HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/15/1997, 5 - CONSIDERATION OF CALLING A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION ON NOVEMBER 4, 1997 TO PLACE AN ADVISORY BALLOT MEASURE BEFORE THE ELECTORS ASKING WHETHER THE CITY SHOULD PARTICIPATE FINANCIALLY IN THE PROPOSED CAL POLY SPORTS COMPLEX. council
j agenda RPM
CITY OF SAN LUIS O B I S P O
FROM: Bonnie Gawfy Clerk
SUBJECT: Consideration of Calling a Special Municipal Election on November 4, 1997 to
Place an Advisory Ballot Measure Before the Electors asking Whether the City
Should Participate Financially in the Proposed Cal Poly Sports Complex.
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Receive Additional Information, provide direction to City staff on whether the City will pursue a
November advisory election, and, depending on outcome, take action on the Cal Poly Youth
Athletic Fields Council Goal Work Program.
DISCUSSION
At the April 8, 1997 workshop, the City Council directed staff to come back with information
regarding a Special Municipal Election for the purpose of submitting an advisory ballot measure to
the electorate. The subject of the ballot measure would be to determine if there is community
support for financial participation by the City in the construction of the proposed Cal Poly Sports
Complex.
Elections Code § 1000 and 1002 sets specific dates on which municipal elections may be held.
The next date that the City can meet the noticing requirements to hold an election is November 4,
1997. Following is a timeline showing critical deadlines for Council and Staff actions for the
November 4, 1997 election.
5/20/97 Council Meeting: Council determines text for advisory ballot measure and
directs City Attorney to prepare ballot titles, impartial analysis and financial
implications
7/1/97 Council Meeting: Council formally reviews impartial analysis and passes
resolution calling for and consolidating an election and placing measure on
the ballot
6/30/97-7/14/97 Publication of Notice of Election(EC 12101)
7/15/97 Council Meeting: Council determines if it wishes to authorize Council
Member(s)to write arguments/rebuttals
7/16/97 Last day for City Clerk to submit to the County Clerk a copy of Resolution
calling for an election and placing a measure on the ballot
7/16/97 City Clerk to post notice regarding argument/rebuttal period.
7/25/97 Last day Primary Ballot Arguments may be filed with the City Clerk (EC
9286)
7/26/97-8/4/97 Rebuttal Period(EC 9220, 9285)
8/8/97 Submission of all ballot materials to the Board of Supervisors and County
Clerk. (EC 12001, 10403)
8/9/97-8/19/97 Ten-day public review period of ballot materials(EC 9286,9295)
10/6/97 Close of voter registration for November Election
11/4/97 Election Day
11/4/97 Election Day
Council Agenda Report-Advisory Ballot Measure
Page 2 _
FISCAL IMPACT
The County Clerk estimates the costs for holding a November, 1997 stand alone municipal election
at $44,000. The proposed elections budget for 1997-98 does not include funds for a November
1997 election. The money could be included in the two year budget, and would be allocated from
the General Fund.
Currently the election schedule for SLO County does not include any other jurisdictions with which
we can share these costs. If the Governor calls a special statewide election by June 9', we could
share costs with the County,and our share would be$31,000.
Total estimated costs of a November 1997 election for the City of San Luis Obispo
County Clerk $44,000
Public Works Staff 3,400(equipment and staffing for voting booth set up)
City Clerk Staff 4,500 (includes staffing,printing costs)
Total $ 51,900
ATTACHMENTS
• Memo from City Administrative Officer
• Letter from Cal Poly
t"�
MEMORANDUM
April 10, 1997
TO: City Council
FROM: John Dunn
SUBJECT: B kground o the Cal Poly Sports Field Project
Given the level of interest and importance of Council decision-making on April 15' relative to the
Sports Field Project, I would like to offer the following summary of key points made over the last
several months and some observations on more recent information.
The adopted Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan states that providing adequate youth
sports fields is the highest priority of the Element. Consistent with this, the advisory bodies of the
Parks and Recreation Commission and the Joint Use committee have strongly endorsed
participation in the project.
The City advisory bodies and many in the community believe that providing youth sports fields is
one of the most important things we can do for the youth of our community and that this
partnership opportunity with Cal Poly is the most economical and quickest way to meet the
community objective.
On February 1', the Council adopted 22 Council goals to guide the City for the next two fiscal
years. The goal winning the sixth highest number of points was the City joining with Cal Poly on
the sports field project.
If the City were not to participate, and were to provide the equivalent number of fields, the problem
of sufficient funding, the finding of suitable available land, the overcoming of the inevitable
neighborhood issues, and the costs of perpetual maintenance would prove to be both more difficult
and far more expensive to accomplish.
Under the proper circumstances, an advisory election on this issue might be a desirable way to
proceed. However, in the fall of 1996, the Council agreed that the matter of City participation in
the project should only be considered _in the larger context of Council goal setting and budget
review and adoption,with the normal expectation that it would be concluded in June. Cal Poly has
held open the invitation for City participation based on this time schedule. Cal Poly presently
indicates they are going to proceed on this project on their own, if they have not heard positively
from us by the end of June. If they do proceed without us, our opportunity for participation is lost,
and our power to influence the project is lost. If there were to be an advisory election in November,
even if it were to be overwhelmingly approved by the voters, it could be too late for the City to
participate in the project. While the results of an advisory election might be helpful in assessing
community support for this project, it would not assist in providing supplemental funding for it.
Under Proposition 218, this can only be determined at the next regular Council election(November
1998).
All of us realize that there are issues to be resolved: funding, the use agreement, environmental
concerns, and neighborhood mitigation. The approach recommended in the work program is
45=3
intended to resolve those issues as well as this can be done and in a timely way. The City, should
we choose to participate in the project, would establish reasonable conditions on this project, and
Cal Poly has conveyed an openness to such reasonable conditions.
Regarding the tourism promotion funds or"enhanced promotional funding",I would like to
make a distinction that was not adequately made last Tuesday evening. The paramount issue is
the adequacy of tourism promotion funds to continue and enhance a strong tourist economy
within the City,with its benefits to both the private sector and the City's finances.
The subordinate issue,totally undecided by Council at this time, is how should the available
tourism promotion funds be properly allocated between the City's advertising contract, the
Chamber's two service contracts,the VCB's allocation and,possibly,partial funding of the
sports field project. On this, it is premature to make this decision at this time. While this is a
legitimate issue, it is to be resolved subsequently in the budget process and is not before the
Council at this time.
If the Council subsequently decides that tourism-promoted funding money should not be used
towards this project, that decision would have no effect on the proposed funding for the project for
the first two years; after that time, we would either make a lower contribution to the project,
acceptable to Cal Poly, or we would have to augment other identified funding with general funds
(most likely the latter).
Lastly, consideration of this issue on April 15'h is most important to all parties to this matter. It is
highly desirable to accurately.indicate our intent to the community. A decision in either direction--
to participate or not to participate in the project -- is legitimate. However, either indecision or an
insufficient or a mixed message would unduly prolong this issue, and keep the issue and its
participants in continued turmoil.
511
MEET IW AGENDA L3 GE)UNCIL 0,
:6
DATE ITEM # GNL POLY CI-0A0C3`F1Fl DIR
0-ACAD ❑ FIRE CHIEF
CALIFORNIA POLYTECHNIC STATE UNIVERSITY �IORNEY tJ rYY DIR
SAN Luis OBISPO, CA 93401 ❑,CLERK ORIG 0 POLICE CHF ;
ADMINISTRATION & FINANCE DIVISION ❑ MGMT TEAM Zro'REC DIR
April 9, 1997 (805) 756.2171 FARC: (805) 756-7560 ❑ C READ FILL: ❑ UTiI DIR
❑ PERS Dill
Mayor Allen Settle
and Members of the City Council
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Dear Mayor Settle and City Council Members:
This is in response to Council action on April 8, 1997 regarding a possible advisory
election associated with the community participation in the Sports Complex. In
November 1996, we received an indication that a City decision on project participation
would be made by June 1997. We were encouraged by the high priority given the
project in City budget planning discussions in February. University planning for this
project has proceeded based on these events.
Action by the Council on April 8th has greatly diminished our confidence that a
decision regarding City participation will be forthcoming on a timetable compatible
with an already tight project timeline. To minimize the adverse consequences that
would result from project delays., we must proceed with a contingency plan based on no
City participation. Discussions to resolve City concerns will continue. However, it is
the position of the University that absent a decision by the City by the end of June 1997
to participate in the project, it will be necessary for the University to move forward
with the project without City participation as currently proposed.
Sincerely,
Frank Lebens
Vice President for Administration & Finance
cc: W. Baker
R. Kitamura
P. Zinggs
J. McCutcheon Arlt RECEIVED
APR lyti/
CITY CLERK
CITY COUNCI.k
�.,r, SPO.RA
THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY �L
council M Ap 1 15, 1997
j aGEnaa nepont hem Num6o
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
FROM: Michael McCluskey,Public Wo-L--Director
Prepared By: Wayne Peterson, City Engin
SUBJECT: Status Report on GIS Implementation
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Receive Report
DISCUSSION
The Public Works staff has been designing and implementing a GIS system for the City. Implementing
GIS is a 1995-7 Program Objective. The staff of the GIS division of the Public Works Department has
prepared a report showing the current status of the program for presentation during the Council meeting.
J'�
RPR-15-1997 12;Wd SIM&J INC. r•el/ul
tjEETING AGENDA
DATE ITEM #
April 15, 1997
Honorable Members of the City Council
City of San Luis Obispo
City Hall
San Luis Obispo, CA
Dear Council Members:
I am writing this letter to voice my very strong support for the City's
involvement in the proposed Cal Poly athletic facilities project. I'see this as a
once in a lifetime opportunity that we must not let get away. I grew up in this
community and plaved youth sports in the city. Youth facilities arc drastically
lacking in the city. No time is perfect as far as budget concerns go, but
opportunities do not come often.
An advisory vote is not going to happen on this budget item, because Cal Poly
is going to move on with their final design whether the City is involved or
not. What a horrible shame that would be for future generations of our
children. No wonder so many other cities are always saying this city does not
care about our children. We need to put this reputation behind us and make
a monumental decision favoring the children.
Putting several fields in one location will cure many problems including
lessening traffic heading in many different directions to spread out youth
facilities all over the city, etc. I live two blocks from Sinsheimer Stadium and
the lighting and sound are not a problem. I never hear my neighbors
complain about this facility-only comments about all the joy going on down
there.
I will be at the City Council meeting tonight and I urge all citizens to come
out and voice their support for this opportunity!
Sincerely,
Rollie McCormick
San Luis o Obis
P ❑ COUNCIL ❑ CDD UIFI �
❑ CAO ❑ FIN DIR
0 ACAO O FIRE CHIEF ;
❑ ATTORNEY ❑ PW DIR
❑ CLERK/OR1G ❑ POLICE CHF
❑ MGMT TEAM ❑ REC DIR
❑ C READ FILE ❑ UTL DIR
❑ ❑ PERS D±R
TOTRL P.01
MFETING AGENDA
7 ITEM #
l7 60- IL
Karen D 1,C1 F,.'71 D
1.1 t -,ec-k:pr
o-C
r
ra CAP Er'FIN DIR i I n-
4,0 FIRE CHIEF Sa.9 L u i z A lb 1..0, Lr. 3 4 0 1
PCAO TTORNEY 0 PW DIR
en ;I CKCLERKtORIC 0 POLICE CHF
0 MGMT TEAM 2r'REC DIR
7 D' 0 C READ FILE 0 UTIL DIR
11:Eris o;m
9 .. • . . � "
u� I . Ij P "DjM 'L Iar
7,$4-25 millior- t70 f,
00 02 1 paZ fo r gY%3 i�+
I,z, CS- -P 0 1 1� S I LvierJ I ZI X
4 TiJ:v-
i J;l:r.
H:; 7 1
I.. i-, 'l- L _1i"
-
I—[ JI; lit;j i1j. ui,-�
J L I
r,1 jr!--- 7J'1
d)!
7LI'
D
z7. rL
7
0 E C,T Q
--- -------- -- -
;"r;. j_j 7 1 i: 7;7
Lp.l
J.
7.1-, �'a T e U11 4 m 8- C';ii T.-I I
HK
'!V i
1,5 .p.?"
z T i4
1pi . -,r
J!j 1j. L--: i
ho imoacT on trig city and it:. re :i e-hen Ca, Picl 11
�f,4 7A
.-J I I J'J I I
re-r-o-untior a:- a leriou:.; ultur I
a
a
Z, 8! acdcultu"al
L4
fhr,t
I. : . r.FQ T l.Q
8rct r1-ri - �tz di t—di-, rb -
!;CNfutr �rrlClr{' 11, %- rie r� l
r:i 'HI Id � Ui IaIaaoer i thirie ]':i;
yj 1
rart,-. -,'.: ;7 IL1;;j bi
c P, rirave r i , 13
L
:dm-let4onx! re-: oJr-1-p i-lfid-�;hcoj'd l-jev r lip ..a.
-Z N
J. Z-11 U M DrRc� DO un-r .1 DD UP. EIVED
j i-IL -J .-i h REC
Lea' lat ;ha 6318 M
dumber of pa rt i c4 1,1-Tz%
�i rl��--oftbail.......... `,ilk APR 3 'N9/
Yo-uth E.*eba",......... 360
4 8 CITY COUNCIL
Blabe Ruth.. .............. I
.............. I �n
............ D t -,
he too! of p8ople POO, organized MeW is 1 ,5031nurnberz from My of SLO Recreation
Dept) or 1; of the citg of SLO populaticm. (City of A cenaus-41 943, jah 1 , 19967. Of
course ! a m ass hing that t Crthese base ball pl age rs are city of SLO iro-sideot-_;. T,,.,at
that $4,250,000 %.?,ill tip,spent for 3.81) oft no city population. That calculate:-i to
$2,651. .E-_ !field construction coat per partid pant Or. $101 ,33 cost per resident of the 011
of SLO;
As a ta."'Payer Of the city of SLO. I do not till nk this 1_; "Vi C-a di, rng 1hird earnad ri-i-one-,,I A•iw-j
for CA Poly to say they do not varit an Maw vote, because A woub! take to long.is taxaWn
Athout representation. Lizted telkj%.-:are bpfter --.,aen of th�ci.t:z'a funi_-'
BETTER IDEAS FOR USE OF FUNDS:
MAI HTENANCEICITY STAFF. VoWd 0 bet for the chij to u3e Wat stralunt it .._.
to insure no cuts in Mg artaff and Mr mairitemnoe to run till,'. t1c;%vi-c-a-ell.
HELP RETROFIT- It teneiit the city to he!a fund SBA To nelp
roe rc Wnts to retrofit their VlOng3 for st_�ndard:.w biv, 20,,--'17.
FEED THE ELDERLY Or the Q ;,'s,- fur.c'- to he!p subsidize the MY ON MEELS.,
and 1 nacre our alder!g shuM ns are well nourishaj.
YOUTH C-Ell I ER MEAR TOWN. Or tre mg wo0d tug t4a old 400 on 5roat St. or the lot'
next to the SLOF D on Broad St and deal-::p a Center. �"'L'uth -',i 7.n i
wasketbad Court, dance Men 1 Adwy- gannet, and pleltg of roorn outside for
'ui.ri.' fields ;-and War hockey/AY'.It JG Wrdi ng
ho Q A otted to r it a 0 U Hall I An i Q VU1017 ford Jr ng 1:;;j !::a Tito -.e
its location t
In 0 7t of t to :It t to VS 1 7! t
i ncerne kite woull ysnetiT TF.xy yonj have d!Choylq all nq to tne CPQ AWTO-i
Carter as pr"noset hwculc give ozr SY ysdY a fHo to "Nanl"
E��PAOMSIOVI C-11 51 NSHEI ME R PA R K. if you go h;I rand roar Park, at the arAraoca A
sign that has the OeW Ji: diagram it stats-, iii arew.
.proposed future park plant V Oise anife4ciped aroW Mg not ass fit:to complys this
weli fined and Wtt!j Pi:��. t the city at randig i nvVed iii ti-i: of
Paw
Lait.', ! tf..�re:4re read receM g that SO Poly to leas;e tr.-e
fields to "oMids- Miss playing LA and the Bay Area). JL when are the AQ,
raMents aning to use the fielda? Noy come Cal Faig ges the rnijp; , th :e. znd
wil! not share this -wealth with the city of M? 1 am convince, ti'-;-at Cal e.-ril ,, cares
itself and its own Held di Ell Polu does not can-, uric-Lt Sa,.! _l i--' U'.-;,s:pj.' 1'7
Qasant community to live in. CA Wig is a taker- i r,this issue not a 0%orl
8i nee rel y.,
Karen and Tom Backer
MEETING AGENDAVCR rr
DATE �'i=STEM #=
TO: Mayor, Allen Settle
F A LIS Dodie Williams
AST Dave Romero
Kathy Smith
I�COUNCIL ❑ C�i;j Lir, Bill Roalman
I CACAO FlN DIR
dACAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF
d9TTORNEY ❑ PW DIR FR: Jonni Biaggini
ra'CLERWDRIG O POLICE CHF
❑ MGMr TEAM ❑ REC DIR
135 FILE ❑ UTIL DIR
°J ❑ PERS OR
Establishing formula for Tourism Promotion not new to City
Over the past 10 years, the City has received more and more benefit from tourism in
increased revenues while the PCC's portion of that success gets smaller and smaller.
In 1970, the City Council established a funding base for the PCC that included
20% of the TOT, 2% of the sales tax, and 15% of business licenses. That formula
remained until the early 1990's. Even as late as 1995 the PCC received at least 20%
of the TOT.
Today, the portion of the TOT that the PCC receives is 14% with no established
formula, while the City retains 86% for general fund purposes.
Traditionally, VCB's receive anywhere from 20% to 50% of their local TOT revenues.
The VCB requests only 3.5% of the total collected.
Both the VCB and the PCC are the City's sales and marketing department. In
most private companies, sales departments are incentivised through commissions to sell
more. When the bottom line increases, so does the amount paid to sales. If sales go
down, so do commissions paid. The PCC and the VCB are incentivised by increasing
the ultimate measurement of success - TOT revenues. Why should we be de-
incentivised?
San Luis Obispo County Visitors&Confemce Bureau,1037 Mill St.,San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 C805)-541-8000
RECEWED
CITY COUNCIL
_ rr.
V.
ZCOUNCIL �2CG,:r L.A
i MICAO ✓ rAN DIR
L3 ACAO ❑ FIRECHIEF MEETING AGENDA
ATTORNEY ❑ PW DIA DATE tS-9 7 ITEM # 60*
tYCL.ERKIORIG ❑ POLICE CHF
❑ MGMTTEAM 2'REC DIR 1727 Corralitos Ave.,
❑ C READ FILE ❑ UnL DIR San Luis Obispo, CA. 93401
g/mac ❑ PERS 0M
April 7, 1997
John. T. Moore, Editor
San Luis Obispo County Telegram-Tribune, �. r
M01.
San Luis Obispo, CA.
Dear Editor, CITY ��. ca
In the new budget cycle, the City Council has given a high priority to the
request for a $4.5 million tax-payer contribution to the proposed new Sports
Complex at Cal Poly. However, before accepting this second invitation from Cal
Poly to have the City invest on the campus, the City should take it's turn to
ask Cal Poly to invest in a City project.
The State of California, through it's Laws and Court Decisions, has determined
that at least 6 unrelated persons with their vehicles can live in a home in a
residential area. Most young single families, even with both parents working,
cannot afford the price these rentals can bring in. Consequently, the
residential (R-1) areas in the City are being rapidly downgraded. It is quite
timely for the City Council to do something meaningful to stop this
degradation of it's residential areas.
The City should now ask Cal Poly to help alleviate the State-caused problem
by investing in one or two City- operated parking facilities on land Cal Poly
owns at the Grand Avenue and California Boulevard entrances to the campus.
Cal Poly would give title to these parcels to the City as part of it's
contribution. The University then seek funds from the State to help build and
operate these additional parking facilities. Pending getting the necessary State
funds, City funds could be used to erect and operate the first parking facility
and Cal Poly funds could be used to erect and contribute to the operation of
the second facility.
When the new City-owned parking facility is opened , then the City could
require all residences in the area between California Boulevard and Grand
Avenue with more than two vehicles, to park those extra vehicles in the
parking facility at a nominal charge. Both the City of San Luis Obispo and Cal
Poly will assist by helping to subsidize the costs. As for the students, most of
whom are young and energetic, they can easily negotiate the the short
distances involved on foot, by bicycle or hitching a ride with a roommate.
Mr. &Mfrs. George G. Cru=
1727 Cor0tas Avenue
San Luis O&To, CA 93401
Should the University find the above approach not to be feasible, then
perhaps they can come up with an alternative plan which would involve a
reconsideration of building the large $6.9 Cal Poly parking structure adjacent
to the Performing Arts Center. This project has been sent back to the drawing
boards over objections filed in the courts by local residents. Perhaps , the
University might use this money to participate in the City-owned parking
facilities near the California Boulevard and Grand Avenue entrances to the
campus.
As a 75 year old, my wife and I can find a parking space the existing parking
lot and we haven't minded walking to attend sold-out performances at the
Performing Arts Center. The campus can designate the parking area closest to
the Performing Arts Center for those who are 80+years old; the handicapped;
or musicians that carry Tubas or other large intruments to the concerts. The
next parking area could be for the 60-75 year olds and musicians who tote
Violas or larger instruments. Needless to say, these parking areas need to be
clearly marked and well lit. The next area would be for those under 60 years
of age - a largely vigorous bunch.
In summary, I think the approach suggested above will achieve these
benefits:
1. The City of San Luis Obispo can come to the forefront of restoring
Residential (R-1) neighborhoods.
2. The University must acknowledge that the continued growth of the Campus
can't help but add to the heavy burden on nearby residental areas and that
some constructive action by the University to solve this problem is sorely
needed.
Sincerely,
George Clucas
543-2229
MEET(N AGENDA L�.IZ-
.. i: - O.l
DATE ITEM # ❑-eAO
CINL
POLY ❑-=A0
,
❑ FI ECHIEF
CALIFORNIA POLYTECHNIC STATE UNIVERSITY ❑'ATTORNEY G DIR
SAN Luis Omsro, CA 93401 ❑-CLERIVORIG ❑ POLICE CHF
ADMINISTRATION & FINANCE DIVISION ❑ MGMT TEAM 461REC DIR
April 9, 1997 (805) 756-2171 • FAX: (305) 756.7560 READ FILE ❑ UTIL DIR
❑ PEris:in
Mayor Allen Settle
and Members of the City Council
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Dear Mayor Settle and City Council Members:
This is in response to Council action on April 8, 1997 regarding a possible advisory
election associated with the community participation in the Sports Complex. In
November 1996, we received an indication that a City decision on project participation
would be made by June 1997. We were encouraged by the high priority given the
project in City budget planning discussions in February. University planning for this
project has proceeded based on these events.
Action by the Council on April 8th has greatly diminished our confidence that a
decision regarding City participation will be forthcoming on a timetable compatible
with an already tight project timeline. To minimize the adverse consequences that
would result from project delays, we must proceed with a contingency plan based on no
City participation. Discussions to resolve City concerns will continue. However, it is
the position of the University that absent a decision by the City by the end of June 1997
to participate in the project, it will be necessary for the University to move forward
with the project without City participation as currently proposed.
Sincerely,
Frank Lebens
Vice President for Administration& Finance
cc: W. Baker
R. Kitamura
P. Zingg .
J. McCutcheon Arn RECEIVED
APR
CITY CLERK
CITY COUNCl1s
THE CALIKCIRNIA STATE UNIVERSITY
04/01/1994 17:29 6055436660 GARTH KORNREICH PAGE 01
MEETING AGENDA
DATE +-1,2Z27 ITEM # S
April 11, 1997
Garth Kornreich "tdaCOUNCIL - - -
1029 Islay Street I 13'CAO ❑ Coo
131FIN DIR
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 L7'ACAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF
'LrATTORNEY ❑ PW DIR
C'J'CLERKIORIG ❑ POLICE CHF
Mayor Settle& City Council Members ❑ ""T TEAM CIREC DIR
City of San Luis Obispo, CA
❑ CWo FILE ❑ UTIL DIR
❑ PERS DIR
Dear Mayor Settle& City Council Members.,
I would like to express my support of the proposed athletic fields at Cal Poly that the City is
considering buying into. I was distressed reading todays newspaper article in the Telegram Tribune
that mentioned how much vocal opposition there was to the fields. I was surprised bccause most of
the people I speak to favor being financial partners in the fields.
I am very involved in athletics, both for myself and with my girlfriends children. It is obvious that
there is a real deficiency in the number and quality of playing fields in this City. We need to invest in
these new fields. Your Parks and Recreation Committee recommended to make the purchase. They
realize that this is a great deal for the City.
I spoke with a friend the other day who isn't involved with athletics here. He mentioned that he
thought that there appeared to be plenty of fields around town. Just look around he said. It didn't
seem to him that there was a real need to invest in Cal Poly's fields. This is the problem: Those not
involved in athletics aren't aware of how critical the situation is. You know though! You have to be
leaders and make the hard decisions based on facts and not on emotions.
Please don't cop out to a vocal minority that is ignorant of our children's athletic needs. Please do
what you were elected to do and make a decision now and don't pawn it off to a vote of the people.
I hope that your decision is to vote for the fields. We need them.
Sincerely,
/400
Garth Ko reich DECEIVED'
APR I t 1991
OITY COUNT
James D.Weir re:Tires S 805 7831846 fa4/9/97 M5:40 AM Di/1
FICA TREE APARTMENT
CosMoPrm TowNHousEs MEETING AGENDA
ouJi
6n MORRO ST. DATE ``- �9� ITEM #
SAN Luis Obispo, CA. 93401
1805 / 544.1693 FAx 783.1846
ApRil 9, 1997
CITy COUNCii
AM TOTAly AGAINST SUbsidiZlNq CA[ POIy'S SPORTS ARENA. WE RAVE A FIEId AT SiNShEIMER,
ANd iF THE CITy would PURCHASE THE VON'S PROPERTY ON BROAd, ANd THE PROPERTY NEXT TO iT, A
FINE REC CENTER Could bE PUT THERE. A GOOd buildiNq, PIENTY OF PARkINq, PRobAbly wouldN'T COST
9 Mil.
AM WEIR
�COUNCI O C, UIR---
IAO B'FjN DIR
ACAO
�TTORNEY ❑ FIRE CHIEF
❑ PW DIR
C�RRIG ❑ POLICE CHF
❑ MGMT TEAM a REC DIR
❑ C R
!PAD FILE ❑ UTIL DIR
❑ PERS DIR
i�-'UNG AGENDA
DATE �`- /S 97 ITEM #
MEMORANDUM
Date: April 11, 1997
To: City Council
From: John
Subject: Correction to My Memo of April 10' Concerning "Playing Fields" Council
Goal
In my April 10'b memo on this subject, I stated that the assumption has been that the City would be
making its decision relating to financial participation in the budget process by the end of June.
What should have been added is that the work program for the Council Goals of the playing fields
further states that staff would finalize the necessary agreements in July 1997, and that the City
Council would consider the City's participation in the project in August 1997.
e'COUNCIL C3 CDO ui�l
'CAO eFIN DIR
I2rACA0 ❑ FIRE CHIEF •'
CrATMRNEY ❑ PW DIA
eCLERWORIG ❑ POLICE CHF
❑ MGMT TEAM 2REC DIR
❑ C READ FILL" ❑ U11L DIR
Q" ❑ PERS Din '
R E C E i
CITY CLERK
SAM LUIS 03MP,'),0A
MEETING ,}AGENDA
DATE ' �'9/ITEM #
9 April 1997
Dear Mayor Settle and Councilman Roalman,
I am writing to you both concerning my support for a citywide advisory vote on
whether the city of San Luis Obispo should spend $3 million to participate in the
sports complex proposed at Cal Poly.
First of all, please understand that I am not opposed to sports. I am, however,
concerned about timelines and equity. I do not understand the urgency to make a
decision without gathering all of the information. The urgency seems to stem from
the Cal Poly timeline, and not the city's timeline.
In support of equity and consistent practices, I support hearing the voice of the
people since the Council chose to approve a citywide vote on the acquisition of
public space last year. Why not have a citywide vote again, given the magnitude of
this project, the financial obligations of the city, and recent activities related to the
Performing Arts Center partnership? I strongly resist rushing into any decision
which has long term financial and environmental consequences.
You may recall that I attended a neighborhood meeting on March 31, 1997. There
were several issues raised at that meeting, which staff have categorized as
"neighborhood concerns". I believe that these issues go beyond "concerns". There
are issues of equity (will the city obviate its noise ordinance since the land is not city-
owned? Has the mitigation monitoring plan be developed and approved? What are
the ambient noise measures? What is the city's responsibility to phase 2 of the
project — the proposed football stadium?)
I believe that there are differences between a conceptual appreciation for the value
of the project, and a solid commitment to the short and long term city obligations to
the project.
For these reasons, I urge you to slow down--hear the voice of the citizenry through
an advisory vote, do not rush into making a decision for altruistic (and not
realistic, tangible, and financially-sound) reasons, and take time to gather all of the
appropriate information.
Thank you. Please do not hesitate to call upon me if I can provide further assistance.
Ilene F. Rockman L3 COUNCIL ❑ CDS +�'
654 Rancho Dr Ao 94IN DIR
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405. 8�CAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF
❑ ATTORNEY ❑ PINDIR ��/• w�.,
4ifCLERKIORIG ❑ POLICE CHF V lyy�
❑ MGMTTEAM B106EC DIR ppb
R D FILL ❑ UM DIR NCIL
❑ ?ERS DMCITY COU�s, rn
,..•,:_-• :•�-.-,..-.fir•.-- _,,,.
I :TING AGENDA
DATE LIS-fl ITEM #
1416 San Luis Drive#D
PL)uIR San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
e _couNCIL ❑
Er CAO • CI FIN DIR
April ll, 1997 LYACAO ❑ FIRECHIEF
Prj4TTORNEY ❑ PW DIR
Ef CLERKIORIQ ❑ POLICE CHF
Mayor Allen Settle ❑ MGMT TEAM rerREC DIR
City of San Luis Obispo ❑ c 5W FILE ❑ LIM DIR
990 Palm Street ❑ PERSDIP
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 '= a^-
Dear Mayor Settle:
I am writing to urge you to delay committing any funding to the Cal Poly Athletic Complex for
the following reasons:
• The university itself should be paying part of the cost. The real reason the new
athletic fields are needed at Cal Poly is because the university is planning to build on the
existing practice fields: a parking lot on the grass fields near the tennis courts and a National
Science Foundation facility on the existing baseball practice field. Shouldn't the university be
paying for the relocation of the practice fields as part of the development of those facilities?
That's a customary practice in the real world.
• The issue of campus parking fees has not been settled The California State
University system dictates that on-campus parking fees of$1.50 per day be enforced from 7
a.m. to 10 p.m. during the week. City residents who use the proposed athletic fields will have
to pay that$1.50 fee every time they park on campus. For that same$1.50 per vehicle use fee,
the City could afford to fund its own playing fields elsewhere in town.
• Cal Poly students who live in the City are being double-taxed. Cal Poly
students are already paying$21 a piece a year to fund the Athletic Complex. If city funds are
used to pay for the Complex,the students who live within city limits are essentially paying
twice. That's certainly not fair.
• The university wants the City to make a $3 million commitment before the
Athletic Department has even raised its own share of the cost. Much like a con
man,the university has been raising money and seeking financing for the Complex by using
the City's name as a partner—even though the City has never officially committed to
anything.The bottom line is: the Athletic Department hasn't come up with its share of the
money (they have some$2 million in pledges, not actual cash) and until they have$3 million
in hand, I don't think it is wise for the City to commit to anything.
• City residents should be able to vote on such a large commitment of funds.
In spring 1996, for the first time in Cal Poly history, the student's Instructionally-Related
Activity fee was increased without a vote of the student body. Why?Because the athletic
department knew a vote to increase fees by$7 to pay for the Athletic Complex would probably
be defeated by a student body that was already facing fee increases for the Cal Poly Plan.
Now the Athletic Department is trying to hoodwink you into doing the same thing the ASI
Board of Directors did--taxing their constituency without their consent
• Everyone wants to use the Complex during the same hours. By committing to
this project,the City will have at best limited access to the facilities. Realistically,most of the
demand for the facilities by city residents during the week will be after 3 p.m. --the same time
RECEIVED,
APR 1 ¢6911
CITY COUNae
�nw - `tzPn.CA
f \
that university athletic teams practice and the time of highest demand by the university's
intramural and recreational sports programs.
• All of the alternatives for playing fields in the City have not been explored.
Isn't the Council's real priority on this issue creating new playing fields for city residents
regardless of where they are located?Enclosed is one idea the City hasn't explored in filling its
playing field needs.
Please don't be rushed into a commitment. The urgency is purely artificial. There are other
residents who feel as I do—they are just reluctant to voice their objections for fear of being
labelled as someone who doesn't care about kids and our community.
Thank you for your consideration on this issue. Have a good day!
Sincerely,
Andy Fr jer
544-872
P.S. In case you were wondering, I have been a City resident for 17 years and a business
owner in the City for 10 years.I am also a Cal Poly graduate.
A Modest Proposal for City Playing Fields
City Needs expressed by the Council
•Creating more playing fields for city residents
•Increasing the economic viability of the Madonna/Central Coast Plaza area
•Increasing tourism
•Maintaining the greenbelt along Highway 101 entering the city
Possible solution
Trading development rights to part of the Dalidio property in exchange for acreage along
Highway 101 for use as playing fields
Benefits
•The City would get free land for use as playing fields.
•The land along the freeway is flat and would need minimal grading for use as playing fields.
•The facilities could be built in stages as city finances allowed.
•Parking could be free or a modest fee could be charged to help pay for the facilities.
•Because the site borders the highway, noise from the playing fields is unlikely to be an issue
for residents of the area.
• Because the sewage treatment plant is across the highway,the fields could be easily irrigated
with treated wastewater.
•The playing fields would be next to shopping so parents could shop while their youngsters
attended practice and games.Nearby restaurants would benefit from post-game meals and
celebrations.
•The site is close to hotels, motels and restaurants making it ideal forathletic tournaments.
•The"greenbelt" southern entrance to the City would be maintained by having fields of grass
replace fields of cabbage.
[Note: 'A similar park/athletic complex exists along the Route 23 North freeway in Thousand
Oaks but without the benefit of nearby restaurants and shopping.]
Bottom Line
There are probably other areas of town where developers would trade land in return for the
ability to develop their sites. Let's check it out before we commit to a less-than-ideal
partnership with Cal Poly.
MEETING AGENDA
DATE ITEM # �
April 12 , 1997
STATEMENTS OF CONCERN Ale, j
The performing Arts Center-City shared , has yet to realize the
promised and planned parking structure .
Cal Poly, with it ' s increase in enrollment , has not provided
adequate housing on it ' s campus for students , causing a clutter of
cars on our residential streets . You of our Council are quite aware
of this happening. It is time Cal Poly (as much as we value the
institution) shows an increased interest in completing some of their
own prescribed priorities .
San Luis Obispo has one of the finer baseball stadiums in the
state at Sinsheimer Park plus tennis courts , swimming pool , Y.M. C.A. -
with it ' s excellent facilities . Baseball fields (play grounds )
should be in neighborhoods , not a drive to a congested area. San
Luis Obispo could budget for neighborhood parks and fields . Assess
the developer as is now required.
Funding of promotional grant should remain ($50,000) as it is--
NOT CUT. The concerns of the many local citizens who expressed at
recent council meeting regarding traffic , noise , lighting, etc. are
intensely valid.
Recall the recent hearing, held in February by the City of San
Luis Obispo, with Finance Director Statler , who expressed at that
time a tight budget . I can see reluctance to subscribe to this
Cal Poly Sports "Complex" at this pressured time.
I would like to think our council is capable of making the wise
necessary decision without going to a vote . The contract proposed,
$3,000,000 for 15 years pay-off period-making the final figure
$4,500,000 seem exorbitant . I feel the city has lived up to it ' s
capacity. It is time Cal Poly carried out some of their responsi-
bilities first .
/ Hoping for more thought and study rather than pressured decision.
jff f��OU14CIL ❑ CL.;uul
f AO WliN DIR O
�AO FIRE CHIEF I „
TTORNEY ❑ PW DIR
ppp CLERWORIG ❑ UCECHR, Myr n Graham
❑ MGMT TEAM G RECDIR San Luis Obispo
❑ CRfAD FILE ❑ UT.L DIR
❑ PERS Din
G amu- oho
RECUVED
APR i m/
CITY COUNCIL
^' ^A
MEE► AGENDA
DATE- ITEM #
/ 1727 Corralitos Ave.,
PS UNCIL r p CGJ UMSan Luis Obispo, CA.
U CAO 21`�IN DIR April 14, 1997
Allen Settle, Mayor ACRO ❑ FIRE CHIEF
City of San Luis Obispo, ATTORNEY ❑ PW DIR
❑ CLERWONG �❑ POUCE CHF
City Hall C] MGMTTEAM I? FIEC DIR
San Luis Obispo, CA. ❑ R QFILE ❑ UTIL DIR
❑ PERS DIR
Dear Mayor Settle,
For the past decade, the State of California and Cal Poly have had our City
residential areas under seige. With the continued growth of Cal Poly it almost
looks as if saving, not to mention the thought of improving, our residential
areas will be a losing battle unless some action is taken now. The State of
California imposed policy of permitting an unlimited number of persons to
reside in a residence - along with their vehicles - creates a no-win situation
for the City of San Luis Obispo.
I think it is quite timely for the City Council to plan for a street vehicle ban in
the entire residential area from the campus to the Freeway. Invite Cal Poly to
join you in this venture. It is quite reasonable for the City to expect
significant cooperation and financial support through Cal Poly towards this
goal.
The City of San Luis Obispo generously responded to Cal Poly's invitation to
provide financial support to the Performing Arts Center. Now the City should
extend an invitation to Cal Poly to help repair the damage the State of
California via the Cal Poly campus has inflicted on the residential area
adjacent the campus.
Yours Truly,
4e"� �
org6 Clucas
cc: Council Member Dave Romero
Council Member Bill Roalman
Council Member Kathy Smith
Council Member Dodie Williams
President Warren Baker RECEIVED
Editor John T. Moore APIA 1 y .-M/
Larry Batcheldor, RQN
CITY COUNCIL
Mo, p r S ETTt- MEETING AGENDA
SUNCIA ~ ❑ ccJbill
DATE '9 ITEM # GKCAo [KRN DIRGeACAj
O FIRE CHIEF
DeATTORNEy ❑ PW DIR
April 13, 1997 DOCLERWORIG ❑ POLICE CHF
O MGwrTEAM &3 REC DIR
❑ C READ FILE ❑ U-111.DIR
Dear Mayor& City Council Members: ❑ PEes DIR
You are reading my first written correspondence with you on this issue. During
a city meeting at the Police Department in January, I addressed Mayor Settle and
Kathy Smith ( in the presence of John Dunn & Jeff Jorgenson) on the issue of the
proposed City involvement with Cal Poly on the "Sports Fields." I made a specific
statement in that meeting that I had a recent conversation with John McCutcheon (the
Cal Poly Athletic Director). I expressed concern that Cal Poly would move forward on
the project with or without the City's involvement. Further, I told the audience that my
information was that we were looking at a deadline of "March or April." I was
astonished to hear that a member of the Council was quoted in the Telegram Tribune
as being surprised about Cal Poly moving forward so quickly on this issue.
I was present at the Forum a couple of months back when you received public
input on priorities for city expenditures. More than75% of those in attendance were
there to tell you of their commitment to the Sports Complex. Those people
represented the core of those who volunteer their time to youth activities in this
community. There is no hidden agenda. They view this as an uncommon opportunity
to provide the children (boys & girls) with "Fields of Dreams." This opportunity will not
come again. Talk to Paul LaSage about the costs of purchasing, developing,
maintaining, and staffing another site. n &i
Detractors complain about noise and lights. Mustang Stadium, Sinsheimer `
Stadium, Santa Rosa Park Softball Field, and Holt Field (San Luis High) have U z Z
generated these for years. Although I do not believe that the level of inconvenience 5n
will be any, people will adjust. By the way, the fields will be built anyway at that
location (if the city bails out).
It amuses me that we have a Mayor's Task Force on Youth and seemingly place
such a high priority on diversionary activities; then we hesitate on "an offer you can't
refuse." The youth, for this generation, and countless generations to come should be
your highest priority.
I doubt that there are many who deal with children in this community as often as
I do. Most of my twenty years with the City have been dedicated to them. The stories
behind some of the faces would make you cry. Listen to those that are "the givers" in
this town; not "the takers."
The expenditure the City faces makes your decision require much thought.
Listen to those with knowledge. Listen to those who care. We all know that it is much
easier to say"no" than "yes." I hope that will not be the case on this issue. Finally, to
the idea of the advisory vote: Do you believe there would exist a Performing Arts
Center if you would have chosen that avenue? � C 1�CcJcE2
c���Zr c Ch6Ararro52._Dri✓c_
sari 06i-Vp C19
.sy< -0s"9i
MEETING AGENDA
DATE / -97 STEM # S
9 April 1997
Dear Mayor Settle and Councilman Roalman,
I am writing to you both concerning my support for a citywide advisory vote on
whether the city of San Luis Obispo should spend $3 million to participate in the
sports complex proposed at Cal Poly.
First of all, please understand that I am not opposed to sports. I am, however,
concerned about timelines and equity. I do not understand the urgency to make a
decision without gathering all of the information. The urgency seems to stem from
the Cal Poly timeline;and-not,the-city's timeline.
In support of equity and consistent practices, I support hearing the voice of the
people since the Council chose to approve a citywide vote on the acquisition of
public space last year. Why not have a citywide vote again, given the magnitude of
this project, the financial obligations of the city, and recent activities related to the
Performing Arts Center partnership I strongly resist rushing into any decision
which has long term financial and environmental consequences.
You may recall that I attended a neighborhood meeting on March 31, 1997. There
were several issues raised at that meeting, which staff have categorized as
"neighborhood concerns". I believe that these issues go beyond "concerns". There
are issues of equity (will the city obviate its noise ordinance since the land is not city-
owned? Has the mitigation monitoring plan be developed and approved? What are
the ambient noise measures? What is the city's responsibility to phase 2 of the
project — the proposed football stadium?)
I believe that there are differences between a conceptual appreciation for the value
of the project, and a solid commitment to the short and long term city obligations to
the project.
For these reasons, I urge you to slow down--hear the voice of the citizenry through
an advisory vote, do not rush into making a decision for altruistic (and not
realistic, tangible, and financially-sound) reasons, and take time to gather all of the
appropriate information.
Thank you. Please do not hesitate to call upon me if I can provide further assistance.
UNCIL ❑ C,DJ UIR
Ilene F. Rockman 0 FIN DIR
654 Rancho Dr ACAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 G TTORNEY ❑ PW DIA p�
CLERKIORIG ❑ POUCECHF ������
❑ MGMT TEAM GKEC DIR APR r
❑ D FILE ❑ UT.L DIR
0 PERS MR
MEETING AGENDA
DATE ITEM #
`� s.r✓t- M a.y.�n_-�- � �.�.r-cam
,
RECc.I V IE®—�- -
06NCIL --
G.n�aw.+- I C � ❑ C .;L I
APR [�17�' - I DIR
I � I��/ACAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF
„CITY CDUN'�L ro �f /1TTORNEY ❑ PWDIR
Z CLERWOAIG ❑ LICE CHFF!
❑ MGHITTEAM ® REC DIR
I
OCR
D FILE ❑ UT:L DIR �.
❑ PERS D;o
/� �� 7 MEETING AGENDA
C i DRTE S-9 ITEM #
-ems
7r"4 I
?
PHONE CALL
FOR DATE
TIME c�. .�'' P.M.
M n n
OF I.G�C � ELEPHONED
PHONE RETURNED
AREA CODE NUMBERXTENSION YOUR CALL
FAX# PLEASE CALL
MES AGE Clr'LL WILL CALL
�`'�.� ' AGAIN
CAME
TO SEE YOU
bWAN TS
TO SEE YOU
Gaaa�
9C 11514D
�COU1dCIL�`
Ef CAOEIFI❑ ✓J+,�
110 CA0 N DIRO FIRE CHIEF jI
ATTORNEY ❑ P- DIRErCLERIVORIG ❑ POLICECHF.-j❑ MGMTTE„.A&,I �EC DIR
C READ FILE ❑ U IL DIR �(
e
0 PERS nr_.
ETING AGENDA
DATE 7 ITEM #
Dr. and Mrs. J. Barron Wiley
55 Broad Street, #235 ----Luis Obispo, CA. 93405 !�J COUNCIL ❑ CDS I Dal—
San
- Aril 11, 1997 i � AO BIN DIR
P CAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF
1ATTORNEY ❑ PW DIR
Mayor Allen Settle and the City Council Members pktLERK/ORICi ❑ POLICE CHF
City Hall ❑ MGNITTEAM 2ohEC DIR
San Luis Obispo, CA. 93401 [3,0 READ FILE ❑ U-111-DIR
Dear Mayor Settle and Council Members:
After reading today's Telegram-Tribune article on the problems involved in allocation of
funds for the proposed sports complex on the Cal Poly campus, we felt impelled to write
and express our feelings to the Council.
We feel that the city of San Luis Obispo should not get involved in the financing of the
sports complex which would be outside of the city limits. From what we have read, the
city would have little or no control over the operation of the complex, local citizens being
allowed to use it only when the University had no plans for the facility.
The University has apparently felt little or no responsibility for helping the City to house
the thousands of students and to reduce the impact that they have had on the overcrowded
conditions in some parts of the City. The University officials seem to feel that as soon as a
student leaves the campus,the University has no further involvement or responsibility for
their actions or wellbeing. In return, to ask the City to cooperate by helping finance the
sports complex is going beyond what is reasonable.
The sports complex is going to antagonize those residents of the northeast part of the city
who will have to put up with the noise, traffic, and other interruptions to their lives.
If the City has or will have $3,000,000 to spend on athletic facilities, it would be much
better to locate those facilities in various parts of the City where they would be available
to the citizens of the City without having to drive for several miles, particularly from those
areas which have the most need for those facilities.
It also is disappointing that the University is demanding a decision before the citizens of
the City has had an opportunity to hold an advisory election to determine the feelings of
the citizens on the problem. As for us, we shall vote against the allocation of funds for
the complex.
We hope that you will stand up for the best interests of our City.
Sincerely,
t.
- RECEI V E®
APRII lyyi
I
cirr couNCIL
APR-14-97 MON 01 :56 PM CARR 805 5411201 P. 01
MEETING AGENDA
DATE 1"/5-9Y ITEM #
14 April 1997
Hon.Allen Settle,Mayor
City of San Luis Obispo
City Hall
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Dear Mayor Settle:
The proposed Cal Poly Sports Complex has many ardent and vocal supporters,but
it does seem that rational voices of opposition are being drowned out somewhat. Recent
letters to the editor of the Telegram-Tribune have mentioned concerns about additional
noise and glare generated by the planned stadium and fields,and I share their worries,
despite reassurances that"mitigations"will take care of such problems. We live on a slight
rise in the Alta Vista neighborhood,and we are already assaulted by the very loud public
address system of the present stadium,as well as additional foot and automobile traffic
streaming through our residential streets whenever a game is played.
Rocreation comes in all flavors, and I believe that many residents find the tranquil
fields--just as they are—quite recreational enough without the expenditure of millions of
dollars, not to mention unspecified liability issues that may prove to weigh even more
heavily on San Luis Obispo property owners than the upfront expenses,which are
sobering enough. Our tax base doesn't seem large enough to bear such a disproportionate
load(even with some outside funding),especially when there may be hidden costs that we
will also have to defray.
I hope that the City Council will not succumb to the pressure that Cal Poly is most
certainly applying. It may be in Cal Poly's best interests to speed up the approval process
and wangle the City's endorsement of an investment in their Sports Complex,but can we
be so certain that it is in the City's best interests,too? Surely a project of this scope
deserves a thoroughgoing appraisal. Neighborhoods in the shadow of Cal Poly have
enough to cope with already,and their concerns about having to endure more insults to the
senses should be taken very-seriously. Thank you for your careful consideration of this
important issue.
Sincerely,
e60UNCIL��❑ CG r Uih
j CAO 9r<N DIR
Paula Juelke Carr eVCA0 ❑ FIRE CHIEF
209 Hathway Avenue �TToRNEY ❑ PW DIR i
San Luis Obispo,CA 93405 CLERK/ORIQ ❑ PPUCE CHF
(805) 541-1201 ❑ MGMT TEAM geRECDIR
❑ CR FILE ❑ UT L DIA
eNKddrke 0 PERS Dia
W IP'oORTANT MESSAGE
J 0 oQ J O O
Q Q = ZU w a W W FOR
U W Z)� < �� I"uWi �2 A.1
W O w wo J JC7 ao ao DATEZ'n 'S TIME ..2�'f�a .1`
Z
o ft O M
= M 2 OF
—
LU LU a
Q ~ PHONE AREACOOE NUMBER EXTENSION
o ❑ FAX
w o MOBILE
x
AREA CODE NUMBER TIME TO CAL
w
W,
V, < TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL
CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN
W f
W ¢ WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH
a, RETURNED YOUR C SPECIAL A NTION
C� MESSAGE
_ V w
a
/4pUNGIL ❑ i:uJLl0i h < 1�1
�AO CrFiN Dim a d
( CAO ❑ FIRE CHIE due
RNEY [3FrW DIR { W
0
er CL ❑ POLICE C F z
] MGMTTEXM f�REC DIR g o a L
] Q R l)FILE ❑ U-11-1 DIR SIGNED
❑ of„S:;
FORM 3002S
MAGE IN U.S.A.
For Ur
Date &0/ gent C1 �,
For J,�,., Urgent. ❑
Time /.a: Date &1 � Time /awdA0
Whsle You Were Out While You Were Out
Of
Phone —/l,b-p Of �oZ•?.S -/m*i^a .5Y-d�
AREA CODE NUMBER
NUMBER EXTENSION AREA CODE NUMBER EXTENSION
Telephoned Q�
Please Call ❑ Telephoned Please Call C3Came To See You c) Will Cali Again ❑ Came To See You ❑ Will Call Again ❑
Returned Your Call. Wants To See You ❑
Returned Your Call ❑ Wants To See You ❑
Message
Message
✓'VIS ems„` c -t_ �� •�
Signed
Signed
9711
ADAMS BUSINESS FORMS 9711 G ADAMS BUSINESS FORMS
RPR-14-97 MON 12 :00 PM Bill Tyson 805 5449143 P. 01
ML.ING AGENDA
Bill Tyson ° r
1341 Laguna lane
San Luis Oh4a U 9340SA18 Phone:805.541943
FAIL•805.544.9143
ems:6 ill trson�aal.com
Monday, April 14, 1997 JqOUNCIL o ccs u;n--
Ca GAO L<FIN DIR
iElACAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF
Mayor Allen Settle �TrORNEY ❑ PW DIR
City of San Luis Obispo CLERWORIG ❑ POLICE CHF
990 Palm Street ❑ MCMrTEAM 21FIEC DIR
San Luis Obispo CA 93401 ❑ C READ FILE ❑ ur:i DIR
❑ PERS D!M
FAX: 781-7109
Dear Mayor Settle,
I have yet to figure out why the connection between the proposed Cal Poly sports complex and
the ever-increasing demise of affordable housing in the City hasn't been emphasized.
Cal Poly is planning for thousands of additional students. Where are they going to live? It's
time Cal Poly also plans on housing these new students by building on-campus residence halls
rather than spending millions on sports facilities that will no-doubt be as affordably "avail-
able" to the average SLO citizen as the it-ain't-as-affordable-as-we-thought-it-was-going-to-be
Performing Arts Center is to local performing groups... little or never.
How can we expect to lure clean, high-technology companies to San Luis Obispo if there is no
place for their employees to live? Putting those thousands of expected students into campus-
owned and managed residence facilities can ease the availability of housing that is not out of
reach of those necessary high-tech employees. And putting those students into campus housing
will also alleviate the potential problems inherent with over-crowded student off-campus
residences: noise, drunkenness, rude and inappropriate behavior.
The City of San Luis Obispo can not afford to spend three million dollars to help Cal Poly
lure even more students to the Central Coast. The mayor and city council should direct their
energies into continuing the livability of our ever-diminishing paradise rather than taking some
kind of false pride in growing our miseries through thinly-disguised efforts to import urban
sprawl from elsewhere.
Vote no on that inappropriate contribution to our city's demise. It's all going to hell fast
enough as it is, thanks to the greed of the developers and their lackeys.
S'
Bill so
cc: Telegram-Tribune
MEtONG AGENDA
DATE �`_ITEM #�...
To: Allen Settle; Kathy Smith; Bill Roalman; Dave Romero; Dodie
Williams.
From Anne Keller LrJ COUNCIL p CL':
CjCAO ROIFIN D1R
f'ACAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF
Re: Cal Poly Athletic Fields Partnership Project. O(ATTORNEY ❑ PWDIR
E5'CLERK/ORIG ❑ POLICE CHF'
❑ MGMT TEAM Q-HEC DIR
Date• April 14, 1997 ❑ C READ FILE ❑ UTL DIA
• ---h❑ PERS Dim
T-
I am writing to you, as I did when this issue first was
announced, to declare unequivocally my support for this project.
I was greatly disturbed by the outcome of last week' s city
council meeting. I too feel that sending this item to committee
is just another way of trying to back down from a commitment,
which is so important to this community that I will again take
the time to tell you why.
I have lived here for only four years, but am involved with a
diversity of people and organizations, so I feel that I have an
excellent sense of what the MAJORITY want in San Luis. They want
and need these athletic fields and complexes. First, the simple
fact is that we do not have enough of them for our children. I
have two boys, 8 and 12, and I know that. The fields are too few,
too small, too spread out and isolated from everything else.
Second, the city wants more fields too and has an opportunity
here that is fiscally beneficial and morally correct. There will
by a minority of homeowners in the neighborhood who have a
problem with this. However, when they moved to their homes, what
was their expectations? Didn't Caly Poly already exist there?
Did they honestly believe that a University does not emit light,
traffic and noise? I lived near UCLA for twenty years and yes
there was more traffic, light and noise; yes, the law students
all parked their cars on our streets; yes, sometimes the traffic
for the games at Pauley backed up into our streets. However, the
benefits of living there far outweighed the detriments. I could
walk to events whenever I wished; my husband and I walked to our
evening classes; my children grew up on a college campus, around
college kids and early in their lives used those young adults as
role models instead of some of the other examples around town.
UCLA students were always in my house, either renting rooms or
babysitting for my kids. If this minority in the Cal Poly
neighborhood cannot see beyond their small, selfish issues, they
need to live somewhere else. These environmental and neighborhood
concerns can be mitigated to the smallest of degrees, rather then
delay or kill the entire project.
Second, I feel that the members of the Council who voted for the
pp
RE�rE1 V Elm/
APR 1177/
CITY COUNCIL
delay need to live in Los Angeles for a period of time and
really, really understand what they have here in San Luis Obispo
and how easily it can vanish. We need to support any and all
projects like this that benefit our children and families. No ifs
ands or buts. If we do not, we will . just be another Fresno,
Salinas, Los Angeles before you can say Gang Task Force. This
community wants its children to have this. Fiscally, it is a
sound investment, in that the burden is shared between three
parties. The project itself will bring in revenue from sports
events, etc. the Visitors bureau that spoke against shifting some
money to this needs to look at the somewhat fair job they are
doing to bring in tourism and revenue here. I can think of many
things that are obvious sources of tourism and revenue; the kind
of revenue that we like because the people visit and spend and
then leave. This bureau needs to focus on the many well funded
groups in L.A. and San Francisco and back East and figure out a
place to have small meetings for these groups. There are
thousands of them with millions of dollars. We don't have an
appropriate place for that business and there would be the
revenue you need, from the type of clientele that we want walking
our streets. Maybe they should focus their time and energy on
that instead of Cal Poly.
I have had the opportunity to become involved with the Cal Poly
athletes and athletic department. Twice a week I take time from
my professional commitments and family and tutor Cal Poly
athletes with learning disabilities. I get paid $5.00/hour. These
are the best moments of my week often. These student athletes
deserve the respect and support that this project would bring.
They are a remarkable group of young adults, who are committed to
Cal Poly at a different level then other students, and are often
not appreciated by "outsiders" .
I truly believe that this is how the majority feels, and that the
neighborhood members need to look at the positive side for the
community and be involved in the conversations of structuring
orkable lighting, parking and traffic control.
Th k you,
e Keller
MEETING AGENDA
ITEM #
7JA
L
P�Pim
tom- to GC.v f°a-&y s�. 4V.1a ,c -c A"Q -iC;- a V&-: . d.
J
UNCIL . ,- ❑ CLii Gid -
--CAO y ff- N DIR
l eACAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF ;I
WEY ❑ PW DIR
RILICE
CHF
❑ MGMTTEAA4 REC
DIR
❑ C FjfAD FILE ❑ UTIL DIR
Cl PERS OT!
MEETING AGENDA
DATES ITEM #
c ;U, 3s A
YES h�-
0-11
rVIC
0 �
r
KgOU CIL
CdgAON DIR
V�60AO ❑ FIRE CHIEF
'ATTORNEY ❑ PW DIR
FoKOLERKIORIG ❑ P UCE CHF
❑ MGMT TEAM iEC DIR
❑ C R§AD FILE ❑ UT:L DIR
❑ PERSDir'
V�+
TO cs--
r �
ly thoughts. . . I
DATE At AGENDA
~n71TEM #
For your consideration . . .
From: Jerry Dagna (toos/o@a msn,com)
9845 Vicente Drive
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
Home: 805-544-6557 Fax: 541-0993
To: SLO City Council
Fax +1 (805) 781-7109
The issue:
Cal Poly Sports Complex
My thoughts:
Dear Council member,
After careful consideration I urge you tonight to put this issue behind us. A
vote in the future will kill the program as we now know it. We owe it to Cal
Poly to let them move forward without us. I encourage you to then begin
planning on what it is that WE do want as a city; what we can afford; and
what would be the best time line. This is the City of San Luis Obispo, not the
City of Cal Poly. They are not our friend! They are a state run educational
facility. We both have needs but not always the same goals. Please... Just
vote to kill this project and move on with our own needs exclusive of any
other entity.
Thank you, God bless you,
Jerry
-2 COUNCIL ❑ CG;
D"CAO B'tN DIR
(MACAO 13FIRECHIEF
R .j
A ',_'` ; , �ARNEY ❑ PW DIR
AN I �; U'cLERWORIG ❑ POLICE CHF61
❑ MGMTTEAM 94ECDIR �{
CITY CLERK
❑ C FILE ❑ UT.L DIA �I
SAN LEIS 06iS?0,CA ❑ PZRt 7:P
From:BRIDGET TODD Fax 594-0507 To:All City Council members Page 2 of 2 Monday,April 14,1997 6:07:44 PN,.
!NG AGENDA
ITEM #
April 14,1997
To all City Council members,
I have just read an article in the Telegram Tribune from April 11`h regarding
the Cal Poly sports complex. I wish to express my concern that the City Council
thinks the residents of San Luis are uniformed regarding this matter. The article
states Mr. Settle's view that he didn't know of the time critical nature of the
university's scheduling, I have to wonder where Mr. Settle has been. This has been
discussed numerous times. Let me jog your memories, we attended the budget
workshop in February and this issue was strongly supported by the residents that
attended. In fact this project was ranked 51h of the 25 city goals.
I am also alarmed that Councilwoman Kathy Smith is more concerned with
how it affects her business on Garden St. I thought she was voted in to represent
the residents of the city and not just herself. If a vote is needed by the council to
take part of the budget from the Tourism committee I would hope she will not vote
as this could be considered a conflict of interest.
Please don't let your short sightedness affect the residents of this city. I have
a 13 year old that won't receive the benefit from this project, but I can see a long
line of kids behind her that would benefit from the complex. I feel if this opportunity
is lost, this council will be long remembered as the council that blew it 1 1 would like
to thank Mr. Romaro and Mrs. Williams for their support on this project and urge the
remaining members to please reconsider and support this opportunity for our kids
and the city of San Luis.
Thank you, COUNCIL ❑ CGj
�AO L°'FIN DIR
/ICAO ❑ FIRECHIEF III
Q ATTORNEY ❑ PW DIR I
Bridget Todd ECLERKIORIG �❑, POLICE CHF
1;FEF L44 Id 13 /
MGMT TEAM is REC DIR
y ❑ C D FILL"- ❑ UT L Dia
APR 1 I - 0 0M oIn
::.
CITY CLERK
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA
.. —/ �t 4t kk- l {n\4; R. io�• ^} � 1.01
3 L� UNC1L41 T a❑ C
N � t � Y. rA-s'-Y li, y jl.'.1 ? Z$ 1 �� l4Y .rr ^ v`.:, r.•x r
❑SAO
:4 r MEETIiVG
O ❑ FIRE CHIEF
I� T oRNE_ O PW DIR
�=
- DATE ` ITEM #r.�.._
r' 0 CLERK/ORIG�r�.❑�LICE CHF
1l1 + O MGMT.TEAM, ,.re'REC DIR ,�, r.. Cyt.` x r . p"
l+J - 9 r
C lLE Y.❑ UTIL DIR
y s s fir. , j , _
rn,JD
caRve+�'�.•-�--.'� F,YY+' �'"t'� r �lEYi�1'
. , r
"APRi ,� ryy
Re : .Recreat ion Pro j ect r
CRY COUNCIL s^ .•
Please bring this vote before' the �3`y
4�}
people .
�.
7V .
Please do not impact the Bishop ' s - ' &t
Peak/Highland area anymore ----we
already have enough traffic , noise and
people problems with Cal. Poly in our
streets and living among us . This is.
enough for this small . area.
' lU
.Let some other part of town carry some
of the. community 's responsibilities by k
having a larger youth sports complex- in
their neighborhood.
Z,
If $3710009000' :can : be raised : for the.
PAC , more ..money `can be raised for a r F a a
real ., youth aports complex
+ r t
F � f ♦., a ,� �d� y t i,r^�ti
` 2 14- � (}/���(, ® ��.Thankr' 11 ou�4 I •c'' 7 �?V ,P�yc.
-.A t M
� }� 4 � d ,.�� y. �y -'F9Y � ', t -iq'r t�yn 5rk�b.'•.
2 -APR 1.-.I, 4:�,. t t rr �'1.Kt '"E 3 L e ,may_' t ��•!; y t SY.+id ; 'c% tr,�F
f r t �'i"r.t.,l,,.,ai'c`�fi F tt(r � xf x a. «-c+wti"i1� 7 .tRT E4G r '�ti
CITY CLERK
r
u ,�a. )y�4" + hr•' \�I 4 -Ir. t i r� r 4 -� a yr ,�
LUIS
MEETING AGENDA/J
April 14,'1997 DATE-. L7 ITEM #
MEMORANDUM
TO: Council Colleagues
FROM: Dave RomeroE:;.r/
SUBJECT: Day of Prayer . !//��
Thursday, May 1"is the National Day of Prayer. There will be a prayer ceremony held in
front of City Hall at 12:15 p.m. You are all invited.
COUNCIL ❑ C110 UiH
IrCAO ❑ FIN DIR
2 r)PCAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF
,,ATTORNEY ❑ PW DIR
El LERWORIG ❑ POLICE CHF
fd1MGWTEAM ❑ REC DIR
❑ READ FILE ❑ UP.L DIR
-!(�—
0 PERS MR