HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/18/1989, COMM.I - STATUS REPORT ON THE CROSSROADS PROJECT (COUNTY LUE AMENDMENT G880035P) — ME'_`NG AGENDA
pp pp Ip - DA l c 6/ - ITEM.
����II�II����II�IIII�III�IIII��U►��������� cljN of,sAn WISPBISPO
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100.* San Luis Obispo,L 9,3403-8100
July 11', 1989 ' FJUL 1 3 1989
cm CLERK
TO: City Council SAN LUISOBISPO.CA
VIA: John Dunn, City Administrative Officer
FROM Terry Sanville, Principal Planner,
SUBJECT: Status Report on the Crossroads Project (County LUE Amendment G880035P)
On May 16, 1989, the Board of Supervisors authorized the processing of a general plan
amendment affecting a 2.5-acre parcel on Foothill Boulevard, across the street and east
of This Old House Restaurant. If approved, the amendment would allow the construction of
the "Crossroads Project": a proposal to provide meeting space, shared offices, reading
rooms and other facilities for public and nonprofit organizations whose activities center
on human services and environmental education. The amendment was submitted by Mr. Cliff
Branch on behalf of the Support Group Network. However, the Board of Supervisors acted
to process this proposal as a county-initiated application. The board has directed its
staff to access the potential benefits and limitations of county ownership and management
of the property.
While the concept of creating a center for nonprofit organizations is a good one,
locating a public assemble building in a rural area is not. The location of the proposal
could compromise the city's efforts to maintain the rural character of areas surrounding
San Luis Obispo. City staff feels that there are alternative sites that should be
considered first before an agricultural area is converted to community use.
The Board of Supervisors is scheduled to discuss the proposal on August 1, 1989. Some
board members have suggested that the city should come up with an alternative if it
objects to the center being located on Foothill Boulevard. City and county staff and the
applicants have met to discuss alternative sites for the project including city and
county-owned properties. In the near future, the City Council will be faced with the
following options in responding to this proposal:
1. Indicate a willingness to consider the use of city-owned land (eg. Laguna Lake
Park) to accommodate the project and city-management of the project..
2. Suggest some other Publicly-owned site (eg. county property on Johnson Avenue,
Sunny Acres).
3. Recommend that the general plan amendment not be approved because it is a poor
precedent-setting decision and take no position on alternative sites.
4. Support the general plan amendment based on social benefits outweighing land use
limitations.
5. Take no position.
6. Some combination of the above.
If the council feels that it wants to establish a city position prior to the Board's
August 1st meeting, members should contact John Dunn and it will be placed on a council
agenda.
cc Randy Rossi