Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-09-2015 PC Minutes SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, December 9, 2015 CALL TO ORDER A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order on Wednesday, December 9, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, by Chair Larson. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present : Hemalata Dandekar, Michael Draze, Ronald Malak, William Riggs, Vice- Chairperson Michael Multari, and Chairperson John Larson. Commissioners Absent: Commissioner John Fowler. City Staff Present: Interim Deputy Community Development Director Tyler Corey, Assistant Planner Walter Oetzell, Natural Resources Manager Bob Hill, Assistant City Attorney Jon Ansolabehere, Civil Engineer Hal Hannula, and Recording Secretary Sarah Reinhart. ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of October 28, 2015 were approved as amended. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS There were no comments made from the public. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. 12165 Los Osos Valley Road. PRE-1293-2015; Request to initiate preparation of a Specific Plan and Environmental Review, including guidance regarding select City Policies, for the Madonna-Froom Ranch (SP-3); John and Susan Madonna, applicants. City Consultant, Shawna Scott, presented the staff report requesting the Commission recommend City Council approve the request to initiate the Madonna LOVR Specific Plan (Alternatives 5.1-5.5). Planning Commission Meeting Minutes December 9, 2015 Page 2 of 7 Commissioner Dandekar acknowledged being familiar with the site; Commissioner Malak stated having an ex-parte visit and tour of the site with the Applicant; Commissioner Draze stated visiting the site on his own. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD Applicant, John Madonna, summarized the project; indicated that the property is uniquely suited for a complete continuing care facility and stated there is a need in the community for this type of elder care; expressed a desire to receive authorization to move forward with the project. Applicant Representative, Victor Montgomery, provided an overview of the project; indicated having key meetings with perspective residents, neighbors, City staff, and agencies from the Froom Creek Realignment and noted no issues were brought up during those meetings that would hinder moving forward with the project. He pointed out that a site evaluation was completed; noted site constraints that would require amendments to General Plan Policy such as alteration of the 150-foot maximum site development elevation and the conceptual mix of uses appropriate for the SP-3 Madonna on Los Osos Valley Road (LOVR) Specific Plan Area; requested guidance and direction from the Commission. Judy Reiner, San Luis Obispo, voiced support for the project stating the need for a continuing care retirement community in the area; indicated there is a lack of choice for elderly care facilities and shared that her parents had to be separated and live apart due to the lack of a facility that would accommodate both of their needs. Ken Reiner, San Luis Obispo, stated that there are over 245 households over the age of 75 in the area who are interested in moving into a continuing care facility; noted that people who are retiring are very active and would like to be close to hiking and biking trails; stressed the need and interest for this type of facility in the community. Rey Walters, Avila Beach, principal of Villaggio Communities, spoke in support of the project, stated there is an overwhelming need for this type of housing; shared a presentation demonstrating statistics and demographics that reflect the lack of elder care options and the need for a continuing care facility; opined that after looking at many locations throughout the County, the LOVR location would be the best location for the project. John Wilbanks, San Luis Obispo, voiced support for the project; suggested that a General Plan amendment may not be needed to develop above the 150-foot elevation contour, noting that policy 6.4.7.H of the General Plan Land Use Element states: “The Irish Hills area should secure permanent open space with no building sites above the 150-foot elevation” and pointed out that the word “should” is permissive. There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Riggs, inquired regarding the creek setback. Natural Resources Manager, Robert Hill, clarified that the zoning regulations require a 35-foot creek setback. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes December 9, 2015 Page 3 of 7 Commissioner Draze stated that he was not opposed to the change in uses and the mixed uses being proposed are not inconsistent with the General Plan; agreed that there is a need for a continuing care facility; indicated there are issues related to development above the 150-foot elevation contour that still need to be evaluated and voiced concerns over the visual impacts this project could have on the edge of the community. Commissioner Dandekar stated that the intended use of this area was for workforce housing; noted concerns over allowing development above the 150-foot elevation contour due to the fact that this area serves as a gateway into the City and stated the importance of maintaining the open space character in the area. Vice-Chair Multari thanked staff for the thoughtful analysis and the applicant for their presentation; recommended the Cultural Heritage Committee and the Architectural Review Commission review the project; stated the City is over zoned for commercial uses and noted concerns over traffic on LOVR. He stated that there are pending questions which warrant further analysis as to whether this location is right for the elderly care facility, such as topography and proximity to hospitals; indicated that there is a growing demand for this type of facility; stated it would be premature to recommend conceptual approval or recommend a General Plan amendment without further examination. Commissioner Riggs noted that the development capacity of the site below the 150-foot threshold and the carrying capacity were discussed in the late summer of 2014; indicated that he was not convinced the use is critical enough to warrant development above the 150-foot elevation contour, considering the potential visual impacts; voiced concerns over possible ecological impacts from relocating Froom Creek, and noted having mixed feelings about relaxing setback policies; commented that specific zoning standards are inconsistent with the Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE); indicated being concerned about circulation and access. Chair Larson stated that a General Plan amendment would be needed in order to reconcile the issues; opined that the mix of uses are consistent with the mix of uses envisioned for this area in the Land Use Element; noted not being convinced that this project would preclude workforce housing. Stated the re-alignment of the creek could be an opportunity to enhance the habitat, appearance, and functioning of the creek; agreed with Commissioner Riggs’s comments regarding circulation and access; stated it would be beneficial to receive more community input. Commissioner Dandekar commented that during the LUCE deliberations the 150-foot development limit contour was seen as a safeguard to protect the open space and the City’s ambience; stated having a great deal of concern about extending the 150-foot elevation threshold. Commissioner Draze suggested that if the Commission decides to adopt alternative recommendation (5.1) “the City Council approve initiation of Specific Plan and General Plan amendments including authorization to proceed with including the following in the formal application for further evaluation, as requested by the applicant: (1) alteration of the 150-foot elevation maximum site development; and, (2) modification of the Land Use Element specified land use mix”, that language should be included to address the visual impacts of development above the 150-foot elevation. Also, stated there needs to be broader public notification in order to gain more community involvement and feedback. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes December 9, 2015 Page 4 of 7 Commissioner Malak opined that the view shed would not be degraded by allowing the height extension from the 150-foot to the 200-foot elevation contour; noted supporting the modification to the land use element, stating that there is a need for this type of elder care facility; stated being in favor of re-locating the creek; indicated he would like to see more information regarding traffic impacts and an EIR; indicated he would like to see ADA approved apartments as well as workforce housing to be included in this project; commented that this is a great opportunity to meet the needs of the community. In response to inquiry by Vice-Chair Multari, Commissioner Riggs, clarified his position stating not being convinced that the proposed site is the most appropriate for this land use; noting that environmental impacts, the historic value of the landscape and the visual impacts are very significant issues that also needed to be addressed. Commissioner Dandekar stated that the intent for this site was dense mix-use residential, and was hoping to see an urban development in this site; indicated feeling discomforted over the visual impacts and the land use. Commissioner Draze suggested that issues regarding the creek, circulation, and visual impacts need to be addressed in an Environmental Impact Report. Commissioner Riggs stated it is important to highlight the fact that zoning regulations have not been updated to reflect the LUCE objectives; urged staff to address this issue as soon as possible. Commissioner Malak noted that the zone would remain dense; Chair Larson concurred, stating he did not think the proposal would displace housing; noted these details would have to be worked out when the project moves forward; concurred it would be beneficial to include language in the resolution to include the additional issues brought up by Commissioner Riggs. There were no further comments made from the Commission. On motion by Commissioner Draze, seconded by Commissioner Malak to adopt alternative recommendation 5.1 with the following changes: Recommending the City Council approve initiation of Specific Plan and General Plan amendments including authorization to proceed with including the following in the formal application for further evaluation, as requested by the applicant: (1) revisit of the 150-foot elevation maximum site development, particularly as it relates to visual impacts on the City’s edge; and, (2) modification of the Land Use Element specified land use mix. Including the following changes to Section 3 condition 1: Condition 1. The formal application shall include all necessary information to fully evaluate the potential effects of development on the hillsides above the 150-foot contour line, particularly as it relates to visual impacts on the City’s edge, including but not limited to: photo-simulations, cross sections, grading plans (with cut and fill details), circulation diagrams, and preliminary building layouts and massing details. The formal application shall assess potential visual effects as seen from public areas including but not limited to roads, highways, and open space areas. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes December 9, 2015 Page 5 of 7 Removal of Finding 2. Finding 2. Evaluation of the formal application shall include market analysis to determine the economic impact resulting from the proposed mix of uses, which include a significant reduction in commercial uses compared to what was identified in the LUE. AYES: Commissioners Malak, Larson, and Draze, NOES: Commissioners Multari, Riggs, and Dandekar RECUSED: None ABSENT: Commissioner Fowler The motion did not carry 3:3. No action was taken. Commissioner Riggs requested more information regarding the re-alignment of the creek, information on the setbacks, and asked for more strategies to improve consistency with the Circulation Element. Chair Larson stated that if the proposal to re-align the creek is pursued, he would like to see an improvement to the habitat, noted that all constraints and recourses should be taken into consideration; requested additional information that is more comprehensive to help make a decision on this matter. Commissioner Dandekar expressed interest in seeing if the mix-use requirements could be met without violating the 150-foot elevation threshold. Vice-Chair Multari indicated that many of the issues are linked, and stated there were more issues aside from the elevation such as flood zones and visual impacts that needed to be addressed; stated not having the information needed to make a decision. The Commission discussed the importance of having a transparent process and having community involvement. On motion by Commissioner Riggs, seconded by Commissioner Malak, to continue to a date uncertain with the intent to provide additional information. AYES: Commissioners Dandekar, Malak, Multari, Larson, and Riggs. NOES: Commissioner Draze RECUSED: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Fowler The motioned passed on a 5:1 vote. RECESS: The Commission recessed at 8:09 p.m. and reconvened at 8:17 p.m. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes December 9, 2015 Page 6 of 7 2. 2881 Broad Street. SBDV-1988-2015; A determination of whether the disposition of a city- owned lot and the acquisition of the property bordering 2881 Broad Street is in conformance to the City’s General Plan; R-2-S zone; Dustin Pires, applicant. Assistant Planner, Walter Oetzell, presented the staff report and provided an overview of the project, recommending, adopting a draft resolution of the San Luis Obispo Planning Commission determining the disposition of a portion of a City-owned lot at the southerly edge of Stoneridge Drive and acquisition of property along the northerly edge of Perkins Lane, adjacent to Property Located at 2881 Broad Street is in Conformance with the goals and policies of the General Plan (SUBDV-1988-2015), based on findings. Commissioner Malak asked for clarification on the improvements that would be made to the area; Assistant Planner Oetzell explained that a side walk, curb and gutter were going to be added to Perkins Lane. In response to Commissioner Dandekar and Malak’s inquiries, regarding the process of determining an equitable exchange, Assistant City Attorney Ansolabehere, stated the City looks at a number of factors including the location, and the significance of the land, noting that if the property is large, they get an appraisal, but in small cases such as the one at hand the appraisal would likely exceed the fair market value of the property. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD Applicant, Dustin Pires, stated that the project would drastically improve the street and circulation in the area, noting that the exchange would be a win-win situation. COMMISSION COMMENTS On motion by Commissioner Multari, seconded by Commissioner Malak, moved to adopt staff recommendation, finding that the proposed property exchange is consistent with the General Plan goals and policies, with the addition of the following amendment: SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15312, Surplus Government Property Sales, of the CEQA Guidelines. AYES: Commissioners Dandekar, Draze, Malak, Multari, Riggs, and Larson NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Commissioner Fowler The motion passed on a 6:0 vote. There were no further comments made from the Commission. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes December 9, 2015 Page 7 of 7 COMMENT AND DISCUSSION 1. Staff a. Agenda Forecast – Interim Deputy Community Development Director Tyler Corey, provided an update of upcoming projects; noted that the next meeting is scheduled for January 13, 2016, in which the Commission will be reviewing the Motel Inn project. 2. Commission Commissioner Malak brought to light a synopsis in the Tribune regarding the Fremont Square development. Commissioner Riggs pointed out that he forwarded comments from the October 28, 2015 Planning Commission meeting, and asked the Commission to review them. ADJOURMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:33 p.m. Respectfully submitted by, Sarah Reinhart Recording Secretary Approved by the Planning Commission on 02/10/2016