Planning commission continues Santa Maria 2020'1045 general plan to March 4 after late comment letters
Loading...
Summary
After a staff presentation of the final 2020'1045 general plan and program EIR, commissioners continued the item to March 4 to allow staff time to address late, substantive comment letters about annexation, agriculture protections and parks standards; staff noted constrained noticing and grant deadlines.
The Santa Maria Planning Commission on Feb. 24 continued its public hearing on the city's proposed 2020'1045 general plan to a March 4 meeting and asked staff to focus on new issues raised in comment letters received late in the public-review period.
Planning division manager Dana Eady presented the final general plan and program environmental impact report, describing the document as a program-level policy framework to guide the city through 2045. Eady outlined the plan's elements'land use, circulation, public facilities and services, conservation and open space, recreation and parks, health and environmental justice (Senate Bill 1000), economic development, noise and safety'and summarized extensive public outreach over the last five to six years. She said the plan introduces two new mixed-use designations (Main Street and Broadway mixed use at 35 dwelling units per acre), increases a high-density residential designation to 30 du/acre where appropriate, and updates the zoning map to match the land use map.
Staff said growth projections provided by the regional agency (SBCAG) were used to plan for roughly 16,140 residential units through 2045. After accounting for about 5,600 units already in the development pipeline, Eady said the plan addresses an estimated remaining need of about 9,269 units; staff said approximately 5,500 of those could be infill within the current city limits and roughly 3,800 could be in a planned 985-acre annexation area east of Highway 101. The program EIR identifies mitigation measures for future projects but notes some unavoidable (Class I) impacts remain for agricultural resources in the annexation area; staff included a statement of overriding considerations to weigh plan benefits against those unavoidable impacts.
Public commenters urged different outcomes. Ken Huff of the Santa Barbara County Action Network praised the process and urged the commission to prioritize downtown and mixed-use changes while opposing the 985-acre annexation of primarily agricultural land. Claire Wyman said the plan should do more to avoid placing sensitive residential uses near industrial jobs and asked technical questions about traffic standards and the EIR. Lori Tamura of Urban Planning Concepts urged that "complete streets" policies not be applied to private internal subdivision roads, questioned the plan's 5-acre-per-1,000 park ratio as aspirational and urged a 2.5-acre standard, and asked for additional time to review recent changes. Ken Day Lobaugh of Dignity Health asked that the annexation area include a designation for future hospital expansion to maintain a contiguous medical campus.
Commissioners debated schedule constraints and the effect of late, voluminous comment letters received Thursday and on the day of the hearing. Staff noted state grant deadlines (a LEAP grant extension) and noticing time needed for council advertising if the commission provided a recommendation immediately. Several commissioners said they wanted one more opportunity to review new materials; Commissioner Dickerson moved to continue the item to March 4 with direction that staff focus on the newly submitted letters and any genuinely new issues. Commissioner Seifert seconded and the roll call recorded ayes by Commissioner Dickerson, Commissioner Seifert and Chair Blanco; the motion carried and the hearing was continued to March 4.
Staff said if the commission forwards any recommendations they would be provided to City Council for the March 17 meeting but noted additional code updates, LAFCO pre-zoning and annexation steps would follow any council action.
