HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/19/1994, 7 - AIRPORT AREA ANNEXATION IN PREPARATION FOR APRIL 20, 1994 LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION (LAFCO) MEETING: CLARIFICATION OF NACIMIENTO ALLOCATION AND OTHER ISSUES RELATED TO THE POTENTIAL ANNEXATION. MEETING DATE:
�►���Igp►����pHlll► �� city of san lues OBISPO - -�
1 COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER:
FROM: John Dunn, City Administrative Offic
Prepared by: Ken Hampian, Assistant CAO tqv
John Moss, Utilities Director e
SUBJECT: Airport Area Annexation in preparation for April 20, 1994 Local Agency
Formation Commission(LAFCo)meeting: Clarification of Nacimiento allocation and other
issues related to the potential annexation.
CAO RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Consider options with respect to the Nacimiento-County Service Area (CSA) 22
water allocation issue, and establish a position that the City retain the allocation for
CSA 22, but agree to transfer the allocation to CSA 22 in the future, with
reimbursement to the City for costs incurred to that point if the property owners
choose not to annex; and
2. Provide further. direction on other issues related to the annexation of the Airport
Area, as desired.
DISCUSSION:
On April 20, 1994, LAFCo will reconsider the County's request to expand the powers of
CSA 22 to provide water, sewer, and other urban services (Attachment 1). As directed by
Council on April 11th, this report is provided to assist the Council in better defining our
presentation strategy for the meeting on the 20th, and to establish a consensus response to
the questions likely to be posed relative to the allocation of Nacimiento water (as it relates
to the Airport Area). Sentiment was expressed at the Council's April 11th meeting that it
would not be productive to simply repeat the presentation made at the March 17th LAFCo
study session. Therefore, in addition to the water issue, other related issues known to be
of concern to property owners and LAFCo are listed, should Council wish to elaborate on
any of them
Background
In February 1993,the County Board of Supervisors asked LAFCo to authorize the expansion
of services provided by CSA 22. The City expressed its opposition to this expansion to the
LAFCo Board, which subsequently agreed to defer its decision for approximately nine
months during which time the City and property owners were to make "substantial progress"
toward annexation.
Approximately nine months later, on March 17, 1994 the City held a study session with
LAFCo to outline the progress which had been made. The City pointed out that since June
of 1993, when LAFCo deferred its decision, the following formal actions have been taken
by the San Luis Obispo City Council:
iIINN1IN�������l�p�ulll�ll� City of San LUIS OBI SPO
gi;% COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
1. Approval of annexation strategy and schedule.
2. Adoption of a Resolution of Annexation.
3. Submittal of an annexation application to LAFCo, along with $9,000 in fees.
4. Text changes to the LUE clarifying the City's intentions and schedule.
5. Agreement that the City should serve as the specific plan lead agency.
6. Funding and completion of a fiscal impact study.
7. Direction to staff to work with property owners to develop specific plan funding
options.
8. Direction to work with the County to strengthen greenbelt policies in the area.
Current Situation
On April 5, 1994 the County Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution to reinitiate the
application to expand the powers of CSA 22 (Attachment 2). Despite the progress made
by the City, as outlined above, all indications are that LAFCo will, at a minimum, approve
the request as it relates to the provision of water. The current position of the Board of
Supervisors and LAFCo seems to be driven by concerns stemming from other City actions
more indirectly related to the Area. Based on testimony and written documents, these
concerns appear to relate to the following:
1. Citywide policy requiring a specific plan in advance of annexation,including the issue
of how the specific plan, public facilities financing plan, and related EIR work are
paid for "upfront" (it has always been assumed that property owners would, at some
point, cover these costs).
2. Current City position on the Draft Urban Water Management Plan.
3. Rejection of.the TX Annexation.
4. Unresolved Land Use Element issues, including possible institution of non-residential
growth limitations ordinance.
Staff does not intend to focus on these three issues in this staff report. However, the
Council may wish to provide direction which could speak to the concerns which currently
exist among property owners relative to these issues. Staff continues to believe that the
ultimate annexation and control of this area is in the best long-term interest of the
community, as detailed in the CAO's recent memorandum (Attachment 3), and it would be
preferable to find some compromise to the current impasse, if possible.
702
►uH�►���uIIfll pn ���N city Or San WIS OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Water Allocation Issue
On January 19 1993,Council directed staff to pursue participation in the Nacimiento Water
Supply Project. The initial allocation requested by the City was 6,265 acre-feet per year
(afy). This amount requested included a 2,000 afy reliability reserve. The balance was the
amount necessary to serve the City at full General Plan build-out, and was based on the
City's adopted planning values in the water/wastewater element of the General Plan at that
time. On March 15, 1994, staff presented the Draft Urban Water Management Plan to
Council. The plan recommended recognition of a revised water deficit of 5115 afy based
on revised per-capita water usage values (the Council has since directed staff to analyze an
expanded water conservation program, which may further reduce this water deficit figure).
Separately, CSA 22 has requested a Nacimiento allocation of 890 afy.
In the County Board Letter, dated February 1, 1994, County staff presented the "Preliminary
Evaluation for the Nacimiento Water Supply Project". County staff recommended that the
890 afy allocation requested by CSA.22 be deleted from project participation because water
to serve this area is included in the City's allocation request. However, while our current
request includes water for this area, the allocation requested is based on build-out in
accordance with the City's General Plan. The City's General Plan does not support the
need for the full 890 afy requested by CSA 22(the basis upon which CSA 22 established this
amount is not yet fully understood by staff).
Instead, City staff estimates the water needed to support the General Plan's proposed land
use for the CSA 22 area to be approximately 400 afy. The 400 afy figure only assumes
water necessary to serve developed (current and future) properties in the CSA 22 area and
does not account for park/golf course irrigation and open space water needs, which staff
assumes would be satisfied with reclaimed water. It must be emphasized that the 400 afy
number is presently only an estimate provided to establish an "order of magnitude
feel" for the amount and potential cost associated with the inclusion of CSA 22 in our
allocation request. Because it is based on certain assumptions which could change (e.g. per
capita water figures, Draft LUE land uses), it should not be viewed as a fixed, final number
at this point.
During the March 17th study session with LAFCo,City officials were repeatedly asked if the
City would be willing to"release"from its request for Nacimiento water the amount included
for the CSA 22 area. This question is likely to be raised again on the 20th, especially in
light of the expectation that Nacimiento commitments to the next phase of study will be
fumed up in June. To answer this question, outlined below is the staff recommendation,
and some alternatives. While a final decision is not necessary for a few weeks, a consensus
position from the Council communicated on April 20th would clarify the City's intent.
As an overall recommendation, staff continues to believe that the City should retain the
allocation for service of CSA 22 properties that are within our urban reserve. This
continues to confirm our intent to annex and serve this area as part of the City. However,
a concern expressed has been that if the City retains within its Nacimiento allocation request
�►►m� ��l�llll�l�`��III city of San LUIS OBISPO
ME M1, COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
the 400 afy, and then eventually transfers it to CSA 22 (if the area is not annexed), the CSA
would in effect have achieved a "free ride" during the next phase of project study. It is
estimated that the next phase of study, involving an EM preliminary design, and
geotechnical studies, will cost the City a total of approximately $383,000. $30,000 of this
amount can be attributed to the 400 afy component of our total request. If the 1480 afy
estimated for the Margarita Expansion Area is considered (approximately $111,000), the
total cost attributable to both areas is estimated to be $141,000. The Margarita Area has
not requested a Nacimiento allocation.
One way to address the above concern, if the Council wishes to retain the CSA 22 allocation
within our total request, is to include within any "transfer agreement" that the City will be
reimbursed for any "up front" costs (e.g., the estimated $30,000) -- if the decision to
terminate annexation proceedings is made by the property owners. As a part of establishing
such an agreement, it would be necessary for the City and CSA 22 to reconcile currently
differing allocations request amounts (400 afy vs. 890 afy), or at least reconcile the
component which would be "reimbursable".
Other alternatives include:
■ The City could delete CSA 22 from our Nacimiento allocation request. If the City
subsequently annexes the area, then CSA 22's allocation would become a part of the
City's total supply. " A downside to this alternative could occur if the current
discrepancy between the amounts requested remains the same, causing the City to
"inherit" a greater allocation amount (e.g. 890 afy) and liability than our currently
projected need for the area. In addition, deleting the allocation would be perceived
as an indication of City withdrawal from the existing annexation process, which has
not in fact occurred.
■ The City could retain its 400 afy request for CSA 22 and, since our numbers may
differ, CSA 22 can request an allocation for the difference (which is currently 490
afy). This alternative does not require reconciliation of numbers and insures that the
City does not become liable for more water than is needed to develop the area under
our General Plan, but insures adequate water if the area develops under the County
General Plan.
Final Considerations
Based on indications given at the March 17th LAFCo study session,.it is likely that LAFCo
will grant CSA 22 additional powers. If, however, the Council modifies any components of
the City's existing position which could cause the property owners to return to the
negotiation process (from which they have currently withdrawn), the City could ask LAFCo
to either defer its decision or establish "a longer fuse" for when the enhanced powers would
be activated. During this interim period continued discussions could occur among all parties
to resolve water allocation and other issues necessary to proceed with the agreed upon
schedule and process.
�����►►�IIIII�IIIIII city Of
san WIs ogispo - -- - =
COUNCILIAMEND- A RMPOI T
AWACHMENTS:
1. April.20 LAFCo Agenda and Staff Report
2. April 5 Board of Supervisors Agenda.Item,
3. CAO Memorandum
g:annex 420
LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION
AGENDA
April 20, 1994 Board of Supervisors Chambers
9:00 A.M. County Government Center
Roll Call
Minutes of March 17, 1994 Meeting
Continued Matters:
A-1 LAFCO File 5-R-93: Reorganization Involving the Dissolution of the Avila Beach
County Water District and Formation of the Avila Beach Community Services District-
Continued from February 17 and March 17, 1994.
Regular Matters:
B-1 Request for Expansion of Powers for County Service Area No. 22 (San Luis Obispo
County Airport Area)
Public Comment Period
�-b
rU
County of San Luis Obispo
COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER.RM.370•SAN LUIS OBISPO,CALIFORNIA 93408■(805)781-5011
TO: MEMBERS, FOOIR.M�TION COMMISSION
FROM: PAUL L. HOOD, DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER OFFICE OF THE
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
DATE: APRIL 20, 1994
SUBJECT: EXPANSION OF POWERS FOR COUNTY SERVICE AREA NO. 22 - SAN
LUIS OBISPO COUNTY AIRPORT AREA
Background:
On April 15, 1993,the Commission considered a request by the Board of Supervisors to add
powers to County Service Area No. 22 (San Luis Obispo County Airport Area). The item was
continued for 60-days to allow time for the City of San Luis Obispo to clarify its position on
annexation of the area. On June 9, 1993, the City Council considered the attached staff
report prepared by City staff and concluded that it favored annexation of the area in total, but
determined that development should occur incrementally. Mayor Peg Pinnard was directed
by the City Council to appear at the June 17, 1993 LAFCO meeting to communicate the City's
actions to the Commission.
Based on the City's actions,the Commission denied the request for the expansion of powers
of CSA No. 22 and encouraged the City of San Luis Obispo to proceed as quickly as
possible with the annexation of the San Luis Obispo Airport Area. The Commission in taking
this action stated that "significant progress" toward the annexation would need to be made
within nine months or the expansion of powers would be reconsidered.
After a number of updates from the City, the most recent being a study session on March
17, 1994,the Commission expressed its dissatisfaction with the progress being made by the
City on the annexation. Based on this, the proponents were encouraged to re-initiate the
expansion of powers of CSA No. 22. The key issue being the approaching deadline for
Nacimiento water.
On April 5, 1994, the County Board of Supervisors, by resolution, re-initiated the'application
for the expansion of powers of CSA No..22. A copy of the Board agenda item and resolution
requesting the Commission to act on the expansion of powers is attached. Also attached is
the original February 9, 1993 Board item initiating the expansion of powers, and the June 17,
1993 LAFCO staff report.
Since the Commission members are very familiar with the issues relating to this item,this staff
report in intentionally brief. In order to hold the options for the Airport area open, staff would
recommend that the Commission approve the expansion of powers, but that the additional
powers be limited to water only.
7.7
Formation Commission
April 20, 1994
Page Two
The recommended actions for this proposal are as follows:
Recommended Action on the Environmental Determination for the Expansion of Powers:
It is recommended that the Commission, by resolution:
1. Certify that the Negative Declaration prepared for the proposed expansion of powers
is complete and adequate and has been prepared in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
2. Determine that the proposed expansion of powers will have no significant impact on
the environment.
3. Certify that the Commission has considered the contents of the Negative Declaration
in making its determination.
Recommended Action on the Proposed Expansion of Powers:
It is respectfully recommended that the Commission, by resolution, AAnprove the expansion
of powers for County Service Area No. 22, for the area indicated in Exhibit D of the original
LAFCO staff report dated April 15, 1993, to include water only, subject to the following
conditions:
1. That the powers of CSA No.22 include funding of land use planning and the provision
of water, only. Provision of other services may be considered after the updated San
Luis Obispo Area Plan (of the County Land Use Element) has been adopted, since
the area plan will clarify county policy regarding these other services.
G
NGINEERING
SRO LUIS OBISPO COU HTY DEPARTMENT _
COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER • -ROOM 207 • SAN LUIS OBISPO,CALIFORNIA 93408
CLINTON MILNE PHONE (805)781-5252 FAX (805) 781-1229
i
COUNTY ENCANEER
GLEN L PRIDDY
ENGINlG ENGINEER
NOEL KING ROADS
t Cu NTT ENGINEER TRANSIT
FLOOD CONTROL
WATER CONSERVATION
April 5, 1994 COUNTY SURVEYOR
SPECIAL DISTRICTS
The Honorable Board of Supervisors
County of San Luis Obispo
San Luis Obispo, CA
Subject: Expansion of Services - County Service Area No. 22
Supervisorial District No. 3 and 4
Honorable Board:
Summary
County Service Area No. 22 provides planning services for property owners in the Airport Area
south of the City of San Luis Obispo. In February, 1993, your Board adopted resolution 93-63
that requested LAFCO to authorize the expansion of services for County Service Area No. 22.
LAFCO considered the item, but "tabled" it for nine months. In order to re-initiate the
proceedings, your Board must request LAFCO to do so.
Recommendation
That your Board adopt the attached resolution of application to LAFCO for County Service Area
No. 22 expansion of services.
Discussion
Exhibit "A" to resolution 93-63 is the original request (January 5, 1993) from the Airport Area
Technical Advisory Committee for the expansion of services. The request provides a more
detailed discussion of the services that are being requested and the reasons supporting their
request. Services being requested include water, wastewater, drainage, recreation, lighting,
landscaping etc. The primary reason they cite for their request is the City of San Luis Obispo's
apparent constraint from being able to provide services.
During the LAFCO meetings in 1993 on the subject, the City of San Luis Obispo was provided
a nine-month time table to resolve issues concerning the potential annexation of the Airport Area
to the City. The nine month period has since passed, and while it is the position of the City that
they have progressed in resolving pertinent issues, representatives of the Airport Area property \
owners have nevertheless requested that the LAFCO proceedings be re-initiated. (See exhit�
"B", March 22, 1994). In order to re-initiate the LAFCOproceedings, adoption of the a ed �1
resolution is necessary. o2,
Other Agency Involvement
The County Planning Department has been the lead Department on CSA No. 22 planning
efforts. LAFCO is responsible for considering the request. RRM design group has been the
property owners' contract liaison. The City of San Luis Obispo is the alternative local
government to provide the services in the area.
Financial Considerations
CSA No. 22 paid LAFCO fees upon the original consideration in 1993 of expansion of services.
Since that request was denied to provide time for the City of San Luis Obispo to work on the
potential annexation, LAFCO has waived additional fees.
Attachments
Vicinity Map
• Current Resolution of Application to LAFCO
Exhibit "A" to current resolution: Resolution 93-63 (Original Resolution of
Application to LAFCO)
Exhibit"A"to Original Resolution (January 5, 1993 request of Airport Area
Technical Advisory Committee)
Exhibit"B"to current resolution: March 22, 1994 request from RRM Design Group
to re-initiate LAFCO application.
Respectfully,
CLINTON MILNE
County Engineer
Attachment
cc: Paul Hood, LAFCO
City of San Luis Obispo
File: CSA 22
m:Veanne\pa o\22regstbft
IN THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBMW,STATE OF CALIFORNIA
PRESENT:Supervisors
ABSENT:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF APPLICATION
BY THE COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
REQUESTING THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION TO
INITIATE AND TAKE PROCEEDINGS FOR THE EXPANSION OF
COUNTY SERVICE AREA NO.22 SERVICES
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Luis Obispo,
State of California, as follows:
WHEREAS, on November 30, 1984 the Board of Supervisors adopted resolution
84-448 establishing San Luis Obispo County Service Area No.22(CSA No.22); and
WHEREAS,on January 5,1993 the Airport Area Technical Advisory Committee for
CSA No.22 requested that the Board of Supervisors request the Local Agency Formation
Commission(LAFCO)to expand the services that CSA No.22 may provide;and
WHEREAS,on February 9, 1993 the Board of Supervisors adopted resolution 93-63
requesting.LAFCO to initiate and take proceedings for the expansion of CSA No. 22
services; and
WHEREAS, exhibit"A",which exhibit is attached hereto and incorporated herein
as though fully set forth, represents resolution 93-63, adopted by the San Luis Obispo
Board of Supervisors on February 9, 1993;and
WHEREAS, LAFCO subsequently considered the request of the Board of \
Supervisors;and
3 7-11
WHEREAS,LAFCO denied the request for the expansion of CSA No.22 services
in order to provide the City of San Luis Obispo with a nine-month period to resolve issues
concerning the potential annexation of CSA No.22 to the City of San Luis Obispo;and
WHEREAS, said nine-month period has since passed and LAFCO has expressed
a wlfingness to reconsider the expansion of County Service Area No.22 services;and
WHEREAS, representatives of the County Service Area No. 22 property owners
have requested that the Board of Supervisors re-initiate the CSA No. 22 LAFCO
application; and
WHEREAS,exhibit'13",which exhibit is attached hereto and incorporated herein as
though fully set forth,represents the aforementioned request of representatives of the CSA
No.22 property owners dated March 22, 1994; and
WHEREAS, it is the desire of the Board of Supervisors that LAFCO consider the
expansion of services that CSA NO. 22 may provide, as stipulated herein and as also
stipulated in resolution 93-63; and
WHEREAS,the County of San Luis Obispo desires that LAFCO initiate proceedings
pursuant to the CoAese-Knox Local Government Reorganization Act of 1985,commencing
with Section 56DOO of the California Government Code,for the purpose of expanding the
services of County Service Area No.22-
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AND ORDERED by the Board of
Supervisors of the County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, as follows:
1. The Board of Supervisors of the County of San Luis Obispo does hereby
request that LAFCO initiate,take and conduct proceedings for the purpose
of considering the expansion of services that CSA No.22 may provide.
2. That the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Luis Obispo hereby
requests that LAFCO consider expanding the services that CSA No.22 may
provide to vrdude all services as previously requested pursuant to resolution
93-63, adopted February 9, 1993 by the San Luis Obispo County Board of
Supervisors.
� v�
Upon motion of Supervisor - seconded by Supervisor r
and on the following roll call vote,to wit
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAINING:
the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted.
Chairperson of the Board of Supervisors
ATTEST.
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
[SEA-]
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL EFFECT:
JAMES B. LINDHOLM.JR.
County Counsel
By
ep ount) Counsel
Dated: 7ra,%-12 r f /9 4'f
m:Ueannelpao=regst.rsl
STATE OF CALIFOF hT" l
County of San Luis Obispo, f
j, —_--_—------------------------------------County Clerk and ex-officio Clerk
of the Board of Supervisors, in and for the County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, do
hereby certify the foregoing to be a fnl4 true and correct copy of an order made by the Board
of Supervisors, as the same appears spread upon their minute book.
WITNESS my hand and the seal of said Board of Supervisors,affixed this---------------
day
--------- er sn ------------
(S�, co®v casan
t d f upwwb enClerk of the Dowd
By --------------------------------—------
Depua a.rk
7-/3
001IBIT "A''
95939
IN THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO,STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
----- u.2 day
PRESENT:Supervisors Laurence L. Laurent, Evelyn Delany, Ruth Brackett,
David Blakely, and Chairperson Harry L. Ovitt
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION N0. 93-63
RESOLUTION OF APPLICATION
BY THE COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
REQUESTING TER LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION TO
INITIATE AND TAKE PROCEEDINGS FOR TBS MANSION OF
COUNTY SERVICE AREA NO. 22 SERVICES
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of
San Luis Obispo, State of California, as follows:
WEBREAS, on November 30, 1984 the Board of Supervisors adopted
resolution 64-448 establishing San Luis Obispo County Service Area
No. 22 (CSA No.22); and;
WHEREAS, the Airport Area Technical Advisory Committee has
requested that the Board of Supervisors request the Local Agency
Formation Commission-(LAFCO) to expand the services that CSA No.22
may provide; and,
i
WHEREAS, exhibit "A", which exhibit is attached hereto and
incorporated herein as though fully set forth, represents the
aforementioned request of the Airport Area Technical Advisory
Committee; and,
WEEREAS, it is the desire of the Board of Supervisors that
LAFCO expand the services that CSA No. 22 may provide to include,
as stipulated by Government Code Section 25210.4&(1), Water
service, including the acquisition, construction, operation,
replacement , maintenance, and repair of water supply and
distribution systems, including land, easements, rights-of-way, and
water rights; and,
WEERRAS, it is the desire of the Board of Supervisors that
LAFCO consider the expansion of "other" services that CSA No.22 may
provide as stipulated in exhibit "A"; and,
WEERBAS, ir. is the desire of the Board of Supervisors that
LAFCO Ia consideration of' the expansion of other services for CSA
No. 22 not necessarily be limited to those services stipulated in
exhibit "A", but also include other services that may be proposed
during the LAFCO proceedings; and,
WHEREAS, on December 20, 1984 LAFCO adopted resolution 84-52
approving a sphere of influence and a sphere of service for CSA
No.22; and,
WEEREMp LAFCO may find that they cannot approve an expansion
of services based on the adopted "zero" sphere of influence and
"zero" sphere of service for County Service Area No.22; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 56425(b)) LAFCO
is obligated to periodically review and update spheres of
influence; and, .
WHEREAS, if LAFCO finds that they cannot approve the expansion
of services for County Service Area No.22 based on the adopted
"zero" sphere of influence, and/or based on the "zero" sphere of
service adopted pursuant to LAFCO's adopted "General Policies and
Criteria", then it is the desire of the Board of Supervisors that
LAFCO review and update the sphere of influence and sphere of
service made pursuant to LAFCO resolution 84-52; and,
WHEREAS, if LAFCO reviews and updates the CSA No.22 sphere of
influence and sphere of service, then it is the desire of the Board
of Supervisors that LAFCO consider the expansion of services that
CSA No.22 may provide after said review and update of the CSA No.22
sphere of influence and sphere of service; and,
WHEREAS, the County of San Luis Obispo desires that LAFCO
initiate proceedings pursuant to the Cortese-Knox Local Government
Reorganization Act of 1985, commencing with Section' 56000 of the
California Government Code, for the purpose._ of . expanding the :
services of County Service Area No. 22; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AND- ORDERED by the Board of
Supervisors of the County of San Luis Obispo, State of California,
as follows:
1. The Board of Supervisors of the County of San Luis Obispo
does hereby request that LAFCO initiate, take and conduct
proceedings for the purpose of considering the expansion
of services that CSA No. 22 may provide.
2. If LAFCO is not able to approve the expansion of services
that CSA No.22 may provide based on the existing sphere
of influence and/or sphere of service, then the Board of
Supervisors of the County of San Luis Obispo does hereby
request that LAFCO review and update the existing sphere
of influence and sphere of service, and upon completion
of the review and update of the sphere of influence and
sphere of service, that LAFCO consider the expansion of
services that CSA No.22 may provide.
3. That the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Luis
Obispo hereby requests that LAFCO expand the services
that CSA No. 22 may provide to include, as stipulated by
Government Code Section 25230.4a(1) , Water service,
including the acquisition., construction, operation,
replacement, maintenance, and repair of water supply and
distribution systems, including land, easements, rights-
of-way, and water rights.
4. That the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Luis
Obispo hereby requests that LAFCO consider expanding the
services that CSA No. 22 may provide to include those
"other" services listed in exhibit "A", 'and to also
include other services that may be proposed during LAFCO
proceedings.
A
'1 7-15-
Upon motion of Supervisor Delany , seconded
by Supervisor Blakely , and on the o owing roll
call vote, .to wit:
AYES: Supervisors Delany, Blakely, Laurent, Brackett, Chairperson Ov
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAINING: - None
the foregoing resolution isher y adopted.
C airperson o rd of Supervisors
ATTEST:
C e e Boatir of Supe ieore
ISM)
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL EFFECT:
JAMES B. LINDBOLM, JR.
County Counsel
By:
epr—t-r-
nt Counsel
Dated: Z 3
m:\leanne\pao\22regst.rs1
i
STATE OF CALIFOMA,
County of San Luis Obispo, } ss
I, ------------JtANQI$M,_COONEY---- _--_N-- County Clerk and ex-officio Clark
of the Board of Supervisors, :n and for the County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, do
hereby certify the foregoing to be &.full, true and correct copy of an order made by the Board
of Supervisors, as the same appears spread upon their minute book.
WITNESS my hand and the seal of said Board of Supervisors,alFued this----—_2nd------
day of__—_—______17as�h_____,19_93_.
FRANCIS M. COONEY
(SEAL) Cosa Curt sad tEsx-Olfielo pert of the Hoard
By Ulm--- - -�� -- -
m.n. - -- ------
Deyat�dark
January 5, 1993
Mr. Harry Ovitt, Cbairman
Board of Supervisors
County of San Luis Obispo
County Government Center
San Luis Obispo, CA 93408
Re: Further Empowerment of CSA-22
Dear Chairman and Members of the Board:
We, as the Members of the Airport Area Technical Advisory Committee representing the
owners of the properties within County Service Area 22—the service area formed for the
purposes of planning the airport area—respectfully request that the Board of Supervisors
ask the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) to expand the powers of CSA-22
in the following manner.
1. To allow CSA-22 to receive and distribute water resources from either the
Nacimiento or the State Water projects to serve the Airport Area planning area.
2. To allow CSA-22 to collect, treat, reuse, and distribute wastewater in the planning
area.
3. To allow CSA-22 to serve the other needs of the planning area with respell to
construction, operation,and maintenance of drainage facilities,recreation facilities,
lighting, landscaping, ei:.
In making this request, we do so knowing that LAFCo originally formed CSA-22 to raise
funds for planning only. The original LAFCo resolution approving the formation of CSA-
22 required that LAFCo approve the addition of any further powers to the Service Area.
Given the some ten years that this Airport Area planning effort has taken so far, it has
become apparent that the City of San Luis Obispo has no intentions of annexing and
servicing this area per the 1988 Concept Plan approved by both the Board of Supervisors
and the City Council in any foreseeable time frame. Hence, it is time to expand our
powers, and it is our understanding that the County Planning staff will support such an
action by your Board and LAFCo. i
In making this request, we also want the Board to understand any costs associated with
providing these services would be borne by the property owners within the present or future
boundaries of County Service Area 22.
E3MIBIT A Page 1 .
g
'.r
i
'.E
:1:
l
_t
Y
Mr.Harry Ovitt
Page 2
January S, 1993
On a final note,we hope that the Board can expeditiously act on this request given the very
strict time he that the County has established for'eontracting for State Water. We will
need to move very swiftly with the empowerment of CSA-22 if we are going to be able to
respond at all within the time limits set forth by the Board—or if we are ever going to be
able.to take Nacimiento water as well. l
On behalf of the property owners,we wish to express our appreciation to your Board for
your continued support of CSA-22 and we look forward to early resolution of this issue that
is so important to all of us.
Sincerely,
MEMBERS OF THE AIRPORT AREA TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Steve Rarig Michael Biggi
Bob Wisberg CU#Smi-th
Charley Senn t=mny
Jim F�7bin ler l ��
Kenneth Glick Dave Martinda;
v/aasp csa
EXHIBIT A Page 2
ti
l:
4
l- O N
low
• .1�,tt yersaf�� >,
R ' R M DESIGN GROUP
'i I'i i!C'rTR75"�1�r11!!Ip!L•rrtd?L Y'1;11�' i!!ir•1}'.. �.:i!6. ir.' .':'i::i . :'ri
9 9 �
EXIMIT "B"
March 22, 1994
Hand Delivered
Mr. Dana Lilley
Planning Department
County of San Luis Obispo
County Government Center gt
San Luis Obispo, CA 93408
4
Re: Re-initiation -- CSA-22 LAFCo Application itlLRING
Dear Dana:
cou()pART V"
Acting as the liaison to the Airport Area property. owners and the County of San Luis
Obispo, this letter serves as a formal request to.the Board of Supervisors to re-initiate the
early 1993 application to LAFCo for further empowerment of CSA-22.
As you well know, in June of 1993, LAFCo, at the request of the County Board of
Supervisors, considered granting water and wastewater powers to CSA-22, which now only
has planning authority. After two meetings and negotiations with the City of San Luis
Obispo, LAFCo directed the property owners to take nine months to work with the City
toward annexation of the Airport Area prior to granting further powers to the CSA.
LAFCo also took action at that meeting allowing for reactivation of the earlier application
at a future date, including waiving any future permit fees.
Given the recent discussions at the LAFCo study sessions on the Airport Area, as well as
the City's actions on the Urban Water Management Plan and the TX Annexation, we feel
it is now even more imperative that CSA-22 be granted further powers. This further
empowerment of CSA-22 is critical to the Airport Area property owners for two reasons:
1. To enable the CSA's ongoing participation in the Nacimiento water project, and
2. To grant the property owners and County the "trump cards" to ensure that the City
will continue good faith negotiations on the annexation.
Therefore, we formally request that the Board of Supervisors, at their April 5th regular
meeting, initiate an application to LAFCo for further empowerment of CSA-22. We are
requesting full water and wastewater powers be granted to the CSA, consistent with the
m](r Sumh hlipria SIrR•i.San U.'s mi+rrr.0111111-41 9-,4'--
i sih
ynr+nh Stre . Cah(urnia ygty ,rry•;:r:;w
I
20 �
Mr. Dana Utley
Page 2
March 22, 1994
direction expressed by the LAFCo members in June of 1993. It is essential that the Board
of Supervisors act immediately on this request, as LAFCo's April meeting is scheduled for
April 20th, versus April 21st In order to meet the 15-day notice provisions, April 5th is
the latest day the Board of Supervisors can initiate this request
I have attached the earlier application materials which have been updated to reflect any
changes in the property owners' request If my memory serves me correctly, you had
originally prepared the Board of Supervisors resolution forwarding the initiation request
to LAFCo, which I understand will again need to be drafted. If you should need any
assistance this time around, we'd be happy to help out
Look forward to talking with you soon.
Sincerely,
RPM DESIGN GROUP
AeAnneHagmaier
t
Planning Division
Attachments
cc: Mr. Paul Hood, LAFCo
Mr. Paavo Oggren, County Engineering Department
Mr. T. Keith Gurnee, RRM
v/lh-aasp.csa
MEMORANDUM
March 28, 1994
To: City Council
From: Jo7ort
Subject: AiRation
I believe that all of us are pretty well convinced,based on what we heard at the LAFCo study session, that
LAFCo at their April 20 meeting will grant water and sewer powers to County Service Area No. 22.
Council Member'Settle and I were discussing the LAFCo meeting afterwards, and we both agreed that
after CSA 22 makes a serious commitment to Nacimiento water, the idea of subsequent annexation to the
City has all but been eliminated.
The purpose of this note is primarily to voice a concern and not primarily to suggest a course of action,
because I believe that the staff and the Council subcommittee have been working on an action course for
the past three-quarters year. As is stated in a separate memo, at the conclusion of our April 6th meeting,
we should discuss our basic approach at the April 20th meeting.
I think all of us were having a strong reaction as we left the LAFCo study session. Not necessarily
because I believe the City has the power to change the inevitable, I will offer some perhaps-after-the-
horse-has-escaped-the-bam thoughts, based upon my experiences and observations with the three cities
I have served during my professional career.
The first was Sunnyvale, which I served during the early sixties, which then had a population of under
50,000, perhaps about a third of its present population. Sunnyvale was then, and continues to be,
recognized as one of the best run city governments in the United States. My job duties primarily consisted
of a downtown commercial redevelopment project and "sealing the borders"with an aggressive annexation
program. The city, even at that time, knew where it wanted its ultimate exterior boundaries to be, and
had a detailed land-use plan for everything within the projected borders.
In Sunnyvale's annexation program we were surrounding areas that had already been allowed to develop
within the County, mostly residential subdivisions, without sewer, storm drainage, street improvements,
etc. At that time we were making some largely unsuccessful efforts to annex these areas and to ultimately
bring them up to City standards.
I happened to be in Sunnyvale a couple of months ago and that process, not now of annexation but of
neighborhood improvement, is still continuing with Sunnyvale having an excellent program in this area.
It has taken the City well over 30 years, and expenses of millions of dollars, to deal with the problems
earlier created by the County, by their allowing urban-type development on the outskirts of the then-
developed urban area.
r
Monterey also had a similar issue in that in the 40's, 50's and 60's they had annexed several subdivisions
which had been approved within the County on land near the earlier City limits. These subdivisions,
again, had no sewer system, no curbs and gutters or sidewalks, no storm drains and minimal/inadequate
street surfaces. Again, Monterey over the past ten years, using a portion of their quite-high transient
occupancy tax, has had a neighborhood improvement program, and has spent millions of dollars bringing
these older neighborhoods up to modern urban standards.
But the major City vs. County issue on the Monterey Peninsula has been the City of Carmel vs. the
surrounding area which is now completely developed in the County. The City essentially chose to remain
as a one-square-mile onclave of storybook and cottage architecture and to ignore, except for making loud
protests, what was happening within the unincorporated area. For years the City protested what was
happening at the "mouth" of Carmel Valley, to little or no effect.. Over time the "mouth of the valley"
became one of the largest commercial complexes within the County. While some of the individual projects
were quite nice, the whole area was not properly being planned and resulted in an expensive hodgepodge.
Today the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea is a landlocked island,a City that is experiencing financial difficulties,
and one where traffic has almost blocked it off from the balance of the Monterey Peninsula.
My basic point is that change is gradual, and often not seen as substantial or significant in the shorter
term. Change on a one-year, or a three-year or a ten-year time perspective often fails to set off alarms
that something is happening that is detrimental to the public interest. However, communities like San
Luis Obispo and Monterey are over 200 years old and, the Good Lord willing, will still be here and
operating 200 years hence. Sharing the basic San Luis Obispo bias for doing things for the long-term, and
in a comprehensive way, I can't help but anticipate some of the problems which are going to occur in an
adjacent unincorporated airport area within the next 50 years. While I am sure there are exceptions,
counties, by and large, do not do the type of specific area planning that results in orderly and coordinated
development. Within 50 years there may be some kind of developmental hodgepodge, there may be
inadequate provision for traffic and almost certainly for the alternative transportation of tomorrow's world.
The people who live and work in this area, although they won't be citizens of the City, will definitely
identify with the City, like Carmel Valley folks do with Carmel-by-the-Sea. While the area may develop
their own sewage treatment plant, a smaller-scale duplication of ours, more likely the State will have
forced us to accept their effluent into our plant. The interrelationship between this area and the City will
represent a very complex and governmental picture, one that will never be satisfactorily resolved. Storm
drainage issues, air pollution issues, and people movement issues do not respect political boundaries, and
in the City will have no choice but to deal with the "down-stream impacts" of these issues. The area will
probably be allowed to develop on a one-at-a-time-property-owner request-for-development-basis rather
than in orderly, incremental phases.
My sincere belief is that the City of the future will end up dealing with the impacts of this adjacent
development, but without the resources to do it right; and subtracting from the resources needed to
maintain services for our own citizens.
Now, having said that, I'll quickly add that these issues are matters of human choice. Cities like Carmel
are given the right to choose their own destiny, even if others observe that other choices would have
served the City better in the long term.
w i
In conclusion, based on my observations during a career in the municipal service, I have seen no examples
of a happy and fortuitous relationship between cities and adjacent unincorporated, urban-type
development.
On April 5 let's devise the answer that we want to transmit to LA>~Co, which answer we believe will be
in the City's best long-term interest. While, from a long-term governmental and planning perspective, I
have indicated a preference, it is clearly the City's choice. Lacking that, a choice which will be forced
upon us by those with motivations other than the City's best long-term interests.
Now that I have "waxed philosophical", you may be wondering: "So what does the CAO recommend we
do?" I have thought long and hard about this, and all things considered, I think the only practical solution
at this point is to allow for the annexation to occur prior to completion of the specific plan. I know this
is not the ideal solution; it would be better to have the specific plan first from a "perfect planning
standpoint". However, given the long history of this matter, the emotional state of the parties involved
(resulting in low-trust levels), and the limitations of time and finances, I think it is the only workable
option before us -- if the Council truly wishes to control the area in the long term.
And, while this may not be the "perfect planning solution", the annexation would not occur in a complete
planning void, either. At the point of annexation, we would have: (1) the Airport Area Concept Plan;
(2) the Margarita Area Concept Plan (which will be close to a draft specific plan); (3) an updated Land
Use Element; and (4) prezoning of the complete area. The specific plan, including the public facilities
financing plan (which the City has long said will be the financial responsibility of the property owners),
can be completed after annexation but before development.
Though this is a less than perfect option from a planning process standpoint, I believe it is preferable to
the alternative, which is no City planning control whatsoever.
This is my professional opinion about this difficult matter, based on a third-of-a-century of observation
about California local government.
JD:mc
C. Community Development Director
Public Works Director
City Attorney
Assistant City Administrative Officer
h/airportl
?�3
April 11, 1994
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION #1
TO: Council Colleagues
FROM: Dave Romer��!
SUBJECT: SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF CITY PARKING STRUCTURES
During the'Northridge earthquake several relatively new parking structures, presumably
designed to current codes, failed. This has resulted in a statewide push to upgrade seismic
design criteria for parking structures, with new codes expected within one year. During the
construction of the Chorro Street parking structure, there was some question whether that
structure fully complied with all requirements of the current code. However, our consultant
responded in a satisfactory manner to the concerns expressed.
In view of the anticipated upgrade of seismic standards for parking structures and the
questions raised regarding our current structures, I believe it would be prudent for the City
of San Luis Obispo to request an outside consulting engineer to perform an analysis on each
of our structures with the view to assuring their seismic safety.
I recommend this item be referred to staff for analysis, to be submitted for Council review
during budget time.
DR:ss
dVA(.17-