Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/12/1995, 1 - AIRPORT AREA ANNEXATION STATUS REPORT AND POLICY REVIEW I�I�IIIN���IIIIII�IIIIIIIIII�I MEETIN DAT city of san Luis osispo � ATE NU BER: G nomahmm iisCOUNCIL AGENDA REPORT From: Arnold Jonas,community Development Director Prepared By: John Mandeville, AICPO?44 Long-Range Planning fVaanager Subject: Airport Area Annexation Status Report and Policy Review CAO RECOMMENDATION Approve a work program for commencing the annexation of the Airport Area, including: a) Initiate amendments to the Land Use Element to delete the outdated reference to 1995 in Airport Area policy and to replace the requirement for a specific plan prior to annexation with a requirement for water delivery, wastewater collection, drainage, circulation, urban design, and cost recovery plans; b) Prepare a plan for paying the costs of consultant preparation of the required plans and a mechanism for recovering the costs of preparing the plans and of constructing necessary public facilities; c) Prepare requests for proposals for preparation of water, sewer, drainage, circulation, and urban design plans for the area; d) Include Airport Area planning as a program for Council consideration in the 1996 CDBG Consolidated Plan; and e) Continue to process individual Airport Area annexation proposals on a case-by-case basis as individual amendments to the Land Use Element. REPORT-N-BRIEF The area surrounding the County Airport has been planned and zoned for industrial and manufacturing land uses for many years. The City of San Luis Obispo's plan for the area have differed with the County's during this time. The County's land use plan has designated the area for industrial uses since 1974. The City's 1977 Land Use Element(LUE)recognized eventual industrial development in the area, but encouraged the area to remain in agriculture. The updated LUE now plans for service, manufacturing, business parks, and recreation as the primary uses in the area This brings the City's and the County's land use plans for the area into greater consistency. Although the land uses may now be more similar, important development issues remain. The area currently lacks an adequate water supply,wastewater treatment system, or stormwater drainage facilities. If the area develops outside the City's jurisdiction, its character at buildout may be qualitatively different than if it had developed subject to City standards and architectural review. In addition, the City will not have control of mitigating potential impacts. The City will experience the consequences of incremental decisions by others, but will have had a quite limited review role in the area. +111►1►1ui11111111111011 IIU City Of san suis OBISPO COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Page 2 The updated LUE plans for the Airport Area to become a part of the City. The City was to have actively pursued annexation of the area by the year 1995. As 1995 nears an end,the City is no closer to annexation than when property owners broke off annexation discussions during hearings on the LUE update. However, the Airport Area continues to develop incrementally under the County's jurisdiction. The City continues to receive annexation inquiries and requests from individual Airport Area property owners, but the current Land Use Element requirement that a specific plan be approved, or that the General Plan be amended, discourages most property owners from seeking to develop in the City. Lack of on-site water supplies and access to City services has been the main incentive for property owners to annex to and develop their property within the City. The Local Area Formation Commission (LAFCo) has granted the county service area encompassing the Airport the powers to acquire and serve the area with Nacimiento water. Although greater intensity of development is possible if the area develops under the City's jurisdiction, the future availability of water from the county service area and the burden of the City's specific plan requirement has substantially diminished the property owners' incentives to develop their property within the City limits. At this point then, it is important to determine if it remains the City's intent that the Airport Area develop under it's jurisdiction rather than the County's. If so, current circumstances indicate that the City's existing policy is counter productive, and that another strategy to guide annexation needs to be selected. Existing policies in the LUE need to be modified to remove the obstacles while establishing a strategy that will result in adequate planning for the area before substantial additional development occurs. This report describes some of the reoccurring issues that surround annexing the Airport Area and presents alternatives for a City policy that will allow annexation to happen. A worksheet is provided at the end of the report(Attachment 1) to assist Council members in considering alternative strategies should they wish to do so. DISCUSSION Recent Council Direction During the goal setting process for the 1995-97 Financial Plan, the Council adopted a goal to "Establish priorities and complete steps necessary to enable expansion areas to annex to the City". The Airport Annexation was identified in the work program description adopted by the Council to carry out this goal. Further, when the Council took action to create the Economic Development Manager position, staff was directed to bring the Airport Annexation issue back to the Council for review, since this territory represents the primary area where new employers can be located. As noted later in this report,the Airport Annexation has a much lengthier history in San Luis Obispo with a considerable body of land use policy established over the years supporting the eventual annexation of this area to the City. However,the completion of a specific plan, which is intended to address resource, infrastructure, financing,environmental and design issues,has been the biggest obstacle to moving ahead on the annexation. Alternatives for addressing these planning issues will be a focus of this report. �}�n�►nu►�u1111111�1i°�u►q��U City of san k-,.AIS osIspo Iiiis COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Page 3 Evolution of the Specific Plan Requirement Several years of differences over appropriate land use policy for the Airport Area between the City and County lead to a series of discussion between the City, County, and property owners. It was decided in 1980 that a specific plan would be the vehicle to resolve land use issues and problems that would be exacerbated by continuing development. Those problems included inadequate storm drainage facilities, circulation systems, water supply and wastewater treatment facilities. In order to keep on-going development from hindering or increasing the costs of eventual solutions, the County imposed interim limitations and special standards on Airport Area development until a specific plan could be adopted. The property owners agreed to the creation of a County Service Area (CSA 22) to collect the funding necessary to complete the specific plan. City and County staff, property owners and consultant staff met for several years during the mid 1980's to develop and agree upon the scope and contents of an Airport Area specific plan. This effort produced an analysis of land use alternatives and a conceptual land use plan for the Airport Area that would influence later planning efforts. In the late 1980's both the City and the County began updates to their general plan land use elements. In addition, the County began an update to the Airport Master Plan. Work on the Airport Area specific plan was suspended as participants waited to see how the specific plan process would integrate with the other planning efforts underway. As the City developed its Land Use Element (LUE) update the Margarita Area became distinct from CSA 22, which has continued to be called the Airport Area (see Map - Attachment 2). The land uses proposed for the Airport Area were based in large part on the conceptual land use plan that arose from the early specific plan effort. As the LUE update was going through public hearings in 1993-94, City staff began new meetings with Airport Area property owners and County staff to establish a mutually agreeable strategy for bringing the area into the City. As these property owner meetings were taking place, the City took an initial step toward annexation by holding a workshop on the fiscal impacts of annexing both the Margarita and Airport Areas. Angus McDonald Associates was hired to analyze the fiscal impacts. The findings were that together annexing the Margarita and Airport Areas would have a net positive fiscal impacts. The fiscal impact of annexing the Margarita Area by itself was projected to be in a net negative. The fiscal impact of annexing the Airport Area by itself was a net positive. A summary of the Angus McDonald report is attached. A copy of the entire report has been placed in the Council reading file. Following this workshop, the City prepared and submitted an annexation application to LAFCo for the Margarita and Airport Areas. This application remains pending at LAFCo. The following two points emerged from the public hearings and meetings as the most influential factors in the current status of the Airport Area: 1. The community was seeking assurance that development of the Airport Area would not result in adverse environmental impacts or adversely affect the character of the City as a whole. Controlling growth /3 oii►�►n►�II�IIIIIIII�hjI city of San WI S OBISPO COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Page 4 inducing impacts of Airport Area development and conversion of the agricultural area south of the urban reserve line was part of this issue. 2. The Airport Area property owners were seeking some assurance from the City that if they spent several hundred thousand dollars getting a specific plan and the necessary environmental documents adopted by the City they would be allowed to annex and develop their property. City policies regarding growth management lead many property owners to believe that they might have a specific plan prepared only to have the City deny the annexation or subsequent development proposals. The City's response to the first item was to require City adoption of the specific plan before any part of the Airport Area could annex or develop. This was adopted as a policy in the update to the LUE. This was consistent with the LUE's policy to use annexation as a growth management tool. The specific plan was to have been the vehicle for the City to review the various impacts it was concerned about and to mitigate them. The City attempted to address the property owners concern by including a policy in the LUE stating that the City intended to actively pursue annexation of the Airport Area by the year 1995. This did not adequately address the property owners concern, and as a result there were no further meetings to agree upon a process for annexation. In response, the property owners applied to the LAFCo to expand the powers of CSA 22 to include the ability to contract for and serve the area with water. This was done to enable the Airport Area to participate in the Nacimiento Lake water project. The property owners stated that their intention was to obtain the water necessary for the area to develop without City services. LAFCo approved the property owners request. In the last three years. about 175.000 square feet of additional floor area have been added or approved by the County in the Airport Area (,see Attachment 3). Ironically, the LUE specific plan requirement which was intended to provide assurance that the City would control potential impacts caused by the development of the Airport Area has lead to an increased likelihood that the area will develop outside of the City's control under County jurisdiction. If it is still the City's intent to insure that development mitigate impacts consistent with City standards the prerequisite to annexation must be modified to gain the support of the Airport Area property owners. The Margarita Area As noted above, the Margarita Area was a part of a greater Airport Area in earlier planning. The Margarita Area is addressed separately by the Land Use Element. It has a different specific plan requirement than the Airport Area. The Margarita Area can annex to the City after the Council approves a draft specific plan. It is not a part of CSA 22, and cannot develop to urban uses unless the City provides services. A draft specific plan for the Margarita is nearing completion, therefore this report is not including recommendations to change the City's policies for this area. Airport Area Annexation and Development Issues City Of san L"IS OBispO A COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Page 5 The specific plan requirement for the Airport Area was intended to address the concerns and issues that the annexation raises. The LUE requires that the specific plan address land uses, open space and habitat protection, circulation, utilities, drainage, and financing of public facilities. Before alternatives to the specific plan process can be considered, the issues the specific plan was to address should be made clear. A brief description of these issues follow. 1. Land Use. The land use component of a specific plan would detail the distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land, including open space, in the area covered by the plan. A development phasing schedule could also be included under this heading. The LUE already designates the land uses for the Airport Area. Specific plans typically go into more detail than a general plan element and include standards and criteria by which development will proceed, such as architectural guidelines. If the area develops outside the City's jurisdiction, its character at buildout may be qualitatively different than if it had developed subject to City standards and architectural review. Because it increases the extent that the City is spread out and is separated from the urban core of the downtown, it is especially important that the Airport Area architecture provide the connection between this area and the City as a whole. Development standards could also address the conservation and design treatment of natural resources. 2. Open Space Protection. The LUE states that within the Airport Area there should be open areas to protect natural resources and wildlife corridors, such as creeks and possible wetland areas. In addition, it requires that an annexation should contribute to the protection of the greenbelt near the Airport Area. An in-lieu fee program is to be established for the purpose of open space protection for cases where contiguous property in the greenbelt is not under the control of the annexing property owners. The specific plan could have been the vehicle to establish this program. If no specific plan is prepared, the LUE and Open Space Element resource protection policies will still apply at the development plan level. Pursuant to the LUE, the City will need to prepare an in-lieu fee program to provide for open space protection for those properties not adjacent to the urban reserve line. The City is currently in the process of getting a greenbelt protection program under way. In addition, there have been joint meetings with the County and other cities regarding greenbelt preservation. Future meetings on the topic of developing County-wide guidelines for orderly growth similar to those in use in Ventura County are being discussed. 3. Circulation. The General Plan Circulation Element does not include a detailed plan for local streets within the Airport Area. The LUE says that plans required for annexation areas should include a plan for the overall pattern of subdivision and roads. A plan containing design standards for ultimate right- of-way widths and present cross sections, number of travel lanes, sidewalk widths and types, medians, pedestrian crossings, transit stop locations, bicycle lanes, spacing of cross streets, street intersections, and phasing of improvements does not yet exist. Without such a plan, the circulation system develops in a more piecemeal fashion, with the potential to produce a system that is less than optimal. A circulation plan for the area is less significant an issue for small developments adjacent to the existing city limits. These developments will typically only need to improve or extend an existing road segment, although cumulative traffic impacts may be an issue. Where no previous roadway system '�����►�►i�IIIIIIIIII IIUllI city of San L"IS OBISp0 COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Page 6 exists, the need to plan is more important. Most of the existing roads in the Airport Area are not designed or built to City standards. The City encourages the County to build new roads to comply with City standards for cross sections, but construction quality may vary and existing sub-standard roads remain. 4. Utilities. The LUE requires a plan for utilities for annexation areas. It also requires that development in annexation areas be approved only when adequate City services for can be provided for that development, without reducing the level of service or increasing the cost for services for areas already within the city limits. The area currently acquires water from groundwater through individual wells. With the exception of the Airport itself, the area is served by on-site septic systems. Although the Community Service Area that serves the area has been granted the power to become a water purveyor when Nacimiento water is available, the area will still lack a wastewater treatment facility. Individual treatment facilities, community leachfields, or package treatment plants are alternatives to City sewer connection. However, all these methods are inferior to modern sewage collection and treatment, and typically lead to problems after a number of years. For this reason, none of these alternatives are likely to be as cost effective for property owners as to hooking up to the City's water distribution lines and water reclamation facility. Access to City services will probably allow some property owners to develop their land sooner, depending on how soon reclaimed water is used. In addition, City services will allow Airport Area properties to develop to greater intensities because drainage, wastewater treatment, and fire suppression water supplies will not require on-site facilities. A plan for extending City services to the Airport Area does not yet exist but is necessary to determine an individual project's share of the costs to extend the services. 5. Drainage. Most of the western third of the Airport Area lies within the 100 year floodplain and experiences periods of inundation. A drainage system for this area does not exist, nor do facilities to prevent runoff from others areas from collecting in the floodprone area. Incremental development with individual on-site drainage solutions may result in a less efficient use of the available land. An area-wide solution should be evaluated to determine the optimal approach to solving drainage problem. A specific plan for the entire area would address the drainage problem at an area-wide scale. Individual development project contributions to the area-wide solution cannot be known unless a plan for the entire area is developed. 6. Other Services and Development Impacts. In addition to water and sewer utilities, the urban development of the Airport Area requires fire and police protection and is likely to have an incremental impact on the City's library and parks. In addition, vehicle trips to and from the Airport Area will incrementally increase the need for maintenance on existing City roadways. Although the area is served by a California Department of Forestry fire station and the County Sheriff's Department, the City will become more involved with mutual aid responses. If the area were to develop in the County, the City would quite likely likely end up dealing with many of the public service impacts because of lesser County service standards and mutual aid agreements. I��H�i�i►ii�IIIIIIIIIP�"°1°9IIIIU City Of san L.AIs OsispO COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Page 7 7. Infrastructure Financing. The City's policy is that new development should pay its own way. In order to assess the costs for the public facilities and infrastructure it requires, the City must know what facilities will be needed. The infrastructure necessary to provide the services described above (water, sewer, drainage) should therefore be planned in advance of development, so that a projects contribution to the total can be assessed. Also, a general understanding of the total costs for public facilities must be available to develop and determine the feasibility of alternatives for financing these improvements. For these reasons, area-wide planning is the best method to evaluate the needs. Once the needs are known the most appropriate financing method can be chosen. ALTERNATIVES If it is the City's intent that the Airport Area develop under the City's jurisdiction as a means of controlling potentially adverse impacts, several alternatives to the specific plan strategy as outlined in the LUE are available. The alternatives described below, which are perhaps the major ones, do not exhaust all of the possibilities and can be combined to create additional options. 1. City Prepared Specific Plan. Progress has stalled on the current specific plan effort because it relies on the property owners to fund and lead the effort. The property owners have determined that it is not in their best interest to fund the preparation of a plan for City consideration because of the potential to have the plan and annexation rejected, resulting a lost investment. They are choosing to develop their property in the County where there is no requirement for a specific plan. Consequently, it appears at this point in time that if the City desires to have a specific plan prepared for the Airport Area prior to annexation, it will be up to the City to make it happen. The specific plan and accompanying environmental impact report could cost as much as $500,000.00. As a means to addressing the property owners concerns and getting the planning process started, the City could front the cost of preparing a specific plan and the associated environmental documentation. The City could then guide the preparation of the plan and, once adopted, could begin to allow annexation consistent with existing LUE policies. The costs of completing the plan could be recovered through an appropriate cost recovery program such as an assessment district or through development fees. Because the City would now depend on the area annexing to recover the planning costs, this alternative would address the property owners concern about investing in a specific plan without a guarantee that the City would approved an annexation. This alternative was the recommendation of Angus McDonald at the Council workshop on fiscal impacts of annexation. 2. Specific Plan Prior to Development Rather Than Annexation. The City could amend the LUE to allow the area to annex prior to adoption of a specific plan, but require the specific plan prior to further development. Pre-annexation agreements or prezoning that would limit additional development could address possible impacts until the necessary plans are prepared. Rezoning to the ultimate use could be made contingent on City adoption of a specific plan. This strategy would also address the property owner's concerns about the risk involved in investing in a specific plan. I�, iru�lulllllllllp°N1°9�IIIII City of San L"IS OBISpo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Page 8 3. Individual Plans For Infrastructure and Urban Design In-Lieu of Specific Plan. Because preparing and processing a specific plan can be a major undertaking, the planning requirement can be reduced by requiring less inclusive plans prior to annexation or development. Plans could be required for water, sewer, drainage, and circulation (including financing components) as well as for urban design linkages to the City as a whole. The City's General Plan designates the land uses and intensities for the area. Together, the General Plan and the infrastructure and urban design plans address the topics that would covered in the specific plan. The City would take the lead in preparing these plans, as requiring the property owners to do so could be perceived as creating the same risks as are involved in preparing the specific plan. The City would prepare any other plans that are deemed necessary for the area. Costs for preparing these plans could be recovered as the area annexes and develops or through a benefit assessment district. Costs for the plans would probably be in the $200,000.00 - $300,000.00 range. Environmental review for these plans would be more focused and consequently less complicated and costly than for a specific plan. The City would also be responsible for developing the open space protection in-lieu fee program described in the LUE. This approach would yield most of the necessary planning at about half the price. 4. Remove The Specific Plan Requirement And Allow Incremental Annexations With Only Development Plans For The Area Proposed For Annexation. The Land Use Element identifies the land uses intended for the area as well as certain development policies standards. The Circulation Element identifies the locations of arterial streets and the Open Space Element describes resources to be protected. Infrastructure, financing, and urban design plans, as well as the details of an open space protection in-lieu fee program, specific to the Airport Area are not contained in the General Plan. The City can allow annexation and development without these plans and programs. The consequence could be that that the cost of bringing the entire area up to the desired minimum standard may increase incrementally if individual developments are built to a lesser standard. Until the planning is done, and the contribution of each development to an area-wide plan is known, there is a risk that individual contribution will not be made. 5. City Annexation of Airport Area. The City could resume the pending annexation application currently filed at LAFCo. This could be done either in conjunction with Alternative #1 or in combination with another appropriate alternative. FISCAL IMPACTS The fiscal impact of modifying the Airport Area specific plan requirement depends on the alternative chosen. It is the City's policy that 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. Therefore, any annexation strategy should include property ��►N�i�iii��llllllll11° llll�ll MY Of San Luis OBISPO Nia; COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Page 9 owner participation in some form of program to insure that new development pays its fair share of the costs of new facilities (e.g. sewer lift stations and trunk lines, street widenings, traffic signals, freeway interchanges, new water mains, and area-wide drainage facilities). There are a number of options for doing this, including direct developer impact mitigations, impact fees, and benefit assessment districts. Recovering costs for planning depends on successful annexation of the area. If the annexation fails, the City would not have the authority to recover costs incurred for planning. The property owners have indicated that they would support annexation as long as it does not interfere with their ability to develop their property. A successful annexation effort will require that the City be able to demonstrate to the property owners that the development potential of their property is at least maintained. CDBG funds may be available to use for planning purposes in the Airport Area. These funds could off-set "up-front" expenses that the City would incur if it is decided that the City will take the lead in preparing any plans. Based on previous grant awards, the amount available for funding Airport Area funding could not exceed $100,000.00 per year. In order to be able to consider the "up front" costs of a particular alternative, the Council should direct staff to return with a more detailed financing discussion for whatever alternative is decided most appropriate. CAD's CLOSING REMARKS The recent Council business visitation to SAES Pure Gas was instructive on this issue. First, the tour demonstrated that substantive development is occurring in the Airport Area, currently under County plans and development review processes. Secondly, development of this type is clearly related to the City Council's established economic development goals.. Thirdly, the more development of this type that occurs in the County, the more opportunities to implement City standards and policies will be lost. The benefits of future annexation become smaller, so time becomes a factor in this issue. Fourthly, the County's lack of area-wide infrastructure planning (approval of one project at a time) is going to result in a major future problem for the area which will have to be cleaned up by someone, or failure to do so will leave the area with major unresolved problems and reduced function, attractiveness and value. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Alternatives Worksheet 2. Margarita and Airport Area Map 3. Angus McDonald Fiscal Impact Report Summary 4. 1993-95 Development Activity Summary for Airport Area 5. Land Use Element Airport Area Excerpts COUNCIL READING FILE: Fiscal Impact Report on Airport Area Annexation by Angus McDonald Associates LAA1RPRT95.TEM ATTACHMENT 1 AIRPORT AREA ALTERNATIVES WORKSHEET Yes No ❑ ❑ Should a more active role be taken to ensure that the Airport Area develops in the City? If yes, which of the following would be the best approach to having the Airport Area annex to and develop in the City? ❑ The City should continue to require an adopted, land owner prepared specific plan prior to annexation. ❑ The City should prepare the required specific plan and recover the costs of preparing and adopting the plan as the area develops. ❑ The City should require the specific plan prior to development rather than annexation. ❑ The City should take the lead in preparing individual plans for infrastructure and urban design. The City would be reimbursed for the costs of preparing these plans through a mandatory assessment district or other suitable mechanism. ❑ The City should remove the specific plan requirement and allow incremental annexations with only development plans for the site or area proposed for annexation. ❑ The City should resume the pending annexation application currently filed at LAFCo. g e LLJI yaa U \ A '! Ir ♦ cu 1\ Cd Lo 5 �•, o .,� < (U ru W w Q W J z¢ .I QN i 9 E U .1 e 1 r--rcr—__� I ■I� H I I I \ o l a I I I • �_I I 1 .� I \ ♦ yy �— \ \ 1� 1 I � I ♦ "\ aN y \\ i SRP i_—_ � g I ♦ �' � LLL __ \ J+� r I F ■ a J , I L I 1 �" ,■o.ww W viws 4 1__ �• 4 n , k a m N ° I— ro I = I V V I vu ------- --- - ------- e Q a e o x ^ n -------- _______ _______ M LLJ • e n U • K i ¢ Ql ■ --:u----0 3 z RI ¢ Q --�-1----�— o I � ■ q CL V. g i i . ----- ----- I vo • ' NOS63dS3P (j a Ga H 1 Stell 4112 9gLLSla3 _— _-- q_ ° a W ° ¢ O ° -----------IQ Li I O�jt c I Q i e e 0— CL T3 3VA Ul 0 u� zI d) V AT�1CHMENT 3 OVERVIEW: Fiscal Impact Analysis — Airport Area Annexation IZ14195 BACKGROUND Performing this work was approved by the Council on November 2, 1993 in conjunction with their consideration of an overall strategy for pursuing the airport area annexation. This report was prepared by Angus McDonald& Associates,a nationally—recognized urban economics firm that specializes in these types of analyses. As noted at that time,reviewing the fiscal impact of the annexation is only one issue among many that needs to be evaluated in considering the annexation of this area. However,preparation of this analysis was viewed at that time as a necessary first step before we could move onto the other important issues that need to be evaluated in considering the annexation of this area. The report was presented to the Council on February 22, 1994. WORKSCOPE The purpose of this analysis was very narrowly defined by the Council: • to determine if the annual revenues generated in the airport area will be sufficient to support the operating costs that will be incurred in delivering services to this area. The report does not address land use,transportation,resource,environmental,social,or other"quality of life" issues;nor does it address the cost of the facility improvements that will benecessary to service this area and the manner in which they will be financed. These are important issues,but their full consideration was planned for subsequent phases of the overall planning process as previously approved by the Council at that time. Facility Improvement Financing While preparing a comprehensive facility financing plan was an integral component of the consultant's workscope (to be completed as a next step in this process),this part of the overall workscope could be safely excluded at this time for one key reason: the critical assumption— based on adopted General Plan policy — that new development must pay for the cost of building the new facilities that are necessary to serve it. Before the facility financing plan can be completed,the type,scope,phasing and cost of needed facility improvements must first be identified. Because this will be expensive to do,it was scheduled for completion after the Council's review of the fiscal impact analysis and their possible direction to continue with the annexation process. Forecast Scenarios In performing this fiscal analysis,the consultant considered two distinct scenarios: O Status quo scenario Analyzes operating costs and revenues based on existing development only. - © Future growth and development scenario Analyzes operating costs and revenues based on existing and projected levels of development for the next 15 years consistent with the City's current growth management policies and market conditions. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Fiscally Positive Results The consultant concluded that annexing this area would be fiscally positive under both scenarios over the entire forecast period. As summarized in the attached excerpt from the report(Table III-3),operating revenues are projected to exceed costs by about$600,000 to$650,000 every year over the next 15 years. Critical Assumptions It is important to note that this conclusion is based on a number of critical assumptions that are fully discussed in the report. Although each of these assumptions forms a major building block in performing this analysis,one of the most critical is how revenues will be shared with the County. While the report assumes use of the current policy, a significant portion of City revenues from this area will ultimately depend on the results of our property tax negotiations with the County. �7 n 0000000 o oe a ee e e o 0 0 o e N O O N O O O O O O O O O O e e O O O O O y mm O n P P N No n tl n N n O n n ry n n r N n.-. r + + n p O a • tin +ne.. a NN .. en O n + tl r F + )1 w NNNN e N NN ti N n � N n tl NN M N N N H H N N N N O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O e e e O e O O N 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O nw ertle .i .'1+ n n N It ryp nnn0 F p ryn +nnN n M41m* N rry p N e e e F n NN 4 N N N N N n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O 0040000 O 00 O 00 O O O O O O O y n + wen.n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " r^ • oa nr o vwtl nn v wn n + a n n e n{ tln n.*F" n 44 N n.y n ti o n n r n NN44 ft4 N + 4 N N4 N n + N n tl N 4 N N 4 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a O O O 0 0 o O e e O O O ::10:9:9 0 4 0 0 0 0 O OF O O O O O O O O O O O l n0 nrnr P n O tle + n 4 n tl n • w • 40 y1 nN .�MtlN tl 44 4 1�1 p» 4MM4 N 4N M N N N N N N ♦'�• n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 o O 0 0 e e e O O e e v 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O /..� tl 0 F F e n n n e ti O+ it tl It N N rt It 1� • ++ nOnn n N N n nw P a O P O w O 4 w .1 NN4Z:.*" M M N N n M n N N 4 + r N NN N M 4 n N N in tl y � N N N N N rr� n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O e O O O O O O O e e e 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O FO NNnN F ON N tiF e tl N n F N w �� • On PrOn n MH N Ftl n tl 4 O w O p • � ^ NM 4N w 4 M N ti M n tl A' �'] ^I 0000000 O 00 O 00 O O O e e O O V/ `BVI OOM0000 O 00 O 00 O O e O O O O ^„q Pi tltlne 4 .. n It + e n e yam y� N N " o 1 �I nn MM�ti O N MN M. N N a n r w E 1001 M4 4N N N .y N N n n N N N N O O O O OOUy` O O NN O O O N O O O O O O O O O O O M O ntl+ in N n+ F en '1 a ./ w N ■M� � N P A n N 4 n n e 0 n + O Oa N N N M N NN w » N N in N .04 rr�^ WN N M _ m N • u Hat m 11 C°444 4A VC 7 F op w iN m • 0 O .e1. • r n y �i 5 .4 1149 My 9 �.� m w A r tp VA -0 lax 10 to F •H •t: 40ve a ma~H s 7 gp�� d CY4 F .t U 14 M s 5578-4a rosy Pps YCi t y `� 4 N • mdFAfeOA u z>O N mmip u s Fp H r mH F A M M N F S e a A , rACHMENT 4 City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: John ManV95 e FROM: Jeff Iioo DATE: May 30, SUBJECT: County Referrals in Airport Area, 1993 - 1995 As you can see from the attached information provided by County Planning, there has been substantial development within the unincorporated County Airport Area during the last 3 years. Most of the development consists of medium to large industrial/office buildings and related site improvements. Buildings totalling approximately 175,000 square feet have either been completed or have permits pending. In addition to the above building projects, the County also received a request for a 117-space parking lot to serve 708, 710 and 712 Fiero Lane; and approved a request to install a 12,000 gallon above ground fuel storage facility at the airport. As you know, Policy 7.3 of the City's Land Use Element says that the City will "actively pursue annexation of the Airport Area by the year 1995." It goes on to say that while annexation is pending, any urban development approved by the County "shall be consistent with City development standards; and urban development and provision of adequate resources and services needed citywide shall be closely monitored. " While County Planning tries to ensure that projects are well designed and meet all County development standards, they do not require projects to conform to City development standards. City staff comments on the proposals and often recommends change to more closely meet City standards, but the "bottom line" is that these projects are held to County standards, which in some respects (eg. street standards, fire protection, architectural review, utilities) are less stringent than those of the City. As happened in the Broad Street Annexation Area, development in the Airport Area will continue at a relatively steady rate, and under lesser County standards, until the City moves to annex this key planning area. Attachments jh/L:airport.mem i Department of Planning and Building San Luis Obispo County Alex Hinds, Director Bryce Tingle, Assistant Director Barney McCay, Chief Building Official Norma Salisbury, Administrative Services Officer May 26, 1995 Ellen Carroll, Environmental Coordinator Jeff Hook, Associate Planner Community Development Department 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA M;'AY a 1995 HAND DELIVERED CRY OF SAN LUIS OEISFO COMVUNrrvnEVELO✓ WI r* Dear Jeff, SUBJECT: RECENT DEVELOPMENT IN THE AIRPORT AREA Here is the information you requested a few weeks ago. We researched developments in the airport area which were approved (including extensions of previous approvals) within the past three years. Please let me know if you would like more information on this topic. Sincerely, Dana C. Lille Senior Planner attachment /_ /S Annlicant Parcel Type Buildinns Status Narom 76,511,003 Industrial bldg 15,000 sq ft Completed Whitley 76,352,023 Industrial condos 34,000 sq ft Parr¢pang Aero Loop 76,401,039 Industrial bldg 19,125 sq ft Farnk padQg Black/Clark 76,3819014 Retail nursery 2,400 sq ft Complete Dolezal 76,071,013 Add. to ind park 5,800 sq ft Complete Senn/Williams 76,414,055 Industrial condos 28,637 sq ft Complete Senn/Williams 76,414,055 Industrial condos 28,381 sq ft Pa nit pw&g SAES Pure Gas 76,401,032 Industrial bldg 9,900 sq ft Complete Covey 111 76,412,002 Industrial bldg 32,057 sq ft PaTnk padug ATTACHMENT 5 LAND USE ELEMENT POLICIES CONCERNING AIRPORT AREA ANNEXATION 1.13.2 Annexation Purpose and Timing Annexation should be used as a growth management tool, both to enable appropriate urban development and to protect open space. Areas within the urban reserve line which are to be developed with urban uses should be annexed before urban development occurs. The City may annex an area long before such development is to occur, and the City may annex areas which are to remain permanently as open space. An area may be annexed in phases, consistent with the city-approved specific plan or development plan for the area. Phasing of annexation and development will reflect topography, needed capital facilities and funding, open space objectives, and existing and proposed land uses and roads. (See also Section 7.0, Airport Area.) 1.13.3 Required Plans Land in any of the following annexation areas may be developed only after the City has adopted a plan for land uses, roads, utilities, the overall pattern of subdivision, and financing of public facilities for the area. The plan shall provide for open space protection consistent with policy 1.13.5. A. For the Airport and Orcutt expansion areas, a specific plan shall be adopted for the whole of each area before any part of it is annexed. 1.13.4 Development and Services Actual development in an annexed area may be approved only when adequate City services can be provided for that development, without reducing the level of services or increasing the cost of services for existing development and for build-out within the City limits as of July 1994, in accordance with the City's water management policies. Water for development in an annexed area may be made available by any one or any combination of the following: A. City water supply, including reclaimed water; B. Reducing usage of City water in existing development so that there will be no net increase in long-term water usage; C. Private well water, but only as an interim source, pending availability of an approved addition to City water sources, and when it is demonstrated that use of the well water will not diminish the City's municipal groundwater supply. 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 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. 1,17 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. 7.3 City Annexation and Services The City intends to actively pursue annexation of the Airport Area by the year 1995. Airport Area land inside the urban reserve shall be considered for annexation subject to completion of environmental and economic studies and a specific plan. Pending annexation: A. Any urban development approved by the County shall be consistent with City development standards; and B. Urban development and provision of adequate resources and services needed citywide shall be closely monitored. 7.4 Greenbelt Protection Annexation of the Airport Area, whether it occurs as one action or several, shall be consistent with the growth management objectives of maintaining areas outside the urban reserve line in rural, predominantly open space uses. An Airport Area annexation shall not take effect unless the annexed area helps protect an appropriate part of the greenbelt near the Airport Area, through one or more of the following methods: A. Dedicating an open-space easement or fee ownership to the City or to a responsible land-conservation organization. B. Paying fees to the City in-lieu of dedication, which shall be used within a reasonable time to secure greenbelt open space near the Airport Area. 7.8 Specific Plan The City will prepare a specific plan for land uses, habitat protection, circulation, utilities, and drainage within the Airport Area. MARGARITA AREA 2.3 Residential Expansion Areas 2.3.1 Specific Plans Specific plans for the Margarita Area and Orcutt Area residential expansions shall include: A. Desired types and intensities of development, compatible with the surrounding area; B. Phasing of development and public facilities, subject to availability of resources; C. Measures to protect resources and open space, including, among other types, permanent wildlife habitats and corridors, and farm fields; D. Desired types of public facilities and the means to provide them, to City standards, including water supply, sewage collection, storm water drainage, streets, bikeways, walking paths, and passive and active park ice; E. Desired levels of public services and the means to provide them, including fire, police, and schools; F. A variety of owner and rental housing, including a broad range of prices, sizes, and types. (See also policy 2.5 below.) G. Trees to help reduce wind exposure, and water-frugal landscaping; H. Public parks and open space, and other land that is not to be built on, such as yards, and community gardens for multifamily areas; I. Dual water systems allowing use of treated wastewater for non-potable uses. J. Energy efficient design, utilizing passive and active solar features; K. Amenities to facilitate public transportation within the area; L. Opportunities for individuals or small groups, other than the specific plan developer, to build homes or to create living environments suited to small groups or to special needs. 2.3.3 Residential Neighborhood Designation The major residential expansion areas are shown as Residential Neighborhood on the General Plan Land Use Map. They may be developed as adequate utilities and services are made available. They should be developed as residential neighborhoods, with a wide range of housing types and costs, and supporting uses such as small parks, elementary schools, and shopping and services to meet the daily demands of neighborhood residents. The estimated residential capacities of the major expansion areas are shown in Table 3. These capacities are based on the amount of land suitable for development according to policies of this element, and average densities on the housing sites in the range of eight to ten dwellings per acre (excluding public streets, parks, and other land dedicated to public use). gm: AIR-POL.DOC 7•oo EnNG AGENDA SATE ITEM # RECOMMENDED MAYOR'S MOTION ON AIRPORT ANNEXATION 1 . DEFINE SPECIFIC PLAN IN THE LUE TO STIPULATE THAT ANNEXED AIRPORT LAND MEET CRITERIA FOR A. URBAN DESIGN PLAN, B. WATER DELIVERY, C., WASTE WATER COLLECTION, D. DRAINAGE, E. CIRCULATION, IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL "AND :XDDDRR F. COST RECOVERY PLANS. ❑ CHIEF EY DIR CLERKIORIG ❑ POLICE CHF 2. PREPARE REQUESTS FOR PROPOSALS FOR ❑ MOMM M ❑ RECDIR PREPARATION OF WATER, SEWER, DRAINAG ° ° FILE WTILDIR ❑ PERS DIR CIRCULATION AND URBAN DESIGN PLANS. 3. THE 1996 CDBG CONSOLIDATED PLAN WILL INCLUDE AIRPORT AREA PLANNING AS A PROGRAM. 4. PROCESS INDIVIDUAL AIRPORT AREA ANNEXATION PROPOSALS AS INCREMENTAL AMENDMENTS TO THE LUE 5. SCOPE OF WORK FOR AIRPORT ANNEXATION IS TO BE RESPONSIVE TO THE 14 QUESTIONS PRESENTED IN THE MAYOR'S LETTER TO THE COUNCIL OF DECEMBER 12. 6. PREPARE A PLAN FOR PAYING COSTS OF CONSULTANT PREPARATION AND METHOD OF COST RECOVERY OF REQUIRED PLANS, PLUS CONSTRUCTING PUBLIC FACILITIES. REVISED SPECIFIC PLAN COSTS TO BE SHARED BETWEEN CITY AND PROPERTY OWNERS WITH RECOVERY 'WITHIN FIVE YEARS OF COMPLETED ANNEXATION NO LUE CHANGE NEEDED WITH THIS MOTION PERMITS AIRPORT TO BE ANNEXED IN A SINGLE ACTION PROVIDES NECESSARY PLANNING PRIOR TO ANNEXATION PROTECTS INTERESTS OF EXISTING CITY TAXPAYERS RECEIVED LIG; 1L IYYJ CITY COUNCIL GAM i .. nniwoA. nq A. From. the planning perspective, the airport should be part of the city. B. From the economic perspective, what are the costs and benefits to the existing city taxpayers? Specific questions to ask about annexation of the airport area 1 . What will it cost for water, sewer, and other services? 2. Who is going to pay for these service costs? ;3 . How will the improvements be financed without shifting the burden back on the existing city taxpayers? 4. How should the city handle the sharing of property taxes and other revenues with the county upon any annexation? S . Will the airport itself be part of the annexation? 6. Will the UNOCAL property be part of the annexation? 7. Is the specific plan much different from required water, waste water, circulation, urban design and cost recovery plans proposed by staff as alternative to the LUE specific plan? 8. Who should pay for the specific plan? City or Property owners or shared between both with cost recovery upon or within a time period after annexation? 9. Is there sufficient CDBG funds to cover specific plan or staff alternate? 10.Is not a specific plan or staff alternate needed to accurately determine the infrastructure costs? 1 1 J not a specific plan needed to determine land value and debt service for development loans from lending institutions. 12 .Can one landowner legally provide ground water to another? 13 .Can the City guarantee airport property owners that their development potential will be maintained? 14.How will the financial feasibility of the annexation be changed without the airport or UNOCAL properties being included? MEETIN 7'00rIGENDA DATE ITEM # December_-1..1 , 1995 t� FAX FOR THE CITY COUNCIL FROM MAYOR ALLEN SETTLE REF: AIRPORT ANNEXATION COUNCIL MEETING, DECEMBER 12 SHERRY: PLEASE DISTRIBUTE RECEIVED DEC CITY CLERK SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA Jff COUNCIL a CDD DIR l ,� B'FIN DIR ACA 0 O FIRE CHIEF eATTORNEY QIoM DIR ECLERKI G O POLICE CHF ❑ MGWTEAM O REC DIR O C READ FRE Crum DIR — - 0 PERS DIR _EYING AGENDA DATE&,?&ITEM # 17:ooP.M. A. From the planning perspective, the airport-should be part of the city, B. From the economic perspective, what are the costs and benefits to the existing city taxpayers? Si2ecifask abo it an iegation of the airp-ort- area: tt 1 . What will it cost for water, sewer, and other services? 2. Who is going to pay for these service costs? 3. How will the improvements be financed without shifting the burden back on the existing city taxpayers? 4. How should the city handle the sharing of pM.perty taxes and other revenues with the county upon any annexation? 5. Will the airport itself be part of the annexation? 6. Will the UNOCAL property be part of the annexation? 7. Is the specific plan much different from required water, waste water, circulation, ueban design and cost recovery plans proposed by staff as alternative to the LUE .specific plan? 8. Who should pay. for the specific plan? Cityor Property owners and shared between both with cost recovery upon or within a time period after annexation? 9. Is there sufficient CDBG funds to cover specific plan or staff alternate? 10.1s not a specific plan or staff alternate needed to accurately determine the infrastructure costs? 1 1 Js not a specific plan needed to determine land value and debt service for development loans from lending institutions. 12,Can one landowner legally provide ground water to another? 13 -Can the, City guarantee airport property owners that their development potential will be maintaiFGRPV r. >tf 14.How will the financial . feasibility of the panne changed without the airport or UNOCAL probe v FlRECNIEF O FIN DIR being included? EY O'PwDIR FECRIVED R,a o POLICE DEC ?. 1995 ,,. ❑ BEC DIR ALE �UTIL DIR CITY CLERK �-� 13 PERS DIFt SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA N. Patrick Veesart H.. 1446 Morro Street ♦ San Luis Obispo, CA ♦ 93401 ♦ (805) 546-0518 San Luis Obispo City Council MEETING AGENDA 990 Palm Street DATE ITEM # San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100 TI;Rif. 11 December,1995 e-Co 0 FIN DIR RECEIVED G-ACA0 ❑ FIRE CHIEF Utl; 1 '! IyyJ G-ATrORNEY ❑ PW DIR �., 0.POLICE CHF CITY COUNCIL ❑ ~TEW IkREC DIR Dear Councilmembers, .SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA ❑ o UTIL DIR ❑ PERS DIR B ' The SLID Chamber of Commerce is pushing for immediate annexation of the Airport Area Most everybody I know favors annexation at some point (myself included), but one has to wonder," what's the rush?" The Airport Area property owners, of course, want immediate annexation because they stand to profit greatly from it, but tfiey seem unwilling to follow the adopted city policy that would provide the information needed to determine whether or not it is in the best interests of all city residents to annex. People may want many things, but there is a big difference.between wanting something and being able to pay for it. The last City Council took their fiduciary responsibility to city residents seriously and set forth the conditions by which the annexation could take place. It's all spelled out in the Land Use Element of the General Plan. They heeded the advice of the city's paid consultant, Angus McDonald, who said, 'thou shalt not annex without a Specific Plan'. Clearly the ball is, and has been, in the court of the Airport Area Property Owners. If they had put as much energy into developing a Specific Plan as they have trying to avoid one, it would be finished now and annexation could be proceeding. There are many questions left unanswered by the Angus McDonald study: What are the capital costs associated with annexation? How much will water and sewer cost? How about street and road improvements? Will new police and fire facilities be needed? Is there a housing component to this plan, or is it all industrial development? What about the UNOCAL site? What kind of impacts to existing residents will this new development have? How will this be financed and who will pay for it? A Specific Plan would answers these questions before the city obligates itself to provide services and infrastructure that could potentially cost city residents hundreds of millions of dollars. Incidentally, LAFCO will also want the answer to these questions before they approve an annexation. City policy regarding the Airport Area was developed during the-:update of the General Plan and underwent a great deal of discussion before and with the public, the Planning Commission and the City Council. This was the proper arena for this discussion. Now, the Chamber of Commerce and the Airport Area Property Owners are attempting an "end run" around that process and, by doing so, are circumventing the interests of the the majority of city residents. 1 agree with the Chamber, it's time to move ahead with the annexation process, but I disagree that the city needs to change its adopted policy to suit the needs of would-be developers over that of existing residents. We need to proceed in a calm, orderly fashion, as set forth in the LUE and get answers to all the questions before signing on the dotted line. That's just sound business practice and the Chamber and the City Council should certainly understand that. sincerely, Pat Veesart MEETING AGENDA DATE! ITEM # RICHARD SCHMIDT XQr4of 112 Broad Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 (805) 544-4247 e-mail:rrschmld0oboe.alx.calpoly.edu December 11 , 1995 RECEIVED utu11WJ Re: Airport Annexation clTv couNcly Cent i ... .... .-.,.. nq To the City Council: implore the Council to approve the airport annexation. TONIGHT! Don't fiddle around any longer, just get on with it! Our city's future depends upon it! I ask this so that you, together with the Chamber (a part of city government according to the phone book), can finally awaken the sleeping environmental giant in our city to how things are being Dunn at city hall -- how city govermmnent has been transformed into an instrument of class warfare by the business/property-speculating elite against the citizens and their pocket books and their environment. Long experience shows there's nothing like a really stupid position advanced by the Chamber of Commerce to awaken the giant and produdce a beneficial electoral result. Previous examples of this principle in action have included the Chamber's running a "We.Want State Water" campaign from its city-financed tourist information center; the Chamber's opposition to the Fair Share initiative (widely approved by city voters); the Chamber's opposition to creating Mission Plaza and preference for covering the creek in front of the Mission and building a parking garage there; the Chamber's opposition to planting street trees downtown. They're really in touch with the popular pulse, not to mention the long-term self-interest of their members, as all these show. We need your help and their's again to turn things upside down in next year's election. The airport annexation is THE issue! It's an environmental organizer's dream: referendum, initiative, recall and lawsuit all in one! Don't disappoint the us. Approve this now, so we can get out our "clean sweep" brooms and set about getting everything un-Dunn next year. Thanks. Richard Schmidt UNCIL VrCDD DIR IT CAO ❑ FIN DIR CAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF c 9 TTORNEY ❑ PW DIR ILERIGDRIG ❑ POLICE CHF ❑ MGMTTEAM ❑ REC DIR ❑ C READ FILE ❑ UTIL DIR ��� 0 PERS DIR R1ET d� AGENDA DATE _.E ITEM # RICHARD SCHMIDT 1 Street,77FIRECHIEF ispo, CA 93405 (805) 544-4247 �,AM � F„ ATTORNEY a-mail:rrschmid@oboe.aix.calpoly.edu '3 CLE�0 FDecember 11, 1995 ❑ MGW T�FILE Re: Airport Annexation II ) To the City Council: Having been chastised for the hilarity of my previous letter on this subject, here is a second try. Of course the Council shouldn't approve the airport annexation. Nothing could be more obvious. Here are some points that come to mind. 1. Who is 'The City”to which the annexation is alleged to be beneficial? In the staff report, "the city"is apparently the city hall professional class. But shouldn't'The City"instead mean"the citizens"--those who live in the city and for whose mutual benefit it supposedly exists? Annexation is of benefit to the city hall professional class.The administrators of any imperial venture increase in stature as the empire grows;thus, annexation is one way to provide ever more for administrators to administer,for managers to manage and planners to plan, and is thus of immense benefit to them. (It thus follows that they have an immense conflict of interest in urging this action upon you.) But I, a mere citizen, whose taxes would pay for this bloated bureaucracy,would like to know how this annexation benefits me. I suspect that my primary"benefits"would be that I will see my water and sewer bills rise immenselyto pay the capital costs of a supplemental water source otherwise not needed, and a sewer plant expansion otherwise not required. This will pinch me financially, diminish my quality of life, increase my level of financial insecurity, and eliminate discretionary funds I might otherwise use to lubricate 'the economy."I suspect further that, if the city uses city funds to pay for planning studies up front, I will "benefit"by seeing projects near and dear to me, like a neighborhood park in the Foothill District where I live, simply pushed further down the list of"city"non-priorities. Nowhere in the staff report are the costs to current residents of ;amort annexation discussed If they were the conclusions about "benefit"might look very different. On the other hand,the report speaks over and over again of the immense benefits to the landowners in the airport area--people who have no legitimate claim whatsoever to city-provided benefits. Something is terribly off-key in this entire discussion. So, my question is not a frivolous one: What is"the city"that staff keeps referring to?Citizens and their interests, economic and otherwise, dorlt seem to be part of the equation. 2. It is alleged that annexation of the airport area is consistent with long-standing city policy. In fact. this "fact"is repeated over and over by certain parties as if it were a mantra However,this mantra is factually false. The 1977 LUE did not envision annexation of this area by the city. When that plan was heard by the council, the city took out a four-page advertisement in the Telegram-Tribune (1-22-77)to explain the plan to its citizens. Of the airport area, it said: "The plan does not foresee its annexation.The City will encourage the area to remain in agriculture... Rural industrial ventures will not get City sewer and water service."That was the law until last year when, responding to high-pressure badgering from airport area Schmidt, Airport Annexation, Page 1 A C C E I V E D DEC 1 9 1945 11:isa:N CITY CLERK SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA owners,their lobbyists, and their city hall facilitators,the Council capitulated and adopted the current LUE—the first to mention annexation. In terms of logic, it would make as much sense for the council to abandon annexation as a goal as to continue to pursue it. In terms of historical precedent, it would make more sense to abandon annexation as a goal than to continue to pursue it. 3. Why is the aimort area shown in the LUE as industrial in the firstIp ace?The city's first general plan, circa early 1960s,was for a city with no urban reserve line, no corporate limits, and no sense of limits tp ultimate urban growth. Single family residential zones drifted off the edges of the plan map.There were dozens of schools and numerous neighborhood shopping centers beyond the present urban reserve line - -upstream of Cuesta Park, out O'Conner Way and LOVR, beyond the airport.To provide an industrial jobs base for this city of a quarter million people,the area around the airport was shown as industrial.The area still shown as industrial today is sufficient land area to support a city of about 200,000. At each successive general plan revision,the city contracted its projected boundaries (until 1994,that is), but this old industrial zone lived on,without contraction, in the county's planning documents. The ain�rt area provides an industrial land base far in excess of that which will ever be needed for a city of 55.000 persons. All that land, if built to urban density,will never be absorbed if the city sticks to its general plan buildout. What will result is partial development in�e etu' Providing urban services to so much loosely developed land will be inefficient, and will be an immense burden to the city's taxpayers and ratepayers. It makes no sense. The airport area industrial land designations are thus reflective of Planning misjudgments made more than 30 years ago. at a time before the word"environmenr'was even in general circulation.It makes no sense at all to saddle ourselves unnecessarily with a past era's yet-undeveloped planning mistakes. If the County is too dumb to see that, let them deal with it. 4. Will the world as we know it come to an end if annexation does notrop ceed? Of course not. In fact,for "the city"as I defined it (the citizens), non-annexation would be a plus. Here are some thoughts: A.We are told annexation is important to"control"development in this area. One such mode of "control"is architectural review. We are led to believe that an airport area full of high-style architect- designed buildings is our destiny if developed under city"control,"while auto wrecking yards are our destiny under county control. The problem with this picture is that every thriving and viable city needs ratty. low-rent, marginal commercial areas.Such areas are the local economy's crucible. They are innovation's incubator. They are where "ugly"but necessary things can be accommodated.This is economically important. The airport area is the ideal armpit for San Luis Obispo -- and it can serve that function better under county control than under the snooty taste-dictatorship of city hall. If such opportunities are not provided in the airport area, some other area beyond the urban reserve will spring up to fill the need.Thus annexation of the aimort area, and imposition of city development standards. could backfire by placing too much industrial land under city"control.n and thereby encouraging sprawl in an effot by the "undesirable" economic uses to escape from restrictive city control. B. Does annexation of the airport area have an hinq to do with "creating needed jobs?"No. Any jobs that might be created under city"control"could also be created under county control. Since there's no city income tax, and since manufacturing doesn't generate sales tax, and since any property tax increase would have to be shared with the county,the main issue is the income workers which can spend for housing, goods and services. This is the same either way. Economically, it matters not at all whether this area is city or county. Schmidt, Airport Annexation, Page 2 C. Will failure to annex the airport area result in "inefficient"land use?Only if you are a real estate speculator.The lower density under county development standards helps to keep the area from overbuilding. There are economic advantages to this, given the overly-large area designated for industrial use. There are also environmental advantages. For example,the staff report bemoans that currently developments must provide ponds for fire water-- an example of"inefficient" land use.These ponds, however, have in several cases become wonderful waterfowl habitats,thus providing a multiple usage that wouldn't occur with urban density development and complete provision of urban services. Far from being"inefficient,"such layering of multiple uses-- in this case, human and natural-- produces highly efficient ecological land use. And this is good. It is certainly preferable to an asphalt jungle covering such a large area, and separating our city from its greenbelt. D. Does annexation have anldhina to do with"compact urban form?"No. This sprawling acreage, even under city-proposed densities, is the ultimate example of undesirable and inefficient urban sprawl. There is no efficient way to serve such a sprawling, low-density area with public transport, so its development at urban density will mean radically increased traffic. (Remember the circulation element battle over a six lane Prado Road?) The airport annexation is a way to undercut the entire LUE/Circulation Element diad of the General Plan. Likewise,the area is too low density for efficient service by water and sewer lines,fire and police. It is the antithesis of"compat urban form." If the city is serious about"compact urban form," it could create development receiver areas along Higuera and Broad, and require that development there proceed only after purchase of development rights from the interior of the airport area. Of course, urban development of the interior should then be prohibited, and the land left undeveloped (agriculture) in return for retiring development rights.M could concentrate all of the desirable aimort area development on a small fraction of the total land area if this were done, and thereby produce a much more compact and serviceable city. E. Will the city find itself with a "new urban entity"to its south if it fails to annex? Probably not.This is a lot of bluster. First,there's no need for urban density commercial development of such.huge extent for a city of 55,000 persons, so that fact will act as a brake. Second,there's the restraint of county land use "inefficiencies."Third, much of the area is a toxic waste site, and its owner seems reluctant to do anything to correct that, so this land will not develop anytime soon. Fourth,we are "threatened'with Nacimiento water coming in and creating a"new city;"this, however, is nonsense.The landowners on. their own cannot come up with the tens of millions of dollars needed to bring Nacimiento water to the area. The push for annexation is in fact an effort by them to scam on city water ratepayers, who presumably will pick up the tab for the capital costs of obtaining Nacimiento and whose "city"will then make that water available to the airport property owners, who will thus profit at our expense. F. Will failure of the city to annex "leave the area with major unresolved problems and reduced function. attractiveness and value"? Perhaps. But since when is it the city's problem that an area outside the city has"reduced value?"That would seem to be the property owners'problem, and, if they fail to annex because they're too cheap to do a specific plan, as the city's LUE requires,they have nobody but themselves to blame for any loss in land value.What happens in an unannexed aiam area is simply none of the city's busihess. The world will not come to an end if this area continues to develop in the county, and permanently stays out of the city, In fact this could be a great boon to city residents who would not have to pay for the upkeep of what will always be an urbanisticagy inefficient area to service and maintain. The study on the cost of such suburban office/industrial development in DuPage County, Illinois, is one of the landmarks of recent planning research. It showed that such development, far from being an economic boon to residents and governmental jurisdictions, drove up costs and taxes, and cost the Schmidt, Airport Annexation, Page 3 public entities three times more to service than did residential development, which everyone knows is a big-time revenue loser. Why saddle ourselves with such a burden? 5. Are the "CAD's Closing Remarks"on the mark?No. It is unfortunate, but emblematic, that this reasonably rational 9 one-sided and incomplete staff report closes with an emotional appeal under the above heading.These "remarks"are a bald-faced effort to turn up the emotional heat on susceptible council members and thereby to put the council into an irrational panic about the alleged consequences of not annexing the airport area. They are a blatant attempt to manipulate the council. In that sense,they are a very unfortunate reminder of a phenomenon at city hall which has many of your constituents very concerned about the current quality of city management. In conclusion, I wish to make four comments: First, running the city is a zero sum game..If you use city funds for promoting the airport annexation. you are taking city funds from some other project. I strenuously resent this when we have been waiting for years (due to alleged lack of funds)for things like filling an unbudgeted open space planner position (overwhelmingly supported by the people of this city),for a Foothill park,for affordable housing,to name a few. CDBG funds are not a freebie;they too, if used for this, will be unavailable for other more important public uses. Second, you don't yet have adequate economic information on the impacts of the airport annexation on residents and their pocketbooks. Why,for example.was the second half of the Angus MacDonald report never carried out?You need to remember that you are currently playing with less than a half deck of economic cards. Third, I know you are under intense pressure from self-interested quarters. The Chamber will attemptto pack the council meeting (as it did on the now-famous pink triangle night) with people who know and understand very little about the subject, but who have been rallied nonetheless, in an effort to intimidate you. (An alarmist fax alert has been sent, and followup phone calls are being made.) Do not be intimidated. You would be wiser to fear the wrath of the masses who are already mad as hell about their existing water and sewer bill increases, about the anti-environmentaVpro-business tilt of city policy, and who live with a perception that city hall doesn't care about the people anymore. Finally, if the ai=rtrt proprtv owners say they'd like to proceed with development without being annexed, take them at their word, and let them. It's no big deal. It's probably even for the best. Servicing them will then be the county's problem, not ours. As a taxpayer and ratepayer concerned about the rising costs of living in San Luis Obispo, I will be happy to be relieved of my share of this burden. Sincerely, ch rd Schmidt Schmidt, Airport Annexation, Page 4 EET NG AC DATE'S COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO bepautment of c,EnEnal sepvices COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER • SAN LUIS OBISPO,CALIFORNIA 93408 • (SOi)781•5200 DUANE P. LEIB, DIRECTOR TO: BO F SUPERVISORS FROM: D . GENERAL SERVICES DIRECTOR OM• U , DATE: MAY 10, 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 support a 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. RECEIVED Discussion Utu 1 2 lyy5 clry cou In February 1993, your Board adopted Resolution 93-63 thhf7dquester 'dC0 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. � gyp\ 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 for 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 Sheriffs 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 area 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 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 �,/�Y� Board of Supervisors May 10, 1994 Page three historically the City has not embraced the process and the conditions typically endorsed by the AL UC. 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 recom:rended 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 area 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 Estribution. The County would negotiate how these revenues may be shared or transferred, if this requested annexation takes place. Attachments cjtV•. Am=x.eos vin Y�ao " a 9 TP C I I EXHIBIT A I T AREA PROPOSED TO BE EXCLUDED FROM POTENTIAL :`,•;.:: :::::• :.t• •::::::: ANNEXATION TO CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 1 AREAS WHICH WOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM POTENTIAL ANNEXATION TO CITY BY STATE LAW ;< ` BECAUSE THEY WOULD BE "NONCONTIGUOUS" "'m'"`""" JPAP TR `� �- a�T - — - EXISTING CITY LIMITS UBUR AN - •tib{••'/11�.:f�a1 •••r�'•:::•:• ��•�. I ° �'� I st URBAN RESERVE LINE TV2".!t�i'?i.:;�;:°.::::i::: {l:�''{' :f:,:� ::.ti. .:Y4 �:::,••tll<::: /�� Vx F. ... `r+:••may''.,�i'' .'�y 'Jr""^lf.::.r.;�+ •,. � �� I g {.:. {1.� ,,'••.•�y,�.�,�,�•'.•,' w:,:ifK;Fi;rt,,,r•J•J,C,r:r•::1�: •:{'!``.';.w. '{";':f / ��\ �' I �< :jjy!;i.:.:JB.``:i:':.i '•r;}:7t;�/j`:•-.,'`i:e."+�.;.;•� van .. : I {'jySi%':''.i.:':Y::ti .}.Yfl'ti• •'V,•f': ,Jv Y U •� I e O ` W 8 - : LLI " 20O° - uj a a IL H >0 r = I- u � = L C � p L T T N. I i I• - I$ o r 4A T rl U d AA O N rO a R Y m N - - w n Department of Planning and Building San Luis Obispo County Alex 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 SUMMARY 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 into 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. ,a 1 County Government Center • San Luis Obispo • California 43408 • (805)781.5600 • Fax(805)781-1242 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,Jnland 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 undated Land Use Element, it is unclear whether there would be a conflict with this goal, since i, :s 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 responsibili-- for implementing the Airport L^-id Use Plan (ALUP) from the county to the city. The ALUP itablishes land use policies and s: ...dards 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 transportatio-- `acility needed by residents and businesses throughout the county may outweigh the factor: hich 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. (�r� J� 0^ 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 CONSTDERATIONS 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. m � r E m W • m m � �� � m m O LL oa \ yp1 4> m m m • a f -06 mph c 9 3 3 3 LL um m m m m m E E LL N d = $cn k d 9 m a 4 5 S .4m Y E E °� a c • 00 .�' 0 3 m m m m m = a a c� c m $ O p Q ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ O D U CL O „ N rM Icy p�j LL g w � ° �� /♦ \.. it c7 - r a c J c. m 3 H m` � p Q 73=1. r..... is Imo•— N. Z TI ......::::. . L � i — �`'I' ' I - I^...,"iii-• .� . I' I L O��' z 1 . •^ E3.41 Z .•. I J �� g ' IN HE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA Day PRESENT: Supervisors ABSENT: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF APPLICATION BY TIIE 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 requested that the Board of Supervisors request the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) to expand the services that CSA No. 22 may provide; and WHEREAS,on February 9, 1993 the Board of Supervisors adopted resolution 93-63 requesting LAFCO to initiate and tape 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 WHEREAS, the County of San Luis Obispo desires that LAFCO initiate proceedings pursuant to the Cortese-Knox Local Government Reorganization Act of 1985,commencing with Section 56000 of the California Government Code, for the purpose of excluding a portion of CSA No. 22 from the proposed annexation to the City of San Luis Obispo. V p NOW, TffisAMRE, BE iT RESOLVED AND ORDERED by me Board of Supervisors of the „ County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, as follows: 1. The Board of Supervisors of the County of San Luis Obispo does hereby request that LAFCO initiate 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 31vard 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 Commicsn process as a condition of annexation. Upon motion of Supervisor , sexnnded by Supervisor and on the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAINING: the foregoing resolution is hereby adopted. Chairperson of the 3nard of Supervisors ATTEST: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL EFFECT: JAMES B. LINDHOLM, JR. County Counsel U. 4 f al. a A DD jUly Cogrity Counsel Dam: tT=�, , gg 4 state of California County of On before me, personally appeared personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory eviaence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument ant. _--knowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies),and that by hisser/their signatwe(s)on the instrument the person(s),or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s)acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature (Seal) MAcRoM=ft v C 1��`.. '0\ J�p�a.may� � *.�''v' � ✓ � '�.,'�1� �'� '\ O^ EL Woe UM 13 UJ m !-r i j i 1 "�.. - e. 3 a '•\ ire qw - j 13 13 J'�• W Q 413 �_J�. �Y.��l�' i i' —G l CC F.� /��^'�' Z'ill j=` � `` - � •, = k`-:.. c-`+�Y z' �_io 1\ 1� °�i; ✓ Q J ¢ If � 2. Q E ¢ Q �C{ /��� i �C.r . YY__MM�__ /`,. s �. ��f,';ri �• -ir\ (r�JY•I \ �.• - •:, a 11,,E '_ S r��' r-' �•�• �.F� � V � ` v' Jam, �,�rr(,o/ i '. '� . ''� I .-.�� / l� \ �'•'. � :.� ::Ili �i� ice` '� '!� ! � •r- ri 'j�-a,,.�`.:`�. IL ��I�: � .1�� ,"'/ > '•, ..� _ r -•�' r S :'a• _.•...11,x'-''r�,•s" [ ��l r+ _ 7`^�e,l'-'t% .>��''�`R` Jr;? '' '':-�-.L I. i..V;�:• - [ y/ � ra.�� >� a Z rrr 0 S` m �j _ ,� z F 3 m ¢UQZOB w W4Z �L U) Ed I Z 3�pa '�` a¢U h W W a p J :i`. 4 - V " +'r 4 / r//•� Sl>('v /.C'T... JD Fm?mW •r''.;g IZa W f. Z Z13 ! 20 r _fir;. ^;),��,,, ', � - ''r- ,w.._ -.•.}_. '.�'- _ �_ � _ :? ¢¢aoQa��� Y � '• _ t o`��'h,�'..:' / �... _ =13 W 0 0 W W p a . : 0211IIMLF�Q ZO» 004 Al- -J B'COUNCIL ri... ❑!bD DIR 0 ❑ CAO OAM DIR FIRE I EF DIR POLICE CHF Cl/ Q'ACAO ❑ GYATTOY OW ErCLERKK)MG ❑ ❑ MGMfTEAM ❑ REDR . (•,';=EI1G TIL �AGENDA N�NG 13 ILE W& � PRDI❑ ERO - �— ry. December 12, 1995 Allen Settle, Mayor and the San Luis Obispo City Council San% Luis Obispo City Hall San Luis Obispo, California 9340 SUBJECT: Clarification of Specific Plan Dear members of the Council: I had wanted to participate in your study session on December 12th, but an unexpected conflict prevents me from attending. I figure the next best thing is to send you a letter stating my position on the Airport Annexation before the meeting. I was one of the members of the Chamber's Airport Annexation subcommittee who authored the Chambers position paper. Although I agree with the Chamber's basic premise to annex the entire airport area, I submitted a minority report in the form of a letter to the President which cautioned the Chamber about one major aspect of their position. That is, if the City persists in requiring an areawide Specific Plan before any property is allowed to develop, the prospects for responsible and timely action will be sharply curtailed. Because of the enormity of preparing a Specific Plan in compliance with the California Government Code to cover a large multi-ownership area, the de facto moratorium the City created in that area will continue on indefinitely, perhaps for additional years. The Government Code sets standards only for General Plans and Specific Plans. Terms such as Master Plans, Concept Plans, Implementation Plans, etc. are idioms used in planning conversation but not founded in the law. Lest it not be misunderstood, the sole responsibility for preparing General and Specific Plans rest with the land use planning jurisdiction who intends to assume land use management control over the area. There is nothing that prevents i that jurisdiction from delegating the preparation of the plan to a consultant or a property owner(s) , but when that happens, the jurisdiction distances itself from the preparation process and that gives cause for conflict. This can be likened to the property owners preparing the SLO Airport Area Specific Plan Analysis, a study paid by property owners which never got past the background studies during its eight years of preparation. A erivF ) WE HAVE MOVED TO: 1460 Higuera DEC �Q95 San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 PH:546-9300 FAX:542-9949 CITU CLEW $AN LUIS OBIVC) C Page two Airport Annexation December 8, 1995 It is important to note, the Code says the Specific,Plan shall include all of elements in the definition. Many people have assumed the Specific Plan Analysis of the Airport Area published in 1988 by Wildan Associates and RRM Design Group was a representation of a complete Specific Plan in concept form. Although the document contained a map entitled 'AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN, Conceptual Land Use Plan' , it in no way approaches the requirements of a Specific Plan prescribed by State law. That depiction of a Specific Plan met with substantial opposition, even from the City who was expected to adopt it. It wasn't even a PLAN. If you look at the Section 65452, you-will see that a Specific Plan is composed of 4 basic elements. 1) Planning Land Uses, 2) Planning Infrastructure, 3) Describing development standards and 4) Programming implementation measures. The depiction of the conceptual land use plan in the RRM report, addresses only element no. 1. Agreement upon land uses is only the first step in the preparation of a Specific Plan. What concerns me about the specific plan requirement for annexation is the monumental task of completing elements no. 2 , Planning the infrastructure, and 4, Developing the implementation, regulations, projects and capital improvement programs. Those things can take years to complete and use up entire budgets. To make the Specific Plan a prerequisite to any property development in a large, multi- ownership area has been and would be the cause for years of delay. I believe the staff has outlined a course of action for your Council more in line with the position of the Chamber of Commerce, and is a much more practical approach to economic progress. The City is seriously deficient in vacant and available land for the commercial/industrial market. The economy of this City will not be enhanced until it obtains an inventory of vacant and available property suitable for development. There are too many other jurisdictions in competition for the same purposes to wait around for a specific plan to be funded and adopted. You can accomplish the same goals by beefing up your infrastructure studies to accommodate the land use patterns in the General Plan. Then you can use assessment district approaches to facilitate areawide improvements and development agreement contracts before issuing development permits to obtain the commitments from owners to implement those improvements. Bureaucracies are notorious for spinning wheels to find practical answers. Certainly, these are not simple issues, but the City need not overextend, overbudget and overstudy itself by stopping progress until all of this monumental planning is performed and adopted. We hope you heed the advice of the Chamber and your staff. Ned Rogoway, AICP • THE PLANNING AND ZONING LAW (Article 7.5. [commencing Mill Section 65420]repealed by Stats. 1984, Ch. i uU9.) Article 8.Speck Plans 65450.After the legislative body has adopted a general plan,the planning agency may,or if so directed by the Preparation of legislative body,shall,prepare specific plans for the systematic implementation of the general plan for all or specific plan part of the area covered by the general plan. (Repealed and added by Stats. 1984, Ch. 1009.) 65450.1(Repealed by Stats. 1984, Ch. 1009.) 65451.(a)A specific plan shall include a text and a diagram or diagrams which specify all of the following in Content of specific detail: plan (1)The distribution,location,and extent of the uses of land,including open space,within the area covered by the plan. (2)The proposed distribution,location,and extent and intensity of majorcomponents of public and private transportation,sewage,water,drainage,solid waste disposal,energy,and other essential facilities proposed to be located within the area covered by the plan and needed to support the land uses described in the plan. (3) Standards and criteria by which development will proceed, and standards for the conservation, development,and utilization of natural resources,where applicable. (4)A program of implementation measures including regulations,programs,public works projects,and financing measures necessary to carry out paragraphs(1),(2),and(3). (b)The specific plan shall include a statement of the relationship of the specific plan to the general plan. (Repealed and added by Stats. 1984, Ch. 1009;Amended by Stats. 1985, Ch. 1199.) 65452.The specific plan may address any other subjects which in the judgment of the planning agency are Optional subjects necessary or desirable for implementation of the general plan. (Repealed and added by Stats. 1984, Ch. 1009.) 65453.(a)A specific plan shall be prepared,adopted,and amended in the same manner as a general plan,except Adoption/ that a specific plan may be adopted by resolution or by ordinance and may be amended as often as deemed amendment necessary by the legislative body. procedure (b)A specific plan may be repealed in the same manner as it is required to be amended. (Repealed and added by Stars. 1984, Ch. 1009;Amended by Stats. 1985, Ch. 1199.) 65454.No specific plan may be adopted or amended unless the proposed plan or amendment is consistent with Consistency with the general plan. general plan (Added by Stars. 1984, Ch. 1009.) 65455.No local public works project may be approved,no tentative map or parcel map for which a tentative Zoning,tentative, map was not required may be approved,and no zoning ordinance may be adopted or amended within an area map,parcel map, covered by a specific plan unless it is consistent with the adopted specific plan. and public works (Added by Stats. 1984, Ch. 1009.) project consistency 65456.(a)The legislative body,after adopting a specific plan,may impose a specific plan fee upon persons with specific plan seeking governmental approvals which are required to be consistent with the specific plan.The fees shall be established so that, in the aggregate, they defray but as estimated do not exceed, the cost of preparation, Fees and charges adoption, and administration of the specific plan, including costs incurred pursuant to Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code. As nearly as can be estimated, the fee charged shall be a prorated amount in accordance with the applicant's relative benefit derived from the specific plan.It is the intent of the Legislature in providing for such fees to charge persons who benefit from specific plans for the costs of developing those specific plans which result in savings to them by reducing the cost of documenting environmental conseque9ces and advocating changed land uses which may be authorized pursuant to the specific plan. (b) Notwithstanding Section 60016, a city or county may require a person who requests adoption, amendment,or repeal of a specific plan to deposit with the planning agency an amount equal to the estimated cost of preparing the plan,amendment,or repeal prior to its preparation by the planning agency. (c)Copies of the documents adopting or amending the specific plan,including the diagrams and text,shall be made available to local agencies and shall be made available to the general public as follows: (1)Within one working day following the date of adoption,the clerk of the legislative body shall make the documents adopting or amending the plan, including the diagrams and text, available to the public for inspection. (2)Within two working days after receipt of a request for a copy of the documents adopting or amending the plan,including the diagrams and text,accompanied by payment for the reasonable cost of copying,the clerk shall furnish the requested copy to the person making the request. 1994 Planning,Zoning,and Development Laws 39 N!SETING AGENDA ITEM # Letter to San Luis Obispo City Mayor and Council members December 8 1995 Subject; Airport Annexation Reference: Allen K Settle's letter to the TT published on Nov. 29 1995 from which I quote"5. Should the city not seek revenues from the airport upon annexation?". I have outlined below some of my concerns related to annexation of San Luis Obispo airport by the City. 1)Existing federal law now requires that airport generated revenues be spent only for airport operations and improvements. 2) Why do you want to penalize airport tenants and users,yet leave others, who are consumers of significant services,totally free of any taxes or fees?? 3)The local users of the airport already pay their way, handsomely, through Federal, County and Local taxes and fees. 4)The airport tenants pay substantial State property taxes which go to our local schools and other services. 5) San Luis Obispo County and City Governments have, in the past, agreed that tourism is one the best sources of revenue for the County and City. Each tourist contributes greatly to the income of both governments through sales taxes,bed taxes,fees and other revenue sources. The airport brings a proportion of these people here but by no means all of them. If you want to raise revenue from tourism,there are more fair and universal ways to select than by picking on those who use the airport. 6)McChesney field, as SLO county airport is known, is this counties only airport with regular commercial air service, and as a county use airport, heavily used by county residents,why should it not remain under County control? 7)More than 80%of this counties population has the opportunity through their Supervisors to address their concerns, if any, as to the way the County Government is running the airport. Therefore they have political representation. 8)If this airport is owned by the City,more than 80%of the residents of this county will cease to have political representation over the operation of their airport. This would be neither fair,nor right, nor is it within the guidelines of the Constitution of this United States of America. I am unable to attend the special meeting of the City Council on December 12 1995. I would like this letter to receive the same hearing as if I were to attend and make the same observations and statements. I would also like a response. - Sincerely P. Grimaud 1545 Wild Rye Way EtTORN CDD DIR Arroyo Grande ❑ FIN DIR CA 93420 ❑ FIRE CHIEF RECEIVED ❑ PW DIR l�t� 'b7J ❑ POUCECHF ❑ REC DIR CINCOUNCIL.O UTI.DIR0 PERS DIR COUNCIL C1'CDD]DRGOW pV J�C� O FIRE f` �ETING AGENDA RVrAO 13 FIN DIR / ❑ ATTORNEY O PWDDATEITEIVI #IrCLERWORIG O POLIO MGWTEAM O REC O C READ FILE O UTIL PA NO` ❑ PERS GG M E M O R A N D U M ' DATE: December 8, 1995 TO: Kathy Smith, Councilwoman RECEIVED d FROM: Ned Rogoway, AICP DEC 8 1995 SUBJECT: Clarification of Specific Plan CITY COUNCIL H I want to thank you for taking the time to talk with me about ( the Airport Area Annexation issue. As you can see from our conversation, it is a very complex and perplexing subject. It will be difficult for the Council to break it down into simple answers. After our conversation I thought it would be helpful to understand the implications about the subjects we were addressing. It is important to know the definition of terms before that Council meeting starts. Therefore, I have taken the liberty to enclose a 1 page from the California Government Code which defines what a Specific Plan is. a The Government Code sets standards only for General Plans and Specific Plans. Terms such as Master Plans, Concept Plans, D Implementation Plans, etc. are idioms used in planning conversation v but not founded in the law. It is important to note, the Specific Plan shall include all of elements in the definition. Many people have assumed the Specific Plan Analysis of the Airport Area published in 1988 by Wildan Associates and RRM Design Group was a representation of a complete Specific Plan in concept form. Although the document contained a map entitled 'AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN, Conceptual Land Use Plan' (enclosed) , it in no way approaches the requirements of a Specific Plan presgribed by State law. In fact, what that document contains is ' a summary of background studies in anticipation of preparing a Specific Plan. 7 If you look at the Section 65451, you will see that a Specific Plan is composed of 4 basic elements. The depiction of the conceptual land use plan in the RRM report, addresses only element no. 1. Agreement upon land uses is only the first step in the preparation of a Specific Plan. What concerns me about the specific plan requirement for annexation is the monumental task of completing elements no. 2 and 4. Those things can take years to I' ROGOWAY PLANNING GROUP 1460 Higuera San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 546-9300 (Fax 542-9949) Page two Airport Annexation December 8, 1995 complete and use up entire budgets. To make the Specific Plan a prerequisite to any property development in a large, multi- ownership area has been and would be the cause for years of delay. I believe the staff has outlined a course of action for your Council more in line with the position of the Chamber of Commerce, and is a much more practical approach to economic progress. The City is seriously deficient in vacant and available land for the commercial/industrial market. The economy of this City will not be enhanced until it obtains an inventory of vacant and available property suitable for development. There are too many other jurisdictions in competition for the same purposes to wait around for a specific plan to be funded and adopted. You can accomplish the same goals by beefing up your infrastructure studies to accommodate the land use patterns in the General Plan. Then you can use assessment district approaches to facilitate areawide improvements and development agreement contracts before issuing development permits to obtain the commitments from owners to implement those improvements. Bureaucracies are notorious for spinning wheels to find practical answers. Certainly, these are not simple issues, but the City need not overextend, overbudget and overstudy itself by stopping progress until all of this monumental planning is performed and adopted. We hope you heed the advice of the Chamber and your staff. Ned ow AICP cc: John Mandeville, Planning Bill Thoma TIE PLANNING AND ZONING LAW (Article 7.5. [commencing with Section 65420]repealed by Stats. 1984, Ch. 1009.) Article 8.Specific Plans 65450.After the legislative body has adopted a general plan,the planning agency may,or if so directed by the Preparation of legislative body,shall,prepare specific plans for the systematic implementation of the general plan for all or specific plan part of the area covered by the general plan. (Repealed and added by Stars. 1984, Ch. 1009.) 65450.1 (Repealed by Stars. 1984, Ch. 1009.) 65451.(a)A specific plan shall include a text and a diagram or diagrams which specify all of the following in Content of specific detail: plan (1)The distribution,location,and extent of the uses of land,including open space,within the area covered by the plan. (2)The proposed distribution,location,and extent and intensity of major components of public and private transportation,sewage,water,drainage,solid waste disposal,energy,and other essential facilities proposed to be located within the area covered by the plan and needed to support the land uses described in the plan. (3) Standards and criteria by which development will proceed, and standards for the conservation, development,and utilization of natural resources,where applicable. (4)A program of implementation measures including regulations,programs,public works projects,and financing measures necessary to carry out paragraphs(1),(2),and(3). (b)The specific plan shall include a statement of the relationship of the specific plan to the general plan. (Repealed and added by Stats. 1984, Ch. 1009;Amended by Stats. 1985, Ch. 1199.) 65452.The specific plan may address any other subjects which in the judgment of the planning agency are Optional subjects necessary or desirable for implementation of the general plan. (Repealed and added by Stars. 1984, Ch. 1009.) 65453.(a)A specific plan shall be prepared,adopted,and amended in the same manner as a general plan,except Adoption/ that a specific plan may be adopted by resolution or by ordinance and may be amended as often as deemed amendment necessary by the legislative body. procedure (b)A specific plan may be repealed in the same manner as it is required to be amended. (Repealed and added by Stars. 1984, Ch. 1009;Amended by Stats. 1985, Ch. 1199.) 65454.No specific plan may be adopted or amended unless the proposed plan or amendment is consistent with Consistency with the general plan. general plan (Added by Stars. 1984, Ch. 1009.) 65455.No local public works project may be approved,no tentative map or parcel map for which a tentative Zoning,tentative, map was not required may be approved,and no zoning ordinance may be adopted or amended within an area map,parcel map, covered by a specific plan-unless it is consistent with the adopted specific plan. and public works (Added by Stars. 1984, Ch. 1009.) project consistency 65456.(a)The legislative body,after adopting a specific plan,may impose a specific plan fee upon persons with specifc plan seeking governmental approvals which are required to be consistent with the specific plan.The fees shall be established so that, in the aggregate, they defray but as estimated do not exceed, the cost of preparation, Fees and charges adoption, and administration of the specific plan, including costs incurred pursuant to Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000)of the Public Resources Code. As nearly as can be estimated, the fee charged shall be a prorated amount in accordance with the applicant's relative benefit derived from the specific plan.It is the intent of the Legislature in providing for such fees to charge persons who benefit from specific plans for the costs of developing those specific plans which result in savings to them by reducing the cost of documenting environmental consequences and advocating changed land uses which may be authorized pursuant to the specific plan. (b) Notwithstanding Section 60016, a city or county may require a person who requests adoption, amendment,or repeal of a specific plan to deposit with the planning agency an amount equal to the estimated cost of preparing the plan,amendment,or repeal prior to its preparation by the planning agency. (c)Copies of the documents adopting or amending the specific plan,including the diagrams and text,shall be made available to local agencies and shall be made available to the general public as follows: (1)Within one working day following the date of adoption,the clerk of the legislative body shall make the documents adopting or amending the plan, including the diagrams and text, available to the public for inspection. (2)Within two working days after receipt of a request for a copy of the documents adopting or amending the plan,including the diagrams and text,accompanied by payment for the reasonable cost of copying,the clerk shall furnish the requested copy to the person making the request. 1994 Planning,Zoning,and Development Laws 39 QV � iQ S ,. lk \ Ing \ \ 1 WE f . I � \ MEETING AGENDA l E 1A-9eITEM # 7f 00/n Letter to San Luis Obispo City Mayor and Council members December 8 1995 Subject; Airport Annexation Reference: Allen K Settle's letter to the TT published on Nov. 29 1995 from which I quote"5. Should the city not seek revenues from the airport upon annexation?". I have outlined below some of my concerns related to annexation of San Luis Obispo airport by the City. 1)Existing federal law now requires that airport generated revenues be spent only for airport operations and improvements. 2) Why do you want to penalize airport tenants and users, yet leave others, who are consumers of significant services, totally free of any taxes or fees?? 3)The local users of the airport already pay their way,handsomely,through Federal, County and Local taxes and fees. 4) The airport tenants pay substantial State property taxes which go to our local schools and other services. 5) San Luis Obispo County and City Governments have, in the past, agreed that tourism is one the best sources of revenue for the County and City. Each tourist contributes greatly to the income of both governments through sales taxes, bed taxes, fees and other revenue sources. The airport brings a proportion of these people here but by no means all of them. If you want to raise revenue from tourism, there are more fair and universal ways to select than by picking on those who use the airport. 6)McChesney field, as SLO county airport is known, is this counties only airport with regular commercial air service, and as a county use airport, heavily used by county residents, why should it not remain under County control? 7)More than 80%of this counties population has the opportunity through their Supervisors to address their concerns, if any, as to the way the County Government is running the airport. Therefore they have political representation. 8)If this airport is owned by the City,more than 80%of the residents of this county will cease to have political representation over the operation of their airport. This would be neither fair, nor right,nor is it within the guidelines of the Constitution of this United States of America. I am unable to attend the special meeting of the City Council on December 12 1995. I would like this letter to receive the same hearing as if I were to attend and make the same observations and statements. I would also like a response. RECEIVED Sincerely ,DEC i ! 1995 P. Grimaud CITY COUNCIL [!' OUNCIL C 'CDD DIR 1545 Wild Rye Way can [MAO ❑ FIN DIA Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 DACAO ❑ FIRE CH I EF ❑' ORNEY ❑ PW DIA Q'ELEWJMG C3 POLICE CH RECEIVED ❑ MGMT TEAM ❑ REC DIR ❑ C R�DFFIILE ❑ UTIL DIR PERS DIRDEC CITY CLERK SAN LUIS OBISPO,C' MEET' � AGENDA � INV90 DATE ' - ITEM # MEMORANDUM DEC tips CITY CLERK [EVCAO L D D]CHF December 8, 1995 SAN LUIS OBf$P0,c� IBJ FIN DI❑ FIRE CTo: Ma or Settle andCi Council 0 PO DIY tY ORIG ❑ POLICEAM C3 REC DFrom: John E. Moss, Utilities Director'` FILE �1TIL DJohn Mandeville, Long Range Planning Manager ❑ PERS Subject: Airport and Margarita Annexation Areas - Water Supplies. . With Council's consideration of annexation of the above two areas, water availability will undoubtedly become a significant issue. In an effort to ensure that this issue is kept in perspective, we are providing you with this memorandum. As the City proceeds with the annexation process, we are also agressively pursuing development of additional water supply projects. The city is currently pursuing development of the Water Reuse program, scheduled to begin deliveries as early as 1998, the Salinas Reservoir Expansion Project, and the Nacimiento Pipeline Project, both scheduuled to begin delivery of water sometime shortly after the turn of the century. It should be noted that the Nacimiento Pipeline Project is the only project being pursued by the County for development of the areas under the County. In reviewing the above timeline it would seem appropriate to begin the annexation process now or in the very near future. Annexation, planning and development of these areas will take time to complete. Water should be available very near the time when the actual development takes place. A significant source of funding for our water supply projects is to be recovered through impact fees. Impact fees are dependent upon new development. If we defer starting the annexation process until such time as the new supplies are available, our growth rates will not be as projected and impact fee revenues will fall short of projections. These shortfalls will have to be made-up through some other method. In the absence of a new water supply development project, several prospective approaches may be available to serve at least a portion of the annexation area in the short term. A review of certain City Urban Water Management Plan policies will be coming before Council, at Council's request, in January 1996. Council has given staff direction to return the policies of the Urban Water Management Plan relative to the 2 to 1 retrofit requirements, the treatment of water reuse as a water supply, and the infill and intensification reserve, to Council for discussion and consideration. Additionally, staff has become aware of policy ambiguities relative to the use of private wells within the City which will require Council resolution. With Council direction, these policies may..be reviewed in the context of their implication to the annexation areas. s. In summary, the City is pursuing the development of additional water supply projects needed ` to serve these annexation areas as well as buildout of the land uses identified in the General Plan. It is not likely that all the property owners in the Margarita and Airport Areas will seek to buildout their properties at once or before the Salinas or Nacimiento water projects begin to Annexation - Water Supplies Memorandum to Council Page 2 r supplement the City's water supply. Reclaimed water will be able to supplement existing water. supplies in the interim. With the Water Reuse program, some additional water should be available by late 1998. Should existing policies be modified, existing water supplies could be available to serve some limited development in the annexation areas even sooner. s. S Arm Vim MEER � FAGENDA DEC 1 1 1995. DATE ��- �-u ITEM # CITY CLERK 7. 00/b-07 RAN LU$0818P CA IF) San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce 1039 Chorro Street • San Luis Obispo, California 93401-3278 (805) 781-2777 • FAX (805) 543-1255 David `E. Garth, Executive Director RECEIVED loJ COUNCIL �' DD]DR December 11, 1995 uta 1 1 .1995 dc�►o e�ND0 FlRECITY COUNCIL' 1 TTTORNEY i�PW DO CLE KCRG O POLIO MGWTEAM C AEC Mayor Allen Settle and Members of the City Council ❑ C READ FILE "nL City of San Luis Obispo 0 RE v Peas 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council: The Chamber of Commerce would like to congratulate you on agendizing the airport area annexation. This Council has made proactivity a major goal, and taking the lead on addressing the annexation issue demonstrates that this goal is a sincere one. The Chamber's position on the airport area annexation has been set out in great detail in our position paper, "Airport Area Annexation: Today's Action for Tomorrow's Options." As you have all had the opportunity to read this document,we would simply like to remind you that our position on the airport area is that it must be annexed immediately while the window of opportunity remains open, that the entire airport area should be annexed in a single action, and that planning for the area should not be required prior to annexation. We would like to thank the City staff for an excellent summary and recommendation of options in their staff report on this issue. City staff has very correctly identified the problems that have kept the annexation from reaching a successful conclusion in the past, and has provided an excellent set of recommendations that will eliminate these problems in the future. The Chamber recognizes that annexing and properly planning the airport area is a complex process, and we appreciate Mayor Settle's comments in the Telegram-Tribune outlining the questions that need to be addressed before he can fully support the annexation. To that end, we would like to address the Mayor's ten questions in this letter. The Mayor's first three questions centered around the cost of providing infrastructure to the airport area and who should pay for these improvements. ACCREDITED C MBU OF COMMEME CH.MOCN OF COMMEPCE OE TME VNIIEU STAUS As mentioned in the staff report, costs of providing infrastructure will be fully explored by the infrastructure studies that will take place as part of the annexation process. The City has a long-standing policy of development paying its own way, as well as several mechanisms to ensure that this occurs (e.g. transportation impact fees for circulation improvements). It is likely that the City will require development to pay for much of the cost of needed infrastructure improvements as these improvements occur. The Mayor's fourth question addresses the need of the City to negotiate the sharing of property taxes and the like with the County upon annexation. We understand that these negotiations are currently underway, and we strongly urge that the City continue with these negotiations until an equitable compromise is reached. The longer the City waits to annex the airport area, the worse the City's bargaining position in these negotiations will become. As more development occurs in the area under County jurisdiction, the County will be less likely to relinquish revenue generated by these properties, and the opportunity for further revenue enhancements that will benefit the City will be reduced. This phenomenon will occur because the County has a policy of not giving up tax revenues generated by development that has occurred on County lands when these lands are annexed into cities. The Chamber believes that this is a fair policy on the part of the County,but we feel that any incremental increases in tax revenue that occur after annexation should accrue to the City. With this in mind, every development project that goes forward while the City still does not have control of the land represents tax revenue that the City will most likely never obtain. It is therefore important to annex as soon as possible. Conversely,if the City actively takes the lead in the annexation process, it will be in a better position to negotiate an agreement with the County. The City's clear commitment to annexation will result in the County being able to rely on reducing its cost of providing services to the airport area, which significantly strengthens the City's bargaining position from a revenue perspective. Mayor Settle's fifth question addresses the possibility of pursuing revenues from the airport itself as a part of the annexation. The City could bargain for a share of airport revenues based on services to the airport that the County will no longer need to provide after annexation,but should not make annexation of the airport itself a critical component of the annexation. A possibility raised by the Mayor centers on annexing the land upon which the airport sits,but allowing the County to retain revenues from the operation of the airport. The above options could all be pursued during negotiations with the County. The Chamber feels, however, that it is important that the City retain an ability to compromise over airport revenues, because issuing an ultimatum regarding the airport could derail the entire annexation process, resulting in no revenues for the City at all. The sixth issue raised by the Mayor is the fact that the Unocal tank farm area is a part of the airport area. The Mayor points out that contaminated sands from Avila are scheduled to be dumped on this property. This is a troubling issue, and we feel that Unocal should be encouraged to support the annexation. However, it is important to keep in mind that if the City had annexed the airport area in the past, it would already have much greater control over requiring Unocal to abide by City desires with regard to environmental cleanup in the airport area. This is an example of the many environmental benefits that will accrue to the City when the annexation takes place. It will be necessary to address the difficult issue of the Unocal property at some point; the Chamber's opinion is that dealing with this issue sooner is preferable to later, as the problem will only become larger as it is ignored for longer periods of time. • The Mayor's next two questions centered around who should pay for the specific plan, and whether a concept plan as recommended by the Chamber could replace such a plan The issue of the specific plan is the most important challenge that must be solved before the annexation can continue. It has been disagreement over the specific plan that has led to the failure of the annexation process in the past. We would like to make our position very clear on this point. The Chamber-suggested Airport Area Concept Plan would be an important step in the master planning of the area, and would not need to replace a specific plan. Rather, the Concept Plan would be a guideline to direct interim development until specific infrastructure planning can be completed. The City staff report on armexation suggests replacing the specific plan with several individual infrastructure and environmental plans, thus accomplishing the same end result with less mistrust and expense for all concerned. Replacing the specific plan with several individual plans would allow for the City to obtain planning of equal quality to a specific plan without the burden of state regulations surrounding specific plans. Please note that we support adequate planning of the airport area. Angus McDonald's study, which the Mayor notes recommends a specific plan, also says that the City should pay for the specific plan. If the City is willing to pay for an entire specific plan, the Chamber would be supportive of taking this route. What has derailed the process in the past has been property owners being forced to pay for the plan before the city commits to annexation. Unless the City is willing to shoulder the cost of the specific plan, then the City staff recommendation to pursue several other plans is necessary to ensure support by property owners. The staff report also brings forth the possibility of the City paying the up-front costs of these plans, and recovering a share of these costs from development later. Again, the staff report has excellent recommendations on this point. Mayor Settle's ninth question is "Why not encourage annexation of a portion of the airport area if the property owner has completed the performance standards for annexation?" The Chamber's position is that there is nothing inherently wrong with this approach if certain areas would like to be annexed to the City immediately before the annexation is complete; however, it is better to annex the entire area so that it can be planned as a whole. Piecemeal annexation will result in poor infrastructure planning, circulation and air quality problems, and an inability to develop the airport area as a gateway to the City. While we feel that development that is consistent with City standards should be allowed to continue in the airport area in anticipation of the completion of the annexation process, such development should be consistent with the Concept Plan for • the area so proper land use planning can take place. If the city cannot commit to the full annexation, however, there will be no motivation on the part of property owners for development to follow such a planning guideline. The Mayor's final question asks whether we can ignore the requirements of the banks and other lenders that must approve development loans. The Chamber feels that we should not ignore the needs of any of the parties that the annexation will affect. Lending institutions should be made a part of the annexation process, as well as representatives from the community, in order to ensure that no needs are being ignored as the City embarks on this most important decision. Again, we would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the City as it proceeds with the airport area annexation. By taking this step to ensure an inventory of available land to support our community's buildout as specified in the General Plan, this Council is taking a proactive role in ensuring the quality of our future and protecting our economic and environmental climate. Yours very truly, William A. Thoma , President Airport Area Annexation: Today's Action for Tomorrow's Options A Position Paper of the San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce November 1995 Contents Introduction and Background ................................ 1 Boundaries of the Airport Area ........................... 2 Permitted Uses in the Airport Area ........................... 3 County of San Luis Obispo ............................ 3 City of San Luis Obispo ............................... 4 Infrastructure in the Airport Area ............................ 5 The Chamber of Commerce Position .......................... 7 The Character of San Luis Obispo ........................... 10 The Natural Environment .................................. 11 The Economy ............................................ 13 City of San Luis Obispo .................................... 15 San Luis Obispo County Airport ............................ 16 Implementation Strategies and Tactics ....................... 17 Conclusion .............................................. 18 A Position Paper -of the San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce, Produced By Bill Thoma President Airport Area Annexation Bob Griffin Subcommittee Members: Legislative Vice -President Maggie Cox Garth Kornreich Legislative Committee Chair Douglas Pierce Jack Penrod Penny Rappa Sub -Committee Chair Ned Rogoway Scott Gregory Michael Wright Director, Governmental Affairs Introduction and Background The San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce, in May of 1995, charged a subcommittee to reexamine the issues surrounding the proposed airport area annexation and recommend whether the Chamber should continue to support the annexation, or modify its position In extended analyses and deliberations over a period of months the subcommittee examined the issue from multiple perspectives, asking • What differences will it make to the City of San. Luis Obispo if the airport area is annexed? • Is annexation in the best interests of property owners, residents and businesses located in the airport area? • Is annexation in the best interests of property owners, residents and businesses located in the City of San Luis Obispo? • What effect would annexation have on the environmental quality of San Luis Obispo? • What are key issues affecting the character of the airport area and in turn, San Luis Obispo? • What actions can betaken to enhance the quality of the airport area and in turn, San Luis Obispo? Deliberations by the subcommittee resulted in a recommendation to the Board of Directors that the Chamber continue to support annexation, and advised that timely action is critical to the success of the annexation process. The Board concurred with the subcommittee recommendation, and directed the development and dissemination of this position paper to clarify the Chamber's position to those who will be affected by City decisions regarding whether or not to proceed with the annexation. The paper seeks to promote positive and timely action by focusing community awareness on the key issues surrounding annexation, and bring to light the economic and environmental benefits a well-planned annexation will bring to the City of San Luis Obispo. 1 Boundaries of the Airport Area The boundaries delineated in the Airport Area Specific Plan are shown in the following map. We have found that an efficient way of quickly learning differences between County and City land use policies is to drive around the boundary roads between City and County lands. We also encourage readers to refresh their familiarity with the inventory of underdeveloped and undeveloped land within the current boundaries of the City of San Luis Obispo. An inventory of underdeveloped and undeveloped land exists in the airport area. Under existing County land use policies, that inventory will continue to develop incrementally. Annexation to the City will also result in development of those portions of that inventory identified in the City's General Plan, but such development will take place under City of San Luis Obispo land use policies and practices. The character of development in the airport area will be influenced by the governing authority at the time that it occurs. OPEN SPACTI WREATION NETWORK The San Luis Obispo Airport Area with proposed land use designations. 2 Permitted Uses in the Airport Area County of San Luis Obispo The current uses of the property within the airport area are governed under jurisdiction of the County of San Luis Obispo. Those uses detailed in the San Luis Obispo General Plan Framework for Planning document, San Luis Obispo Planning Area, are specifically itemized in "Table O" of that document. Historically, land uses in the airport area had been limited to agricultural, small scale manufacturing and rural accessory uses in support of the airport Recent efforts by the County have brought those uses into compliance with City land uses, which has resulted in the airport area becoming more urban in nature (e.g., office uses are now permitted in the airport area). Today, land use limitations in the airport area are primarily based on resource constraints. The recent update to the San Luis Obispo Area Plan (January, 1993) provided for allowable uses that are more consistent with the City's uses, specifically with regard to commercial, visitor serving and industrial uses. The only current limitations on permitted uses and development intensity in the County are related to resource constraints, specifically the need to provide for sewage disposal areas and water sources. Because limited infrastructure exists in the airport area, parcel by parcel fire flow requirements are very large, and storage tanks or reservoirs are often required to satisfy fire flow needs. These facilities are costly and take up land that could be better utilized for development. Perhaps most importantly, in the proposed 1995 revision of the San Luis Obispo Area Plan, the County has stated that should annexation of the airport area not occur within a specified time period, then more intense development should be considered in County areas, including the allowance of developing a separate infrastructure system in the airport area. If annexation does not occur in the near future, San Luis Obispo could face a second urban area directly adjacent to its boundaries with different land use goals than those held by the City. 3 City of San Luis Obispo The City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Land Use Element designates the airport area as a future growth area. While it is not in the City limits, it is located within the City's urban reserve line which is a boundary cities commonly use to project growth over a 20 year period. Planning and development within the City limits under the City's General Plan and allowable land uses would allow for increased densities in the airport area due to the availability of infrastructure improvements. Provided that the airport area is annexed completely and comprehensively "master planned", development could occur incrementally, consistent with City design guidelines, resource management, infrastructure and utility standards. Currently, the City of San Luis Obispo lacks vacant large parcel commercial, research and retail inventories. It has long been assumed that the annexation of the airport area would provide this inventory, which is why the County Board of Supervisors designated the land for industrial uses in the late 1970s. The City of San Luis Obispo recognizes the need to secure these types of inventories to ensure that future growth is of a desirable nature and occurs under City design guidelines. The airport area represents the only large available inventory of such properties available to the City at the present time. If annexation does not occur, it will be difficult for the City to find such an inventory elsewhere. 4 Infrastructure in the Airport Area The infrastructure of an area includes a complex interaction of facilities, including- 0 ncluding • Road and transportation; • Water supply and waste disposal; • Energy, including electrical and gas; • Telecommunications; and • Other basic facilities necessary to provide essential services to an area. The interplay of different aspects of an area's infrastructure improvements can help or hinder the efficiency of the activities taking place within that area, as well as the interaction between that area and neighboring regions. Considerable differences in infrastructure quality are noticeable between areas under County jurisdiction and those within the City. These infrastructure differences have traditionally been influenced by different development standards and available resources in County and City areas. They are immediately noticeable, for example, in the differences in road and right-of-way size between the City and County areas. Water supply and waste disposal are critical airport infrastructure issues. Lacking a common water system under County jurisdiction, businesses located in the airport area are required to allocate sufficient land to provide pond reservoirs for fire fighting protection This self -provision of infrastructure is costly for businesses and results in unsightly and inefficient uses of land. Annexation will result in the extension of water mains as needed to provide adequate fire fighting protection. Freed from the necessity of providing independent water reserves, properties can be fully utilized for their more valuable economic purposes. 61 C Photo: Lack of infrastructure encourages inefficient land uses in the airport area. Drainage is also an issue of concern to City residents. In 1989, a technical study was prepared suggesting that a series of regional storm water detention basins be constructed between South Higuera Street and Highway 227 to reduce downstream flooding. As a regional solution to a pre-existing problem, master planning of this important area could greatly alleviate this public safety issue. The valuable water allocations paid for by the airport area landowners through a county -wide assessment district may be acquired by the City upon annexation Beyond bringing its water allocation to the City, the airport area offers one of the most financially viable methods for the City to pay for its wastewater reclamation program, as the City's sewage treatment plant is adjacent to the airport area. 6 The Chamber of Commerce Position The Chamber of Commerce strongly advocates the annexation of the airport area, and encourages property owners and businesses located in the area to renew their commitment to annexation We encourage the citizens of San Luis Obispo to express their support of definitive, immediate actions to ensure that annexation takes place. We ask the Mayor and City Council to make the airport area annexation a top priority, and to take leadership action in resolving obstacles that may be inhibiting its completion. Our recommendation follows our desire to preserve the economic, environmental and social well-being of our community, and to secure an adequate inventory of vacant and underutilized. land so that it may be used in an economically sound and environmentally conscious manner. We recommend that the Mayor and Council authorize and charge the Economic Development Manager and the Natural Resources Manager with facilitating and expediting the annexation process; and concurrently, expressly direct the cooperation of existing City staff in the annexation process. We most strongly recommend that the entire airport area be annexed in a single action. Annexing the entire airport area will enable the area to be master planned as an integral part of the City's General Plan. Master planning will also conserve costs in infrastructure development and maintenance. We recommend that the City take the initiative in the annexation process. Taking the lead on master planning and creating a strategic implementation plan for the airport area, rather than requiring the preparation of a specific plan in advance of property annexation in the airport area, is essential to ensure that the annexation proceeds, and to eliminate the de facto moratorium that now exists. Master planning of the area as an integral part of the City will result in land uses that are consistent within specific areas. The commitments that companies make in relocating to a specific area, or in remaining within a specific area, are affected by the attractions of being near similar or compatible businesses, employing persons with equivalent VA C skills and competencies, and accessing similar infrastructures and services. Companies seek to operate in areas that contain established compatible businesses or an inventory of sites planned for compatible uses. Annexation will bring these benefits to area businesses. Master planning of the airport area will ensure that compatible businesses are grouped together in a logical manner. Provision of infrastructure improvements will release airport area businesses from the onerous self -provision of these needs. Higher service levels in the airport area will result in the ability of area businesses to support higher value - adding activities. While the Chamber advocates the annexation of the entire airport area as a single action, development of the airport area will occur incrementally, not immediately, as a consequence of annexation. Tax revenues can be matched to needs as development progresses. Annexation is a critical component in our concept of Compact Urban Form, which avoids deflecting development into the surrounding countryside and greenbelt areas. In turn, the well planned, systematic development of the airport area will enrich the City and its residents with high environmental, economic and cultural qualities of life. These qualities will be realized through effective planning for traffic, air quality, water resources, respect for the natural environment and aesthetics, sports parks and facilities, sewer facilities, fire protection, police resources, and employment. The current policy language in the General Plan Land Use Element effectively promotes the least desirable type of development from an environmental and economic point of view by requiring "piecemeal" annexation Property owners are required to assemble, fund and sponsor a specific plan prior to annexation without City leadership or support. This policy effectively precludes the master planning of the area, as evidenced in the previous and current development of the airport area, and closes the door to annexation As designed, the planning of the airport area is of central importance to the community, City, County, and property owners and must be pursued in a cooperative manner. The City should initiate the annexation process as soon as possible, and begin the environmental, fiscal and infrastructure studies that are needed to properly plan for the long-term health of our southern border. 0 As a part of this process, we recommend that the City pursue the creation of an Airport Area Concept Plan, modeled on the downtown physical concept plan A core design team can command the energies of a small group with relevant professional and technical expertise. A broad-based review team can provide creative input and critiques during the design process. This review team should involve city residents, decision makers and landowners. In this way, the City can ensure that the airport area annexation realizes its potential for quality planning and community consensus. Photo: An example of the City of San Luis Obispo's high quality design standards. 9 The Character of San Luis Obispo The distinctive character of San.Luis Obispo has evolved through the interaction between its physical environment, economy and culture. These elements, however, are also dramatically affected by developments beyond the boundaries of the City. The immediate proximity of the airport area to the City, separated only by political boundaries, not mountains or miles of highway, accentuates the impact of this area on San Luis Obispo.'s distinctive character. San Luis Obispo residents, businesses and governmental entities interact with facilities and businesses in the airport area that provide employment, services and products. Visitors to the community enter and exit through San Luis Obispo Airport, and access services, goods and businesses located in the airport area corridor. The continuing development of the airport area influences the character of the community of San Luis Obispo. While the characteristics of airport area land use and infrastructure are influenced and restricted by the area's governmental jurisdiction, it is obvious that businesses and residents can function under the existing governance structure. Development has continued within the regulatory framework of the County, and further development of the airport area does not depend upon its annexation to the City of San Luis Obispo. One thing is certain. development of the airport area will continue, whether under County or City governance. The quality of life enjoyed by our community flows from the evolving natural environment which has existed throughout time, and has been influenced over the last 223 years by San Luis Obispo's development. Protecting and enhancing that quality of life requires proactively coping with the ongoing evolution of the community and its impacts on the environment. Annexing critical areas of the City's environment is a potent strategy for protecting and enhancing the. environmental quality of life within the community. 10 The Natural Environment Without control over its fracturing southern edge, San Luis Obispo is vulnerable to urban sprawl and environmental blight, and possesses little authority to protect its environmental quality of life. The City currently lacks the authority to implement its Open Space Element and create the greenbelt which is this element's cornerstone, because most of the greenbelt areas lie outside City limits. Annexation . of the airport area provides a significant receiver site for transfer of development credits, and helps to ensure a hard edge to San Luis Obispo's urban area while providing tax revenues to the City that could be used to help finance the Open Space program. Concentration of development in those areas of the airport annexation area not designated for open space or park and recreation_usage helps to slow development pressure on those areas in the proposed greenbelt area. Annexation also helps the City to define its absolute outer edge. Clear development and open space zones will help concentrate development in those areas identified in the General Plan, allowing the City to take a strong role in preventing development on the greenbelt. A growing "South San Luis Obispo" in the airport area may threaten the viability of the greenbelt, however. If the City does not pursue the annexation immediately, the County will allow increased intensity of land use in the airport area, and San Luis Obispo will be faced with a second urban area to the south that may not share the City's concern for preserving open space. In such a situation, development in the airport area would remain free to continue under County auspices, but without City infrastructure and design standards, or tax revenue. Areas inside the annexation area that provide important wildlife corridors, for example, would increasingly become subject to development in the County. This would result in real and significant environmental costs that the City will be forced to bear. Additionally, the lack of City design standards and infrastructure improvements in the airport area means future circulation and air pollution problems for the City, problems which do not adhere to artificial political boundaries. Annexation will facilitate other efficiencies through comprehensive 11 C infrastructure and circulation planning and design Beyond getting a consistent set of well-designed roads, bike paths, sidewalks and utilities, money is conserved by comprehensive planning in advance, rather than correcting mistakes later. Annexing the airport area and applying the City's environmentally sensitive planning criteria is the most environmentally responsible plan for airport area development. Both the Chamber of Commerce' Economic Vision document and the City's General Plan advocate development only within the urban reserves of the City, with the proposed greenbelt providing a sharp limit to the expansion of the urban reserve line. Following this philosophy of compact urban form makes economic sense for businesses, and helps preserve our environment by reducing traffic congestion, preventing urban sprawl, and keeping our open spaces out of development. Timely annexation is critical. Continued delay jeopardizes the prevailing commitment of airport area property owners to go forward with annexation Without their commitment, annexation will not occur, and San Luis Obispo will have little recourse to prevent the development of the greenbelt area. 12 The Economy The airport area contains the substantial commercial and industrial parcel inventory that the City of San Luis Obispo currently lacks and desires. Under County jurisdiction, property owners are thwarted from maximizing the economic use of this property. Self -provision of infrastructure on land parcels inhibits optimal land usage. Qualification for debt and equity investment in airport area properties is inhibited by the absence of urban services and infrastructure. Allowable land uses influence the kinds of businesses that develop in the airport area, providing employment to residents of San Luis Obispo and neighboring communities. The character of the businesses within the airport area affects the economy of the wider community. Maximizing the economic use of property is more readily achieved with enterprises that add higher values through their activities. Adding higher value generally results inhigher revenues, which then circulate through the economy at large. Land allocated to passive storage, for example, generally has less potential for generating high revenue and head -of -household employment than does land allocated to specialized manufacturing, commerce and service. Software development companies, for example, have greater possibilities of "adding value" than do warehouses. Enterprises which add high values through their activities and interactions generally require highly specialized employees. Employment opportunities for persons with specialized competencies tend to be high -paying. Warehouses seldom require or fully employ persons with specialized capabilities. Software development companies, by contrast, employ persons with highly specialized capabilities, and when successful generate high revenues. When the City creates an economic environment that favors high value - adding businesses, the community benefits by gaining viable opportunities for its highly qualified residents. The community further benefits by the more robust economy associated with well-paid employees and successful enterprises. Furthermore, the creation of base -level jobs through these types of industries results in additional job creation in service and retail sectors. 13 Through annexation the larger community gains the opportunity to influence and nurture the character of development in the airport area. Those influences are expected to favor the operation and development of enterprises capable of specialized services and production Self - interests of airport area property owners and lessees will similarly favor enterprises capable of specialized services and production The recently formed Central Coast Regional Technology Alliance (CORTA) represents a prime example of how the airport area annexation can benefit the economic health of the area. CORTA is a non-profit organization formed by the San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce and six other organizations within the Central Coast region from Paso Robles to Santa Barbara. CORTA's purpose is to facilitate the development of clean, high-technology industry in the region by leveraging federal and state funds available under various technology matching grant programs. For San Luis Obispo to succeed in developing and attracting the high- technology businesses nurtured by CORTA, it must have adequate land zoned for light industry, research and office use available within the City limits. High-tech enterprises, concerned with quality of life issues critical to attracting and retaining highly qualified employees, are attracted to communities which share compatible values and are thus a perfect match for San Luis Obispo. If there is no space for them to locate in the City, however, they will take advantage of CORTA opportunities (and similar programs) elsewhere on the Central Coast. The City of San Luis Obispo can reap generous financial rewards from high-technology firms, which provide high -paying base -level jobs that enrich the entire community. With the airport area annexation completed, San Luis Obispo will be a formidable competitor for the most desirable high-technology development. Failing to annex the airport area, therefore, would result in additional opportunity costs to the City, compounding the lost sales tax revenues from existing businesses in the airport area. For each desirable business that locates in another city because of lack of suitable space and infrastructure within San Luis Obispo, the community realizes real costs in jobs not created and wealth not generated and circulated through the community. 14 City of San Luis Obispo There are clear governmental benefits to annexation as well. A direct benefit to the City is increased sales tax revenue. Ambitious programs to protect open space and enhance quality of life require substantial revenues. The airport area provides a nexus for firms that transact business well beyond the local region Existing and prospective firms in the airport. area serve local, national and international markets, generating multi- million dollar annual sales and a tax base capable of enhancing the quality of life in San Luis Obispo. Significantly, it is these high-powered industries that are most eager to see the annexation be successful, largely because of the significant costs they face by devoting large portions of their land to infrastructure improvements. Infrastructure costs, sometimes cited in opposition to annexation of the airport area, constitute investments essential to economic health. Most. infrastructure costs will be borne by the developers of property in the annexed airport area. Providing these infrastructure improvements allows the City to retain high -profit, high tax -generating businesses in the local area. This in turn generates on-going revenue streams to the City. Encouraging high technology, high paying, environmentally friendly businesses to locate and remain in the airport area requires investments in infrastructure. Competition for these desirable businesses is keen. Failing to compete invites the continuing development of businesses which do not require substantial investments in infrastructure. Warehouses and junkyards do not rely on quality infrastructure, and provide low-paying, environmentally unfriendly employment. Annexation of the airport area provides a significant degree of influence and control, enabling the encouragement of desirable business development within the area, and the discouragement of undesirable businesses. The City is currently examining methods by which it can implement its ambitious open space plan The sales tax revenue that would be generated by airport area businesses represents a large tax base that 15 C could be partially used to offset these significant costs. In this manner, airport area annexation demonstrates a commitment on the part of the. City of San Luis Obispo to both the economic and environmental well- being of the community. Annexation of the airport area is consistent with the express goals and character of the City of San Luis Obispo. Annexation will protect against environmental degradation and simultaneously provide revenue streams for environmental protection and enhancement. It will stimulate economic activity. It will enrich the livelihood of its citizens, and enhance their quality of life. San Luis Obispo County Airport We seek to preserve and enhance the airport as the primary air transportation terminal of the County. Excellence in air terminal services enhances the economic and cultural vitality of the entire community. Ongoing public and private investments are essential to keep pace with technological advances. Location of airport -related services and industries in proximity to the airport is consistent with the development of the airport area, is supportive of the County's substantial on-going investments in the airport property and facilities, and is in accord with the annexation by the City of San Luis Obispo of the adjacent airport area property. Although the County has not expressed interest in including the actual airport in any annexation agreement, the City of San Luis Obispo can still expect to see significant economic gains that will be provided by the existence of the airport as an island within the annexation area. The airport itself should not become a stumbling block to moving forward with annexation of the surrounding lands. 16 Implementation Strategies and Tactics The advantages of annexation are compelling both for the City and for the airport area residents and businesses. Ultimately the decision to annex the airport area depends upon leadership focused upon long range environmental and economic benefits not otherwise attainable. If decisive annexation action is deferred, the legacy over the past decade, these opportunities may be lost: With the passage of time and the airport area's eventual complete development under County jurisdiction, disadvantages to annexation faced by airport area property owners and businesses may become greater than the advantages — regardless of the consequences for the citizens of San Luis Obispo. The County has also expressed its view that the City must act now to annex the area, or not at all. The window of opportunity for annexation cannot be expected to remain open long. The support of annexation by airport area property owners and lessees is crucial to success. Clear evidence of City commitment to make the annexation happen expeditiously and to mutual benefit is essential to retain property owners' support. Warranted incentives include public and private cost-sharing of a strategic implementation plan, or master plan, expressly in lieu of a specific plan funded solely by property owners. Alleviation of procedural and financial disincentives to annexation is critical. Policies affecting how infrastructure, services and environmental mitigation imposed by the City are to be paid for are critically important. Crucial to success are broad based long term cost -benefit calculations, rather than short term orientations that result in targeting parties most vulnerable to leverage exacted in the permitting process. 17 Conclusion The Chamber feels that annexation of the area is critical to the long term economic, environmental and social health of San Luis Obispo. It is an action supported by the City's General Plan, and will create additional resources for both the business and environmental communities. In order to be successful, however, the City must take a proactive approach to airport area annexation Decisive action on the part of the City is essential: Taking the initiative in annexing the airport area should occur during the watch of the present City Council and Mayor. The Economic Development Manager and the Natural Resources Manager should be charged with facilitating and expediting the annexation process, with the cooperation of existing City staff expressly directed. The City Council should designate an Airport Area Advisory Group composed of city leaders, residents, airport area businesses and property owners. The actions of this advisory group should have a formation and dissolution date. This group should create an Airport Area Concept Plan setting design direction, general standards and character statements for the area. The entire airport area should be annexed in a single action. The entire airport area should be master planned in cooperation with airport area property owners. Such master planning should take into consideration the economic and environmental well-being of San Luis Obispo, and should be consistent with a philosophy of compact urban form. The annexation process should be completed without delay, while the window of opportunity remains open. 18