Pismo Beach reject LAFCO’s request for money

September 17, 2012

The city of Pismo Beach will not help pay the cost of fighting a lawsuit filed by a developer against members of the San Luis Obispo County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO).

The suit contends members of the board abused their authority in order to promote their own political careers. [Tribune]

While the city is not taking a stand on the lawsuit, city officials said they are not bound by an earlier agreement to cover litigation costs because the lawsuit alleges that the LAFCO board “acted intentionally and willfully to harm” the developer of a project known as Los Robles del Mar.

In March, LAFCO members voted 5-2 to deny developer Larry Persons’ request to annex a 182-acre proposed development into Pismo Beach primarily because of an alleged lack of water to support the project

The lawsuit claims that LAFCO board members Adam Hill and Bruce Gibson are close friends and “improperly conspired together to deny the annexation in order to further their own political careers in an election year.”

The suit also alleges LAFCO board members made differing statements on the reliability of state water for Parsons’ proposed annexation and the pipeline project in Nipomo.

The LAFCO board and its attorneys have denied the allegations.

A hearing to determine if LAFCO’s decision to deny Parson’s proposed project should be overturned is set for Nov. 29 in San Luis Obispo Superior Court.




  1. slocountyorg says:

    The ONLY person making ANY allegations are the attorneys for the developer. Now what does that tell you? It appears that the story is that the delevoper is bitter that he can not do his delevopement with his property in the county ( because it is illegal for him to do so ), so is trying to circumvent by enticing the City of Pismo to annex his property with this unnessary sprawl. Who would benefit from this aside from the developer and his attorney??
    Maybe Pismo ought to focus on thier existing project improvements instead of spending resourses that would take business away from the existing downtown merchants.

    (0) 0 Total Votes - 0 up - 0 down
  2. Goddess_Enigma says:

    LAFCO acted in a responsible manner concerning the denial of the annexation to Pismo Beach. This new subdivision idea is nothing but urban sprawl, and would cause all kinds of unwanted ill affects for Pismo Beach and its residents. These houses would attract buyers from the LA and Bay areas and these people that buy these homes would be most likely parents that work away from home full time, leaving their teenaged kids at home with nothing better to do than ditch school and get in trouble. Police, fire and city workers would be hard pressed to keep up with the demands of that many houses added. There would not be enough water and the sewage that many people would produce a day would be way more than the current sewer system could handle. We already have spills that dump into the ocean too many times as it is. There are empty lots in Pismo that are already part of the city that can be built on if people wanted a house in Pismo that bad. If the demand was there then you would see those empty lots being taken and built upon. on top of that the area that they are proposing to build upon is a pristine area that nothing has ever been built upon. thousands of years have gone by with this area staying preserved for the beauty it holds. Why in the world would anyone want to ruin that? the answer: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
    LAFCO made the right decision, and of course the city of Pismo is not going to pay to have their own special pet project fought against in court, that would be a direct conflict of interests of the members of the city council, who need to have their conflicts of interests in this project investigated anyway, both as members of a city council and as individuals using their authority to promote their own economic interests.

    (-4) 8 Total Votes - 2 up - 6 down
  3. Jarratt says:

    Umm, Supervisor Hill is not on the LAFCO board.

    (4) 4 Total Votes - 4 up - 0 down
  4. SLOBIRD says:

    Yep, unfortunately it should only be the voters from Hill and Gibson’s districts, Hopefully, Gibson will be the next one to get flushed out but another two years is a long time. Thank Gawd the powers change in January to stop this madness and then we can all see Hill’s personality change again…

    (1) 17 Total Votes - 9 up - 8 down
  5. racket says:

    Seems to me the damage has already been done — Gibson/Hill’s pandering helped Hill’s re-election. How do you undo that?

    If the allegations are proven valid, are we all plaintiffs, since we all were harmed by the illegal actions of Gibson/Hill?

    (10) 24 Total Votes - 17 up - 7 down

Comments are closed.