HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/16/1999, 4 - ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY AT 883 MARSH STREET. council 1116-99
ac cn as RepoRt 4�`
CITY OF SAN LUIS O B I S P O
FROM: Mike McCluskey; Public Works Director
SUBJECT: ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY AT 883 MARSH STREET.
DISCUSSION
Based on Council action on item C8 on the current.agenda, this item has been
withdrawn.
4-1
MEE,...0 AGENDA
iiiuiu�lllllllla!���I��iu�ll����llDATE -1 - 49 ITEM # CommunicGc iovl
• council mEmo�an um
• Qt;AO IN DIR
ZACAO ❑ E CHIEF RECEIVED
November 8, 1999 MArroRNEY 2PW DIR
�CLERKIORIG ❑POLICE CHF
EAId o RE oIIR N 0 V 8 - 1999
TO: City Council /> ' ❑ sDIR ® SLO CITY CLERK
G
FROM: Mayor Settle and Council Member Ev (Auto Dealer Subcommittee)
SUBJECT: Communication Item: Request to Refer Auto Sales and Rental Land Use
Alternatives to Staff for Analysis and Report Back to Council
Nearly one year ago, the City Council assigned us to serve as an "Auto Dealer Subcommittee."
Our role has been to work with staff and downtown auto dealers to encourage the completion of
the"Auto Center"off Los Osos Valley Road and the relocation of the dealerships to that area.
Several meetings have been held, and we have learned much about the interests of our downtown
dealers and the constraints to their relocation. For example, we have learned that:
• Virtually all dealers in the downtown have, or have previously had, a great interest in
relocating and expanding. They have simply outgrown their downtown sites. The sites
also pose other practical difficulties, which have been described to the Sub-Committee
and staff.
• Downtown auto dealers would greatly prefer to relocate to the Auto Park Way area, rather
than to any other location in the City.
• For a variety of reasons, development of the McBride property does not appear realistic
in the foreseeable future (we also met with representatives of the McBride property, and
with a potential developer of that property).
• Because of the "stalemate" on the McBride property, downtown dealers (and other
dealers) have begun to pursue sites in other parts of the community, most notably along
Broad Street. This is not ideal from a land use and planning perspective, but at the same
time,both the dealers and the City are facing a practical dilemma.
The Subcommittee believes that we have done as much as we can, given current circumstances
and options. We now believe that it is time for the City Council to formally refer the issue to
staff for analysis and to develop alternatives beyond those currently set forth in the General Plan
for auto dealer locations in the City.
The bottom-line is that our current options are insufficient, and if we are going to be more
proactive in our land use decisions, and in our ability to retain and attract auto dealers, we need
more options. We hope that staff can report back to Council within 2-3 months.
MI ud% AGE-1411A
DATE i ► 99 ITEWig l °rn r►i am is I
COMMUNICATIONS ITEM
November 16, 1999 Council Meeting
PtOUNCIL ❑CDD DIR
RCAO ❑i`:! ':�
CACAO Cl F`.: :'.:: '
ff; ORNEY ❑F'
❑h' T TEAM ❑REC DIR
Date: November 12, 1999 � ❑UTIL DIR
❑ ❑PERS DIR i e
To: Council Coll s d administrative staff
From: Ken Schw
Re: Legislative Pr osal
I have read JeffJorgensen's response to Mayor Settle's request for draft language suitable
for inserting into law a provision requiring referral to the local agency formation
commission whenever a county proposes a deVOPPment change within the urban reserve
line of a city.
I like it.
I recommend that we refer this to staff for placement on a near future Council meeting
agenda. Should we agree at a proper public hearing, I think we should follow through
with an aggressive campaign to enlist support from our sister cities in SLO County, our
sister cities in the Channel Counties Division of the LCC and finally,with all California
Cities through the resolution process of the LCC.
In the meantime, it would be well to enlist the support of our local representatives in the
legislature.
• RECEIVED
NOV 1 2 1999
SLO CITY CLERK
ML ,NG AURA
DATE 11-I b-49 UEM_9!;o rn m 4zlio,
MEMORANDUM
From the Office of the City Attorney
ErCoUNCIL ❑coo DIR
November 5, 1999QCAO ❑FIN DIR
M*KCAO O FIRE CHIEF
EnTTORNEY ❑PW DIR
aKLERKIORIG ❑POLICE CHF
To: Mayor Settle ❑A1GMT TEAM ❑UTIL DIR
❑ ❑PERS DIR to
From: Jeff Jorgensen 4
Subject: Proposed Legislation Concerning County Development
Within the City Urban Reserve Line
As you requested, attached is the draft language I developed to require referral to the
local agency formation commission whenever a county proposes a development change
within the urban reserve line of a city. I am also including the full text of Section 65919-
65919.11 for your information.
With respect to the letter from Peter M. Detweiler, it appears that AB 1341 was never
adopted and therefore the proposed revisions to Government Code Section 65302.4
requiring adoption of a valid annexation agreement prior to county approval of
development within a city's sphere of influence did not become law. At the same time,
I think the idea is an excellent one and perhaps it would be appropriate to attempt to re-
introduce a bill similar to AB 1341. (My guess is that Mr. Detweiler was trying to point
out that such legislation may run into opposition because it could be considered a state
mandated local program.)
Please review my proposed language and let me know how you wish to proceed.
JGJ/sw
Attach.
C: City Council
John Dunn
RECEIVED
N 0 V 1 X1999
SLO CITY CLERK
graft
AMEND GOVERNMENT CODE, CHAPTER 4.4, SECTION 65919.11 AS FOLLOWS:
1. Delete Section 65919.11 as follows:
"65919.11. FailuFe,to Gqmply vArl, the ed,,m u
�eqi—re. e-a-ts „c
z
th rhapter- A it r Ff r rh . alidit .of "
2. Add anew Section 65919.11 as follows:
"65919.11. Referring proposed.action within City Urban Reserve
Line to the Local Agency Formation Commission. Notwithstanding
any other provision of this Chapter 4.4 before the Board of Supervisors
acts on a proposed action within the urban reserve line of a city, the
county shall refer the proposed action to the local agency formation
commission for review and comment. Such referral shall include a plan
for providing services as specified in government Code Section 56653.
The factors to be considered by the local agency formation commission
shall be as specified in Government Code section 65841, and an analysis
of the potential service planning and fiscal impacts on the effected city."
WAIS Document Retrieval http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cg I..2116813+17+0+0&WAISactionzetrieve
CALIFORNIA CODES
GOVERNMENT CODE
'ECTION 65919-65919.11
65919. As used in this chapter the following terms mean:
(a) "Affected city" means a city within whose planning review area
an affected territory is located.
(b) "Affected territory" means an area of land located in the
unincorporated portion of a county which is the subject on one or
more proposed actions.
(c) "Proposed action" means a proposal to adopt or amend all or
part of a general or specific plan or to adopt or amend a zoning
ordinance, but does not include action taken by an ordinance which
became effective immediately pursuant to subdivision (b) or (d) of
Section 25123 or pursuant to Section 65858.
(d) "Planning review area" means the territory included in a
general plan or in any specific plan of a city or county. A planning
review area in the case of a city shall not extend beyond whichever
of the following includes the largest area and, in the case of a
county, shall not extend beyond the territory described in paragraphs
(2) or (3) , whichever includes the largest area:
(1) The area included within the sphere of influence of the city.
(2) A radius of one mile outside the boundary of the city which
area shall not include any territory within the sphere of influence
of another city.
(3) An area which is agreed upon and designated by a county and a
city within the county.
55919.1. A county and a city may agree upon a procedure for
:eferral by the county to the city or by the city to the county of
proposed actions and for comment upon those proposals. In the
absence of that agreement, the procedures prescribed by this chapter
shall be followed.
65919.2. A city which desires referrals from a county or a county
which desires referrals from a city pursuant to this chapter shall
file with the county or the city, as the case may be, a map or other
appropriate document which indicates the portion of the county or the
city, as the case may be, in its planning review area.
65919.3. Except as otherwise provided in Section 65919.10, before
the board of supervisors acts on a proposed action, the county shall
refer the proposed action to each affected city, and before the city .
council acts on a proposed action, the city shall refer the proposed
action to the county, in accordance with the procedure set forth in
Sections 65919.4 and 65919.5.
65919.4 . (a) Not later than the date the county notices the public
hearing on a proposed action before the county planning commission,
the county shall notify an affected city of the nature of the
proposed action.
(b) Not later than the date the city notices the public hearing on
a proposed action before the city planning commission, the city
shall notify the county of the nature of the proposed action.
(c) The information in the notification shall not be less than the
information contained in the notice of public hearing. The
notification required by this section and by Section 65919.8 shall be
1 of 3 11/5/99 9:17 AT
WAIS Document Retrieval http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/...2116813+17+0+0&WAISaction=otrievc
given by first-class mail or by hand delivery. The notice shall
also indicate the earliest date on which the board of supervisors or
city council, as the case may be, can act on the proposed action or
the modification to the proposed action.
65919.5. The board of supervisors or city council to which the
proposed action is referred pursuant to Section 65919.3 shall have 45
days from the date the county or city, as the case may be, mails or
delivers the proposed action, or such longer time as the county or
city, as the case may be, specifies or allows at the request of the
affected city or county, as the case may be, to review and to comment
and to make recommendations on the consistency of the proposed
action with applicable general and specific plans and zoning
ordinances of the affected city or county. If the affected city or
county does not provide the comments and recommendations to the
referring county or city within the 45-day period, or such longer
time as the referring county or city has specified or allowed at the
request of the affected city or county, the board of supervisors or
city council may act without considering those comments.
If the affected city or county provides the comments and
recommendations prior to the time that the planning commission acts
on the proposed action, the planning commission shall also consider
the comments and recommendations.
65919.6. Before acting upon a proposed action, the county shall
consider comments and recommendations received from each affected
city and the city shall consider comments and recommendations
received from the county.
65919.7. If the board of supervisors or city council modifies and
refers a proposed action back to the planning commission pursuant to
Section 65356 or 65857, the board of supervisors or city council, as
the case may be, shall at the same time refer the modification to the
proposed action to each affected city or county in accordance with
Sections 65919.8 and 65919. 9.
65919.8. The referral shall reasonably describe the modification to
the proposed action. Any city or county to which the modification
is referred shall have 25 days from the date of the referral, or such
longer time as the referring county or city specifies or allows at
the request of the affected city or county, to review and to comment
and to make recommendations on the consistency of the proposed action
with applicable general and specific plans and zoning ordinances of
the affected city or county. If the affected city or county does
not provide the comments and recommendations to the referring county
or city within the 25-day period, or such longer time as the
referring county or city has specified or allowed at the request of
the affected city or county, the board of .supervisors or city council
may act without considering those comments.
If the affected city or county provides the comments and
recommendations prior to the time that the planning commission acts
on the proposed action, the planning commission shall also consider
the comments and recommendations.
If the planning commission fails to act, the modification may
become effective pursuant to Section 65356 or 65857, without
consideration of the comments and recommendations.
65919.9. Prior to acting on the modification, the board of
supervisors shall consider the comments and recommendations received
from each affected city and the city council shall consider the
2 of 3 11/5/99 9:17 AI
WAIS Document Retrieval http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-1--J...2116813+17+0+0&WAISactionzetrieve
comments and recommendations from the county.
65919.10. If the proposed action is a change in a zoning ordinance,
the county or city need not refer the zoning proposal to an affected
city or county, as the case may be, if the zoning proposal is
consistent with the general plan and the general plan proposal was
referred and acted upon pursuant to Sections 65919.4 to 65919.9,
inclusive, as applicable.
65919.11. Failure to comply with the procedural requirements of
this chapter shall not affect the validity of any proposed action.
3 of 3 11/5/99 9:17 AD
'11/02/1999 14:36 916-322-07% SLATE LOCAL GOV C" PAGE 01
MEMBERS COw4TTEE•SL�
&1ifomiff PSiz. faturc JANE LEONARD BROWN
JOE BACA
VICE CHAIR ` CONCVLTIIRD
MAURICEJOHANNE55EN .Ql:� IE �1z'Y�CriTTt#Bg PETER M.DETWILER
+ATAICK JOHNSTON O� APRIL E.MANATr
OK:R MONTEITH (9161445.97A8
CON PERATA an FAX(9 16)3224298
RICHARD POUlNCO + .3cn.Ca.govlbc9ov
� ajcnl (�abernm�rct
RICHARD K. RAINEY
CHAIRMAN
November 2, 1999
Honorable Allen K. Settle FAX: 805/781-7418
Mayor, City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo,California 93401
Dear Mayor Settle:
When we talked earlier today, you asked me to send you a list of the Committee members be-
cause you are looking for someone to author a bill to require LAFCOs to review development
proposals inside a city's"urban reserve boundary."
Because disputes over development projects near cities occur in the San Joaquin and Sacramento
Valleys, you might invite Senator Monteith or Senator Johannessen to author your proposal.
As you prepare your legislative strategy, I encourage you to talk with Dan Carrigg,the League of
California Cities' legislative advocate who handles these topics. Last week Dan raised this issue
with the Commission on Governance for the 21"Century. The Commission might make this
topic part of its recommended revisions to the Cortese-Knox Act. You can find more informa-
tion about the Commission's work on its website www.c1a21 .ca.gov
To help you anticipate reactions to your proposal,you might also review AB 1341 (Sweeney,
1996). I've enclosed a copy of that bill and the analysis from the Assembly Local Government
Committee. If you think I can help in some other way,please let me know.
V truly yo
Peter M. Detwiler
cc: Honorable Abel Maldonado
Honorable Jack O'Connell
STATE CAPITOL • ROOM 410 • SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA • 95814.4906
11/02/1999 14:36 916-322- 9 SLATE LOCAL GOV Cr PAGE e4
CALIFORNIA 1.EGIS1LATURE-1995-%RPGUTAR SESSION
ASSEMBLY BELL No. 1341
Introduced by Assembly Member Sweeney
February 23; 1995
An act to add Section 65302.4 to the Government Code,
relating to local agencies.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 1341, as introduced, Sweeney. Local agencies:
development.
Existing law requires a county and a city to adopt general
plans for land use and development within their jurisdiction.
Existing law requires the local agency formation commission
to adopt a sphere of influence for each local agency, including
a city, concerning the probable physical boundaries and
service area of that agency.
This bill would require a city and a county to have adopted
a valid annexation agreement before the county may approve
development within the city's sphere of influence if the
development requires an amendment to the general plan, a
zoning change or variance or other discretionary entitlement,
as specified,thus imposing a state-mandated local program.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse
local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated
by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for
making that reimbursement, including the creation of a State
Mandates Claims Fund to pay the .costs of mandates that do
not exceed $1,000,000 statewide and other procedures for
claims whose statewide costs exceed $1,000,000.
99
F
AB 1341 �2_
This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State
Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by
the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made
Pursuant to these statutory.provisions.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: yes.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows.
1 SECTION 1. Section 65302.4 is added to the
2 Government Code,to read:
3 65302.4. (a) A city and a county shall have adopted a
4 valid . annexation agreement before the county may
5 approve development • within the city's sphere of
6 influence if the development requires an amendment to
7 the general plan, a zoning change or variance, or other
8 discretionary entitlement.
9 (b) Any development approved pursuant to
10 subdivision (a) shall be consistent with the underlying.
11 land use, infrastructure, public services, and revenue
12 assumptions in the annexation agreement.
13 (c) The city and county shall engage in good faith
14 efforts to reach the annexation agreement governing the
15 city's sphere of influence.
16 SEC. 2. Notwithstanding Section 17610 of the
17 Government Code, if the Commission on State Mandates
18 determines that this act contains costs mandated by the
19 state, reimbursement to local agencies and school
20 districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7
�21 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title
22 2 of the Government Code. If the statewide cost of the
23 claim for reimbursement does not exceed one million
24 dollars ($1,000,000), reimbursement shall be made from
25 the State Mandates Claims Fund.
26 Notwithstanding Section 17580 of the Government
27 Code, unless otherwise specified, the provisions of this act
28 shall become operative on the same date that the act .
29 takes effect pursuant to the California Constitution.
O
00