Planning commission declines to forward Miraval 2 PUD to council; asks staff to return with open‑space and parking mitigations

The Soledad Planning Commission voted against forwarding a recommendation of approval for the Miraval 2 planned unit development and vesting tentative map (PUD‑23001; TM‑23002) and instead directed staff to work with the applicant to address open‑space and parking shortfalls and return to the commission.

Staff presented the Miraval 2 proposal as a planned development on a 4.05‑acre parcel on the east side of Orchard Lane and Cedar Lane in an R‑3 residential high‑density zone (APN 02‑522‑037). The application proposes a total of 61 units: 37 small‑lot single‑family ownership units and 24 multifamily rental units in three buildings. Staff said the site density would be 12–22 units per acre and that the project sits within the area annexed as part of an earlier Summerfield annexation; staff also stated CEQA requirements were satisfied by the annexation and that the site could qualify for an exemption under CEQA guidelines Section 15332 because it is under 5 acres.

Senior planner Adena Moore described the deviations the applicant requested: reduced front, side and rear setbacks on a portion of the lots; reduced dedicated parkland (a roughly 2,000‑square‑foot shortfall in the dedicated park area compared with the plan calculation); and reduced on‑site parking for multifamily units. Moore told commissioners the city’s inclusionary housing ordinance requires 20% of units be affordable and that the project’s required inclusionary total is 12 units (6% very low, 6% low and 8% moderate income tiers). Moore said the developer’s proposal includes a mix of rental and ownership units and that the interior street would be privately maintained by an HOA with a CC&Rs regime and recorded easements for utilities.

Architect Randy Resom and project manager Leith (Lathaga/Leith Agha in the record) answered technical and design questions. They explained the project team’s rationale for mixing detached small‑lot homes and multifamily buildings to achieve the city’s density goals while producing ownership opportunities and meeting financing constraints for multifamily product.

Staff presented the project’s open‑space math: the city’s calculation uses about 200 square feet per unit, which produced a total open‑space requirement of roughly 12,200 square feet for the site; the required recreational (park) portion would be about 6,100 square feet. Moore said the multifamily buildings and unit private patios account for some of that open space, but the dedicated park area shown on the site plan is about 4,800 square feet — roughly 2,000 square feet short of the staff recreational standard. Moore recommended as a condition that the developer provide a direct pedestrian connection or gate to the adjacent Orchard Lane Park to mitigate the deficiency.

On parking, Moore said the overall site provides 162 parking spaces versus a total requirement of 138, but the distribution differs by housing type. For the multifamily portion, staff calculated a required on‑site total of 54 spaces and the developer’s on‑site supply for the multifamily buildings is 26; the developer proposes roughly 28 on‑street spaces in the private circulation area to meet the overall project total. Staff warned that on‑site parking shortfalls for the multifamily buildings would require a deviation and recommended conditions to preserve emergency access, including prohibiting parking on the east side of the internal loop where the city tested ladder truck access.

Commissioners and members of the public raised three recurring concerns: the commission had previously heard staff quantify a roughly 40‑acre citywide parkland deficiency; emergency access and potential street‑clogging because the internal streets will be privately maintained and rely on CC&Rs; and the enforceability of CC&Rs versus the city’s ability to authorize parking enforcement or towing in private subdivisions. Commissioners asked whether the CC&Rs could give the city or law enforcement authority to enforce parking and street‑cleaning rules; staff said the HOA and CC&Rs will be drafted and reviewed by city staff and the city attorney and that staff will explore language and enforcement options.

State ADU law also arose in questions: staff said state law constrains the city’s ability to prohibit accessory dwelling units (ADUs) entirely and that design review and HOA approval could apply but may not be adequate to deny legally compliant ADU applications.

After public comment and developer presentation, the commission voted on a motion to approve the staff‑recommended resolution recommending City Council approval. That motion failed on a 2‑1 vote with one member absent. Commissioners who opposed the motion cited the parkland shortfall and concerns about multifamily parking and emergency access. Following the failed motion, commissioners passed a substitute motion directing staff to work with the applicant to identify options to mitigate the open‑space shortfall and parking/enforcement concerns and to return the item to planning commission for additional review; that substitute motion passed on a roll call and the item will be re‑noticed when staff and the applicant have prepared revisions or mitigation options.

Key project facts taken from staff materials and the presentation: the site is 4.05 acres; proposed unit mix is 37 small‑lot single‑family ownership units and 24 multifamily rental units (61 total); the inclusionary requirement is 20% (12 units) of which staff later clarified the breakdown as 6% very low, 6% low and 8% moderate; the developer proposes a private internal street maintained by an HOA; the applicant requests reductions to lot area, setbacks and on‑site multifamily parking; staff recommended conditions addressing emergency access and a pedestrian connection to Orchard Lane Park.

Next steps: staff will work with the developer on open‑space and parking mitigation options (including in‑lieu fees, redesign of on‑site park area, or additional dedicated on‑site recreational space and parking allocation), draft stronger CC&R language and enforcement mechanisms for parking/emergency lanes, and return the revised project to the Planning Commission for another public hearing and recommendation to City Council.