HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-07-2014 PH3 LUCE UpdateCity of San Luis Obispo, Council Agenda Report, Meeting Date, Item Number
FROM: Derek Johnson, Community Development Director
Prepared by: Gary Kaiser, Contract Planner
SUBJECT: REVIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING
UPDATES TO CHAPTERS 1-6 AND 9-12 OF THE DRAFT LAND USE
ELEMENT AND CHAPTERS 1-10 AND 12-16 OF THE DRAFT
CIRCULATION ELEMENT, AND CONSIDER THE FISCAL IMPACT
REPORT FOR THE LUCE UPDATE.
RECOMMENDATION
1. Review and provide direction on updated policies and programs of Chapter 1-6 and 9-12
of the Land Use Element and Chapters 1-10 and 12-16 of the Circulation Element, and
2. Review and consider the fiscal balance of the proposed land uses as described in the
LUCE Fiscal Impact Report.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
The City Council is being presented with Planning Commission recommendations for updates to
the remaining chapters of the draft Land Use and Circulation Elements (LUCE). The Council
previously reviewed and provided input on the airport-related chapters (Chapter 7 of the Land
Use Element and Chapter 11 of the Circulation Element) and the Special Focus Areas of the
Land Use Element (Chapter 8) on September 16th and 30th. Any comments and direction from
Council regarding changes to the Land Use and Circulation Elements will be brought back for
Council consideration and adoption at the October 21, 2014 meeting.
DISCUSSION
Background
The LUCE update project refines existing policies of the Land Use and Circulation Elements and
adds new policies to respond to legislative requirements and community vision. The update also
includes policy direction and performance standards to guide development in proposed areas of
“physical change” so that land use changes balance population growth with infrastructure
availability and community objectives. The “physical changes” include identifying locations and
establishing policy guidance for the formation of specific plans and special planning areas which
will outline future growth areas of the City.
In this third of four meetings for consideration of the LUCE update, the Council will review and
provide edits and direction on policy guidance and programs in the remaining chapters of the
draft Land Use and Circulation Elements. Previous Council meetings have covered review and
direction on airport-related chapters of both elements and on policy direction for the special
focus areas identified in Chapter 8 of the Land Use element. The Planning Commission has
10-7-14
PH3
PH3 - 1
LUCE – LUE 1-6 and 9-12 and CE 1-10 and 12-16 and Fiscal Page 2
completed its review of the draft elements after careful consideration of community input and
comments provided through the EIR process, and recommends the Council approve the draft
elements with the changes endorsed at the Commission’s meetings on September 10th and 11th
and September 17th and 18th.
Attachment 1 includes the policy and program changes recommended by the Planning
Commission over the course of four meetings held to review the draft elements. The
Commission’s changes incorporate policy revisions specified by the EIR itself, revisions in
response to public input during the EIR review process and public hearings (Attachment 3), and
changes from the Commission itself. In order to distinguish those changes endorsed by the
Commission, Attachment 1 provides the policy and program language as it appears in the
published legislative draft format with the Commission’s recommended changes highlighted in
yellow. Draft minutes from September 10th, 11th, 17th and 18th are provided in Attachment 2.
Please note that the Table of Contents, figures and tables will be updated and all references will
be updated in the final documents. The Council should review and provide direction to staff
regarding changes to the legislative draft documents. Those changes will be brought back for
final action on October 21, 2014.
1. Land Use Element
A high level description of the proposed updates to each chapter of the Land Use Element as
evaluated in the FEIR is described below. These descriptions are followed by a brief summary
of any Planning Commission edits that occurred in response to community input and the hearing
process. Attachment 1 provides the actual language edits endorsed by the Planning Commission,
with changes shown highlighted to distinguish them within the legislative draft of the document.
Introduction, Goals, and Chapter 1: Growth Management Policies
This section contains the background to the LUCE update, the goals and relocated land use
designations and growth management policies. The consultant team recommended removal of
the background section describing the 1994 LUE update for purposes of clarity and brevity. The
Planning Commission supported removal of the background to the previous update and also
supported addition of new policy language to clarify under what conditions provision of recycled
water outside the city boundaries might be appropriate.
Chapter 2: Conservation and Development of Residential Neighborhoods
With the LUCE focus on infill development, several policies were added or updated in this
chapter to help describe livable neighborhoods and to provide direction for development to be
compatible with the existing neighborhood fabric. The Planning Commission supported edits to
policy describing compatible development to clarify intent.
Chapter 3: Commercial and Industrial Development
The largest amount of change in this chapter resulted from relocating the land use designation
descriptions and associated purpose and intensity standards to the table at the front of the
element. However there are edits to existing policies, one new policy addition and four new
programs proposed.
PH3 - 2
LUCE – LUE 1-6 and 9-12 and CE 1-10 and 12-16 and Fiscal Page 3
Chapter 4: Downtown
Updates to this chapter focused on the mix of uses in the Downtown, the need to update the
Downtown Concept Plan, and the desire to ensure Downtown is safe and vibrant at all times of
day and night. The Planning Commission added the concept of “parklets” to the new policy
regarding downtown green space.
Chapter 5: Public and Cultural Facilities
Updates to this chapter were minor.
Chapter 6: Resource Protection
Updates to this chapter included addition of a new program to evaluate options for addressing
flood concerns; as well as new policies to address drainage requirements. Specific flood control
measures listed in Policy 6.5.1 are proposed for removal in favor of policy direction that is
implemented through ordinance, specific plans, and other design standards that can be responsive
to changes in state law and best practices.
Chapter 7: Airport
This chapter was reviewed by Council on September 30, 2014.
Chapter 8: Special Focus Areas
This chapter was reviewed by Council on September 16th and 30th, 2014. Final actions were
taken by the City Council on Bishop Knolls and General Hospital focus areas.
Chapter 9: Sustainability
This is a new chapter of the element and includes policy and program support for efforts to
implement the Climate Action Plan; and to seek ways to promote more energy efficiency in
buildings and the city’s built form. The Planning Commission applauded City Council’s
previous addition of a new policy and program to address the urban forest. In addition, the
Commission edited sustainable design policies to encourage development of solar-ready and
grey water-ready homes, and encourage provision of solar canopies, such as the solar panel
arrays on the structures covering school parking lots. The Commission supported addition of
examples of energy efficient projects and vehicle charging stations to the draft incentive program
and building code update program respectively.
Chapter 10: Healthy Community
This is a new chapter and includes Healthy Eating Active Living (HEAL) policies. It includes
policy support for local food systems and walkability.
Chapter 11: Review and Amendment
Only minor grammatical edits were made in this chapter.
Chapter 12: Implementation
Information in this chapter was updated to reflect implementation that has occurred since 1994
such as adoption of Historic Preservation Ordinance and Historic Context Statement. In addition,
PH3 - 3
LUCE – LUE 1-6 and 9-12 and CE 1-10 and 12-16 and Fiscal Page 4
language changes to the Environmental Review section were made to clarify the community’s
desire to fully understand potential environmental impacts associated with projects.
2. Circulation Element
A high level description of the proposed updates to each chapter of the Circulation Element as
evaluated in the FEIR is described below. These descriptions are followed by a brief summary
of any Planning Commission edits that occurred in response to community input and the hearing
process. Attachment 1 provides the actual language edits endorsed by the Planning Commission,
with changes shown highlighted to distinguish them within the legislative draft of the document.
Chapter 1: Introduction
This section contains the purpose and objectives of the Circulation Element. In addition, this
chapter contains the updated modal split objectives and a new policy to support multi-modal
circulation. The Commission supported edits to include additional types of alternative fueling
stations and addition of creative transportation demand management language.
Chapter 2: Traffic Reduction
Changes in this chapter include revisions to policies that refer to trip reduction requirements. In
accordance with SB 437 (Lewis), employee trip reduction mandates are not allowed unless
required by the Federal government (§ 40717.9 Health and Safety Regulations) and updated
policy and program language now reflects this transition to voluntary commuter benefit
programs. The Commission supported minor edits to a policy in this chapter to reflect existing
efforts by Cal Poly to incentivize use of alternative forms of transportation.
Chapter 3: Transit Service
Updates in this chapter reflect that the City has adopted implementation through a Short Range
Transit Plan that it updates every five years. The edits in this chapter are fairly minor but
reinforce the intent to make transit a suitable mode choice for residents. The Commission
supported updated language to describe seniors and persons with disabilities as well as minor
edits to several other policies.
Chapter 4: Bicycle Transportation
Updates in this chapter focus on the importance of implementing the Bicycle Transportation
Plan, as well as coordinating bike infrastructure planning with regional efforts and the local
campus master plans. The Commission supported a minor edit to the bicycle licensing program.
Chapter 5: Walking
This chapter has several policy updates to reflect the desire for pedestrian connectivity
throughout the community. A new program has been added to call for development of a
Downtown Pedestrian Plan. While this effort was initiated with the LUCE update, the public
engagement and discussions required to complete a public review draft of the Pedestrian Plan
have not yet occurred and are anticipated to follow the LUCE update.
PH3 - 4
LUCE – LUE 1-6 and 9-12 and CE 1-10 and 12-16 and Fiscal Page 5
Chapter 6: Multi-Modal Circulation
This is a new chapter which responds to Assembly Bill 1358 (2008), The Complete Streets Act,
which requires all cities updating a Circulation Element to plan for development of multi-modal
transportation networks. Policies in this chapter establish the Complete Streets and Multimodal
Level of Service (LOS) Objectives, Standards, and Significance Criteria. Policies for Modal
priorities for Level of Service are also established along with thresholds of significance and
mitigation policies for review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Chapter 7: Traffic Management
Chapter 7 establishes policies that would manage expansion of roadways to only accommodate
increased vehicular traffic associated with development under the Land Use Element and
regional transportation plans. Policies also would increase support for non-automobile travel by
allocating transportation funding across various modes of transportation and to reduce vehicle
speeds in residential neighborhoods where possible. A key policy in this chapter directs the city
to adopt funding guidelines to align with modal split objectives. Staff recommends additions to
7.0.2 and 9.1.6 regarding roundabouts to be consistent with state and federal roundabout policy
and guidance and lessen class I transportation impacts given the proven superior safety and
operational benefits. This direction may be found on page 3-22 of the FEIR. Additional edits
were made by the Planning Commission regarding access management policies, and connections
to non-automotive modes.
Chapter 8: Neighborhood Traffic Management
Chapter 8 contains policies to protect residential neighborhoods from deteriorating traffic
conditions by minimizing cut through traffic and incorporating traffic calming features. The
Commission recommended edits to the proposed policy regarding neighborhood traffic
management guidelines to include outreach and guidance on voting. In addition, the
Commission recommended edits to clarify priority and criteria to be considered when evaluating
quality of life issues associated with neighborhood streets.
Chapter 9: Street Network Changes
Chapter 9 provides policy modification to require public participation in the planning and design
of major changes to the street network and modified implementation policy to sequence street
projects so development does not precede needed infrastructure improvements.
Chapter 10: Truck Transportation
Truck transportation policy modifications include policies to require use of established truck
routes and include a new policy that the City shall adopt an ordinance regulating the movement
of heavy vehicles.
Chapter 11: Air Transportation
This chapter was reviewed by the Council on September 30, 2014.
Chapter 12: Rail Transportation
Modifications to Chapter 12 includes policies encouraging increased availability of passenger
rail service and to enhance City transit service to transit station and to work with the train station
PH3 - 5
LUCE – LUE 1-6 and 9-12 and CE 1-10 and 12-16 and Fiscal Page 6
management to upgrade the facility and visitor services. The Commission added two new
policies to this chapter.
Chapter 13: Parking Management
Chapter 13 includes updated policies which clarify and update language related to short term
parking, establishment of park and ride lots, curb parking evaluation, and the approval and
construction of public parking structures. The Commission added additional language to the
parking management program to include consideration of unbundled parking and other emerging
practices. The Commission also noted that parking evaluation should include areas within the
larger planning area.
Chapter 14: Neighborhood and Parking Management
This Chapter includes additional policies to protect residential neighborhoods from parking
demand generated by adjacent high-intensity uses and for the City to update the review criteria
and clarify the process for establishing neighborhood parking districts.
Chapter 15: Scenic Roadways
This Chapter addresses policy direction for development along scenic roadways including
signage, lighting, and other public equipment and facilities. The Commission supported a minor
edit to clarify that the Aesthetic Study of US 101 was being conducted by Caltrans. The
Commission also noted that designation of scenic highways should include areas within the
larger planning area.
Chapter 16: Circulation Element Implementation, Program Funding and Management
Chapter 16 policies provide additional emphasis on how the City’s financial decisions should
support and align with the circulation policies and programs, and encourages the City to continue
to actively participate in regional transportation issues.
3. Interaction with Regional Actions
SLOCOG
Funding from a Caltrans Partnership Planning Grant allowed SLOCOG to work with Caltrans,
APCD, and RTA to develop a US 101 Corridor Mobility Master Plan. The draft plan discusses
future needs for US 101 in the County to the year 2035 and addresses a section of US 101
through San Luis Obispo between Los Osos Valley Road and the Grand Avenue ramp. The draft
plan identifies specific localized needs and suggests longer term improvement packages that are
to be considered for inclusion in future Regional Transportation Plan and Federal Transportation
Improvement Program updates. The table of recommended improvement packages includes the
Prado Road Interchange, the Santa Rosa Street Interchange, and the Broad Street Ramps. These
are listed as medium to long term enhancements (10-20 years).
4. Financial Report
The fiscal impact analysis of the LUCE update (Attachment 3) provides information about the
fiscal balance of the land uses and the cost of the infrastructure to support those uses. This
information is intended to inform the Council regarding the mix of uses being proposed through
PH3 - 6
LUCE – LUE 1-6 and 9-12 and CE 1-10 and 12-16 and Fiscal Page 7
the update and will set the stage for future efforts to define the fee program and facilities
financing approaches that will support implementation.
Development supported by the LUCE update will generate demands for local government
services such as police, fire, utilities, community development, as well as increased demands on
facilities such as parks and government buildings. This same development will also generate
revenue to help support these demands through taxes and fees. The analysis of how the cost of
the demand balances with the off-setting revenue associated with the types of uses supported by
the LUCE update is addressed in the fiscal impact report. In general, residential development
generates less income than it costs the community to serve; and non-residential development
(especially those uses generating transient occupancy tax and retail sales tax) generates more
income than it costs the community to serve. “This effect frequently is exacerbated over time.
Thus, community plans should strive to develop a balance of land use that includes sufficient net
revenue generators to offset financial drains and/or to avoid diminishing service levels.”1
The findings from the report indicate the new development associated with the LUCE would
generate a net neutral to slightly net positive fiscal impact. This understanding of the relative
balance of demand for public services and cost to respond is important to ensure the City of San
Luis Obispo is able to meet the expectations of its citizens, both current and future. It is an
important component, though not the only factor, in creating a plan that meets the desired vision
of the community.
The information is provided to the City Council as context for the LUCE update but no further
action or recommendation is required. This report is intended to inform the Council regarding
the fiscal impacts of land uses supported by the LUCE and will provide valuable information for
the public facility fee update that will follow LUCE adoption.
5. Next Steps
The October 21st City Council hearing is intended to be the completion of the LUCE update
process by finalizing direction and taking action on the draft elements, minor edits to other
elements to maintain internal consistency, associated Zoning Ordinance changes, and General
Plan diagram and Zoning Map changes. The topics for Council consideration are shown below:
October 21st
• LUCE adoption
• Potential Airport Overrule determination
• Airport Overlay Zone (dependent on item above)
• Zoning Regulations addition for S-F overlay zone
• Fiscal/Public Facilities Financing Plan
• EIR Addendum, as required
• Land Use Element diagram and Zoning Map
1 Multari, Coleman, Hampian, and Statler. Guide to Local Government Finance in California, Solano Press Books,
2012.
PH3 - 7
LUCE – LUE 1-6 and 9-12 and CE 1-10 and 12-16 and Fiscal Page 8
CONCURRENCES
The LUCE and DEIR were reviewed by all City departments and were distributed to various
California agencies for comment and made available for public review and comment.
FISCAL IMPACT
The LUCE Update was made possible by a Sustainable Communities grant in the amount of
$880,000 provided by the State of California Strategic Growth Council. Funding for the grant is
from the Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality and Supply, Flood Control, River and Coastal
Protection Act of 2006 (Proposition 84). General Fund in the amount of $467,500 was also used
on the LUCE update to fund the environmental review and support Public Works and Fire
Department staffing impacts.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Continue consideration of the proposed public hearing schedule and direct staff to
provide additional information to the City Council at a future meeting.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Recommended policy changes resulting from Planning Commission review and EIR
2. Draft Planning Commission minutes from 9-10-14, 9-11-14, 9-17-14 and 9-18-14
3. Policy Matrix provided to Planning Commission with comments received through EIR
4. Fiscal Impact Report
The Draft LUCE and Draft EIR are available for review and CDs area available at the
Community Development Department, 919 Palm Street. These documents can also be
downloaded here: http://www.slo2035.com
AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN THE COUNCIL OFFICE
Full Copy of Draft EIR and appendices (5 Volumes)
T:\Council Agenda Reports\2014\2014-10-07\LUCE Update (Johnson-Murry)\CAR LUCE Update (LUE 1-6 _ 9-12 and CE 1-10_12-16
and Fiscal).docx
PH3 - 8
1
Planning Commission Recommendations
Policy revisions and additions recommended by the Planning Commission are shown
highlighted to distinguish the Commission’s edits from the existing legislative draft.
Land Use Element___________________________________________
Introduction
Page 10-11
Background to the 1994 Land Use Element
The following represents a historical perspective of the update to the Land Use Element
conducted in 1994 and is taken from that Element:
“The City started work on updating this element with a series of public workshops in 1988. Also,
the City took a public opinion survey and established committees to give advice on the element.
The introduction to the 1977 Land Use Element contained a philosophical discussion of existing
conditions and issues facing the City. The discussion is still valid today. Its premise is that the
City and County, while still relatively rural and apparently capable of providing room for new
residents, face some known and several undefined finite resources which may constrain growth.
Furthermore, the introduction said, public attitudes towards the desirability of growth had
changed since the City’s first General Plan; experience with growth had caused citizens and
public officials to question whether growth, even well planned, produces benefits worth the
social, economic and environmental costs and consequences. Despite such consistent and
strong expression of community values, there has been continued, incremental degradation of
the natural environment expressly valued by residents of San Luis Obispo.
On the environmental side, the element stated that key resources known to have finite limits
were water supply and air quality. All the basic resources -- land, water and air -- can
accommodate some additional growth without severe impacts, but eventually and inevitably
growth must stabilize and stop, or else exceed resource limitations with destructive social,
economic and environmental ramifications. The purpose of the 1977 element, the Introduction
said, was to apply planning methodologies to manage the rate and extent of growth so that
irreversible environmental problems would not get out of hand before they were recognized.
Concerns about environmental quality continue today, and are the basis for much of the
General Plan. Votes of residents and the public opinion survey of residents done as part of the
General Plan update have strongly reaffirmed the commitment of residents to preserve and
enhance the environmental quality of our community. In the years since 1977 additional issues
have become better defined. One, for example, is the maintenance of the remaining prime
farmland in and around the City. The 1977 Element cited this as one of the primary issues
facing planners, but failed to propose a concrete solution. As a result, irreplaceable agricultural
land has been lost. The General Plan now proposes solutions to the continued irretrievable loss
of this world-class natural asset. Another issue that was less well understood in 1977 is the
Attachment 1
PH3 - 9
2
preservation of important wildlife and native plant habitats. The General Plan now proposes
preservation of such habitats, including planning based on the identification, mapping and
monitoring of the community's existing natural assets. This element is an update of the 1977
element; it represents fine tuning rather than a new beginning.”
Page 21 – midway on page
Land Use Designations within LUCE Planning Sub-area
Within the LUCE Planning Sub-area, tThe General Plan Land Use Diagram includes residential,
commercial, industrial, and other land use designations that depict the types of land uses that
will be allowed within the LUCE Planning Sub-area. Table 1 identifies describes all of the
designations along with their corresponding development intensity standards, as follows.
Tables 1 and 2 provide same information:
Page 28 – top of page
Land Use Designations Outside the LUCE Planning Sub-area
Most of the land within the City’s Greenbelt (see Figure 5 in the Conservation and Open Space
Element), but outside the City limits (unincorporated lands), is designated by the County for
Agriculture or Open Space. The City supports these land use designations and discourages
any further subdivision of existing parcels unless such subdivision is expressly part of strategy
to permanently preserve agriculture and/or open space. However, if any new lots are permitted
apart from such a strategy, they should be a minimum of 20 acres in size or greater.
Chapter 1 – Growth Management Policies
NEW Policy: Recycled Water
Provision of recycled water outside of City limits may only be considered in compliance with
Water and Wastewater Policy A 7.3.4 and the following findings:
A. Non-potable/recycled water is necessary to support continued agricultural operations.
B. Provision of non-potable/recycled water will not be used to increase development of
property being served.
C. Non-potable/recycled water will not be further treated to make it potable.
D. Prior to provision of non-potable/recycled water, the property to be served will record a
conservation, open space, Williamson Act, or other easement instrument to maintain the
area being served in agriculture and open space while recycled water is being provided.
Chapter 2 – Conservation and Development of Residential Neighborhoods
LUE 2.2.9 Compatible Development
The City shall require that new Hhousing built within an existing neighborhood should be inbe
sited and designed to be compatible with the scale and incharacter with that of
theneighborhood. All multifamily development and large group-living facilities shouldshall be
compatible with any nearby, lower density development. Compatibility for all development shall
be evaluated using the following criteria:...H. Housing Diversity. A mix of housing types, and a
range of density within a neighborhood an area is generally desirable (see also Policy 2.1.6).
Attachment 1
PH3 - 10
3
2.3.1 Density Categories
The following residential density categories are established in (Table 41) within LUCE Planning
Sub-area, and Table 2 for areas outside the LUCE Planning Sub-area but within the City’s
Planning Area. For planning studies conducted, Table 5 provides a typical population density
for each residential land use designation. Residential density is expressed as the number of
dwellings per acre of net site area within the designation. In determining net area, the following
types of areas are excluded: sensitive features such as creeks, habitats of rare or endangered
plants and animals, and significant trees; land dedicated in fee to the public for streets or
neighborhood parks.
For the categories other than Rural Agriculture/Open Space, Residential Rural, Residential
Suburban, and Low-Density Residential, densities are expressed in terms of a standard two-
bedroom dwelling. This approach is intended to achieve population densities approximately like
those indicated. More or fewer dwellings having different bedroom counts may be built
depending on the number of people expected to live in a project, as indicated by the number of
bedrooms. The population-density standards assumptions also apply to group residential
facilities. (For allowed residential development in Office, commercial, and manufacturing
districts non-residential designations, see the sections concerning those districts Table 1.)
Chapter 3 – Commercial and Industrial Development Policies
No changes from Draft LUE project description previously endorsed by Council
Chapter 4 - Downtown
New Policy Downtown Green Space
The City shall increase Downtown green space and public parks including pocket parks and
parklets, as the number of people living Downtown increases.
Chapter 5 – Public and Cultural Facilities
No changes from Draft LUE project description previously endorsed by Council
Chapter 6 – Resource Protection
No changes from Draft LUE project description previously endorsed by Council
Chapter 7 – Airport Area
7.3.6 Internal Open Space
Attachment 1
PH3 - 11
4
The City shall ensure The areas designated for urban uses in the Airport Area Specific Plan, but
not necessarily each parcel, should include open areas as site amenities and to protect
resources, consistent with the Conservation and Open Space Element. In addition, the City shall
ensure wildlife corridors across the Airport Area shall be identified and preserved.
New Policy 7.X Airspace Protection
The City shall use the Airport Master Plan Update and FAA airport design standards and Part
77 surfaces to keep the airspace surrounding the airport free of objects where required by the
FAA or shall limit the height of objects as required by the FAA.
The City shall also ensure obstruction clearance is provided for all en route and terminal
(airport) instrument procedures as per the United States Standard for Terminal Instrument
Procedures (TERPS) to avert modifications to any planned or published instrument approach or
instrument departure procedures at SBP.
Chapter 8 – Special Focus Areas (See associated Zoning Changes – SF Overlay below)
Page 97 – last paragraph
The special planning areas Special Focus Areas are those that present opportunities to develop
customized land use approaches or special design implementation to enhance their appearance
and achieve their respective development potential: Foothill Blvd., Upper Monterey, Mid-
Higuera, Caltrans site, General Hospital site, Broad Street Area, Madonna Inn area, Sunset
Drive-in, Pacific Beach, Calle Joaquin auto sales area, LOVR Creek area, and Broad Street at
Tank Farm area.
Pages 105, 106, and 107
Planning Commission recommended a footnote for the performance standards of all three
Specific Plans:
*There can be a reduction in the minimum requirement based on specific physical and/or
environmental constraints.
Page 105 of Draft LUE
8.3.2.4 SP-2 San Luis Ranch (Dalidio) Specific Plan Area
Performance Standards: This specific plan shall meet the following performance
standards.
Type
Designations
Allowed % of Site Minimum* Maximum
Residential LDR
MDR
MHDR
HDR
350 units 500 units
Commercial NC
CC
50,000 SF 200,000 SF
Office/High
tech)
O 50,000 SF 150,000 SF
Attachment 1
PH3 - 12
5
Hotel/Visitor-
serving
200 rooms
Parks PARK 5.8 ac
Open Space /
Agriculture
OS
AG
Minimum
50%1
65.5 ac No maximum
Public n/a
Infrastructure n/a
*There can be a reduction in the minimum requirement based on specific physical and/or environmental
constraints.
1 The City Council may consider allowing a portion of required open space to be met through off -site
dedication provided:
a) A substantial multiplier for the amount of open space is provided for the off-site property
exchanged to meet the on-site requirement; and
b) Off-site land is of similar agricultural and visual value to the community; and
c) Off-site land is protected through an easement, dedication or fee title in perpetuity for
agriculture/open space.
Foothill/Santa Rosa (page 108 of the LUE):
As part of this project, the City will evaluate adjustments to parking requirements to
account for predominant pedestrian and bike access. Building height adjustments in this
area can also be considered with mixed use development. Redevelopment plans shall
include consideration of improving the existing complex intersections of
Foothill/Chorro/Broad, the desirability of modifying Boysen at and through the property
on the northeast corner of the area, and enhancement of pedestrian, bicycle and transit
connections across Foothill and Santa Rosa/Highway 1 and to the campus. Among
other possible incentives, building height adjustments on the North side of Foothill may
be considered with mixed use development.
LOVR Creekside (page 111 of the LUE):
This area is heavily constrained by flood potential along the western boundary as well as
limited circulation access to the site given its proximity to the proposed LOVR /
Highway 101 interchange and its limited frontage on LOVR. Flooding and access issues
must be resolved prior to developing Medium High Density Residential (in areas
adjacent to existing residential uses). Agricultural Designations must be maintained
along the west side of site. As part of future development, compatibility with adjacent
residential areas to the east will be required.
Permanent protection of the adjacent San Luis Obispo Creek will need to be addressed
as part of proposed development. The south side of the site will also need to
accommodate relocation of LOVR right-of-way and changes related to the planned
Highway 101 interchange. As part of development, impacts of a new roadway
connection in some form from Los Osos Valley Road to Higuera shall be analyzed.
Broad Street at Tank Farm Road (page 111 of the LUE):
Located at the northwest corner of Broad Street and Tank Farm Road, this approximate
Attachment 1
PH3 - 13
6
10 acre site will be used as a mixed use site, providing for a mix of uses as described
under the Community Commercial and Office designations and residential limited to
upper floors. The site will provide a strong commercial presence at the intersection.
Areas along the creek on the western edge of the site will be appropriately buffered to
provide creek protections. Attention to connectivity, safety and comfort of bicycle and
pedestrian circulation will be especially important in the development of this corner.
CalFire/Cal Poly property on Highway 1 (page 111 of the LUE):
The Cal Poly Master Plan currently designates this area for Faculty and Staff housing.
The City shall collaborate with Cal Poly in updating the Master Plan for development of
campus property. Master Plan direction for this property shall address sensitive visual
and habitat resources, circulation issues, impacts to City services, transition and
potential impacts to surrounding neighborhoods.
SBSCP (notes to list of allowed uses)
Medical services
To approve a Medical Service use in the C-S zone, the Hearing Officer must make the
following findings:
a. The proposed medical service is compatible with surrounding land uses.
b. The proposed medical service will not significantly increase traffic or create parking
impacts in residential neighborhoods.
c. The proposed medical service is consistent with the Airport Land Use Plan.
dc. The project will not preclude service commercial uses in areas especially suited for
these uses when compared with medical services.
ed. The project site can accommodate the parking requirements of the proposed medical
service and will not result in other lease spaces being under-utilized because of a lack of
available parking.
Chapter 9 – Sustainability
9.3.7 Sustainable Design
D. Sustainable Design
Utilize plumbing fixtures that conserve or reuse water such as low flow faucets or grey
water systems, and encourage new homes to be constructed to be grey water ready.
H. The City shall encourage the building of solar-ready homes.
I. The City shall encourage the building of solar canopies.
New Program Incentive Program
The City shall consider the feasibility of providing incentives for new and renovated projects that
incorporate sustainable design features such as constructing new buildings that are solar ready,
or off-setting significant operational energy use through use of solar water heating, photovoltaic
systems, geothermal or wind energy systems.
New Program Building Code Update
Building Code Update: The City shall regularly review and update its building code and
ordinances to identify revisions to promote energy efficient building design and construction
Attachment 1
PH3 - 14
7
practices, for example by including requirements for electric vehicle charging stations for new
residential developments.
New Policy: Renew the Urban Forest
The City shall Ddevelop a long term tree planting program to beautify the city, mitigate
increased residential density, address die-off, and combat air pollution and global warming.
New Program: Urban Forest
The City shall Uupdate master tree plan and develop recommendations to renew and maintain
the urban forest and plant more trees.
Chapter 10 – Healthy Community
No changes from Draft LUE project description previously endorsed by Council
Chapter 11 – Review and Amendment
No changes from Draft LUE project description previously endorsed by Council
Chapter 12 – Implementation
No changes from Draft LUE project description previously endorsed by Council
Zoning – Chapter 17.53: Special Focus Area (S-F) Overlay Zone
17.53.010 Purpose and application.
The SF Overlay Zone is intended to translate the provisions of General Plan Land Use Element
Chapter 8 (Special Focus Areas) into regulations for the subsequent development of land. It will
be applied to areas identified in Chapter 8 as Special Planning Areas, where the General Plan
Land Use Element calls for special design concepts.
17.53.020 Allowed uses and development standards.
All development within the Special Planning Areas shall adhere to the requirements of the
underlying zone district and the provisions for each of the respective Special Planning Areas, as
described in Chapter 8 of the Land Use Element. In addition, development objectives within
each of the Special Planning Areas shall be interpreted by the Community Development
Director or applicable advisory body or commission in order to achieve the development
objectives of the Special Focus Areas. Where provisions of the underlying zone and Land Use
Element Chapter 8 conflict, LUE policies shall take precedence. Planning Commission review
and approval is required for the following Special Focus Areas: Foothill Boulevard/Santa Rosa,
Cal Trans Site, Madonna Inn Area, Sunset Drive-in Theater/Prado Road Area, LOVR Creekside
Area.
17.53.030 Subsequent Amendments.
Attachment 1
PH3 - 15
8
Minor adjustments to internal zone district boundaries within each of the Special Planning Areas
may be proposed or required during development review based on physical site conditions,
environmental impacts and other factors, as deemed appropriate in order to best implement
policies and programs contained in the General Plan.
Updates to Noise and Safety Elements for internal consistency with
Chapter 7.
See New Airport Overlay Zone Chapter 17.57
Circulation Element___________________________________________
Chapter 1 – Introduction
1.5.1 Transportation Goals
8. Reduce the need for travel by private vehicle through land use strategies, creative
transportation demand management, telecommuting and compact work weeks.
1.9 Support Environmentally Sound Technological Advancement
San Luis Obispo should:
1. A. The City will continue to support the use and development of compressed natural gas
and biodiesel fueling stations, EV recharging stations, and other alternative fuel stations
in the San Luis Obispo area.
Chapter 2 – Traffic Reduction
2.1.4 The City shall continue to work with Cal Poly, Cuesta College and other educational
institutions to provide incentives to all students, faculty, and staff to use alternative forms
of transportation.
Chapter 3 – Transit Service
CE 3.0.7 Transit Service Access
The City shall encourage transit accessibility New development should be designed to facilitate
access to transit service.
Attachment 1
PH3 - 16
9
3.03 Paratransit The City shall continue to support paratransit service for the elderly and
disabled persons provided seniors and persons with disabilities by public and private
transportation providers.
3.0.4 Campus Service. The City should shall continue to work with Cal Poly to maintain and
expand the "no free fare subsidy program" for campus service and Cal Poly should continue to
provide financial support affiliates. The City should encourage shall work with Cuesta College
and other agencies schools to establish similar programs.
3.1.4 The City will cooperate shall coordinate with efforts of the San Luis Obispo Council of
Governments Regional Transit Authority (SLORTA) to evaluate the cost effectiveness of
centralizing transit benefits and drawbacks of coordinated and consolidated service.
3.1.7 New Development
When evaluating transportation impacts, the City shall use a Multimodal Level of Service
analysis.
Chapter 4 – Bicycle Transportation
4.1.1 Incentives (Note: Task Force recommends that this program be moved to the Traffic
Reduction section.)
The City shall work with Cal Poly and, Cuesta College, shall be encouraged and other
educational institutions to provide incentives to and educate all students, faculty and staff to use
alternative forms of transportation.
The City shall work with Cal Poly and, Cuesta College, shall be encouraged and other
educational institutions to provide incentives to and educate all students, faculty and staff to use
bicycling as an alternative forms of transportation. (Note: Commission recommendation to retain
modified policy here in addition to moving the policy as recommended by the Task Force).
4.1.9 Bicycle Licensing
The City should consider expanding and maintaining its bicycle licensing program to
address bicycle loss, theft, and safety problems.
Chapter 5 – Walking
5.0.3 NEW DEVELOPMENT
New development shall provide sidewalks and pedestrian paths Consistent with City
policies, plans, programs, and standards. When evaluating transportation impact, the
City shall use a Multimodal Level of Service analysis.
Attachment 1
PH3 - 17
10
Chapter 6 – Multi-Modal Circulation
6.0.E Mitigation
c. Transit: For transit-related impacts, developments shall be responsible for their fair
share of any infrastructural improvements required. This may involve provision of street
furniture at transit stops, transit shelters, and/or transit shelter amenities, pullouts for
transit vehicles, transit signal prioritization, provision of additional transit vehicles, or
exclusive transit lanes.
6.0.1 Complete Streets
The City shall design and operate City streets to enable safe, comfortable, and
convenient access and travel for users of all abilities including pedestrians, bicyclists,
transit users, and motorists.
Chapter 7 – Traffic Management
7.0.2 Street Network
The City shall manage to the extent feasible the street network so that the standards presented
in Table 6.1 are not exceeded. This will require new development to mitigate the traffic impacts
it causes or the City to limit development that affects streets where congestion levels may be
exceeded. The standards may be met by strengthening alternative modes over the single
occupant motor vehicle. Where feasible, roundabouts shall be the City’s preferred intersection
control alternative due to the vehicle speed reduction, safety, and operational benefits of
roundabouts.
7.1.7 Traffic Access Management
The City shall adopt an access management policy to control location, spacing, design and
operation of driveways, median openings, crosswalks, interchanges and street connections to a
particular roadway including navigation routes to direct traffic in a manner that preserves the
safety and efficiency of the transportation system. Navigation routing and other smart access
technologies should be considered as part of the update to the Access and Parking
Management plan.
Chapter 8 – Neighborhood Traffic Management
8.0.5 Neighborhood Traffic Management Guidelines
The City shall update its Neighborhood Traffic Management Guidelines to address voting,
funding, and implementation procedures and develop an outreach program on the availability of
the program.
Attachment 1
PH3 - 18
11
8.1.3 Quality of Life
When requested by neighborhoods, The City shall analyze residential streets shall be analyzed
for their livability with regards to multi-modal traffic noise, volumes, speed and potential excess
right-of-way pavement. Traffic calming or other intervening measures. may be necessary to
maintain the resident's quality of life. The City should give priority to existing streets that exceed
thresholds.
8.1.1 City Vehicle Operation
OperatorsThe City shall direct operators of City vehicles, excluding police patrols, should not to
use Residential Collector or Residential Local streets as shortcut routes for non-emergency
City business.
Chapter 9 – Street Network Changes
9.1.6 Streetscapes and major roadways
In the acquisition, design, construction or significant modification of major roadways (highways /
regional routes and arterial streets), the City willshall promote the creation of “streetscapes” and
linear scenic parkways or corridors that promote the City’scity’s visual quality and character,
enhance adjacent uses, and integrate roadways with surrounding districts. To accomplish this,
the City willshall:
A. Establish streetscape design standards for major roadways;
B. Establish that where feasible roundabouts shall be the City’s preferred intersection
alternative due to improved aesthetics, reduction in impervious surface areas, and
additional landscaping area:
BC. Encourage the creation and maintenance median planters and widened parkway
plantings;
C.D. Retain mature trees in the public right-of-way;
D.E. Emphasize the planting and maintaining of California Native tree species of sufficient
height, spread, form and horticultural characteristics to create the desired streetscape
canopy, shade, buffering from adjacent uses, and other desired streetscape
characteristics, consistent with the Tree Ordinance or as recommended by the Tree
Committee or as approved by the Architectural Review Commission.
E.F Encourage the use of water-conserving landscaping, street furniture, decorative lighting
and paving, arcaded walkways, public art, and other pedestrian-oriented features to
enhance the streetscape appearance, comfort and safety.
F.G Identify gateways into the City including improvements such as landscaped medians,
wayfinding and welcoming signage, arches, lighting enhancements, pavement features,
sidewalks, and different crosswalk paving types.
F.H. Encourage and where possible, required undergrounding of overhead utility lines and
structures.
G.I. When possible, signs in the public right-of-way should be consolidated on a single, low-
profile standard.
Attachment 1
PH3 - 19
12
I.J In the Downtown, streetscape improvements shall be consistent with the Downtown
Pedestrian Plan.
Table 5. Transportation Capital Projects
(Note: Table to be updated to reflect revised and new projects. Updated Table to be
provided via Agenda Correspondence)
Recommended Additions & Policy Language to be incorporated into Circulation Element:
Madonna & Higuera Realignment. Development of the properties North and South of
Madonna Rd. West of Higuera shall incorporate a detailed analysis for Madonna Road west
of Higuera and the intersection of Higuera and Madonna and recommend improvements, if
any.
Chorro, Broad, & Boysen Realignments. Redevelopment of University Square shall
incorporate a detailed circulation, safety & access management analysis for the
intersections of Boysen & Santa Rosa (potential for grade separation crossing/restrictions),
Foothill & Chorro, and Foothill & Broad as well as driveway access points along adjacent
roadways. and recommend improvements, if any.
Pismo & Higuera Realignment. Redevelopment of properties at the intersection of High &
Pismo at Higuera shall incorporate a detailed analysis and recommend improvements, if
any.
Planned Bishop Street Connection. The City shall conduct a detailed subarea traffic
analysis to determine if secondary measures can be made to allow for elimination of the
Bishop Street Extension and protection of neighborhood traffic levels and recommend
improvements, if any.
Los Osos Valley Road Bypass . The City shall conduct a detailed subarea traffic analysis
to determine final feasibility of the LOVR Bypass. Issues to be studied should include, but
are not limited to impacts to: sensitive noise receptors, agriculture operations, open space,
Creek, traffic and biological resources.
Chapter 10 – Truck Transportation
New policy requiring the adoption of an ordinance regulating the movement of heavy
vehicles.
Planning Commission change – Modification to Figure 2 (page 43)
1. Remove LOVR between US 101 and Higuera
2. Include Buckley Road
Attachment 1
PH3 - 20
13
Chapter 11 – Air Transportation
No changes from Draft LUE project description previously endorsed by Council
Chapter 12 – Rail Transportation
Coordination with Organizations Regarding Safety and Environmental Sensitivity
12.1.3 Idling Train Engines Interagency Cooperation. The City shall coordinate railroad facility
infrastructure maintenance with the Union Pacific Railroad and the Public Utilities Commission.
In addition, the City shall work with the Air Pollution Control District and others to eliminate
discourage idling train engines in San Luis Obispo.
12.1.4 Railroad Hazards Reduction. The City shall monitor and respond to changes, or
proposed changes in passenger and freight rail traffic that may impact the safety and well -being
of residents of the community including the transport of combustible materials.
12.1.5 Transport of Combustible Materials. “The City shall discourage the transportation of
oil and other combustible hydrocarbons through the City.”
Chapter 13 – Parking Management
13.1.1 Parking Management Plan
The City willshall maintain and periodically regularly update its Access and Parking
Management Plan (every 5 years) and consider emerging best practices such as unbundled
parking, smart parking technologies and cash out programs.
Chapter 14- Neighborhood and Parking Management
No changes from Draft LUE project description previously endorsed by Council
Chapter 15 – Scenic Roadways
15.05.5 Scenic Highways
13.0.615.0.5 Scenic Highways
The City will promote the creation of Scenic Highways within San Luis Obispo and adjoining
county areas. This support should be strongly advocated when:
1.A. Reviewing draft county general plan elements or major revisions to them.
2.B. Reviewing changes to the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) as a member agency of the
San Luis Obispo Council Regional Transportation Agency.
3.C. Reviewing development projects that are referred to the city that are located along routes
shown in the Conservation and Open Space Element.
D. Actively participating in the development and periodic updates of the Caltrans US 101
Aesthetic Study in San Luis Obispo County.
Attachment 1
PH3 - 21
14
Chapter 16 – Circulation Element Implementation, Program Funding and
Management
16.0.6 New Policy Distribution of Transportation Funding
The City shall encourage SLOCOG to consider initiating a county wide revenue measure
devoted to local transportation funding on the basis of population, so that San Luis Obispo
County becomes a “self help” county.
Attachment 1
PH3 - 22
DRAFT
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
September 10, 2014
CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL: Commissioners Hemalata Dandekar, Michael Draze, Ronald Malak,
William Riggs, and Chairperson John Larson
Absent: Commissioner John Fowler and Vice-Chairperson Michael Multari
Staff: Community Development Director Derek Johnson, Public Works
Deputy Director Tim Bochum, Traffic Operations Manager Jake
Hudson, Associate Planner Brian Leveille, Contract Planner Gary
Kaiser, Assistant City Attorney Jon Ansolabehere, and Recording
Secretary Diane Clement
Consultants: Nick Johnson, Johnson Aviation; Rick Rust, Matrix Design Group; and
Jeff Oliveira, Oliveira Environmental Consulting
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA:
The agenda was accepted as amended. The Agenda Forecast was done first to
accommodate Commr. Draze who recused himself from consideration of the two items
on the agenda.
MINUTES:
Minutes of August 13, 2014, were approved as amended.
Minutes of August 27, 2014, were approved as presented.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS:
Bob Hitchner, Nexus eWater, described his company's water recycling solutions for
homeowners and stated he is interested in working with staff to see how practical his
system would be for the City. He left copies of his company’s white paper and noted
that information can be downloaded from the company's website:
http://www.nexusewater.com.
There were no further comments made from the public.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. City-Wide. GPI/ER 15/12: Review of Draft Land Use Element (LUE) Chapter 7,
Circulation Element Chapter 11 of the General Plan, Proposed Airport Overlay
Zone, and associated changes to Noise and Safety Elements for consistency, City
of San Luis Obispo – Community Development Dept., applicant. (Continued from
August 27, 2014, meeting) (Gary Kaiser)
Attachment 2
PH3 - 23
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
September 10, 2014
Page 2
Commr. Draze recused himself from hearing the two items on the agenda and left the
Council Chamber.
Contract Planner Kaiser presented the staff report, which recommends the Commission
review and recommend approval of the Draft Land Use Element Chapter 7, Circulation
Element Chapter 11, proposed Airport Overlay Zone, and amendments to airport-
related sections of the Noise and Safety Elements for consideration by the City Council.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Marilyn Reasoner, SLO, expressed concern about a change in airport landing patterns
that has commercial planes making a hard left turn over her home in Los Verdes. She
stated she made many calls to the airport resulting in short-term improvement followed
by the problem getting worse.
Mila Vujovich-LaBarre, SLO, stated that she is concerned about the safety of residents
and tourists on the ground and in the air if the safety zones surrounding the airport are
changed and urged the City to work with the Airport Land Use Commission. She stated
that the plans for the Chevron property should be considered. She expressed concern
that safety restrictions are being cast aside due to pressure from development interests.
There were no further comments made from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Community Development Director Johnson stated that safety has been at the forefront
of all City recommendations and that the City also wants the airport to remain
economically viable. He noted that City policies ensure ongoing compliance with State
requirements and that the City will be working with the ALUC with the objective of
reaching consensus.
Commr. Dandekar stated that the safety and noise issues were discussed extensively at
the LUCE Task Force and that future safety issues in any of the special areas would
come to the Planning Commission.
Commr. Larson noted that a “buyer beware” notification for future residences that may
be subject to airport noise is the last solution to be considered and that first the City
should try to resolve airport noise problems. Having said that, he noted that the City
went through a very deliberate, thoughtful, and well-documented evaluation that
supports the LUCE development concept and addresses airport operational noise and
safety issues.
There were no further comments made from the Commission.
On motion by Commr. Dandekar, seconded by Commr. Malak, to approve the
Resolution recommending the City Council approve updates to Chapter 7 of the Land
Use Element and Chapter 11 of the Circulation Element and minor changes to the
Noise and Safety Elements to ensure internal consistency of the General Plan.
Attachment 2
PH3 - 24
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
September 10, 2014
Page 3
AYES: Commrs. Dandekar, Larson, Malak, and Riggs
NOES: None
RECUSED: Commr. Draze
ABSENT: Commrs. Fowler and Multari
The motion passed on a 4:0 vote.
On motion by Commr. Malak, seconded by Commr. Riggs, to adopt a Resolution
recommending the City Council approve zoning regulations amendments and adopt
Airport Overlay Zoning Regulations (Title 17 – Zoning Regulations) (GPI/ER 15-12)
AYES: Commrs. Dandekar, Larson, Malak, and Riggs
NOES: None
RECUSED: Commr. Draze
ABSENT: Commrs. Fowler and Multari
The motion passed on a 4:0 vote.
2. City-Wide. GPI/ER 15-12: Continued review of the Draft Land Use Element
(LUE) and associated Final Environmental Impact Report; City of San Luis Obispo,
Community Development Dept., applicant (Gary Kaiser)
Contract Planner Kaiser presented the staff report, recommending the City Council take
the following actions: (1) Certify the LUCE FEIR and associated documents; (2)
Approve policy and program updates to Land Use Element Chapters 1-6 and 8-12; and
(3) Approve policy and program updates for South Broad Street Area Plan; and (4)
Approve policy and program updates for Circulation Element Chapters 1-5.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Andrew Christie, SLO, director of the SLO Chapter of the Sierra Club, suggested
several recommendations for incorporation into the Land Use and Circulation Elements
to deal with impacts on air quality, the drought, and protection of the natural
environment, including rainwater percolation and water recycling systems for new
homes.
Steve DelMartini, SLO, stated that he disagreed with the requirement to have
residences only on the upper floors for property on the corner of Broad Street and Tank
Farm Road. He noted that there is little housing planned for that area but there are
many employees working near the airport who could benefit from nearby housing. He
added that putting in more housing would benefit the City's trip reduction goals.
Victor Montgomery, SLO, representing the 111-acre Madonna property south of Home
Depot, stated that the LUCE recommendations for this property should be retained to
give developers design flexibility.
Mila Vujovich-LaBarre, SLO, noted that there are inconsistencies in the description of
future portions of Prado Road; it is referred to as both a two-lane and a four-lane road in
Attachment 2
PH3 - 25
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
September 10, 2014
Page 4
the Draft EIR. She referred to it as a four-lane truck highway and stated that developers
need to be informed of the cost of an overpass or interchange at Prado and Highway
101. She noted that the City has received letters from Cal Trans specifically stating that
an interchange is not desirable or feasible yet the LUCE update says there will be one.
She stated that this needs clarification. She added that an EIR is needed for the
proposed northern alignment of Prado and, if Prado is going to be a four-lane truck
road, there is a need to study the cumulative impacts and costs for future developers.
She stated that the LUCE update did not adequately address the drought or other
environmental impacts.
Marshall Ochylski, representing the San Luis Ranch property, stated that he would like
the minimums designated in the performance standards of Chapter 8 of the Land Use
Element either eliminated or be footnoted to indicate that the minimums are not required
if there are constraints that make it infeasible. He expressed concern that otherwise
applicants would be required to apply for a General Plan amendment if the minimums
cannot be met. He also supported retaining the possibility of meeting ten acres of the
open space requirement for the specific plan via an off-site mitigation.
Sarah Flickinger, SLO, representing the two Los Verdes Park HOAs, stated that
clarification is needed about the alternative rerouting of Los Osos Valley Road to the
south side of Los Verdes, known as the Buckley by-pass.
There were no further comments made from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commr. Dandekar stated that there was much discussion at the LUCE Task Force
about the San Luis Ranch property as a scenic entry to the City and concluded that
guidelines for development were needed.
Commr. Larson stated that the fundamental performance standard of 50% open space
for this property is in the table and the nuance that allows a portion to be met with off-
site mitigation is a controversial issue.
Commr. Malak suggested a footnote or modification to the minimum and maximum
space required for residential and commercial development.
Mr. Rust stated that, in light of sustainability, a minimum gives developers an idea of
what is expected but there could be a footnote stating that reductions are based on
physical and/or environmental constraints although the City would still expect
development to be close to the minimum requirements.
Commr. Dandekar stated that she has an issue with some requirements for the
Madonna at Los Osos Valley Road area. She noted that the Task Force came up with
minimum numbers based on the discrepancy between future housing plans and target
goals, and she thinks the range of 250-300 defeats that purpose.
Attachment 2
PH3 - 26
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
September 10, 2014
Page 5
Mr. Rust stated that the smaller estimate of housing for the Madonna property included
moving housing away from the noise of Los Osos Valley Road.
Commr. Malak stated that he wants a general minimum that is not specific to one site.
Commr. Riggs stated that he does not understand the need for the footnote because
the Commission has discretion when development comes up for review.
Director Johnson explained that if development is less than the minimum, it might
trigger the need for a General Plan amendment, and the purpose of a footnote would be
to provide some discretion if site constraints prevented a development from meeting the
minimum performance standards.
Commr. Dandekar stated that the point was to get workforce housing that would reduce
traffic. She added that the Task Force saw a need for pockets of higher density where
young people could live near their work. She explained that there is a need to maintain
that principle and that the sites were not lightly identified by the Task Force.
Director Johnson stated that this policy and the table were the result of much discussion
in the community and with the Council. He added that off-site mitigation remains a
policy issue and not an EIR issue because staff did not have a specific site to evaluate.
Commr. Malak stated that he supports a footnote applicable to all development that
requires justification for going below the minimum because it would avoid the potential
need for a General Plan update.
Commr. Larson stated he had no problem with the footnote and Commr. Riggs stated
he was not comfortable with it.
Commr. Dandekar stated that the percentages generated by the Task Force were not
about nostalgia but were in recognition that this is a gateway to the City and there is an
aesthetic to protect. She added that even Cal Poly students have pointed out that these
corridors are important and she gave the example of how the British have preserved
much of the English countryside.
Commr. Riggs stated that a general policy of transferability of use is important.
Commr. Larson stated that the 50% open space requirement for the Dalidio property
has been a notable benchmark for many years and the possibility of meeting it with any
off-site consideration is a policy issue.
Mr. Oliveira read from the Draft EIR about guidance for off-site consideration which
noted that specific consideration is too speculative when there is no particular project to
evaluate.
Commr. Dandekar noted that this language takes care of the agricultural and open
space land. She stated that the ability to reduce open space in exchange for work force
housing is a principle.
Attachment 2
PH3 - 27
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
September 10, 2014
Page 6
Director Johnson stated that he is not sure staff has set the stage for applying this to all
specific plan areas noted in the Land Use Element. He also noted that the Dalidio
property is not yet a part of the City and there is a long-standing policy of requiring 50%
open space when annexing property.
Commr. Malak stated he would like to remove the language for the Broad Street/Tank
Farm area that limits housing to upper floors.
Commr. Dandekar stated that the Task Force concluded it is very important to have
mixed use at this very significant corner and that this is no place for ground floor
residences.
Commr. Malak stated that this language ties the hands of developers.
Commr. Riggs stated that the actual corner is not mentioned in the statement and there
could be specific language about the corner.
Commr. Larson stated that it is a key intersection and he can picture commercial on the
corner with residential behind it.
Mr. Rust recommended this language: “The site will provide a strong commercial
presence at the intersection” which drops any reference to upper floor residences.
In response to a question from Commr. Larson, Public Works Deputy Director Bochum
read a letter from Cal Trans that does not preclude an interchange at Prado Road but
recommends that the City evaluate alternatives and establish a clear purpose and need.
Deputy Director Bochum noted that this will be a difficult project to get approved and will
probably happen in conjunction with the development of San Luis Ranch.
Traffic Operations Manager Hudson stated that the City had a legal agreement with Los
Verdes to consider a Buckley Road/Los Osos Valley Road bypass but that scoping did
not include closure of any portion of the current LOVR. He noted that the bypass on its
own improved access in and out of Los Verdes and some creekside properties, and
provided some relief to South Higuera. He added that when properties come up for
development, the City will deal with the bypass, however closure of a portion of the
existing road would need to be further considered through separate environmental
review.
A motion by Commr. Dandekar to continue until tomorrow received no second and was
withdrawn.
On motion by Commr. Malak , seconded by Commr. Dandekar, to approve the
recommendation that the City Council certify the final EIR prepared for the LUCE
Update Program. (Application #GPI/ER 15-12)
AYES: Commrs. Dandekar, Larson, Malak, and Riggs
NOES: None
RECUSED: Commr. Draze
Attachment 2
PH3 - 28
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
September 10, 2014
Page 7
ABSENT: Commrs. Fowler and Multari
The motion passed on a 4:0 vote.
On motion by Commr. Riggs, seconded by Commr. Malak, to recommend the City
Council approve updates to Chapter 8 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan.
(GPI/ER 15-12)
AYES: Commrs. Dandekar, Larson, Malak, and Riggs
NOES: None
RECUSED: Commr. Draze
ABSENT: Commrs. Fowler and Multari
The motion passed on a 4:0 vote.
On motion by Commr. Riggs, seconded by Commr. Malak, to recommend the City
Council change the language in 8.3.3.12 of the Land Use Update to read “The site will
provide a strong commercial presence at the corner of Broad Street and Tank Farm
Road” and delete “residential limited to upper floors.”
AYES: Commrs. Dandekar, Larson, Malak, and Riggs
NOES: None
RECUSED: Commr. Draze
ABSENT: Commrs. Fowler and Multari
The motion passed on a 4:0 vote.
Commr. Riggs proposed, and Commr. Malak seconded, the motion below. In the
discussion that followed, Commr. Riggs stated that the City Council directed staff to look
into off-site open space and agricultural provisions for San Luis Ranch and staff found
that, while it was a good idea, the evaluation was inconclusive because there was no
specific off-site open space to consider.
Commr. Malak stated that when this was before the City Council, a number of residents
indicated that they did not want any off-site mitigation for open space.
Commr. Riggs stated that the Council gave direction to staff at that meeting to look at it,
so it is worthy of consideration.
Commr. Dandekar noted that in the LUCE Task Force discussions this was seen as a
way for the City to gain more acreage for open space.
Commr. Larson stated that, given what the community has said regarding the
importance of open space, he is not inclined to recommend tinkering with this provision
and he is not supporting the motion.
Director Johnson stated that the motion by Commr. Riggs is recommending that the
Council consider this principle with the details to be determined later and that it refers to
Attachment 2
PH3 - 29
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
September 10, 2014
Page 8
a maximum ten acre off-site mitigation with the multiplier to be determined when there is
an actual proposal.
On motion by Commr. Riggs, seconded by Commr. Malak, recommending that the City
Council consider the exploration of the off-site open space and agricultural provisions
for the San Luis Ranch project.
AYES: Commrs. Dandekar, Malak, and Riggs
NOES: Commr. Larson
RECUSED: Commr. Draze
ABSENT: Commrs. Fowler and Multari
The motion passed on a 3:1 vote.
On motion by Commr. Riggs, seconded by Commr. Dandekar, to retain minimum
performance standards required as part of the specific plans listed in Chapter 8 of the
Land Use Element but add a footnote stating that reductions to the minimums may be
allowed based on physical and environmental constraints.
AYES: Commrs. Dandekar, Larson, Malak, and Riggs
NOES: None
RECUSED: Commr. Draze
ABSENT: Commrs. Fowler and Multari
The motion passed on a 4:0 vote.
Commr. Riggs proposed, and Commr. Dandekar seconded, the motion below. In the
discussion that followed, Commr. Malak stated that he could anticipate situations where
developers will use that 30% reduction to simply build for more profit while reducing
open space.
Commr. Dandekar stated that this possibility of trading open space for housing is
important because the City has not been able to get developers to consider this kind of
housing.
Commr. Malak pointed out that very little affordable housing has been built or planned in
the Margarita area.
Commr. Dandekar responded that having a minimum plus an incentive takes the
developer beyond doing just the minimum which is what has been done at Margarita.
Commr. Malak stated that he sees the Commission as a gatekeeper of development
and that the City needs to tell developers to build to the needs of the City.
Commr. Riggs stated that this consideration for a reduction of open space is in addition
to a low market rate policy and is icing on top of that cake. He added that there is a real
need to incentivize workforce housing and this is the equivalent of a density bonus.
Attachment 2
PH3 - 30
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
September 10, 2014
Page 9
Commr. Dandekar noted that the City does not have the tools to force development of
workforce housing.
Director Johnson noted that the question for consideration is whether to expand the
draft footnote to specific plan areas in addition to Avila Ranch and that the intent is not
to set up conflicts between community goals of housing with community goals of
acquiring open space.
Commr. Larson stated this is a controversial item for Avila Ranch with significant
opposition and that expanding this to the other specific plan areas is a non-starter.
On motion by Commr. Riggs, seconded by Commr. Dandekar, to request that the City
Council explore a 30% reduction of open space where it is appropriate for specific plan
areas to accommodate affordable housing needs consistent with the Regional Housing
Needs Assessment.
AYES: Commrs. Dandekar and Riggs
NOES: Commrs. Larson and Malak
RECUSED: Commr. Draze
ABSENT: Commrs. Fowler and Multari
The motion resulted in no action based on a 2:2 vote.
There were no further comments made from the Commission.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
3. Staff
a. Agenda Forecast by Director Johnson
Meetings on September 11, 17, and 18, 2014—LUCE Update
September 24, 2014—appeal of Director's decision for a nonconforming
structure
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 11:09 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by,
Diane Clement
Recording Secretary
Attachment 2
PH3 - 31
DRAFT
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
September 11, 2014
CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL: Commissioners Hemalata Dandekar, Michael Draze, Ronald Malak,
William Riggs, and Chairperson John Larson
Absent: Commissioner John Fowler and Vice-Chairperson Michael Multari
Staff: Community Development Director Derek Johnson, Public Works
Deputy Director Tim Bochum, Traffic Operations Manager Jake
Hudson, Associate Planner Brian Leveille, Contract Planner Gary
Kaiser, Assistant City Attorney Jon Ansolabehere, and Recording
Secretary Diane Clement
Consultant: Rick Rust, Matrix Design Group
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA:
The agenda was accepted as presented.
MINUTES:
Minutes of September 10, 2014, were continued.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS:
There were no comments made from the public.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. City-Wide. GPI/ER 15-12: Continued review of the Draft Land Use Element
(LUE) and associated Final Environmental Impact Report; City of San Luis Obispo,
Community Development Dept., applicant. (Gary Kaiser)
Focus for this meeting: Provide recommendation to City Council for Policies and
Programs in Chapters 1-6 and 9-12 of the draft Land Use Element and Policies
and Programs in Chapters 1-5 of the draft Circulation Element, as part of a City-
wide effort to update the Land Use and Circulation elements of the General Plan.
Contract planner Gary Kaiser presented the staff report and summarized how public
input and staff recommendations were reflected in the staff report attachments,
including a staff recommendation for a new policy regarding limits to provision of
recycled water outside the City limits.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Eugene Jud, SLO, thanked the City for reducing the vehicle share to 50% and
emphasizing multimodal transportation. He suggested the addition of a new
transportation goal in the Circulation Element to project the image of the City as a
Attachment 2
PH3 - 32
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
September 11, 2014
Page 2
known non-car city to continue the legacy of the City as a pioneer, such as with no
smoking and no drive-through service ordinances. He also suggested that transit
access be required with development like utilities such as water and electricity. He
gave several examples of how transportation is handled in Zurich, Switzerland.
Myron Amerine, SLO, stated that he hoped the City and the County will add protected
bikeways with buffer zones as provided for in the new State law.
Mila Vujovich-LaBarre, SLO, expressed concern that the piecemeal development of
Prado Road as a truck highway is for the benefit of developers and that no
comprehensive EIR has been planned. She supported Class 1 bicycle lanes but stated
that the 800,000 square feet planned for development on the Chevron property should
be reduced by half. She noted that the San Luis Ranch is one of only one 100 parcels
classified as prime agricultural land and development on this land is in conflict with the
LUE which calls for preservation. She expressed concern about tall hotel development
on lots zoned for one-story car dealerships and noted that this view shed is a gateway
to the City. She added that she agrees with Mr. Jud and the letter from the Sierra Club.
Blayne Morgan, SLO, supported the modal split objectives and suggested Higuera be
closed to vehicles for short periods, and a study be done of the resulting impacts.
Eric Meyer, SLO, stated that as a private citizen he is proud of the LUCE document and
the advocates on various issues who came to Task Force meetings time after time and
how everyone worked together.
There were no further comments made from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Land Use Element--Chapter 1
Commr. Draze stated that he supports the language in 1.13 about consideration of a
range of financing options for calculating the fair share of costs for new development.
Commr. Larson stated that the concept of fair share payment by new development has
been tested and is in statutory language. He added that the City has some limitations
on what they can impose on new development. He stated that staff has done a good
job in the way this has been addressed in policy.
Commr. Dandekar noted that the rationale for annexation of all or part of the Cal Poly
property is not included in 1.12.3.
Director Johnson stated that studying the benefits and costs of annexing Cal Poly would
be done at the direction of the City Council at some future time.
Commr. Dandekar stated that this seems expansionist and there should be a definition
of what parts of the campus are being considered for annexation.
Attachment 2
PH3 - 33
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
September 11, 2014
Page 3
Commr. Larson stated that this is the first time he has seen this policy in writing but he
noted that the concept has been discussed for decades.
Director Johnson stated that counting Cal Poly in demographics could be beneficial to
the City.
Land Use Element--Chapter 4
Commr. Larson stated that the reference to “A Conceptual Physical Plan for the City's
Center” in the Introduction helps for clarity when considering new projects.
Commr. Riggs suggested adding “parklets” to the new policy about downtown green
space between 4.0.6 and 4.0.7 on page 67 so it reads as follows: “including pocket
parks and parklets, as the number of people living Downtown increases.”
Land Use Element--Chapter 9
Commr. Riggs commended staff, the City Council and the public for including a new
program about renewal of the urban forest.
Commr. Malak recommended inclusion in 9.3.7 encouragement for building solar-ready
homes and solar canopies, such as the solar panel arrays in local school parking lots.
Commr. Larson supported this as providing more details for sustainability.
Mr. Rust recommended language to read “The City shall encourage….”
Comm. Riggs wanted to include a description of the term solar canopies.
Commr. Draze stated he was happy to see that grey water is included under Plumbing
in 9.3.7D.
Mr. Rust pointed out that on page PC 2-43 of the Staff Report, staff has recommended
adding “and encourage new homes to be constructed grey water ready ” to 9.3.7D.
Commr. Draze stated he likes “encourage” because requiring this could be a deal
breaker for some types of housing.
Commr. Malak stated he prefers “where appropriate” instead of “encourage.”
Commr. Draze stated that he favors “encourage” until the City has more experience
dealing with grey water.
Commr. Larson stated “encourage” is appropriate. This was acceptable to Commr.
Malak.
Commr. Dandekar supported the staff addition of a new incentive program for
sustainable design features as it sets a direction for the future.
Attachment 2
PH3 - 34
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
September 11, 2014
Page 4
Land Use Element--Chapter 10
Commissioner Draze asked how the City would support healthy food retailers as part of
supporting sustainable local food systems.
Commr. Riggs stated that in in West Oakland there is a city-supported back-to-work
program at a food retailer. He added that keeping the language flexible is important.
Land Use Element--Chapter 12
Commr. Draze commended the language in 12.3.12 Interagency Communication as
being much better and more sensible than the original wording.
Circulation Element--Chapter 1
Commr. Larson stated that the revised Table 1 Modal Split Objectives shows the most
important change in the update and illustrates the City's significant commitment.
Commr. Riggs thanked Mr. Jud for his comments and suggested adding “creative
transportation demand management” after “strategies” and before “telecommuting” in
1.5.1 Transportation Goals, #8. He noted that he appreciates Mr. Jud's request for a
non-car goal but prefers the intent of 1.5.1 as a fair plan that speaks to all people.
Commr. Draze stated that he agrees with this change and noted that the beauty of the
short two-column Table 1 is that it emphasizes the modal split.
Circulation Element--Chapter 3
Commr. Riggs suggested adding “The City shall encourage transit accessibility” to 3.0.7
Transit Service Access just before the sentence that begins “New development....” The
other Commissioners agreed.
Circulation Element--Chapter 4
Commr. Larson noted that, in reference to 4.0.4 New Development and 6.0.4 Defining
Significant Circulation Impact, the State has released new draft CEQA requirements
that involve measuring traffic impacts by Vehicle Miles Traveled, rather than Level of
Service, because it tells more about emissions, energy consumption and the adverse
effects of vehicles. He suggested that the City should try to reconcile its language with
this, even though continuing to use LOS may be allowed by legislation.
Traffic Operations Manager Hudson responded that staff is struggling with this right now
because new State language is not yet approved. He added that the City will continue
to use LOS to identify impacts but will override that when necessary.
Commr. Draze stated that not all impacts rise to the level of CEQA, and he prefers to
leave the current language in place to cover these other kinds of impacts.
Attachment 2
PH3 - 35
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
September 11, 2014
Page 5
Mr. Rust stated that there was agreement to add “and maintaining” just after
“expanding” in 4.1.9 Bicycle Licensing.
Commr. Riggs stated that he sees no reason to move 4.1.1 from Chapter 4 to the Traffic
Reduction section as recommended by the Task Force. He added that he would like
this statement to be stronger and to directly incentivize cycling.
Commr. Larson recommended moving this language to the Traffic Reduction section
and keeping a copy of the same language in 4.1.1 but substituting “bicycling” for
“alternative forms of transportation.”
Commr. Dandekar supported this modification.
There were no further comments made from the Commission.
Chair Larson reopened Public Comment at this time.
Eric Meyer, SLO, noted that the recycling symbol shows up randomly throughout the
document but is not explained or defined until page 11 in Chapter 2 of the Circulation
Element. He suggested that this should be at the end of the Table of Contents.
Myron Amerine, SLO, asked if there is a goal to establish a pedestrian/bicycle advisory
commission that is separate from the bicycle advisory groups. He stated that maybe
there should be a multimodal coordinator.
Traffic Operations Manager Hudson stated that a letter was received asking that
consolidation of the transit advisory bodies be considered, which will be done after the
policies and programs are finalized.
Director Johnson added that staff will get direction from the City Council about whether
the organizational structure in place can support this paradigm shift.
Mr. Jud stated that Chapter 3 Transit Service should have language making transit a
prerequisite for new development.
Traffic Operations Manager Hudson stated that new development triggers an impact
study that includes transit and, if there is no transit, the LOS grade would be F.
Mr. Jud asked if there is a standard for walking from an advocacy group like there is for
biking. He stated that the City should set a walking goal.
Mila Vujovich-LaBarre stated she would like to see consideration for light rail, perhaps
with a route from the airport to San Luis Obispo High School to Cal Poly.
Commr. Larson responded that this would have to be done through SLOCOG and it
would be about improving intra-county use of current rail lines, not light rail.
There were no further comments made from the public.
Attachment 2
PH3 - 36
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
September 11, 2014
Page 6
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commr. Draze asked that staff present an explanation of LOS at a future meeting.
There were no further comments made from the Commission.
On motion by Commr. Riggs, seconded by Commr. Dandekar, recommending the City
Council approve updates to Chapters 1-6 and 9-12 of the Land Use Element and
Chapters 1-5 of the Circulation Element including all changes made by staff and the
following changes:
a. LUE new policy between 4.0.6 and 4.0.7 to read: “including pocket parks
and parklets,..”
b. LUE 9.3.7: add “H. The City shall encourage the building of solar-ready
homes.” and “I. The City shall encourage the building of solar canopies.”
c. CE 1.5.1.8: insert “creative transportation demand management” after
“strategies” and before “telecommuting.”
d. CE 3.0.7: insert “The City shall encourage transit accessibility” before the
sentence that begins “New development....”
e. CE 4.1.1: move the language in 4.1.1 from Chapter 4 to the Traffic
Reduction section and keep a copy of the same language in 4.1.1 but
substitute “bicycling” for “alternative forms of transportation.”
f. CE 4.1.9: add “and maintaining” just after “expanding.”
g. Policy recommendations provided in the policy matrix attachment as noted
during the presentation.
AYES: Commrs. Dandekar, Draze, Larson, Malak, and Riggs
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Commrs. Fowler and Multari
The motion passed on a 5:0 vote.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
2. Staff
a. Agenda Forecast by Director Johnson
Wednesday, September 17, 2014—LUCE Update
Thursday, September 18, 2014—LUCE Update
September 24, 2014—appeal of Director's decision for a nonconforming
structure
3. Commission
a. Commr. Malak encouraged Commrs. Riggs and Dandekar to have their
students to do short presentations at Commission meetings. Commr.
Dandekar stated that this was a very kind invitation which she will use
judiciously. Commr. Riggs stated that he has students doing an open space
study for Natural Resources Manager Hill about accessibility, who uses natural
spaces, how to steward open spaces better and interfaces with the public.
Attachment 2
PH3 - 37
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
September 11, 2014
Page 7
Students have been interviewing individuals about their experiences with
natural spaces.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:14 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by,
Diane Clement
Recording Secretary
Attachment 2
PH3 - 38
DRAFT
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
September 17, 2014
CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL: Commissioners Hemalata Dandekar, Michael Draze, Ronald Malak,
William Riggs, Vice-Chairperson Michael Multari, and Chairperson
John Larson
Absent: Commissioner John Fowler
Staff: Community Development Director Derek Johnson, Public Works
Director Daryl Grigsby, Public Works Deputy Director Tim Bochum,
Principal Transportation Manager Peggy Mandeville, Associate
Planner Brian Leveille, Associate Planner Marcus Carloni, Assistant
City Attorney Jon Ansolabehere, and Recording Secretary Diane
Clement
Consultant: Jim Damkowitch, Kittelson and Associates
Commr. Riggs announced that he will be leaving at 8 p.m.
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA:
The agenda was accepted as presented.
MINUTES:
The minutes for September 10 and 11, 2014, were continued.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS:
Mila Vujovich-LaBarre, SLO, suggested that the proposed Marriott hotel be built on the
site of the defunct Motel Inn at the bottom of the Cuesta grade and supported not
changing the zoning on Calle Joaquin for auto dealerships.
There were no further comments made from the public.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. City-Wide. GPI/ER 15-12: Continued review of the Draft Land Use and Circulation
Elements (LUCE) and associated Final Environmental Impact Report; City of San
Luis Obispo – Community Development and Public Works Dept., applicant.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Lea Brooks, SLO, stated that she is thrilled with the multi-modal focus but questioned
the prioritization of vehicles over bicycles for Los Osos Valley Road as listed in Table 3
Attachment 2
PH3 - 39
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
September 17, 2014
Page 2
Modal Priorities for Level of Service. She asked how priorities are decided for
intersections where pathways cross and requested that the impacts on bicyclists be
considered if truck traffic is routed down Buckley Road.
Eric Meyer, SLO, asked that the City consider how perimeters are determined when
setting up Neighborhood Traffic Management Districts because those perimeters can
affect the voting. He noted that this was discussed by the LUCE Task Force. He stated
that the City should consider the effect of not constructing the Bishop Street railroad
overpass on the Buchon and Pismo Streets neighborhood and give priority to those
neighborhoods operating at or above maximum traffic levels.
Myron “Skip” Amerine, SLO, stated that he wants the City to move forward by approving
the Circulation Element Update. He supported the mode split but noted that it is a goal
and will not happen overnight.
Mila Vujovich-LaBarre, SLO, stated she is a smart growth advocate and remains
concerned about Prado Road which she recommended be limited to a concept similar
to South Street. She noted the need for a supplemental EIR for the Margarita area and
supported having developers of the San Luis Ranch pay for a Prado Road overpass.
She advocated moving the future Prado Road to the south of the Damon-Garcia Sports
Field and giving priority to building Class 1 bicycle paths.
Sarah Flickinger, representing 178 homes in Los Verdes Park 1 and 2, stated that she
did meet with staff and is now comfortable with the proposed changes presented
tonight.
There were no further comments made from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commr. Riggs stated that Chapters 7 and 8 should reference each other. He
suggested inserting additional language that after discussion resulted in adding
“including navigation routes to direct traffic” to the first sentence and adding a second
sentence, “Navigation routing and other smart access technologies should be
considered as part of the update to the Access and Parking Management plan.”
Commr. Riggs stated that he appreciates Mr. Meyer's comments and noted there is a
need for 8.0.5 to include a statement about neighborhood definition.
Commr. Multari stated that the Sierra Club, in their suggested policy language, did
speak to unbundled parking. He asked Commr. Riggs to give his opinion about a
proposed program suggesting that the City evaluate existing regulations to determine
whether unbundled parking would benefit land use and circulation in parts of the City.
Commr. Larson agreed but stated that the issue is larger than just unbundled parking
because that the City's approach to traffic management may be a little out-of-date. He
suggested the addition of a sentence to 13.1.1. to show that the desire and impetus is to
go beyond traditional parking management.
Attachment 2
PH3 - 40
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
September 17, 2014
Page 3
Commr. Draze suggested adding “...consider such things as unbundled parking.”
Commr. Riggs proposed the following as a second sentence for 13.1.1: “This shall
include consideration for strategies including, but not limited to, unbundled parking.” He
suggested listing just a couple of strategies at the end of the sentence.
Commr. Multari suggested adding a reference to emerging practices which Commr.
Riggs supported.
Commr. Draze stated that he understands the concern about the bicycle LOS on truck
roads but agrees with staff that ranking bicycles second on Los Osos Valley Road is the
best that can be done. He supported speed tables over speed bumps on local streets
because vehicles can go over them without incurring damage. He suggested deleting
8.1.4 City Vehicle Operation because the volume of City vehicle traffic is low and
keeping it in may cause people to question the presence of a City vehicle in their
neighborhood. He noted that there is nothing about non-passenger rail transportation in
Chapter 12 but that a future increase in freight traffic must be anticipated because the
Orcutt railroad overpass is still included in City planning.
Deputy Director Bochum stated that this is correct and that there used to be severe
issues with trains stopping on Orcutt Road and that there is currently a great deal of
focus nationwide on the hauling of fuels and combustibles. He suggested that the
Commission develop the language to address this.
Commr. Draze noted that bicycles should be included in 13.1.5 Curb Parking Evaluation
and that 15.0.6 Designation of Scenic Highways should include everything in the
planning area including areas outside the City's sphere of influence.
Commr. Multari stated that it is important to leave “voting” in 8.0.5 Neighborhood Traffic
Management Guidelines. He noted that there is a question of how to do the voting and
determine the boundaries. He suggested adding “and develop an outreach program on
the availability of the program”. He also suggested adding a reference to excessive right
of way pavement in the first sentence of 8.1.3 Quality of Life because there are streets
that are too wide for their purpose and that reducing the amount of paving would create
opportunities for parkways, traffic circles, and street trees. He also suggested adding
“The City should give priority to existing streets that exceed thresholds .” He agreed with
Commr. Draze's concern about the transport of oil and hydrocarbons through the City
and noted that some of the highest density areas are closest to the tracks.
Commr. Draze suggested this language for Chapter 12: “The City shall monitor and
respond to changes or proposed changes in passenger and freight rail traffic that may
impact the safety and well-being of residents of the community including the transport of
combustible materials.”
Commr. Multari suggested also adding “The City shall discourage the transportation of
oil and other combustible hydrocarbons through the City.”
Attachment 2
PH3 - 41
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
September 17, 2014
Page 4
Commr. Riggs stated that he supports everything discussed to this point, especially
Commr. Multari's suggestion about dealing with excessive right-of-way. He left the
meeting at 8:00 p.m.
Commr. Multari suggested adding “and consider emerging best practices such as
unbundled parking, smart parking technologies and cash out programs ” at the end of
13.1.1.
Commr. Dandekar expressed concern about the availability of traffic data for citizens.
Principal Transportation Manager Mandeville suggested putting data in the
Neighborhood Traffic Guidelines, which could be current to the date of the document.
Deputy Director Bochum stated that the City might be able to produce a map display
online as part of the NTM guidelines that could be updated periodically.
Commr. Larson stated that he supported Commr. Multari’s idea of developing outreach
programs for NTM information.
Commr. Multari noted that the City has, in the past, sometimes unilaterally decided that
certain areas are impacted and has tried to put in traffic calming which upset
neighborhoods. He stated that NTM should be grassroots-generated. He stated that
the information should be publicized and made available, and then the City should see
what results from that.
Commr. Dandekar stated that she likes the web interface with timely updates.
In response to a question from Commr. Draze about support for deletion of 8.1.4,
Commrs. Malak and Larson indicated they preferred deletion. That is a majority with
five Commissioners in attendance. Commr. Multari stated he had no strong feelings
about the deletion. Commr. Dandekar supported leaving it in as a statement about City
commitment to doing what it is asking citizens to do.
Commr. Multari stated that after reading the material and listening to public comments,
he still supports four lanes for Prado Road.
Commr. Draze agreed and noted that, when development occurs, Prado could end up
as a two-lane road but he prefers planning for four lanes.
Commr. Multari stated that future technology and behavioral changes may alter the
need for four lanes but the Commission is not in a position to make that leap.
Commr. Dandekar stated that she supported Commr. Draze’s comment about
expanding scenic roadway identification beyond the City boundary. She noted that at
the LUCE Task Force, Cal Poly students were very supportive of Highway 1 as a scenic
road beyond the City limits. She suggested that the City pursue identification for one or
two roads of high value. She asked if there is a mechanism for doing that.
Attachment 2
PH3 - 42
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
September 17, 2014
Page 5
Commr. Larson stated that unless the City and the community strongly initiate doing
something, nothing will happen, but he is not opposed to being a little more precise in
identifying what is wanted.
Deputy Director Bochum stated that SLOCOG is responsible for designating local
highways as scenic. He suggested adding language to address that.
Commr. Larson asked if the language suggested above for 15.0.6 should be in 15.0.5B.
Commr. Draze supported Commr. Multari's suggested language additions in 8.1.3
Quality of Life about excess paving.
Deputy Director Bochum suggested changing the second sentence of 15.0.5 to read
“This support should be strongly advocated when:” followed by the four bullet items.
Commr. Larson stated that the perceived intent that a lot of people have is that
developers should pay for roads, i.e., when Mila Vujovich-LaBarre tonight supported
having the San Luis Ranch developers pay for the Prado overpass. He noted that the
City is constrained by State law from imposing that and some future road projects would
serve more than just adjacent land. He added that all developers should pay their fair
share.
Deputy Director Bochum stated that the next big effort is to analyze the issue of
financing because it cannot all be done by development, and it will take participation by
everyone including regional, state, and, possibly, federal levels. The City will have to
prioritize expenditures and assign transportation funding to meet multi-modal objectives.
There were no further comments made from the Commission.
On motion by Commr. Multari, seconded by Commr. Draze, to recommend the City
Council approve updates to Chapters 6-10 and 12-16 of the Circulation Element of the
General with the inclusion of the multi-model level of service examples added as an
appendix to the Circulation Element, and with the following additions staff presented
tonight in Attachment 2 and the following changes made by the Planning Commission:
(Staff Presented Additions as Modified by Planning Commission)
Madonna & Higuera Realignment. Development of the properties North and South of
Madonna Rd. West of Higuera shall incorporate a detailed analysis for Madonna Road west of
Higuera and the intersection of Higuera and Madonna and recommend improvements, if any.
Chorro, Broad, & Boysen Realignments. Redevelopment of University Square shall
incorporate a detailed circulation, safety & access management analysis for the intersections of
Boysen & Santa Rosa (potential for grade separation crossing/restrictions), Foothill & Chorro,
and Foothill & Broad as well as driveway access points along adjacent roadways. and
recommend improvements, if any.
Attachment 2
PH3 - 43
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
September 17, 2014
Page 6
Pismo & Higuera Realignment. Redevelopment of properties at the intersection of High &
Pismo at Higuera shall incorporate a detailed analysis and recommend improvements, if any.
Planned Bishop Street Connection. The City shall conduct a detailed subarea traffic analysis
to determine if secondary measures can be made to allow for elimination of the Bishop Street
Extension and protection of neighborhood traffic levels and recommend improvements, if any.
Los Osos Valley Road Bypass . The City shall conduct a detailed subarea traffic analysis
to determine final feasibility of the LOVR Bypass. Issues to be studied should include, but are
not limited to impacts to: sensitive noise receptors, agriculture operations, open space, Creek,
traffic and biological resources. ; and/or
As part of LOVR Creekside Special Planning Area, the project shall analyze impacts of a new
roadway connection in some form from Los Osos Valley Road to Higuera.
(Planning Commission Recommended Policy Changes)
7.1.7 Traffic Access Management
The City shall adopt an access management policy to control location, spacing, design and
operation of driveways, median openings, crosswalks, interchanges and street connections to a
particular roadway including navigation routes to direct traffic in a manner that preserves the
safety and efficiency of the transportation system. Navigation routing and other smart access
technologies should be considered as part of the update to the Access and Parking
Management plan.
8.0.5 Neighborhood Traffic Management Guidelines
The City shall update its Neighborhood Traffic Management Guidelines to address voting,
funding, and implementation procedures and develop an outreach program on the availability of
the program.
8.1.3 Quality of Life
When requested by neighborhoods, The City shall analyze residential streets shall be analyzed
for their livability with regards to multi-modal traffic noise, volumes, speed and potential excess
right-of-way pavement. Traffic calming or other intervening measures. may be necessary to
maintain the resident's quality of life. The City should give priority to existing streets that exceed
thresholds.
8.1.1 City Vehicle Operation
OperatorsThe City shall direct operators of City vehicles, excluding police patrols, should not to
use Residential Collector or Residential Local streets as shortcut routes for non-emergency
City business.
12.1.3 Idling Train Engines Interagency Cooperation. The City shall coordinate railroad facility
infrastructure maintenance with the Union Pacific Railroad and the Public Utilities Commission.
In addition, the City shall work with the Air Pollution Control District and others to eliminate
discourage idling train engines in San Luis Obispo.
Attachment 2
PH3 - 44
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
September 17, 2014
Page 7
12.1.4 Railroad Hazards Reduction. The City shall monitor and respond to changes, or
proposed changes in passenger and freight rail traffic that may impact the safety and well -being
of residents of the community including the transport of combustible materials.
12.1.5 Transport of Combustible Materials. “The City shall discourage the transportation of
oil and other combustible hydrocarbons through the City.”
13.1.1 Parking Management Plan
The City will shall maintain and periodically regularly update its Access and Parking
Management Plan (every 5 years) and consider emerging best practices such as unbundled
parking, smart parking technologies and cash out programs.
13.0.615.0.5 Scenic Highways
The City will promote the creation of Scenic Highways within San Luis Obispo and adjoining
county areas. This support should be strongly advocated when:
1.A. Reviewing draft county general plan elements or major revisions to them.
2.B. Reviewing changes to the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) as a member agency of the
San Luis Obispo Council Regional Transportation Agency.
3.C. Reviewing development projects that are referred to the city that are located along routes
shown in the Conservation and Open Space Element.
D. Actively participating in the development and periodic updates of the Caltrans US 101
Aesthetic Study in San Luis Obispo County.
AYES: Commrs. Dandekar, Draze, Malak, Larson, and Multari
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Commr. Fowler (Commr. Riggs left early)
The motion passed on a 5:0 vote.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
2. Staff
a. Agenda Forecast by Director Johnson—deferred to tomorrow's meeting.
3. Commission
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:53 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by,
Diane Clement
Recording Secretary
Attachment 2
PH3 - 45
DRAFT
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
September 18, 2014
CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL: Commissioners Hemalata Dandekar, Michael Draze, Ronald Malak,
William Riggs, Vice-Chairperson Michael Multari, and Chairperson
John Larson
Absent: Commissioner John Fowler
Staff: Community Development Director Derek Johnson, Associate Planner
Brian Leveille, Contract Planner Gary Kaiser, Assistant City Attorney
Jon Ansolabehere, and Recording Secretary Diane Clement
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA:
The agenda was accepted as presented.
MINUTES:
The minutes for September 10, 11, and 17, 2014, were continued.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS:
There were no comments made from the public.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. City-Wide. GPI/ER 15-12: Continued review of the Draft Land Use and Circulation
Elements (LUCE) and associated Final Environmental Impact Report; City of San
Luis Obispo – Community Development Dept., applicant. (Gary Kaiser)
Contract Planner Kaiser presented the staff report, recommending the City Council take
the following actions: (1) Approve policy and program updates for Circulation Element
Chapters 6-10 & 12-16; and (2) Approve changes to the Land Use Element diagram
and associated Zoning updates.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Eugene Jud, SLO, stated that the South Hills Open Space should be expanded to
preserve cultural heritage and archeological resources, and the proposed Prado Road
extension should be a two-lane road that connects to Tank Farm Road. He asserted
that promises made to the public that the City would come up with solutions to preserve
open space, view sheds, and agricultural land have not been kept. He presented
alternative ideas in a slide presentation and hand-out that included options for the years
2035 and 2050, and noted the need to consider all factors such as open space, cultural
Attachment 2
PH3 - 46
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
September 18, 2014
Page 2
heritage, view sheds and prime agricultural land when planning for land use and
circulation.
Stephen Peck, SLO, representing the Avila Ranch Project requested that t he
Commission determine specific land uses, including the Special Focus overlay, for this
property at this meeting to facilitate development.
Commr. Draze noted that this is not on the agenda tonight and the Commission cannot
make a recommendation on the zoning.
Assistant City Attorney Ansolabehere stated that fulfilling Mr. Peck's request would
require going back through the referral process with the Airport Land Use Commission
for a determination of consistency.
Mr. Peck stated that he disagrees with Attorney Ansolabehere's interpretation that this is
something new that has not been analyzed but that he will withdraw his request if it
means going back to the ALUC.
Commr. Dandekar stated that when suggestions were brought forth at the LUCE Task
Force and staff was providing some general ideas for that land, it was generally
understood that the Specific Plan process would work out the details.
There were no further comments made from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commr. Multari stated he is concerned that the language in the new Chapter 17.53 will
not resolve conflicts between the language in the General Plan and the language for
each of the Special Plan Areas where the LUCE Task Force noted the need for
additional flexibility. He stated that the idea of the Task Force was that the existing
zoning was not the tool for these areas and, if it was, then they would not be special
plan areas.
Director Johnson stated that the last sentence in 17.53.030 provides the flexibility and
discretion needed to deal with each Special Plan Area because each has its own
circumstances and factors that will drive that flexibility. He suggested that this sentence
be moved to 17.53.020.
Commr. Larson explained that Commr. Multari was saying the whole point of the Land
Use Update and identification of Special Focus Areas is to recognize that traditional
zoning may not capture the desire of the City and community as to what to do in these
areas. He stated that the last sentence in 17.53.030 is designed to deal with any
conflicts. He agrees with Director Johnson that this sentence should perhaps be in
17.53.020.
Commr. Multari agreed that this was his concern.
Director Johnson stated that what is needed next is an update of zoning ordinances.
Attachment 2
PH3 - 47
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
September 18, 2014
Page 3
Commr. Multari asked if the Commission would be recommending an ordinance change
to the City Council. Director Johnson affirmed that this is correct.
Commr. Riggs stated that he does not share Commr. Multari's concern and that staff
has done the best job possible of marrying the LUCE intent with zoning. He added that
he was comfortable making a recommendation to prioritize revising some of the zoning
code as a separate motion.
Commr. Draze stated that he agreed with moving the last sentence of 17.53.030 to
17.53.020.
Commr. Multari stated he was harping on this because the LUCE Task Force belabored
the Special Planning Areas with the idea of getting away from standard zoning districts.
Commr. Dandekar stated that the maps surprised her because the Special Plans are
clear and she had been confident that the intent of the LUCE would be actualized. She
asked about the process for development of a property in a Special Plan Area.
Associate Planner Leveille stated that it could vary significantly but would mostly likely
involve architectural and subdivision approval with just a few steps in the process, and,
if it was just one building at a time, it could just require architectural review.
Commr. Multari stated that development in the Special Plan Areas should come to the
Planning Commission in every case. He noted that there should be a list of things that
must be done for any area with an SF designation.
Commr. Dandekar stated that the LUCE Task Force spent a lot of time identifying the
Special Plan Areas as crucial locations and is concerned about whether the intent of the
Task Force could be achieved through the process described by Associate Planner
Leveille.
Director Johnson stated that changes could be made to reflect that development in
these areas must be reviewed by the Planning Commission. He noted that this could
be put in a table of the Special Plan Areas.
Commr. Larson asked the Commission to think about whether it would be consistent
with the intent to have review and interpretation done by the Planning Commission for
these areas which are like miniature Specific Plan Areas.
Commr. Dandekar stated she has heard tonight that there is potential to piecemeal
these projects, which would be against the intent of the Task Force and that each of
these areas need to be seen as a whole.
Commr. Multari stated that he and Commr. Dandekar are on the same page, having
served on the LUCE Task Force, which did not want these areas to have Specific Plans,
but did want them to go through a review that is more careful and customized. He
added that, if it is clear that flexibility is afforded via the language in 17.53, and there will
be review by the Planning Commission, he is inching closer to a comfort level.
Attachment 2
PH3 - 48
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
September 18, 2014
Page 4
Commr. Larson stated that the Commission is struggling with the nuts and bolts, the
right words and direction for overview, with the recognition that an overhaul of the
zoning code is coming soon.
Commr. Draze stated it would be necessary to take out the Community Development
Director for review and adjust Table 9 to reflect having the Planning Commission do the
reviews.
Commr. Riggs asked why the City would want to impede single parcel owners and
encourage parcel assembly. He added that this does not make things more flexible.
Commr. Multari stated, as an example, that the Task Force had a long discussion about
the Foothill/Santa Rosa Area which has taken a long time to redevelop. He explained
that the idea was to avoid looking at each parcel apart from some kind of vision or
comprehensive view for the entire area. He noted that, because of the special
circumstances, in some cases there should be either more restrictions or more
flexibility. He added that the LUCE Task Force looked at each area in detail, trying to
capture what would be best for the community, and tried to encourage development of a
comprehensive view before the individual parcels are developed.
Commr. Riggs stated that he sees this as an impediment and asked what the incentives
would be for development.
Commr. Multari stated that this may be an impediment because it will require
landowners to do some long range comprehensive planning involving properties they do
not control, take circulation into account, and talk to their neighbors.
Commr. Dandekar stated that these areas were seen as catalyst zones requiring action
by the City.
Commr. Riggs stated that he also sees these areas as catalyst areas that need change,
not stagnation.
Commr. Dandekar stated that this would help shape a direction for an area that people
could collectively buy into.
Commr. Malak asked, in reference to 17.53.020 and 17.53.030, if someone comes in
with an idea that is not specifically Community Commercial, can the zoning be changed
and how would it change.
Director Johnson stated that it would be up to the Planning Commission which would
look at the competing standards and apply them in a way to achieve the City's goals.
Commr. Malak stated that he would like to see the Planning Commission implement the
last sentence in 17.53.030.
Commr. Larson stated that this would not involve changing the zoning but would be
about finding consistency or interpreting uses and development standards, which is the
Attachment 2
PH3 - 49
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
September 18, 2014
Page 5
function of the Planning Commission because only the City Council can change zoning.
He noted that the zoning code gives some flexibility, and the key is how to use that
flexibility in a manner that achieves the development objectives in the new updated
General Plan. He noted that Commr. Multari is correct that someone could come in and
fit exactly the development standards in the zoning code and ignore the newer policies
and objectives without these coming to the Planning Commission until the zoning code
is completely updated.
Commr. Dandekar stated that policy determines what you want outcomes to be and the
job of the Planning Commission and other commissions is to see if objectives have
been met.
Commr. Riggs agreed with the catalyst statement and the idea of this being a period of
transition before the zoning code update, but stated that, if specific requirements are
met, he does not see why projects should have to come to the Commission, and he
could see more decisions made by the Director, who could choose whether to refer
projects to the Commission. He stated that requiring review by the Commission is
adding bureaucracy. He added that policy is pretty clear about expectations and, if
projects come to the Commission, the temptation will be to increase standards at the
whim of the Commission which would create more vague interpretations of policy.
Commr. Larson stated that the difficulty is developing criteria to stop a bad project that
fails to embody the vision of a Special Focus Zone.
Commr. Malak stated that he does not agree with Commr. Riggs because he would not
like to see all that authority placed in one person’s hands, and he wants transparency
and public input.
Commr. Draze stated he would tend to agree with Commr. Riggs if Chapter 8 were
much more defined, but there is not enough detail for developers or even staff without a
public hearing to get to where the Task Force was heading. He added that, if the
zoning code is changed, 17.53.030 can be changed.
Commr. Multari stated that there are really just five of the special plan areas that the
Commission should review: Foothill/Santa Rosa, Caltrans Site, Madonna Inn Area,
Sunset Drive-In Theater/Prado Road, LOVR Creekside. He proposed the following
language for 17.53.020: “Where provisions of the underlying zone and the General
Plan …conflict, the Land Use Element shall have priority. Development objectives
within the plan area shall be…interpreted by the Community Development Director in
order to achieve the development objectives in the special focus areas, …except
Foothill Blvd./Santa Rosa Area, Caltrans Site, Madonna Inn Area, Sunset Drive-In
Theater/Prado Road Area, and 11-LOVR Creekside Area shall be subject to Planning
Use permits that development proposals in the areas above) which would require….”
Commr. Riggs supported the proposed language.
Commr. Dandekar stated that Commr. Multari’s suggestion addresses the critical
parcels that the Task Force was concerned about.
Attachment 2
PH3 - 50
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
September 18, 2014
Page 6
There were no further comments made from the Commission.
On motion by Commr. Multari, and seconded by Commr. Draze, to recommend
approval of the amendments to General Plan Land Use designations and zoning for
Special Focus Areas associated with the Update to the Land Use and Circulation
Elements of the General Plan; as well as the new Chapter 17.53 Special Focus Overlay
zone section recommended by staff with PC recommended modifications.
AYES: Commrs. Dandekar, Draze, Larson, Malak, Multari, and Riggs
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Commr. Fowler
The motion passed on a 6:0 vote.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
2. Staff
a. Agenda Forecast by Director Johnson
overview of the LUCE update at future City Council meetings
Deputy Director Davidson to send out an update of Commission meetings.
3. Commission – no comments
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by,
Diane Clement
Recording Secretary
Attachment 2
PH3 - 51
1
Land Use Element Policy Input
Policy Input
Land Use Element Chapter 1
Com-
ment
#
Commenter Chapter Policy
# Input Policy Response
A2-1 Cal Poly Chapter
1 (LUE) 1.12.3
Rationale for
annexation of Cal Poly
should be stated.
New policy 1.12.3 directs the City to
analyze the costs/benefits to annexing
Cal Poly. No changes proposed by
staff.
Policy Input
Land Use Element Chapter 2
Com-
ment
#
Commenter Chapter Policy
# Input Policy Response
P12-4 Kovesdi Chapter
2 (LUE) 2.2.7
Comment
recommended adding
"protect in kind" or
"create in kind habitat
off site"
Not recommended for addition to this
policy which directs residential
developments to preserve and
incorporate natural features.
P12-5 Kovesdi Chapter
2 (LUE)
2.2.9
G(b)
Comment
recommended adding
"healthy and native" to
policy that directs new
development to
maintain mature trees
on site.
Not recommended for addition to this
policy. The policy already has
provisions for "feasibility" that would
address concerns about restoration
projects and non-native trees.
P13-
15 Lopes Chapter
2 (LUE) 2.2.9
Concern that criteria
defining “compatible
development” may
encourage increased
density and zone
changes in
neighborhoods.
Recommend policy updates as follows:
2.2.9 Compatible Development…..All
multifamily development and large
group-living facilities shall be
compatible with any nearby, lower
density development. Compatibility
for all development shall be evaluated
using the following criteria:...H.
Housing Diversity. A mix of housing
types, and a range of density within a
neighborhood an area is generally
desirable (see also Policy 2.1.6)
Attachment 3
PH3 - 52
2
Policy Input
Land Use Element Chapter 3
Com-
ment
#
Commenter Chapter Policy
# Input Policy Response
P2-5 Sierra Club Chapter
3 (LUE) 3.5.7.8
Wants additional
language to reflect OS
areas are acquired and
maintained for use of
residents and tourism
programs are not to
include national
marketing of City OS
areas.
The areas impacted by overuse are
popular areas for both tourists and
residents and should be addressed by
specific actions to address each
situation. Survey currently underway
to develop profile of open space users
to better understand demographics.
No change to program proposed.
P2-6 Sierra Club Chapter
3 (LUE)
3.5.7.1
2
Requests removing
specific reference to
Economic
Development Strategic
Plan (EDSP)
EDSP went through public process (4
workshops and hearings) and
incorporates city policies for
development’s responsibility to bear
cost of facilities and services required
to serve it. Removing specific
reference to EDSP in this program will
not remove Council direction to
implement it.
Policy Input
Land Use Element Chapter 6
Com-
ment
#
Commenter Chapter Policy
# Input Policy Response
P2-7 Sierra Club Chapter
6 (LUE) 6.4.5
Request to replace
“encourage” with
“require” for rainwater
percolation from roof-
hardscape areas.
P2-8 Sierra Club Chapter
6 (LUE) 6.4.6
Request to replace
“encourage” with
“require” for project
designs that minimize
drainage
concentrations.
P2-9 Sierra Club Chapter
6 (LUE) 6.5.1
Request to restore
deleted language
specifying approaches
to flood protection.
Not recommended to specify
particular approaches that may no
longer meet FEMA or Stormwater
regulations. Broader policy language
to support flood plain standards is
appropriate.
Attachment 3
PH3 - 53
3
Policy input
Land Use Element Chapter 8
Com-
ment
#
Commenter Chapter Policy
# Input Policy Response
A2-2 Cal Poly Chapter
8 (LUE)
8.3.3.1
3
CalFire /Cal Poly site
shows up in Cal Poly
Master Plan as
designated for Faculty
and Staff housing.
Update Plan to show
this designation.
Update policy to state, "The Cal Poly
Master Plan currently designates this
area for Faculty and Staff housing.
The City shall collaborate….."
A6-7 SLOCOG Chapter
8 (LUE) 8.3.3.8
Executive summary
mentions need to
reflect Homeless
Center use of
Prado/Sunset Drive-in
Site but doesn’t
mention RTA new
facility at this location.
Policy 8.3.3.8 includes reference to
both Homeless Services center and
transportation agency use. Staff
recommends retaining Office
designation for this portion of the site
to ensure LUCE update does not
create non-conforming use.
P2-10 Sierra Club Chapter
8 (LUE) 8.3.2.6
Delete provision for
meeting a portion of
open space
requirement off-site
Task Force generated this concept and
it was carried through PC and CC.
P16-
13
Mila
Vujovich-
LaBarre
Chapter
8 (LUE) 8.3.2.4
San Luis Ranch should
be retained for
agriculture.
Policy in LUCE provides for
development consistent with current
policy direction to retain 50% open
space/ag.
P16-
16
Mila
Vujovich-
LaBarre
Chapter
8 (LUE) 8.3.3.1
Need access for
pedestrians and bikes
across Santa Rosa
This circulation alternative is part of
the LUCE but wasn’t explicit in the
land use policy direction for this site.
Recommend clarifying policy
direction:
“Redevelopment plans shall include
consideration of improving the
existing complex intersections of
Foothill/Chorro/Broad, the desirability
of modifying Boysen at and through
the property on the northeast corner
of the area, and enhancement of
pedestrian, bicycle and transit
connections across Foothill and Santa
Rosa/Highway 1 and to the campus.”
Attachment 3
PH3 - 54
4
Policy Input
Land Use Element Chapter 9
Com-
ment
#
Commenter Chapter Policy # Input Policy Response
P2-11 Sierra Club Chapter
9 (LUE) 9.3.7D
Request to expand
policy supporting grey
water systems to
include a builder
incentive program to
build new homes with
an onsite water
recycling system
included.
In 2009 the state amended the grey
water regulations to make it easier to
install a “simple” system which uses
washing machine water only and
doesn’t require a permit to install. A
full home recycling grey water system
is supposed to be designed to match
the output of the house which
includes the number of occupants and
size of the landscape and it is illegal to
store grey water. Therefore, while a
house may be plumbed to be grey
water-ready, it could not actually have
an installed system until all the
variables are known. Recommend
policy be updated to state, “Utilize
plumbing fixtures that conserve or
reuse water such as low flow faucets
or grey water systems, and encourage
new homes to be constructed to be
grey water ready.”
P5-3 DiGangi Chapter
9 (LUE)
No
specific
policies
Add electric vehicle
charging stations to
residential
developments.
Add incentives to
development that
incorporate features
that off-set
operational energy
use.
Incorporate
requirements for
buildings to be solar-
ready.
Add these as examples to draft
programs:
“Incentive Program: The City shall
consider the feasibility of providing
incentives for new and renovated
projects that incorporate sustainable
design features such as constructing
new buildings that are solar ready, or
off-setting significant operational
energy use through use of solar water
heating, photovoltaic systems,
geothermal or wind energy systems.”
“Building Code Update: The City shall
regularly review and update its
building code and ordinances to
identify revisions to promote energy
efficient building design and
construction practices, for example by
including requirements for electric
Attachment 3
PH3 - 55
5
vehicle charging stations for new
residential developments.”
P5-3 DiGangi Chapter
9 (LUE) 9.3.7 G
Add “trees” in
addition to building
elements to address
Solar Shade Act.
Public Resources Code contains
provisions that restrict height of
vegetation on properties adjoining
properties with solar collectors. Prior
notice is required and local ordinance
may modify or opt not to apply PRC
code. If Commission is interested in
including this concept, staff
recommends adding a new program in
Chapter 9 that directs the City to
explore local conditions to support the
Solar Shade Act as reflected in PRC
25980-25986.
Attachment 3
PH3 - 56
6
Circulation Element Policy Input
Policy Input
Circulation Element Chapter 1
Com-
ment
#
Commenter Chapter Policy
# Input Policy Response
P2-12 Sierra Club Chapter
1 (CE) 1.9 1A Request to expand
language in objective.
Support updated language for
objective 1.9: A.
“The City will continue to support the
use and development of compressed
natural gas and biodiesel fueling
stations, EV recharging stations, and
other alternative fuel stations in the
San Luis Obispo area.”
Policy Input
Circulation Element Chapter 2
Com-
ment
#
Commenter Chapter Policy
# Input Policy Response
A2-3 Cal Poly Chapter
2 (CE) 2.1.4 Request to expand
language.
Support updated language, “The City
shall continue to work with Cal Poly,
Cuesta College and other…..”
P2-13 Sierra Club Chapter
2 (CE) 2.1.3
Request to restore text
requiring mandatory
trip reduction.
Per SB 437 (Lewis), the language was
removed because it is inconsistent
with current State law (code 40717.9
in Health and Safety regulations).
Replacement text emphasizes
commuter benefit options instead.
Policy Input
Circulation Element Chapter 3
Com-
ment
#
Commenter Chapter Policy
# Input Policy Response
A6-
26 SLOCOG Chapter
3 (CE) 3.0.3
Request to edit
language regarding
seniors and persons
with disabilities.
Staff supports. See PH6-6 below for
language.
Attachment 3
PH3 - 57
7
P2-14 Sierra Club Chapter
3 (CE) 3.0.6
Request to restore
bullet point directing
frequency of transit
service to compare
favorably to use of
private vehicle.
If Commission wishes to retain
direction regarding transit service
frequency, staff recommends:
“The frequency of City transit service
will not pose a barrier to this mode
choice.”
PH6-
6
Mass Transit
Committee
Chapter
3 (CE)
3.0.3,
3.0.4,
3.1.4
Requests for updated
language.
Supported by staff:
3.03 The City shall continue to support
paratransit service for the elderly and
disabled persons provided seniors and
persons with disabilities by public and
private transportation providers.
3.0.4 Campus Service. The City shall
continue to work with Cal Poly to
maintain and expand the free fare
subsidy program"....
3.1.4 The City shall coordinate with
the San Luis Obispo Regional Transit
Authority (SLORTA) to evaluate the
cost effectiveness of benefits and
drawbacks of coordinated and
consolidated service.
Policy Input
Circulation Element Chapter 4
Com-
ment
#
Commenter Chapter Policy
# Input Policy Response
P15-1
and
P15-5
Santa Maria
Valley
Railroad
Chapter
4 (CE) 4.1.6
Concern that bikeways
and pedestrian paths in
railroad rights of way
are not compatible due
to security problems
and potential to block
adjacent properties’
access to be served by
rail.
No change to policy or program is
proposed.
Policy Input
Circulation Element Chapter 6
Com-
ment
#
Commenter Chapter Policy
# Input Policy Response
P2-15 Sierra Club Chapter
6 (CE) 6.0.5 Remove text that
references “fair share”
No change to policy is proposed by
staff. “Fair share” has roots in
proportional nexus in case law and
Attachment 3
PH3 - 58
8
Commission and Council should
discuss and provide direction.
Policy Input
Circulation Element Chapter 9
Com-
ment
#
Commenter Chapter Policy
# Input Policy Response
P2-16 Sierra Club Chapter
9 (CE) 9.0.1
Request to remove
reference to "fair
share" and include
language "as mitigation
for the impacts of
development".
No change to policy is proposed by
staff. “Fair share” has roots in
proportional nexus in case law and
Commission and Council should
discuss and provide direction.
P2-17 Sierra Club Chapter
9 (CE) 9.1.6
Request to add
reference to “complete
streets” model.
No change to policy is proposed by
staff. This policy addresses
appearance of streets and roads.
Addition of complete streets model,
which is addressing mode share of
right-of-way, is covered in policy 6.0.1.
Policy Input
Circulation Element Chapter 12
Com-
ment
#
Commenter Chapter Policy
# Input Policy Response
P15-7
Santa Maria
Valley
Railroad
Chapter
12 (CE) 12.1.3
Request to remove
policy regarding idling
trains.
No changes to policy are
recommended. Commenter response
to GHG emissions but rails to note the
noise concerns to surrounding
neighborhoods which is main focus of
policy.
Policy Input
Circulation Element Chapter 14
Com-
ment
#
Commenter Chapter Policy
# Input Policy Response
P2-18 Sierra Club Chapter
14 (CE) New
Request to add new
policy:
14.0.4 Unbundled
parking: The City shall
Schools are superior agencies and City
cannot set policy for them. General
intent of unbundled parking is
accomplished through downtown
Attachment 3
PH3 - 59
9
introduce unbundled
parking, congestion
pricing, shared parking,
fair price policies,
positive transportation
demand management
(TDM) and the other
components of an
Intelligent Parking
program for schools
and government
buildings with the goal
of creating a Request
for Proposal process
for full
implementation.
parking in-lieu districts and in zoning
provisions that allow for parking
modifications for projects that include
car-sharing, employer-paid transit
passes, off-peak work hours and/or
trip reduction plans.
Policy Input
Circulation Element Chapter 15
Com-
ment
#
Commenter Chapter Policy
# Input Policy Response
A6-
28 SLOCOG Chapter
15 (CE) 15.0.5
Request to remove
reference to US 101
Aesthetic study
Revise D to read, "Actively
participating in the development and
periodic updates of the Caltrans US
101 Aesthetic Study of San Luis Obispo
County.
Policy Input
Circulation Element Chapter 16
Com-
ment
#
Commenter Chapter Policy
# Input Policy Response
P15-2
Santa Maria
Valley
Railroad
Chapter
16 (CE) 16.0.2
Request to specifically
address freight mobility
as a benefit to regional
congestion.
No change to policy is proposed by
staff. Policy 16.0.2 encourages
programs that reduce dependence on
single occupant vehicles and
encourages use of alternative modes
without listing them. Rail is an
alternative mode.
Attachment 3
PH3 - 60
10
P2-20 Sierra Club Chapter
16 (CE) 16.1.2
Request to remove
reference to “fair
share”.
No change to policy is proposed by
staff. “Fair share” has roots in
proportional nexus in case law and
Commission and Council should
discuss and provide direction.
Attachment 3
PH3 - 61
FFIISSCCAALL IIMMPPAACCTT AANNAALLYYSSIISS
SSaann LLuuiiss OObbiissppoo GGeenneerraall PPllaann UUppddaattee
Administrative Draft Fiscal Analysis 1
August 2014
ATTACHMENT 4
PH3 - 62
FFIISSCCAALL IIMMPPAACCTT AANNAALLYYSSIISS
SSaann LLuuiiss OObbiissppoo GGeenneerraall PPllaann UUppddaattee
Page 2 Administrative Draft Fiscal Analysis
August 2014
Table of Contents
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 3
Major Findings .............................................................................................................................................. 3
LUCE Projected Development ........................................................................................................... 5
Discussion of Fiscal Impacts ............................................................................................................... 9
Public Facilities Financing .................................................................................................................. 21
Appendix A: Methodology for the Fiscal Analysis .............................................................. 28
Appendix B: Development Impact Fee Estimates ............................................................... 37
ATTACHMENT 4
PH3 - 63
FFIISSCCAALL IIMMPPAACCTT AANNAALLYYSSIISS
SSaann LLuuiiss OObbiissppoo GGeenneerraall PPllaann UUppddaattee
Administrative Draft Fiscal Analysis 3
August 2014
Introduction
This report evaluates the fiscal impact of proposed land uses in the City of San Luis Obispo Land Use and
Circulation Element (LUCE) Update. The report calculates the projected City revenues and costs that would
be generated by new development included in the LUCE, as well as new infrastructure and program elements
included in the Circulation Element. The first section of the report focuses primarily on the annual operating
costs and revenues for the City’s General Fund, while the second section discusses capital improvements,
such as street improvements and the new fire station that would also be needed to support planned
development. Appendix A provides a detailed description of the methodology used in the analysis while
Appendix B provides detailed calculations of development impact fees from LUCE development. The LUCE
Background Report Chapter 2.2, Fiscal-Financial, provides a context for this analysis in terms of recent trends
in City finances and the City’s policy framework for budgetary actions. In addition, Chapter 2.3, Economic
Development, includes a retail market analysis and a discussion of the tourism market in San Luis Obispo that
provides a basis for parts of the fiscal analysis in this report. The DEIR also provides a more detailed
description of key City services, such as police and fire protection, than is provided here in the fiscal analysis.
The General Fund collects all general tax revenues and pays for most of the operating expenses to fund City
government. The City budget includes other funds besides the General Fund but these represent monies
collected from a variety of revenue sources that are limited to specific uses. For example, the City Enterprise
Funds are used to operate the water and wastewater systems as well as City-owned parking facilities and
transit services. The revenues used to operate these systems are mainly user charges billed to customers for
service. The City has the ability to adjust service charges over time to ensure that the revenues meet
operating costs. Therefore, it is less likely that new development would create adverse fiscal impacts on the
Enterprise Fund provided the City is able to project changes in systems demands and operating costs.
However, with the General Fund, the City has less control over its major tax sources such as the property tax,
sales tax and transient occupancy tax, because the tax rates are largely constrained by the state constitution
and other regulatory limits and the revenues themselves may decline with changes in economic conditions,
as happened during the recent recession. Therefore, it is especially important to analyze how the future land
use mix will affect General Fund costs and revenues rather than other portions of the City budget.
The fiscal analysis is structured to show the marginal impact of new development included in the LUCE and
does not represent a projection of the total City budget at buildout of the General Plan. Other economic and
state policy factors may affect the cost of services and the revenues generated by existing land uses in the
City, which would change the City’s overall budget picture.
Major Findings
The new development associated with the LUCE would generate a net positive fiscal impact of $3.1
million per year for the San Luis Obispo General Fund. This result is driven largely by the amount of
commercial and hospitality uses included in the LUCE.
The circulation improvements and transportation programs included in the LUCE, as well as other new
facilities such as a fifth fire station, would also benefit existing development in the City. The share of
annual operating and maintenance costs allocated to existing development equal about $2.67 million
per year, reducing the overall fiscal benefit of the LUCE program to about $452,700 per year.
The costs included in the analysis reflect a higher than current level of City expenditure for facilities
maintenance and IT investments, addressing the fact that current expenditure levels have resulted in
ATTACHMENT 4
PH3 - 64
FFIISSCCAALL IIMMPPAACCTT AANNAALLYYSSIISS
SSaann LLuuiiss OObbiissppoo GGeenneerraall PPllaann UUppddaattee
Page 4 Administrative Draft Fiscal Analysis
August 2014
deferred maintenance for many City facilities. These higher service standards result in higher costs for
LUCE development and lower net revenues. However, despite absorbing these higher maintenance
costs, the development would be able to contribute nearly an additional $3.1 million per year to
capital improvement plan projects, including payments for debt service related to these projects
One source of capital improvements expenditures for the City is Measure Y sales tax receipts (1/2 cent
Essential Services Measure). The LUCE development is projected to generate $2.7 million in Essential
Services Measure revenues per year. Measure Y is due to expire in 2014 unless renewed by the
voters. If the Measure is not renewed, the City would not receive the projected additional sales tax
revenues from LUCE development and related expenditures would need to be reduced accordingly.
In terms of service costs, one significant service impact is the need for a new fire station in the south
part of town, which is estimated to cost $3 million to build and equip and $1.8 million per year to
operate. Four main projects included in the LUCE would benefit from this facility, including Sunset
Drive-in, Avila Ranch and the Airport & Margarita Area Specific Plans. However, some existing
residential units as well as a number of businesses located in the southern part of town would also
benefit from the new fire station. In the fiscal analysis, the operating costs for the station have been
allocated to these projects plus the existing development within the new service area.
Within the LUCE there are three major project sites plus 28 acres of other vacant land that is currently
outside the City boundaries and would have to be annexed in order to develop. The City receives a
lower share of property tax on annexed property than it does for properties within the historical core
of the City (i.e., within the City prior to 1996 when the City/County tax sharing agreement was
adopted). However, due to the planned commercial development in the Dalidio/San Luis Ranch site,
the Airport Area and the Madonna site on LOVR, these future annexation areas would generate a net
positive fiscal impact of $1.8 million per year.
Circulation improvements in the LUCE are estimated to cost $192.2 million, and in addition circulation
improvements from the ancillary Bicycle Transportation Plan are estimated to cost $48 million. Some
funding is included in the City’s existing Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) program. LUCE development
is projected to pay $99 million into the existing TIF, but many of these funds are earmarked for other
facilities in the Citywide TIF. Overall there is a gap of at least $40 million between LUCE circulation
costs and existing projected TIF revenues, not including the costs in the Bicycle Transportation Plan.
Other estimated facilities costs associated with the LUCE include a share of both new fire and police
stations at $2.2 million and $8.1 million, respectively. Also, certain LUCE development would dedicate
parkland and others would pay an in-lieu parkland fee, but the City does not have a fee for park
development and there is an estimated $17.3 million gap between the estimated cost of park
acquisition and development and the fees and park land dedications that would be provided by the
LUCE under existing City programs.
Altogether, there is an infrastructure funding gap of at least $71.5 million, and the analysis indicates
that new development in the LUCE may be able to absorb some additional fee burden. When the
LUCE is adopted, it will be essential for the City to develop a detailed plan for funding critical
infrastructure improvements, including a new development impact fee nexus study.
ATTACHMENT 4
PH3 - 65
FFIISSCCAALL IIMMPPAACCTT AANNAALLYYSSIISS
SSaann LLuuiiss OObbiissppoo GGeenneerraall PPllaann UUppddaattee
Administrative Draft Fiscal Analysis 5
August 2014
LUCE Project ed Development
The proposed Land Use and Circulation Element includes a number of future development projects and sites.
Table 1 summarizes housing unit, population, non-residential square footage, and employment capacity in
the Planning Subarea. The table is divided into capacity from alternative sites, specific plans, planned
projects, and other vacant land. Under the proposed General Plan, San Luis Obispo has a capacity for 4,904
new residential units and 5,168,908 square feet of non-residential floor area.
Alternatives Sites
There are 12 active alternatives sites within the Planning Subarea that were identified through the
alternatives process as opportunity areas. Units and non-residential square footage are calculated based on
proposed general plan designations and input from the City. Some of these sites have existing development
that will likely be adapted to facilitate new development. Alternatives sites are anticipated to result in 2,316
new units and 1,900,443 square feet of new non-residential floor area.
Specific Plans
There are three key specific plans that provide capacity within the Planning Subarea: The Margarita Area
Specific Plan (MASP), the Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP), and the Orcutt Area Specific Plan (OASP). After
capacity from the Avila Ranch and Broad Street at Tank Farm Road alternatives sites were removed to avoid
double counting, the three specific plan areas account for 1,847 units and 3,244,642 square feet of new non-
residential floor area.
Planned Projects
Some capacity is determined by sites with projects approved by the City of San Luis Obispo. Planned projects
include developments with approved land use entitlements, preparing for building permits, in plan check, or
under construction. There are eight planned and approved projects that are outside the alternatives sites,
including three residential and five mixed use developments. Together, these on-going projects would result
in an estimated 289 new housing units and 126,000 square feet of non-residential floor area.
Other Vacant Land
Other vacant land indicates what could realistically be developed on remaining vacant land in San Luis Obispo
based on actual constraints and historical development practice. Table 1 shows the breakdown of vacant land
by land use designations in 2013, excluding approved projects, vacant land in specific plan areas, and vacant
land within alternatives sites. Excluding these areas, the city has 87 acres of vacant land. Services and
Manufacturing and Low Density Residential areas have the greatest number of vacant, developable acres. All
vacant land potential is within the Planning Subarea, although 28 acres is outside the current City boundary.
Based on allowed density, anticipated infrastructure, and development history, vacant land in San Luis
Obispo can support an additional 452 units. Most of these units would be in low, medium, and high density
residential areas. Based on allowed FAR, anticipated infrastructure, and development history, vacant land in
San Luis Obispo can support an additional 230,433 square feet of non-residential development.
ATTACHMENT 4
PH3 - 66
FFIISSCCAALL IIMMPPAACCTT AANNAALLYYSSIISS
SSaann LLuuiiss OObbiissppoo GGeenneerraall PPllaann UUppddaattee
Page 6 Administrative Draft Fiscal Analysis
August 2014
Table 1: Total Capacity within Planning Subarea, San Luis Obispo 2014
Acres
Typical Density¹ Capacity
Resin-
dential
(Units/
Acre)
Non-
Resi-
dential
(FAR)
Units²
Popula-
tion3
Non-Residential Square Footage4
Employ-
ment5 Single
Family
Multi-
family Total Office Commer-
cial
Indust-
rial Hotel Park
(Acres)
Total
(includes
hotels)
ALTERNATIVES SITES⁶
Foothill @ Santa Rosa Area 0 80 80 183 0 -1,814 0 0 - -1,814 -3
Caltrans Site 0 53 53 121 -3,792 -14,265 0 200 3.5 101,943 6
General Hospital Site 9 32 41 94 48,788 0 0 0 - 48,788 163
Broad Street Area 0 589 589 1,349 0 229,068 0 0 - 229,068 416
Sunset Drive-In Site 0 0 0 0 260,706 222,962 0 0 - 483,668 1,274
Dalidio / Madonna Area 320 180 500 1,145 150,000 200,000 0 200 8.3 470,000 968
Pacific Beach Site 0 38 38 87 -94,851 57,499 0 0 - -37,352 -212
Calle Joaquin Auto Sales
Area 0 0 0 0 0 128,066 0 120 - 200,066 295
Madonna Site on LOVR 0 115 115 263 16,770 145,000 0 139 - 336,170 392
LOVR Creekside Area 0 159 159 364 0 0 0 0 2.7 0 0
Broad St. @ Tank Farm Rd.
Site 0 41 41 94 73,180 62,726 0 0 - 135,906 358
Avila Ranch 405 295 700 1,603 0 25,000 0 0 - 25,000 45
SUBTOTAL 734 1,582 2,316 5,303 450,801 1,054,242 0 659 14.5 1,900,443 3,762
SPECIFIC PLANS7
Margarita Area Specific Plan 741 127 868 1,988 959,017 10,000 0 0 25.9 969,017 3,215
Airport Area Specific Plan⁸ 0 0 0 0 900,000 616,983 747,642 0 - 2,264,625 6,420
Orcutt Area Specific Plan 540 439 979 2,242 0 11,000 0 0 12.0 11,000 20
SUBTOTAL 1,281 566 1,847 4,230 1,859,017 637,983 747,642 0 37.9 3,244,642 9,475
PLANNED AND APPROVED PROJECTS⁹
Chinatown Project 0 32 32 73 0 46,000 0 78 - 92,800 124
Pacific Courtyards 0 12 12 27 10,000 0 0 0 - 10,000 33
Mission Estates 10 0 10 23 0 0 0 0 - 0 0
Four Creeks (Creekston and
Laurel Creek) 0 166 166 380 0 0 0 0 - 0 0
Garden Street Terrace 0 8 8 18 0 25,000 0 64 - 63,400 83
ATTACHMENT 4
PH3 - 67
FFIISSCCAALL IIMMPPAACCTT AANNAALLYYSSIISS
SSaann LLuuiiss OObbiissppoo GGeenneerraall PPllaann UUppddaattee
Administrative Draft Fiscal Analysis Page 7
August 2014
Acres
Typical Density¹ Capacity
Resin-
dential
(Units/
Acre)
Non-
Resi-
dential
(FAR)
Units²
Popula-
tion3
Non-Residential Square Footage4
Employ-
ment5 Single
Family
Multi-
family Total Office Commer-
cial
Indust-
rial Hotel Park
(Acres)
Total
(includes
hotels)
313 South Street Apartments 0 43 43 98 0 0 0 0 - 0 0
Marsh Street Commons 0 11 11 25 0 3,000 0 0 - 3,000 5
ICON project (1340 Taft) 0 7 7 16 0 4,000 0 0 - 4,000 7
SUBTOTAL 10 279 289 660 10,000 78,000 - 150 - 126,400 252
OTHER VACANT LAND (BY GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION)10
Suburban Residential4 4.0 1 4 4 9 - - - -
Low Density Residential 53.4 6 320 320 733 - - - -
Medium Density Residential 7.1 10 71 71 163 - - - -
Medium-High Density
Residential 0.4 16 - 6 6 14 - - - -
High Density Residential 2.7 19 - 51 51 117 - - - -
Neighborhood Commercial5 0.2 0.30 - 2,614 - - 2,614 5
Community Commercial5 3.2 0.30 - 41,818 - - 41,818 76
Tourist Commercial5 1.0 0.35 - 15,246 - - 15,246 28
Office4 1.3 0.35 - 19,820 - - 19,820 36
Services and Manufacturing 13.3 0.25 - 144,837 - - 144,837 193
Public 0.4 0.35 - 6,098 - - 6,098 20
SUBTOTAL 87 395 57 452 1,036 25,918 59,678 144,837 - - 230,433 388
TOTAL CAPACITY 2,420 11,229 2,345,736 1,829,903 892,479 803 52.4 5,166,908 13,877
1 Typical density and FAR is based on a net acre assumption accounting for necessary infrastructure and facilities. To get the typical density, the maximum
density was recalculated based on a development percent assumption on what is average for new development.
2 Unit capacity for other vacant land is calculated by multiplying acres and the typical density.
3 Population based on 2010 Census estimate of 2.29 persons per household.
4Non-residential square footage for specific plan area and planned projects is based on assumptions in specific plans and Community Development Project
Status Report (December 31, 2012). Non-residential square footage for vacant land is calculated by multiplying acres and the typical FAR. Hotels were
assumed to have 600 square feet per room.
5 Employment is estimated using 300 square feet per employee for office uses, 550 square feet per employee for commercial uses, 750 square feet per
employee for industrial uses, and 1,150 square feet per employee for hotels/motels.
ATTACHMENT 4
PH3 - 68
FFIISSCCAALL IIMMPPAACCTT AANNAALLYYSSIISS
SSaann LLuuiiss OObbiissppoo GGeenneerraall PPllaann UUppddaattee
Page 8 Administrative Draft Fiscal Analysis
August 2014
6Alternatives Sites estimate the net new residential and non-residential development in opportunity areas identified as a part of the alternatives process.
Units and non-residential square footage are calculated based on proposed general plan designations and input from the City. Some of these sites have
existing development that will likely be adapted to facilitate new development. As a result, some sites have a negative number for net new non-residential
square footage, even though new development is anticipated.
7Non-Residential square footage includes land designated neighborhood commercial, services commercial, business park, and manufacturing.
8The Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP) does not include capacity from the Avila Ranch or Broad St. @ Tank Farm Alternatives Sites. These sites are counted
in the Alternatives Sites section. Non-residential square footage in the AASP includes 605,293 square feet from underutilized land that is likely to
redevelop. Remaining capacity in the AASP based on analysis conducted by the City of San Luis Obispo Planning and GIS staff.
9Does not include projects that fall within the boundaries of the Specific Plan Areas or the Alternatives Sites. Only those projects that provided specific
unit/square footage numbers were included.
10Does not include parcels that fall within the boundaries of the Specific Plan Areas, Alternatives Sites, or Planned and Approved Projects. Acreages are
taken from the vacant land category in the existing land use inventory.
Sources: Community Development Department Project Status Report (December 31, 2012), San Luis Obispo General Plan, Land Use Element, 2010; City of
San Luis Obispo, 2014; Matrix, 2014; Mintier Harnish, 2014.
ATTACHMENT 4
PH3 - 69
FFIISSCCAALL IIMMPPAACCTT AANNAALLYYSSIISS
SSaann LLuuiiss OObbiissppoo GGeenneerraall PPllaann UUppddaattee
Administrative Draft Fiscal Analysis Page 9
August 2014
Discussion of Fiscal Impacts
Introduction
Overall, the new land use development under the LUCE would result in a net positive fiscal impact of $3.1
million per year for the San Luis Obispo General Fund (Table 2). However, other costs associated with the
new circulation improvements and transportation programs, as well as added fire protection costs to existing
development in the south part of the City would reduce the total net revenues to $452,700 per year (Table
3). The positive fiscal impact is driven largely by a favorable balance of commercial and hospitality uses to
residential development. Retail development would create a net positive revenue balance of $6.4 million per
year and the added hotel development would increase net revenues by $2.6 million per year. Residential
development, on the other hand, would require an estimated $4.0 million more per year in service costs than
it would generate in City revenues. Office and industrial development also would have more minor negative
fiscal impacts on the City General Fund.
Table 2 shows the detailed impacts of LUCE development on City revenue categories and service
departments. Most of the property tax is generated by residential development while most of the sales tax is
generated by commercial development, although household spending from residential units has been
credited to the new single family and multi-family units. The transient occupancy tax is a major source of
revenue from the hospitality sector.
The Net Revenue shown in Table 2 represents about 15.5 percent of the total projected revenues of nearly
$20.0 million. The City has a fiscal policy to maintain a 20 percent reserve and the LUCE land use mix would
allow the City to maintain its reserves over time. As discussed in the analysis below, the fiscal analysis uses a
higher service standard for infrastructure and facilities maintenance than the City currently is able to budget,
addressing the fact that current expenditure levels have resulted in deferred maintenance for many City
facilities. These higher service standards result in higher costs for LUCE development and lower net revenues
in the bottom line in Table 2. However, despite absorbing these higher maintenance costs, the development
would be able to contribute nearly an additional $3.0 million per year to capital improvement plan projects,
including payments for debt service related to these projects (shown in Table 2 as Transfers Out). This
allocation reflects the current General Fund budget for capital expenditures. In the future, the City Council
may choose to allocate these funds differently to augment other service departments as needed.
Much of the General Fund contribution to capital expenditures is currently funded by Measure Y sales tax
revenues (1/2 cent Essential Services Sales Tax), the renewal of which is due to be voted on in November
2014. The LUCE development is projected to generate nearly $2.7 million per year in Essential Services sales
tax revenues. If the measure is not renewed, the City would not gain the revenues shown for the LUCE
development and would also likely have to reduce expenditures by a commensurate amount.
City Services
The following sections discuss the projected impacts to each governmental function funded by the General
Fund.
General Government. The General Government function includes a number of City Departments that provide
management and support services, including the Administration Department, City Attorney, Human
Resources, Finance and Information Technology, Public Works Administration, and Building and Fleet
Maintenance (City Council costs are not projected to increase as a result of the LUCE). These costs total $10.3
million in the General Fund Budget, but some of the costs would not reasonably be expected to increase as
ATTACHMENT 4
PH3 - 70
FFIISSCCAALL IIMMPPAACCTT AANNAALLYYSSIISS
SSaann LLuuiiss OObbiissppoo GGeenneerraall PPllaann UUppddaattee
Page 10 Administrative Draft Fiscal Analysis
August 2014
the City grows. For example, the City would not have two City Managers or two Finance Directors, but rather
would hire additional support personnel to meet additional workloads. Therefore, some of the General
Government costs have been excluded from the analysis (see Table A-6 in Appendix A). In contrast, the City
also estimates that it is not currently spending enough to maintain important infrastructure and systems. In
terms of General Government functions, the City estimates it should be allocating an additional $160,000 per
year to maintain and expand information technology systems, as well as an additional $867,000 per year for
building maintenance.1 These amounts have been added to the General Government expenditures to reflect
the service level the City projects for future growth. The adjustments to General Government expenditures
results in a total cost basis for the fiscal analysis of $8.8 million, which represents 18.2 percent of the total
service cost basis in the fiscal analysis. The General Government service costs are allocated to each land use
using this percentage of the other line department costs discussed above.
Police Department. In terms of service costs, the largest impact is for additional police officers, at nearly $4.1
million per year. As of 2014, the City has 59 sworn officers, a ratio of about 1.24 officers per 1,000
population. Residential development envisioned in the LUCE will add about 11,200 residents, creating a need
for 14 new sworn officers in order to maintain the same per capita ratio. The City currently spends about
$101,800 plus $1,500 in equipment for new police officer hires. However, as the police department expands,
additional non-sworn support personnel are also needed as well as additional operating and management
expenditures. The financial impact of the LUCE on a residential population basis would be about $2.5 million
per year. However, the LUCE also includes a substantial increase in commercial and hospitality uses, which
have significant fiscal benefits but also require added police protection services. This added service demand
is estimated to cost an additional $1.6 million per year.
Fire Department. For fire protection, there is a need for a new fire station in the south part of town. The
annual cost of operating the fire station is estimated to be $1.8 million, derived from figures in the Fire
Master Plan, escalated to 2014 dollars.2 Based on the DEIR analysis, it is anticipated that four new projects
would benefit from this facility: Sunset Drive-in, Avila Ranch and the Airport & Margarita Area Specific Plans
in addition to certain existing development in the City. The three new projects include 1,568 dwelling units
and an estimated 10,754 new jobs when fully built out. The existing developed areas in San Luis Obispo that
would also be served by the new fire station include an estimated 2,200 dwelling units and businesses with
about 4,000 jobs.
The fiscal analysis estimates that approximately $1,121,700 of the operating cost for the station (62 percent
of the total $1.8 million) would be due to the new development projects, based on a combination of
population, employment and projected assessed value, which is an indicator of the level of fire protection
they would require. These projects would cover this cost, and other City service costs, through payment of
property taxes and sales taxes, along with other General Fund revenues shown in Table 2. The remaining
$678,300 would be a cost to the City to meets its service standards for the existing development in the south
part of the City.
For LUCE development projects in other parts of the City within adequate response times of current stations,
no additional fire protection costs are included in the analysis. However, all projects would generate
increased costs for emergency medical response on a per capita basis, which accounts for about two-thirds of
1 IT costs provided by Wayne Padilla, Finance/IT Director; Building maintenance costs provided by Daryl Grigsby, Public Works Director, in a
memorandum to the Local Revenue Measure Advisory Committee, January 13, 2014. The stated cost reflects the alternative investment level.
2 This estimate also accounts for projected reductions in PERS costs for new firefighters, based on information provided by Wayne Padilla,
Finance/IT Director, August 14, 2014.
ATTACHMENT 4
PH3 - 71
FFIISSCCAALL IIMMPPAACCTT AANNAALLYYSSIISS
SSaann LLuuiiss OObbiissppoo GGeenneerraall PPllaann UUppddaattee
Administrative Draft Fiscal Analysis Page 11
August 2014
the Fire Department Budget. The projected additional cost for fire services from existing stations is estimated
at 759,250 per year.
Transportation. The LUCE proposes a number of new street and highway improvements, as well as a
significant expansion of the City’s Transportation Planning and Engineering program to increase bicycle,
pedestrian, and transit mode share. Also the City recently adopted an ancillary document, the Bicycle
Transportation Plan, which includes a number of bicycle specific improvements. Over 25 new transportation
policies and programs are proposed which include new monitoring programs, new budgeting and
prioritization processes, development of new plans such as the downtown pedestrian plan and access
management standards, expansion of existing programs such as the Neighborhood Traffic Calming and Traffic
Operations Programs, and new Multimodal Service Standards. It’s estimated that the proposed expansion of
the City’s Transportation Planning & Engineering program represents an additional 5,000 to 8,000 annual
staff hours & approximately $200,000 in annual consultant services depending on the implementation
schedule for these projects and programs and the level of the development applicants in a given year.
The City currently averages about $15,000 in maintenance costs per mile of roadway, including sidewalks,
bike paths, and related storm drain facilities. The LUCE includes approximately 13 miles of new road surfaces,
which would increase current maintenance costs about $195,000 on an annual average basis. Also the Bicycle
Transportation Plan includes new bike paths, boulevards, and lanes which would increase current
maintenance cost by another $1.06 million on an annual average basis. However, the City has determined
that current expenditures levels fail to meet City Council goals regarding optimal maintenance and
replacement schedules and the City is accumulating a significant deferred maintenance need. Maintenance
levels would need to increase between 3 and 5 times current levels to avoid this deferred maintenance.3 At
even the lower level, this would increase the LUCE street/storm maintenance costs to about $585,000 per
year.
The combination of an expanded Transportation Planning & Engineering program and additional street
maintenance on new roads and bikeways, adds a total of $2,213,500 to the fiscal costs for the LUCE. In
addition, the analysis estimates that the increased use of existing City transportation facilities and programs
by the new population and employment would increase City Transportation function costs by another
$1,586,600.
Leisure, Cultural and Social Services. A number of the LUCE development projects include new parks, adding
52.4 acres to the City’s inventory in aggregate. While this is a benefit to residents of the City, the additional
parks will increase maintenance costs for the parks and recreation department. In addition, the new
residential population will use existing parks and the increased wear and tear will add maintenance costs for
those parks as well. The total impacts to park maintenance cost is estimated at about $578,400 and is
allocated to the new residential units in the LUCE.
In addition to parks and landscape maintenance, new development associated with the LUCE would increase
demand for recreation programs and other City leisure, cultural and social services, including potentially the
City-County Library, the Swim Center, Youth and general Community Services. It is estimated that the total
cost of such services would increase $1.2 million at full buildout of the LUCE. Portions of these costs would be
offset by recreation program fees and general tax revenues generated by the LUCE development.
Community Development. The Community Development function for the City includes a wide range of
services, from long range planning to development review and entitlements, carried out by the Community
Development Department. It also includes economic development, community promotions, tourism and
3 Grigsby, Daryl, Public Works Director, memorandum to the Local Revenue Measure Advisory Committee, January 13, 2014.
ATTACHMENT 4
PH3 - 72
FFIISSCCAALL IIMMPPAACCTT AANNAALLYYSSIISS
SSaann LLuuiiss OObbiissppoo GGeenneerraall PPllaann UUppddaattee
Page 12 Administrative Draft Fiscal Analysis
August 2014
natural resource protection through the City Administration Department, neighborhood services and code
enforcement through the Building and Safety Division, as well as engineering review and CIP engineering
from the Public Works Department. In the fiscal analysis, we have not included the portions of the
development review process for which the City charges fees directly to development. Fees for plan review,
plan check, building permits and the like are paid during the entitlement and project approval phase but then
are not paid by development on an ongoing basis except for occasional remodels or building expansions.
Much like the Enterprise Funds, the City has the ability to set fees for entitlement services to cover City costs;
however, other community development functions are supported by general tax revenues and are included
in the fiscal cost analysis for the LUCE, estimated at $719,170 per year at full buildout.
Enterprise Funds. Parking and transit services which are part of the transportation function are funded by
separate enterprise funds and are not included in Table 2. Similarly, utilities such as water and sewer service
are funded by enterprise funds rather than through general tax revenues in the General Fund. For water,
sewer and parking services, user fees and service charges fund 97-99 percent of the costs for these functions.
Therefore, as demand for the services increases from LUCE development, the City will receive increased
service charge revenues to cover those costs, In addition, the City has the authority to increase service charge
rates if necessary to maintain pace with cost escalations.
For transit, however, only 20 percent of operating costs are covered by user revenues and 80 percent are
covered from subventions and grants that are based on population, ridership and other factors. The LUCE
would increase the City’s population by about 25 percent, potentially increasing transit costs by as much as
$800,000 if existing system capacity cannot handle the increase. If such cost increases do occur, the City
would need to obtain additional grant funds to operate the expanded services.
Impacts by LUCE Development Area
The fiscal analysis evaluates each development project/area and land use type individually. Table 4 shows the
bottom-line fiscal impact of each individual project site or area, grouped by LUCE category. Due to the
balance of commercial and residential development, each category of LUCE project has a positive fiscal
impact.
Several of the projects would involve redeveloping existing non-residential uses and the fiscal impact analysis
accounts for the loss of these uses. For example, the site at Foothill and Santa Rosa would demolish an 1,800
sq.ft. commercial building while the Caltrans site would lose 18,000 sq.ft. of office and commercial uses. In
addition, the Pacific Beach site would replace 94,951 sq.ft. of office space with $57,499 sq.ft. of retail space
plus 38 multi-family units. The analysis assumes the existing uses are functioning as new and shows a
negative impact from replacing retail uses but a positive impact from replacing the office uses. In reality the
fiscal effect of the existing uses is likely lower due to obsolescence of the existing buildings. In any case, both
Caltrans site and the Pacific Beach site have net positive fiscal impacts due to the planned mix of uses in each
project.
In most cases, projects that have a mix of both residential and commercial uses show a positive fiscal benefit,
depending on the amount of retail uses in each case. There are a number of positive attributes associated
with mixed use development in terms of creating vibrant neighborhood environments, allowing more
pedestrian oriented shopping and entertainment activities and reducing vehicle miles traveled to more
centralized commercial centers. The fiscal analysis does not explicitly value these benefits in terms of
increased revenues or reduced service costs, but it does make the assumption that commercial spaces in
neighborhood locations will be fully patronized by local residents and therefore contribute positively to City
revenues, mainly through the sales tax. Some neighborhood sales dollars will likely come from existing
ATTACHMENT 4
PH3 - 73
FFIISSCCAALL IIMMPPAACCTT AANNAALLYYSSIISS
SSaann LLuuiiss OObbiissppoo GGeenneerraall PPllaann UUppddaattee
Administrative Draft Fiscal Analysis Page 13
August 2014
residents and not just residents in the new housing. This would represent shifts in sales away from existing,
more centralized retail centers in the City and a more detailed market analysis of each individual project
would be needed to calculate the true net effect of this shopping activity. However, the fiscal success of the
City is largely dependent on its ability to continue to attract regional retail spending from residents
throughout the County and from business and tourist visitors. This may occur both through sales expansion
of existing retail and hospitality businesses (increased sales capture) and also through the development of
new retail and hotels that attract future county and outside visitor shoppers as the regional population
continues to grow. The LUCE includes potential expansion of regional retail centers in the Madonna Rd. and
LOVR areas, and therefore would help to maintain a solid tax base for the City as older retail centers
transition to new mixed use developments.
Tables 5 to 8 show detailed costs and revenues for each LUCE category plus the annexation areas. The
Alternatives Sites include a substantial portion of the new commercial development included in the LUCE but
less than half of the new housing units. This group of sites provides the largest net revenue gain for the City.
Among the Specific Plans, the residential development in the Margarita and Orcutt areas is balanced by the
commercial in the Airport Area to create a net positive fiscal impact overall. The other planned and approved
projects, as well as the remaining vacant land with development potential, have mixed fiscal impacts
depending on the nature of the proposed project, but as a group result in a net positive fiscal benefit for the
City.
Within the LUCE there are three major project sites plus 28 acres of other vacant land that are currently
outside the City boundaries and would have to be annexed in order to develop. These sites include
Dalidio/San Luis Ranch, portions of the Airport Area Specific Plan and the Madonna site on LOVR. They are
spread among the various LUCE project categories but are extracted for separate analysis in Table 3 and 7.
The City receives a lower share of property tax on annexed property than it does for properties within the
historical core of the City (i.e., within the City prior to 1996 when the City/County tax sharing agreement was
adopted). However, due to the planned commercial development in the Dalidio/San Luis Ranch site, the
Airport Area and the Madonna site on LOVR, these future annexation areas would generate a net positive
fiscal impact of $1.8 million per year.
ATTACHMENT 4
PH3 - 74
FFIISSCCAALL IIMMPPAACCTT AANNAALLYYSSIISS
SSaann LLuuiiss OObbiissppoo GGeenneerraall PPllaann UUppddaattee
Table 2: Detailed Fiscal Impacts of Total New LUCE Development
Total Single Family Multi-Family Office Commercial Industrial Hotel
REVENUES
Tax Revenues
Property Tax $2,310,082 $1,088,465 $713,256 $91,634 $309,921 $22,587 $84,219
Property Tax in lieu of VLF $1,781,322 $795,457 $384,503 $248,092 $246,538 $54,253 $52,479
Sales Tax: General $6,150,569 $512,576 $396,753 $77,364 $4,473,247 $61,871 $628,760
Sales Tax: ½ cent Essential Services Measure $2,666,431 $222,215 $172,002 $33,539 $1,939,268 $26,823 $272,584
Sales Tax: Public Safety $135,399 $11,284 $8,734 $1,703 $98,474 $1,362 $13,842
Transient Occupancy Tax $2,283,266 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,280,447
Utility Users Tax $1,521,497 $454,799 $466,827 $320,846 $136,523 $48,829 $93,673
Franchise Fees $717,541 $214,484 $220,157 $151,312 $64,384 $23,028 $44,177
Business Tax Certificates $1,011,023 $0 $0 $619,825 $263,740 $94,330 $33,128
Real Property Transfer Tax $52,735 $24,848 $16,282 $2,092 $7,075 $516 $1,923
Service Charges
Recreation Fees $389,560 $192,238 $197,322 $0 $0 $0 $0
Other Charges for Services $466,264 $139,374 $143,059 $98,324 $41,837 $14,964 $28,706
Other Revenue
Fines and Forfeitures $44,315 $13,247 $13,597 $9,345 $3,976 $1,422 $2,728
Interest Earnings and Rents $65,346 $12,616 $9,554 $5,457 $24,934 $1,153 $11,623
Other Revenues $27,441 $8,109 $8,324 $6,748 $2,872 $1,027 $361
Transfers in
Gas Tax/TDA $328,782 $162,246 $166,536 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL REVENUES $19,951,573 $3,851,957 $2,916,906 $1,666,281 $7,612,789 $352,164 $3,548,648
EXPENDITURES
General Government $2,549,489 $813,329 $821,112 $454,429 $239,595 $69,596 $151,427
Police $4,188,315 $1,218,254 $1,250,472 $689,699 $548,547 $104,964 $376,379
Fire $1,880,919 $595,480 $534,342 $406,239 $176,733 $64,274 $103,850
Transportation $2,544,883 $760,705 $780,823 $536,653 $228,350 $81,672 $156,680
Leisure, Cultural and Social Services $1,232,271 $551,991 $566,589 $0 $0 $0 $113,692
Park and Landscape Maintenance $578,381 $285,416 $292,964 $0 $0 $0 $0
Community Development
Economic Health $178,344 $0 $0 $105,868 $45,047 $16,112 $11,317
Development Review $183,061 $56,942 $58,448 $40,171 $17,093 $6,113 $4,294
Other Community Development $399,943 $124,404 $127,694 $87,763 $37,344 $13,356 $9,381
Transfers Out $3,093,957 $962,390 $987,841 $678,935 $288,892 $103,325 $72,575
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $16,829,562 $5,326,048 $5,366,799 $2,368,925 $1,715,467 $483,965 $981,685
TOTAL BUDGET NET (DEFICIT)/SURPLUS $3,122,011 ($1,567,568) ($2,449,893) ($1,012,593) $6,372,458 ($131,801) $2,566,964
Source: ADE, Inc.
Table 3: Detailed Fiscal Impacts of Total New LUCE Development Plus Costs Allocated to Existing Development
ATTACHMENT 4
PH3 - 75
FFIISSCCAALL IIMMPPAACCTT AANNAALLYYSSIISS
SSaann LLuuiiss OObbiissppoo GGeenneerraall PPllaann UUppddaattee
Administrative Draft Fiscal Analysis Page 15
August 2014
Total Single Family Multi-Family Office Commercial Industrial Hotel
REVENUES
Tax Revenues
Property Tax $2,310,082 $1,088,465 $713,256 $91,634 $309,921 $22,587 $84,219
Property Tax in lieu of VLF $1,781,322 $795,457 $384,503 $248,092 $246,538 $54,253 $52,479
Sales Tax: General $6,150,569 $512,576 $396,753 $77,364 $4,473,247 $61,871 $628,760
Sales Tax: ½ cent Essential Services Measure $2,666,431 $222,215 $172,002 $33,539 $1,939,268 $26,823 $272,584
Sales Tax: Public Safety $135,399 $11,284 $8,734 $1,703 $98,474 $1,362 $13,842
Transient Occupancy Tax $2,283,266 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,280,447
Utility Users Tax $1,521,497 $454,799 $466,827 $320,846 $136,523 $48,829 $93,673
Franchise Fees $717,541 $214,484 $220,157 $151,312 $64,384 $23,028 $44,177
Business Tax Certificates $1,011,023 $0 $0 $619,825 $263,740 $94,330 $33,128
Real Property Transfer Tax $52,735 $24,848 $16,282 $2,092 $7,075 $516 $1,923
Service Charges
Recreation Fees $389,560 $192,238 $197,322 $0 $0 $0 $0
Other Charges for Services $466,264 $139,374 $143,059 $98,324 $41,837 $14,964 $28,706
Other Revenue
Fines and Forfeitures $44,315 $13,247 $13,597 $9,345 $3,976 $1,422 $2,728
Interest Earnings and Rents $65,346 $12,616 $9,554 $5,457 $24,934 $1,153 $11,623
Other Revenues $27,441 $8,109 $8,324 $6,748 $2,872 $1,027 $361
Transfers in
Gas Tax/TDA $328,782 $162,246 $166,536 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL REVENUES $19,951,573 $3,851,957 $2,916,906 $1,666,281 $7,612,789 $352,164 $3,548,648
EXPENDITURES
General Government1 $2,953,854 $813,329 $821,112 $454,429 $239,595 $69,596 $151,427
Police $4,188,315 $1,218,254 $1,250,472 $689,699 $548,547 $104,964 $376,379
Fire1 $2,559,250 $595,480 $534,342 $406,239 $176,733 $64,274 $103,850
Transportation1 $4,131,467 $760,705 $780,823 $536,653 $228,350 $81,672 $156,680
Leisure, Cultural and Social Services $1,232,271 $551,991 $566,589 $0 $0 $0 $113,692
Park and Landscape Maintenance $578,381 $285,416 $292,964 $0 $0 $0 $0
Community Development
Economic Health $178,344 $0 $0 $105,868 $45,047 $16,112 $11,317
Development Review $183,061 $56,942 $58,448 $40,171 $17,093 $6,113 $4,294
Other Community Development $399,943 $124,404 $127,694 $87,763 $37,344 $13,356 $9,381
Transfers Out $3,093,957 $962,390 $987,841 $678,935 $288,892 $103,325 $72,575
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $19,498,843 $5,326,048 $5,366,799 $2,368,925 $1,715,467 $483,965 $981,685
TOTAL BUDGET NET (DEFICIT)/SURPLUS $452,730 ($1,567,568) ($2,449,893) ($1,012,593) $6,372,458 ($131,801) $2,566,964
1 The total expenditures for General Government, Fire Protection and Transportation include costs allocated to existing development as well as LUCE development.
ATTACHMENT 4
PH3 - 76
FFIISSCCAALL IIMMPPAACCTT AANNAALLYYSSIISS
SSaann LLuuiiss OObbiissppoo GGeenneerraall PPllaann UUppddaattee
Table 4: Summary of Impacts by Area
Area Total Single Family Multi-Family Office Commercial Industrial Hotel
ALTERNATIVES SITES $4,555,809 ($469,983) ($1,538,826) ($182,496) $4,649,900 $0 $2,094,888
Foothill @ Santa Rosa ($98,887) $0 ($90,617) $0 ($8,271) $0 $0
Caltrans Site $545,236 $0 ($43,761) $1,016 ($65,038) $0 $652,313
General Hospital Site ($42,182) ($1,568) ($27,545) ($13,068) $0 $0 $0
Broad St. Area $483,000 $0 ($542,623) $0 $1,025,623 $0 $0
Sunset Drive In $923,109 $0 $0 ($81,191) $1,004,300 $0 $0
Dalidio/Madonna $954,666 ($207,497) ($196,154) ($87,126) $830,384 $0 $614,352
Pacific Beach Site $256,186 $0 ($31,376) $25,406 $262,155 $0 $0
Calle Joaquin Auto Sales $966,657 $0 $0 $0 $579,369 $0 $386,865
Madonna Site on LOVR $948,649 $0 ($119,457) ($6,905) $633,163 $0 $441,358
LOVR Creekside ($131,282) $0 ($131,282) $0 $0 $0 $0
Broad St. @ Tank Farm Rd. $229,450 $0 ($34,880) ($20,629) $284,959 $0 $0
Avila Ranch ($478,793) ($260,918) ($321,131) $0 $103,256 $0 $0
SPECIFIC PLANS ($2,030,280) ($904,027) ($641,827) ($1,139,335) $766,706 ($111,797) $0
Margarita Area ($1,177,349) ($498,548) ($140,701) ($579,402) $41,302 $0 $0
Airport Area $8,214 $0 $0 ($559,933) $679,944 ($111,797) $0
Orcutt Area ($861,145) ($405,478) ($501,126) $0 $45,460 $0 $0
PLANNED/APPROVED PROJ. $517,762 ($4,280) ($273,895) ($3,732) $345,002 $0 $454,166
Chinatown $421,795 $0 ($31,415) $0 $203,463 $0 $249,471
Pacific Courtyards ($15,513) $0 ($11,780) ($3,732) $0 $0 $0
Mission Estates ($4,280) ($4,280) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Four Creeks ($162,963) $0 ($162,963) $0 $0 $0 $0
Garden St. Terrace $307,645 $0 ($7,854) $0 $110,578 $0 $204,694
313 South St Apts. ($42,213) $0 ($42,213) $0 $0 $0 $0
Marsh St. Commons $2,471 $0 ($10,799) $0 $13,269 $0 $0
ICON (1340 Taft) $10,821 $0 ($6,872) $0 $17,692 $0 $0
OTHER VACANT LAND $78,720 ($138,665) ($48,832) ($7,912) $269,580 $4,548 $0
GRAND TOTAL1 $3,122,011 ($1,516,954) ($2,503,380) ($1,333,475) $6,031,188 ($107,249) $2,549,053
ANNEXATION AREAS $1,819,280 ($299,746) ($315,611) ($653,963) $2,143,492 ($111,797) $1,055,709
1Grand Total does not include $2.67 million in costs allocated to existing development. Source: ADE, Inc.
ATTACHMENT 4
PH3 - 77
FFIISSCCAALL IIMMPPAACCTT AANNAALLYYSSIISS
SSaann LLuuiiss OObbiissppoo GGeenneerraall PPllaann UUppddaattee
Administrative Draft Fiscal Analysis Page 17
August 2014
Table 5: Detailed Fiscal Impacts for Alternatives Sites
Total Single Family Multi-Family Office Commercial Industrial Hotel
REVENUES
Tax Revenues
Property Tax $1,230,863 $317,140 $498,541 $82,551 $267,066 $0 $65,566
Property Tax in lieu of VLF $756,877 $251,066 $256,372 $51,542 $153,179 $0 $44,717
Sales Tax: General $4,247,481 $155,467 $252,682 $14,868 $3,307,170 $0 $517,294
Sales Tax: ½ cent Essential Services Measure $1,841,393 $67,399 $109,544 $6,446 $1,433,743 $0 $224,260
Sales Tax: Public Safety $93,504 $3,422 $5,563 $327 $72,804 $0 $11,388
Transient Occupancy Tax $1,878,492 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,876,173
Utility Users Tax $652,634 $137,943 $297,311 $61,660 $78,653 $0 $77,067
Franchise Fees $307,784 $65,054 $140,212 $29,079 $37,093 $0 $36,345
Business Tax Certificates $298,318 $0 $0 $119,117 $151,946 $0 $27,255
Real Property Transfer Tax $28,098 $7,240 $11,381 $1,884 $6,097 $0 $1,497
Service Charges
Recreation Fees $183,976 $58,307 $125,670 $0 $0 $0 $0
Other Charges for Services $200,000 $42,273 $91,111 $18,896 $24,103 $0 $23,617
Other Revenue
Fines and Forfeitures $19,009 $4,018 $8,660 $1,796 $2,291 $0 $2,245
Interest Earnings and Rents $39,119 $3,815 $6,271 $1,280 $18,191 $0 $9,555
Other Revenues $11,009 $2,460 $5,301 $1,297 $1,654 $0 $297
Transfers in
Gas Tax/TDA $155,273 $49,210 $106,063 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL REVENUES $11,943,832 $1,164,815 $1,914,682 $390,743 $5,553,990 $0 $2,917,276
EXPENDITURES
General Government $1,119,202 $247,653 $523,167 $86,839 $136,959 $0 $124,583
Police $1,924,128 $369,503 $796,396 $132,546 $316,028 $0 $309,655
Fire $784,115 $186,023 $341,546 $75,312 $95,795 $0 $85,440
Transportation $1,091,608 $230,726 $497,288 $103,133 $131,557 $0 $128,904
Leisure, Cultural and Social Services $621,805 $167,422 $360,847 $0 $0 $0 $93,537
Park and Landscape Maintenance $273,150 $86,568 $186,582 $0 $0 $0 $0
Community Development
Economic Health $55,609 $0 $0 $20,346 $25,953 $0 $9,311
Development Review $75,595 $17,271 $37,224 $7,720 $9,848 $0 $3,533
Other Community Development $165,157 $37,732 $81,325 $16,866 $21,515 $0 $7,718
Transfers Out $1,277,653 $291,898 $629,132 $130,477 $166,436 $0 $59,709
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $7,388,023 $1,634,798 $3,453,507 $573,239 $904,090 $0 $822,388
TOTAL BUDGET NET (DEFICIT)/SURPLUS $4,555,809 ($469,983) ($1,538,826) ($182,496) $4,649,900 $0 $2,094,888
Source: ADE, Inc.
ATTACHMENT 4
PH3 - 78
FFIISSCCAALL IIMMPPAACCTT AANNAALLYYSSIISS
SSaann LLuuiiss OObbiissppoo GGeenneerraall PPllaann UUppddaattee
Table 6: Detailed Fiscal Impacts for Specific Plan Areas
Total Single Family Multi-Family Office Commercial Industrial Hotel
REVENUES
Tax Revenues
Property Tax $606,038 $505,201 $100,838 $0 $0 $0 $0
Property Tax in lieu of VLF $798,420 $404,527 $80,743 $192,770 $75,526 $44,854 $0
Sales Tax: General $1,209,051 $271,326 $90,403 $61,311 $734,180 $51,830 $0
Sales Tax: ½ cent Essential Services Measure $524,155 $117,627 $39,192 $26,580 $318,286 $22,470 $0
Sales Tax: Public Safety $26,616 $5,973 $1,990 $1,350 $16,162 $1,141 $0
Transient Occupancy Tax $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Utility Users Tax $689,889 $240,743 $106,370 $254,273 $47,598 $40,905 $0
Franchise Fees $325,353 $113,535 $50,164 $119,916 $22,447 $19,291 $0
Business Tax Certificates $662,189 $0 $0 $491,217 $91,951 $79,021 $0
Real Property Transfer Tax $13,835 $11,533 $2,302 $0 $0 $0 $0
Service Charges
Recreation Fees $146,720 $101,759 $44,961 $0 $0 $0 $0
Other Charges for Services $211,417 $73,776 $32,597 $77,922 $14,586 $12,535 $0
Other Revenue
Fines and Forfeitures $20,094 $7,012 $3,098 $7,406 $1,386 $1,191 $0
Interest Earnings and Rents $17,649 $6,385 $1,947 $4,068 $4,348 $901 $0
Other Revenues $13,399 $4,293 $1,897 $5,348 $1,001 $860 $0
Transfers in
Gas Tax/TDA $123,830 $85,883 $37,947 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL REVENUES $5,388,655 $1,949,572 $594,451 $1,242,162 $1,327,471 $274,999 $0
EXPENDITURES
General Government $1,123,885 $432,288 $187,282 $360,770 $84,950 $58,595 $0
Police $1,755,569 $644,869 $284,930 $546,593 $191,247 $87,929 $0
Fire $898,386 $325,075 $122,790 $325,480 $69,551 $55,489 $0
Transportation $1,153,921 $402,671 $177,917 $425,302 $79,613 $68,418 $0
Leisure, Cultural and Social Services $421,292 $292,190 $129,102 $0 $0 $0 $0
Park and Landscape Maintenance $217,836 $151,082 $66,754 $0 $0 $0 $0
Community Development
Economic Health $113,104 $0 $0 $83,901 $15,705 $13,497 $0
Development Review $86,376 $30,142 $13,318 $31,836 $5,959 $5,121 $0
Other Community Development $188,710 $65,852 $29,096 $69,553 $13,020 $11,189 $0
Transfers Out $1,459,857 $509,430 $225,088 $538,062 $100,720 $86,557 $0
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $7,418,935 $2,853,599 $1,236,278 $2,381,497 $560,765 $386,796 $0
TOTAL BUDGET NET (DEFICIT)/SURPLUS ($2,030,280) ($904,027) ($641,827) ($1,139,335) $766,706 ($111,797) $0
Source: ADE, Inc.
ATTACHMENT 4
PH3 - 79
FFIISSCCAALL IIMMPPAACCTT AANNAALLYYSSIISS
SSaann LLuuiiss OObbiissppoo GGeenneerraall PPllaann UUppddaattee
Administrative Draft Fiscal Analysis Page 19
August 2014
Table 7: Detailed Fiscal Impacts for Planned/Approved Projects and Other Vacant Land
Total Single Family Multi-Family Office Commercial Industrial Hotel
REVENUES
Tax Revenues
Property Tax $473,181 $266,124 $113,878 $9,083 $42,855 $22,587 $18,653
Property Tax in lieu of VLF $226,025 $139,863 $47,387 $3,780 $17,833 $9,399 $7,762
Sales Tax: General $694,038 $85,782 $53,667 $1,185 $431,898 $10,041 $111,466
Sales Tax: ½ cent Essential Services Measure $300,883 $37,189 $23,266 $514 $187,239 $4,353 $48,323
Sales Tax: Public Safety $15,279 $1,888 $1,181 $26 $9,508 $221 $2,454
Transient Occupancy Tax $404,774 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $404,274
Utility Users Tax $178,974 $76,113 $63,146 $4,913 $10,272 $7,924 $16,606
Franchise Fees $84,404 $35,895 $29,780 $2,317 $4,844 $3,737 $7,832
Business Tax Certificates $50,515 $0 $0 $9,491 $19,843 $15,308 $5,873
Real Property Transfer Tax $10,802 $6,075 $2,600 $207 $978 $516 $426
Service Charges
Recreation Fees $58,863 $32,172 $26,691 $0 $0 $0 $0
Other Charges for Services $54,847 $23,325 $19,351 $1,506 $3,148 $2,428 $5,089
Other Revenue
Fines and Forfeitures $5,213 $2,217 $1,839 $143 $299 $231 $484
Interest Earnings and Rents $8,578 $2,416 $1,336 $109 $2,395 $253 $2,068
Other Revenues $3,033 $1,357 $1,126 $103 $216 $167 $64
Transfers in
Gas Tax/TDA $49,679 $27,153 $22,527 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL REVENUES $2,619,087 $737,570 $407,773 $33,376 $731,328 $77,165 $631,372
EXPENDITURES
General Government $306,402 $133,388 $110,663 $6,820 $17,686 $11,001 $26,845
Police $508,618 $203,881 $169,146 $10,561 $41,271 $17,034 $66,724
Fire $198,417 $84,382 $70,006 $5,447 $11,388 $8,785 $18,410
Transportation $299,355 $127,308 $105,619 $8,217 $17,181 $13,254 $27,776
Leisure, Cultural and Social Services $189,174 $92,379 $76,640 $0 $0 $0 $20,155
Park and Landscape Maintenance $87,394 $47,766 $39,628 $0 $0 $0 $0
Community Development
Economic Health $9,631 $0 $0 $1,621 $3,389 $2,615 $2,006
Development Review $21,090 $9,530 $7,906 $615 $1,286 $992 $761
Other Community Development $46,077 $20,820 $17,273 $1,344 $2,810 $2,168 $1,663
Transfers Out $356,448 $161,061 $133,621 $10,396 $21,736 $16,768 $12,866
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $2,022,605 $880,514 $730,501 $45,020 $116,746 $72,617 $177,207
TOTAL BUDGET NET (DEFICIT)/SURPLUS $596,482 ($142,944) ($322,727) ($11,644) $614,582 $4,548 $454,166
Source: ADE, Inc.
ATTACHMENT 4
PH3 - 80
FFIISSCCAALL IIMMPPAACCTT AANNAALLYYSSIISS
SSaann LLuuiiss OObbiissppoo GGeenneerraall PPllaann UUppddaattee
Table 8: Detailed Fiscal Impacts for Annexation Areas
Total Single Family Multi-Family Office Commercial Industrial Hotel
REVENUES
Tax Revenues
Property Tax $306,945 $202,583 $61,260 $2,544 $27,906 $0 $12,652
Property Tax in lieu of VLF $501,454 $162,213 $49,052 $100,242 $122,393 $44,854 $22,699
Sales Tax: General $2,254,169 $103,362 $47,118 $35,183 $1,750,572 $51,830 $266,104
Sales Tax: ½ cent Essential Services Measure $977,241 $44,810 $20,427 $15,253 $758,918 $22,470 $115,363
Sales Tax: Public Safety $49,623 $2,275 $1,037 $775 $38,537 $1,141 $5,858
Transient Occupancy Tax $966,326 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $965,133
Utility Users Tax $445,382 $91,712 $55,440 $145,911 $71,770 $40,905 $39,645
Franchise Fees $210,043 $43,251 $26,146 $68,812 $33,847 $19,291 $18,696
Business Tax Certificates $513,568 $0 $0 $281,878 $138,649 $79,021 $14,021
Real Property Transfer Tax $7,007 $4,625 $1,398 $58 $637 $0 $289
Service Charges
Recreation Fees $62,199 $38,765 $23,434 $0 $0 $0 $0
Other Charges for Services $136,488 $28,105 $16,990 $44,715 $21,994 $12,535 $12,149
Other Revenue
Fines and Forfeitures $12,972 $2,671 $1,615 $4,250 $2,090 $1,191 $1,155
Interest Earnings and Rents $21,373 $2,493 $1,067 $2,309 $9,756 $901 $4,843
Other Revenues $8,215 $1,635 $989 $3,069 $1,510 $860 $153
Transfers in
Gas Tax/TDA $52,495 $32,717 $19,778 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL REVENUES $6,525,501 $761,219 $325,751 $704,997 $2,978,579 $274,999 $1,478,759
EXPENDITURES
General Government $712,939 $160,724 $97,159 $205,867 $126,506 $58,595 $64,087
Police $1,243,418 $245,664 $148,506 $313,655 $288,372 $87,929 $159,292
Fire $538,874 $101,675 $61,463 $180,300 $95,995 $55,489 $43,951
Transportation $744,954 $153,398 $92,731 $244,054 $120,044 $68,418 $66,310
Leisure, Cultural and Social Services $226,715 $111,311 $67,288 $0 $0 $0 $48,117
Park and Landscape Maintenance $92,347 $57,555 $34,792 $0 $0 $0 $0
Community Development
Economic Health $90,113 $0 $0 $48,145 $23,682 $13,497 $4,789
Development Review $52,617 $11,483 $6,941 $18,268 $8,986 $5,121 $1,817
Other Community Development $114,954 $25,086 $15,165 $39,912 $19,632 $11,189 $3,970
Transfers Out $889,287 $194,069 $117,316 $308,759 $151,871 $86,557 $30,715
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $4,706,220 $1,060,965 $641,362 $1,358,960 $835,087 $386,796 $423,050
TOTAL BUDGET NET (DEFICIT)/SURPLUS $1,819,280 ($299,746) ($315,611) ($653,963) $2,143,492 ($111,797) $1,055,709
Source: ADE, Inc.
ATTACHMENT 4
PH3 - 81
FFIISSCCAALL IIMMPPAACCTT AANNAALLYYSSIISS
SSaann LLuuiiss OObbiissppoo GGeenneerraall PPllaann UUppddaattee
Administrative Draft Fiscal Analysis Page 21
August 2014
Public Facilities Financing
The LUCE includes a number of circulation improvements and would require expansion of other City facilities
to accommodate planned growth. This section addresses options to finance the construction of these
facilities, which include road, bikeways and highway improvements, a new fire station, expanded police
facilities, new parks and water and sewer facility expansions.
Facilities Costs
Transportation. The City has a Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) program, which was updated most recently in
2006. The existing TIF includes $51.5 million ($2006) in improvements plus $24.6 million in financing costs
for a total of $76.1 million. Major projects in the existing citywide TIF include the Prado Rd./Hwy 101
interchange, the Orcutt Rd./UPRR Grade separation and the Hwy 101/LOVR interchange improvements
among others.
In addition, the major specific plan areas included in the LUCE have project specific transportation
improvement obligations that are funded through separate impact fees or developer exactions.
Margarita Area Specific Plan (in addition to a share of the Prado Rd. Interchange)
Prado Road Extension - $18,967,700
Prado & Higuera Intersection - $1,600,000
Orcutt Area Specific Plan (OASP Share): Total equals $4.2 million, selected projects include:
Orcutt Road/Tank Farm Road - $927,978
Broad Street/South St-Santa Barbara Road - $381,000
Broad Street/Tank Farm Road - $222,404
Orcutt Rd/Johnson Avenue - $300,004
Orcutt Road Widening - $310,685
Bridges - $1,610,000
Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP Share): Total equals $19.3 million, selected projects include:
Tank Farm Rd./Higuera Intersection Improvements - $1,310,000
Tank Farm Rd. Widening - $5,641,557
Prado Rd./Higuera Intersection Improvements - $1,640,000
Table 8 lists the some of the major circulation improvements included in the LUCE, with planning level cost
estimates and notes regarding additional analysis needed in some case to further define the projects. In
addition to these projects, the Bicycle Transportation Plan adopted in 2013 includes an estimated $48 million
in facilities costs.
The Prado Rd. interchange is partially included in the TIF ($6,587,000), with a total cost in 2006 dollars of $22
million plus $9.3 million in bond financing costs. Part of the Prado Interchange is also contained in the MASP
ATTACHMENT 4
PH3 - 82
FFIISSCCAALL IIMMPPAACCTT AANNAALLYYSSIISS
SSaann LLuuiiss OObbiissppoo GGeenneerraall PPllaann UUppddaattee
Page 22 Administrative Draft Fiscal Analysis
August 2014
financing program. A full project funding plan for the remainder of costs for the interchange will be needed
as major projects move forward – such as the San Luis Ranch project. The current cost estimate is a minimum
of $29 million or more, due to higher construction and right of way (ROW) acquisition costs. This project has
been tied in part to the development of the Dalidio project and also benefits the Margarita Area Specific Plan,
both of which have been assigned specific funding responsibility for the Prado Rd. Interchange. The Citywide
TIF includes 29.9 percent of the cost of this project, plus financing costs.
Table 8: LUCE Circulation Projects
Projects Cost
($mil) Notes
Prado Road Interchange $29.0 Included partially in existing TIF, needs full funding plan.
Orcutt Overpass $26.0 Partially included in TIF/PUC funding potential
Tank Farm to Buckley Connector $6.7 Will be built by development as they occur.
Victoria Connection $2.5 Would require new localized fee
Broad St. Consolidated Access $1.7 Would require new localized fee
Marsh/Higuera 2-way $3.5 Not in TIF. Potential General Fund Project
HWY 1/Hwy 101 (Santa Rosa) &
Broad St. Ramp Closures
$43.0 Not in TIF. Statewide/Regional Project
Boysen & Santa Rosa $4.0 Not in TIF, Statewide/Regional Project
DT Transit Center NA
Mission Plaza Expansion $3.5 Grants/General Fund (Not transportation)
Projects to Include in New/Expanded Citywide TIF
Bishop Extension $29.0 Requires further study/ Previously excluded from TIF
LOVR By-pass $15.0 Explore options with property redevelopment
Bianchi/Pismo/Higuera Realignment $2.7 Explore options with property redevelopment
Madonna/Higuera Realignment $7.5 Explore options with property redevelopment
Chorro & Broad Realignment $8.8 Explore options with property redevelopment
Subtotal $63.0
GRAND TOTAL $192.2
Source: Kittleson & Associates, using the planning level costing procedure developed and approved by Caltrans as part of the
SLOCOG US 101 Mobility Master Plan. Not for Programming Purposes.
The Orcutt Overpass and the Bishop Extension were also included in the 2006 TIF analysis. It is anticipated
that 80 percent of the Orcutt Overpass would be funded from grants and 65 percent of the Bishop St.
Extension would be funded by other sources.
It is estimated that LUCE development would generate $97.6 million under the existing TIF fee structure (see
Appendix Table B-1). However, the lower portion of Table 8 indicates that as much as $63 million in
additional projects may need to be included in the TIF, or other financing sources found, in order to fully
implement the LUCE Circulation Plan.
The City has yet to determine how best to fund all projects necessary to serve new development and will be
conducting a fee study once the LUCE project is complete to determine how best to fund needed
infrastructure projects. The City has already begun considering how to complete this impact fee update and a
number of recommendations have been developed, which are presented below at the conclusion of this
section of the Fiscal Report, that are based on these early discussions. It is critical once the LUCE is approved,
ATTACHMENT 4
PH3 - 83
FFIISSCCAALL IIMMPPAACCTT AANNAALLYYSSIISS
SSaann LLuuiiss OObbiissppoo GGeenneerraall PPllaann UUppddaattee
Administrative Draft Fiscal Analysis Page 23
August 2014
the City that the City move forward with the updated financing program in order to implement the needed
transportation improvements.
Police. The current police station is at capacity and the City has identified $42.5 million in the CIP as the
potential cost to build a new police station. The LUCE development would add the need for 14 sworn officers
to the existing complement of 59 sworn officers. If the City builds a single new expanded police station to
serve the entire City, rather than a police substation to serve the expansion areas, the LUCE development
would generate a service burden equal to about 19 percent of this facility, or $8.1 million.
Fire. The City has budgeted $3.5 million for the new Station 5 plus a pumper truck, not including land cost for
the Station. Based on the analysis of operating cost impacts in the previous section of the fiscal analysis, the
LUCE development would represent 62 percent of the service area for the new station. Pending a formal
nexus study for this facility, we estimate the LUCE share of the fire station cost at $2.2 million, plus a similar
share of the eventual land cost for the facility.
Water and Wastewater. The City updated its water and wastewater master plans in 2013 and adopted new
impact fees to fund water supply and system capacity expansions. The cost allocations between future and
existing development are shown in Table 9. LUCE development would be expected to fund the Future
Development components of these costs through payment of development impact fees. It should be noted
that Cal Poly has an MOU with the City for capacity in both the water and wastewater systems and has made
payments to the City to maintain its capacity allocations.
Table 9: Water and Wastewater Facilities Costs ($millions)
Projects
Cost Responsibility
Existing
Development Future Development Total
Water Supply $98.2 $63.2 $161.4
Water Facilities $45.2 $11.4 $56.7
Total Water $143.4 $74.6 $218.1
Water Reclamation Facility $100.4 $25.8 $126.2
Catchment Areas Margarita $0.5 $0.5 $1.0
Calle Joaquin $1.1 $0.4 $1.5
Silver City $0.7 $0.3 $1.0
Laguna $2.4 $0.7 $3.1
Tank Farm $8.0 $11.1 $19.1
Subtotal $12.8 $12.9 $25.7
Total Wastewater $113.2 $38.7 $151.9
Source: City of San Luis Obispo Utilities Department, 2013 Water and Wastewater Development Impact Fees.
Parks. The City has a park standard of 10 acres per 1,000 population, which would equate to 113.4 acres for
the LUCE development. Several of the projects in the LUCE are planned to provide park land within the
development. The Caltrans site and the MASP would provide more park land that is warranted by their own
population, while the Dalidio and LOVR Creekside projects would meet only part of their own park needs. The
ATTACHMENT 4
PH3 - 84
FFIISSCCAALL IIMMPPAACCTT AANNAALLYYSSIISS
SSaann LLuuiiss OObbiissppoo GGeenneerraall PPllaann UUppddaattee
Page 24 Administrative Draft Fiscal Analysis
August 2014
Orcutt area (OASP) would meet its own parkland requirements through a combination of active and passive
park space plus anticipated joint use of a new elementary school planned for the area.4
In order to meet the standard for park space, the City would need to obtain another 49.2 acres. If this land
were to be purchased at a cost of $300,000 per acre, the total cost would be $14.8 million. Development cost
are estimated at about $235,000 per acre, based on similar costs for the MASP.5 This cost would potentially
apply to 91 acres of new parkland outside the OASP, for a total development cost of $21.4 million. Thus, the
combined cost of acquisition and development of parks for the LUCE would be $36.2 million.
Financing Sources
The City relies on a variety of funding sources for capital improvements, including development impact fees,
utility and other enterprise user charges, state and federal grants, regional transportation funds, debt
financing and general fund revenues. In general, though, the City expects new development to pay for
facilities it needs through development impact fees or direct developer exactions.
Development Impact Fees. ADE estimates that the LUCE development would pay about $279 million in
existing development impact fees to the City of San Luis Obispo (Table 10 and Appendix B). For water,
wastewater, affordable housing and public art, these fees appear to cover the identified impacts.6 For
affordable housing and public art, it is assumed the level of impact is defined by the fees paid. There are a
number of ways for developers to comply with the inclusionary housing ordinance without necessarily paying
a fee. The analysis in Table 10 assumes no residential developers will pay a fee while all non-residential
developers will pay the fee. In reality, this may be different for both types of developers, particularly for
smaller residential subdivisions or for mixed use projects. For transportation and parks, the fees do not cover
the full cost of LUCE improvements. In addition, additional facilities costs have been identified for police and
fire facilities for which the City does not have development impact fees.
Table 10: Estimated Existing Development Impact Fees to be Paid by LUCE Development and
Corresponding Facilities Costs ($millions)
Land Use
Trans-
portation Water
Waste-
water
Parks/ Open
Space
Affordable
Housing [a]
Public
Art Total
Single Family $22.8 $26.1 $14.7 $11.2 $74.8
Multi-Family $14.1 $18.7 $10.7 $7.1 $50.7
Office $37.7 $7.6 $4.6 $0.2 $17.9 $1.7 $69.9
Retail $20.0 $8.3 $4.5 $0.3 $20.7 $2.2 $56.4
Industrial $2.6 $3.5 $2.2 $0.4 $3.8 $0.4 $13.0
Hotels $2.1 $5.2 $2.2 $4.0 $0.4 $14.0
TOTAL $99.3 $69.5 $39.0 $19.3 $46.4 $4.8 $279.0
Facilities Costs $139.1 $74.6 $38.7 $36.6 $46.4 $4.8 $340.2
Source: ADE and City staff, based on City fee schedules. See Appendix B for additional detail. Transportation Facilities costs
include only existing TIF projects plus $63 million in LUCE project that may be included in a future TIF update.
4 Walter Kieser, Economic and Planning Systems, Memorandum to Michael Codron and Lee Johnson regarding Review of City’s Current
Development Impact Fee Programs, January 6, 2014, pp. 27-28.
5 Kieser, ibid.
6 For the water facilities costs, the minor discrepancies from the projected fee revenues are likely due to incidental variations in fee revenue
estimates.
ATTACHMENT 4
PH3 - 85
FFIISSCCAALL IIMMPPAACCTT AANNAALLYYSSIISS
SSaann LLuuiiss OObbiissppoo GGeenneerraall PPllaann UUppddaattee
Administrative Draft Fiscal Analysis Page 25
August 2014
The City has recently reviewed its development impact fee program and considered other infrastructure
financing mechanisms that might be available. Considerations with impact fees include not only their ability
to fund needed infrastructure but also their effect on the feasibility of development in the City. This latter
concern, expressed in the City’s Economic Development Strategic Plan, has prompted closer consideration of
the City’s impact fee program and its potential effects on commercial and job generating land uses.
One set of guidelines suggests that impact fees should not exceed 15 percent of the value of residential
development or 10 percent of the value of non-residential development.7 Table 11 provides a measure of the
City’s impact fees as calculated in aggregate for the LUCE land use categories. The first column shows the
impact fees calculated in Table 10, followed by the estimated market value from the fiscal analysis. The
estimated fees range from 5.0 percent of value for single family development to 15.3 percent for office
development. It is clear that the fees for non-residential development exceed the optimal thresholds shown
in the next column. However, the EPS analysis indicates that this feasibility issue is not a citywide concern but
rather is focused in the special fee areas, primarily for the TIF, such as the MASP, the LOVR area and the triple
fee zone. In addition, for non-residential development 5 percent of value is included for the inclusionary
housing program. Retail projects in mixed use developments that meet the affordable housing requirements
directly rather than through the fee, would see their total fee burden fall below the 10 percent threshold.
Moreover, the thresholds themselves are guidelines and actual feasibility levels for specific projects may be
different. The Public Facilities Financing Plan for the Airport Area Specific Plan shows comprehensive cost
burdens ranging from 10.1 percent for business park uses to 11.2 percent for service commercial and 16.1
percent for manufacturing. The plan also notes that these burdens could be reduced through the use of
Community Facilities District Financing.
Table 11: LUCE Impact Fee Funding Capacity
Land Use
Calculated
Impact
Fees ($mil.)
[b]
Market Value
($mil.) [a]
Impact
Fees as
Percent
of Value
Optimal
Impact Fee
Burden
Ratios
Impact Fee
Thresholds Based
on Optimal Burden
Ratios ($mil.)
Potential
Additional
Gross Fee
Capacity
Single Family $74.8 $1,484.4 5.0% 15.0% $222.7 $147.8
Multi-Family $50.7 $754.1 6.7% 15.0% $113.1 $62.4
Office $70.3 $460.6 15.3% 10.0% $46.1 ($24.3)
Retail $56.2 $457.7 12.3% 10.0% $45.8 ($10.4)
Industrial $13.0 $120.5 10.8% 10.0% $12.0 ($1.0)
Hotels $14.0 $98.5 14.2% 10.0% $9.8 ($4.1)
TOTAL $279.1 $3,375.8 8.3% 13.3% $449.5 $170.4
Source: ADE. Totals may not add due to rounding.
[a] ADE projections of initial assessed value.
[b] From Table 10. Does not include school fees.
However, in general, Table 11 indicates that residential uses could probably absorb higher impact fees but
non-residential uses have a lower capacity for additional fee burdens. Through a nexus analysis for the
additional LUCE circulation improvements, the City could determine how much of the estimated $40 million
shortfall in the TIF could be ascribed to new residential development. In addition, other impact fees could be
7 Walter Kieser, Economic and Planning Systems, Infrastructure Financing Analysis Session #3, presentation to the San Luis Obispo City Council,
March 18, 2014. Slides 9-11.
ATTACHMENT 4
PH3 - 86
FFIISSCCAALL IIMMPPAACCTT AANNAALLYYSSIISS
SSaann LLuuiiss OObbiissppoo GGeenneerraall PPllaann UUppddaattee
Page 26 Administrative Draft Fiscal Analysis
August 2014
developed to help fund the police and fire facilities as well as the park development costs identified above.
The estimated shortfall in fees for all LUCE facilities is about $71.5 million, not including bikeway facilities that
may be funded with impact fees.
In its March 2014 workshop on Infrastructure Financing related to the Economic Development Strategic Plan,
the City reviewed a number of findings from the analysis of the existing development impact fee program.
1. Incremental evolution in the City’s existing development impact fee programs have resulted in a
complex system of base fees, sub area fees, and geographic fee variation that warrants re-
consideration in the next fee update process.
2. There are geographic “overlaps” in the City’s fees that cause significant difference in fee levels in
various parts of the City.
3. At the Citywide level, aggregate fee levels are consistent with fees levied by other cities, though
some specific fees appear to be high by industry standards.
4. There is an inconsistency between land use categories used to compute fees between fee programs.
5. Fees do not contain a cost component for administration and updating.
6. The fees are currently escalated using the Consumer Price Index (CPI), but the Engineering New
Record (ENR) may be a more appropriate index to track changes in construction costs.
7. The City does not charge fee for all municipal infrastructure categories, though this may be
appropriately considered in the context of other concerns about the overall fee program.
8. The various fee programs should be integrated into the City’s overall capital Improvement Plan (CIP)
Addressing these concerns would help the City close the gap in funding for LUCE related facilities costs.
Other Funding Sources and Financing Mechanisms
Under the current development impact fee program, new development would not pay for all of the
infrastructure and facilities needed to support implementation of the LUCE. Part of the issue is that City does
not have development impact for all the types of facilities that are needed, but part of the issue is that some
of the facilities are needed to correct existing service deficiencies, such as the fire station in the south part of
town. Similarly, the City may not be able to simply expand the police station to accommodate future growth,
but would need to build a new facility, which could only partially be funded by an impact fee if it were
adopted.
The City may be able to secure other funding sources for certain costs and would have the option of
establishing other kinds of financing mechanisms besides impact fees to facilitate private development
paying a greater share of the costs. For example, some of the transportation costs may be funded with
regional transportation funds or state and federal grants. Several of the LUCE improvements are under
consideration in the US 101 Mobility Study underway by SLOCOG and may eventually qualify for some
regional funding. A number of the facilities may qualify for other state or federal grant funding.
The City can also using bond financing to acquire the capital needed to build facilities, which can then be paid
off over a longer period of time. The City has used this approach for utility infrastructure projects and
anticipates that some of the major transportation projects will need bond financing in order to be completed.
This approach makes funding large projects more manageable by reducing initial cash requirements, but it
ATTACHMENT 4
PH3 - 87
FFIISSCCAALL IIMMPPAACCTT AANNAALLYYSSIISS
SSaann LLuuiiss OObbiissppoo GGeenneerraall PPllaann UUppddaattee
Administrative Draft Fiscal Analysis Page 27
August 2014
does increase the overall cost of the project by adding financing costs to the actual construction cost of the
facilities. In addition, the City must have a revenue source, such as utility service charges, to service the debt
or use General Fund revenues for this purpose.
The City may also consider land based financing to facilitate developers and land owners paying a greater
share of the cost of new facilities. There are a number of types of land based financing mechanisms including
Community Facilities Districts and other forms of assessment districts. Such financing mechanisms also
provide the opportunity to use bond financing, which not only allows the needed facilities to be built in a
timely manner but also can reduce cash requirements for new development and improve the feasibility of
desired economic development projects. Land based financing programs can be used within defined
development areas, such as specific plans, with landowner/developer approval, or they can be set up on a
citywide basis with voter approval. However, they are best used as part of a comprehensive capital
improvements program strategy that includes a variety of funding source options.
ATTACHMENT 4
PH3 - 88
FFIISSCCAALL IIMMPPAACCTT AANNAALLYYSSIISS
SSaann LLuuiiss OObbiissppoo GGeenneerraall PPllaann UUppddaattee
Page 28 Administrative Draft Fiscal Analysis
August 2014
Appendix A: Methodology for the Fiscal Analysis
The analysis addresses the impact of each type of land use on the City General Fund, both in terms of annual
revenues generated and the demand for increased public services. The present report uses the current Fiscal
Year 2013-2014 City budget as a basis for the cost of revenue analysis, which is updated from the Background
Report Chapter 2.2.
General Fund Budget
The City’s General Fund Budget for Fiscal Year (FY) 2013-2014 includes $60.8 million in revenue and about
$65.5 million in current expenditures (Table A-1). The budget anticipates additional expense reductions of
about $914,000 based on actual payouts of salaries and benefits. The additional net costs of $3.6 million are
covered through prior year encumbrances and reimbursements from other funds.
The general sales tax is the single largest revenue source, at $15.4 million. The City voters have also approved
an additional sales tax measure called Measure Y, which supplements the general sales tax with another 50%
of local sales tax revenues. Measure Y was approved in 2006 but will need to be re-approved by the voters by
2014. State Proposition 174 created the Public Safety sales tax, which is allocated to local jurisdictions by the
state and is projected to yield $338,900 for San Luis Obispo in the current year.
The general property tax is the second largest revenue source, at about $8.8 million per year. The City’s total
assessed value is $6.3 billion and the base property tax rate of one percent produces a total tax from
properties within the City of $63.3 million. However, the City receives only about 14 percent of this total and
the remainder is distributed to local school districts and other taxing agencies. The City also receives another
form of property tax from the state to replace vehicle license fees formerly allocated to the City, which adds
$3.6 million to the City General Fund.
The transient occupancy tax (TOT) is charged at the rate of ten percent on room revenues for all lodging in
the City. This is a relatively large revenue, at $5.9 million, and reflects San Luis Obispo’s strong position as a
visitor attraction in the region.
The utility users tax and the franchise fees are the next two largest General Fund revenues, at $5.3 and $2.5
million, respectively. Both revenues are generated by residential and business use of the various private
utilities operating in the City, including electric and gas service, telephone, and cable TV.
The City also charges businesses for annual business licenses and a gross receipts tax, which together
generate about $2.1 million per year.
Most of the other revenues in the General Fund are direct charges for services, the largest of which is
development related fees such as building permits, planning entitlement fees or plan check fees ($3.6 million
total, of which $300,000 is carried over from the prior year). Also, fees for recreation programs generate $1.6
million per year, which defrays about 40 percent of the cost for recreation programs.
Several revenue sources are transferred into the General Fund from other Budget Funds. The Gas Tax
revenues are allocated to the City by the state based on a formula that includes miles of roadway in the City
as well as the City’s population. These funds can only be used for street maintenance. The other revenue
source in this category includes Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds, which may be used only for
alternative transportation modes and not for street maintenance under City policy.
ATTACHMENT 4
PH3 - 89
FFIISSCCAALL IIMMPPAACCTT AANNAALLYYSSIISS
SSaann LLuuiiss OObbiissppoo GGeenneerraall PPllaann UUppddaattee
Administrative Draft Fiscal Analysis Page 29
August 2014
Table A-1: San Luis Obispo General Fund Budget, 2013-2014
Budget Category Annual Budget
REVENUES
Taxes
Property Tax $8,761,100
Property Tax in lieu of VLF $3,645,700
Sales Tax: General $15,394,700
Sales Tax: Measure Y $6,674,000
Sales Tax: Public Safety $338,900
Transient Occupancy Tax $5,990,300
Utility Users Tax $5,356,000
Franchise Fees $2,525,900
Business Tax Certificates $2,116,600
Real Property Transfer Tax $200,000
Subventions and Grants $1,200,600
Service Charges
Development Review Fees $3,571,600
Recreation Fees $1,577,400
Other Charges for Services $1,641,300
Other Revenue
Fines and Forfeitures $156,000
Interest Earnings and Rents $179,000
Other Revenues $95,500
Transfers In
Gas Tax/TDA $1,331,300
Transfers, Other $49,000
TOTAL REVENUES $60,804,950
EXPENDITURES
General Government $10,314,900
Police $14,977,313
Fire $9,884,758
Transportation $3,363,700
Leisure, Cultural and Social Services $5,085,830
Parks and Landscape Maintenance $2,341,970
Budget Category Annual Budget
Community Development $7,988,300
Economic Health $691,944
Development Review $1,471,666
Construction Regulation $3,443,119
Other Community Development $2,381,571
Transfers Out $11,333,700
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 65,467,941
Other Expenditure Savings (914,700)
TOTAL NET REVENUES OVER EXPENDITURES ($3,570,821)
Source: City of San Luis Obispo 2013-2015 Financial Plan and 2013-14 Mid-Year Budget Review.
February 2014.
ATTACHMENT 4
PH3 - 90
FFIISSCCAALL IIMMPPAACCTT AANNAALLYYSSIISS
SSaann LLuuiiss OObbiissppoo GGeenneerraall PPllaann UUppddaattee
Page 30 Administrative Draft Fiscal Analysis
August 2014
On the expenditure side, police services has the largest budget at $15.0 million. The public safety function
which includes the Fire Department is the largest function provided by the City General Fund with a budget of
$25.0 million.
The general government function shown in Table 2.3-2 represents a number of City programs combined,
including8:
City Council
General Administration
City Attorney
Human Resources
Finance and Information Technology
Public Works Administration
Building and Fleet Maintenance
The Transportation function includes planning, engineering, & street and storm drain maintenance. As
discussed in the fiscal analysis, costs for these services will increase not only indirectly due to population and
non-residential development, but also directly due to additional transportation management programs and
new road facilities in the LUCE. Other transportation related services such as parking and transit are
discussed in the analysis under Enterprise Funds.
Parks and recreation, cultural services and social services are all grouped under the Leisure, Cultural and
Social Services Function, with a total budget of $7.4 million, of which $2.3 million is for park and landscape
maintenance.
The Community Development Function includes planning and development review, as well as economic
development activities that are located in the City’s Administration Department. In addition, the Building and
Safety Division provides code enforcement and neighborhood services.
The expenditures figures under the heading Transfers Out in Table 2.3-2 also include contributions by the
General Fund to the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and to the Debt Service Fund. For the current fiscal
year, the General Fund is projected to make $7.1 million in CIP expenditures, most of which is funded by
Measure Y sales tax revenues. In addition, the General Fund will contribute $2.76 million to debt service for
bonds to pay for a variety of public safety, transportation, leisure services and general City building capital
projects as well as $935,000 to pay down the City’s PERS liability.
Fiscal Impact Calculations
This section discusses in more detail how the major revenues and costs have been calculated for the future
growth included in LUCE.
Property Tax
The base property tax is one percent of the assessed value for real property. In order to estimate assessed
values for projected development in the LUCE, ADE compiled data on recent property transactions in San Luis
8 The General Fund expenditures shown in Table 2.3-1 are organized by functional category, as presented in the City budget. This is different
than the City’s departmental organization, but provides a clearer picture of the service activities provided by City government.
ATTACHMENT 4
PH3 - 91
FFIISSCCAALL IIMMPPAACCTT AANNAALLYYSSIISS
SSaann LLuuiiss OObbiissppoo GGeenneerraall PPllaann UUppddaattee
Administrative Draft Fiscal Analysis Page 31
August 2014
Obispo. Typically, the initial assessed value for new homes is set at the market value, or the sales price of the
home when it is first sold. Table 13 shows data for 500 residential transactions and 31 non-residential
transactions since January 2013. Since there has been very little new construction through the recession,
most of these transactions are for existing properties. The non-residential transactions in particular are not
comprehensive enough to represent all of the types of future development included in the LUCE, so we have
supplemented the property sale data with other typical market factors to fill out estimates of average
property values to use in the fiscal analysis (Table A-3). Most of these values are close to the averages for the
properties shown in Table A-2, except for office and hotel uses, which we believe will be higher for new
construction than is reflected in the recent property sales data.
Table A-2: Recent Property Transactions in San Luis Obispo
Source: ADE based on Dataquick, Zillow and Loopnet.
Source: ADE based on Dataquick, Zillow and Loopnet.
Property Type
Aggregate Sales
Amounts
Number of Units/
Square Footage Sales/Units/SF
No. of
Transactions
RESIDENTIAL
Single Family Residence $192,601,700 314 $613,381 314
Condominium, PUD $39,909,484 110 $362,813 110
Duplex $2,210,500 8 $276,313 4
Triplex $1,420,000 6 $236,667 2
Quadruplex $2,749,000 16 $171,813 4
Mobile Home Parks, Trailer Parks $3,945,000 24 $164,375 24
Multi-Family Dwelling (2-4 Unit) $18,654,000 53 $351,962 32
Multi-Family Res (5+ Units) $2,787,500 30 $92,917 4
Residential Miscellaneous $4,460,500 6 $743,417 6
NON-RESIDENTIAL
Food Store, Market $650,000 4,053 $160 2
Hotel/Motel $1,982,000 15,639 $127 1
Medical/Dental/Professional Bldg $1,445,000 7,045 $205 3
Office Building $6,578,500 33,015 $199 11
Store/Office Combo $4,525,000 22,132 $204 5
Stores, Retail Outlet $4,636,000 13,863 $334 4
Warehouse, Storage $3,868,500 35,272 $110 4
Industrial $2,495,000 12,585 $198 1
Table A-3: Assessed Value Factors Used in the Fiscal Analysis
Value per Unit
RESIDENTIAL
Single Family $613,400
Multi-Family $303,600
NON-RESIDENTIAL
Office $205
Retail $265
Industrial $135
Hotel $205
ATTACHMENT 4
PH3 - 92
FFIISSCCAALL IIMMPPAACCTT AANNAALLYYSSIISS
SSaann LLuuiiss OObbiissppoo GGeenneerraall PPllaann UUppddaattee
Page 32 Administrative Draft Fiscal Analysis
August 2014
Property Tax Allocation
As mentioned, the property tax paid by property owners is distributed to a wide range of local taxing
agencies including not only the City of San Luis Obispo, but also the County, the school districts and other
special taxing districts. On average, the City gets about 14 percent of the one percent tax for parcels within
the historic City boundaries. The County of San Luis Obispo receives an average of about 22 percent of the tax
and school district and other educational agencies, receive the majority of property tax revenues.
In 1996, San Luis Obispo and the other cities in the County executed a property tax sharing agreement with
the County for properties that would annex into the cities after that time. For those properties, the cities get
a lower share of property tax from residential development, calculated as one-third of the share that would
otherwise go to the County General Fund. That share is about 22 percent, so the cities’ share of residential
property tax in annexation areas is about 7.4 percent, rather than the 14 percent that San Luis Obispo
otherwise gets. In addition, the County continues to get the existing property tax generated by the properties
in their undeveloped state at the time of annexation. For properties that develop into non-residential uses,
such as retail, office or industrial business, the cities do not get any property tax. The City does collect any
sales taxes or other revenues generated by these properties, which help pay for City services that are
required to support these developments.
The property tax estimates shown in the fiscal analysis reflect these tax allocation factors, depending on
whether the property is within the historic City boundaries or would have been annexed after 1996. The
analysis also deducts the existing assessed value of each property, where available, to limit the analysis to
future new revenues that would be generated by the LUCE development.
Sales Tax Calculations
As part of the description of local economic conditions for the LUCE, ADE conducted a retail market analysis,
which is included in Chapter 2.3 of the LUCE Background Report. In general, commercial businesses in San
Luis Obispo capture more retail sales than is generated by the residents of the City alone. San Luis Obispo is a
regional retail hub that attracts shoppers from around the County. In addition, commuters who drive into the
City to work and tourists also make taxable retail purchases. Finally, business-to-business transactions
generate a certain amount of sales taxes when the items purchased are not for resale to customers.
Based on the retail market analysis and reviewing sales tax records for non-residential types of businesses,
ADE estimated the sales tax generation factors by land use shown in Table A-4. The City receives one percent
of taxable sales in the form of general sales taxes. The $92.00 in sales taxes per single family resident
represents taxable purchases of $9,200 per year, which does not include groceries, pharmaceuticals or other
non-taxable items. The dollar amounts shown for non-residential uses are presented in terms of revenues
generated per job for each land use type. These are not employee expenditures but are taxable business
transactions. They are expressed per job rather than per square foot of building space simply because our
data on existing jobs is more reliable than the building space data and provide a more accurate factor to
calculate potential future revenues from new development.
The factor for commercial uses reflects sales in retail businesses and is roughly equivalent to taxable sales of
$314 per square foot of retail space. Retail businesses serve as the point of sale for purchases from residents,
visitors and other businesses, so most of the sales tax collected by the City comes through accounts of retail
businesses. That means for the residential uses in particular we would be double counting revenues if we use
raw sales tax generation factors simultaneously for both residential and retail uses. Therefore, this factor for
commercial businesses has been lowered to net out sales from the other land uses.
ATTACHMENT 4
PH3 - 93
FFIISSCCAALL IIMMPPAACCTT AANNAALLYYSSIISS
SSaann LLuuiiss OObbiissppoo GGeenneerraall PPllaann UUppddaattee
Administrative Draft Fiscal Analysis Page 33
August 2014
Table A-4: Per Capita Sales Tax Factors
Land Use General Sales Per Resident or Per Job
Single Family $92.00
Multi-Family $70.00
Office $10.00
Commercial $1,725.00
Industrial $52.00
Hotel Visitors $1.50
Source: ADE with data from MuniServices.
The City’s existing 2,120 hotel rooms attract some 1,100,000 visitors to San Luis Obispo. Each visitor spends
an estimated $150 on taxable restaurant and retail purchases, which generates $1.50 in sales taxes. The LUCE
includes plans for 803 additional hotel rooms (See Table 1), which would attract an average of nearly 416,700
new visitors to the City and generate about $628,800 in additional general sales taxes per year.
Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT)
The hotel rooms would also generate new TOT taxes. For this analysis, we have assumed an average room
rate of $120.00 per night and a 65 percent occupancy rate. These factors are comparable to recent
experience in San Luis Obispo. If economic conditions improve substantially, the City could expect to see even
higher revenues in the future.
Per Capita Revenues and Costs
Most other City revenues and costs are calculated on a per capita formula method based on employment and
population in each land use category. Generally, jobs in the City are assumed to exert one-half the service
demand as residential population. This is a standard assumption in fiscal impact analysis and reflects the fact
that employees working in the City occupy their positions 8 hours per day while residents are there a
minimum of 16 hours per day and more if they are not employed. In San Luis Obispo, there are 45,473
residents and 32,560 jobs. We also estimate there are the equivalent of 3,014 daily hotel visitors (1,100,000
total visitors/365 days), which are counted in this analysis the same as the residential population. With the
jobs counting 50% of the population impact, it works out that the residential population requires 70 percent
of the services that are allocated under this formula, while non-residential uses require 25 percent and hotel
uses 5 percent.
A similar logic is used to estimate revenues such as the utility users tax, franchise fees and miscellaneous
service charges, fines and forfeitures collected by the City (Table A-5). Other revenues are more clearly
associated with one type of land use or another, such as the business license taxes which are paid only by
non-residential land uses and recreation program fees which tend to be mostly paid by local residents. Also,
the gas tax revenues, which are shown as a transfer into the General Fund from the Gas Tax fund, are
allocated to residential uses since the state formula for allocating these revenues to cities is based mainly on
a per capita formula.
ATTACHMENT 4
PH3 - 94
FFIISSCCAALL IIMMPPAACCTT AANNAALLYYSSIISS
SSaann LLuuiiss OObbiissppoo GGeenneerraall PPllaann UUppddaattee
Page 34 Administrative Draft Fiscal Analysis
August 2014
Table A-5: Per Capita Revenue and Cost Factors
Residential Business Visitors
Proportion
Per
Capita Proportion
Per
Employee Proportion
Per
Visitor
REVENUES
Utility Users Tax 70% $82.07 25% $ 41.03 5% $82.07
Franchise Fees 70% $38.70 25% $19.35 5% $38.70
Business Tax Certificates 0% $0.00 100% $79.27 Service Charges Recreation Fees 100% $34.69 0% $0.00 Other Charges for Services 70% $25.15 25% $12.57 5% $25.15
Other Revenues
Fines and Forfeitures 70% $2.39 25% $1.20 5% $2.39
Other Revenues 70% $1.46 30% $0.86
Transfers in Gas Tax/TDA 100% $29.28 0% $0.00 EXPENDITURES
Police 70% $219.83 25% $109.91 5% $219.83
Fire 70% $90.98 25% $45.49 5% $90.98
Transportation 70% $59.04 25% $29.52 5% $59.04
Leisure, Cultural and Social
Services
94% $99.60 0% $0.00 6% $99.60
Park and Landscape
Maintenance 100% $51.50 0% $0.00 0% $51.50
Community Development Economic Health 0% $0.00 85% $13.54 15% $0.00
Development Review 70% $10.28 25% $5.14 $10.28
Other Community Dev. 70% $22.45 25% $11.22 5% $22.45
Transfers Out 70% $173.66 25% $86.83 5% $173.66
Service Cost Analysis
The fiscal impact analysis is intended to show the increased public service costs for the City as new
development occurs. This portion of the analysis focuses on annual recurring costs and revenues and
therefore excludes capital improvement projects needed to support the LUCE. The Public Facilities Financing
section addresses the infrastructure and facilities costs and funding programs needed to support future
growth. Other costs that are unlikely to be repeated or expanded due to future growth have also been
excluded. Mainly, these are costs for management functions such as the City Council and City Department
Heads. While future growth will increase the demand for services, these service expansions will most likely
occur through increases in service delivery staff. Table A-6 lists the costs removed from the fiscal impact
analysis.
In addition, the fiscal analysis deducts development and construction related fees that are paid once during
the entitlement or construction process, but not paid on an annual basis by the eventual property owners. An
ATTACHMENT 4
PH3 - 95
FFIISSCCAALL IIMMPPAACCTT AANNAALLYYSSIISS
SSaann LLuuiiss OObbiissppoo GGeenneerraall PPllaann UUppddaattee
Administrative Draft Fiscal Analysis Page 35
August 2014
amount equal to these revenues, shown as $3,291,600 in Table A-6, is deducted from the costs for the
Community Development Department. These adjustments have the effect of focusing the fiscal analysis on
the ongoing revenues and costs associated with new development rather than the onetime cost of
processing the development applications.
Subventions an grant have been removed from the analysis since they cannot be projected into the future
associated with new development.
As noted earlier in the analysis, increased costs for IT, building maintenance and street maintenance have
been added to the cost basis for the fiscal analysis.
Table A-6: Fiscal Model Revenue and Expenditure Adjustments [a]
Function Amount Item
General Government ($138,900) City Council
General Government ($139,061) IT/Finance Dir
General Government ($96,538) City Clerk
General Government ($221,520) City Manager
General Government ($125,554) Human Res Dir
General Government $160,000 Additional IT capital expenditures
General Government $867,000 Additional building maintenance expenditures
Public Safety ($144,352) Police Chief
Public Safety ($139,061) Fire Chief
Public Safety ($280,000) Fire Plan Check Fees
Transportation ($123,578) Public Works Dir
Transportation $3,625,000 Additional street maintenance expenditures
Leisure ($111,592) Parks & Rec Dir
Community Development ($96,538) ED Mgr
Community Development ($139,061) CD Director
Community Development ($85,826) Chief Building Official
Community Development ($3,291,600) Development Review Fees
Various
($914,700) Mid-Year Expenditure Savings
Various ($1,200,600) Subventions and Grants
Benefits 49% Added to salaries
[a] Note: Salary figures generally reflect the average of the salary scale for each position as published by the San Luis Obispo
Human Resources Departments. The figures do not necessarily represent the actual salaries of the individuals who occupy these
positions. The additional benefits factor of 49% of base compensation is derived from the City of San Luis Obispo 2013-2015
Financial Plan, page D-19.
Municipal service costs for services provided directly to the population or businesses were generally
allocated based on the per capita method explained above. First, however, certain services were allocated to
residential or non-residential land uses based on their function. Recreation, cultural services and social
services were allocated 100% to residential land uses. Economic Health was allocated 100% to non-
residential land uses.
Police services costs are estimated using the per capita methodology as shown in Table A-5. However, within
the non-residential land uses, commercial and hospitality land uses were weighted roughly twice as much as
ATTACHMENT 4
PH3 - 96
FFIISSCCAALL IIMMPPAACCTT AANNAALLYYSSIISS
SSaann LLuuiiss OObbiissppoo GGeenneerraall PPllaann UUppddaattee
Page 36 Administrative Draft Fiscal Analysis
August 2014
other business types, based on data from other cities that indicate calls for service related to shoplifting,
burglary, parking lot incidences and disturbing the peace are higher for retail, restaurant and night club uses.
For Fire Department services, one-third of the costs are allocated based on assessed value for each land use,
which represents the portion of fire department services related to fire suppression. The other two-thirds
represents medical emergency responses, which are allocated based on the per capita formula explained
above. This overall split of services is based on a general discussion with the City Fire Marshall.
The Transfers Out are mainly for capital improvement projects and debt service, which is for long term capital
projects financing. In particular, nearly $5 million of the total sales tax revenue received by the City from
Measure Y is programmed for capital improvements projects. If Measure Y is not renewed by the voters,
these expenditures and General Fund contributions will likely need to be reduced. Other recipients of
General Fund support are the Community Development Block Grant program, the Open Space Protection
Fund, the Fleet Replacement Fund, Information Technology Fund and the Major Facility Replacement Fund.
ATTACHMENT 4
PH3 - 97
FFIISSCCAALL IIMMPPAACCTT AANNAALLYYSSIISS
SSaann LLuuiiss OObbiissppoo GGeenneerraall PPllaann UUppddaattee
Administrative Draft Fiscal Analysis Page 37
August 2014
Appendix B: Development Impact Fee Estimates
Table B-1: Estimated Traffic Impact Fees From LUCE Development
Project/Development Areas
Traffic Impact Fees
Single Family Multifamily Office Commercial Industrial Hotel
Citywide Base TIF $3,516 $3,120 $7.051 $7.406 $2.036 $1,632
Foothill @ Santa Rosa Area $249,600
Caltrans Site $165,360 -$26,737 -$105,647 $326,400
General Hospital Site $31,644 $99,840 $344,004
Broad Street Area $1,837,680 $1,696,478
Sunset Drive-In Site $0 $1,838,238 $1,651,257
Dalidio / Madonna Area $1,125,120 $561,600 $1,057,650 $1,481,200 $326,400
Pacific Beach Site $0 $97,736 $350,744 $0
Calle Joaquin Auto Sales Area $781,203 $161,520
Madonna Site on LOVR $295,780 $97,484 $884,500 $187,094
LOVR Creekside Area $408,948
Broad St. @ Tank Farm Rd.
Site $0 $127,920 $515,992 $464,549 $0
Avila Ranch $1,174,095 $758,740 $152,500
Chinatown Project $0 $99,840 $0 $340,676 $127,000
Pacific Courtyards $0 $37,440 $70,510 $0 $0
Mission Estates $35,160 $0 $0 $0 $0
Four Creeks (Creekston and
Laurel Creek) $0 $517,920 $0 $0 $0
Garden Street Terrace $0 $24,960 $0 $185,150 $104,000
313 South Street Apartments $0 $134,160 $0 $0
Marsh Street Commons $0 $34,320 $0 $22,218
ICON project (1340 Taft) $0 $21,840 $0 $29,624
Margarita Area Specific Plan $1,919,931 $291,846 $5,219,930 $51,950
Airport Area Specific Plan $6,345,900 $2,359,343 $1,522,199
Orcutt Area Specific Plan $1,898,640 $1,369,680 $81,466
Suburban Residential4 $14,064 $0 $0 $0
Low Density Residential $1,125,120 $0 $0 $0
Medium Density Residential $249,636 $0 $0 $0
Medium-High Density
Residential $18,720 $0 $0
High Density Residential $159,120 $0 $0
Neighborhood Commercial5 $0 $0 $19,359
Community Commercial5 $0 $0 $309,704
Tourist Commercial5 $0 $0 $112,912
Office4 $0 $139,751
Services and Manufacturing $0 $0 $294,888
Public $0 $0
ATTACHMENT 4
PH3 - 98
FFIISSCCAALL IIMMPPAACCTT AANNAALLYYSSIISS
SSaann LLuuiiss OObbiissppoo GGeenneerraall PPllaann UUppddaattee
Page 38 Administrative Draft Fiscal Analysis
August 2014
Project/Development Areas
Traffic Impact Fees
Single Family Multifamily Office Commercial Industrial Hotel
LOVR Sub Area $8,878 $6,506 $13.402 $20.556 $4,611
Pacific Beach Site $149,492 $831,206
Madonna Site on LOVR $452,410 $2,096,120 $453,835
LOVR Creekside Area $1,034,454 $0 $0 $0
Calle Joaquin Auto Sales Area $0 $0 $1,851,322 $391,800
Avila Ranch $2,425,545 $1,160,530 $361,400
MASP Sub Area $12,320 $8,306 $23.746 $49.406
Margarita Area Specific Plan $7,197,333 $761,111 $17,621,937 $437,870
AASP Sub Area $3,516 $3,120 $11.745 $7.424 $2.850
Broad St@Tank Farm Rd. $94,721 $334,213 $754,427
Avila Ranch $1,339,474 $681,531 $300,683
Airport Area Specific Plan⁸ $4,110,300 $2,205,097 $796,986
OASP Sub Area $12,171 $8,912 $7.051 $31.100
Orcutt Area Specific Plan $4,250,340 $2,413,622 $342,104
TOTAL BY LAND USE $22,786,102 $14,060,921 $37,669,172 $20,049,414 $2,614,073 $2,078,049
GRAND TOTAL $99,257,732
Source: San Luis Obispo City Staff
Note: Impact fees shown for Special Planning areas such as Dalidio/San Luis Ranch (SP-3), Avilla Ranch (SP-4), and Madonna property
on LOVR (SP-2) are illustrative only and will need finalization/amendment when specific projects are submitted and development
agreements, if necessary, are negotiated.
ATTACHMENT 4
PH3 - 99
FFIISSCCAALL IIMMPPAACCTT AANNAALLYYSSIISS
SSaann LLuuiiss OObbiissppoo GGeenneerraall PPllaann UUppddaattee
Administrative Draft Fiscal Analysis Page 39
August 2014
Table B-2: Estimated Water Impact Fees from LUCE Development
Project/Development Areas
Water Impact Fees
Single Family Multifamily Office Commercial Industrial Hotel
Citywide Base TIF $10,775 $7,542 $3.879 $4.310 $3.879 $10.775
Foothill @ Santa Rosa Area $603,360
Caltrans Site $399,726 $1,293,000
General Hospital Site $96,975 $241,344 $189,249
Broad Street Area $4,442,238 $987,283
Sunset Drive-In Site $0 $1,011,279 $960,966
Dalidio / Madonna Area $3,448,000 $1,357,560 $581,850 $862,000 $1,293,000
Pacific Beach Site $0 $286,596 $247,821 $0
Broad St. @ Tank Farm Rd. Site $0 $309,222 $283,865 $270,349 $0
Chinatown Project $0 $241,344 $0 $198,260 $504,270
Pacific Courtyards $0 $90,504 $38,790 $0 $0
Mission Estates $107,750 $0 $0 $0 $0
Four Creeks (Creekston &
Laurel Creek) $0 $1,251,972 $0 $0 $0
Garden Street Terrace $0 $60,336 $0 $107,750 $465,480
313 South Street Apartments $0 $324,306 $0 $0
Marsh Street Commons $0 $82,962 $0 $12,930
ICON project (1340 Taft) $0 $52,794 $0 $17,240
Suburban Residential $43,100 $0 $0 $0
Low Density Residential $3,448,000 $0 $0 $0
Medium Density Residential $765,025 $0 $0 $0
Medium-High Density
Residential $45,252 $0 $0
High Density Residential $384,642 $0 $0
Neighborhood Commercial $0 $0 $11,266
Community Commercial $0 $0 $180,236
Tourist Commercial $0 $0 $65,710
Office $0 $76,882
Services and Manufacturing $0 $0 $561,823
Public $0 $23,654
Madonna Site on LOVR $0 $867,330 $65,051 $1,017,160 $0 $898,635
LOVR Creekside Area $0 $1,199,178 $0 $0 $0 $0
Calle Joaquin Auto Sales Area $0 $0 $0 $551,964 $0 $775,800
Avila Ranch $4,363,875 $2,224,890 $0 $107,750 $0 $0
Margarita Area Specific Plan $7,984,275 $957,834 $3,720,027 $43,100 $0 $0
Airport Area Specific Plan $0 $0 $1,657,074 $2,659,197 $2,900,103 $0
Orcutt Area Specific Plan $5,818,500 $3,310,938 $0 $47,410 $0 $0
TOTAL BY LAND USE $26,075,500 $18,734,328 $7,647,720 $8,348,392 $3,461,926 $5,230,185
GRAND TOTAL $69,498,051
Source: ADE, based on City of San Luis Obispo Fee Structure.
ATTACHMENT 4
PH3 - 100
FFIISSCCAALL IIMMPPAACCTT AANNAALLYYSSIISS
SSaann LLuuiiss OObbiissppoo GGeenneerraall PPllaann UUppddaattee
Page 40 Administrative Draft Fiscal Analysis
August 2014
Table B-3: Estimated Wastewater Impact Fees from LUCE Development
Project/Development Areas
Wastewater Impact Fees
Single
Family Multifamily Office Commercial Industrial Hotel
Citywide Fee $3,729 $2,610 $1.342 $1.492 $1.342 $3.729
Foothill @ Santa Rosa Area $208,800
Caltrans Site $138,330 $447,480
General Hospital Site $33,561 $83,520 $65,495
Broad Street Area $769,645 $170,839
Sunset Drive-In Site $0 $349,982 $332,570
Pacific Beach Site $0 $99,180 $85,766 $0 $0
Chinatown Project $0 $83,520 $0 $68,614 $174,517
Avila Ranch $3,761,235 $1,917,500 $0 $92,870 $0 $0
Pacific Courtyards $0 $31,320 $13,424 $0 $0
Mission Estates $37,290 $0 $0 $0 $0
Four Creeks (Creekston &
Laurel Creek) $0 $433,260 $0 $0 $0
Garden Street Terrace $0 $20,880 $0 $37,290 $161,093
313 South Street Apartments $0 $112,230 $0 $0
Marsh Street Commons $0 $28,710 $0 $4,475
ICON project (1340 Taft) $0 $18,270 $0 $5,966
Suburban Residential $14,916 $0 $0 $0
Low Density Residential $1,193,280 $0 $0 $0
Medium Density Residential $264,759 $0 $0 $0
Medium-High Density
Residential $15,660 $0 $0
High Density Residential $133,110 $0 $0
Neighborhood Commercial $0 $0 $3,899
Community Commercial $0 $0 $62,376
Tourist Commercial $0 $0 $22,741
Office $0 $26,607
Services and Manufacturing $0 $0 $194,435
Public $0 $8,186
Laguna Catchment Area $4,219 $2,953 $1.519 $1.688 $1.519 $4.219
Dalidio / Madonna Area $1,350,080 $531,540 $227,826 $337,520 $0 $506,280
Calle Joaquin Catchment Area $5,558 $3,890 $2.001 $2.223 $2.001 $5.558
Madonna Site on LOVR $447,350 $33,555 $524,675 $0 $463,537
LOVR Creekside Area $618,510 $0 $0 $0 $0
Calle Joaquin Auto Sales Area $0 $0 $284,716 $0 $400,176
Silver City Catchment Area $1,356 $1,280 $0.488 $0.542 $0.488 $1.356
Margarita Area Specific Plan $251,199 $40,640 $0 $0
Margarita Catchment Area $6,474 $4,532 $2.331 $2.590 $2.331 $6.474
Margarita Area Specific Plan $1,679,032 $431,673 $0 $0 $0 $0
Tank Farm Catchment Area $7,359 $5,151 $2.649 $2.944 $2.649 $7.359
Broad Street Area $1,516,970 $337,142
ATTACHMENT 4
PH3 - 101
FFIISSCCAALL IIMMPPAACCTT AANNAALLYYSSIISS
SSaann LLuuiiss OObbiissppoo GGeenneerraall PPllaann UUppddaattee
Administrative Draft Fiscal Analysis Page 41
August 2014
Project/Development Areas
Wastewater Impact Fees
Single
Family Multifamily Office Commercial Industrial Hotel
Margarita Area Specific Plan $2,181,208 $654,177 $2,540,666 $29,436 $0 $0
Airport Area Specific Plan $0 $0 $1,131,731 $1,816,151 $1,980,683 $0
Broad St. @ Tank Farm Rd.
Site $0 $211,191 $193,871 $184,640 $0 $0
Orcutt Area Specific Plan $3,973,860 $2,261,289 $0 $32,380 $0 $0
TOTAL BY LAND USE $14,740,420 $10,806,275 $4,591,345 $4,434,066 $2,175,118 $2,153,083
GRAND TOTAL $38,900,306
Source: ADE, based on City of San Luis Obispo Fee Structure.
ATTACHMENT 4
PH3 - 102
FFIISSCCAALL IIMMPPAACCTT AANNAALLYYSSIISS
SSaann LLuuiiss OObbiissppoo GGeenneerraall PPllaann UUppddaattee
Page 42 Administrative Draft Fiscal Analysis
August 2014
Table B-4: Parks and Open Space Fees
Project/Development Areas
Water Impact Fees
Single Family Multifamily Office Commercial Industrial
Citywide Base TIF $5,668 $4,494
Foothill @ Santa Rosa Area $0 $359,520
Caltrans Site $0 ($15,728)
General Hospital Site $51,012 $143,808
Broad Street Area $0 $2,646,966
Dalidio / Madonna Area $498,982 $222,541
Pacific Beach Site $0 $170,772
Broad St. @ Tank Farm Rd.
Site $0 $184,254
Chinatown Project $0 $143,808
Pacific Courtyards $0 $53,928
Mission Estates $56,680 $0
Four Creeks (Creekston &
Laurel Creek) $0 $746,004
Garden Street Terrace $0 $35,952
313 South Street Apartments $0 $193,242
Marsh Street Commons $0 $49,434
ICON project (1340 Taft) $0 $31,458
Suburban Residential4 $22,672 $0
Low Density Residential $1,813,760 $0
Medium Density Residential $402,428 $0
Medium-High Density
Residential $0 $26,964
High Density Residential $0 $229,194
Madonna Site on LOVR $0 $516,810
LOVR Creekside Area $0 $184,526
Avila Ranch $2,295,540 $1,325,730
MASP Sub Area $8,247 $6,945
Margarita Area Specific Plan $6,111,027 ($116,375)
AASP Open Space Fee $166,604 $354,148 $390,269
TOTAL BY LAND USE $11,257,769 $7,137,302 $166,604 $354,148 $390,269
GRAND TOTAL $19,306,093
Source: ADE, based on City of San Luis Obispo Fee Structure.
ATTACHMENT 4
PH3 - 103
FFIISSCCAALL IIMMPPAACCTT AANNAALLYYSSIISS
SSaann LLuuiiss OObbiissppoo GGeenneerraall PPllaann UUppddaattee
Administrative Draft Fiscal Analysis Page 43
August 2014
ATTACHMENT 4
PH3 - 104