HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/09/1993, Agenda
Date: March 8, 2024
Subject: June 9, 1993, City Council meeting Agenda
While researching records it was discovered that no Agenda was archived for this meeting.
According to the Minutes (attached following for clarification purposes), the meeting was a,
“Study Session of the City Council” with two Business Items.
1. Airport Area Annexation
2. 1993‐1994 Final Plan & 1993‐1994 Budget (continued from 2/6/93, 2/9/93, 3/13/93,
6/2/93, and 6/8/93.)06‐09‐1993 Ag
Additionally, attached are correspondences found in an alternate file that were submitted
as Public Comment for Items on this meeting’s agenda.
City Council Meeting Page 5
Tuesday, June 8, 1993 - 7:00 P.M.
BUSINESS ITEMS �I
3. COST ALLOCATION PLAN FOR 1992 -93 (File No. 233)
Council considered the cost allocation plan for 1992 -93 as a basis for subsequent reimbursement to
the General Fund from the Enterprise Funds (continued from 6/2/93).
Moved by Settle /Roalman to continue this item to Wednesday, June 9, 1993 without further public
notice; motion carried (5-0).
COMMUNICATIONS
There were no communications.
11:10 P.M. Mayor Pinard declared a recess to closed session regarding existing litigation (Lambing
vs. City of San Luis Obispo, Los Osos Valley Associates vs. City of San Luis Obispo, and Porter vs.
City of San Luis Obispo); and personnel matters.
11:35 P.M. City Council reconvened; all Council Members present.
Council reported action taken; Lambing vs. City of San Luis Obispo and Los Osos Valley Association
vs. City of San Luis Obispo were continued to Wednesday, June 9, 1993 without further public notice;
no action was taken regarding personnel matters and Porter vs. City of San Luis Obispo.
11:37 P.M. there being no further business to come before the City Council, Mayor Pinard adjourned
the meeting to Wednesday, June 9, 1993 at 7:00 P.M.
APPROVED BY COUNCIL: 7/6/93 u
i e R. GI dwell, ity Clerk
DRG:cm
MINUTES
STUDY SESSION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 9, 1993 - 7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBER - CITY HALL - 990 PALM STREET
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
ROLL CALL
Council Members
Present: Council Members Penny Rappa, Dave Romero, Allen K. Settle, Vice -
Mayor Bill Roalman, and Mayor Peg Pinard
Absent: None I
City Council Meeting
Wednesday, June 9, 1993 - 7:00 P.M.
' City Staff
Page 2
Present: John Dunn, City Administrative Officer; Jeff Jorgensen, City Attorney;
Diane Gladwell, City Clerk; Ken Hamplan, Assistant City Administrative
Officer, Mike McCluskey, Public Works Director, Arnold Jonas,
Community Development Director; Jim Gardiner, Police Chief
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
There were no public comments.
COUNCIL UAISON REPORTS
C.L.R.1. Council Member Rauaa thanked Vice -Mayor Roalman and Council Member Settle for
their support in opposing extensions of transportation services at the Council of Governments (COG).
In the future, there will be no extension of services outside San Luis Obispo County without a
unanimous vote of the COG.
Council discussed the use of TDA funds and estimated a cost to San Luis Obispo of $13,000 to fund
a route to Santa Maria.
A request to agendize and approve San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority (SLORTA) agendas
prior to SLORTA votes was made.
1 BUSINESS ITEMS
1. AIRPORT AREA ANNEXATION (File No. 463)
Council considered implementing a City policy to incrementally annex the properties at the southern
edge of the City commonly referred to as the Airport Area.
John Dunn, City Administrative Officer, stated the objective was to hear from the property owners prior
to the Local Area Formation Commission ( LAFCO).
Keith Gurnee, representing RRM Design Group and the airport area property owners, stated they had
unanimously endorsed the concept plan for the airport area and the Board of Supervisors and City
Council had approved it in 1988/89 as a work program. The owners applied to expand the powers
to supply water to the County Service Area (CSA) 22 with LAFCO and the hearing would be on
June 18, 1993. He then reviewed Council direction that was requested by the Airport Area Property
Owners, which was submitted as an exhibit.
Council discussed infrastructure costs and the ability of the City to provide resources, concern with
the land development south of the airport area, the request from the Airport Area Property Owners to
annex the entire area prior to the City obtaining the ability to service the area, and intensity of
development.
Steve Rehrio, a property owner, stated that it took three years to process the Cuesta building in the
County and that City processes were quicker. The types of uses in the airport area would benefit the
City and urged the City to annex or allow further development with LAFCO.
City Council Meeting Page 3
Wednesday, June 9, 1993 - 7:00 P.M.
Charles Senn. 2840 El Cerrito, urged the City not to oppose the granting of powers to CSA 22, that '
San Luis Obispo needed the area with infrastructure and amenities to compete with other cities to
attract businesses. He stated the owners were committed to architectural review and City standards.
Sherry Davis, representing the Chamber of Commerce, supported the annexation and incremental
phased development of the area. She stated that water should be supplied upon annexation and
urged incorporation of the annexation plan into the Land Use Element.
Charlie Fruit, Chair of the Economic Strategy Task Force (ESTF), reviewed the position of the task
force as annexing the entire area with provisions as outlined in their memorandum dated May 28,
1993.
Richard Deblough an owner in the Margarita expansion area, stated that the Margarita area owners
were also looking for a commitment from the Council and urged the City to annex as soon as
possible.
Rov Garcia. 547 Prado Rd., urged annexation.
Dave Martindale, San Luis Obispo, stated owners had spent several hundred thousand dollars as CSA
22, and urged Council to proceed.
Council discussed the cost of providing infrastructure, a phased approach to annexation, and the
possibility of referendums. Council also discussed the Environmental Impact Report process and
mitigation of unavoidable impacts, the development and agreement processes.
8:50 P.M. Mayor Pinard declared a recess.
9:08 P.M. Council reconvened; all Council Members present.
Arnold Jonas. Community Development Director, summarized the issues in front of Council including
annexation prior to development, incremental annexation as opposed to whole annexation then
incremental development, and the request before LAFCO to provide water to the area.
Council discussed various issues including allowing CSA 22 to acquire water, then augmenting the
City's water supply through annexation of the area, placing the annexation question in front of the
voters, the costs and consequences of annexation and infrastructure support to the area, and public
process and community support.
Moved by Rapoa /Romero to conceptually endorse the initiation of steps necessary for the annexation
process to incrementally develop property referred to as the airport area; motion carried (4-1, Council
Member Settle voting no).
Moved by Pinard /Roalman to adopt staff's recommendation with amendments as follows:
Incorporate into the General Plan Land Use Element (LUE) update refined
policies and goals for development of the Airport Area under City jurisdiction,
including a specific program for lasFemental annexation arM > (i .0 eitienCei
:....: :........................:.::::
tleYeiapr effl of, and provision of urban services to, properties within the
Airport Area; I
City Council Meeting Page 4
Wednesday, June 9, 1993 = 7:00 P.M.
2. Notify the Local Area Formation Commission (LAFCO) of the City s continued
opposition to modification of County Service Area 22 (CSA) to allow the CSA to
provide water to include properties;
3. Work with the property owners, or their representatives, of appropriate
properties within the CSA to develop a mutually satisfactory written
agreement for implementation of the annexation program incorporated in the
adopted LUE; .
Airport Area Property Owners' Association acknowledges they will pay their share of costs of
annexation, infrastructure, and services; and
Include Economic Strategy Task Force's recommendation: "Concurrent with annexation, enter into
a Memorandum of Agreement /contract with the County to assure that areas outside the City's sphere
of influence, and under County control, will be retained as rural in character and inclusive of open
space; areas within the City's sphere and under City control, will accommodate reasonable urban
development, but will also include open space and greenbelts."
Moved by Romero /Raooa to amend the motion to incorporate the deferral of staff recommendation
#2 (notify the LAFCO of the City's continued opposition to modification of CSA 22 to allow CSA to
provide water to include the properties); motion failed (2 -3, Council Member Settle, Vice -Mayor
Roalman, and Mayor Pinard voting no).
Motion carried without proposed amendment (4-1, Council Member Settle voting no).
1 10:32 P.M. Mayor Pinard declared a recess.
10: 38 P.M. Council reconvened; all Council Members present.
2. 1993 -94 FINANCIAL PLAN & 1993 -94 BUDGET (File No. 233)
Council considered the 1993 -95 Financial Plan and 1993 -94 Budget. (continued from 2/6/93, 2/9/93,
3/13/93, 6/2/93, and 6/8/93).
Pat Veesart. San Luis Obispo, stated the Bicycle Coordinator had obtained grants totalling $120,000
for this City and, therefore, paid for the half time position; he urged retention for the half -time position.
John Dunn, City Administrative Officer, reviewed the staffing options presented to Council on June
8, 1993, and Council's direction to adopt option #2 (a full -time Transportation Assistant position,
combining transit and bicycle programs, funded by Section 9 grants).
Mike McCluskev. Public Works Director, made a firm commitment to support the Bicycle Program until
grant funds were received.
Council discussed issues relating to recruitment and workers compensation costs, computer
expenses, and reducing expenditures.
Phil Ashley. San Luis Obispo, expressed concern about City employees.
Council discussed the ability to reprioritize for changing community needs.
City Council Meeting Page 5
Wednesday, June 9, 1993 - 7:00 P.M.
3. COST ALLOCATION PLAN FOR 1992 -93 (File No. 233)
Council considered the cost allocation plan for 1992 -93 as a basis for subsequent reimbursement to
the General Fund from the Enterprise Funds (continued from 6/2/93 and 6/8/93).
John Dunn. City Administrative Officer, stated that these figures would be incorporated into the
budget.
Bill Statler, Finance Director, reviewed the methodology utilized to apply direct and indirect costs.
After discussion, moved by Settle /Romero to approve the cost allocation plan for 1992 -93; motion
carried (5-0).
COMMUNICATIONS
COMMA. Council Member Raooa clarified that the Residents for Quality Neighborhoods (RON)
request for parking maintenance district would be heard in October when Cal Poly students were in
town.
COMM.2. Council Member Romero asked staff for a report analyzing other locations available
for the People's Kitchen. John Dunn, City Administrative Officer, responded that the City would
facilitate a new location.
11:52 P.M. Mayor Pinard declared a recess to closed session to discuss existing litigation regarding
Lambing vs. City of San Luis Obispo, Los Osos Valley Associates vs. City of San Luis Obispo, and
employee negotiations.
12:28 A.M. City Council reconvened to open session and reported no action taken.
12:29 A.M. there being no further business to come before the City Council, Mayor Pinard adjourned
the meeting.
APPROVED BY COUNCIL: 7/6/93
is R. Gla wel , i Clerk
FJRG:cm
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
TUESDAY, JUNE 15, 1993 - 7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBER - CITY HALL - 990 PALM STREET
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
ROLL CALL
Council Members
Present: Council Members Penny Rappa, Dave Romero, Allen K. Settle, Vice -
Mayor Bill Roalman, and Mayor Peg Pinard
COUNCIL DIRECTION REQUESTED BY THE
AIRPORT AREA PROPERTY OWNERS AI�
June 9, 1993
1. Reaffirm Council support for the Airport Area Concept Plan, previously
approved by the Council in 1989, and incorporate that plan into the City's
General Plan/lAnd Use Element subject to a Specific Plan.
2. Do not oppose the granting of further powers to CSA -22. Instead, challenge
yourselves to negotiate an agreement for annexation and service with the
Airport Area Property Owners and County that will be binding on future
administrations, and that will give the Property Owners reason to work with
the City before water can be delivered to CSA -22.
3. State your willingness to exercise strong leadership to garner public support
of the process and make this annexation a part of your work program.
4. Appoint a City Council subcommittee to work with the Airport Area Property
Owners and County to develop a Memorandum Of Understanding (MOU)
setting forth the terms and conditions for annexing and serving the Airport
Area.
5. Commit to the following schedule for completing this MOU.
• by Auzust 1: Base points. of agreement to be negotiated City
will take action to instruct legal counsel to draft a
formal MOU.
• by September 1: City Attorney to complete draft MOU outlining
conditions and terms of all three parties working
together.
0 by October 1: City to approve MOU.
COUNCIL DIRECTION REQUESTED BY THE
AIRPORT AREA PROPERTY OWNERS
June 9, 1993
6. Agree to annex the entire Airport Area Specific Planning Area, under a
Phasing Schedule consistent with a forthcoming Airport Area Specific Plan.
The general schedule should be guided by the directive that the City intends
to annex and serve all phases of the Airport Area Specific Plan by 1998,
rather than waiting until that time to begin the annexation process.
7. Formally commit to securing the resources necessary to serve future build -out
of the Airport Area Specific Plan.
8. If the City is unable to secure the resources needed to serve the Airport Area
at full build -out according to the Specific Plan, or is unable to meet its
schedule for negotiating and executing an MOU, then the City should state
that it will not oppose development in the Airport Area under CSA -22.
9. Should the City annex the entire Airport Area and agree to serve it once
resources are on line, the City should allow for some interim development to
occur consistent with the Specific Plan using existing groundwater resource
capacities.
10. Do not apply commercial/industrial growth restrictions to the Airport Area
Specific Plan as currently being considered in the Land Use Element Update.
41!3
LA n T -F -Cover
(qqo 6TREET
8640 6t TY, L -Zj� ,9-�5;�ORK
Ic?3
Awl
t5 i UN 9�E5FM.5 WF7' UAJ IMP& UE - G,A t5= 92 FF– D 9 tVW- - &XV-.2F-r—
aN-5- IJAV E- -0 F -1-17f L5--
ROL, U)jf ERS�-Wt:- tct)-T-W- -T-i
vokAormL-51-, rar-�7�. 1k):5W6CrlVE- A -S T14F,
O-pp1 - I - 5F-�.. AbM
F4: -r
7
.
-56AtF--Ttj!A-YS
qqo PAtnn 5TREP:1- 15C(& tAv t COLAPf
�RN f Lus 01315po Ty, CA Z,%-?5o56xvw 1
—_
95-OMMEN
EN t �� ,�r���tDntiin�tsrRr ��S tt:2& c LTi
G1 -w - P, Lcu�, Gc9 �U Q��t.l5 �o��iv�#�_u��u2o_CZK__�#.�E�R�.-tom
1_(�t�D�tl.1L�`�SC�cTIO_d� � 5}_tV_E Y�LL.�3�{��CLtQIUS_< INDtV1�L{�tLL�
5�1_��F_G(�ERI`�rU,at21=� � I�t,UC�T��II�T_�►ul�.A-ti1�
(�Lci'�[:iE�
fYs_i�4�_1�L�1tvr--PS[7 �' ----
t (0 F 06! 5�__1T-5FEM5 A- bM- l�cs_rf-A-VX
Aw) A s(I<qrr- F-�4�9)UEJLJ--T-TiEC-A&AP-d�u(ZAAAUUJ I ITe
(2.
kENT- wm-p -R-Ln -[5-CO -IF-0
F-- c S F-- 0, S- - A PJ R 6 P -r- E Fo R - cC(D F - r I -TI +F- - PcFST--O F- U5
Oj esl .�LT H t OU) - A Me6rd -IA K ff-- At, I- & F-- 6 UZ L z
A<Z-I.bF-,UT-- 1tAep-EIJELJ-0-6—
:P-VEI ` 1Y5- 5A -VE....
W � �-OF F-5.
--- Nom,_ -nYE- rs�,—
-- LgtM&-
V o0- -
- --6UEFLA-O&- F OOZ-5,
3
-2 K I-t7kr6—
KI6' -T F- Mf 0 9 A P � �- p- Ael - --" <::: a -r5-- 7 -0-F-I 9 T-- VE 10 T- I A AMit AM -G. 0- E E 5- —
—�R &-t---T E i - k >- rog - -G�o F F - - 7w i - D- m- E._55 ifr:: -- A- 6 R F - r.- b- -7 -o-Tpk- Y-- A- - - 5 io A i tFj6%- r-
7
RAM-bl-F—TtiE b(FRCao--- Job OF &t�f-ratTT7AZ-7HAAJ-.
0 F_ iA35 U105 c Ft V. E, Ekt
q-
-fzR
_5 �Tt -ff WJE --5—
EA- -5UREE
M5fifoaL-b-5E-ft- RIX5
W--1 Rp� -rte
0 1_�G,_5o�1��l1.� �v'��_Yer,�/t2E..0-�t� � �r,�t_`I��..
0- t wo- t IQL A, t n) P-rlo CIE c�o u ft- a F- o6 i tJ&- - -cct u) e- J05- .�Db-� C�Tt f F--
�rl
A-ljt>-M tD4.-E- M-AN/-Y9---Z-
-T-R- r, -- o V- � �C-, , v W—
--Av-TA-f A-bMJA)
JAMT
7r -
I N-Q-:,'�P- E-4
F
5
- - I -F±-(F--i
E-7
-V - -L4F
ma
NNWK*Mvli
F: ft-L.GE::S-Z- AVot
EJS Alp t44A-
;5A-9tT---f
---. --- EF 1,�- tjEftpj�
NO
A -r- A `.T
---PascTo►�_cN-tC_�i.
K�v�
Ge - z—Ta_5cAp-eL�Tf `f_4Ou5A
boi-LP_tP�S
NOcv-
_l�f�
�-- CF—F6.9- ,59--�MoIJE!
1Ltr-_L-fSL
THE -L -mb
R�S�2U11.1�E �r�U�-G2E8L�Cf�_E D��// n C�B�i�1Q> S�
--TEtEN �rKs_ s.�rlo�_ts_N Ss �4� Yo -B ll_u-._wE--AACt5T 1M
'�D tffl_U_�._�I19� tt��E-off �3R1�UG��G--C�To T�f�E6�u�TcD�U
IM055I&E-
r
p
--O-F -rzt�—, e5�K 6
w 44
Ce'
MS�(.2fV-- S-
XF, q --g--E ,E_£_ P RF I � -a _FF
WEiZ ------
-Ts- -w-TaE-:57 A-yj-
----TtfftN)-Tff ERE- A -R -E -Cb- F-6-p-jFo?zF
TIWE A-- 6-52�A-Mt—>-
--I_��D_tl2`��.J2�> f_��IJD_L(��tlf I1�1_TF{,�T_-H�E1�-��-15__CF_�LL�� GCPDI_l� � -
-'Nljb_kf A-251TAT
11 -5-nib
-- -
----OE_ Ff
t5 Ly -e &tk 6Tzrp W026 �iffE PF-5AXI-SIBLE P<V-o�o
OF P-E-7-ftIMIA)fn
9 174 -60y,
�51-Tfc)lo wlrH P� rtmay-
M4E F--UTUR-F-.
16)
ft -T
-r
OKI a-F-I-eog-
--:5ew
f ID LI 1112 r r3c f It -t- I ^t I f-i� . l Af-<
e 7
7w
�E W—W -C-E. (,49
.5 OCT
F -UL -0- A- K-=6- P--AS5LA-
ap
E -PE -920M- -THE- 5tAb&E-T-- aA)-n E-EWMAOLr WD -
0 12j-
Wildlife
Continued from Page A 1
C
C7 L� v� W C w O d p � C :. d a1 7 C >` N��� ti •bO� V �'
t q q O v Q Q W L O
,.,E=-
= y
U 4 y m 4 4 O y,O .� L� L�..�F� U ^p•; U 4`-- U N CO
EDv 4 es
W 4 c W C G h... �.� �'�>r.
scos p.°oN b:Ee3z W— pip°°0_.>, � =�c
�a W o3 �� qo..a q�' p'Uti0 E:E" JFv0 >.0 k7
�
a3�Lotppu o°LWs.°•�>-„mcompgc�c%.0m�v01,y>, tigi a
0.E
CW �
�nQ -0cG (POO 42 Oy a cc
d U
y
�aiUcd d Yq.uav3u"EE°sm=2 ]L OO . :ma ,uq.U
cc
my
c 060 0 u
.ba 'a z�y dCtiqd
��CoE
C�Z =aLo�iam
W W �o0 U> W
5 0 W 3 a v W •.-. COL C u m
slaughter can occur with impuni-
ty
"We're lucky to catch 1 percent
of what goes on out here," Castle-
ton says. "That's why the resource
is running out Look how big an
area this is. And there are only
three of us.”
Resource is the department's
all-purpose name for each and
every state -regulated species of
fish, fowl, reptile and mammal.
Castleton's marine patrol area be-
gins at the Mexican border and
stretches north to the Orange
County seaside enclave of Dana
Point In between are roughly 720
square miles of ocean and coast-
line.
Castleton and two young war-
dens, Tim Olivas and Sal Amato,
are responsible for all of it Their
jobs are not easy and neither are
their working conditions.
The state's ongoing fiscal crisis
has brought cutbacks in personnel
and a ban on . overtime. Mean-
while, hard economic times have
brought an increase in illegal fish-
ing and hunting.
"It's very frustrating," says Cas-
tleton's boss, regional patrol chief
Gordon Cribbs. "I ve said often
that we're like the little Dutch boy
with his finger in the dike." _
Another hole in that dike, ac-,
cording to Cribbs, is inexperi-
enced employees. "Sixty percent
of this region's wardens have less
than three years experience," he
said.
And it takes at least three to
four years, said Castleton, "for a
guy to be of any use to us."
On this fog -shrouded morning,
Castleton and his crew are head-
ing out to sea in their state-owned
patrol boat named Tuna. Heading
north from San Diego's Point
Loma, the men are searching for
commercial fishing violations —
illegal net lines, undersized lob-
ster catches, unmarked trap
buoys.
State Fish and Game wardens
carry guns and are dually depu-
tized as federal agents. On the wa-
ter, they are not bound by search
and seizure prohibitions and may
board boats and search them with-
out warrants.
Thirty minutes out, Castleton
pulls up to a tiny lobster boat over-
burdened with traps. Olivas goes
aboard, chatting all the while, and
looks over the fisherman's paper-
work, his traps and his catch.
Satisfied that all is in order, Oli-
vas climbs back on the Tuna,
waves to the smaller boat and
ducks inside to talk with Castle-
ton.
Lobster fishing can be a rich
business, with restaurants paying
$6.50 to $7 a pound. A good day's
haul can net 300 to 400 lobsters.
"Some of these guys make good
money," says Castleton. "They
work alone. There's no overhead."
For commercial lobster fishing,
there is no catch limit The season
runs from October to March. De-
partment regulations make it ille-
gal to take lobster measuring less
than 3-114 inches from eye socket
to rear shell edge.
Behind the wheel of the 46 -by -
14 -foot Tuna, Castleton admits to
the overwhelming pressures of
budget and personnel cutbacks.
When California was reduced last
fall to issuing IOUs for its debts,
many local vendors stopped pro-
viding services to Castleton and
his crew.
The next time that the Tuna —
or its array of radar, underwater
fish scanners and radios — needs
repairing, Castleton will be in dire
straits.
"I've got vendors who haven't
been paid since last September,"
says Castleton. "They've cut us off.
I've done business with them for
12 years and they don't want us
anymore."
Still, the 45 -year. -old Castleton
— who served in Vietnam and
spent 10 years with the California
Youth Authority before joining
Fish and Game — is adamant
about his job. He likes it And so
do his wardens, although they are
younger and more gung-ho than
Castleton.
This amuses the lieutenant
"They're good guys," he says,
watching them blaze off in a high-
powered skiff used to maneuver
between fishing boats. "In these
close quarters, you have to think
alike. You've all got to be on the
same team."
Despite being unable to catch 99
percent of "the bad guys," as Cas-
tleton calls poachers. he keeps at
it
"I have to care," he says, looking
out to sea. "I think too much of
myself not to care. And so do these
guys." Besides, he adds with a sar-
castic grin, "it beats sitting in ati
office."
I
MEMORANDUM
May 28, 1993
TO: City Council
FROM: Charlie Fruit, Chairman, Economic Strategy Task Force
SUBJECT: Airport Area Annexation
As you know, over the last several weeks the Economic Strategy Task Force has been
tackling a number of very significant issues related to the economy and environment of San
Luis Obispo, with a goal of bringing our recommendations to you next month. One of the
most important issues we have addressed is the future of the Airport Area. Because the
CSA 22 request to provide water service to the area will be before LAFCO on June 17th,
the Economic Strategy Task Force felt it important to forward our position on this matter
to you in advance of our comprehensive recommendations.
Our position, which was unanimously endorsed by the Task Force on May 24th, is that the
City should:
► Annex the entire area in the near-term so the City can masterplan and control
development on its southern edge to assure high standards, quality and
adequate open space.
► Concurrent with annexation, enter into a Memorandum of Agreement/
contract with the County to assure that areas outside the City's sphere of
influence, and under County control, will be retained as rural in character and
inclusive of open space; areas within the City's sphere and under City control,
will accommodate reasonable urban development, but will also include open
space and greenbelts.
► Provide phased urban infrastructure/services to the airport area within a
reasonable timeframe; if not, a rate of development should be allowed to
proceed in the City, generally consistent with what is permissible and feasible
under County jurisdiction.
The Task Force recognizes that the annexation of the Airport Area is a sensitive matter, and
the City's ability and timeframe for providing services will require careful planning.
However, the Task Force also feels that it is essential that we "seize the moment" so that
the City is forever able to control the land uses in, and derive the economic benefits from,
this critically important southern edge of our community.
In contrast, if we hesitate now, this opportunity could be forever lost, with development
proceeding in the County anyway, but most likely in a manner not consistent with the
standards expected by our community. Under that circumstance all economic benefits would
flow to the County, while the City would still have to deal with the impacts of County
development including increases in traffic and air pollution, storm drainage, possibly sewage
collection and treatment, and other impacts typically experienced by cities with major
developed areas adjacent to them.
Thank you very much for considering the position of your Economic Strategy Task Force.
We look forward to transmitting all of our recommendations to you in the near future.
C. Economic Strategy Task Force:
David Blaine
Lauren Brown
Bob Davis
Anne Dinshaw
Bert Forbes
Carol Garsten
Greg Hind
Harold Miossi
Mike Multari
Ray Nordquist
Dominic Perello
Wanda Strassburg
Pat Veesart
\estf\ccmem
i
RRM DESIGN GROUP
Ardtih•<tHIC • Phan hTS • Etr�im rQS • hurrior< • Lam ix -ape Arihileattre
June 10, 1993
The Honorable Peg Pinard
Mayor of San Luis Obispo
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Pahn Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Re: Airport Area
Dear Mayor Pinard and Members of the City Council:
In the wake of last evening's Council meeting, I wanted to express our appreciation for the
level of Council discussion and dialogue that ensued at that meeting. I also want to apprise
you and the Council of the initial reactions of the Airport Area Property Owners to the
actions taken and to express their desire that the council convene in the very near future
to acy upon the ten point "Commitment Request" that was presented to the Countil at the
hearing.
While the tenor of the Council's response was generally a positive one, there still remain
deep concerns that the City's "commitment" needs to be made much stronger and much
more certain than the tepid motions of last evening. The Council's actions, while generally
well received, presented the property owners with a mixed bag of good and bad news.
The good news:
• The Council appears keenly interested in working with this area.
The Council is interested in startin communications with the Airport Area Property
Owners Association in a positive and responsible vein.
• The Council is willing and able to take the position that they would like to see the
airport area annexed and served within the City of San Luis Obispo.
The bad news:
• The Council did not respond in detail to the ten step "commitment" that the Airport
Area Property Owners requested them to make.
The Council was divided in its support of the direction they took.
}ren South I iguera 5irrer, San Luis Obispo, Calitornia 93401 So5t543-1794
tot_ - 1 n6 51 rect. hlude.to. California 9954 -09/544'1794 \6
a r..... .,.,.1 .... ..... n..... >x<,r,.•�. .:v,u,�..�-t.„„.� s„�,br,iut wYi CITY C^_ :�:I�
The Honorable Peg Pinard
June 10, 1993
Page two
• One member was unwilling to exercise the leadership we requested and wanted to
defer his responsibilities to the voters, even though the proposed plan is consistent
with the General Plan and would have to go through an exhaustive public process.
• After reading the newspaper article on Wednesday's Council meeting; if that
Council member doesn't get his way on the election issue, he seems a likely
candidate to lead referendum campaign that the Airport Area Property Owners
fears.
• . The Council was unwilling to back the stronger motion for initiating annexation
proceedings that was offered by Councilmembers Rappa and Romero and supported
by the Airport Area Property Owners.
• The Council turned down our request to make a good faith gesture and withdraw
City opposition to the CSA -22 empowerment process. In doing so the Council took
the bloom off the rose of their otherwise positive dialogue.
Peg, while the meeting was a good one, and the vibes were positive, after ten years at this
process, we have a long way to go until a level of trust and confidence can be truly
established between the City and the Airport Property Owners. The property owners could
easily perceive that the Council did little more last evening than to reconfirm the position
taken ten years ago at the start of this process. Trust is earned -- not bestowed or instantly
acquired -- and only through keeping the channels of communication open through an
ongoing dialogue that would have the City truly commit in a binding way to the Airport
Area, will trust be established in an enduring way.
You should know that the Airport Area Property Owners remain firmly committed to
obtaining the powers for CSA -22, and we hope the Council will reconsider its opposition
to this notion -- if for no other reason than that mentioned by Dave Romero that the City
could expand its water resources given the water allotment from the Nacimiento project to
CSA -22. The property owners are not willing to let go of these powers or their allotment
of Nacimiento water until the City makes the firm and binding commitment we asked the
Council to consider last evening.
On a final note, we did not view last night's meeting as an ending, but a beeinninof a process.
We wish to respectfully and formally request that the Council start systematically dealing with the
ten points that we requested the Council to consider, most particularly the formation of a Council
sub -committee to start negotiating a Memorandum of Understanding and/or Development
Agreements based on a.calendar that is mutually agreeable to all parties. On this last important
request, we await the Council's answer as to when they will start the process of reviewing and
acting on our more pointed requests, and we hope to hear back from you on this score as soon
as possible.
The Honorable Peg Pinard
June 10, 1993
Page three
Again, thank you for your time, for a good beginning, and for resuming the dialogue that
must occur between us. Please call if you have any questions, and please let us know when
you will be able to agendize further consideration of the ten recommendations we made
to you last evening.
Sincerely,
RRM DESIGN
v • r
T. Keith Gurn
17
Senior Vice President
Director Planning Division
cc: Technical Advisory Committee
Board of Supervisors
John Dunn
Dana Lilley
Arnold Jom.s
LeeAnne Hagmaier
z/kg-aapoa.pin