Loading...
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