Front Page  »  

This week’s San Luis Obispo County government meetings

April 1, 2024

Proposed development om Prado Road in San Luis Obispo

By CalCoastNews staff

The Paso Robles City Council will hold a meeting at 6:30 p.m. on April 2 in the council chambers.

The Paso Robles City Council voted 4-1 last month to raise their compensation by 10% and their travel allowances by 20%, with Councilman Chris Bausch dissenting. The council voted to raise the mayor’s monthly stipend to $1,540 and the council members’ to $1,155.

Under item K-1 on the agenda, the council will have its introduction and first reading of an ordinance approving the hike in council members pay. The new rate will begin in Nov. 2024.

Under Item K-4 on the agenda, the council members will discuss whether or not they want to support a proposed half-cent sales tax by San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) staff. SLOCOG hopes to place a half-cent sales tax on the November ballot for transportation-related purposed and are working to drum up support from local government officials.

The Pismo Beach City Council will hold a meeting at 5:30 p.m. on April 2 in the council chambers.

In line with the bulk of government agencies over the past two decades, Pismo Beach’s pension system is underfunded. As a result, part of the funding for former employees retirement plans is funded through current revenue sources, leaving less funding for road work and capital improvements.

Under item 9-G on the agenda, the council is slated to vote to take $1 million from its general fund to reduce the city’s unfunded pension liability for Fiscal Year 2024.

Under item 12-a, the council will receive a report on the police department in 2023, including crime trends and statistics, staffing updates, dispatch operations and parking matters.

During 2023, the city noted a 21% reduction in group A crimes (mostly felonies) and a 13% decrease in group B crimes (lesser crimes). City staff points at various factors, including staffing vacancies, a reduction in visitor to the city, and changes in booking protocols at the county jail.

The San Luis Obispo City Council will meet on April 2 at 5:30 p.m. in the council chambers.

The city council will discuss  increasing City Attorney Christine Dietrick’s salary by 5% after determining  she has met had met or exceeded performance expectations in all categories, under item 6-e on the agenda. The increase will cost the city $13,754 annually.

The council will discuss zoning changes to allow a proposed mix of residential and commercial use project at 365 Prado Road, under item 7-B on the agenda.

In 2021, the County of San Luis Obispo amended the Airport Land Use Plan, a controversial action that changed the size and shape of the safety subareas around the airport. The vote to change the plan, which was promoted by then SLO County Supervisor Adam Hill, allowed for higher density.

Covelop, the applicant is proposing a mixed-use development that would include 224 residential units, 30,000-60,000 square feet of commercial space and a 1.2-acre  park.

The Los Osos Community Services District will meet at 5:30 p.m. on April 4 in closed session and at 6 p.m.

During closed session on the agenda, the board members will consider initiating litigation based on existing facts and circumstances, the district is reviewing.

The Templeton Community Services District will meet on April 2 at 7 p.m.

 


Loading...
Subjects:     
Related:


7 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I guess there is nothing going on with County of San Luis Obispo Board?


2

For the small SLO city development item the article states: “The vote to change the [Airport Land Use] plan, which was promoted by then SLO County Supervisor Adam Hill”.


This plan was enacted in 2021, but Hill passed away in 2020… so this doesn’t seem possible, or relevant.


-3

High density residential and commercial developments in close proximity to airport final approach and departure paths, such as is proposed and being built in SLO, represent short-sighted planning and unwise public safety decision making. What’s wrong with setting aside these areas for open space, urban agriculture or dedicated recreation fields and parklands?


5

I don’t think there is anything unsafe about some 3-story buildings a whole mile from the end of the runway, the “bigger” concern should be South Hills which is right nextdoor and quite a bit taller. SLO has a lot of open space and this empty grass field would be a lot better off being the homes of 224 families that adds $150 million dollars in new assessed value.


-2

Based on your response, I’m going to go out on a limb and assume you’re not a pilot. The proposed project lines up directly in the path of departure for SPB Runway 29, “a whole 4000 feet (.76 mile) from the end of the runway”. I’m no aviation expert but I recall reading that the most dangerous aspects of flying occur during takeoff and landing. Especially problematic and sphincter traumatic for pilots is loss of power/engine failure during climb out. Maybe some pilots will comment with their more expert opinion about urban development in close proximity to airports. Just my opinion but I don’t think it is particularly prudent to place 500 souls and a bunch of architectural obstacles in the path of aircraft that may fall out of the sky during a pilot’s crux moment attempting to gain critical altitude. Ag land and parks make more sense to me.


3

I can appreciate your passion for safety, but I think the risks are sufficiently low – I’ve seen a lot of airports with urban development much closer on the flight path (you’re practically clipping skyscrapers approaching San Diego) and with this specific site is across the block from an already existing residential neighborhood. The chances are just astronomically low, if we are going to be that safety conscious we should consider vacating the whole Margarita area, maybe Madonna plaza too…


This might sound like just an excuse, but if we really do the math on lives at risk and lives saved, this development will come out positive. Back of napkin math says that if you could get 220 families who have jobs in SLO to live in SLO, rather than commute from Paso or SM it’s going to reduce traffic (good for everyone) and it’s going to lower their chances of being killed in an automobile crash. Every year 40,000 Americans are killed in car crashes – 2 people have died in commercial airline accidents… In the last decade.


-3

Too much urban development near an airport causes numerous issues. First off, many NIMBYs move into those neighborhoods knowing full well they are under the flight path of an airport and immediately start complaining about the noise and pollution from air traffic. No matter how many disclosures and waivers you make people sign, they still call the airport and act like they had no idea that aircraft actually make noise. There is a guy who lives near the country club that complains about the airport noise on a weekly basis and the airport has been there for longer than he’s been alive. In many communities, they rally to close the airport or curtail operations. So yes, buffer zones are important to lessen complaints from idiots.


To the other point, yes having an open area for aircraft to land is very important, no matter how rare those occurrences are. All pilots train to look for the best off field landing spot and you can find many examples of aircraft emergencies that had happy endings when they landed safely in a field, park or golf course. In 2015, after an engine issue, Harrison Ford famously landing his world War II-era training plane on a golf course that was purposefully planned off the departure end of Van Nuys airport in the crowded suburbs of Los Angeles. If that open space didn’t exist, I doubt it would have ended very well for him and the residents.


4