The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07/01/1997, 6 - CONSIDERATION OF THE EFFECTS OF THE COUNTY'S REQUEST TO EXCLUDE THE COUNTY AIRPORT FROM EVENTUAL ANNEXATION TO THE CITY AND ALTERNATE MEANS TO ACCOMPLISH CITY GOALS IN THE AIRPORT AREA. council , y� j acEnaa Repoin �N� 6 C I T Y OF SAN LU IS O B 1 S P 0 FROM: Arnold Jonas,Community Development Director Prepared By: John Mandeville,Long-Range Planning Mana SUBJECT: Consideration Of The Effects Of The County's Request To Exclude The County Airport From Eventual Annexation To The City And Alternate Means To Accomplish City Goals In The Airport Area. CAO RECOMMENDATION: Direct staff to provide the Airport Area Specific Plan consultant with more specific direction regarding the evaluation of alternative annexation boundaries. DISCUSSION On June 3, 1997 the County Board of Supervisors voted not to support inclusion of the County Airport in any future City annexation of the Airport Area The County is concerned about the effects annexation might have on Airport operations. The City has been trying to work with the County to resolve their concerns. The City had requested that the County delay a decision regarding the Airport and annexation while the planning for the Airport Area is taking place. The planning will take 18 -24 months,during which time the City felt it might be possible to resolve the County's concerns. Now that the County has acted, the City must consider the possible effect of not including the Airport on achieving the goals that were the purpose of the annexation. This vote is in effect a request to the City, similar to that of any other property owner in a proposed annexation area, as the Board of Supervisors does not have authority to determine the outcome of annexation proposals. Annexations are acted on by the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo), which is created by State law to be an independent agency. Although the City is not bound by law to honor the County's request,the County is a significant property owner in the area Depending on the boundaries of the annexation area, and the support or opposition of other property owners and the amount of the assessed valuation of their properties, the County's opposition could influence the outcome of the annexation process. In addition, the City has been working to foster a cooperative relationship with the County for some time, and the spirit of cooperation suggests that the City look into ways to acknowledge and accommodate County requests when possible. The County's early decision to oppose annexation of the Airport creates a problem with regard to the City's goal to eventually annex properties currently within the adopted urban reserve line (which coincides with the sphere of influence) south of the Airport. LAFCo rules require that cities can only annex land that is contiguous to their borders. Without the Airport, the properties to the south that are within the City's urban reserve line will not be contiguous to any other part of the urban reserve line, and consequently to the future city border as currently shown on the City's General Plan. Therefore, the only way the City can annex these properties in the future is if the urban reserve line(& sphere of influence and eventual city limits) is redrawn to extend to the south 6-/ Council Agenda Report-County Request to Exclude Airport From Annexation Area Page 2 of the Airport in some other way. The scope of work for the Airport Area Specific Plan consultant includes an analysis of alteratives in the environmental impact report for the plan. The scope of work specified that alternative urban reserve and annexation boundaries should be considered where they would result in a preferable infrastructure system design or reduced environmental impact. Because the consultants will be analyzing the possibility of modifying future city boundaries,it will be a related task to also analyze an alterative that provides a different contiguous boundary to the properties south of the Airport. Staff can revise the scope of work as needed prior to the execution of the consultant contract which is scheduled for August Council will have the opportunity to review and approve the scope of work prior to approving the contract. The County Airport is within the Airport Area, a geographic area specifically identified in the City's General Plan. The City's General Plan states that the City will actively work to annex the Airport Area. If the City wishes to change the policy to exclude the County Airport form eventual annexation, it will need to change the policy that includes the County Airport with the rest of the Airport Area It is not necessary at this time to exclude the Airport because the General Plan does not require that the Airport be annexed at the same time as other properties in the area The City may leave the policy as it stands as a way of maintaining the option of eventually annexing the Airport should the County change its decision. FISCAL IIVIPACT At this time there is no fiscal impact. Recent fiscal studies suggest the Airport represents about $64,000 a year in revenue to the City. Additional consultant work to analyze alternative urban reserve boundaries as a result of not annexing the Airport may increase the cost of the specific plan contract slightly. ALTERNATIVES 1. No action-the Council may choose to leave the consultant scope of work as is. 2. The Council may choose to amend the General Plan to reduce the size of the urban reserve line to eliminate the properties south of the Airport. 3. The Council may choose another course of action to address the possibility of not including the County Airport in the eventual annexation of the Airport Area Attachments June 5 Letter of Board of Supervisors Chairperson Ruth Brackett Map showing industrial properties within City urban reserve line south of County Airport W/ BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, Room 370 • SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA 93408-2040 • 805.781.5450 HARRY L. OVITT, Supervisor District One LAURENCE L. LAURENT, Supervisor District Two June 5, 1997 PEG PINARD, Supervisor District Three RUTH E. BRAC1a=,, Supervisor District Four MICHAEL P. "MIKE"RYAN, Supervisor District Five Allen Settle,Mayor City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 RE: Inclusion of the San Luis Obispo County Airport property in the Airport Area Annexation Boundaries. Dear Mayor Settle: This is to inform you that on June 3, 1997,the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors I voted not to support inclusion of the San Luis Obispo County Airport property in the proposed Airport Area annexation. The Board was not convinced of the benefits of annexing the Airport property to the City of San Luis Obispo. Please let me know if you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter further. Sincerely, RUTH BRACEETT,Chairperson Board of Supervisors RB/ml (DECEIVED JUN 1 0 1997 cwpwinXwpd=\rbXseWe1tr SLO CITY COUNCIL �3 Recently Rezoned Properties South of City Urban Reserve Boundary low ...::.:.:........:.:..:..::.... s :f e, x:l �f .. .ESf. "7t k l? y } vyr is-:..,.:. ,..s.}E::t<• 5�• .~r � 5 S k). Buckle })`v: Y - — Airport and Margarita Areas N /V Urban reserve line E Recently Rezoned Parcels W S