the overlap of ALUP Zone 4 and the State Handbook's "Inner Turning Zone," prohibit dwellings and minimize other buildings. 6. Prohibit"multifamily dwellings" in ALUP Zone 4: dwellings may not be attached to other dwellings, though they may have a zero setback on one side. 7. In the State Handbook's "Inner Turning Zone," allow not more than 40 dwellings (about 1.1/acre gross). Such dwellings will be situated as far as feasible from the departure (northerly) end, and from the extended centerline, of Runway 29 (the main runway). • Attachment#1 8. Maintain about 22 percent of ALUP Zone 4 as land with gentle slope and minimal structures or trees, 9. Maintain about 40 percent of the State Handbook's "Inner Turning Zone" as land with gentle slope and minimal structures or trees. 10. Cluster higher density housing in ALUP Zone 6, closer to the 55 dB contour than the 60 dB contour, and outside the "Inner Turning Zone." 11. Allow not more than 260 dwellings in ALUP Zone 4 (about 2.6 dwellings/acre overall); number in Zone 6 is about 620. 12. Allow not more than 580 dwellings exposed to 55 to 60 dB CNEL, to be situated as far as feasible from the 60 dB CNEL contour and from the departure (northerly) end of Runway 29 (the main runway). 13. For noise-sensitive uses, require indoor CNEL to not exceed 45 dB; maximum indoor exposure (aircraft single event) to not exceed 60 dB. 14. Require Business Park buildings to be clustered and, particularly in the "Inner Turning Zone," resistant to aircraft noise and safety risks. 15. Provide an unobstructed emergency landing place, at least 150 feet wide and 1,000 feet long, located and oriented for the main runway right-turn departure, and preserve land at the southwest corner of the Business Park area, in the State Handbook's"Outer Safety Zone," for incorporation into an emergency landing site oriented to the main runway straight-out departure. 16. Prohibit hazards to flight operations and to safety of aircraft occupants in flight (airspace obstructions, smoke, glare, electromagnetic interference, and so on). 17. In the Neighborhood Park, provide some seating, bar-b-que, and small-child play spaces that are partly enclosed to provide aircraft-noise attenuation. 18. Encourage noise-attenuation for residential outdoor-use areas and for outdoor employee break areas, such as covered patios. 19. Require that all parcels be subject to avigation easements, in a form approved by the County; requite notice of airport operations for all prospective buyers and renters, in a form approved by the Airport Land Use Commission. Gmatteso\masp\principles.doc 01. G Attachment#2 0) m O `6 N •0 J OZ C .� o i LU _ a. x OW tO2 ca a �• Ua O. 0 JE E Q yV d m O C �`• i ��; yr ,'�,r•' ,��'t t0 zQ tnN CLW 04) " \ l ` e 00004 ` •f•f• 0040 0000, 0 ae�' . . . . . . . . . . . . .ta.yodV•' 00 ON /y i i S Alp 1' LL 10 :. -! _ :••<LLtLSl ?; L << i<<i Ali<i ,•••' , 4P* I , < < < < _ _ _ It 41 o <Si Si Si Si2Si<i<< M _ // . . . . . i i { S SSi C �O •(� QZ E O I o m Z% m E a . . . . . . . <::::' : N y o :: ... m w p m U '•t '.•�•::: :�:� �� � ami � .............. . . <::::: ::ii r� g09 ,, ,,, , CD E E C p t & . •3•• i 3 O d •m j E ........ . ... ....... ..... ...... ........ ......... 'f O � I , Hl HE x . . . . . . . �N s . . .... ......... .. .... ......... o LL p N (a C13 0 V ow CL CL LL N ' 3 . • r fG O N N O O a J says c9 cn O O z cn L0�QemLl IN J o Attachment#3 won E N i j o°? dt daa �- .3 m hcam ' ou 10 J M CL 32 ��• N C .� i fit.'jl 1\ -''1 l� J� ~�"J r, ��� O { L Z Q ON Q \,, Tl i, f l,� t a`ti.is \_. ,�' \\JJ• � 7 .� w� � ��� "�v •�� �'��/ �-•r• 0000 l�, � .. ._. j 0000. y . . . . . . . . . . Q s —Js . . . . . . . . . . . ......... OO JJJ ! ����► , . . . < < r... f \, ` :., � < `< Q :',•• it �I 1 N 40P I! d j1+.= ........ F . . . . . �u ami Ix m p � m _ v I.... ca�.:..� _ d ;� ♦ m E E p �° c Obid J -�� .....; wmC � � S Z m : : : : : : : 'J = .::: . I� 1®® '4 -- i m 4 ! .1.. 1 ♦ c oo tL r a, J J� IM o m r a a m a o o z o r,a CD cn L f OIA461H f B��a Attachment #4 £ 0 2 7 E E 2 q § � Co � k Cu Co E 2 2 \ ? U 2 N CIN m n LO R o m Co E a 0 2 0^= $ 05 ; \ % p2 � (D tom § § © � $ 0E E 71) 0 CL � E CD Q 4) CIS § � k E \ ) 2 CL 2 \ w M 0 M 0 k r- kCo C CL _ © � _ - U � ES cc To« S E @ � ¢ . 0 0 � CL � E st k � � k ■ o 0 % ƒ7 + « R � » #7t c Q - k \� \ k e - Co Co EL M o $ E EEfE § @ � E{ £ Et CL ° I2 \ ° 2E _ _ % § Co \ � o = e CL C.) LO � _ § $ £ o LO CO= m • ao § CL o § 0 § § $ ; kk2 � £ o £ n # m _ emu « 0 0 m � (D m § : c o § �7 \ S I k N S k Fom- - E ° E� % E $ � A ® cc 3E] E2 CD 2 m E mak $0.\ \O ° § e 0 4 \ § / 0ff § N � O M>1E Z S 0 k � � k / \ C E $ a. 7 § \ 2O S « E E $ - ® 000 k / 3 / ƒdkd2 � Ek i f dk k CO) Cu (D Co § W CL L\ \ m % M $ § v E < aCL kR $ 2 ) �/- 9