A proposed subdivision of Congregation Beth David’s property in SLO will not get off the ground after the Board of Supervisors heard details of the plan on July 18.
The county Planning Commission first rejected the proposal in March, which prompted property leasee John Rourke to file an appeal. In the appeal, Rourke cited a state code that would allow the subdivisions under the pretense of housing development due to population density per individual parcel.
“This density bonus applies to any property that provides residential use,” Rourke said to the board. “The state has its rules and we are following those rules [in our proposal] but we are hitting a brick wall.”
Rourke and his agent, Scott Stokes of Above Grade Engineering, told the board that they only wanted the board to reverse the denial so they could continue the conversation with the Planning Commission on the next steps for the proposal on the Los Osos Valley Road property.
However, the staff report countered the claim and cited county code that would not allow the 92 acres of land to be split into 20-acre parcels regardless of the state law due to county provisions.
“The basis for the whole proposal cannot be arrived at with any reasonable interpretation of the [state] code,” Project Planner Cheryl Ku told the board. “Rourke believes that they could use [state code]—which allows for two residential units in agriculture parcels of 20 acres or larger, but this is not correct.”
Ku added that even after he had been informed of this, Rourke continued the development of the proposal—something he and Stokes said they only did to get the attention of the Planning Commission, which they claim had not responded to their further request for discussion after the denial.
“The only reason we completed the plan was because there was no more conversation … we were supposed to get a response in 30 days, and we waited six or seven months,” Rourke told the supervisors. “My only option to get them to answer was to have the plan be complete.”
Ku says that despite not seeing the need to review the completed proposal Rourke submitted, the county did look it over but ultimately ruled that again they couldn’t approve the logic being applied to justify the subdivisions.
“They believe the county failed to review water and wastewater issues, and while there were concerns with them regarding this project, the issue would only come into play if the theoretical basis for their argument was correct—it was not,” Ku said.
The staff report also addressed Rourke and Stokes’ claim of lack of communication while noting that most of the information submitted in the completed plan regarding water on the property was almost 20 years old.
“The county did review water and wastewater documents that were submitted, a response was sent to the appellant—there was no response. In January 2023, there was no health clearance letter or response to concerns [sent in]—again no response ” Ku said. “The information they had submitted to us [that prompted these concerns] was from a 20-year-old source.”
Even with that taken into consideration, Ku reiterated that any discussion past whether or not the subdivisions were approvable would not matter.
“No part of this project is approvable, since the map relies on density bonuses which do not exist,” she said. “So to argue about the ability to approve very small parcels for residential development on agricultural land is premature.”
Even if the proposal did qualify, Ku told the board it would still conflict with the county’s open space policies and ultimately would not be approved regardless.
“This property cannot be divided and cannot be qualified as a density bonus project,” she said. “If somehow the basis of their reasoning was legit, we would look at the proposal in terms of resource impacts—and those conflict with county open space policy.”
Citing the staff report and confirmation from legal counsel regarding the state density bonus code, the board voted unanimously 5-0 to uphold the proposal’s denial. Δ
This article appears in Jul 20-30, 2023.