HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/16/2002, 4 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND AUTHORIZATION TO PREPARE AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE ORCUTT AREA CQUnCiI July/5,2002
j aCjen6a izepQizC 4
CITY OF SAN LUIS O B I S P O
FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Directgf�,,,�
Prepared By: Glen Matteson Associate Planner �(J//�
SUBJECT: PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND AUTHORIZATION TO PREPARE AN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE ORCUTT AREA
SPECIFIC PLAN (ER 209-98).
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Endorse the recommended project description (Attachment #2), including no reimbursement
among area owners for open-space dedication, and direct staff to proceed with the environmental
review process, subject to financial participation by the project proponents.
DISCUSSION
Background on Process
The Land Use Element of the General Plan requires City adoption of a specific plan for the
Orcutt Area,before any part of it is annexed or developed under City jurisdiction. A specific plan
shows proposed land uses, public facilities, and design standards in more detail than the General
Plan, but in less detail than subdivision maps and construction plans. A specific plan helps
coordinate development and open space protection for relatively large areas that involve several
landowners and many years from start to completion of development.
In December 1998 Cannon Associates applied for City approval of a specific plan and associated
General Plan amendments, and annexation, for the Orcutt Area (vicinity map, Attachment #1).
The initial application included a draft specific plan. In response to City staff comments, Cannon
Associates has prepared revisions to the initial draft. The revisions were based on discussions
with all Orcutt Area owners and various City departments. (Cannon Associates represents three
of the thirteen owners of land in the area.) Over the last three years, various owners have taken
different positions concerning the draft specific plan. Despite staff efforts through a series of
meetings and workshops to achieve a consensus, several of the owners are dissatisfied with the
most recent draft. As presented in the companion agenda report, they have asked to be excluded
from the current specific planning effort. Several of them have no interest in further
development. A specific plan would not require them to develop their property. Staff
recommends that the requirement for a single specific plan be maintained. If the City Council
supports this approach, the next step is to endorse a project description that can serve as the basis
for environmental review. Staff is suggesting a project description intended to address the
concerns of the nine owners asking for exclusion, to the extent they can be accommodated under
the adopted General Plan.
On July 10, 2001, the City Council considered a proposed General Plan amendment that would
have allowed annexation and development of a parcel at the north end of the Orcutt Area before
the specific plan is adopted. Council rejected that request, and expressed support for timely
adoption of the specific plan. The recommended action is consistent with that direction.
4-1
Council Agenda Report—Orcutt Area environmental review
Page 2
Objectives for the Orcutt Area
Following are basic objectives that the project description should reflect.
1. A substantial addition to the community's housing supply, including a range of densities that
will help accommodate those working or attending school in San Luis Obispo.
The General Plan identifies a capacity of 500 dwellings, or up to 700 with transfer of
development credit (TDC). TDC appears less likely than initially intended to be practical tool for
moving development potential from the City'.s desired greenbelt to areas planned for
development. Also, reduction of planned housing capacity in the Margarita Area and State-
proposed housing targets indicate a need for additional housing capacity where it can reasonably
be found. Staff s sketch plan (map, Attachment #2) has a capacity of about 960 dwellings if a
school is not developed in the area, or 880 dwellings with a school (table, Attachment#3). Two-
thirds of the dwellings would be in the medium- and medium-high-density categories, which
allow a range of small-lot or attached housing forms. The total number of dwellings is within the
maximum allowed by the pending amendment of the County Airport Land Use Plan, which at a
gross density of six per acre would be about 1,300.
2. A circulation system,for all modes of travel, which will effectively link the new development
with the rest of the city, while avoiding unacceptable traffic volumes or speeds.
The key to doing so is a street linking Tank Farm Road and Orcutt Road. Completing this link in
an early phase is necessary to comply with the General Plan Safety Element policy calling for
multiple routes of road access for substantial development. The collector street would implement
this policy. It is difficult for this street to avoid parcels owned by those objecting to the specific
plan while also avoiding the adjacent hill, creek, and wetland open space on the Righetti-Parsons
property, but the recommended alignment would avoid existing structures. An alternative
approach would give more emphasis to Bullock Lane as a segment of a through route. On the
properties least likely to develop, the plan would show alignments where additional structures
would be discouraged, to allow for future streets if development is ever pursued.
Owners have objected to the expense of a pedestrian and bicycle grade-separated crossing of the
railroad at Industrial Way. However, this would be an important link between the trails,
residential development, and sports fields in the Margarita Area, and the trails, residential
development, and elementary school in the Orcutt Area, while avoiding the intersection of Tank
Farm Road and Broad Street.
3. A network of permanently protected open space, encompassing the hill, creeks, and wetlands.
Nearly all of the particularly sensitive features would be preserved. In comparison with the
Cannon plan, the recommended project description would have no greater impact on wetlands,
four fewer creek crossings, and no "estate" houses on the northern flank of the hill. Like the
Cannon plan, there would be potential for some low-density development south of the Calle
Crotala intersection, in an area that the General Plan designates as Open Space.
While it is not an environmental issue, the nine applicants for exclusion have objected to
reimbursing the owner who would dedicate the hill as open space (proposed in the Cannon plan).
To avoid further dissension over this issue, the City Council should affirm longstanding practice
that open space dedications are based on land characteristics, with no compensation from other
owners, while parkland dedication is based on residential development, with compensation for
equity among owners (as is being done for the Margarita Area).
4-2
Council Agenda Report—Orcutt Area environmental review
Page 3
4. Adequate public facilities.
A. Elementary school
The school district has asked that a site for an elementary school be designated in the Orcutt
Area, and district staff has indicated that the location and area shown on Attachment #2 are
acceptable. If the average student generation per dwelling continues to decline, it.will be
several years before the school will be needed. If it turns out that the Sinsheimer, Hawthorne,
and Los Ranchos campuses are adequate for build-out enrollment, land reserved for the
school would be available for residential development.
B. Drainage
Cannon's draft plan shows storm drainage detention areas. The City's master drainage plan
involving the Airport, Margarita, and Orcutt areas proposes a regional detention facility near
Buckley Road, with any detention upstream from that facility being a temporary measure.
The Orcutt Area owners wishing to develop believe that they should not be subject to the
master drainage plan, and wish to provide permanent detention facilities within the Orcutt
Area that will serve their development. Those facilities would be located in areas not suitable
to accommodate development. While having to pay for both in-area and downstream
detention is not an environmental issue, the environmental impact report (EIR) should
evaluate both options and determine which one would have the least environmental impacts.
C. Parks
City policy calls for 10 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents in major annexations. The
Cannon draft appears to meet this requirement, though there is some question about the
boundary between the designated neighborhood park and the adjacent creek corridor open
space. Staff's suggested concept with the school site meets the standard; the version having
residential development in place of the school would have an overall deficiency of about two
acres of parkland, unless partial credit is given for some of the designated open space.
Next Steps
If Council takes the recommended action, and the project proponents wish to proceed, the
following would be the expected next steps.
Staff, owners, and representatives flesh-out the project description and Summer 2002
alternatives,in line with Council direction.
A public meeting to discuss the scope of the EIR is held, and the scope is Fall 2002
decided.
The EIR is re tired and published for review. Winter 2003
A revised draftspecificplan is prepared and published for review. Spring 2003
The package is referred to the Airport Land Use Commission ALUC . Summer 2003
The Planning Commission and City Council hold hearings on the EIR and draft Summer 2003
specific plan,and any necessary General Plan amendments.
The EIR is certified, and the specific plan and General Plan amendments are Fall 2003
adopted (reflecting Council-approved changes resulting from public hearings
and ALUC comments).
4-3
Council Agenda Report-Orcutt Area environmental review
Page 4
CONCURRENCES
The general concerns of all City Departments are reflected in the discussion above. Various
departments are expected to make more detailed recommendations as the EIR is prepared and the
draft specific plan is refined.
FISCAL IMPACT
The Council has previously budgeted for consultant services as an adjunct to staff, to help bring
the specific plan through hearings. Those funds are being spent as provided in a previously
approved agreement.
Applicants for individual development projects pay for environmental review. However, in
recognition of the citywide benefits of specific plans, the Council has agreed to fund preparation
of the EIR for the Airport Area and Margarita Area specific plans, with a large part of the cost
covered by a grant or to be recovered by fees as development in those areas occurs.
The City has not budgeted for the Orcutt Area EIR, which is expected to cost about $100,000.
Considering the constraints on the City's budget, staff recommends that the EIR be funded by the
owners who currently desire development, with reimbursement to them via City-collected fees if
and when other owners pursue development in the future.
ALTERNATIVES
If Council has indicated support for excluding from the specific plan some or all of the properties
(previous agenda item), consideration of the project description and authorization of the EIR
should be continued. Staff; remaining included owners, and owners' representatives would then
discuss how best to respond, and return to Council with a revised concept plan.
Council may continue action for other reasons.
With the recommended action, the basic land uses and circulation features shown in the attached
map and table would beevaluated in the EIR and would provide direction to the proponent's
consultant in revising the draft specific plan. Many of the details of the previously prepared draft
specific plan, such as design standards and utility lines, would be carried forward into the new
draft.
Council may give direction on features to be included in, or excluded from, the project
description. Such Council direction does not constitute approval or denial. All proposed features
and alternatives will return, by way of the Planning Commission, for future public hearings at the
City Council.
4-4
Council Agenda Report—Orcutt Area environmental review
Page 5
Attachments
#1 -Orcutt Area Vicinity Map
#2—Map "Orcutt Area Land Use &Circulation Concepts" (staff recommendation)
#3 —Table "Orcutt Area Concept"
In Council Reading File
• 11"x 17"color map of Orcutt Area Land Use&Circulation.Concepts(staff recommendation)
• Cannon Associates "Orcutt Area Specific Plan,"November 2001 (two 3-ring binders)
• 8.5" x 11"color aerial photo with property ownership lines superimposed
• 8.5"x 11" color aerial photo with property ownership lines and staff-recommended land use
boundaries superimposed
Orcuttkar702.doc
4-5
Attachment 1
Orcutt Area Vicinity
F- ...
�: —
r'
Orcutt Rd O `'
„ .
\ ......•ff•ffff
\ .flffffflffffffffffffffffffffllf \ �� _
`\
\OCI
%� .fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff \ �� �\
\ .f.f LIIL,f Iff/ff fffffffffffffff
%
%
�1�' - �^.':� fff fflffl.fffllfllllJllf if ^�
\��} \ ✓'�. ,.',..'a�,`�ti,�ti,�•ti,'�ti,'a`ti,fa... ` VAS
M
�/ �.`..,.. \`✓�'� ,.sir.~�r�f~�i f~i�f~ru fff ff.f efff�f \\ \/ � \:.\,, i
• •/ �.�.�v, ~rvfffllfllffervlffffleffeffr
, , � fefffff feffrffrffrff
~i..~i.~i....f f f w~f f.~f f f~f~faf i~f r r f~f~i~f....f f~f.~i /l
\
<��. � ......ffffflffllfffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff %�Gt � __ _...
>
fifflffffflfffffffff.fffffflfflfffff.Ifffffffffffffffffffffff /
v
v� v�'
ffffffffffffffffll
;, . ; •;...ffffffffffffffffffffllffffffflffffffflf
,..... ffIlllffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff.fl
J f J.I..f.f I f.I if A
J � fffffffffffffffffffff
•• , f ffffff fffff/IILfIIIfflf llf.f/I.. .......... .. •.... • \ __
Hansen Ln
vo
\
_ ,a„a„a4,a,,,,,a„a,a,1
fff.ff.ff.ffff♦
G _ s=+Fat s-s a s-s as ar-a-a s-iY tr-
,
-
,�ak Farr»Rd,
r
Orcutt Area"Residential Neighborhood"designation
from General Plan Land Use Map
Urban Reserve Line from
• General Plan Land Use Map
1 in=800 ft
scale N
x/projecWcom dev/long rang"Vicgp_b -apr
Attachment 2
✓'� ` ' Orcutt Area Land Use & Circulation Concepts
we _/; City of San Luis Obispo-Community Development Department(May 2002)
ev
v
Ordutt Rd p '
•
r r•f~r•} � � "
��! rwi. tir• ...: -
r:
c';. _ , ;.,,� ® `tir:: ti. ' :.•� ' :
:' �.. \`. ^w^x^w^x www 1�; r •J•�. \/ \ ......._. .._.....
,:,•' C; n
w
X.
,..,• A w w •ti.ti ti. ..._....... ti.ti.ti.ti
- w w w w .�.ti�.ti • {.ti.ti.ti.ti
-' �\ w w w x r r r••' r•F•r• •r
ti•ti'ti• •.•ti•ti• � __ �
,P\ �x r•r•r •r.r•
.-� tiftif;•
-
v Y, �� Hansen Ln
����� .•� X.
Av� arm Rd
r
a
ti
i
a.:
l
1
F•r•r•}, Open Space:creeks and wetlands Low Density Residential: D Collector street
�•�•�•�fincludes small detention basin on.r.r.r. (( 5 to 7 houses per acre _ _
Maddalena property) Medium Density Residential: for collector al allistreet t
Open Space:hill 8 to 12 dwelling units/acre
w w w w Medium-high Density Resid.: Optional local street
Neighborhood Paris 13 to 18 dwelling units/acre ® Reservation for
0000 Greenway:landscaped trail High Density Residential: potential future street
or median 19 to 24 dwelling units/acre Pedestrian or
r Linear Park includes stonnwater Neighborhood Commercial: �� bicycle trail
�-Ir*v_,:r detention as(floodable terracesmall businesses with
dwellings above
Site reserved for elements
ry school N Optional site for 1 in=800ft
(playfields would be joint-use with park) Neighborhood Commercial
Suburban Residential:further develop scale N
�•,•:•:•:•:•:•,•:•3 ment contingent on specific plan
amendment,City services x/pmjeets/com dev/long rar�ICr�&ait02_hw.apr
Attachment 3
W CO 1' Co Co O Cn Ch CO O O
M O of CrJ Co CO I, �
tM
L. m NM CD r N M Co
0 CL Q Cl
'tIctNNNCnNNNNlim- Co
4 NC4 LqO
to TNCC70NI� NTOO � OCA � C TNCnONI� TOf� � OOiCV
Q U Q U
a) m
CL C1
�= m CDCo M `° 0) m � N � � OD
CM E M
E D E
C a C �
CD as lD C(S
D E O E
m N N Co 'd' N N CO v
i r r N i r r N
CO Co
COWr- CD dl N
tM
N CO O r CA CO N CO t O Un N CO 'q� CO r Cn CD O N v v CO Co Cn
CC co r Cn N O Cn Co N w M CV O C w CQ W r CA CV 0 0 W I-- 6 C6 CV C O Cl) CD
m M CD r r N N r N N N CO CO T T N N r N N
0 N U N
Q Co Q Co
O
O
t O
V OCo Y
i
3 Co
_ Co _ CoCCI Co
C C
Co «. W fl7 Co W
3 m c CD 'i 3. m C Q — 'V N
_ c0 cC � � m _ o t0 a _ d
.he
cC c y E Y `° c � m E �
£ m e a � inp E _ £ m Y cv (D '55 E
V (D Cu .. my WC W .. m �, crno 0
E Urd m a m m mU E Uta 0) -O CD a� U S o
O O 'y 0 cc w 7 D 'rnfr cc a c
CO) m m o m s o fn y y o m z o to
Q O CoCoc w o .CO, d U U L " CD m L X C
�+ y L Co CC c c 0 t c y CC CC c O :E c � a� !-
+.
Cl) 3 � c° m E E a' °Q tnCo �° 3a � Co E E m �° � 0 .3
3 'C c c s c cC M 0 O r 'O c c r c O 0 t
V c d Ca CD m � � 3 0 o L . ai w C JO
a) CD ami aim 3 a � � . aa) a
i CII H e c o Cu a> ._ *`- O C3 a) c p m Com : v 0
Q J OOz ("DzCn � MM = zCAH J 0z0" -122 zC'nw
4-8
i
�IIIVIIIIIII�����I�IIIIIIIIIII �
a • council memoizanoum
Icrty of san Luis oBis o
DATE: July 15, 2002
TO: Mayor& Members of the City Council
VIA: Ken Hampian, CAO
FROM: Lee Price, City Clerk
SUBJECT: Agenda Items 5A and 5B (Copeland Project Right-of-Way Abandonments)
The first page of these two companion reports were inadvertently reversed. Therefore, Page 5A-1
should be 5B-1 and vice versa. To avoid confusion, please remove the two reports in their entirety and
replace them with the attached.
Docu en14