NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROCESS UPDATE

NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROCESS UPDATE

Wilson Avenue

Banyan Ave 210 Freeway NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL

May 16, 2018

What is the NESAP? ▪ NESAP stands for the North Eastern Sphere

Annexation Proposal ▪ Annexation would extend the City’s jurisdiction over this land ▪ This is a planning effort to define the future of this land and apply development standards NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL

North Eastern Sphere Annexation Area Public and Private Land in City Sphere of Influence 3,176 acres

County Flood Control-owned Excess Property 1,212 acres

Wilson Avenue

Banyan Ave

210 Freeway NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL

Disclaimers and Clarifications ▪ This planning effort DOES NOT propose to: • Eliminate the Equestrian Overlay or eliminate equestrian trails • Add Section 8 housing or low-income housing to area • Purchase the property • Burden residents with new taxes NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL

Why is the City conducting this process? In 2008, the County sought to initiate development of this land ▪

County-owned land is no longer needed for flood control purposes

▪

The County intends to liquidate this surplus land

▪

Land is in County and subject to County’s zoning

▪

We want to have a say in how the land is developed

▪

We do not want to suffer the impacts of development without ability to mitigate

▪

Fire protection in the north is dangerous

▪

City’s 1992 Etiwanda North Specific Plan allows for approximately 800 units and neighborhood commercial

NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL

In 2015, City Took the Lead Because We Value: Local control

Quality development

Minimizing impacts to community

Fiscal responsibility


October FlashVote Survey (521 respondents) ▪ 64.4% of respondents like the idea of

conserving Upper Sphere Area (~3,000 Acres) ▪ 63.7% prioritize conserving foothills ▪ 84.7% report local control is important


Fall 2017 Proposal (NOP Proposal) ▪ Based on: •

General Plan

•

Stakeholder meetings

•

CDFW input on habitat

•

Etiwanda North Specific Plan

•

Market studies

In December 2017, after community input received, Council directed staff to develop alternatives for lower 1,212 acres of NESAP


What are our options? Outcome

Do Nothing

Annex, Keep as Open Space

County develops land

Community raises $$$, land stays open space

High: our options for mitigating Potential Community Impacts impacts are reduced without land use control

Annex with Community-based Plan Community creates plan for responsible development before County finds a development partner

None to low: little would change, Low to moderate: most impacts would fire hazards and circulation issues be offset by mitigation requirements would remain

Potential Fiscal Impacts

High: we will have to pay for services for new neighbors without receiving tax revenue

High: we will have to tax ourselves Neutral to slightly positive: the right or otherwise raise $Millions to pay mix of land uses will be fiscally neutral for and maintain land to slightly positive

Quality & Amenities

Unknown

Depends on how much money is raised


High: Our city has some of the highest quality development in So Cal

The City’s Objectives Fiscally neutral (or positive) Communitybased


Financially feasible

New Proposal

(And finish Wilson Ave. connection)

What are the constraints? Residential costs the City money until it is at least $750k/house

$$$ for building, expanding, and maintaining new roads and parks

Private property rights

$$$ for open space acquisition and maintenance


Spring 2018 Outreach Summary 20,000+ engagements 9,700 mailers 2 surveys 2 Community Workshops (~330 participants and 15 horses) ▪ 1 Virtual Workshop ▪ 9 Pop-up Workshops ▪ 5 Facebook Live Broadcasts ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪


Summary: Broad Community Input ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪

20,000+ engagements 9,700 mailers 3 surveys 2 Community Workshops 1 Virtual Workshop 9 Pop-up Workshops 4 Facebook Live Broadcasts


March FlashVote Survey (526 participants) ▪ 70.9% prefer local control ▪ 58.9% support the some level of

development under City zoning


What we heard at March 22 Workshop ▪ ▪

100+ participants Top Priorities:

• Local control • Avoiding new property taxes • Development compatibility

▪

Group recommendations: • 12 neighborhood maps, 2 OS maps, 1 County control map


Virtual Workshop Results ▪ ▪

264 respondents (40 non-residents) Top priorities: • Local Control (126) • Preserve Open Space (125) • Avoid new property taxes (107)

▪ ▪

10 pop-ups throughout City Support for annexation, some development, but with conditions:

• Low density/intensity, rural in nature, connects new trails to existing, safe and walkable streets, amenities and open space, and no new taxes or costs for existing residents NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL

April

th 19

Workshop

▪ 230 Participants ▪ We heard: Equestrian-

orientation is very important ▪ Wide range of input on open space, housing types, amenities ▪ Request to purchase for open space was again raised by several community members NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL

Open Space Preservation Costs Estimate ▪ Upper Sphere: $42M • ~$38M for land acquisition • ~$3M for open space maintenance endowment ▪ Lower Sphere: ~$129M • ~$81M for land acquisition • ~$3M for open space maintenance endowment • ~$24M to finish Wilson Avenue • ~$7M to finish Rochester Avenue • ~$4M for Milliken Park • ~$9M for central trail • ~$300k annual infrastructure maintenance costs NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL

April FlashVote Survey (486 participants) ▪ 51.2% do not support a new tax to purchase

any of the land ▪ 1.6% support a new tax to purchase the lower 1,212 acres ▪ 10.7% support a new tax to purchase the northerly acreage not currently under conservation ▪ 21.4% support a new tax to purchase all of it NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL

Moving Forward: NESAP Vision • • • • • •

Low density/intensity Rural in nature Connects new trails to existing Safe and walkable streets Amenities and open space No new taxes or costs for existing residents


Open Space Possibilities HABITAT CONSERVATION


Open Space Possibilities TRAILS & NATURAL OPEN SPACES


Open Space Possibilities EQUESTRIAN CENTER, TRAILS


Open Space Possibilities NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS, GREENS, AND PLAYGROUNDS


Neighborhood Amenity Possibilities NEIGHBORHOOD SCALE CIVIC AND SERVICE AMENITIES


Housing Type Possibilities RURAL NEIGHBORHOODS


Housing Type Possibilities RURAL HILLSIDE NEIGHBORHOODS


Housing Type Possibilities ESTATE NEIGHBORHOODS


Housing Type Possibilities GENERAL NEIGHBORHOODS


Housing Type Possibilities INTERWOVEN WITH NATURE


Housing Type Possibilities INTERWOVEN WITH OPEN SPACE


What are the next steps? ▪ Continue to work with the community

to create a community-based vision

▪ Prepare plan and EIR ▪

Return to Council in early 2019


Questions and Discussion

www.cityofRC.us/NESAP Tom Grahn, Associate Planner [email protected] Matt Burris, Deputy City Manager [email protected] 909-477-2700
