The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05/22/1997, Agenda PRELIM 1997-1999 FINANCIAL PLAN & AIRPORT AREA ANNEXATION 1 Agenda Distribution List (3/97) I. Unpaid Subscriptions: (All mtgs.unless o/w noted) AIA President ASI President council a� Cha enaa /Deborah Holley Chamber of Commerce CITY O F 5 A N LUIS O B I S P O Cuesta College / K. Roberts CITY HALL, 9 90 PALM STREET Bill Thoma / Chamber of Comm. Co. Board of Spvrs. Paul Hood, Co.Administration Monday, May 19,1997 KCCBBKing Authority Thursday, May 22,1997 KCOY KCPR: (2) Gen.Mgr. & News Dir. KDDB y'((��//��Y �rm{��r �}�� t�y►��it�i. �j/.t��i+ �y KEPT KG G 'I I,. KKJ KSBY Y KUHL KVE C Library (front desk) Mustang Daily CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Allen K. Settle New Times (front desk) Pac.Bell / Brad Schram Pac. Gas & Elec. / B.Burke PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Planning Comm. (k Comm. Dev.) So. Calif. Gas / V. Sterling Council of Govts / R.. DeCarli ROLL CALL: Council Members Dave Romero, Kat League of Women Voters Williams, Vice Mayor Bill Roalman, Telegram-Tribune (front desk) Public Interest Action Ctr. ECOSLO / Geoffry Land Res.forQual.Neigh / C.Sanders x. :<:;>: Sierra Club Gary Fe sman PTFl3 . > SF LO Property Y Owners Assoc..1 U > >:> <:3: Dc*RCTd >S .. ....t Lred Strong (The Citizen) w l lComes r0ur.1 1A ;Yctt may aifiiress C c11 t3y .ro pleb Sonic Cable/Jackie tiXBBfl( tllQ[ tti�TCErt�. A #it) B,}EOU ff18}i addr@551) ')Uil UNOCAL/J. Bray dasir' ts>anIarisef edciaTeIiiilt:is: ree: ii: cs><St ? .L ons .::::.:::::::;:.:::.,.::::.:::.:::,::::::.::::::::::::::::::::..�.:::::.:::::,:;::::::::::::::.::::,::;:::: .::::::::::::::::: .:::::;:;:::::: ::: Tele ram Tribune/S y g Pe P inard SLO County use�t a � a>E I Agenda,eeptmb�r5 ekf g cesXtotlt!to ata€L4Im. is made qr queslions d by persons eking thalr waster Capps Ste#31tAy be,aS> Its tat14W 1 +�rTIco tits �€# II.Subscriptions Paid or ,x�ik hA edtet164 tht�on:o Env. Provided (rea.mtas-only) : Ea ter Rents Inc. IMS Krautheim 8F ...Si#(71 gr.. Dev.. oc.) EDA ' Ellenb g Capita Corp. Local -Go rnm Services 1. PRELIMINARY 1997-99 FINANCIAL PLAN VisRRM Design Gr p / Levine Vista Info tion Services Wallace, J & Assocs. Consideration of the Preliminary Financial plan for 1997-99. halter Br s. C unction co. A. J. Diani Construction RRM Fugro/ cClelland ♦ RECOMMENDATION: Review the Preliminary Financial plan canno Assoc. SLO d. of Realtors ® King ey-Horn Regular City Council meetings are broadcast on KCPR,91.3 FM. The City of San Luis Obispo is g:\\groups\clerk\agenda.1st\agdis .wp of its services,programs and activities. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. Pleasespa if you require a hearing amplification device.For more agenda information,sill 781-7103. Council Agenda Monday, May 19,1997 Thursday, May 22,1997 pimmmm �iVI,0A" OW.. to sxceec�.l� �t�ut�s} Ates a ,y Coilat tier ber arse Crty Adaunl native t3 cer y este a que eon for c anficat on l'gk an annonr> r reiort bti## ;an tis pc#er; viklsndiG t,sueCk to oulat ai� es anraceures; #hey r pr�r�de rence o s#a#for�ther iiWs ► fnFfactlrai a€[on, request staf€ repdrt ba k6.im tFU#1t t8E 5� liEi9 tt 1llltt101 Stoo .Ix �lf1901 � bUSIli SS ........ {.. A. ADJOURNMENT. 2 BUSINESS ORGANIZATIONS John Cribb Deborah Holley Association of Realtors BIA 1034 Mill Street PO Box 1402 San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 Tom Brown Building Industry Assn Business Coalition P.O. Box 6180 846 Higuera Street Santa Maria,CA 93456 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Dave Garth Mike Lucas Julia Pierce Chamber of Commerce Economic Vitality Corporation La Fiesta 1039 Chorro 412 Higuera Street#B PO Box 1733 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 San Luis Obispo,CA 93406 Maggie Cox Janice Tye Steve and Evelyn Delmartini The Real Estate Group Manufacturers& Distributors Assn. Mission Plaza Coalition 962 Mill Street 979 Osos, Ste. F 1010 Nipomo Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 SLO Assoc. Manufacturers&Dist. RRM Design Group c/o Barnett&Cox SLO Board of Realtors Assn. 3701 S. Higuera 979 Osos St.,#F 443 Marsh Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 S an Luis Obispo,CA 93401 San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 Mariam Bulter SLO County Cattlewomen SLO Property Owners Assn SLO County Builders Exchange 1394 Andrews P.O. Box 12924 PO Box 1222 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 San Luis Obispo,Ca 93406 Don Hubbard CULTURAL&SOCIAL SLO County Farm Bureau 3475 Corte Sun Risa SERVICES ORGANIZATIONS 651 Tank Farm Road Carlsbad, CA 92009 San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 Cultural Sherry Lewis Lyndon Marie Thomson ARTematives Arts Council PO Box 14603 PO Box 1710 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 San Luis Obispok CA 93406 Dr. Ernest Cementina Carol Guerra Cal Poly Arts Central Coast Rep.Theater Civic Ballet Jesperson Hall, Room 205 PO Box 8106 1340 Sawleaf Court San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 San Luis Obispo,CA 93403 San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 County Historical Society Marta Peluso Tisha Smith SLO County Museum Cuesta College Art Gallery Foundation for the Arts PO Box 1391 PO Box 8106 PO Box 1137 San Luis Obisp[o,CA 93406 San Luis Obispo,CA 93403 San Luis Obispo,CA 93406 Grass Roots II, INC. Hospice Hotline Attn. Peggy Fowler Attn. Leslie Jones Attn. Rick Cohen 1320 Archer St. 1432 Higuera St P.O.Box 5456 San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 San Luis Obispo, CA 93403 Interfaith Coalition Life Span Service Network, INC. Long Term Care PO Box 1575 Attn. Betty Woolslayer Attn. Gari Cave San Luis Obispo, Ca 93406 P.O.Box 3953 783 Quintana Rd. Suite 2 San Luis Obispo,Ca 93403 Morro Bay,CA 93442 Mental Health Association SLO Ministerial Association Middle House Attn.Jill Bolster-White c/o Rev. Randa D'Aoust Attn. Robert Hedrick P.O.Box 100 United Methodist Church 2939 Augusta St. San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 1515 Fredericks Street San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 P.E.P. People's Kitchen Poly Pals Attn.Elisabeth Courtney Go Tom Norwood Attn. Matt Freeby 1950 Pecho Rd. 467 Luneta Drive University Union, Rm.217 Box 348 Los Osos,CA 93402 San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 R.S.V.P. Rape Crisis Center Salvation Army Attn.Carol Conaway Attn. Marilyn Hamiliton Attn. Major Barbara Ammann 660 Pismo St. P.O.Box 52 P.O.Box 1407 San Luis Obispo, Ca 93401 San Luis Obispo,CA 93406 San Luis Obispo,CA 93406 Senior Nutrition Program Senior Peer Counseling Attn. Martha Nichols Attn. Ethel Sosna SLO Grange 710 Fiero Lane#14 660 Pismo St. 2880 Broad Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 San Luis obispo, CA 93401 SLO Jaycees SLO Legal Alternative Corp. Vicki Farrar Attn. Kathy Cook Attn.Angi King SLO Literacy Council P.O.Box 540 1160 Marsh St.#114 967 Osos Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 United Cerebral Palsy of SLO Voices For Children Women's Shelter Program Attn. Mark Shaffer Attn.Wendy Most Attn. Marianne Kennedy 1160 Marsh St.Suite 102 P.O.Box 3005 P.O.Box 125 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 San Luis Obispo, CA 93403 San Luis Obispo,CA 93406 ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS Marilynd Apuzzo Woods Humane Society Abalone Alliance/Diablo Project 4679 Broad Street 15301/2 Broad Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Kurt Kupper Ray Belknap ECOSLO Friends/SLO Botanical Garden Land Conservancy PO Box 1014 PO Box 4957 PO Box 12206 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 San Luis Obispo,CA 93403 San Luis Obispo,CA 93406 Joan Miles Dr. Frederick Balazs Josef Kasparowitz Handel Oratorio Choir Music&Arts for Youth Mystic Krewe of Kamival 2375 Johnson Avenue PO Box 13752 PO Box 14408 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 San Luis Obispo,CA 93406 San Luis Obispo,CA 93406 Martha Schwartz Jill Anderson Ron Regier, Managing Director Obispo Beautiful Assoc. Pacific Repertory Opera Performing Arts Center PO Box 137 PO Box 14760 Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, CA 93403 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 San Luis Obispo,CA 93407 Cricket Handler SLO Mozart Festival SLO County Symphony SLO Art Association PO Box 311 PO Box 658 PO Box 813 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 San Luis Obispo, Ca 93403 Tracy Wilder Social Services SLO Community Concert Assoc. SLO Little Theatre 673 Skyline PO Box 122 San Luis Obispo,CA 93405 San Luis Obispo,CA 93406 Achievement House AGAPE Christian Fellowship Aids Support Network Attn. Darel Sorensen Attn.Charmaine Quinlan Attn.Susan Hughes P.O.Box 3060 710 Aerovista Place Suite#A P.O.Box 12158 San Luis Obispo,CA 93403 San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 Alpha AI-Anon Alano Club Attn.Joyce Mowles/Debbie English 1125 Garden 1814 Osos 439 Marsh St.San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 American Red Cross Arthritis Foundation Attn.Jeannie Nix Amnesty International USA Attn.Alyce Thorp 225 Prado Rd.Suite A PO Box 12628 3220 S. Higuera#307 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 Camp Fire Council Caring Callers Casa Solana, Inc. Attn. Betty Willett Attn. Linda Crawford Attn. Rebecca Simmons P.O.Box 1269 660 Pismo St. 383 S. 13th St. Arroyo Grande,CA 93421 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Grover Beach, Ca 93433 Child Development Center E.O.C. Family Planning E.O.0 Resource Connection Attn.Andrea Schacht Attn.Janice Fong Wolf Attn.Sheri Wilson 1490 Southwood Dr. 705 Grand Ave. 1030 Southwood Dr. San Luis Obispo, Ca 93401 San Luis Obispo,Ca 93401 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 E.O.C. SR Health Screening Easter Seal Society Family Services Center Attn. Biz Steinberg Attn. Mary Illingworth Attn.Brad Rudd 1030 Southwood Dr. 977 Pismo St. 1129 Marsh St. San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 San Luis Obispo, Ca 93401 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Gary Feldsman Pacific Wildlife Care Richard Schmidt Sierra Club PO Box 3257 112 Broad Street PO Box 15755 San Luis Obispo, CA 93403 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 Judy Newhauser GOVERNMENTALIEDUCATIONAL Don Smith Urban Creeks Council ORGANIZATIONS 1111 Vista Lago 531 Highland Drive San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 Los Osos,CA 93402 Patricia Troxel ASI American Civil Liberties Union Artemis Cal PolyUU, Room 217-A PO Box 3818 PO Box 13659 San Luis Obispo,CA 93407 San Luis Obispo, CA 93403 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 Cal Poly University Administrative Services Karen Linn One Grand Avenue Cuesta College Public Events PO Box 8106 San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 San Luis Obispo,CA 93403 Janet Kourakis League of Women Voters Middlehouse National County on Alcoholism 1577 Tanglewood Court 2939 Augusta PO Box 4354 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 San Luis obispo, CA 93403-4354 San Luis Coastal Unified School Dist. NOW Public Interest Action Center Attn:Asst. Supt.for Business Services PO Box 1306 PO Box 15113 1499 San Luis Drive San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 San Luis Obispo,CA 93406 San Luis Obispb,CA 93401-3099 Robert Hendrix SLO Housing Authority SLO County Administrator Attn: Executive Director County Government Center, Room 370 110 2 Laurel Lane County Drug/Alcohol Treatment PO Box 1289 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 110San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 MEDIA ORGANIZATIONS Students for Social Responsibility Tobacco Control Coalition Cal Poly,ASI Box 55 285 South Street,Suite J San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Assignment Editor Assignment Editor News Director COAST KSTT-FM KCOY TV KCPR Radio 51 Zaca Lane 560 Higuera Street Cal Poly University San Luis Obispo,CA 93405 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 News Director News Director News Director KDDB FM 92 Radio KGLO Radio KJUG Radio P.O. Box 987 P. O. Box 170 P.O. Box 8123 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 Arroyo Grande,CA 93421 San Luis Obispo,CA 93403 Assignment Editor News Director News Director KSBY TV KSLY 96 Radio KSTT 101.3 467 Hill Avenue 1880 Santa Barbara Street 51 Zaca Lane San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 News Director News Director KVEC Radio KWSP-FM Mustang Daily 1329 Chorro Street P.O. Box 6028 Cal Poly University San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Atascadero,CA 93423 San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 Telegram Tribune NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS New Times Attn: Dave Wilcox 197 Santa Rosa Street P. O. Box 112 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 San Luis Obispo,CA 93406 Augusta Street Neighborhood Chono St. Neighborhood Alta Vista Neighborhood Assn. do Mary Lou Johnson r/o Carol Tangeman PO Box 5412 2275 Flora Street 806 Murray San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Sari Luis Obispo, CA 93405 Carla Sanders Barbara Collins Mary Ann Michaels Citizen Planning Alliance Foothill Neighborhood Assoc. Laguna Lake Neighborhood Assoc. PO Box 15247 364 Los Cerros Drive 1546 Oceanaire San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 Monterey Hts. Neighborhood Assn. Old Town Neighborhood Ray Nordquist c/o Cydney Holcomb cto Leo Pinard 2076 Hays 714 Buchon Street Residents for Quality Neighborhoods San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Sa Box 12604 San Luis Obispo, Ca 93406 Bonnie Garritano SENIOR ORGANIZATIONS San Luis Drive Neighbors AARP 1950 San Luis Drive 1445 Santa Rosa Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Shirley Bird Senior Citizens Assoc. PO Box 5456 San Luis Obispo, Ca 93403 council apenaa CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO !/ CITY HALL, 990 PALM STREET x Monday, May 19,1997 Thursday, May 22,1997 :triEilprl:Etnt .....:.:.:::::::. .::........... W. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Allen K. Settle PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: Council Members Dave Romero, Kathy Smith, Dodie Williams, Vice Mayor Bill Roalman, Mayor Allen K. Settle ..7�.:. Y f':.i"..:}:.:.i:;:.ii..ryn::..:::•.,...:.i'c):'.}:.ra:.i:i}}v:.i':..::�::.):.:c}:'.:.::::::.::J:.::::.::::::.:.):::::: i::..:.}:f::f:::<..::.:::::::::.}:.:f>:.}:.ii;:'.:}:.:.::::ii'::ii:::;:::};2:::i:::.':::`::�::. .. .: .' ''�,<' ': y� ��,�(� :., ..):.i:.is�<':i::::::i::`; :5:::::iso::,'`:Yi:::;':i:;:i::� :'y.`:::3:i'::}fi:::�::;i::::Y'}};5:.:::f:;.f.>:.:.Y:f:::i.•.fy:.:i::::: ;:::.>'�i: c:;;:.i:,.: i;.:.ni�.:h};Y:.n<'::Y:.)::: i:::::•..::%::isF:::::i;'.i:%j�::::iY'{vY.:::::i'i.` ""?::ff;;,,'::.r::;:,:i '"�`":;:: �;::f:isS::i%:;:::::;:)':;::):::i: ;;`::::':::: j:::::::%"1.::::::iso'Y::::::::%::£:<+` ir'i:::i'::: n::::i::::'::' ' ::j v., aua�Orel Garrles Jrrpt Y�r m Gdr ttie >lrl 6y curl r�pletlg a spealceesslis atx€g€wi ,tt ter f,,..,..: � ,i• #�a............. t ,r�..he: ........:..:. .:.::: .,..�!+#�....................................;€IIi€�e.t�9lrttes�a>. : ;:1 <..:. :.. • n,,..,.:;....;.:.»...:.::....n....:..J........... .....fn« ......o.f.�..':.:..:..::,::::. d}:.�YiY.i:.E}1.Y)�.Y:#1q5.1rvl.�...r:.5..::#:3f::.,:...I~::.:...........vl.,�y yy.n. i: :. n : S ' �...:::::: :i::.f.)..i '):::V'iJ':i:i� •.."mid: :. . .. .. . .:...............:.:..::..:..:. ,:,,:::,...:: n.:Y}}:::;..}...::.::o:> ;;};:><::;;::i:.i)i'.):.}:.;::.::.:::,:):;;:::v:<;n.::...:::::::::::•:_.,.:.......,:YY:..,Y::ff..:f:.................n..:....:......,.... 1 ............. fte.:i ,..........,... ........ S:Sn�:: i ..................................:..:::::::: .. ,:::::::...... .::: ...................................,::::,..:n)ii:::::.:,. ....... ,n.:Jh.n.n........n .....n....v............n.J:.ii ::::::::n.::::::::::::::...v:x.v::................ ...............ff.}i:::::::::.nv::}}:':x:::nn.)::::.:::::.v:::::: ............... •.'.J..,n.....nn.�:�::«::::n,:v.v::v.::::::.:...::::::......v"+:ii)}iY.!."Yiis?i'.,.::;::v.......:n. ,:.i^::........ .••C�::i:::::i::i}iiiYi i..:::iYiiiiii.'::�i�i:f ii::%• i:i>:>.:?::y','ji: y• ... "i%F.Ai:i:dii}":'Y::J::::.:Yiii)Y'.)):1..:::nJ::. ,.:.::... y'...:.v. }�,uy(•�,qq,++ .,::.v.::::::v.:i):!..}::.}`iii:i:i.::.}'::!:::........,::::::::::::::.v..:.v:...:................:::,:::::::::.I:.::....v...............,...................":<:i��::i:::i:<:ii::}:.:::.::::4,AY...,...:.:::...:n.::::i:: ..... :n.::::._ii:�i ii:!•):+):}::iv::::.vnii:::i:f:::....... .::::n.:.:.....v. ....... ..... :.:..... ............. ..:n:.::::::...:.:.i'::::...... ::::iY:.is4:v.li':::i::i>:?:i:::ii::iY::��iY;...,..................;.. :::........... .........: .......... i.::«.::::nw:::::::::.�:•.v::.v, .v'..:::.}):.::ni:.i i:'i`i)iYi:.ii:� ::Y:iii::::i[ii:�:'):.:x}}'::i� ':%i:iei'�i}i}::..::!f:`i%.i}:�Y•} f. 1. PRELIMINARY 1997-99 FINANCIAL PLAN Consideration of the Preliminary Financial plan for 1997-99. ♦ RECOMMENDATION: Review the Preliminary Financial plan for 1997-99. isRegular City Council meetings are broadcast on KCPR,91.3 FM. The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services,programs and activities. Telecomannieations Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. Please speak to the City Clerk prior to the meeting if you require a hearing amplification device.For more agenda information,call 781-7103. Council Agenda Monday, May 19,1997 Thursday, May 22,1997 r: w��n:.. _ �iiJi'�::i::_l�::::::�:::�:i:%::::::i::i::>::::i::>l:i:::'ji:�'if��:::::::;'iso:ii::'�:j:iso`:1f(:ifi:5j:j::::is:i�::C�i:�>i::i'?i:�:::R!:i:i::_:�>•�::J:::n:l:i_::i::`::::: ::: ]:i':i::::5i':i>:i.'i:`i::::::]::i$i:i:i}i$iii:it:j]ni;!::i::::i:?:rf:ii::::i:::::::::::i:::::::: <:iR:::'::ii::ii::::::i:.;:'3;:�::::5:�:::•'.::i::isG::;'�•';$::::i:ii:::iii+':'::i:2:i:;:i:22:::: itWH1W::•:::::i:::::f.::J:'''rv'�i��i:�:'.....:'i::::::i�:'.:�ivi:`::ii:::C::.>,Y::i::�:�::jl):ji]]i:::i:i�:.,....i��i ai':�iY.]:'.]i:':]�.:.iv�::.v..�]�:::��nv::]'•n•:J:i ;.:!!!:i%::^::isi:::/��:::::?'ii`::ii::iivi`:j"��::.:i::i.f ate,�y� ��tle�berasr�e�tAt#�it�E,�eti�re cer �c.eslc a curt .icfiica�on,e�ake'.ar�.:: -� edttd �,s c5: Predrs; :<' .xx :..i::> ,v.......:n..J..if.]'F:.w............... ,...:n..:v............................ .. .......::::..:::.:::.:::::.::�i.�i.;.:.:: ........... ... ..iiiii:.i]::.]]]:.]:i.i'.:::.....vi A. ADJOURNMENT. 2 jcouncil7 S zz ac En as Repout CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FROM: John Dunn,City Administrative Offiae�� Bill Statler, Director of Finance v9v SUBJECT: PRELIMINARY 1997-99 FINANCIAL PLAN CAO RECOMMENDATION Review and consider the Preliminary Financial Plan for 1997-99 at the budget workshops scheduled for May 19 and 22, 1997. DISCUSSION Enclosed for your review and information in preparing for the May 19 and 22 budget workshops are the following three documents: ■ Preliminary Financial Plan. This includes the budget message from the CAO (section A); policies and objectives, including revised work programs for major City goals (section B); budget graphics and charts (section C); operating program costs and descriptions (section D); summary of capital improvement plan projects (CIP) and funding sources (section E); debt service requirements (section.F); changes in financial position for each of the City's operating funds (section G); financial and statistical tables (section H); and budget reference materials(section I). ■ Appendix A: Significant Operating Program Changes. This appendix provides supporting documentation for each of the significant operating program changes proposed in the Preliminary Financial Plan. An overview is included in the appendix that further describes its purpose, organization and content. ■ Appendix B: Capital Improvement Plan Projects. This appendix provides supporting documentation for each of the CIP projects proposed in the Preliminary Financial Plan. An overview is included in the appendix that further describes its purpose, organization and content. The May 19 and 22 workshops are the first of several study sessions and public hearings scheduled to review the Preliminary Financial Plan. One of the fundamental purposes of these workshops is to review these documents with the Council in some depth. Accordingly, it is not anticipated that the Council will have reviewed all of this material in detail by the May 19 workshop. However, the Budget Message and Budget Highlights (starting on page A-1) is recommended as a good starting point in beginning your review of the Preliminary Financial Plan and in preparing /-/ Council Agenda Report-Prelhninary 1997-99 Financial Plan Page 2 for the May 19 workshop. It has been written with the goal in-mind of discussing all of the key issues reflected in the Preliminary Financial Plan in a concise but comprehensive manner. Focus of the May 19 and 22 Workshops We anticipate reviewing the key issues and trends reflected in the Preliminary Financial Plan for all City funds at these workshops, including major revenue assumptions, the City's overall fiscal condition, significant operating expenditure and staffing changes, major CIP projects, and key budget-balancing strategies. All of the City's operations will be reviewed at the workshops. However, since funding requirements for the enterprise funds will be the sole subject at a special public hearing scheduled for the evening of May 27, it is anticipated that the May 19 and 22 workshops will focus primarily on General Fund programs, projects and financial issues. While the exact presentation schedule has not been finalized, the following is an overview of what we generally plan to cover at each of the budget workshops: May 19 Budget Workshop ■ Present overview of key budget issues, strategies and fiscal outlook. ■ -Review fiscal policies and major City goals. ■ Review General Fund revenues and key assumptions. ■ Begin review of General Fund operating programs and CIP projects. May 22 Budget Workshop ■ Continue review of General Fund operating programs and CIP projects. ■ Receive any follow-up direction from the Council for subsequent workshops and hearings. Remaining Budget Review Schedule The following dates have been scheduled for review and adoption of the 1997-99 Financial Plan: Council Budget • May 19 Budget workshop Preliminary financial plan review • May 22 Budget workshop Continued preliminary financial plan review (General Fund focus) • May 27 Public hearing Enterprise fiord revenue requirements and rate-setting • June 3 Public hearing Continued preliminary financial plan review • June 17 Public hearing Continued review and adoption of the Financial Plan On an"as needed"basis only for continued review and adoption of the Financial Plan, June 24 has been set aside as a tentative meeting date. Council Agenda Report-Preliminary 1997-99 Financial Plan Page 3 Major City Goals and Other Council Objectives Consistent with Council priorities and direction, all efforts have been made to integrate the results of the Council's goal-setting process into this document. The way this has been accomplished is discussed at some length in the Budget Message. To facilitate the Council's review of how these goals and objectives have been integrated into the Preliminary Financial Plan, an index is provided at the conclusion of the Policies & Objectives section for this purpose. If you have any questions about the enclosed materials prior to the May 19 budget workshop, please do not hesitate to contact us. ENCLOSURES ■ Preliminary Financial Plan _ ■ Appendix A: Significant Operating Program Changes ■ Appendix B: Capital Improvement Plan Projects /3 • i MELE-fi Au-LtvEA DATE -22 97 ITEM # - Ii O ❑ FIRE CHI p. 9A769NEY p PW D 2'CLERWOP G D E CHiF ❑ MA WTEAM REC DIR ' ❑ D LE ❑ 1TiLDlfl O PERS r Ec - - -- -- - - �, MAY L iyy/ _ _ =_ CITY COUNCIL • i PETITION REGAL_ I G CITY" FINANCING C SPORTS COMPLEX AT CAL POLY We, the undersigned city residents, oppose giving $4,500,000 to build the Cal Poly Sports Complex outside the city. We support the expansion of fields in parks and schoolgrounds and improved maintenance of present fields.- Efforts should be directed in the future toward multiple use sites to accommodate recreation for all ages. Print Name Signature Address (All in-SLO) Phone IJ ,Z. o G„ - Bio ,�G„ e _ asStCo. Ce?26r '. G� I-,t�—CO'V) M,, 18 5�fya�51 LEX 6 Ea 26C -ems bye ��i_i o N wAV Yf3 5q 2--'f 71 C>LP:FjJ7 =I 3 Wk-L1 Cro 6U5-58�13 •__ _ - I ' v � PETITION REGARD' TG CITY FINANCING OF - '3ORTS COMPLEX AT CAL POLY We, the undersigned city residents, oppose giving $4,500,000 to build the Cal Poly Sports Complex outside the city. We support the expansion of fields in parks and schoolgrounds and improved maintenance.of present fields. Efforts should be directed in the future toward-multiple use sites to - accommodate recreation for all ages. Print Name Signature Address (All in SLO) Phone �RyL E 4.. .46Ucce.�A%w+tx Z 2 2 / �! Ct.*�i A d96; 7 v PETITION REGARDING CITY FINANCING OF SPORTS COMPLEX AT CAL POLY We, the undersigned city residents, oppose giving $4,500,000 to build the Cal Poly Sports Complex outside the city. We support-the expansion of fields in parks and schoolgrounds.and improved maintenance of present fields. - Efforts should be directed in the future toward multiple use sites to accommodate recreation for all ages. Print Name Signatur Address (All in SLO).,_. Phone Sc LH' L Ll 3 q l' 7� �5 ZZZ 1jITg55-AJ4,RA i5L134660 ` c SOA/5 19/- i V PETITION REGARDING CITY FINANCING OF SPORTS COMPLEX AT CAL POLY We, the undersigned city residents, oppose giving $4,500,000 to build the Cal Poly Sports Complex outside the city. We support the expansion of fields in parks and schoolgrounds and improved maintenance of present fields. - Efforts should be directed in the future toward multiple use sites to accommodate recreation for all ages. Print Name Signature Address (All in SLO). :.. Phone !`1Ft�SS� kel jU� 30S S<<fnfr�- l-.�c l�r, SAS - 7 ?Si V) s 1�M 9 S��-3�8y' nsl-,� U i -3 6;7- =M;* * -7 s 5-q z -J� 7 i v tS;4 Or 5`I-5`I- 097 0! Mae�AG�t' M��CH4n� o2ag eb" 541 O(o4 r CalrSrh ,�,. zG �/-U(� PETITION REGARDING CITY FINANCING OF SPORTS COMPLEX AT CAL POLY We, the undersigned city residents, oppose giving $4,500,000 to build the Cal Poly Sports Complex outside the city. We support tie expansion of fields in parks and schoolgrounds and improved maintenance of present fields. - Efforts should be directed in the future toward multiple use sites to accommodate recreation for all ages. Print Name Signature Address (All in SLO) . Phone lc�gl` l ins U&L JC Md C lW, • i.L j d '{ 5-�13--262 D k j Dr Z -c- 7�1vtAmomm,? �E '{Dn A.els�rf SSD 5 3�3�! yr I'Iti..�rcvS ,,,trt 3zybh�L,l S (-j SCJ-5l ,&3 P. J J vNl,1.3oj(J Z7V 1k. 50 SV ''/ dL 443-`tet Y • PETITION REGARDING CITY FINANCING OF SPORTS COMPLEX AT CAL POLY We, the undersigned city residents, oppose giving $4,500,000 to build the Cal Poly Sports Complex outside the city. We support the expansion of fields in parks and schoolgrounds and improved maintenance of present fields. - Efforts should be directed in the future toward multiple use sites to accommodate recreation for all ages. Print Name Signature Address (All in SLO) Phone. 7?qTr'4C'V— V Y l 1.44 v�"-/ocC.cC�1GLlIl RL( e�.'Y�"� -7Z '/ o' (fL� XMRktr � � 3Po �ECt6roCtiftY SY3—l�3� kGAt2e)A OLy1 e s C� p tvC4706r%tUA q�r,,e� 0 —� 76'y �A� M�GQEGaQ ni 0,7 &45 rA 8/6� ` 0< � p 'P(f-La 7I PETITION REGARDING CITY FINANCING OF SPORTS COMPLEX AT CAL POLY We, the undersigned city residents, oppose giving $4,500,000 to build the Cal Poly Sports Complex outside the city. We support the expansion of fields in parks and schoolgrounds and improved maintenance of present fields. - Efforts should be directed in the future toward multiple use sites to accommodate recreation for all ages. Print Name Signature Address (All in SLO) Phone. t.'lr.� t. Be Ds LL �,: o�/dZt�-� 3 6 C •f'�+✓' �+'e'1 twlj .lYo �>��yZ. 4 ss CAVU04 -5r stb Co- 3443 go ZBa� � �� 3-92-V 135SZ cST t�V,2-96a7- N _ 1 t a z l urns U, 5 f- Qa3q 4yxpe 62 / Jf � c�,-f �• �'r r � � i 0 n N� ARAN 3(ci,( So ru o-L 5q1 -0 yam. �dc��d E C.ras� :`` �, C-A?DA ►IKKos Seo 544 -qzZD L'a ezrrx s� S�y37�1i 5y�-Oaaa erg r PETITION REGARDING CITY FINANCING OF SPORTS COMPLEX AT CAL POLY We, the undersigned city residents, oppose giving $4,500,000 to build the Cal Poly Sports Complex outside the city. We support xhe expansion of fields in parks and schoolgrounds and improved maintenance of present fields. - Efforts should be directed in the future toward multiple use sites to accommodate recreation for all ages. Print Name Signature Address (All in SLO) . Phone 1-3 rav1 e CL -py� lint) i � f 05e Jot/ Va td Sy. 5438Z C �u� r 05%229' 10140 $ 0055443022 ROOZCTTI comrmw r.OI ��w AUNUR c: U M M E R c I A l e t n l r s 7DAT "0p'2g71TEM # May 21, 1997 SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL C9!1CCAO O flRBCWWA ... ..._..O-KVDIR -990 Palm Street u San Luis Obispo, CA-93401 . - o ►uWr. e-lcDlR:::: p Cep � El 1.1111L., " ::.... RE: Santa Rosa Park -Roller Hockey Rink , •.. _.`tirJ:PPRS�-^:- . Dear Council Members: As a member of the community that worked with the YMCA and the City of San Luis Obispo, to create the facility referred to above and as the individual-that actually maintains and repairs the facility In conjunction with the Parks and Recreation Department, I am concerned. It has come to my attention that the City is considering starling an in-line skating program at this facility. While I feel this is a use that needs to be accommodated In some form or fashion, 1 am very concerned it will come at the expense of the roller hockey program's use of the facility. The roller hockey program raised over twenty thousand dollars ($20,000.00) to contribute to the Improvements. I, along with several other individuals performed a great deal of the work necessary to oxpend and repair the slab, and build the facility. Most recently we arranged for the lights at the facility to be doubled in number which increased the output by more than 100°x. This, at a cost to the City of about$1200.00. The balance of the cost and labor was donated through our efforts. In conjunction with the Parks and Recreation Department, we oversee all repairs to the rink, provide all the labor and split the cost of the materials with the City. I would ask you to please check with Rich Columbo, Paul LaSage or Linda Fitzgerald regarding our commitment and pertormance. While the YMCA has been assured by Paul LaSage that our game times are safe, I am concerned we will lose our ability to practice In the evenings. Keep In mind we are in season only about half the year. I do not mean to imply Thal the in-line group or the skateboarding programs are not worthy. They are, and in fact, my family may even take advantage of them. What concerns'me however is that neither program has put the time, money or effort Into their programs, nor have they given anything back to the City. To get bumped_or cut back by programs that have done little or nothing for their own cause would not be right. ,RECEIVE` M 1 d M10651IIGULm.-SUITE 301 Z t I�fyl mu....cuwm, SANIIIIS0ftI$PQ: AIIFQRNIn 74401, a iC° ro - - - AOS•,S4d•3900 rN6'005.544.•3922 - -= �. CITY COUNCIL :_ _ 05%'a 2%7i 1(147 $ 00554430222 ..00SETTI comrAwe r.o2 As somewhat of an aside, what I feel needs to happen is the slab where the large ramp now sits needs to be expanded to accommodate one or both of these programs. They do not need to be fenced In and they do not need the hockey surface. In fact, they don't even like It. This could allow two programs to operate at once and would not be that costly. In closing, I feel we have earned and continue to earn our right to be allowed to hold our practices as well as our games at the rink, and while we support these other programs,we do not want to be further compromised by them. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to give me a call. Sincerely - -- John Rossetti G7I LLI 177/ 17.Ul 6U774JOLU4 NICefi111VW1=1 uD17rgquuuwn -•- DATE �t IA of Sen Luis Obispo County YMCAv Five Cities Family YMCA 1020 Southwood Die 340 Pomeroy San Luis Obispo. CA 93401 Pismo Beach. CA 83449 (805)543-8235 Fax(805)543.6202 19 (805)773-4182 San Luis Obispo County YMCA May 22, 1997 O San Luis Obispo City Council G � ® .. ii Mayor Allen Settle �Ar '� :• ►yy l ,;: O.FIRE CHEF. City of San Luis Obispo t dEY O,FWD! 990 Palm Streetctrr co�Nctt: �" °' LEAIiiOFbtCi. t7. , r CNE San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 O PIrQMi'TFiR1A .. . ,CDIR =._. P ' ILE' ' 0.U11 C1 PERS r;"- Dear :"Dear Mayor Settle & Members of the City Council, - +* It is our understanding that the City is considering adding an in-line skating program at the courts at Santa Rosa Park. While the YMCA fully supports the enhancement of any positive youth activity, we also wish to express a concern As you know, with the City's support, the YMCA was the catalyst behind the conversion of old basketball courts into a roller hockey rink at the park, With the help of many volunteers, we raised over$20,000 toward the effort. 1 n addition, our volunteers invested considerable physical skill and labor in renovating the courts into a"multi-use court"with a new surface appropriate for roller hockey. For example, volunteers removed thousands of pounds of asphalt, poured new concrete, installed the boards, and coordinated fence installation. Recently, working with the City, we coordinated the doubling of lighting on the courts by getting materials at cost and labor volunteered, through the generosity of Bill Thoma. In terms of maintenance. we have been told by City staff that they have never seen a non-profit"take ownership" the way the YMCA has. YMCA volunteers routinely replace broken boards, fill cracks, and wash the surface. We do so, even though the facility is used the vast majority of the time by non-YMCA activities-- the skateboard program, basketball, non-YMCA hockey teams (such as the Cal Poly Hockey Club) and general community"pick-up" hockey. We greatly appreciate the support we have received so far from the City. However, we are concerned that the YMCA would lose access for either our games or our practices if yet another program is added at the site. This would not seem to be equitable, given the level of resources we have invested and continue to invest in exchange for use. We are also concerned about the added wear and tear on the surface which is already substantial. and would hope that if such a program is approved, the City will recognize the need to invest in periodic resurfacing. Most important of all are the over 300 children who participate annually in the YMCA Roller Hockey program. This program has shown amazing growth and has demonstrated all of the positive.outcomes of effective youth sports organizations.We can tell stories of kids who have never experienced.physical -• success before ,pd families who are:now involved in their childrenTactivities. Anyone who jgins us fora Saturday game can sce that there is a wonderful sense,,4f community Veingbuilt around this prog;am. 05/22/1997 15:01 8055436202 SAN LUIS OBISPO YMCA PAGE 03 Again, we fully support further investment in positive youth activities, and we greatly appreciate the past and current support of the City Council and City staff. However, we also wish to protect the use and maintenance of a faciliTy in which we are so heavily invested. We ask for your support in this regard. Sincerely, r elott irector cc: Paul LeSage MEMNG AGENDA DAA_ $'z=ITEM# 60 Chuparrosa Drive San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 542-9612 May 21, 1997 Dear Mayor Settle: This letter is to show my support for an expansion of the SLO Skate Park Program at Santa Rosa Park. It is my understanding that this will be coming up for approval as a budget item. My 9- year-old son is an avid skateboarder and has spent many hours at the Skate Park. I have volunteered my time to help at the Skate Park. I believe the program has been extremely successful. It gives our children a safe place to skateboard in a supervised environment. I would also like to add that the kids who skateboard there are really wonderful. They have always been respectful and friendly. I was amazed at the courtesy these kids show each other. Because the Skateboard Program has been so successful,there apparently has been a keen interest in opening the park up to in-line skaters. I agree wholeheartedly and definitely support providing a program where in-liners can also skate in a safe, supervised environment. However, I understand that if additional funding is not provided to staff the park for two to three additional days, then the time allocated to the Skateboard Program would be cut in half in order to allow the in-liners skate time. Chris Pontius has worked very hard to make the Skateboard Program a reality. I would be very disappointed to see the program cut in half. The kids would be very disappointed to see the program cut in half. I would very much appreciate your consideration for budgeting additional money so that the park can be open to in-liners two to three additional days each week, while maintaining the current hours of use for skateboarders. Thank you for your consideration. I hope you agree that the Skate Park is a very worthwhile and needed facility for the children of San Luis Obispo. Sincerely, L 0 Tammy Allen �Sr ®'Fl�ii1P. `.. gff FIW CHIEF A O Pig I8'GI�tC�PJiG E3 CE CH . O F.�AN4TTFAId RECDIR , D 0READ RILE 13 uLDIR REC- !A� p r.. - ...-� NAY n�•; - °.?0.CA MEETING AGENDA DATE �27 ITEM #. !lay 21 . 1997 _ NG�I0 �.jil.r� L _ . 10 FIN 111R 0 E3 FIRE CHIEF p POUCE OHF 0 MWTEAM IKRECUIR :,.. Editor . Telegram Tribune ,` L7C�F>iEApFlLE 061i7LDlii . San. Luis....Ob-ispo.,:_:CA _ DPERsl{, ., Dear Editor : I was pleased to read the Telegram Tribune ' s May 17th article regarding the city staff ' s recommendation to include Cal Poly ' s Sports Complex in the proposed budget plans for the next fiscal yea.r . Now maybe the members of the City Council will put the Mayor ' s ludicrous Unocal site proposal behind them and see the value of a three-way partnership with Cal Poly ' s student body and the university ' s athletic department . As a SL.O Youth Baseball Manager for over 15 years in the 1970 ' s and 1980 ' s I was very well aware of the critical need for practice and playing fields for youth sports at that time . Since then very little has been done to improve the situation while a number of youth sport programs have been either greatly increased or added . It is no surprise that SLO' s General Plan identifies playing fields as the number orae priority in the city ' s recreation program , and why so many youth sports coaches and parents are fully supporting the central sports concept at Cal Poly . The beauty of the proposed sports facility is that as many as seven playing fields would be made available for youth sports with minimaj cost to the city for development and maintenance . The city ' s share of 5200 , 000 a. year for 15 Years is "a dron in the bucket " in comparison to what the cost would be for purchasing land , developing fields . installing utilities . bleachers , parking . restrooms , concession stands, storage sheds , etc . In addition . the estimated maintenance costs of 5100 , 000 per year would be paid by the university . This offer has to be one of the best investment opportunities city taxpayers could (-.�ver hope for in meeting the needs of our young people . After living/ in the Bishop ' s Peak area for nearly thirty years , we have no complaints about glaring stadium lights or . noise from nublic-address loud speakers . The fact is that there are greater disturbances coming from the lights and loud sneakers at CHt :a.nd the sheriff ' s substation . as wel1 . as tbe. carvion vol lees _f t=om Camp San Luis Obispo . Furthermore , pret,H7minary drawings for youth sports fields at Cal Poly indicate that any light .glare or field amplification will be greatly reduced for most Bishop ' s Peak residences by Radio Hill . I agree with city officials that not one dime should be approved for the sports complex until an acceptable written agreement is reached which guarantees adequate access for our youth athletic programs . Surely this can be done without too much difficulty . `Fours truly , 'y Larry Voss 61. 1 Al -Hil Drive San Luis Obispo , CA 93405-1007 cc : SLO City Council Members ReceiYED EETING AGENDA MAY lyy/ DATE5"22-47 ITEM # � clrr couNc i. „o To: Mayor Allen Settle, Council Members Bill Roalman, Dave Romero, Kathy Smith,Dodie Williams From: Rhonda Riggins-Pimentel 2457 Leona Ave., SLO Date: May 20, 1997 Subject: City Participation in Cal Poly Sports Complex I believe the City of San Luis Obispo should not help finance the Cal Poly Sports Complex, and am asking you not to include any funding for it in the current budget plan. I am opposed to city participation in the Cal Poly Sports Complex for several reasons. • We have no agreement that city youth will be guaranteed access to the fields. • We have no assurances that Cal Poly will absorb all maintenance costs for the fields. • Serious environmental impacts of the complex have not been addressed by Cal Poly. • Neighborhood concerns about the complex have not been adequately addressed. • Other sites for athletic fields have not been fully investigated, or have been dismissed too quickly. • City policy states that additional athletic fields will be developed on city-owned or privately- owned land, not state-owned land. • We have no assurance that Cal Poly will not ask for future additional funding beyond the requested$ 3 million. • Even though the current economic forecast is rosy, I fear that a commitment totaling $4.5 million may cause a future drain on city funds, and result in diminished funding for other programs. I am convinced that the city needs additional youth athletic fields, but I believe we should develop and expand the existing facilities. Any additional development should be on land controlled by the city. I am alarmed that some of our parks and facilities are operating on a bare-bones budget. Please consider using any new-found moneys for their improvements, and continue to look at sites other than at Cal Poly for future development. � Mm 040 �� 0.XL)Iri— WRN.DIR t7 FIRE CHIEF =ITMNEY E3PW IM. _... LICE 0 MOMTTEAM DIR ' _ LE . O LML DIR D PERS r..,-7 ' M e AGENDA rr~ t 7 ITEM #=_ • 8 MAY 1997 • Mayor Allen Settle • 990 Palm St. • San Luis Obispo, Ca 93401 • Dear Mr. Mayor • During this last month or so there has been a lot of debate on whether or not the • city should take funds from the bike path fund to use on the maintenance of the streets. • I am writing you to express my concern on this issue. • Alternative transportation is a topic that I feel is vital to the quality of life in San Luis • Obispo.This topic is sometimes overlooked in its importance, if we promote alternative . • transportation we will be reducing traffic,creating more parking,lowering pollution, • and promoting a healthy lifestyle. I feel that taking money from the bike path fund would do nothing more then promote • and reward people for driving their cars,and discouraging people from getting on a • bike. • Please consider my opinion on this matter as a valid one,because I love SLO and I will • do anything that I can to keep our town beautiful,this really does matter to me and a lot • of other citizens.Thank you for your time and consideration. • Sincerely -- — :.Rachel Virgil .:• -os :�`'' • H 01R • San Luis Obispo, Ca 93401E3Fl �� EY Wft DIR g�a 13POLICE CHF ❑ MGMT TEAM [3 RECDIR" II.E ❑ ITTIL DIR ' ❑ PERS DIP REGEIvip MAY crry COUNCIL cin• . -on ^a ;€T�PIAG TEM M # E_ ' �' - #= DA & COUNCIL MEMORANDUM May 19, 1997 ' TO: City Council FROM: John Dunn, City Administrative Office SUBJECT: APPROACH TO PRESENTING THE PRELIMINARY FINANCIAL PLAN Attached for your information is the approach we propose taking in presenting the Preliminary.Financial Plan to the Council. While we will be covering this briefly at the beginning of tonight's meeting, we thought you might be interested in more detailed look at the suggested schedule: _ _ .ADOUNCIL e-FIN DIR AO 13-FM CHIEF' rff ATfORNEy.... ,-Q SIR D.-M ISMT J410 ❑ REC DIR ;. 21.V MD FILE . -c -UTI1 DIR ..:..:Y� :.(;I PERM•;-:__. S Financial Plan Presentation GENERAL APPROACH ■ May 19 Introduce Financial Plan and Review General Fund Operating Programs ■ May 22 Review of General Fund CIP Projects ■ May 27 Review Enterprise Fund Programs,Projects,Revenues and Rates IN,Iav 19 - Introduction and Begin Reviewina General Fund Operating Progranis What Who How Long Public Comments-Items Not on the Agenda Mayor Introduction-General Issues and Themes John 10 minutes _ Balanced Budget A- -- - - -- - - Includes AllCouncilGoals - Limited Fee Increases in Selected Areas No Increase in Regular Staffing Legislative Issues Prospects for the Future Approach to Reviewing the Preliminary Financial Plan John 2 minutes Schedule-What,When Organization of the Financial Plan Bill 2 minutes Preliminary Financial Plan Appendix A Appendix B Financial Plan Overview Bill 30 minutes Comparison with Forecast Summary Charts of City Finances Revenue Highlights-General Fund Focus Assumptions Key Revenues New Revenues Expenditure Highlights-Major Initiatives _ `Regulai Staffing Operating Programs _CIP Projects Financial Plan Policies ~' Overview Changes General Fund Operating Program Review Public Safety -Police —Jim 10 minutes Fire Bob 10;minutes Transportation z Mike 10 minutes BREAK 10 minutes Financial Plan Presentation What Who How Long General Fund Operating Program Review Leisure,Cultural&Social Services Recreation Programs Paul 5 minutes Maintenance Programs Mike 2 minutes = Cultural Activities(includes performing arts Ken/John 15 minutes center operating subsidy and CIP request) Social Services Paul 5 minutes Community Development _ Comm Dev Department Programs Arnold a 10 minutes Natural Resources Protection Ken 5 minutes _. Engineering — - - -- - - Mike 5 minutes ---_ - - BIA (on May 22) Community Promotion Ken 5 minutes Economic Development Ken 5 minutes General Government City Council/City Administration Ken 2 minutes City Attorney Jeff 2 minutes City Clerk Bonnie 2 minutes Personnel Programs Ann 5 minutes Finance Programs Bill 5 minutes Public Works Programs Mike 5 minutes Public Works Administration GeoData Services Buildings&Vehicle Maintenance Public Comments-Items on the Agenda Mayor Nlay 22 - Review ol'Gener,al Fund CIP Projects Public Comments-Items Not on the Agenda Mayor Follow-up from May 19 John : BIA Program Review Deborah Holley 5 minutes CIP Project Review-General Fund Focus Overview - Bill 5 minute$ . Project Review Public Safety — - Police Jim 2 minutes Fire z Bob .. 5 minutes Transportation Mike 30 minutes Leisure,Cultural&Social Services - -Paiks&Recreation Paul&Mike 30 minutes Cultural Activities Paul&Bill 10 minutes Social Services(CDBG) Arnold 1 minute Financial Plan Presentation What Who How Long Community Development Open Space. Ken 5 minutes Engineering(vehicle) Mike 1 minute Economic Development(Vitality Corp-CDBG) Ken 1 minute General_Government - - City Clerk Bonnie 5 minutes Financedaformation Systems Bill 10 minutes GeoData Services Mike ,4----5minutes -_._ . . Buildings&Vehicle Maintenance Mike 10 minutes BREAK —- .---_—.-.- _ 10 minutes Public Comments-Items on the Agenda Mayor Wrap-Up Council,All 5 to 60 minutes Jklay 27 - Enterprise Funds Programs,Projects,Revenues and Rates Introduction Bill 5 minutes Water Fund Budget Review John Moss 30 minutes Adoption of Rates Sewer Fund John Moss 30 minutes Budget Review Adoption of Rates Parking Fund - Mike ''30 minutes Transit Fund. - Mike 30 minutW ;" Golf Fund Paul 30 min u_'ties Budget Review Adoptign of Rates G:Budget97/Notes/PmlimFinancialPlanPresemtauonSchedule AGENDA MEETING AGENDA SPECIAL JOINT MEETING ATE 5'22— 97 ITEM # THE CITY COUNCILS OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY :. (HOSTED BY ARROYO GRANDE, GROVER BEACH AND PISMO BEACH) ***SOCIAL HOUR- 6:00 P.M.*** THURSDAY, JUNE S, 1997AT 7:00 P.M. CLIFF'S HOTEL, 2 7S 7 SHELL BEA CHROAD PISMO BEACH, CALIFORNIA * * * SPECIAL MEETING PROTOCOL • Pismo Beach Mayor John Brown will chair the meeting • The business meeting will begin promptly at 7:00 p.m.;and adjourn no later than 11:00 p.m. • Public Comment will be limited to two minutes per speaker with a total of 20 minutes. • Due to the large number of City Councilmembers in attendance, Mayors and Councilmembers are respectfully requested to limit their oonanrrb and/or qudiom to two minutes If a Mayor or Councilmember wishes to be recognized by the Chair,he or she may indicate so by raising their band- Staff presentations will be limited to ten minutes • Motions will need to be ratified by each Council. Mayor Brown will recognize each ofthe respective Mayors,who in tum will put the item to a vote offis/hQ Council In order to facilitate this process,discussion by individual CouncUmembe s should be limited to a minimum due to the large number of elected officials present 1. CALL TO ORDER-Mayor John Brown, Pismo Beach 2. INVOCATION-Pastor.Ehrhardt Lang-First United Methodist Church 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 4. ROLL CALL: City ofArrovo Grande City ofAtascadero City of Grover Beach MayorA.K "Pete"Dougall MayorRayJohnson MayorRobertReed. Michael Lady Harold L. Carden III Dee Santos Michael Fuller George Luna Henry E "Gene"Gates Thomas A.Runels Jerry L. Clay,Sr. Peter Keith Steve Tolley Kenneth Lerno RonaldArnoldsen City of Morro Bay City ofPasa Robles City of Pismo Beach Mayor Cathy Novak Mayor Duane J.Picanco Mayor John Brown Rodger Anderson Tom Baron Mar;anMellow Dave Elliott Walter J.Macklin Hal Halldin William Peirce ... Lee Swanson Bill Rabenaldt Janice Peters . ' Christian E.Iversen Mary Ann Reiss f�ity ojSan Luis ObisyQ Mayor Allen K•Settle ;. .9 L'I C�•J Gird Mr - B;nRantman: 7. _ . ,�. .n. -D FIRE aeomero Pib DQlDd; Williams'RECD aPG C S!$HCKdthy Smith 14flQPX-0 l I- I� - ' ❑ CITY COUNP _ ; PSI LIr• r AGENDA JOINT SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY CITIES'MEETING JUNE 5,1997-6:00 P.M., PAGE 2 OF 3 5., WELCOME-Mayor John Brown, Pismo Beach Introduction of invited guests:Congressman Walter Capps,Senator Jack O'Connell, Assemblyman Tom Bordanaro,County of San Luis Obispo Board of Supervisors 6. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD This is the time at which members of the public may address the Joint City Councils. When recognized please come to the podium and state your name and city of residence. Comments are to be. limited to 1 minutes. A total of 15 minutes'ic provided for public commint 7. ACTION MMS: 7-A LEGISLATION REGARDING CITY REVENUE NEEDS AND RESTORATION OF REVENUES TAKEN BY THE STATE -Mayor Allen Settle, San Luis Obispo ACTION:Approve letter to State legislators and the Governor to be signed by the mayors of all seven cities. TIME.30 Minutes 7-B URBAN RESERVE LINE-Mayor Allen Settle, San Luis Obispo ACTION.• TIME:30 Minutes 7-C PG&E ACCELERATED DEPRECIATION OF DIABLO CANYON-Mayor Cathy Novak,Morro Bay Impact on cities,county and school districts ofPG&E's accelerated depreciation of Diablo Canyon. ACTION:Approve letter to Public males Commission with copies to Governor and Legislators TIME: .E. 7-D COUNTY WIDE SALES TAX-Mayor Bob Reed, Grover Beach County wide sales tax to be used for streets and highways. ACTION: .._� TIME:30 Minutes .! AGENDA JOINT SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY CITIES'MEETING JUNE 5,1997-6:00 P.M., PAGE 3 OF 3 8. INFORMATION ITEMS 8-A PUBLIC-EDUCATION-GOVERNMENT(PEG)ACCESS ON CABLE TV- Mayor Cathy Novak, Morro Bay Report -TIME:20 Minutes 8-B E.V.C. -ECONOMIC VITALITY CORPORATION-Mayor Cathy Novak, Morro Bay Report on CDBG funds and revolving loans. TIME:20 Minutes 8-C AB 939 WASTE DIVERSION GOALS -Mr. William Worrell,Manager of Integrated Waste Management Authority O WMA) and Mayor John Brown, Pismo Beach Report on progress toward attainment ofAB 939 waste diversion goals.. TIME:20 Minutes 9. ADJOURNMENT. _. ...�. AGENDA BOARD OF SUPERVISORS aaltzr a EOM>stx RUTH E.BRACKETT. Arroyo Grande, Chairperson County Adminbam1w HARRY L. OVITT, 1st District, San Miguel xrsvua�rlr+w POW PDai TUMAY5 IN EACH N0a7}[ LAURENCE L. LAURENT, 2nd District, Los Osos . 1850 PEG PINARD, 3rd District, San Luis Obispo MICHAEL P. RYAN, 5th District, Creston i JOINT MEETING OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND THE ! CITY COUNCIL OF SAN LUIS OBISPO- f MAY 21, 1997 1:00 PUBLIC COMMENT All persons desiring to speak on agenda items during the Public Comment portion of the meeting, are asked to fill out a 'Board Appearance Request Form", and provide it to the Clerk of the Board prior to the start of the Board item. Each individual speaker will be limited to a presentation total of three (3) minutes per person during the Public Comment period. 1:15 STUDY SESSION Study Session to discuss the status of the Airport Area Annexation and related issues. 100 County of San Luis Obispo h "' COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER,RM.370■SAN LUIS OBISPO,CALIFORNIA 93408■(805)781-5011 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL OFFICE OF THE DATE: MAY 21, 1997 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR SUBJECT: AIRPORT AREA ANNEXATION Summary: Your Board and City Council are meeting in joint session today to discuss issues and concerns relative to the proposed Airport Area Annexation. Staff from the County and the City have put together the materials attached to this cover report which briefly address the various issues. At the meeting staff from the County and the City will more fully present the topics noted herein. Recommendation: It is recommended that your Board and Council receive this report and review and discuss the status and issues related to the Airport Area Annexation. Discussion: Though still quite a ways from conclusion, the Airport Area Annexation matter is again at the fore front of concern for both the Board of Supervisors and the City Council. As such, your Board and Council agreed to this joint meeting in order that you could collectively discuss the concerns of both jurisdictions. Staff from the County and the City have attempted to draw together in the attachments what they view as the various issues associated with the proposed annexation. In this respect, attachments A, B, and C are those developed by County staff. Attachment D was submitted by City staff. Staff from both agencies will make short presentations on the issues they have identified, as outlined below, and then respond to such questions as you might have. County Identified Issues: Planning • Prevention of land use conflicts with the airport and its operations - The proposed annexations could raise issues of whether uses would be permitted in the area that would conflict with airport operations, and also whether annexation of the airport itself would resuit in any operational problems. • Zoning of sufficient land for commercial/industrial purposes - Establishment of an appropriate , amount of commercial and industrial zoning and related growth boundaries is critical to "' resolving a variety of economic, environmental and land use issues. • Provision for and maintenance of needed public improvements - Some of the important improvements and services include water supply, sewage disposal, surface drainage, and traffic circulation (roads). • Basic determination of the character of development in the area - Concerns physical appearance of development • Whether there will be comprehensive or piece-meal planning of the airport area - Until a specific plan is completed, small annexations will probably continue to be considered by the City. General Services • Land Use Control - The long term and continued viability of the San Luis Obispo County Airport depends on the compatibility of surrounding land uses. The California Public Utilities Code adopted, in 1972, has a requirement that all Counties with public-use airports form Airport Land Use Commissions (ALUC's). All cities whose jurisdiction is overlapped by the Commission's planning boundary, as is the City of San Luis Obispo, are required to incorporate the ALUC plan recommendations for land use compatibility into their General Plans. The City should adopt the Airport Land Use Plan requirements/Airport Land Use Commission process. • Potential City Restrictions and Added Requirements - Although the City would not take direct control of the Airport through annexation of the Airport area, there is some concern regarding the City's ability to directly or indirectly limit or restrict the operation and development of the Airport. • Potential Added Costs - Annexation of the Airport into the City limits will bring added costs to the County and the various business tenants on the Airport, such as new utility taxes, business taxes, potential annexation impact fees and other miscellaneous City imposed charges. • Fire Protection and Law Enforcement - Current arrangements for fire protection, both structural fire response and Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting (ARFF) are adequate for the Airport. The City could provide an enhanced medical response. Law enforcement is also adequate at the Airport, including traditional police roles and the airport security response requirements (FAR Part 107) on certificated airports. • Sewer, Water, Storm Drainage and Roadway Systems - The Airport already receives City water and sewer service to a defined area under a 1977 agreement. City annexation could enable improvements to these systems. Extensive storm drainage improvements have been constructed on the Airport. Enhanced off-airport storm drainage would be anticipated with annexation. Dedicated roadways are currently maintained by County Engineering to a satisfactory level. Engineering • Drainage - Associated with various development scenarios. • Transportation - Traffic impact and potential requirement for substantial investment in transportation infrastructure. • Waste Water Treatment - Need to address capacity limitations at current City facility. • Fundine - determination of how infrastructure improvements will be funded. • Water Supply -in and near the proposed annexation area As you will notice in your review of these issues, some do overlap, or are of.concern to more than one department. In these instances, the departments, in their presentations, will focus in on the elements of the specific issue as they apply to their areas of responsibility. City Identified Issues: See Attachment D for the material submitted by the City. The material is comprised of a background cover letter and eight (8) sub-attachments. City Staff will present a brief overview of this material and then respond to such questions as your Board and Council might have. Other Agency Involvement: The materials contained in this report were the result of a combined effort between County and City staff. Several of the issues noted herein have may legal ramifications depending upon the ultimate outcome of the proposed annexation. Accordingly, questions which might come up during the discussions regarding legal issues may be addressed to County Counsel or the City Attorney. In addition, at some point in the not too distant future, it is expected that the City will reinstitute its annexation application with the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). This process is separate from the issues before your Board and Council today. Financial Impl icat i ons: While there are various financial questions and implications concerning the annexation itself, the matter before your Board and Council today; that of an issues discussion wherein no decisions are being requested or contemplated, presents no financial implications. Sincerely, `RO ERT E. IiENDRIR, County Administrator attachments adm\airport.3 ATINCHMENT A 18 30 Zt SAN LUIS OBISPO COUN-ry DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND BUILDING ' ALEX HINDS DIRECTOR BRYCE TINGLE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR ELLEN CARROLL ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATOR BARNEY MCCAY CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL DATE: MAY 6, 19I I NORMA SALISBURY ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES OFFICER TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS �l FROM: ALEX HINDS, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND BUILDING SUBJECT: AIRPORT ANNEXATION ISSUES Attached is background information regarding airport annexation which pertains to the County land use process. This information is provided in preparation for your Board's workshop and upcoming meeting with the San Luis Obispo City Council. Please contact Dana Lilley or myself if you have any questions or concerns. m:lah\airpo.mem 1 )UNrY GOVERNMENT CENTER - SAN Luis OBISPo CALIFORNIA 93408 (805) 781-5600 FAX (805) .781-1242 OR 5624 AIRPORT AND ANNEXATION ISSUES In summary, the five key airport annexation issues that pertain to the county land use process are: 1. Prevent land use conflicts with the airport. 2. Zone enough land for commercial/industrial zoning. 3. Finance, construct and maintain needed public improvements. 4. Determine the character of development. 5. Comprehensive versus piece-meal planning of the airport area. The following information is intended to provide background information in preparation for your Board workshop and upcoming meeting with the city of San Luis Obispo. 1. PREVENT LAND USE CONFLICTS WITH THE AIRPORT. The airport is a public facility of county-wide importance, and its long-term viability should not be compromised. The proposed annexations could raise issues of whether land uses would be permitted in the area that would conflict with airport operations, and also whether annexation of the airport itself would result in 'any operational problems once the city obtains land use authority over sites on the airport property. Both the city and the county are required to comply with state laws related to development in areas near airports. The adopted Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP) provides some protection from new land uses conflicting with the airport, requiring disclosure through avigation easements and effectively prohibiting establishment of certain land uses and/or development intensities in areas most subject to airport related hazards. However, both the city and county can provide for land use patterns that provide more protection against airport conflicts than the ALUP requires. If the city annexes the airport site itself, then the city would have land use approval authority over private Ladd uses on the site, even if the county still owned the property. This may not pose problems for such land uses, but it does represent an element of uncertainty to the county (as landlord) and businesses which may wish to establish themselves on the property (as tenants), since allowable uses and permit requirements would be determined by the city. 2. ZONE ENOUGH LAND FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. Establish an appropriate amount of commercial and industrial zoning and related growth boundaries is critical to resolving a variety of economic, environmental and land use issues. An adequate supply of such land is needed to retain, or allow for the expansion of existing or new businesses. Airport Annexation Issues Page 2 m:ah\annxiss.mem This need has already been recognized by both the city and county general plan updates, resulting in the airport area being designated for significant commercial development. As properties are annexed into the city, the city is expected to zone them primarily for industrial or service commercial development. 3. FINANCE, CONSTRUCT AND MAINTAIN NEEDED PUBLIC BVIPROVEMENTS. Some of the important improvements and services include water supply, sewage disposal, surface drainage, and traffic circulation (roads). Water supply: Development in the airport area currently depends on groundwater, mostly through on-site wells, with the exception of the airport, which receives city water. Groundwater alone will not be adequate for build-out of the airport area, so some imported water is needed. County Service Area No. 22 (CSA-22) was empowered by the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) to provide water service. This enabled CSA-22 to reserve an allocation of water from the Nacimiento project. This imported water could be treated and distributed through the city's water system upon annexation. Without annexation, transmission mains, a treatment facility, and distribution system would need to be constructed separate from the city system, since, "wheeling" the water through the city's system would not be permitted. Thus costs associated with provision of imported water would probably be higher without annexation. Additional associated issues include 1) whether existing or proposed development in the airport area could continue to use groundwater until city water became available; and 2) whether the city can provide an adequate, cost effective water supply for the annexed areas and in fill development. Sewage disposal: Development in the airport area now uses primarily conventional on-site subsurface wastewater disposal (septic) systems. Soils in some portions of the area are not well suited for septic systems. Thus, the types and intensities of development is limited by capability of sites to dispose of sewage effluent generated. Expanding the city sewage treatment plant to accept selvage generated by development in annexed portions of the airport area represents a solution to this limit, although not without cost. Surface drainage: Under county jurisdiction, new developments typically are required to provide drainage detention facilities (basins) to prevent water runoff to adjacent and downstream sites from being significantly increased over pre- development conditions. On-site basins appear effective, but reduce the developable area of most sites. While preliminary studies have not yet resulted in a feasible project, regional basins could reduce the need, and possibly the size, of such individual on-site basins, while helping to prevent significantly increased downstream flooding in periods of heavy rain. Roads: Major road improvements are needed to serve ultimate build-out of the airport area, and to handle traffic passing through the airport area. If annexed into the city, the city could finance such improvements through a number Airport Annexation Issues Page 3 m:ah\annxiss.mem mechanisms, including but not limited to Mello-Roos Community Facility Districts and development fees Without annexation, the county and CSA-22 also could use these financing mechanisms One of the major needed improvements is a freeway overpassfnterchange at Prado Road and Highway 101, the costs of which will need to be shared by those who will benefit from its construction. The city may be in a somewhat better position to facilitate such cost sharing than the county, since some of the areas which will benefit are already in the city (Central Coast Plaza, Madonna Shopping Center, etc.). 4. DETERMINE THE CHARACTER OF DEVELOPMENT. One of the reasons why the city wishes to annex the airport area is to exercise control over the physical appearance of the development. The county refers proposed developments to the city for review and comments, but the county has land use approval authority and must make such approvals within the context of its general plan policies, standards and implementing ordinances. Annexation into the city would transfer land use approval authority to the city, and the county should then be able to provide comments.to the city on proposed developments. 5. COIIPREHENSIVE VERSUS PIECE-MEAL PLANNING OF THE AIRPORT AREA. The city proposes to complete a specific plan for the airport area to facilitate small or large annexations. Until that plan is completed, small annexations will probably continue to be considered by the city. Both the city and county recognize the need for master planning of the airport area to avoid future problems. The county requires conceptual master plans for proposed development in areas designated for future "business parks', but not for all sites. The city proposes to complete a specific plan for the area to address physical and financial planning issues, but they also acknowledge that property owners who have recently requested annexation of small areas cannot easily wait years for the planning process Thus, the city is working on developing a strategy for such interim annexations until the specific plan is completed. ATTACHMENT B ;� •.,.,. COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 4 ` bepamment of gcnazat sERvices COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER • SAN LUIS OBISPO,CALIFORNIA 93405 • 805) 751.5200 DUANE P. LEIS, DIRECTOR TO: LEE WILLIAMS, ASSISTANT COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: DUANE P. LEIB, GENERAL SERVICES DIRECTOR DATE: APRIL 28, 1997 SUBJECT: SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY AIRPORT AND AIRPORT AREA ANNEXATION The County owns and operates San Luis Obispo County Airport/McChesney Field. The Airport is primarily located within the boundary of the proposed City of San Luis Obispo Airport Area Annexation. The Department of General Services/Airports Division is charged with the management, administration, security, maintenance and operation of this unique and successful primary commercial service Airport. The City airport area annexation proposal has caused the County, in the capacity as an airport operator, to examine the effects of such an annexation upon the Airport itself, both from the view of the County as the operator and on behalf of the many private business tenants who reside at the Airport. San Luis Obispo County Airport has been under County jurisdiction since the 1940s. Scheduled Airline passenger service commenced in 1946 through 1954 and resumed in 1969, continuing through today with a strong presence of three commercial air passenger certificated airline service providers. Passenger counts have nearly tripled since the existing terminal opened in 1983 and San Luis Obispo is ranked 15th among 33 commercial service airports in California. Approximately 260 general aviation aircraft are based at the Airport and nearly 400 employees call the Airport home. The Airport's budget became an Enterprise Fund in F.Y. 96/97, but has been self supporting (no General Fund support) since 1992. San Luis Obispo County Airport, in its roll as a regional facility, provides major economical benefits to the region, both from direct and induced means. However, the airport's viability is subject to many outside influences and should not be assumed to be immune from these influences. Both the Santa Maria District Airport and the Paso Robles Municipal Airport, who generally have larger facilities, would welcome the passenger traffic and the business activity the San Luis Obispo County Airport currently enjoys. 1 The proposed City Airport Annexation has raised concerns about the possibility of the County . continuing to maintain operational control of Airport. Both the County and the City have made it clear that no direct operational changes are being proposed. The current County undertaking of updating the San Luis Obispo County Airport Master Plan has also added to the mix of confusion regarding the Airport. The Airport Master Plan process, which predominantly addresses on Airport facilities and infrastructure, is progressing as anticipated and is tentatively scheduled for presentation to the Board of Supervisors on June 3, 1997. The Department of General Services/Airports Division has previously taken a cautious position regarding the inclusion of the Airport property as part of the proposed City annexation. That position was based upon issues which were known at the time. However, many intangibles existed that could not be addressed and still continue to be ill defined. Staff is highly aware of the importance of the Airport Land Use Plan/Airport Land Use Commission. Its role is significant in the long term and continued viability of the Airport, specifically regarding surrounding land use compatibility. On May 10, 1994, the Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution requesting the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) to initiate and conduct proceedings for excluding the Airport property from the proposed City annexation. A minor amount of adjacent property was included within this exclusion due to its `noncontiguous' nature. The Board adopted resolution also required the City to adopt Airport Land Use Plan requirements/Airport Land Use Commission process as a condition of any annexation. LAFCo has not acted upon this resolution due to the status of the annexation application. A copy of the May 10, 1994 Board Item is attached for reference and informational purposes. The Department of General Services/Airports Division has examined and evaluated a variety of issues related to the proposed annexation. The issues are elaborated in five primary areas: Land Use Control -The long term and continued viability of the San Luis Obispo County Airport depends on the compatibility of surrounding land uses. Neighborly property development must be considered. The California Public Utilities Code adopted, in 1972, has a requirement that all Counties with public-use airports form Airport Land Use Commissions (ALUC). All cities whose jurisdiction is within the Commission's planning boundary afe required to incorporate the ALUC plan recommendations for land use compatibility into their General Plans. The City of San Luis Obispo does not utilize the Airport Land Use Commission process. Past and recent development, i.e., Edna-Islay Development, Arbors, Magnolia Center, the State Farm Insurance office was neither reviewed nor was comment solicited from the ALUC. This process would insure and heighten awareness of area land use development compatibility. Aviation easements should be provided for any development which occurs within the ALUP area. The City should adopt the Airport Land Use Plan requirements/Airport Land Use Commission process. 2 r' T Potential City Restrictions and Added Requirements - Although the City would not take direct control of the Airport through annexation of the Airport area, there is some concern regarding the City's ability to directly or indirectly limit or restrict the operation and development of the Airport. A future City Council action or City voter referendum could impact Airport operations. Although a cohesive atmosphere exists under current City politics, this is no guarantee of future relationships. Annexation would bring additional notification requirements under the Public Utilities Code and Government Codes. The City planning development process would be required for all Airport tenants. The City has adopted some building related codes and ordinances which are more restrictive than current County conditions. Additional City reviews would be required for all components of projects not subject to the `mutually exclusive' provision. The County has specific written standards for airport development and such specific standards are not a part of the City process. Any system of multiple layers of jurisdiction creates additional processing, timing and staffing expense and adds burdens to the system of decision making. Potential Added Costs - Annexation of the Airport into the City limits will bring added costs to the County and the various business tenants on the Airport. Utility taxes and business taxes have been assured by the City. Potential annexation impact fees and other yet to be identified City imposed charges are not fully determined. The city imposes a 5% tax on all utilities and a business tax on gross receipts of 50C/$1,000. The Utility Tax' would impact the airport budget by approximately $5,000 annually based upon current County only utility use. Preliminary amounts for an annexation impact fee range from $17,800 to $28,700 per acre. Other city impact and development review fees would apply. Fire Protection and Law Enforcement - Current arrangements for fire protection , both structural fire response and Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting (ARFF) are adequate for the Airport. The City could provide an enhanced medical response with paramedic trained personnel. Law enforcement is also adequate at the Airport, including traditional police responsibilities and the airport security response requirements (FAR Part 107) as specified for certificated airports. Available manning, equipment and proximity to the Airport are additional factors. Mutual aid agreements are already in place to complement existing resources. FAR Part 139 requires a full time presence of ARFF trained personnel which is provided by the Airport/CDF Fire Station positioned on the airport. Sewer, Water, Storm Drainage and Roadway Systems - The Airport already receives City water and sewer service to a defined area under a 1977 agreement. City annexation could enable improvements to these systems by an expanded services area and a looped system. Extensive storm drainage improvements have been constructed on the Airport. Enhanced off-airport storm drainage could be anticipated with annexation. Dedicated 3 \ 4 roadways are currently maintained by County Engineering to a satisfactory level. Proposed roadway relocations and roadway parking enforcement may be problematic with annexation. The County's Airport Master Planning Consultant, Coffman Associates, has prepared a report entitled San Luis Obispo County Ai=rt Annexation Evaluation which identifies many similar issues involving the proposed annexation. Coffman Associates, is a nationally known airport consultant and is especially qualified to elaborate on the San Luis Obispo County Airport and other airport environs. Other comparable California airports were surveyed as part of this report to identify issues which might be applicable to the proposed San Luis Obispo Airport Annexation. The survey results are not supportive of annexation. The report, including other surveyed airports, is provided as supportive information. Attachments F:\home\geotgeo\Ie WUV/pd 4 050 COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO L bepamment of gcnERaI sERvices COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER • SAN LUIS OBISPO,CALIFORNIA 93403 • (505) 5l-52(v DUANE P LEIB. DIRECTOR TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: DUANE P. LEIB, GENERAL SERVICES DIRECTOR DATE: MAY 109 1994 SUBJECT: EXCLUSION OF A PORTION OF CSA NO. 22 FROM THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO Summary The Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) continues to consider a request for the annexation to the City. of San Luis Obispo the area commonly known as the "Airport Area" and recently approved a parallel request for expanded powers of County Service Area (CSA) No. 22. The county owns and operates the San Luis Obispo County Airport. Staff is recommending your board support the exclusion of the Airport from the proposed annexation and supporta related issue. Recommendation The Department of General Services recommends that your Board adopt the attached Resolution requesting LAFCO to remove portions of CSA No. 22 (Exhibit "A") from the area currently under consideration for annexation to the City of San Luis Obispo. In a separate but related issue, require the City to adopt the Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP) requirements as a condition of annexation. Discussion In February 1993, your Board adopted Resolution 93-63 that requested LAFCO to authorize the expansion of services for CSA No. 22. The expansion of powers request was mainly to allow the CSA the ability to deliver water. LAFCO initially considered the item on April 15, 1993 and subsequently on June 17, 1993. LAFCO deferred a decision on the expansion of powers for approximately nine (9) months during which time the City of San Luis Obispo and the Airport Area Property Owners (AAPO) were to make "substantial progress" toward annexation. The City has since filed an application with LAFCO for annexation, prepared an Airport Area Annexation Fiscal Analysis and presented an update to LAFCO on March 17, 1994 concerning the progress of the Airport Area Annexation. On April 5, 1994, your Board adopted a Resolution of Application to LAFCO for CSA No. 22 expansion of services, which LAFCO considered on April 20, 1994 and approved expansion of water services only. Board of Supervisors May 10, 1994 Page two The County owns and operates San Luis Obispo County Airport - McChesney Field (Airport), which is primarily within the current boundaries of CSA No. 22 and, therefore, within the proposed annexation. The Airport contains approximately 300 acres of the total 1287 acres comprising CSA No. 22. The County Airport utilizes City water and sewer service under an agreement executed in 1977. The Airport Area Property Owners (AAPO) favor expansion of CSA No. 22 powers and have supported annexation of the land parcels into the City of San Luis Obispo. While generally aware of the AAPO interest and efforts, General Services has.not been directly involved in their planning or activities. The County is not a member of the Association, nor does it normally attend their meetings. The Department of General Services is responsible to your Board for the operation and maintenance of the San Luis Obispo Airport. We have steadfastly sought to administer the Airport in a manner which was for the common good of all County residents. While the proposed annexation into the City might be beneficial to most of the property owners of CSA No. 22, the benefits to the County Airport are not so evident. The major impetus Tor the annexation appears to be water service, which the County already enjoys under the 1977 agreement with the City. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) imposes numerous requirements on certificated _airports such as San Luis Obispo. The County Fire Department and Sheriff's Department are specifically equipped and trained for those special obligations. Agreements already exist between the City and County regarding law enforcement and fire mutual aid. County staff has tried to identify and examine the areas of benefit or concern involving the annexation of the Airport into the City. Items considered and discussed included: 1. Land Use Planning and Permitting 2. Law Enforcement/Security 3. Fire Protection/Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF) 4. Roads and rights-of-way 5. Sewer and water systems, drainage 6. Potential costs to Airport/County for annexation 7. Other related issues Staff is prepared to further elaborate on these items if your Board desires more information. A related but adjunct issue is Land Use Planning which is perhaps our most serious long term concern. The continued viability of the Airport depends on the compatibility of surrounding land uses. California Public Utilities Code adopted in 1972 has a requirement that all counties with public-use airports form Airport Land Use Commissions (ALUCs). All cities whose jurisdiction is overlapped by the Commission's planning boundary, as is the City of San Luis Obispo, are Board of Supervisors May 10, 1994 Page three required to incorporate the ALUC-plan recommendations for land use compatibility into their General Plans. San Luis Obispo declined to do so by a four-fifths vote, as is allowed by law. The Mayor of the City has recently been appointed to the Airport Land Use Commission, yet historically the City has not embraced the process and the conditions typically endorsed by the ALUC. Staff would recommend your Board's requirement of the adoption of the ALUC process as a condition of annexation. Other related land use planning issues should be considered.- They are incorporated herein by a separate report prepared by the County Planning and Building Department and attached. The attached map (Exhibit "A") depicts the area recommended for exclusion from the proposed Airport Area Annexation. This area is County-owned airport property and/or property currently under acquisition for the Airport. Certain private properties would be precluded from annexation as specified in.Government Code Section 56110 since exclusion of the Airport would leave these areas non-contiguous. These areas are also noted on Exhibit "A". Other Agency Involvement Representatives of the County Administrative Office, Planning and Building Department, County _Counsel, Engineering Department, and the LAFCO Executive Officer have been consulted concerning this issue. The Planning Department has attached a separate document. The representative for AAPO is aware of this recommendation. Financial Consideration The Airports Division of General Services now operates both San Luis Obispo and Oceano Airports as a system and without General Fund support. Financial impacts due to annexation, are unknown at this time. Possible costs to the Airport could include: Annexation study costs, such as preparation of a Specific Plan; utility taxes; license taxes; police and fire protection costs and other costs not yet determined. Significant tax revenues from aircraft, secured and unsecured property, possessory interest, fuel sales tax, general sales tax, etc., are now collected by the County and others for subsequent use and distribution. The County would negotiate how these revenues may be shared or transferred, if this requested annexation takes place. Attachments cnu:V�=.eos u � i EXHIBIT A 1 mfr AREA PROPOSED TO BE EXCLUDED FROM POTENTIAL y' ANNEXATION TO CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO j AREAS WHICH WOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM POTENTIAL ANNEXATION TO CITY BY STATE LAW BECAUSE THEY WOULD BE "NONCONTIGUOUS" _.::-'Sn""> r. EXISTING CITY LIMITS UBUR -' MR -• _ 'f _ :;�; ,.f ' :;t,?:;• ::,.•.:: -. URBAN ESERVE LINE I ::L''�•:i f:y{��::�y�� inti� .s..i. � . •\\�\ ggg FA I y . F;r _.I _ m 1 Ste` .• � —�----- --�/ --, � N ' I LUm •'� ' I a C Q f - : W ul = � L - : m W f., 1- a 1 .! R i i v 0 O I 2 L 1 I c 1 o . GIm +� N y - - N ^ R_ oil - c C. t - C p2 .9 n C Uo ` L w N N fuol 110420A Department of Planning and Building San Luis Obispo County Alec Hinds, Director Bryce Tingle, Assistant Director Barney.McCay, Chief Building Official Norma Salisbury, Administrative Services Officer TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Ellen Carroll, Environmental Coordinator FROM: DANA LILLEY, SENIOR PLANNER VIA: ALEX HINDS, DIRECTOR, PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT DATE: MAY 10, 1994 SUBJECT: COMMENTS REGARDING GENERAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT REQUEST TO EXCLUDE SLO COUNTY AIRPORT FROM POTENTIAL ANNEXATIONS TO CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO SUNTMARY The General Services Department has advised our staff that they have concerns about the implications for future operation of the San Luis Obispo County Airport posed by the potential annexation to the City of San Luis Obispo. They consulted,with us prior to initiating a request to your Board to oppose annexation of the airport, and asked for our comments regarding land use issues. RECOMMENDATION Consider the recommendation of General Services and the following comments, and determine whether your Board wishes to oppose the annexation. DISCUSSION The city, county and airport area property owners.have been discussing possible annexation of the airport area int6 the city for many years. Most persons involved in the discussions believed that the airport itself would be part of the area annexed, since the airport is within the urban reserve as defined by both the county and city general plans. Bringing the airport into the city appeared to represent a logical boundary to the city, encompassing all areas on the city's southern fringe which are now-using' city services (such as the airport), or are anticipated to be eligible to receive those services in the future. General Services recently determined that the annexation posed certain potential operational problems of the airport, after extensive consultation with County Counsel and our staff. Some of the problems involve increased operational costs. General Services advised this office that they intended to request that your Board formally oppose annexation of the airport property. Board of Supervisors Page 2 SLO Airport Non-annexation May 10, 1994 While county land use policies would support annexation of the airport, those same policies do not appear to conflict with county action to keep the airport outside the city limits. This is because the airport is an urban land use located in the city's urban reserve, and the facility already receives water supply and sewage disposal services through the city. A potential conflict appears to be with the general goal (number 22, page 1-4, Framework for Planning,Part I of the Land Use Element - Circulation Element, Inland Portion) that calls for the county to "work closely with cities to provide continuity between city and county land use planning and to acheive common land use goals through reciprocal agreements." Furthermore, until the city adopts their updated Land Use Element, it is unclear whether there would be a conflict with this goal, since it is possible the city might agree that the airport should stay outside the city. On the other hand, excluding the airport (and tax generating uses thereon) from any airport area annexations will have some effect on city processing of the annexations. There may also be an effect on potential future tax exchange negotiations betweeen the county and city on the annexations. Excluding the airport from annexation would preclude certain private properties from being_ annexed, including the Industrial category areas on the south side of Buckley Road and on the west side of Santa Fe Road, as shown in the attached Exhibit A. State law requires annexed land to be contiguous with the boundary of the jurisdiction it is being annexed to. Annexation of the airport property would not directly interfere with county operation of the -airport, but it would subject all private developments of lease sites on the county-owned property to the city's land use permitting processes. This includes general plan and zoning designations, land use and building permits, and architectural review. .Annexation of the airport and adjacent properties will transfer responsibility for implementing the Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP) from the county to the city. The ALUP establishes land use policies and standards intended to minimize conflicts between airport operations and surrounding land uses. While the county has fully complied the policies of that plan, whether the city will choose to fully implement it (or override portions of it by a 4/5ths vote) is unknown. Finally, if annexation would significantly increase airport operation costs or pose any other questions about the long-term viability of the airport as a county-wide resource, then annexation of the airport might conflict with the circulation goals in Framework for Planning (pp 5-2, 5-3). Protection of the airport as a transportation facility needed by residents and businesses throughout the county may outweigh the factors which would support annexation if the potential . operational problems cannot be easily resolved. In conclusion, the General Services' request to oppose annexation of the airport itself to the City of San Luis Obispo appears to relate more to operational and fiscal issues than major land use . issues. Board of Supervisors Page 3 SLO Airport Non-annexation May 10, 1994 OTHER AGENCY INVOLVEMENT Staff of the City of San Luis Obispo have been advised that this issue would be presented to your Board. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS As noted above, exclusion of the airport from future annexations to the city could affect city consideration of airport area annexations and also future tax.exchange negotiations associated with such annexations, since the airport includes tax-generating uses. =J m m a o w 5 A A 4 a y a c u g m o d N :� 3 � � m ¢ w T � c � � _4� '•) a ... 9 5 'a .� a a .� .p m ¢ a+ N B c .L 'm m 3 ➢ 4 .4 m - E 51 c .z m9 u� o ) rrq e a in I� Y �NY 13 / i /• s - jir .I/ .J�•.: / Al V i .�. \' \� ...r•\ \ \U \. Ill II I .� •_ i/�''�s"r �.�.ul^ice \• V' •. _ it=. •. \�'� �°-3+ _ ;,.. - �_�� \ a I - 3' - a Z.I Imo. T.ri All —7, ., i I I IN TIIE -BOARD OF SUPt, RVISORS COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA Tues Day May 10 19 94 PRESENT: Supervisors Harry L. Ovitt, Laurence L. Laurent, David Blakely, Ruth E. Brackett, and Chairperson Evelyn Delany ABSENT: None RESOLUTION NO. 94-217 i RESOLUTION OF APPLICATION BY THE COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO REQUESTING THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION TO INITIATE THE TAKE PROCEEDINGS FOR THE,EXCLUSION OF A PORTION OF COUNTY SERVICE AREA NO. 22 FROM THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 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 sted that the Board of Supervisors request the Local Agency Formation Commissiorl (LAFCO) to expand t,. .4ryices 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, LAFCO subsequently considered the request of the Board of Supervisors; and 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, the City of San Luis Obispo has filed an application with LAFCO for annexation, .including the area of County Service Area No. 22; and WHEREAS, on March 17, 1994 the City of San Luis Obispo made a presentation to LAFCO concerning the progress of the Airport Area Annexation (CSA 22) and presented the findings of a consultant 'prepared Airport Area Annexation Fiscal Analysis; and WHEREAS, said nine-month period has since passed and LAFCO has expressed a willingness 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, on April 20, 1994 LAFCO considered and approved the expansion of County Service Area No. 22 services to include water services; and i WHEREAS, the County of San Luis Obispo desires that LAFCO initiate proceedings pursuant to (lie :ase-Knox Local Government Reorganization Act of 1985,coinmencing with Section 56000 of the California Government Code, for the purpose of excluding a portion of CSA No. 22 from [lie proposed annexation to the \ City of San Luis Obispo. NOW, THEREFORE, B6 IT RESOLVED AND ORDERED uy the Board of Supervisors of file ty 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 and conduct proceedings for the purpose of excluding a portion of CSA No. 22 (Exhibit A) from the area identified for annexation to the City of San Luis Obispo as a condition of annexation. 2. That the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Luis Obispo hereby requests that LAFCO require the City to adopt the Airport Land Use Plan requirements/Aiport Land Use Commission process as a condition of annexation. Upon motion of Supervisor Ovitt seconded by Supervisor Brackett and on the following roll call vote, to wit: Supervisors Ovitt, Brackett, Chairperson Delany Supervisors Laurent, Blakely NT: None 'AINING: None regoing resolution is hereby adopted. Chairpersoryf the Board of Supervi s ST: SCIS M. COONEY STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) of the Board of Supervisors OouuTv of SAN LUIS oofspO)ss � I•FRANCIS M.COONEY.County Clerk o1 the aoove - Q*iuoc� rLL11 entiued County.and Ex-Ofiicio C'Prkbl the Board Deputy Clerk of Supervisors"iemcf.do herety certify the lore- tOVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL EFFECT: going to ae a fun,tma::nd ccrrett toot'of an order entered in d!e minutes ul said Baard of Super- visors.and nou•:cmaining a!record in my office. B. LINDHOLM, JR. ty Counsel Witness. my hand and seal of said Board of jj /QJ Supeem/isoors this,, Q day of V' 19 >eputy C my Counsel t FnAN08 M.COONEY q County Clerk and 6r-Officio Clerk of the . Board of Supervisors/� By �'�z/"r:fticx t'is4_—Clic Qlw Deputy Clerk of California Ity o be e, personally appearedersonally known e (or proved to me on the is of satisfactory evidence) to be the n(s) whose nanie(s) is/are .ribed to the within instrument and a wledged to me that he/s y executed the same in his/her/their )rized capacity(ies),and that by his/her/thee ' nature(s)o instrument the person(s), or the entity upon If of which the person(s) acted, executed the ins nt. NESS my hand and official seal. azure (Seal) sm i .. t Z :1RcwNoa3.OR /fA I SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY AIRPORT ANNEXATION EVALUATION REPORT Prepared For SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY Prepared By COFFMAN ASSOCIATES, INC. APRIL 1997 INTRODUCTION port Master Plan, and development in the urban area should be permitted only tf it will It has been stated in City staff reports that be compatible with the airport: Specific lend annexation of the Airport Area is the City's use compatibility recommendations are noted, best opportunity to control its land use destiny and the need for disclosure statements/ on its southern boundary. The overall benefits avigation easements are noted. Ile principles to the City have been detailed in various re- also include:.The City of San Luis Obispo ports, and are snmm hied as follows: should ultimately annex land within its urban reserve, provide municipal services, and • Control of the quality and character of impkinent the pLmn ed land roses in an orderly development which occurs at the southern manner. The City should use all reasonable gateway. means to increase its service capacities as needed to annex and serve areas within the • Insurance that impacts attributable to urban reserve in a finwly manna. In addition, Airport Area development are adequately under Task 2.4 of.the preliminary work scope mitigated and that open spaces at the of the specific plan, the draft master plan for southern edge are adequately protected. the airport is listed only as a resource docu- ment for existing documentation. The biggest • Increase in the limited inventory of prop- concern from an airport proprietor's perspec- erty appropriately zoned for the location of tive is to ensure that properties developed more"clean industry"type jobs(i.e., eco- adjacent to-the airport are compatible with nomic development). "firture"facffity planning, and that such devel- opment take into account potential hazards • Revenue generation from the Airport Area within approach/departure areas. to help offset the costs of serving the City's last remaining residential expansion The purpose of this report will be to review areas—the Margarita and Orcutt Areas. . the annexation of the Airport Area from the County's perspective as the airport owner/ It has been the City's stated intent to annex the operator. A number of issues that are of entire Airport Area at the conclusion of the specific concern to the County are outlined preparation of a specific plan. Council direc- below. tion has also required that a strategy for in- terim annexation be provided, until such time the interim strategy can be replaced with the PRIMARY ISSUES completed specific plan. A number of issues related to annexation of Recent information prepared by the City, the Airport Area have come to the attention of however, does not provide a great deal of County staff over the past couple of years. "airport specific" discussion.For example the These issues and concerns include: land use San Luis Obispo County General Plan, control, law enforcement and fire protection, which was revised January 9, I997 offers sewer and water systems, potential added specific Planning Principles for the San Luis costs to the County and airport users due to Obispo Urban Area, including: The Sat Luis annexation, and potential City restrictions Obispo County Airport will continue to serve which would limit airport growth and develop- the region, as provided in the approved Air- went. Page 1 April 25, 1997 `� LAND USE CONTROL provide first response even if annexation took place. The continued viability of the San Luis Obispo County Airport depends on the compatibility of surrounding land uses The California SEWER AND WATER SYSTEMS Public Utilities Code adopted in 1972 has a requirement that all counties with public-use While many of the area property owners will airports form Airport Land Use Commissions benefit from annexation, including the avail- (ALUCs). All cities whose jurisdiction is ability of City water, the Airport already re- overlapped by the Commission's planning ceives City water and sewer services under a boundary, as is the City of San Luis Obispo, 1977 agreement. are required to incorporate the ALUC plan recommendations for land use compatibility into their General Plans. San Luis Obispo, POTENTIAL ADDED COSTS however,has declined to do so by a four-fifths vote, as is allowed by law. Annexation of the Airport into the City limits may also come with added costs to the County such as new taxes, permit fees, license fees, LAW ENFORCEMENT AND infrastructure fees, and other miscellaneous FIRE PROTECTION City imposed charges. In addition, the County _. may lose some of the property tax and posses- Mutual aid agreements already exist between sory interest,tax revenues that they now col- the City and County regarding law enforce- led. went and fire suppression at the airport.While annexation of the Airport might provide for improved/enhanced structural fire and POTENTIAL CITY RESTRICTIONS paamedic response by the City Fire Depart- ment, the CDF/County Fire Department al- Although the City would not take direct con- ready maintains a fire station on the airport, trol of the Airport through annexation of the provides Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting Airport Area, there may be some concerns (ARFF) support, and are currently trained in regarding the City's ability to indirectly limit or the FAA required aircraft firefighting and restrict the operation and development of the aircraft rescue techniques. CDF/County Fre Airport. Local political pressure, changes in will likely maintain the fire station on the City Council policies,and potential regulations airport after annexation, therefore, it would regarding an Airport owned and operated by make little sense to replace County ARFF one jurisdiction but located in another jurisdic- support with City ARFF support: tion are just a few of the factors that might affect the future of the Airport. these con- The Federal Aviation Administriation imposes ceras are huther discussed in the following many security requirements on certificated section. airports under FAR Part 107,Airport Secu- rity. At the present time the County Sheriffs Department provides haw enforcement re- AIRPORTS SURVEY sponse to the airport, As a county owned and operated airport,the County Sheriff would still A primary effort of this annexation evaluation was the survey of other California airports Page 2 April 25, 1997 which are located in jurisdictions different McCLELLAN-PALOMAR AIRPORT from the one that owns and operates the airport. The purpose of the survey was to Owned and operated by the County of San determine if there were any speck advan- Diego, the McClellan-Palomar Airport is tages or disadvantages to the airport owner/ located within the jurisdictional boundaries of operator relative to both day-today airport the City of Carlsbad. The City does not par- operations, or to the long range development ticipate directly in the operation or develop- of the airport. A number of airports were ment of the Airport nor does it provide any reviewed, however, several specific airports financial support. At the present time the were chosen for more detailed survey and County of San Diego and the City of Carlsbad inclusion in this report. Those airports sur- have a good working relationship; however, in veyed included the following: the past this has not always been the case. Several years ago the City of Carlsbad allowed • McClellan-Palomar Airport- Operated commerciallmdustrial development to occur by the County of San Diego;located in the immediately adjacent to the airport property. City of Carlsbad. Although the land use was compatible, it precluded the development of a future parallel • Gillespie Field-Operated by the County runway proposed by the County. of San Diego; located in the City of El Cajon The site plan, land uses, and conditions of _ - approval for the McClellan-Palomar Airport • San Carlos Airport - Operated by the are set forth in the conditional use permit County of San Mateo;located in the City (CUP 172)approved by the Carlsbad Planning of San Carlos. Commission. Certain structures and facilities require approval by the Carlsbad Planning • Chino Airport - Operated by San Commission prior to construction. These Bernadino County; located in the City of facilities include airport administration build- Chino. ings, airport passenger facilities, and eating • Oxnard Airport - Operated by the and drinking establishments. County of Ventura; located in the City of In addition, the City of Carlsbad Municipal Oxnard. Code regulates expansion of the airport by way of Ordinance 21.53.015;as follows; • Camarillo Airport - Operated by the County of Ventura; located in the City of "21.53.015 - Voter authorization re- . Camarillo- quired for airport expansion. a) The city council shall not approve • Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport= MVWne change,general phnr amendment Operated by the Burbank-Glendale-pasa- or any other legislative enactment neces- dena Airport Authority,located in the City slay to mttharize espmusion of any auport of Burbank in the city nor shall the city commence m7 action or spend anyfunds preparatory to The following summaries will provide an or in anticipation of such approvals with- overview of comments and concerns raised by out having been first authorized to do so each airport owner/operator. by a majority vote ofdw qual�fied electors Page 3 April 25, 1997 r . of the city voting at an election for such As with McClellan-Palomar, the County of prop° San Diego staff felt that Gillispie Field"was at b) This section svarproposed by initis- the mercy" of the City with regards to future fivepenfion and adopted by the vote of the land use in the vicinityof the Al- city council without .submission to the airport though an Airport Comprehensive Land Use voters and it shall not be repealed or Plan(ACLUP)had been prepared by the San amended except by a vote of the people." Diego Association of Governments In discussions with County of San Diego staff (SANDAG), the recommendations of theAirport Land Use Commission regarding they felt that the airport` vas at the mercy"of compatible uses near the airport could also be the City with regards to future land use in the overridden by a two thirds vote of the City vicinity of the airport. Although an Airport Council. Comprehensive Land Use Plan(ACLUP)had been prepared by the San Diego Association of Although the airport is subject to City Sales Governments (SANDAG), the recommenda- Tax, and there were some lost tax revenues tions of the Airport Land Use Commission because of annexation, the Co unty gaff also regarding compatible uses near the airport felt there were some offsetting benefits could be overridden by a two thirds vote of the through enhanced utility services from the City City Council, Particularly if enough political of El Cajon. Pressure were applied. Although the airport is now subject to City SAN CARLOS AIRPORT - Sales Tax, and there were some lost tax reve- nues because of the annexation, the County Owned and operated by the County of San staff felt there were some offsetting benefits Mateo, the San Carlos Airport is located through enhanced.utility services from the City within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Carlsbad, of San Carlos. The City does not participate directly in the operation or development of the GILLESPIE FIELD Airport nor does it provide any financial sup- Port Once again the County of San Mateo Owned and operated has absolutely no control over land use deci- P by the County of Sae Bions in the vicik ofthe airport. The County Diego, Gillespie Field is located within the staff stated, however, that the City of San Jurisdictional boundaries of the City of El Carlos has historically honored the Airport Cajon. The City does not participate directly Comprehensive Land Use Plan and the recom- in the operation or development of the Airport mardations of the Airport Land Use Commis- nor does it provide any financial support. The sion. The County staff felt this was primarily COuritY r and the City have a very good working due to the good working relationshipwith the r ort ship particularly �reser to the on- City. If this relationship "soured" for any on- airport park. In 1974 the City and reason, the Ci could ' County entered into a Joint Powers n' City pa impose land uses that Agreement would not be compatible with the long term which created the Gillespie Field Development development of the Airport. Council The Development Council's primary goal's to promote the industrial and economic The County staff indicated that the personal development of Gillespie Feld. property taxes and Possessory interest taxes remained with the County while the City Page 4 April 25, 1997 collects a City sales tax. In addition, all airport very little stormwater leaves the airport prop. businesses pay a business license fee. erty. Although not required to do so, the County The County staff also felt that they had "lost submits all development proposals to the City all control"of the land use in the vicinity of the for review and comment. While this creates airport. Although an Airport Comprehensive "additional layers ofmanagement", the County Land Use Plan (ACLUP) had been prepared staff believes it keeps the City informed on by the County Airport Land Use Commission, airport development issues and helps maintain the County felt that the recommendations of a good working relationship. Since there are the ALUC regarding compatible uses near the no formal agreements between the City and airport could be overridden by a two thirds the County regarding airport development and vote of the City Council, again if political land use compatibility, the County staff be- pressure were applied. There are no joint Haves that the relationship is very fragile, and powers agreements presently in place that if the relationship did "sour", then the City would establish specific controls on land use would be in a position to indirectly attempt to or airport development. control/operate the airport at the political IeveL OXNARD AIRPORT Owned and operated by the County of CM[NO AIRPORT Ventura,the Oxnard Airport is located within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Owned and operated by the County of San Oxnard. The City does not participate directly Bernadno,the Chino Airport is located within in the operation or development of the Airport the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of nor does it provide any financial support. Chino. The City does not participate directly There is, in this airport's case, a joint powers in the operation or development of the Airport agreement which created the Oxnard Airport nor does it provide any financial support. The Authority. This Authority is comprised of two county staff held the opinion that the annex- members of the Ventura County Board of ation of the airport diminished the public's Supervisors,two members of the Oxnard City view of the airport as a regional facility and Council,and a fifth member selected jointly by that since the City did not own or operate the three of the other four members The Airport airport that they are much less likely to adopt Authority considers and recommends to the protective measures. The staff was also very Oxnard City Council and the Ventura County concerned with the imposition of city taxes Board of Supervisors appropriate standards and fees on the airport and it's tenants. A which will assist in insuring that airport opera- specific example was a recently imposed tions and development occurring around the stotmwatermaintenance fee of$14,000 based Airport shall be compatible. The City Council on the acreage of the airport. This fee which and the Board of Supervisors may not take any is charged to the airport and subsequently action inconsistent with the Authority's action passed on to the airport lessees,is anticipated unless it's by a four-fifths vote. The joint to;m,.,se to$100,000 by the year 2015. The powers agreement also places certain develop- fee is imposed even though there is no direct meat restrictions on the airport. The Airport benefit to the airport since the County devel- Authority is in addition to an already estab- ops all stormwater facilities on the airport and fished Airport Advisory Commission. These Page 5 April 25, 1997 ` different levels of review and approvals has City Council, and a fifth member selected created a very complex and cumbersome jointly by three of the other four members. process which is not particukrly time sensitive. The Airport Authority considers and recom- mends to the Camarillo City Council and the Like the other airports, the County of Ventura Ventura County Board of Supervisors appro- staff felt that they had no control of future land priate standards which will assist in insuring use in the vicinity of the airport Although an that airport operations and development oc- Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan eating around the Airport shall be compatible. (ACLUP) had been prepared by the Ventura The City Council and the Board of Supervisors County Airport Land Use Commission, the may not take any action inconsistent with the recommendations of the ALUC regarding Authority's action unless it's by a four-fifths compatible uses near the airport could be vote. Similar to the Oxnard Agreement, the overridden by a two thirds vote of the City joint powers agreement also places significant Council. development 'restrictions on the airport and creates a very cumbersome and complex According to County staff,the County retains decision making process. the revenues from the Personal Property tax and the Possessory interest tax while the City At Camarillo,the County of Ventura staff also retains the sales tax revenues. The airport feel that they have no control of future land does receive city utility services and coordi- use in the vicinity of the airport. This has been nates with the city for emergency response and a very difficult issue due to the large amount fire protection. The Airport staff indicated of undeveloped land near the airport and the that they would have hiked the airport to re- increasing demands for development in the main a"county island". This would }Emit the area Although an Airport Comprehensive imposition of City fees and taxes on the airport Land Use Plan (ACLUP) had been prepared and its tenants and would not require private by the Ventura County Airport Land Use on-airport developmant to undergo the city Commission, the recommendations of the review and approval process. ALUC regarding compatible uses near the airport could be overridden by a two thirds vote of the City Council. CAI1 SARI LLO AIRPORT According to County staff;the County retains Owned and operated by the County of the revenues from the Personal Property tax Ventura, the Camarillo Airport is located and the Possessory interest tax while the City within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City retains the sales tax revenues. The airport of Camarillo. The City does not participate does receive city utility services and coordi- directly in the operation or development of the nates with the city for emergency response and Airport nor does it provide any financial sup- fire protection Like at Oxnard, the Airport port Like the Oxnard Airport, a joint powers staff indicated that they would have liked the agreement created the Camarillo Airport airport to remain a "county island". This Authority. This Authority is comprised of two would limit the imposition of City fees and members of the Ventura County Board of taxes on the airport and its tenants and would Supervisors, two members of the Camanllo not require private on-airport development to undergo the city review and approval process. i" Page 6 April 25, 1997 ` �' BURBANK-GLENDALE- operating an airport within the boundaries of PASADENA AIRPORT another jurisdiction. These advantages and disadvantages, from the airport operator's The Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport is perspective, are outlined below. owned and operated by the Burbank-Glendale- Pasadena Airport Authority and is located primarily in the City of Burbank The Airport ADVANTAGES Authority is made up of nine members; three from each community. The airport was ac- • Expanded infrastructure services (water, quired by the Authority from the Lockheed sewer,roads, etc.)- Aircraft Corporation in 1977. The airport • Expanded firefighting support. operated smoothly until 1995 at which time, • Expanded emergency response services due to changes on the Burbank City Council, (police and medical). the City of Burbank took a position of at- tempting to curtail the growth and develop- ment of the airport. With significant demand DISADVANTAGES for passenger service and a critical need for a new terminal, the Airport Authority is at the • Potential loss of County control of airport same time facing numerous legal challenges development. from the City of Burbank. The primary issue • Potential for City approved incompatible is the City of Burbank's belief that state law land uses near the airport. gives the City veto power over airport devel- • Potential loss of County tax revenues. opment and/or expansion within their jurMc- • Potential for added City fees and taxes. tion. The City ofBurbank has offered to allow • Added costs for airport businesses (busi- a limited terminal expansion in exchange for a ness licenses and permit fees). nighttime flight curfew and a 10 percent cap • Political pressure by the City to limit or on additional flights at the airport. Opera- restrict airport operations/development. tional restrictions of this nature, however, cannot be imposed by the airport operator without an F.A.R Part 161 study supporting RECOMMENDATIONS the restrictions,as well as FAA approval of the restrictions. At the time of this report, the At this time the potential disadvantages of Federal District Court recently dismissed a annexation appear to far outweigh the poten- lawsuit by the Airport Authority contesting the tial advantages of annexation from the City of Burbank's review proceedure for the County's perspective as the airport owner/ airport's new terminal. The Court concluded operator. It is therefore recommended that in that the airport lacked standing under the U.S. order for the County to support annexation, Court of Appeals. the following actions be taken • Develop a joint powers agreement be- ADVANTAGES AND tween the City and the County that ensures DISADVANTAGES the continued growth and development of the Airport to serve the air transportation The survey of airports has provided a valuable needs of the City and County of San Luis insight to the day-today advantages and Obispo as well as the region as a whole. disadvantages of one jurisdiction owning and Page 7 April 25, 1997 I • Develop a new Airport Comprehensive Negotiate an agreement between the City Land Use Plan that will be adopted by the and County which specifies what taxes, City of San Luis Obispo and incorporated fees and charges can be imposed by the into the City's General Plan. City on both the County, as operator of the Airport, as well as tenants and lessees • Require that the Airport Area Specific conducting business on the airport. Plan provide for compatible land uses and height limitations in the airport environs. Page 8 April 25, 1997 1 ATTACW C H LUIS OBISPO COUOTy DEPARTMENT COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER ROOM 207 SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA 93408 I 'OTHY P.NANSON PHONE (805) 781-5252 FAX (805) 781-1229 1 •'/S;. F NTT ENGINEER :N L PRIDDY ITT COUNTY ENGINEER INEERING SERVICES EL KING ITY COUNTY ENGINEER ROADS INISTRATION SOLID WASTE FRANCHISE ADMINISTRATION WATER RESOURCES COUNTY SURVEYOR April 24, 1997 SPECIAL DISTRICTS MEMORANDUM TO: Lee Williams, Deputy County Administrator VIA: Glen L. Priddy, Deputy County Engineer - Engineering Services FROM: Richard Marshall, Development Services Engineer SUBJECT: Airport Area Annexation - Glen Priddy asked me to provide you with information on our Department's areas of involvement regarding the Airport Area Annexation. The main areas are as follows: 1. Transportation: The amount of development envisioned by the various scenarios proposed for the area will have the potential to generate a significant amount of traffic, requiring a substantial investment in the area's roads and other transportation infrastructure. 2. Drainage: The Airport Area is a large, flat area with existing drainage problems. Various studies have been done in the past, and if the proposed development scenarios vary greatly from what was already studied, these may need to be redone. 3. Water Supply: Several of the Nacimiento Water Project participants are south of the City of San Luis Obispo, in and near the proposed annexation areas. These include CSA 22, East Airport Mutual Water Company,Edna Valley Mutual Water Company, Fiero Lane Water Company, Cal Cities/Edna Valley, and Afuera de Chorro Mutual Water Company. These agencies have requested a total of 2,107 acre-feet of water per year from the project. The transfer of some or all of this request to the City and provision of water service to these agencies need to be addressed by the annexation process. 4. Wastewater Treatment: The area will need to have sewage treatment provided by the City, and the City will need to address its capacity limitations at its current facility. 5. Funding: In all cases above, specific infrastructure improvement recommendations are only the first half of the equation. The other half will be, how will the recommended improvements be funded? A mechanism like an Assessment District will be necessary. The costs and work effort of doing the studies needed to determine needed improvements should not be borne by this Department, or by the County in general. Nor should the County have to take the steps necessary to create and implement a financing mechanism to benefit an area just prior to its annexation to the City. Thank you for the opportunity to provide input to this process. If I can be of further assistance, please call me at 781-5280. I look forward to continuing to work with you on this matter. File: Airport Area Annexation t:\develop\rem\airport.mmo.lb ATTACHMENT D council M �Ivm Nembn Agenba nepont C I T Y OF SAN LUIS OBISPO / FROM:. John Dunn, City Administrative Office J PREPARED BY: Ken Hampian,Assistant City Administrative Offi r John Mandeville,Long-Range Planning Mana* SUBJECT: JOINT CITY-COUNTY MEETING: STATUS REPORT ON THE AIRPORT AREA ANNEXATION INTRODUCTION For approximately 20 years, both City and County land use plans have anticipated annexation of the Airport Area into the City of San Luis Obispo (Attachment 2 shows the boundaries of this area, and the adjacent Margarita area). Over the years, numerous "starts and stops" have occurred in pursuing this land use goal. The purpose of this report is not to chronicle this long and complex history —this has been done many times before. Rather, the City wishes to update the Board of Supervisors on our most recent actions relative to the Airport Area. The report shall also attempt to respond to issues that have been raised over the last several weeks, many by the County in the May 6'h County Workshop staff report. Importance of the Airport Area Annexation With respect to the benefits of annexation as perceived by the City,by annexing the Airport Area the City can: • Control the quality and character of development that will occur at our southern gateway; • Ensure that all impacts from Airport Area development are adequately mitigated, and better protect open spaces in the area and at our southern edge; • Increase our limited inventory of property appropriately zoned for the location of the kind of clean industries that can create more head-of-household jobs; • Use revenues from the Airport Area to help offset the costs of serving the City's last remaining major residential expansion areas—the Margarita and Orcutt Areas. With regard to County benefits,County land use policy recognizes that urban-like development should occur within the boundaries of cities and thus be served by municipal governments. County government is simply not structured to provide urban services, and efforts to do so have proven costly here and elsewhere. The County's own fiscal impact study of the recently adopted San Luis Obispo Area Plan states: "Unless local business property owners assume more of the County's operating expenses related to their properties, or unless the Airport Area is annexed, net revenues are projected to decline eventually to a deficit situation in the planning area". The report goes onto emphasize that the most fiscally rewarding outcome to the County is the annexation of the Airport Area by the City—by approximately$3.5 Million net annually. Thus,it is clearly in the interest of both parties to cooperate in assuring an annexation strategy that works -- from land use,resource, environmental, and fiscal perspective. Recent Background: 1994- 1995 In 1994 the City adopted an update to the General Plan Land Use Element, including a policy that the City should work to complete a specific plan and annex the Airport Area by 1995. Near the end of 1995 City staff presented the Council with a status report on progress made to implement the Land Use Element Airport Area policies. The situation at that time was that background work had been done on a specific plan,but the plan had yet to be prepared . Previous efforts to produce a specific plan funded by assessments to property owners in County Service Area 22 lead to the land use designations that were incorporated into the 1994 update of the City's Land Use Map. But a plan still needed to be prepared detailing development standards and how infrastructure would be provided. Despite many meetings between staff and property owners to try and devise a strategy to complete the specific plan,property owners were unwilling in 1995 to provide additional up-front financing for a specific plan. After reviewing the progress report,the Council directed staff to finalize the scope of the specific plan and to continuing working with property owners,but this time on a basis of sharing the costs of completing the plan. 1997 Actions and Issues Staff worked over a period of fifteen months to carry-out the Council direction, and on March 11, 1997 returned to Council with several recommended actions. As a result,the City Council took three key steps, which are outlined below and discussed in greater detail in the balance of this report: 1. Approved and issued a request for proposals (RFP)for the completion of an EM and other related infrastructure planning, and approved staff role in completing related analyses. 2. Approved a specific plan funding program consisting of an initial$275,000 contribution from the City, $55,000 from the County, and an initial$155,000 from property owners. 3. Directed staff to implement an Interim Annexation Strategy until the specific plan is adopted. Specific Plan RFP and Follow-up Scope of Consultant Work. Using existing General Plan land use designations,which are very similar to the County's,the scope of work will focus on the following items: • Water master plan for the Airport Area and buildout of the rest of the City; • Wastewater master plan for the Airport Area and buildout of the rest of the City; • Drainage master plan for the Airport Area and the southern portion of the City; • Circulation plan for the Airport Area and; • Public facilities financing plan; and • Urban design plan for the Airport Area. • Environmental impact report Open Space and Agriculture Protection.City policy stipulates that an Airport Area.annexation should not take place unless the annexed area helps protect part of the greenbelt near the southern edge of the Airport Area. It also establishes approaches for protecting against further expansion of urban uses into rural and agricultural areas.Having a strong open space and agricultural component to the plan, including a funding mechanism for open space acquisition,will serve a number of 2 i important goals. Among those goals is the protection of the County airport from being overly encroached upon by development. Because a similar open space program does not presently exist in the County for the area, and if the Airport Area is not annexed,the airport will need to rely on zoning protection only. City staff will complete the open space component of the specific plan. The environmental impact analysis that accompanies the Airport Area specific plan will analyze any impacts of the specific plan on agricultural land not already addressed by the City's general plan. Fiscal Analysis. An Airport Area fiscal impact analysis prepared in 1994 will be updated by staff in order to reflect changes in tax sharing with the County which have occurred since that time. The tax exchange assumption will be based on County staffs' recent agreement to base Airport Area tax exchange on the countywide agreement,whereby the County retains all property tax and all'sales tax is passed through to the City(Attachment 3). If the airport itself is not included in the annexation, further revenues will be lost to the City, since some sales tax is generated from that property(approximately$62,000 annually). If the update does not show an overall positive fiscal outcome for the City, the City may wish to reconsider the recent tax exchange concept, or the viability of the annexation itself. Since it is greatly to the County's financial benefit for the area to annex into the City(and conversely, very negative financially to the County for development to continue as it has in the County) some flexibility on the County's part in this regard would be in our mutual best interest. Again, however, the need for such discussion depends upon the outcome of the fiscal impact update. Specific Plan Funding Program Over the last twelve months the City held many meetings with property owners in an attempt to forge an agreement for shared participation in funding the specific plan. Meetings were held in large groups, in small groups, and with individual property owners. In addition, a survey was sent to all property owners and tenants in the Airport Area seeking to identify what form of partnership property owners would support. Many ideas were exchanged,but in the end few property owners were supportive of contributing any additional funds to complete the specific plan. Many expressed feelings that they had already contributed their"share"by virtue of having contributed between$300,000-$400,000 through CSA 22 for planning in the Airport Area. Eventually, it was proposed by a small group of owners that they might consider contributing more than their proportionate share on behalf of reluctant owners, if the amount in excess of "fair share"could be credited back in some way in the future. Certain conditions were established, and prior to the March 11 meeting,the City obtained commitments from seven property owners,totaling $155,000. This represents approximately 30%to 40%of the estimated Airport Area related specific plan cost. Interim Annexation Strategy Although Council provided direction in December 1995 to process appropriate interim annexations, the absence of a specific plan posed a dilemma: lacking a specific plan detailing costs,how could the City assure that properties annexing"in the interim" adequately contribute toward the area- wide,backbone infrastructure that will eventually be necessary to serve the entire annexation area? The inability to answer this question initially stopped efforts by P.G. &E. to annex into the City. Since that time, several other proposals and inquiries regarding the incremental annexation of properties in the Airport Area came forth to the City. The two projects which most significantly resurfaced the issue were the Ball and Spice Hunter expansions—the former having initiated a development application in the County, and the latter having purchased property in the Airport Area adjacent to the City. In light of these requests,the City began to tackle the interim annexation issue again, but in a more comprehensive way. 3 to 1 On March 11", the City Council approved a strategy for interim annexation and financing. This strategy allows the City to accommodate some few,but appropriate interim annexations. A criteria was also approved to determine when an interim annexation is appropriate, as outlined below: 1. The property is contiguous to existing city limits; and 2. within the City's existing urban reserve line; and 3. near existing infrastructure; and 4. existing infrastructure capacity is adequate to serve the proposed development,and S. the applicant intends to proceed with development immediately whether annexed or not(and thus a development plan for the applicant's property accompanies the application for annexation); and 6. the applicant(s) agree to contribute to the cost of preparing the specific plan and constructing area-wide infrastructure improvements pursuant to the interim Airport Area Annexation Financing Plan. The Ball and Spice Hunter annexations are good examples of the kinds of projects that meet the criteria, and both have since been annexed into the City. However, it is the City's intent to limit interim annexations. This is because the more comprehensive approach offered by the specific plan is far preferable for reasons related to infrastructure capacity and planning, design,and financial considerations. Therefore, it is the City's goal to replace the interim strategy with the specific plan as soon as possible. Other Issues A number of other issues have been raised by the County and others,many set forth in the County's May 6'workshop staff report. The attached"Issues Paper" attempts to respond to several of these concerns. Three special areas to call to the Board's attention include the specific plan/annexation schedule, annexation of the airport itself, and continued development of the area within the County. Specific Plan/Annexation Schedule. Attached are schedules for the completion of the specific plan and overall annexation of the Airport Area(Attachments 4&5). With regard to the specific plan, the consultant is expected to be hired in July or August,with an administrative draft due late in the year. The final plan is projected for adoption in September 1998,but given its magnitude, this could easily take longer. Ample opportunities for public review shall be provided throughout the process, and staff also expects to distribute a regular newsletter to interested persons and organizations. City staff will consult with County staff throughout, and matters related to the Airport Land Use Plan will be integrated into the process,as discussed in the attached issues paper. A final decision on the overall annexation is estimated to be two to three years away. Therefore, as expressed by Mayor Settle in his May 5"letter to the Board,while it is useful to surface issues at the earliest possible time,there is no need for either agency to establish"hard"positions on these issues. Therefore, an open mind should be maintained on the matter which seems to be of greatest concem to the County: the potential annexation of the airport itself. Annexation of Airport. In both City and County plans,the Airport has been included within the physical boundary of the City's urban reserve line for many years. Even in light of the County's 1994 action to oppose the inclusion of the Airport within the overall Airport Area annexation, 4 County plans—including the recently adopted Area Plan—continues to show the airport within the urban reserve line. Therefore, annexation of the airport remains consistent with the General Plans of both agencies. However, it is clear that the County and many airport businesses and pilots have substantial reservations about this prospect. Many of these reservations appear to be the result of fear,misinformation, or erroneous assumptions based on the past. Staff has attempted to address many of these concerns in fact sheets, letters, and other correspondence distributed to the County,the Pilots Association,the Edna Valley Advisory Committee, and other interested parties(Attachments 6 & 7). City staff has attempted to further address many of these concerns in the attached Issues Paper. In summary, and despite impressions to the contrary,the City has consistently been a strong supporter of the airport. Over 20 years ago,the City agreed to serve the airport with sewer and water, even though the airport is outside the City limits. These services are provided at"in-city rates", even though the usual City policy is, first,to not serve properties outside the city limits; and second,to do so only at one-and-one-half the in-city rate charge. Furthermore,the City Council has unanimously supported both County requests to expand airport related sewer and water service, once in 1988 and again in 1993. Given this history of cooperation, it is difficult to accept contrary perceptions of the City. However, over the last several weeks, City officials have developed a better understanding of the nature and scope of these perceptions and is ready to work with the County and others to address them. The concluding recommendations of the Coffman study offer a good starting point for this dialogue. These recommendations were to consider: (1)The development of a City-County agreement regarding the airport; (2) City adoption of a new Airport Comprehensive Plan; (3) assuring compatibility of the forthcoming specific plan with the airport and its needs; and(4) agreement relative to fees and taxes on both the County and its airport tenants and lessees. Also, during a study session with LAFCO on March 20', Supervisor Laurent suggested that the City strengthen its present general plan policy statement regarding the Airport Land Use Plan to replace the word"should"with"shall"(Attachment 8). This is something the Mayor said he will raise with the balance of the City Council. Continued Development Under County Jurisdiction. In the last 12 months, 221,775 square feet of floor area has been approved or constructed in the Airport Area. This means that in the last five years, about 400,000 square feet of new space has been added in the area. Continued development of the Airport Area within the County's jurisdiction remains likely as time goes by. For example, the County has approved redesignating about-300 additional acres of land south of the City's urban reserve line for industrial land uses(see Attachment 2). As a part of the Area Plan update, the County also further removed development restrictions on Airport Area properties. As pointed out by the County itself, such development in the unincorporated area is not in the County's best financial interest and, given the lack of an Airport Area open space component similar to the City's, may not be in the best long term interest of the airport, either. Our hopes would be during the interim period(1)that the County would not approve major developments without full and proper infrastructure, as this will complicate the future orderly development of the area and (2)that the County would not approve further rezoning of agriculture land to industrial(or residential)as this will prove to be harmful to the City's goals and planning process, and potentially harmful to the airport itself. CONCLUSION For many years,the County has urged the City to be more proactive relative to the Airport Area annexation. We hope that the information set forth in this report clearly shows the magnitude—and complexity—of the current,proactive effort. County financial support for the specific plan is 5 greatly appreciated, and the ongoing assistance provided by County Planning staff continues to be extremely helpful. We look forward to continued cooperation in this large undertaking. With regard to the airport itself, despite imperfections,the City has historically cooperated with the County and continues to do so today. The City has supported all past County requests for airport service. In addition,the City for many years has been a supporter of a strong tourist industry for our area and the entire county. More recently,we have organized a City effort in economic development with primary concentration on the retention and attraction of clean industry and the creation of high-quality head-of-household jobs. In both of these efforts, further enhancing a strong tourist economy and the creation of industrial facilities and jobs,the airport plays a critically important role which is fully recognized and supported by the City. Therefore, regardless of the outcome,we would hope that the atmosphere of cooperation between the City and the County concerning the airport will be continued. To assure this, the interests and motives of each agency should be respected and given full consideration before any final decisions are made. ATTACHMENTS 1. Annexation Issues Paper 2. Airport and Margarita Area map 3. Airport Area Tax Exchange Concept 4. Specific Plan Completion Schedule 5. Airport Annexation Schedule 6. Airport Fact Sheet 7. Letter to Pilots' Association 8. Present General Plan Policy 6 ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND REGARDING AIRPORT AREA ANNEXATION ISSUES County staff prepared an issues report for the Board of Supervisors' consideration on May 6'h to help prepare them for their upcoming joint meeting with the City Council on May 21". That issues report identified several concerns about what would happen if the County Airport were to be located within the city limits, as well as some more general. concerns regarding development of the area surrounding the Airport itself. The purpose of the following comments is to provide information regarding the City's plans and processes as they relate to the concerns raised in the County staff report. Issue: Prevention of Land Use Conflicts with Airport Operations Airport Master Plan Consistency. The City's goals for the continued vitality of the Airport are similar to the County's and are based on the County's plans for.future operations at the Airport. While updating the General Plan Land Use Element (LUE) in 1994, the City added policies calling for consistency between City and County plans. LUE policy 7.1 states the Airport will continue to serve the region, consistent with the Airport Master Plan. The Airport Master Plan is maintained and adopted by the County and would continue to be should the Airport itself be located within the city limits. The purpose of the Master Plan is to evaluate and forecast the area's aviation needs and identify the development necessary to meet those needs. The City's policy supports the operation of the Airport in a way that implements the County Airport Master Plan. To be consistent with this policy, development in the City cannot serve to conflict with the implementation of the Airport Master Plan. Airport Land Use Plan Consistency. The Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP) provides the land use regulation framework for realizing the operational goals for the Airport described in the Airport Master Plan. As noted in the County staff report, the ALUP provides some protection from new land uses conflicting with the airport by requiring disclosure through avigation easements and effectively prohibiting establishment of certain land uses and/or development intensities in areas most subject to airport related hazards. The 1994 update of the City's LUE (Policy 7.2) states that development should be permitted only if it is consistent with the San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Plan. Prospective buyers of property which is subject to airport influence should be so informed. The effectiveness of this policy has been questioned because it uses the word " should" rather than "shall". The County General Plan states that County actions"must" be found consistent with the ALUP. The word "should" in the City's General Plan means that the policy must be followed unless there is clear and prevailing evidence that another form of ATTACHMENT 1 action would be more appropriate. This is consistent with the 4/5 vote override option in state law. By changing the policy to say"shall", the Council would in effect be giving up its ability to override the Airport Land Use Commission. Changing LUE Policy 7.2 from a "should" to a"shall" statement will not likely have a significant effect on the implementation of the City's plan for the Airport Area. It is stall's intention, consistent with state law and the City General Plan policies noted above, to prepare a draft specific plan consistent with the Airport Land Use Plan and with ALUC participation. There is no clear and prevailing evidence at this time that anything different than the ALUP provisions should be incorporated into the Airport Area specific plan and subsequent development. The specific plan will be approved and adopted by the City Council. It appears the County would have greater assurance that the ALUP will be implemented if the City's policy contained a more directive statement rather than a permissive one. Changing the LUE wording from"should" to "shall" would be a policy decision that must be made by the City Council with a recommendation from the Planning Commission. Current City ALUP Compatibility Procedures Every project within the planning boundaries of the Airport Land Use Plan are reviewed for conformity with the plan. The City's GIS division is currently working on digitizing the boundaries in order to better be incorporated into the City's land use inventory and mapping system. This will readily identify parcels subject to the ALUP. Every development that falls within the ALUP boundary is reviewed against the "Airport Land use Compatibility Listing". Any land use that is identified as "prohibited (X) is referred to County Planning during the normal project referral process. The results of the County process, which includes Airport Land Use Commission input, is included in the City's environmental analysis and recommendations to the approving hearing body with special findings and analysis. The City has specifically revised its CEQA checklist to require special analysis for airport land use issues when projects are within the boundaries of the ALUP. Pursuant to Public Utilities Code Sec. 21676, all applications to the City for plan amendments and rezonings within the planning boundaries of the ALUP are.referred to the County for recommendation by the Airport Land Use Commission. County recommendations are incorporated as conditions of approval. It may be that in the past the City has given insufficient attention some airport compatibility issues. The City's recent General Plan update, the revised development review procedures, and the ability to improve ALUP consistency through the upcoming Airport Area specific plan all make airport land use compatibility more certain in the future. Annexation Will Remove the Most Significant Restriction. The most significant development restriction in the Airport Area is the lack of services. The City is following its policies of planning to provide the area with the services necessary to remove this restriction. Annexation will make City services available to Airport Area properties. Therefore, annexation actually provides a solution to the single most significant development restriction in the area. There are other factors that restrict development in the Airport Area, primary the Airport Land Use Plan but also including general plans, the upcoming specific plan and zoning. But properties need the services to develop to the extent allowed by these plans. A more detailed discussion of use issues follows, but overall, annexation and the availability of City services is more likely enable development consistent with the ALUP than to restrict it. The following discussion describes how individual uses may vary between City and County plan. The actual uses to be allowed in the City will be determined by the specific plan. All parties involved in the process of preparing the specific plan can discuss the significance of any differences as the specific plan is being developed and reviewed prior to its adoption. Land Use Compatibility With the Airport Land Use Plan. In its General Plan, the City has designated several land uses in the Airport Area including Recreation, Services and Manufacturing, and Business Parks. The goal of the General Plan is to implement various City policies regarding economic development and environmental protection through land use and zoning districts. The specific plan will detail the uses to be allowable in various implementing zones. It is possible that there may be some differences between the uses allowed by the specific plan and those allowed by County zoning-with both sets of uses being consistent with the ALUP. The question is how significant would any differences be provided that the allowed uses are consistent with the ALUP? The County may have an interest in insuring that certain uses that support airport operations remain allowable in certain areas. Encouraging uses that support airport operations is the direction contained in the ALUP, and will be the basic direction staff follows in preparing the specific plan. The specific plan will be the place decisions are made about individual uses. County Airport participation in the specific plan process is therefore very important to insure these issues are considered in the process of preparing the specific plan. Whatever the particular uses allowable by the City or County zoning, insuring that the uses are consistent with the allowed uses in the ALUP and with the conditions established by the ALUC will minimize compatibility problems with airport operations. More Restrictive Development Standards? The County staff report raises a concern that operations and development at the Airport would be restricted by the City's development standards. Development standards include I building setbacks, allowable height, allowable coverage, minimum parking, landscaping, and architectural requirements. In most cases the development standards determine how something is developed, not whether or not it can be developed. Staff is not aware at this time how the City's development standards significantly differ from those of the County in a way that would restrict development. Implementation of the City's development standards includes in many cases review and approval of plans by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC), which is not a requirement in the County. The purview of the ARC is primarily limited to design issues. ARC review of design issues has generally not been perceived of as a significant restriction by those going through the City's permit process. Development for Airport Operations Exempt The County staff report correctly notes that any development at the County Airport that is done by the County for the operation of the airport is exempt from City standards and regulations. In this regard development at the airport is the same as any work the County would do on its other properties in the City such as the County Courthouse or the Social Services Building. The County will typically allow the City a courtesy review of their plans and request the City's comments, but would not be required to comply with any City regulations. In this regard state law defines the County as a"superior agency". However, development on County land not used for county government purposes is not given"superior agency" status. In the case of the Airport Area, if development is proposed on County property that will be leased and not operated by the County as a part of the County Airport, that development will be subject to applicable City regulations and standards. As the previous discussion details, this does not necessarily mean tenant construction will be subject to significant restrictions. Development involving airport operations will not be affected by annexation. General Plan Consistency Both the City and the County general plans state that the area within the City's urban reserve line should ultimately be annexed to the City. The County general plan Urban Reserve Area map shows the airport within the urban reserve line. To be consistent with their general plans, both the City and the County should support the annexation of the Airport Area, providing it can be done in a way that is consistent with the other applicable policies of the general plans, especially those regarding compatible land uses. Conclusion- The Key to Compatibility If one looks into the history of both City and County actions, instances can be found where absolute consistency with the ALUP has not been maintained. The key to having compatible land uses surrounding the airport is for both the City and the County, whichever is the lead agency for approving a particular development, to utilize the ALUP and ALUC process. Whether the Airport itself is within the city limits or not is not a key factor in maintaining compatible land uses nearby. Issue: Zoning of Sufficient Land for Commercial/Industrial Purposes The City analyzed buildout capacities with respect to rate of development during the update of the Land Use Element. The findings were that there was sufficient Services and Manufacturing land within the City's existing urban reserve line to provide for 20 years of development at a 3% rate growth in Services and Manufacturing land uses, 30 years growth at a rate of 2%, and 60 years of growth at a rate of 1%. This was one reason why the City opposed the County's designation of an additional 300 acres of industrial zoned land south of the City's urban reserve line. Issue: Provision and Maintenance of Needed Public Improvements Water and Sewer Services. The County staff report acknowledges that water supplies and sewage disposal are problems in the Airport Area. Previous staff reports have described how the City is in the position to provide solutions to these problems in a more cost effective way than is possible through either on-site facilities or through a community services district. A recent summary of the status of the City's water program is attached. The specific plan for the Airport Area will contain a plan for installing the necessary water and sewer infrastructure and will be based on newly updated master plans for city-wide water and wastewater systems. Stormwater Drainage The County report notes that a regional drainage system can reduce the need for or size of on-site detention basins while helping to prevent downstream flooding during heavy rains. The specific plan will contain a drainage master plan for the southern portion of the City, including the Airport Area. The City would construct this regional facility. Airport Area property developments would contribute to the cost of constructing the facility in proportion to the size of their developments. Streets and Roads Both City and County circulation plans recognize the need for major road improvements to serve the buildout of the Airport Area. The City has a better ability to spread the costs for the necessary improvement over all of the beneficiaries. The City has an existing traffic impact fee program in place for related circulation improvements such as the Prado Road freeway overpass. The specific plan for the Airport Area will contain a detailed circulation plan for the Airport Area and a financing plan for implementing the improvements that are determined to be needed in the area. Issue: Determining the Character of Development The Airport Area will develop as a part of the City or immediately adjacent to it. To the causal observer it will appear to be a part of the City. The visual character of the Airport Area can enhance the character of the City overall and contribute to the compact urban form. The City's goal is to maintain a compact urban form and definitive sense of place. If appearance is left to chance, the resulting development could appear disjointed and dilute the City's image. The County's plans and current development review process does not emphasize the need for cohesive character to the same extent as the City's . The specific plan for the Airport Area will contain an urban design component to insure that the City's goals can be realized. Issue: Comprehensive Versus Piece-Meal Planning of the Airport Area. Although limited interim annexations are allowed by the City, it does not follow that planning will be done in a piece-meal fashion. The interim annexations must all conform to the General Plan Land Use Element(LUE), which has established a comprehensive land use plan for the entire Airport Area. The specific plan must also be consistent with the LUE. Because interim annexations and development must be consistent with the General Plan and well as the subsequent specific plan, there is a mechanism for planning continuity between interim annexations and those that occur after the specific plan is completed. The specific plan may contain refinements to particular development standards that will differ from those approved in the interim annexation development projects, but given the small proportion of development the interim annexations represent and the degree to which specific plan standards are likely to differ from current standards, the interim annexations will probably not have a significant adverse effect the character of the area. Issue: Potential Added Costs for the County There is no "Annexation Fee". New development will be required to pay fees for infrastructure, specific plan preparation, and open space protection. Any other fees a use may be subject to would be the same as any other uses in the City. - f Once the Airport Area is annexed, all new development will begin to pay for the costs of extending infrastructure into the area. The fees will be based on the demand for services the new development will create and will be equal to its proportional share of the total cost. New development will also pay a proportional share of the cost of preparing the specific plan. The completion of the specific plan will allow property owners more precisely calculate the costs of annexation and to weigh those costs against the benefits City services will bring. The costs for development permits, taxes, and business licenses in the City can be estimated using the City's current fee structure. The County's concern is clear. City staff would like to work with County staff to develop estimates for the costs the County would realize should the County Airport be annexed. This would help the County make a reasoned decision on the fiscal impacts of annexation. Issue: Fire Protection and Law Enforcement The County states that existing services and mutual aid provided by the City is sufficient. The City does not receive any reimbursement for providing mutual aid to the balance of the Airport Area. The level of services the City can provide to the area is generally higher than can be provided by the County. As the balance of the area develops more mutual aid is likely to be needed. The ability to provide a higher quality of service and a growing unreimbursed costs make it reasonable for the area to be annexed to the City. City and County staffs can work together to seek the best alternative for fire protection and law enforcement at the Airport itself. Issue: Sewer, Water, Storm Drainage and Roadway Systems at the Airport The County staff report states that the Airport currently has adequate drainage and road maintenance services, and receives water and sewer services from the City. While this is the case today, the City may be in a better position to provide services for expanded Airport operations in the future. Issue: Capacity at the City's Wastewater Treatment Facility It has been stated that the City will have to expand the capacity of its wastewater treatment facility in order to serve the entire Airport Area. The wastewater treatment facility has been designed to incorporate future expansions of capacity. These expansions . will be constructed as needed to keep capacity at pace with demand. QUESTIONS CONCERNING CITY WATER POLICIES AND THE AIRPORT ANNEXATION 1. Question: When and how do developments obtain a water allocation from the City? Answer: City regulations state that "Water allocations shall be assigned to specific construction permits or requests to connect specific structures or facilities". The basis of these regulations is to allocate water on a first-come, first-served basis, and ensure that allocated water will be put to beneficial use in a timely manner. Allocating water to annexation areas prior to development application could limit water availability to areas currently annexed or areas which may annex and be ready for development. There is a cost of unallocated water which must be paid by existing rate payers (i.e. water supply development capital costs are incurred regardless of sales of water, water sales off- set some of these capital costs). It is, therefore, desirable and in the best interest of the rate payers to develop and allocate supplies consistent with the actual demand for those supplies. While this is not always precisely feasible since water supply development usually comes in large increments, we should, as much as possible, develop and allocate supplies consistent with actual demand. 2. Question: Then what assurances does the City provide that, if someone proceeds through the annexation process, there will be water available to serve their needs? Answer: General Plan policies contained in the Urban Water Management Element say that "The City shall develop additional water supplies to meet the projected demand at build-out of the City's General Plan ..." The City is committed to providing the necessary resources and is currently pursuing the development of several water supply options to meet the projected demand. In the meantime, Council has recently modified policies relative to the reserve of water for infill and intensification to split the available water supply (retrofit-potential) between infill development and annexation development. This action has resulted in roughly 300- acre feet of water being available for each. What this means in simple terms is that annexation areas are currently provided the same level of assurance as areas already within the City and that there will be water available for development. Under our existing General Plan and Municipal Code policies, these amounts should be adequate to serve development as it proceeds until additional supplies are brought on-line. 3. Question: With the modification of the policy for reserving water for intensification and infill, will this result if the City exceeds its safe annual yield? Answer: No. As mentioned earlier, City policies will not allow development beyond the water supplies available to the City. If the City does not acquire any additional supplies in the future, a portion of the potential development within the existing City limits and in the new annexation areas would not be allowed to occur. The City is pursuing the Water Reuse, Nacimiento, and Salinas Reservoir Expansion Projects to meet the future water needs of the City at full build-out. The Water Reuse Project is expected to be the first water supply project to add additional water supplies to the City. Construction of the Reuse Project is anticipated to occur in spring of 1998. Based on current City policies, once construction is initiated there would be an additional 600-acre feet of water available for development and 600-acre feet allocated to the reliability reserve. Since there are growth limitations in the General Plan, it is not anticipated that development will be impacted by the modification to the policy for reserve of water for intensification and infill. 4. Question: Are all the costs for the Nacimiento Project paid for by the Airport Area property owners? Answer: No. Only the portion of water that is necessary to serve the Airport Area would be recovered through water impact fees. A significant portion of the water that the City has requested from the Nacimiento Project is for existing development and residents. This is due to adopted City policies relative to the need for an additional 2,000-acre feet for a reliability reserve and 500-acre feet to offset losses due to siltation at our two reservoirs. 5. Question: Are the City and CSA 22 both requesting water to serve the Airport Area? Answer: No. The City has reduced our requested entitlement from the Nacimiento Project by the amount of water that the City would need to serve the area covered by CSA 22 which is within the Airport Area. CSA 22 has requested an entitlement from the Nacimiento Project to provide water for this area. Airport and Margarita Area Boundaries sm ... WJC3'i REj` yV'. arita A argrea t \ — 4 Ta k Farm Road \ ' 'DEQ .Airport Area Suburban Road ` »M••M.M•1•• •• .:.. .. ..'�:.. ... .. :':. Buckley Road AVILA RANCH »•. . OTHER PARCEL5 Margarita Area bounded by existing city limits to the CHANGED FROM north, west and east; and by Airport Area to the RURAL TO south. INDUSTRIAL ZONING Airport Area bounded by the Margarita Area and city-limits to the north; by the City limits and urban N reserve line to the west, east, and south. City Limit W E Urban Reserve Line LLLLJ Parcels S 1950 County of San Luis Obispo COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER,RM.370■SAN LUIS OBISPO,CALIFORNIA 93408■(805)781-5011 OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR February 27, 1997 Mr. Ken Hampian, Assistant City Administrative Officer City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 Re: Property Tax Exchange Dear M ampian: As a result of our recent meetings, the Administrative Office will recommend to the Board of Supervisors that they accept the City of San Luis Obispo's offer that the County retain all of the property tax base and increment for the Airport area annexation. In return, the City will receive all sales tax revenues after the effective date of the annexation. It is acknowledged.that the recent agreement on a zero property tax exchange for the Ernie Ball annexation, should serve as a precedent for the entire San Luis Obispo County Airport area annexation. We are prepared to recommend this approach to the Board of Supervisors at the appropriate time after the annexation proposal is re-initiated. If you have any questions, please let me know. Sincerely, LEE WILLIAMS Deputy County Administrator C - Board of Supervisors Robert E. Hendrix, County Administrator John Dunn, City Administrative Officer ear-rervrrs*rr � AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN TARGET SCHEDULE Task Target Date Preproposal Conference April 21, 1997 ................................. .......................................................................................... Proposal Deadlines Execute consultantservices contract July/August 1997 .................................................._..................._...................................................:......... Community workshop _ _ September 1997 _ .._._._ ........................... ......._ .......................................................... Administrative draft Specific Plan November 1997 __..__._._..._...._.....____.. .........................................................................................0.........................._ __......__ _ ___......_. Administrative draft EIR December 1997 _._....._.............._.._..........._.. _......... __._.._..._._...................................:..._...................._................................................................................................. Public review.draft Specific Plan February 1998 ...:. ........... ................._......_.............._.................... . Public review draft EIR ..... ..._...._..__._.._..___............._.._....._._............. Community Workshop............_..................................................:..March 1998 ................................................................_.........._........................_..._......... End of EIR comment period _ April 1998 <. ............................................................................._................ Response to EIR comments May 1998 .......................................:..._..... . _......._....._............_.._.._..........................._._............ Planning Commission review. _...._......_. :.July 1998......__.......:.........._...................._.............................................. ..._........... ..... Ado tion b City Council September 1998 e•rTeruM,Vwm A a a o AftX m LL LL c m m ❑ ❑ m n Z * oilZ o U � � t � � 7 a a � J C) -' o W m = ILL 0 g c Z 7 _O a W Z Z `O m W * O O Z O c rn m Z c Q o a a u; 0 CD U Z rn 7 W Z U Q a Z �' d Z N a a� g � s m V Q O CL W cm � C Q m y y C y U fII fD w FL a a O a IL En W a H = 0-0 Of E " c as c ° m Z N .e°�. C of a N o y c m p !C p lE m ra C N V E a N y d c v a a. a z d N rn y c E �' cO m > a N V o W = C C V R O EO a C -C t1 a ryo m ami c o f d w u x U o rn Q a s to a W •C E = d as C U c w fn C CO rn d W W CO a O d C y C 'Q C Y O N w R `v' v"' L .i' 1"' •y �, U L O Cl C Q C C '2CAIL m tm C .O. v ❑ ❑ cc ❑ ❑ •E E W tII C C LL d V c� O a 3 3 d a EE E O o � 2N d CL O ' a o y aH a U N w a a n a c c C d w Q c V a"mo W a 50 o E � F X ' CL a m oo Q a ¢ a- wd o . o o a w a rn v a 0 E U N �4r� cc AIRPORT OPERATIONS AND ANNEXATION FACT SHEET :.:::.,,ai>.m:<.x.x.;...,:.>:a:.,r.,, ,r,n;,..M.,,:.,;,r>„ixexn..,.:.x:�,.,..x.x.:,,;:;;.,;.»:.»;...... •.,,n,:.M:.,,:[.k:..x,:ix,x.;yrir..>...........:...rr...:,,....;,.,,v:.,;.r..r>,a»r„y .�"""x:'nw'`•..+< o.•c'.F?:�ii.r.r... [ „`2 > < "t" :. r ",.: ;..i :.':n,:. ,........ .. .... ....... ........:..:,...:,.......................�:........ .. ..a ,,,,„„.,.,,,,,,:v.:.aa.,.„...u,.., ,:.Sa,a•.a..,w.a.vn...n..: .:aurs.r<w:u,.�a,..,xuci:w...::w.usi :ii::r.i s::;'. ,.:::.,}.,..•nai .:. :..n..:.:...::.. xvaa.n..n.m4.:ft„w.aa..vay.av::na:..a..:.a.nv.:.f.x•'n'Si:.i:i[!.iY.p.+.T:....nwx..r:.�i:ii:.i:[[r.:...:.:..n ...... ...... w: .,$„::/�.}px,'hxJw'iiw:i vn n::v:S'n.:y.r.n.r.n., 1. Annexing the Airport into the City has been a part of the City's and the County's planning for years. 2. County operations and property within the city limits are not subject to City regulations when used by the County. 3. The City has no interest in - and no authority to - assume control of Airport operations should the Airport be annexed to the City. The County will maintain control over the Airport and its operations,just as it does with other County facilities now in the City such as the Courthouse, the Social Services Center, and the County Hospital. County residents' political representation in what happens at the Airport will not be affected by annexation. 4. Land uses around the Airport are primarily determined by the County Airport Land Use Plan. The County adopts and maintains that plan, even if the Airport is located within the city-limits. The current Airport Land Use Plan was adopted in 1973. This County plan establishes the safety zones around the Airport and what uses can be located in them. This will be unchanged by annexation. 5. City and County land use plans must comply with the County Airport Land Use Plan. 6. The City's annexation plan includes the Airport as a means to also annex several existing industrial properties south of the Airport. The governing body that approves annexations (the Local Agency Formation Commission) requires annexations to be contiguous and prohibits"unincorporated islands". The City cannot annex property south of the Airport unless it also annexes the Airport. 7. The City's land use plan for the area around the Airport is based on drawing a line (the City's urban reserve line) around existing industrial areas and having those areas develop within the City. Land outside the urban reserve line is to remain at its current level of use - primarily rural. The County- not the City- recently added another 300 acres of industrial zoning around the Airport. 8. The Airport Area is developing now under County jurisdiction. Annexation does not make the difference between development or no development. For example, in the last five years, about 400,000 square feet of additional floor area have been either constructed or approved by the County in the Airport Area. 9. The County's own Fiscal Analysis for the San Luis Obispo Area Plan Update(done in November 1996) states on page 10: "Annexation of the Airport Area has the most positive affect on net County revenues for the planning area". The fiscal study points out that by the year 2005, the"Annexation in Five Years" option will produce $3.5 million net revenues annually for the County, exceeding any other option by $2.5 million net revenues annually. On the other hand, the"Continuing Recent Trends" option is expected"to decline eventually to a deficit situation (for the County) in the planning area". 10. The March 11 decision before the City Council is not about whether or not to annex the Airport into the City. That issue will be studied as a part of the planning the City Council is being asked to authorized. A decision on annexation is probably two to three years away. A qWP A!`IIMIIUT 4 1��►P�IIllllllll�lll{��►li��i► I Iflcity of sAnluis oaspo 990 Palm Street, San-Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 April 8, 1997 Dave Darbyshire, President San Luis Obispo Pilots Association Post Office Box 292 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 Dear Dave: I am writing to express my appreciation to you, Charles Wheiswell, Jim Maul, and Pascal Grimaud for meeting with John Mandeville, Bill Statler and myself to discuss the airport annexation. It was very helpful to hear directly from you regarding the Pilots Association's concerns. The three main issues that you identified during the meeting were related to operational control, safety, and cost. To reiterate a key point we made during the meeting, I would like to emphasize that we are only at the very early stages of annexation study, and many questions can only be answered over time as the results of. the study unfold. In the meantime, however, the City can state the following: • The Specific Plan Study will not be completed for at least 1 1/2 years and a final annexation decision is not anticipated for 2-3 years. Thus, we are nowhere near final negotiations with the County but rather at the beginning stages of a dialogue. • The County of San Luis Obispo has the final say so as to whether or not the airport will annex to the City, and the City's ability to satisfy the concerns of the Pilots Association and airport-related business will obviously weigh heavily on the County's decision. •. The City has no interest in, and no authority to, assume control of any aspect of airport operations should the airport be annexed to the City. This means that the City cannot control "the land beneath the airport", just as we cannot control the land beneath the Courthouse, County Hospital, the Social Services Building, and other County facilities. • The amount of sales and property tax paid will be completely unaffected by the annexation of the airport. While some businesses may be subject to the City's business tax (1/20`I' of 1% of gross receipts), pilots and other airport users not operating a business will not be subject to this tax. There might also be a 5°/a utility tax _ with the amount paid depending upon level of utility use. Added costs, if any, resulting from annexation need to be weighed against the added . services and benefits available through annexation. These include police and fire ' service, paramedic service, a higher level of street maintenance, and other'services. A KThe City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services,prograr[is and�i s _ 7 T e..............:....:.,,... ne,,:..e ... tie nmf fAn�1 7f7.761n ATTR 1V�i complete cost-benefit analysis, however, cannot truly be .made until better data is available through the specific plan study. • Land uses around the airport are primarily determined by the County Airport Land Use Plan, whether or not the airportis annexed into the City. Board of Supervisor authority over the Airport Land Use Plan will be unchanged by -annexation.. Thus, airport businesses and users will continue to be represented by the Boarof Supervisors relative to Land Use compatibility issues and the airport operation. • If County-owned airport property is annexed to- the City, businesses will also be represented by the City Council, thus increasing direct political representation, not diminishing it. • With regard to safety, this will.also to be assured by the Airport Land Use Plan since this plan establishes what uses are allowed and not allowed in the area of the airport. Thus, if 'the specific plan is consistent with the Airport Land Use Plan, then all development approved pursuant to this specific plan will also be consistent with the Airport Land Use Plan. Such consistency is also a matter of General Plan policy, as set forth in Section 7.2 (presently, County and City land use plans for the. Airport Area have been closely coordinated and are very similar). • We would like to invite the Pilots Association to work with City staff during the preparation of the Specific Plan and to participate in the public input opportunities made available during that process, as outlined in the schedule we provided on Wednesday. With regard to more subjective matters, you pointed out that many airport business owners or tenants fear the City's development review process. This is a common concern that we face almost daily, based in large part on 'old war stories". While we still obviously have our community controversies relative to major development proposals, the day-to- day processing of business expansions and building permits has .been greatly improved and is frequently complimented by those who do business with us. I hope that you share with other members of the Pilots Association the private sector testimony to this affect that we provided to you during our meeting. Thank you once again for meeting with us, and we look forward to hearing from you regarding your participation in the specific plan. Sincerely, 1 �.. Ken Hampian Assistant City Administrative Officer cc: Charles Wheiswell Jim Maul . Pascal Grimaud John Mandeville, Long-Range Planner Bill Statler, Finance Director LU 1.13.5: Open Space Each annexation shall help secure permanent protection for areas designated Open Space, and for, the habitat types and wildlife corridors within the annexation area that are identified in 'LU Policy 6.1.1. Policies concerning prime agricultural land shall apply when appropriate. The following standards shall apply to the indicated areas: D) Airport Area properties shall secure protection for any on-site resources. as identified in the Open Space Element. These properties, to help maintain the greenbelt, shall also secure open space protection for any contiguous, commonly.owned land outside the urban reserve. If it is not feasible to directly obtain protection for such land, fees in lieu of dedication shall be paid when the property is developed, to help secure the greenbelt in the area south of the City's southerly urban reserve line. LU 1.14: Costs of Growth The costs of public facilities and services needed for new development shall be borne by the new development, unless the community chooses to help pay the costs for a certain development to obtain community- wide benefits. The City will adopt a development-fee program and other appropriate financing measures, so that new development pays its share of the costs of new services and facilities needed to serve it. WOO AIRPORT AREA POLICIES LU 7.1 : Regional Service The airport will continue to serve the region, consistent with the approved Airport r Master Plan. LU .7.2: Airport Land Use Plan Development should be permitted only if it. is consistent with the San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Plan. Prospective buyers of property which is subject to airport influence should be so informed. ATTACHMENT 8 l�I L a c MEETING— — AGENDA `f MEMORA"UM DATE s-a/- ZZ ITEM # ss May 20, 1997 To: Mayor Settle and City Council Via: John Dunn, City AdministratX01fFrom: John E. Moss,Utilities Direc Subject: May 21'Joint City Council/Board of Supervisors Meeting Attached for your information are a number of overheads staff has prepared relative to City policies pertaining to "Water"and the Airport Area annexation. While the joint meeting is not intended to get into the water topic per se', it is a topic which rarely fails to be of interest when discussing annexations and development. Staff does not plan to be presenting these overheads as a part of the presentation, rather they are intended to be available should questions arise. They do provide a quick overview of pertinent city policy and we thought this information may be useful to Council. If you have any questions regarding these overheads please feel free to call John Moss at x205 or Gary Henderson at x237. c: Gary Henderson 3.c == — ❑ FSM OIR Cr ACAO'�;... p FIRE CHIEF 9* DIU DIR �LEFOMG 0 POLICE CHF 0- TEAM 0 REC DIR _ - - — G 9 LE._ [�lriLDW - CDN y � � � — �- _ > -d m ° cn O 0 M > 0 r-+ D �0 (Do0 � 0 (D (D (D D = % (D 0l< max. -air-,- 0 ( O ( (D 0 CD �- 0 t� . r+ � 0 O con 0 O -` cD CD O CSD c% W Q � q< Z n r+- (gyp O � O 0 -a(D 0 (D 3 3 3 (o 0 (D (D (1) -00 N � (D �. (D o O rF - 0 (D IV (I) o D � r.+ ((D (D N p- (D (�D r• N (D � ;-S . p p (D :. z ((DD cn p < D (Do o (D (CD (D `D CD (D O r-+ (D cr . D � r-+ (D p -� Q. �- ---h (D n ° Q (!3 owe '� D (Dr.}. CL N cam+ � 0) C O gym . . (D (DC/) �u > o N Q W CD CD p�j CD CD z3 = O O O CD --t n — � CD (n O '-+ O CD - (f) -*: 5 -� l< -O � � CD O CD D -0 3 `�- CD - . X CD -0 - CD z CD c� � � � CD (D Z3 � � CD O .-+ CD Q. O r+CD (D Z37 `C —. O Q c- 0 0 0 a1 �. O (C) •o (- --% cn CD —0 O CL O (n r-+5. — O CD CD CD �. O. W CD Q < cD c-} o 0- O FD O _. o- 0 r-+ 'Z3CD CD A� O CD CD :3 3 � CD CD D U r-+ Q.m m ' C 0 C C 0 CD ® �. CD -m CD a (D X (C) 3 o .c Co �- CD n CD CD CD 3 -o ° W CD 0 J I —1 ao 34i r �o D C7 Q 0 I N (DQ i � � �• cD -0 I Q I (D I (n (D o (D r+ 0 � 12) o o I ° cD (D h t!) cn � D Q ° IC7 r-+ m m cn I < D 3 N � O Z C INi i 3: I � I --< IQC: 0 (D �- I w w N co � i � � loo � IW � I I -�, CD rCD Fd o CD D ►� CD eo dl W N ICD Vt 00 O O O O CDtO+ CD '-- C) mC) `v O O CD Lo� .. Go O 0 CD cn CD CD CD C� r N cn �—A __. . AO -N.p._ • 1 A� Dt -�• CD CD �` CD (:)7a CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD 0ti -. CD -P I � o CD � �• w w O N � n n n cD 0 CD CD CDCD O '(-D '(-D C`�''D 'CDD "Make CD CD CD S D CD ►� 4 k-e4 O CD �. d 0 CD CD w CD �. ro � co °° 41,00 W tA LA b bd � O CCD N CD 0 0 0 f"� E t0 t'0 y � tai d m o x a CD Cd CD r h CD CD0. > � p 0 CDC CD o '. A'• o o o x K -.5 00 r o o m c� � 0 � 0 CD Q cn n U) � CD OCD O CD O 0 - cn r-+ 5. 0 o O 0 r-+ (C) O w CD � D w (DD o CD 3 in O A� � '�: CD 0 �. n CD cr O CD Z w � CD CD r J O (n (Q' • cr O CD cn n O- +, (D � O O n < =3 Sy' CD CSD Q. n CD O- r-+- n (n ' Fn :_ 0 '