HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/15/1990, C-5 - ""GUIDANCE PACKAGE"" FOR PREPARING THE MARGARITA AREA SPECIFIC PLAN." � 1 MEETING DATE:
iliillllrl�l l city of San
l ! LUI S OBI SPO ITEM NUMBER:
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
FROM: Arnold Jonas,' Community Development Director
PREPARED BY: Glen Matteson, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: . "Guidance Package" for preparing the Margarita area
specific plan.
CAO RECOMMENDATION
By motion, endorse staff's recommended Guidance Package.
DISCUSSION
This specific plan would enable and control development of up to
800 dwellings and related facilities on a 360-acre site between
Margarita Avenue and Broad Street, south of the South Street
hills. On December 5, 1989, the council directed staff to work
with RRM Design Group, representing owners of this expansion
area, to outline procedures and responsibilities for preparing a
specific plan. At that meeting, the council was conceptually
reviewing a draft of the plan submitted by RRM several months
before. One issue staff had raised was whether staff or
consultants would decide the content of future drafts of the plan
which would be presented at public hearings. On March 5, 1990,
- while discussing Community Development Department workload
issues, the council determined to proceed with preparation of the
specific plan.
Staff and RRM Design Group are asking for council approval of a
"Guidance Package, " which:
- identifies the planning t°eam members and defines their
roles and mutual expectations;
- sets a tentative schedule;
- describes products;
- identifies funding sources.
Staff and RRM have reached agreement on the attached draft
Guidance Package and are asking for council endorsement.
Council action is not urgent, since development of the area
cannot begin until the city obtains a major supplemental source
of water and expands its wastewater treatment capacity, and there
are no state-established deadlines. However, starting to prepare
the plan now will assure that a well considered plan can be in
place when sufficient resources for development become available.
Having the plan in place would help assure the owner/developer
that advance commitments to pay for resource expansion will be a.
sound investment.
�����i�N�IVi118111111h1 city of San Luis OBlspo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Regardless of the procedures used to prepare the plan, the plan
must be adopted by the City Council before it takes effect. The
City Council will have the final say on content.
The Planning Commission has previously recommended having staff
take the lead in preparing specific plans. In the Land Use
Element update, the commission supports the city conducting an
environmental evaluation before preparing a draft plan for any
major development site.
FISCAL IMPACT
The city has collected $900 in application fees, and has expended
at least this amount in staff time so far.
Under the proposed Guidance Package, the owners would be
responsible for all consultant costs. They will pay RRM directly
for all design and representation services, under an agreement
which the city is not party to. The owners will deposit with the
city the cost of preparing an EIR, and the city would use those
funds to pay an environmental consultant selected by, and under
contract to, the city. The city will absorb costs of up to 900
hours of staff time (primarily Community Development and Public
Works) in helping prepare the plan and take it through public
hearings. Accounting for this 900 hours would begin once the
council approves the Guidance Package.
Staff time in excess of 900 hours will be billed to the owners.
(Staff estimated and the council recently acknowledged the 900
hours as part of considering the Community Development Department
work load. ) At an average hourly cost of $30, including benefits
and overhead, the city's financial contribution to the team
effort would be about $27,000. Staff sees this amount as a
reasonable investment in keeping the city directly involved in
planning for a major expansion of the city long anticipated by
the general plan. (Previously, there have been no provisions for
recovering the costs of city staff time in preparing the three
adopted specific plans. )
ALTERNATIVES
The council may endorse the Guidance Package as drafted or with
any changes it deems appropriate. The council may continue
action.
Staff previously posed the alternative of having the city select
and contract with a consultant to prepare the plan, which the
council rejected.
ATTACHMENT: Draft Guidance Package
gmD: marg-gpc.wp
D R A F T
GUIDANCE PACKAGE
MARGARITA AREA SPECIFIC PLAN,
OBJECTIVE
The City of San Luis Obispo and the owners of the potential Margarita expansion
area, identified in the city's general plan update (in progress), wish to prepare a
specific plan which would enable and control future development of the area. The
owners and the city intend to work within the following team approach, schedule,
product descriptions, and cost sharing. Upon endorsement by the City Council, city
staff and owners' representatives will follow this "Guidance Package." Deviation from
this Guidance Package will require approval by the City Council.
PLANNING TEAM & PROCESS
Preparation of a concept plan and draft specific plan will be a team effort involving
RRM Design Group (representing the owners), city staff, and eventually the Planning
Commission.
The team will try to reach consensus on all major planning issues, guided by the
adopted general plan or, if in conflict, the update version most recently endorsed by
city decision-makers. Where a consensus cannot be reached, draft documents will
reflect city staff judgement; any differing owner position will be transmitted
simultaneously to decision makers, but in separate documents (such as letters and staff
reports).
In preparing the concept plan and draft specific plan, all property-owner concerns will
be represented by a designated project manager employed by RRM Design Group.
All city concerns will be represented by a designated project manager employed by
the Community Development Department. All proposals and responses will be
transmitted between the owners and the city through the designated project managers.
All city staff work transmitted to the Planning Commission or the City Council will
first be reviewed with RRM Design Group's project manager.
The planning team will establish a regular schedule of meetings to review work in
progress and resolve issues.
gmD: marg-gid.wp
C-�-3
RESPONSIBILITIES & PRODUCTS
Document Prepared by Edit by Printed by Distributed by
Concept plan outline,
sketch map RRM City staff (a) RRM RRM
Concept plan & RRM City staff (a)/ RRM City
alternatives Planning Comm'n.
EIR scope/contract City staff City Council City City
Draft EIR Consultant City staff City City
Draft specific plan RRM City staff (a) RRM City
Final EIR Consultant City Council City City
Adopted spec. plan RRM/staff City Council City City
Note: (a) Any differing property owner preference will be presented at the same
time, but in a document separate from the concept/draft specific plan.
1
Printing
Concept plan and alternatives - administrative draft:
RRM provides five copies to city
Concept plan and alternatives - commission review draft:
RRM provides 15 copies to city
Concept plan and alternatives.- published draft:
RRM provides 10 copies to city, plus camera-ready originals for graphics that
may be included in EIR
EIR scope/contract: City provides
Draft EIR: Consultant provides camera-ready original to city; city's contract printer
makes 100 copies
Draft specific plan:-- RRM provides 100 copies
Final EIR: Consultant provides camera-ready original to city; city's contract printer
makes 10 copies
Adopted specific plan: RRM provides camera-ready original, plus diskette in Word
Perfect 5.0 for text; city's contract printer does initial run of 50 copies
PRODUCT DESCRIPTIONS
Format for all reports
Paper: 8-1/2 X 11 standard ("landscape" orientation OK for illustrations; 11 X 17 OK
for maps if larger scale needed for clarity).
Printing: All text and maps will be black"on white.
Maps: Each map of the project area should be set in the context of surrounding
features (development, streets, and major topographic features), extending about
500 feet from the specific plan area boundaries.
At least one map will show topography (5 ft. contours) in all areas proposed
for development where prevailing, existing slopes exceed 15%.
Concept Plan & Alternatives
A plan for development of the area, giving sufficient detail to enable environmental
review, including the following.
Statement of what a specific plan is, briefly. (Note that for any item addressed in the
' specific plan, the specific plan controls over subdivision and zoning rules, and
that for any item not addressed, the zoning and subdivision regulations control.)
Map(s)
Vicinity (showing project area in relation to rest of city)
Land uses by type/intensity
Open space
No development; restoration of natural conditions
Public .neighborhood parks
Storm water detention/recharge/recreation
Creeks, wetland, riparian areas (highlight)
Residential
detached, lots larger than 6,000 sq. ft.
detached, lots 4,500 - 6,000 sq. ft.
_ detached, lots less than 4,500 sq. ft.
mobile homes
attached, up to 12 equivalent units/acre
attached, 13 - 18 equivalent units/acre
attached, 19 - 24 equivalent units/acre
areas where group or special housing (identify type) or day care
may be developed
Other
Neighborhood-serving commercial (retail; day care)
Commercial (retail, office, private recreation) serving other than
the neighborhood
Industrial A
Public facilities (schools; sports/recreation facilities serving more
than the neighborhood).
Circulation
Roads: (highway; arterial; collector; local)
Potential. bus routes & stops
Bicycle routes (lanes on streets; separated paths)
Sidewalks/paths/trails
Utilities
Water & sewer mains
Well sites
Water storage tanks
Drainage pipes/lined channels
Tables
Land use by acreage (as in map, plus streets and single-purpose rights-of way)
Housing stock by dwelling form/density (as in map)
Housing stock by for sale/for rent
Housing affordability
Market-rate dwellings with no size restrictions other than zoning; no
price limits
Market-rate, modest dwellings with size restrictions in addition to zoning;
no price limits
Privately owned, limited-price dwellings affordable to (1) low-income and
(2) moderate-income residents; by (a) owner and (b) renter
occupancy
Publicly owned, assisted rental housing
Building floor area by type (as in map 'other")
Programs/standards
Growth management:
Reference to prerequisites identified in general plan (water, sewer
capacity);
Stan date; build-out term.
Sequence of phases and what public facilities/dedications will
precede/accompany each phase.
Criteria for deciding any "when" or "how much" issues that are not
resolved in the general plan or when the specific plan is adopted.
Housing af=fordability/choice:
Sites which are physically suitable for low/moderate income housing;
Sites which will be made available to the Housing Authority (1) at
market cost, and (2) at below market cost;
Dwellings which will be produced by the developers(s) at costs
affordable to low/moderate income residents.
Sites which will be available to builders other than the developers of the
specific plan area, including lots for owner-builder houses.
Street sections (illustrate).
Traffic noise mitigation (illustrate setback/berm/wall treatment).
Any special design features (building form; setbacks; height; coverage or floor-
�� .
area ratio; parking; architectural style/variety; landscaping;
standards/easements for airport compatibility) [key the standards to
categories or areas on the map].
Financial responsibility
Who (city, developer, or other agency) will bear what portions of initial
and operating costs of all on-site and off-site facilities and services
needed for full development of the project.
Alternatives will be clearly identified as such.
EIR scope/contract.
A workscope and contract for the services of a qualified, indpendent environmental
consultant, to prepare an environmental impact report (EIR) in conformance with state
and city environmental reporting rules.
Draft EIR
A draft environmental impact report for review by the public and all agencies which have
approval over or interest in the project.
If concurrent schedules allow, the EIR for the city's general plan Land Use Element
(LUE) update will address issues of citywide and regional concern (such as air quality,
resource demands) while a focused EIR, or a chapter in the LUE EIR, will address
impacts from the specific plan which are more closely related to its site (such as
wildlife habitat, drainage, traffic on nearby intersections).
Q
Draft Specific Plan
A public hearing draft of the specific plan, incorporating refinements or changes which
emerge from environmental review; contents as in concept plan.
Final EIR
A final environmental impact report, certified by the City Council, including all
comments, responses, approved mitigation and monitoring, status of impacts, and any
required findings.
Adopted specific plan
The version of the specific plan approved by the City Council, which will enable and
control development within the area; content outline same as concept plan
e,6.7
PROCESSING SCHEDULE
Date Margarita Area Specific Plan Land Use Element Update
1990 Mar
Apr Council approves guidance package City P.C. editing complete
May County P.C. review/comment
City P.C. draft to council
Jun Draft concept plan to staff
Concept plan OK by staff Begin council editing
Jul
Aug
Workscope/RFP/contract for EIR
Sep Begin focused EIR/LUE EIR chapter Council OK's draft for EIR
Workscope/RFP°contract
Oct
Begin. EIR..
Nov
Complete draft EIR
Dec Complete draft EIR
1991 Jan
Feb Complete EIR responses Complete EIR responses
Begin P.C. hearings
Mar
Apr Draft specific plan published P.C. recomendation to council
May Begin council hearings
o
Jun
Planning Commission hearings` Council adoption
Jul
Aug Planning Commission recommendation
Sep
City Council hearings
Oct
Nov City Council adoption
Dec
' If LUE update is not adopted by July 1991, and if specific plan EIR is ready and council approves, Planning
Commission hearings on specific plan may begin. r
PREPARATION FUNDING
(Estimated Percentages)
Product Preparation/publication funded by Method. of payment
Concept plan Owners (80%); Arranged by RRM;
City staff time (general fund) (20%) In-kind services
[100 hours - $3,000]'
EIR scope/contract City staff time, reimbursed by owners Cash before contr. signed
as percentage of contract amount
Draft EIR Owners (100%) Cash in advance,
Draft specific plan Owners/developers (70%) Arranged by RRM;
City staff time (general fund) (30%) In-kind services
[600 hours - $18,000]`
Final EIR Owners (100%) Cash- in advance
Adopted plan Owners/developers (60%) Arranged by RRM;
City staff time (general fund) (40%) In-kind services
[200 hours - $6,000]'
`The city will provide a total of not more than 900
hours of staff services without charge; city staff
time in excess of 900 hours will be charged at
appropriate hourly rates for the staff involved.
Notify for Margarita Guidance Package.
City Council Meeting April 17 , 1990
Keith Gurnee
RRM Design Group
3026 South Higuera Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Michael Raby
350 Calle Lupita
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Andrew Merriam
Morro Planning Group
979 Osos Street - Suite C
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
`l