Loading...
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 Staff and RRM have reached agreement on the attached draft Guidance Package and are asking for council endorsement.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