Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/19/2008, SS3 - DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT PLAN FOR CONGREGATION BETH DAVID, MADONNA, TWISSELMAN PROPERTIES 1 i council. M.�gD� 8-19-08 j agenda REpom Iu.N.A. SS 3 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Director Prepared By: Kim Murry, Deputy Director,Long Range Planning SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT PLAN FOR CONGREGATION BETH DAVID,MADONNA,TWISSELMAN PROPERTIES CAO RECOMMENDATION Receive a presentation from the Congregation Beth David, Madonna and Twisselman families and refer the proposed concept for consideration during the General Plan Update process. DISCUSSION Overview In the spring of 2008, Congregation Beth David in collaboration with the Twisselman and Madonna families approached City staff with a proposal for annexation of approximately 1,386 acres of property. It is staffs' opinion that such a large, complex expansion proposal should be considered as a part of the.update of the Land Use Element. In fact, this proposal illustrates why it is timely to begin the update. The applicants have asked that they be given the opportunity to present their ideas to the City Council. Staff has coordinated the presentation with the discussion of the proposed General Plan update process so that Council may consider the proposal within this larger context. Back round and Current Situation The Cortese/Knox/Hertzberg Act of 2000 requires the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) to update the Spheres of Influence for all jurisdictions within the County. A Sphere of Influence (SOI) is the "probable physical boundary and service area of a local agency or municipality" and is a long range planning tool. While there is no guarantee that SOI areas identified will be annexed to a municipality, they are logical places to evaluate when a City is planning for future growth. In 2006, LAFCO adopted a Sphere of Influence update that added eight new areas to the City's SOI out of nine areas considered. This proposed annexation area is identified as Area 9 of the Sphere of Influence update and is roughly bounded by Los Osos Valley Road, Foothill Blvd. and the existing City limits (attachment). Staff met with these property owners and their agent to understand their desires for annexation and, while a development concept was not presented at that time, staff recommended that their request be included with the General Plan Update process. Subsequent to that meeting, Neil Havlik, the Natural Resources Manager, met with the owners' agent on site to better understand the extent of biological resources and to assist with identification of where site constraints might impact a future development proposal. The property owners have since come Development Concept Plan Page 2 of 3 forward with a request for a study session with Council to describe why annexation of this area should proceed in advance of the General Plan update process. Absent an impending General Plan update, an annexation request such as this would be presented to the Council to evaluate whether or not to process the request. Council members would review whether the proposal appeared to be beneficial to the community and would respond to the property owners' submittal. Depending on the degree of support expressed by the Council, the property owners would then decide whether or not to submit a formal application. Why Refer this to the General Plan Update Process? When the City receives an application for an annexation, Land Use Element (LUE) policy 1.12.3 directs the application to include a plan for land uses, roads, utilities, the overall pattern of subdivision, and financing of public facilities for the area in addition to providing open space protection at a ratio of four to one (open space to developed area)..This "plan"may take the form of a specific plan, development plan under "PD" zoning or similar development plan covering the entire area. Conservation and Open Space Element policy 8.7.1 allows for small extensions of the Urban Reserve Line where annexation is tied to Open Space protection, however, 1,386 acres of expansion could not be considered a minor or small annexation. For comparison purposes, the area covered under the Orcutt Area Specific Plan is comprised of 231 acres. Because the City is likely to update the General Plan in the near future (please refer to the study session Council agenda report concerning the General Plan update process scheduled for this same Council meeting), and the development potential of the proposed annexation area would likely create a need for significant circulation infrastructure including new access roads and traffic improvements, the most logical approach to evaluate this request would be to fold it into the General Plan Update process. In addition, the Land Use Element, which was developed with a significant amount of community participation and visioning, identifies this particular area as part of the greenbelt and designates it as Conservation/Open Space. Processing an application for changes to this area without first considering the comprehensive city-wide inventory of land uses, infrastructure and services and identification of the City's future land use and infrastructure needs would be premature. The community visioning process creates the alternatives to be considered from a foundation of identified community needs rather than solely on individual owner preferences. With the update, a comprehensive evaluation of land use and circulation needs will be developed. Visioning and growth alternatives for the entire community are generated and owners' requests can be folded into this process. Traffic modeling will be done for the various alternatives, and alternative traffic impacts can be compared. The alternative would be to process an annexation and development request for this property separately from the General Plan Update process. The applicants would bear the burden of the cost associated with developing a plan that addresses all of the requirements listed under LUE policy 1.12.3. However, the lack of coordination with the community visioning process could be counter-productive and confusing as well as restricting options for consideration under the General Plan Update process. ss 3-2 Development Concept Plan Page 3 of 3 FISCAL IMPACT Including evaluation of this request in the General Plan Update process would not have an impact on the overall cost of the project. Processing an application as a separate request would require the owners to submit application fees and pay for the environmental review of their specific proposal. Attachment Map of SOI Areas T:\LUE Update\Development proposal CBD August 19 2008.DOC J � was. �TAL1\ tip !,• *��/+,+, `, ►:fit _►•_'~ r s M Ax LL • l, t 1 c ;lisp_ lot ANA Richard Schmidt 17544-4247 M8/27/56 09:18 PM D 1/2 �1 RICHARD SCHMIDT 112 Broad Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 (805) 544-4247 August 18„ 2008 RECEIVE :- RED FILE Re: FoothilVLOVR Annexation AUG 19 2008 — MEETING AGENDA SLO CITY CLERK DATEILiluj ITEM #-M— Dear City Council Members: I urge you to just say NO to this annexation proposal. To do otherwise is bad planning and bad stewardship of city resources. Annexing this land is not in the city's General Plan. Other annexations which are need to come to fruition before any new annexations not in the plan are even contemplated. Annexing this land conflicts with numerous goals of the city, and would undercut and negate other city goals. It is being promoted by an interest group which chose to locate to cheap environmentally sensitive land outside the city, and now wants the city to bail them out of an alleged tough spot. Let them move back to the city if they really need what they claim are the reasons for annexation, not extend the city and its services miles to reach them on the cheap land they chose to purchase. Your planning responsibility is to the people of San Luis Obispo, not to those who want to annex their cheap land to the city. Anne this area has been thoroughly studied over the years, and each time has been rejected for very sound reasons. A few among those reasons include: • The area is mainly sensitive habitat and flood zone. In fact, the city has contemplated in the recent past the purchase of most of this area as open space, but moved too slowly, with the result that Sunny Acres and the temple have interloped into the middle of what should be permanent open space and city greenbelt. To annex such land for development betrays pledges each of you have made to the citizens of this city. • The present city boundaries on both LOVR and Foothill have geeooara hip 'cal Iodic --the Prefumo Inlet to Laguna Lake (and Let it Be) is a natural boundary, and the Foothill Saddle (between the two cerros) a very physical one. Once you move past those logical boundaries, where do you stop the city's expansion? Boundaries would become arbitrary and interim. There would no longer be any logic to any particular boundary. The city will simply sprawl out O'Connor Way to Camp San Luis and out LOVR to Los Osos. Extending the city to LOVR and Foothill will also provoke the County to expand its low density sprawl still further into the valleys and up the hills. The present limits promote Compact Urban Form, a concept recommended to your perdecessors bye Chamber of Commerce, and adopted as part of the General Plan. Compact Urban Form based upon logical boundaries is thus not a radical concept, but one thoroughly Richard Schmidt 'Q 5444247 0118/27/56 09:19 PM D2/2 mainstream, which the city should uphold. • The costs of ex ap ndiU the city in this location will be hung, and the benefits small. Hundreds of millions of dollars will be needed to extend water and sewer lines (and, don't forget that the lines in LOVR were never sized for this expansion, so you're looking at replacing miles of perfectly useful existing line); for a new fire station (LOVR/Foothill is beyond any current fire station's four minute limit); for perpetual maintenance of highways now maintained by other jurisdictions; etc. Furthermore, if you allow the annexation, and the contemplated use of old people's housing at LOVR and Foothill, you're further complicating the city's finances. These old folks places mercilessly use the city's Fire Department for minor first aid calls. I live a block from The Village, and on a typical day hear the Fire Department sirens responding from four to ten times!!! What does each of those calls cost taxpayers? At the Village, at least the fire station is only a block away. At LOVR/Foothill, how far away will it be? The location is completely inappropriate for the contemplated use. The temple should have kept its old site on Augusta, right in the middle of old folks residences and near a fire station, if it wanted this sort of development. For the benefit of facility residents and for the city's finances, old folks homes need to be centrally located, not distant from services. • Development of this annexation would cut off the valuable habitat of San Luis Mountain and Laguna Lake form surrounding contiguous habitats, and thus create a biological island surrounded by urban development and urban traffic -- the exact opposite of what good wildlife planning calls for, and a direct violation of the city's General Plan. • The annexation would destroy the city's contemplated greenbelt along the city's northwest edge by turning it into new development. These are but a few of the many reasons why you should not even consider annexation of this property. The words "not interested!" are valuable planning tools that need to be used here. The sooner you say "NO" to this bad idea, the sooner itsrrooponents can oat on with a more sensible plan for their facilities. If y-Q"'ve an equivocal answer such as that recommended by staff. you do no one a favor. Sincerely, ; ® COUNCIL 9 CDD DIR ® CAO R FIN DIR 14 ACAO R FIRE CHIEF ®ATTORNEY R PW DIR liq CLERK/ORIG M POLICE CHF Richard Schmidt 13 DEPT HEADS U Aa C DIR 91 21CB - I, uTiL DIR � Cwnc�l - x BIW Y ClurK. Page 1 of 1 Coundl, SloCity From: Annette Sutter[nntt.sutter@gmail.com] sent: Tue 8/19/2008 10:32 AM To: Council, SloCity Cc: Subject Major Annexation Program Attachments: Reference the article in the "Tribune" newspaper, 8/17/2008, "Where SLO Could Grow". I agree with Ciy Staff that the annexation should be included in the city's General Plan. There is no need to rush into something as major as this. The Madonnas, Twisselmans and Beth David Jewish Temple can wait so that the possible impact of such a large annexation on the city is carefully examined. 2009 through 2011 is not that far away. It would be foolish to rush into this; why are the previously mentioned families in such a hurry? What is their"real"agenda? Thank you for the opportunity to express my views. RECEIVE® :13ATTORNEY OUNCIL X CDD DIR AUG 191008 AO 9 FIN DIR RED FILE CAO 9 FIRE CHIEF SLO CITY CLERK MEETING AGENDA � PW DIR ® CLERK/ORIG 19 POLICE CHF DATE$ITEM # S 3 ❑ DE ILHEADS ® REC DIR ® Tr--'.` UTIL DIR 2 � ' � HR DIR X Gouuncil x Garb x Ltw� https://mail.slocity.org/exchange/slocitycouncil/Inbox/Maj or%2OAnnexation%2OProgram.... 8/19/2008